Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 1 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 1, 2015 Sunday SHOW: UP with STEVE KORNACKI 8:00 AM EST UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI for February 1, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Ed Schultz, Ed Rendell, Joy Reid, Craig Melvin, Kevin Tibbles GUESTS: Wesley Lowery, Liz Mair, Mike Pesca, Jacob Jacobs, Mike Freeman, Drew Magary SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 14936 words HIGHLIGHT: From the scandal to the showdown in the NFL. A look at the upcoming Super Bowl, the controversy around the Patriots, and betting on Super Bowl. Judging Bowe Bergdhal. Cold weather in Chicago. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: From the scandal to the showdown. Good morning to everyone out there. Thanks for getting up with us on this chilly first day in February, Super Sunday. Winter`s looking more like winter with every passing minute. The latest details on this week`s big storm in a moment. Another big storm, I know. As I just hinted, if you could possibly have forgotten, today is Super Bowl Sunday. It`s a big day every year. After the fortnight we had, the entire season the NFL just had, this Super Bowl seems in viewed with more importance than most. We have lots to get to this morning. A big show of sports, a big show of politics, a big show of news, all of it ahead including reaction at the White House and across Japan to the apparent death of another hostage at the hands of ISIS. Much more on that story later as well. But we begin this morning with that winter storm, another winter storm already causing havoc as it makes its way from the Midwest over to the east coast. As we come on the air from New York, a travel ban on large vehicles is now in effect on the Ohio turnpike. Large trucks and trailers are now banned from that road. Looking at a live shot in Chicago that`s where a blizzard warning is right now in effect. The storm has dumped several inches of snow in Iowa. New England is still digging out from last week`s multiple feet of snow. New England could be in the path of another winter storm right now. MSNBC meteorologist, Dominica Davis is here with all that we can expect -- Dominica. DOMINICA DAVIS, MSNBC METEOROLOGIST: Yes. Good morning. We are looking at 23 states right now that are under winter warning advisories, warnings or advisories. That extends all the way from the great lakes right through the northeast and into New England. So this is going to be a very active area as we go over the next 24 and even 48 hours. Here`s a look at the radar right now. Much of the action is sitting out in the Midwest. Chicago, as you mentioned, we do have that blizzard warning. Blizzard conditions are expected by 2:00 this afternoon. That is going to last right through the evening. Des Moines coming in on some very heavy snow this morning. You can see that rain/snow line cutting over Indianapolis. This is with that storm. The snow is more trending to the north. We have some sleet and freezing rain that will be an issue with this system, too, as it continues to progress off to the east. Here`s a look at future cast, as we roll this through, by Sunday evening, we`re looking at this snow starting to push into the New York area. You can see the rain/snow line is coming in that Pittsburgh area and through the Hudson Valley by tonight. Still a tough call in New York whether we will see all snow or if it will be a more snow/rain event, but certainly up through New England we are looking at another all snow event that will last into Monday. Some pretty decent snowfall coming in. Boston could see another foot. Back through Detroit and Chicago will also see snowfall up to a foot, back to you. KORNACKI: So last year was the year they had the Super Bowl in New York or New Jersey, imagine if that was the case tonight? DAVIS: I know. KORNACKI: Thanks for that, Dominica. Good report there. Turning now to Super Sunday, it`s finally here. The parties, the drinking, the halftime show, the clever ads, the cringe worthy ads, there is something for everyone on Super Sunday. Of course, there`s the big game itself. The New England Patriots, the Seattle Seahawks, one team already a dynasty, the other seeking to become the next dynasty. As Super Bowl match-ups go, this is an unusually great one. You have Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Richard Sherman, Gronk, Belichick, Pete Carroll, there is so much to talk about, so much to look forward to in this game tonight. But for the past two weeks most of the conversation has been about underinflated footballs. Accusations that the Patriots cheated, that any victory they might score on the field tonight may ultimately be tainted. Here`s what we`ll do. Right now, we`re going to start the show by trying to get the deflate-gate thing out of the way. If we do that now, all of us can enjoy the rest of Super Sunday, enjoy the big game tonight, none of us will have to think about psi levels, sophomoric puns involving the word balls. First, I am from Massachusetts. I am a Patriots fan. I`m not necessarily unbiased here. That said, though, let`s take a step back here and let`s look at what we have heard about deflate-gate these past two weeks versus what we actually know about it. Number one, all of the initial reporting said that the trigger was an interception of a Tom Brady pass in the AFC Championship game by Colts linebacker, Dequel Jackson, who then ran to the sideline with the ball and told his team that it felt soft. That`s what we heard when this all began. But then Jackson stepped forward and said actually he didn`t notice anything funny about the ball at all. He didn`t say anything to anyone on the sideline about it, really? How different were the footballs the Patriots were using? Tom Brady said they felt right to him. In the second half they felt no different. In the second half, the Patriots out-scored the Colts 28-0. The referee whose job it is to pick up and reset the ball after every play did not notice anything unusual the entire first half nor did the linebacker from the Colts. Number two, the report that turned this into a major national story came from ESPN`s Chris Mortensen who cited unnamed league sources who told him that 11 of the 12 Patriots balls tested at halftime were underinflated by two pounds per square inch each. But then another report, this time from Mike Florio of "Pro Football Insider" and NBC Sports, his report said that actually 10 of the 12 Patriots footballs were only inflated by one pound per inch. If they were only deflated by that much, it starts to raise the question of whether the weather and game conditions might have played a role. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our preparation process for the footballs is what we do. I can`t speak for anybody else. It`s what we do and that process we have found raises the psi approximately 1 pound. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: After Bill Belichick offered that explanation, you probably remember this Bill Nye "The Science Guy" made headlines by saying that Belichick was pedalling junk science. But then a graduate engineering student at Carnegie Melon University conducted an elaborate experiment to test Belichick`s theory. And his conclusion was that it actually made sense. Then a host of highly credentialed physics experts agreed with that Carnegie Melon graduate student or how about this? An article on Slate caused a frenzy last week when it claims that the Patriots fumbled the football at an impossibly low rate that could only be explained by cheating, by deflating the ball to make it easier for the running back to grip so he doesn`t fumble it. But then one statistics expert reviewed that Slate article and utterly debunked it. Then there`s this. When the story first broke it was widely reported that prior to the Patriots/Colts game that the balls were properly checked by officials before the game. Now comes this. The NFL finally in just the last few days confirming that, quote, "When officials inspect footballs to see if they`re properly inflated, they simply approve them or disapprove them." In other words, there were no recordings taken before the Colts game about what the exact ball levels were. The only recordings were taken at halftime and after the game. Let me suggest this, we will ever know for sure what happened here. It seems possible this wasn`t nearly as sinister as many of the many headlines we have read these past few weeks claim. It seems possible that maybe the Patriots submitted footballs to the refs that were slightly under inflated, and that the refs gave them the feel test and approved it for play. If that happened, I would call it gamesmanship. That`s what I think happened. Given how much ambiguity is here, how much the actual facts have come out have contradicted or cast doubt on some of the reporting we`ve seen the last two weeks, can we put deflate-gate out of our minds? Can we enjoy the game, salute the winner and not attach any asterisks? Ed Shultz is the host of "The Ed Show" right here on MSNBC as well as a former college quarterback with Minnesota State University. Also with us is MSNBC contributor, Ed Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania, a well-known Eagles fan and a panelist on "Postgame Live" which airs every Eagles regular and postseason game. Ed Schultz, let me start with you. I laid out my case. I`m a Patriots fan, I`ll admit. I think this is a big bag of nothing, what do you think? ED SCHULTZ, HOST, MSNBC "THE ED SHOW": Well, I think that the basic operation of the football team is probably set in stone. Tom Brady has been with the Patriots for a long time. It`s probably well known within the organization how he likes the football. Tom Brady has been there for 15 years. He`s made the organization a lot of money. If he wants the balls deflated, that`s what`s going to happen. It seems rare that all of a sudden there would be some kind of atmospheric pressure type example or excuse given about footballs when we`ve never heard it before. There have been outdoor football games for decades in the NFL. I find that comical. Brady calls the shots. He`s the linchpin of the organization. There`s a lot of jealousy in the NFL right now because every coach in the league would love to have half the success of Belichick. Every coach in the league would love to have a guy like Tom Brady because that means you have real good chance to get to the Super Bowl. The fact of the matter is you have two premiere people, there`s a lot of envy going around and they`ll try to get the Patriots any possible way they can. That`s not to say that there wasn`t deflated footballs, there were. And I think that it`s just another day at the office for the Patriots. They always deflated, that`s the way Tom likes it. It`s no big deal. Now all of a sudden this has blown up. The irony in this is this, Pete Carroll is one of the biggest cheaters at USC, he has got to be sitting there saying, you know, let them worry about deflate-gate. I have few things in my closet, too, but we`ll be ready for the game. KORNACKI: Pete Carroll and the 2004 USC team had to vacate their win because of massive violations. Governor Rendell, what Ed Schultz is saying there I agree with it. Aaron Rodgers a few months back said he likes the balls overinflated. What he likes to do, they like to have extra air in them and they hope the refs don`t notice. He`s happy if he gets out there and he says they don`t notice. My guess is that`s what happened with the Patriots. To me, that`s gamesmanship if that`s what it is. ED RENDELL, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I disagree, Steve. I think it`s cheating. The NFL sets a level to what the ball should be inflated. I think Coach Belichick`s explanation that the weather did it. The weather mysteriously didn`t do it to the Colts footballs. KORNACKI: Can I just -- let me respond to that? This is where -- if we now know, contrary to the early reporting, that the referee did not measure the balls, and could not feel the difference between the Colts balls and the Patriots balls, isn`t it plausible that the Colts submitted balls that were a pound heavier than the Patriots thus the disparity? RENDELL: You can make up facts all you want. The fact is number one, let me say first of all that I hope today`s game is a great game. They`re both terrific football teams, neither of them need to cheat. But of course, the Patriots, as a former prosecutor, you look at priors. The Patriots have a prior conviction for very serious cheating. There`s no question about that. Secondly, your factual account, it was very good, but it left out the guy going into the bathroom with the balls. KORNACKI: So, how -- so for -- RENDELL: Let me finish. KORNACKI: For 90 seconds. Couldn`t he have gone to the bathroom? RENDELL: With the balls? KORNACKI: If your only job -- if you`re a young guy -- RENDELL: Not very likely. KORNACKI: Put yourself in that guy`s shoes. RENDELL: Steve, you`re a fan, you`re not looking at this objectively. KORNACKI: No. No. Governor, this is very simple. If your job, your only job is to be the guardian of official game footballs from NFL game for two hours between when the game checks them and you have this bag of balls and you have to go to the bathroom, if it`s me, I`m taking the balls into the bathroom with me it will take me 90 seconds to go to the bathroom, give or take. RENDELL: You will take 12 footballs into the bathroom, ludicrous. KORNACKI: In a bag. RENDELL: There`s an answer to this. The answer is that the Patriots should submit all of their employees to a polygraph test. It`s important enough because the integrity of the game is at stake here. We`ve got a team that clearly was found to have cheated and penalized severely before. What`s wrong with asking everyone, that employee who went into the bathroom, everyone else to take a polygraph test? KORNACKI: I just keep -- RENDELL: What`s wrong with that? KORNACKI: Keep in mind on the spy-gate thing that other teams were doing that for years as well. RENDELL: But that`s no excuse. KORNACKI: No, I understand. RENDELL: That`s no excuse. KORNACKI: But also keep in mind the Patriots have done better since spy- gate than before. Ed, part of the discussion and the debate I`m having with Governor Rendell is the issue of cheating and gamesmanship. There`s holding on every play in football. That means on every play there are players willingly violating the rules to get a competitive advantage. The receiver will trap the ball. He tries to fool the ref. We call that gamesmanship. I put this in that same category. SCHULTZ: Well, I think the Patriots are probably have been doing so long, they think it`s standard operating procedure and never thought nothing of it. The quarterback wants the football a certain way. Quarterbacks have more idiosyncrasies than any other player on the team. They`ll only warm up with certain players. They`ll warm up a certain way. They`ll -- Dan Marino had his own locker room with the Dolphins and he only allowed a certain number of players in there. If he didn`t like them, they weren`t going to be in there. Quarterbacks are the guys that run the show once they`re proven and a winning commodity. What they want goes. Everybody in the organization knows that. They don`t challenge that. I believe Brady. I believe that Brady at that press conference when he says I don`t know, I didn`t talk to the ball boy, I didn`t worry about the balls, because he knows they`ll be right. He knows that the organization or whoever has handled the balls, this is how Tom likes it. This is what we`ll do. KORNACKI: But -- but the weakness there is -- I think there`s a difference between if the Patriots are submitting these balls ahead of time to the ref, then the onus is on the ref. If the ref feels something wrong, if the ref weighs them properly, the ref can change it. If the Patriots mess with it after that, I think it`s entirely different than if the Patriots submit them under inflated ahead of time. The report that comes out suggests that is possible. I want quick predictions on the game tonight. Ed Schultz, who will win? SCHULTZ: Well, I think Seattle probably has an advantage because of the mobility of Wilson. I think the Patriots are going to have a hard time containing him if they do then they have a better chance of winning the game. Third down conversions will be big against Seattle because of the elusiveness of their quarterback. I think there will be a special official checking the inflated balls before the game. KORNACKI: That`s true. Governor Rendell, who will win? RENDELL: First, I think the Patriots will win. Let me say this, when Ed says to get the balls right, that`s wrong. It`s wrong, maybe they`re getting them right from their standpoint, but it violates the rules. It`s like a baseball pitcher putting an illegal substance on the ball it may help him grip the ball, but it`s a violation of the rules. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: In the context of the game -- RENDELL: Officer -- people break the rules by -- officer I was driving with only 2-1/2 drinks. It`s the law. KORNACKI: All the Eagles linemen who hold on every play are cheaters. We established that. Ed Schultz, of course, you`ll see him right here weekdays at 5:00 p.m., "The Ed Show" and thanks again to Governor Ed Rendell, there`s always next year for the Eagles. Thanks to both of you, really appreciate that and enjoy tonight`s game. All right, still ahead, Jeb Bush opens up about his marijuana use in school as the topic is shaping up to be the new gay marriage of GOP politics. We`ll talk about that and more next. KORNACKI: All right. With so much going on, time to get caught up on other headlines making news. Here is our panel. Joy Reid, she is the host of MSNBC`s "THE REID REPORT." Wesley Lowery is a reporter with the "Washington Post." Liz Mair is a Republican consultant and Mike Pesca is a sports contributor with NPR and a host of the podcast "The Gist" on Slate. Welcome, everybody. We will move away from the Super Bowl here for a second. I have a feeling we`ll come back at some point. The biggest news in politics, the "Des Moines Register" released a new poll for the Iowa caucuses. And it shows Scott Walker, Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor, he`s been getting a lot of attention, he`s surge in surging. Before Mitt Romney dropped out, he was leading with 21 percent of the vote. You take Mitt Romney out of it, Scott Walker is in first place with 16, Rand Paul behind it 15, Huckabee at 13, Ben Carson at 10, and Jeb Bush all the way back in fifth place at 9 percent. The significance of this is for Scott Walker, who a lot of people don`t know right now. This gives him credibility. This allows donors to say this guy is for real. I know it`s a year out, but this is a big moment in the invisible primary. JOY REID, MNSBC`S "THE REID REPORT": You know there are too many people in the primary when 15 is the big lead. He`s 5 points behind Herman Cain. For people who do this for a living, you know this better than I do I think Scott Walker has a huge upside for a lot of reasons. LIZ MAIR, REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT: Full disclosure, my firm has consulted for Scott Walker, he`s a former client, but this is an important moment. If his team is able to capitalize on this it`s something that could prove to be valuable to them even though we are so far out. I also would say with a note of caution, we are very far out. I think when you look back on the 2012 cycle, even given the fact that in many respects Mitt Romney looked like the only really serious candidate the way through, you saw tremendous ups and downs. We will with this as well. MIKE PESCA, SLATE`S "THE GIST": Not only are we far out from the caucuses, but does Iowa matter so much? I mean, the social conservative of such an edge and those guys often go on to get slaughtered in New Hampshire. I would also say two things, the people who are leading in the straw polls or these Twitter polls, state fair polls, you can pave the roads from council bluffs to Des Moines with the bodies of those. I could only say what Scott Walker is appealing, you know, Wisconsin governor. What are his issues on international policies? What does he think of this settlement in Israel? What is his real nuance position on Ukraine? Because he`s so unknown -- KORNACKI: Some of those may be waiting on Hillary Clinton`s answers. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Let`s see what else. We have a couple other headlines. This from the "New York Times" this morning, "At this party you better keep it down." You heard of Sheriff Joe Arpio, this is in his backyard, he arranged a Super Bowl party, but because he makes inmates sleep on pink sheets and wear pink underwear, the popcorn will be colored pink. This is also the first time they will get to watch -- there are three channels that Sheriff Joe usually lets the inmates watch, the Weather Channel, C-Span and the Food Network. He`s making an exception tonight to watch the Super Bowl. REID: What is wrong with him? I think mental health counselling is something that is very much needed for him. KORNACKI: Don`t you think pink popcorn is good? WESLEY LOWERY, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I don`t quite get the gender politics of the pink popcorn, but I guess, if I was an inmate and tortured by the Weather Channel, this is the highlight of the year almost. (CROSSTALK) REID: I like C-Span. KORNACKI: I`m one of 11 people. PESCA: Are they turning off book TV? What if Robert Carrow is doing an interesting talk? KORNACKI: Tonight, three hours on Bess Truman. We have "Politico" saying is pot the new gay marriage for the GOP? Most Republicans don`t want to talk about pot. They want to punt it to states. A series of initiatives to legalize pot, though, could be on balance in 2016. Among potential GOP candidates some say they are open to decriminalizing it, none favors outright legalization, but the suggestion here that you talk about the Republican struggle with young voters, the incredible support among young voters for marijuana decriminalization or legalization maybe an opportunity here. You see Rand Paul is certainly picking up on it. Maybe other Republicans will? MAIR: Well, I think certainly when you look at where Rand Paul has been. He doesn`t necessarily talk about this in the way that I think a lot of people might like him to, to be really far out on it where a lot of younger voters are per se. However, you do have a lot of discussion about sentencing reform and things like that, and I think that that`s a common strain. That`s something interesting and intriguing to younger voters about Rand Paul amongst other things. So I think that he obviously is showing some ability to capitalize on that. He`s a big name in the party. So I think that`s important. In terms of people coming out and calling for full-on legalization, I don`t really see a lot of Democrats doing that. REID: I think the other issue is that Democrats are always so terrified of looking like the party that`s not tough on crime that you don`t even have a lot of Democrats that are willing to be really forward leaning on full decriminalization. I think that there is a constituency for it. I would like to see some Democrats actually get out ahead of it but so far -- KORNACKI: There`s still some time left. We have to squeeze a break in here. There`s an interesting story in the news about tipping and coffee. I`ll tell you about that right after this. KORNACKI: All right, we`re back with the panel. We`re talking about some of the headlines catching our eyes this week and here`s an entertaining one from "The New York Times." Headline is $3 tip on a $4 cup of coffee. That would be a 75 percent tip or something if my math is right. So the idea here is that a lot of coffee shops, places like that are getting into automated tipping. If you go to a coffee shop, you might see a little jar sometimes near it. But now you can punch in, it will give you an option like 20, 25 percent, 30 percent. It`s there for you to add on to your credit card or whatever. The idea is that maybe some of these workers are not making that much hourly, it`s a chance for you to give them more. Apparently the research done shows people tip more when it`s put to them that way. When I go to a coffee shop and I get a cup of coffee, do you need to tip for this? I try to tip for everything, but I always wondered. REID: The point that you made is the right one, which is that the hourly workers in these places are making so little money. There is a tendency if you pay cash, at Dunkin` Donuts just leave the rest of the change. But now the coffee itself is so expensive, it is prohibitive to some people to tip. If you have an option of punching in 10 percent, you will give more. PESCA: The automatic tipping option in cabs has increased the tipping. Here`s your 15 percent and thanks for the free math. I always tip in restaurants. I always, always tip maids in hotels. Those people keep almost all those salaries for tips. For cab drivers and baristas, it`s a small percentage of their salaries so it`s not -- less. KORNACKI: I do it in hotels, too. Dunkin` Donuts, I`m never been sure. We are running out of time here, but I did want to get to the "Calgary Sun" reporting on a weird story, the Zamboni driver busted for dui during a hockey game. This was in Fargo, North Dakota. He was arrested for dui after cleaning the ice drunk during a high school -- REID: How could you tell? KORNACKI: Amazing, absolutely one of the best stories of the week. Glad no one was on the ice. Glad we got the picture. This is a little brief because I went long yelling at Ed Schultz and Ed Rendell. Thanks to the panel. We`ll see you again later this hour and we are still tracking that massive winter storm that has dumped several inches of snow on part of the Midwest. It`s heading east. Later this morning we will go live to Chicago which is under a blizzard warning as we speak. Next, we will go to Glendale, Arizona. That`s the site of Super Bowl XLIX, and why this game could go down in the history books. No mention of inflated footballs, I promise. KORNACKI: Some of those Super Bowl parties that have attracted thousands of people to the Phoenix area the week before the game. That`s the one part of the super bowl we have not talked much about. The Super Bowl itself, the game. This game, Super Bowl XLIX could be historic. Patriots` Tom Brady and Bill Belichick have a chance to tie the record for the most Super Bowl titles of any coach-quarterback combination. This would be their fourth. This is the sixth Super Bowl overall they`ve been in together. Seahawks Coach Pete Carroll could become the first coach to win two Super Bowls and two college national championships although Carroll`s 2004 USC team was later forced to vacate the victories from that season because of NCAA violations committed on his watch. There are also the more personal storylines like the fact that Pete Carroll was the Patriots` head coach until he was fired after the 1999 season and he was then replaced by Bill Belichick. The big question is who will win this game? MSNBC`s Craig Melvin is there to sort all of that out for us and here at the table we have Mike Pesca again. He is a sports contributor with NPR and host of the podcast, "The Gist" on Slates. So Craig, we`re trying to get the whole deflate thing out of the way. Considering it done now in terms of what you`ve seen out there from these two teams, getting ready for this game tonight, what are you expecting? CRAIG MELVIN, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: On paper, Steve, we should be in for a fantastic football game. You have the team with the best record from the AFC, the Pats and the team with the best record from the NFC, the Seahawks, squaring off. This is fairly unusual for a Super Bowl. At last check, we don`t expect the change, the Patriots are favored. They`re favored by just one point. We`re still trying to do some research to figure out when the last time the number was that low. So we should be in for a fantastic game. You know, it`s been played here in the dome. Weather won`t be an issue although they are going to pull the dome back. They`ll have the retractable roof open. It`s 64,000 folks who will squeeze in here. Several hundred thousand have descended on phoenix the past few days for the big game. The excitement level is high. We spent a lot of time over the past few days talking to fans. As you indicated, you have so many story lines that are part of this game. You didn`t mention Richard Sherman whose girlfriend is expected to give birth any day. Marshawn Lynch, whose relationship with the media garners headlines and the balls that we will not talk about. KORNACKI: Thank you. MELVIN: We won`t talk about that. KORNACKI: Let`s take that as a segue way. You mentioned Marshawn Lynch, he obviously stole the show at the media day this week with his, you know, I`m only here because I don`t want to get fined and those sorts of antics. People who are seeing Marshawn Lynch for the first time this week, talk about his importance to the Seattle team, does that personality we saw in public, does that cause problems in the locker room? Do the teammates like that? PESCA: Richard Sherman talks so much. You need other people to be quiet. It`s fine. I think he`s loved. He`s loved because he`s so important to the team. Symbolically, he`s the embodiment of what they are. A team that will wear you down on offense, wear you down in the fourth quarter, they call it beast mode. They call it he`s fresh, he`s a 215-pound strong running back and their offensive line and defense pummelled the other team. You see in the fourth quarter he goes for these romps where he runs through the defense. By the way, Legarrette Blount who is 250-pounds from the Patriots does something similar. So yes, he`s really symbolically important. He`s actually important and he fits in the overall thing that Seattle is trying to do, which is the old school, old style beat with you defense and control the ball. Enough passing, but control the ball that`s why Seattle is a throwback and contrast to the Patriots, which are really cutting edge in so many ways because they are a Swiss Army knife. They could do maybe -- but they could do so many things. KORNACKI: The contrast between, you know, Marshawn Lynch, Pete Carroll, Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, more on message, more dower -- very interesting contrast stylistically. Much more on the Super Bowl and throughout the show, but my thanks for right now to MSNBC`s Craig Melvin and Mike Pesca, we`ll see you again in the next hour. Still ahead, I plan to ambush my colleagues and some of the biggest names from MSNBC and NBC and try to get them on the record with their Super Bowl picks. Plus Jeb Bush, pot, and a political attack from Rand Paul, we`ll tell you what`s going on there in the world politics, that`s next. KORNACKI: So how can we connect the Super Bowl back to politics? Bill Belichick, the Patriots coach and Jeb Bush, the likely Republican presidential candidate, they both went to high school together. It`s true. They were both at Phillips Andover Academy, an elite prep school in Massachusetts in the late 1960s. That is one of the nuggets in a new Boston globe profile of Jeb Bush`s high school years that`s got a lot of people talking right now. The biggest revelation seems to be Jeb`s admission of drug use while at school. Now comes Rand Paul, one of Bush`s likely rivals for the Republican nomination, calling that admission by Bush, quote, "Real hypocrisy" saying that the people on our side, the Republicans, which include a lot of people who made mistakes growing up admit their mistakes, but now still want to put people in jail for that. That was from Rand Paul. From the article, "The first time I really got stoned was in Jeb`s room." That`s what a friend said of his high school years with Jeb Bush. Quote, "He had a portable stereo with removable speakers. He put on Steppenwolf for me." The friend further said he once bought hashish from Bush, but didn`t consider him a dealer for his part. Jeb is telling "The Globe" that he, quote, "drink alcohol and smoke marijuana when he was at Andover and that it was pretty common." Jeb Bush is winning praise from political observers for his headh on acknowledgement of his drug us past, but will this become an issue as the campaigns move on? In the late 1980s, Supreme Court nominee, Douglas Ginsburg, watched his nomination go up in smoke because of college-aged marijuana use. But candidates for president since then have been asked about use with little repercussions. The most famous leader was Bill Clinton, who first told reporters that he had never broken any laws in the U.S., but when then asked as a student at Oxford he had broken laws there, Clinton answered -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two. I didn`t like it and didn`t inhale, never tried it again. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That is a response that became an immediate and enduring punch line. When George W. Bush was confronted with loud rumors of carousing and other elicit activity in college and for years after college, he liked to clip it, quote, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." Youth drug use in the context of a presidential campaign is far from unprecedented. Now that Jeb has admitted, is this something Rand and other potential candidates will hammer him on? Is there any stigma still attached to college drug use with the voters? Back with us to talk about it, we have our panel, Joy Reid from MSNBC, Wesley Lowery of the "Washington Post," and Republican consultant, Liz Mair. So my quick take on this is I think generally speaking when it comes to like winning the November election, we`re pretty much over the idea of somebody smoking marijuana in college or in youth or whatever. The interesting thing to me here is how Rand Paul jumped on this. Rand Paul didn`t do it from the shame on you, you used pot angle. He did it from the shame on you, you would use it, and now you would punish people using it in your same position. LOWERY: You look at Rand Paul`s strategy at large on these types of issues. A lot of it has been state`s rights and also it`s been this idea of not having hypocrisy in the criminal justice system, not having hypocrisy across a lot of these different issues. It`s been part of Rand Paul`s playbook all year for the last year essentially. It`s interesting to see Rand jump on Jeb in this way, very different than what you would expect necessarily from a Republican. REID: And at the same time, I think what`s interesting about it, too, and I agree with you. I do think Rand Paul is actually the most interesting of the potential candidates for that reason and a lot of others. But it points to the fact there really are two kinds of drug use in this country. There`s the drug use by the elite, which is written off as part of their youth and this is something that`s recoverable from. And then there`s the drug use by people who are poor or who are black or brown, where it is essentially a straight ticket to prison. So, I think that Rand Paul is pointing to a fundamental hypocrisy not just in our politics, but in the country, which is that we are excusing behavior among the elite that we literally prosecute to the fullest extent of the law when we are talking about people. KORNACKI: The Republican world, when they hear Rand Paul something like this how do they react to that? MAIR: Well, I think a couple of things, first of all, there are a lot of people that I think, whether they agree with either Jeb Bush or Rand Paul on policy, are very happy to see Rand Paul needling Jeb Bush a little bit. I think there are a couple factions there. First of all, there are people who just don`t like Jeb Bush, think that he`s too establishment, too much of (inaudible) Republican in name only. I think in addition to that, there are a lot of people who are going to be concerned as this continues that Jeb Bush has not run for office for quite a while. He has got a lot of people on his team who have not been actively been dabbling in politics in the current environment that we have, which is very 24/7. It is much more continuous, much more hard hitting -- KORNACKI: Do you think they can handle this one? From that standpoint, do you think they handle this one well strategically? MAIR: I think we will have to see. I think that it`s going to continue playing out. I`m not convinced that they have. I think Rand Paul has been very effective whether you look at the way he has been needling Jeb Bush on common core or this and picking on things where he picks an issue that really resonates. Whether it`s with the base or people that Rand Paul is trying to engage, and I think that minority voters, that`s very, very key for Rand Paul, right? He picks an issue -- whatever he is talking about resonates very well with a targeted group. So it is substantively a good way to go after Bush and also could very well end up exposing some real flaw`s in Bush`s operation and his ability to handle these things. KORNACKI: Is there still stigma -- you talked about Douglas Ginsburg of the Supreme Court, could have been a Supreme Court justice, used marijuana in college, couldn`t be a Supreme Court justice. Is there that stigma left to that in politics? REID: No, like infidelity Americans have caught up with Europe in the sense of not trying to use someone`s personal behavior as a litmus test as to whether they would be a good political leader. I think the public is way ahead of the politics and even ahead of the president. People are slow to admit that a lot of Americans tried marijuana. KORNACKI: I guess, the next question is, there`s always be youthful. We are young. We get sort of a pass. What happens to the politician who comes out and says, yes, I still do it? LOWERY: Yes, I can`t to see that guy. That`s going to be an awesome race whenever that happens. That is kind of a signal of where we still have yet to go. While we have gotten over some of these things, no we won`t disqualify Clinton, Bush, or another Bush because they smoked marijuana in college or said they stopped in college. We`re wanting them to come out and say, yes, every once in a while at a party at the Hamptons -- KORNACKI: Do you want this finger on the nuclear button? MAIR: That was kind of like I was going to run for president, but then I got high. KORNACKI: Colorado, Washington State, may get some experiments out there. Still ahead, it hasn`t been the best year for the NFL`s Roger Goodell. Can tonight`s game do anything to change that other than end this season of misery for the league? Next, making friends wherever I go, the faces of MSNBC and NBC News weigh in on the game whether they want to or not. Our very controversial video is next. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KORNACKI: All right. We are. We are deep in the bowels of 30 Rock right now. You are getting a behind-the-scenes look of where we work every day. What we would do today is give you a tour of the building, visit some of the people in the building. Some faces you may know. Some faces you may see on TV, and we`ll ask them about the big thing happening tonight. Patriots/Seahawks who you cheering for? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m married to a Seattleite. So that ends the argument there. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Much of America may be rooting for the Patriots demise. KRYSTAL BALL: Seattle, I think your coffee is terrible. RACHEL MADDOW: I live in Massachusetts for me to say I`m cheering for the Patriots feels like dog bites man. DORIAN WARREN: I like the Seahawks. I like several of the players. They are much more political as well. ABBY HUNTSMAN: I`m not loyal to a team, but I`m loyal to a particular person who happens to be in the NFL. KORNACKI: Who`s that? MADDOW: It`s not a lucky shirt. It`s lucky sweat pants, lucky socks, lucky hat. I have a lucky beer. RONAN FARROW: I`ll be there for the halftime show. I`ll be there for the Gatorade at the end. KORNACKI: This is my former boss, so Steve -- STEVE FRIEDMAN: Don`t hold that against me. KORNACKI: Patriots or Seahawks, what do you think? We figured we would sit in front of this picture of Brian Williams. I think that`s as close as we`ll get. You wouldn`t take this from a politician. Security guy, Patriots, Seahawks, any prediction? JOSH BARRO: My prediction is 12 1/2 pounds per square inch going into the bathroom at 11 pounds per square inch coming out of the bathroom. JENNA WOLFE: This will all come down to how flat the balls are and if the balls are flat enough, I think the Patriots have a shot at winning this game. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think New England will win the game with fully inflated footballs. ARI MELBER: An interesting distinction between the two teams this weekend is that one has been winning on the field, according to the rules. The other has been rampantly cheating. KORNACKI: When the Seahawks are brought to justice for that, it will be wonderful. (END VIDEOTAPE) KORNACKI: All right. Thanks to everybody who participated in that. Our panel is back here. These cupcakes, if you can see, they`re special. You have Patriots colors on the left, Seahawks colors on the right. So far nobody has indulged. Now, I will go around quickly here, Liz Mair, your prediction? MAIR: I`m only here so I don`t get fined. I hope it`s the Seahawks. I`m from Seattle. I hope we can pull it out. I have no idea. Tom Brady is a hell of a quarterback. KORNACKI: All right, Joy? REID: My team didn`t make it, but I do predict that the Patriots will bring Nerf balls to the game. Go Seahawks. KORNACKI: There`s a novel joke. Wesley? LOWERY: I grew up a Jets fan, I would love to see the Seahawks win, but I think the Patriots will pull it off, no matter the inflation or deflation issue, no matter how large or small the balls are. REID: You think they`ll catch the Nerf ball? LOWERY: I think the Patriots will probably pull it off but yes. KORNACKI: Remember the super fan sketch in SNL, the Bears fans. The bears could never lose. I`ll give mine, Pats, 243-6. I`ll give you the real one later. Thanks for getting up this morning. Another full hour of news, sports, politics straight ahead so stay with us. KORNACKI: The season of controversy. And thanks for staying with us this Sunday morning. As I like to keep pointing out, it`s Super Sunday, Super Bowl Sunday morning. The game starting at 6:30 tonight. If you`re the NFL, you`re probably glad the season is just about to be over. If you`re a Patriot fan, you`ve probably been on the receiving end of a lot of grief these past two weeks, or in my case, these past few minutes. And if you`re a gambler by nature, you`ll probably have a lot on the line. We`ll be delving into all of that ahead. Also going to be looking this hour at what`s next for former Taliban hostage Bowe Bergdahl. The military has a big decision to make about whether to charge the Army sergeant with desertion, and there`s also reaction from the White House this morning to the apparent execution of a second Japanese hostage by ISIS. Lots to get to this morning, but first, as we have been talking about all day, the biggest day in American football, one of the biggest days in American life, a national, cultural touchstone is finally here. For the league itself, the Super Bowl marks the official end of what in many ways has been a year from hell. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DARREN MCKEE: Many people in America, if they went through the year you`ve had, probably would have resigned or been fired. Can you envision any sort of circumstances, which would lead you to resigning or being fired as your job`s commissioner? ROGER GOODELL, NFL COMMISSIONER: No, I can`t. I -- does that surprise you? Listen, I -- it has been a tough year. It`s been a tough year on me personally. It`s been a year of what I would say is humility and learning. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Just one year ago this month on February 15, 2014, Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice had a violent altercation with his then fiancee, his now wife in a hotel elevator in Atlantic City. Rice was initially suspended for the first two games of the season, that`s a comparatively lenient punishment, as Slate put it at the time. In the NFL smoking pot can get you suspended longer than allegedly knocking your wife unconscious. Then in September a bombshell development. Footage of Rice striking his wife was posted on TMZ. The video of him punching Janay Rice and dragging her unconscious body shocked the country. Ray Rice was promptly cut by the Ravens, the NFL suspended him indefinitely. Commissioner Roger Goodell denied he`d seen the tape when he signed off on that initial penalty of a two-game suspension. Rice`s camp insisted otherwise, though. And for a time the outrage seemed like it could cost Goodell his $44 million a year job. Federal court has since overturned Rice`s suspension freeing him to play in the NFL again only if there`s a team out there that`s willing to sign him. An investigation commission by the NFL led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller found no evidence that Goodell saw the tape. It also concluded, though, that they could have done more in this case. The Rice scandal was the biggest thing to happen to the NFL this year, turned its focus to combating domestic violence and the look the other way culture that most acknowledged has been a norm. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No more boys will be boys. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No more what`s the big deal? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No more it`s just the way he is. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No more he just has a temper. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So, it has been the worst year in memory for the NFL, and all of this without even mentioning the Adrian Peterson child abuse scandal. And now, we look back on the last year and what, if anything, the NFL can do to put this all firmly behind them. I`m joined by our panel for this. We have got Bob Ryan, a former columnist with "The Boston Globe," author of the bestselling book, "Scribe: My Life in Sports." I just read that book. It`s a blast in Phoenix. We have Mike Freeman, author and NFL columnist for "The Bleacher report, and MSNBC`s Joy Reid, host of the "Reid Report" right here on set with me. Still giving me a grief about . (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: So, Mike Freeman, let me start with you. Because we talked about this. And we had you on the show, in fact, back in the fall when it seemed like an open question, whether Goodell was going to survive as commissioner. We played an intro there, that question he got asked this week, you know, do you still deserve to keep your job? Just right out, what is the status of Roger Goodell as the commissioner? Has he in a professional sense weathered this and is he save for the future, or is there still some doubt here? MIKE FREEMAN, SPORTS COLUMNIST: Well, here is why Roger Goodell is safe, it`s because of this, Steve. Money. He`s making a lot, a lot, a lot of cash for the owners. So the owners are sort of using Roger Goodell. And I think this is a point that a lot of people don`t get. Roger Goodell is a human flak jacket for the owners. He`s a guy that takes all the grief about what the NFL has done, while the owners are over here kind of being quiet. And not the targets, and making a lot of money. Goodell is taking the flack for them. And so, is he safe? He`s safe because of that, he`s safe because he`s a perfect foil for the owners. Everyone goes after Roger Goodell and not the owners. So, yeah, he`s pretty safe right now. KORNACKI: So, Bob Ryan, in terms of damage -- there`s damage to Goodell and there`s damage to the league itself. And obviously, that these headlines have been so terrible. What happened in the Ray Rice situation is so terrible, obviously. And yet, despite, you know, weeks of this you look at the ratings Sunday to Sunday, you look at the ratings for the playoffs, you look at what`s going to happen tonight. Do you think to fans this has really changed the way they think about football, they think about the NFL or do they just sort of put it out of their heads, and go watch the game and play fantasy football? BOB RYAN, SPORTS COLUMNIST: In this fantasy football world we live in, in this betting world we live in, these are mere peripheral concerns. The hard-core football fan is not remotely interested in the morality play. He`s interested in -- and mostly he, interested in the competition and the totality, the love of the game itself, and love all the peripheral aspects of it. I just mentioned, the fantasies, which is a world unto itself. An incredible billion, multi-billion dollar business, etc. This - the other stuff is just irrelevant. Safety? What? Who cares! I mean -- that, you know, a few, you know, mothers -- I`ve always said the mothers of America could shut football down tomorrow. And maybe they should, but until that happens, life will go on very happily. And I am just sort of amused by the idea that it takes a specific person to oversee this whole enterprise. It`s Roger Goodell. It could be a thousand other people because it`s self-perpetuating. KORNACKI: Well, so, Joy, I guess that -- Bob saying there, also raises the question, I mean we played the PSA, the NFL is running, they`ve done a lot of, you know, sort of publicity, sort of anti-domestic violence and all of that. But do you have a sense of has anything meaningful changed in terms of how the league looks at this? How the culture of the league thinks about this, how cases like this will be handled in the future? Do you think this has all produced within the league something positive, something valuable? REID: You know, just for a second, I`m going to channel my inter -- just for a little bit, and I`m going to - couch is somebody who grew up bathed in the sport of football. I grew up in Denver, Colorado, where it was God, family and football, not necessarily in that order. But I think that what happened this year has exposed the NFL for what it is, which is essentially a group of plutocrat owners who are fielding basically a squad of prized race horses. And they don`t care what the race horses do at home. They`re highly paid, basically gladiators, who if they`re beating up their wives, they don`t care about that. The owners just care about the money that these guys make. There`s a reason why there are bigger penalties for putting chemicals into your body which destroys the product that these owners are selling than there is for doing something that would be criminal if they were just an ordinary citizen. And I think the fact that there is no morality within the confines of the NFL -- they don`t care about that. They have to make the PSA`s as a marketing ploy, but I think the idea that the NFL really does care about the lives of these players outside of the field, outside of the field when they`re not making money for the owners, I think has been exposed as a big lie. I think it`s going to be difficult to change that. But as the other guests have said, the actual end users of this product don`t care. This is entertainment. These are gladiators. KORNACKI: Well, as you said, I mean the money that the league has made, the money a lot of these teams have made under Goodell. In the year since Goodell took over, I think about, you know, seven, eight years ago it is staggering. Just as his salary is $44 million. And there was an interesting interview this weekend, I want to put this up on the screen. In GK, with Paul Tagliabue, Paul Tagliabue was the predecessor of Roger Goodell as a commissioner. Really is mentored many ways. Tagliabue saying in his interview that we have not talked much since I left. It`s been his decision clearly there`s a chill in their relationship. Tagliabue also said in this interview that he suggested there was a perception that Goodell had created that money was the be all and end all, of what his duties as commissioner were all about. Mike Freeman, to extent that is -- Tagliabue says is accurate, how has that affected the players relationship with the league? FREEMAN: Well, the players in the commission right now, Steven, have no relationship. It`s the most antagonistic I`ve ever seen in my 25, 26 years of covering sports and covering NFL. I have never seen hatred, and that`s the word, it`s hatred, never seen hatred between the players union and the commissioner as deep, as steep as this. Even in some ways during the strike years which were really nasty and ugly. Right now they don`t have a relationship. You saw here this week, Richard Sherman came out and basically just punked Goodell and said his relationship with Robert Kraft, the owner of the Patriots, champions everything, and that`s why they won`t find any - this investigation will lead to nothing, because he`s so close with Goodell is with Kraft, the players right now really dislike Goodell. And that`s one of the keys here, is if the league -- as much money as the league is making, and Bob Ryan is right and Joy Reid are right about how some owners view the players, but that can`t stay that way forever. They are going to need the players. And that relationship has to be mended if this league is going to keep continuing to making this kind of money that are making now. KORNACKI: And actually, and Bob -- and I said it happened on the show. I didn`t want to spend too much time on the Deflate-gate, but I do want to ask you this, in terms of what Mike was just talking there about the relationship between Kraft and Goodell. And there`s been a lot of sort of Patriots, Patriots haters out there saying, you know, this is going to mean it will - it will be easy on the Patriots in this situation. Another suggestions, though, that in light of all the sort of bad PR the NFL has received this year for the Ray Rice thing, and for Adrian Peterson, for whatever else, that when it comes to this matter right now, Goodell might see this as an opportunity to really make a definite statement to come down hard. Do you think the -- everything that`s happened in the NFL this year, and -- if it`s taken in the press, will affect how Goodell approaches this. RYAN: My opinion has been from the beginning that the Patriots are under extra scrutiny for a very good reason, so people are very suspicious of them. So I think it has -- it`s incumbent upon him to launch a highly detailed investigation. And probably to err -- in his eyes erring on the side of caution, punishing the Patriots disproportionately harder than he would any other team, if, in fact, they determined that Patriots are at fault and it was not like an act of nature that caused this. But if you -- by the way, to Richard Sherman`s statement, which was -- and just -- just Sherman, and that I think that had any other team won -- AFC team won the game, that it`s very possible that Mr. Goodell would have gone to and joined the celebration at the home of that owner as well. I really think he read a lot more into that situation than it really was. KORNACKI: Yeah, and sometimes saying things could be a motivating force, too, for a team. (INAUDIBLE). But Joy Reid, the longer term future for football, the thing we didn`t get into there, was concussions. And I just noticed watching the game this year and watching the game the last few years, it`s the sort of thing where in years past there would be a big hit. And everybody would kind of get excited about it and say what a big play. And now everybody, myself and everybody I watch with winces. Every time -- there has been a sort of change in our instincts and how we watch and how we think about it. And I always think about the younger generation of kids. Like, you know, if I had a 12-year-old, would I want that kid playing football or would I think if something is going to happen, concussion, we don`t want that. The longer term future of football, what do you think of that? REID: Yeah, and my husband and I were very reluctant to let -- our sons played soccer when we were in Florida, very reluctant, especially my husband, to allow them to play football. I mean and think about the fact that NFL players have the shortest careers of any of the major sports league when you look at basketball versus baseball. They can`t like baseball players play on into almost 50, these guys break their bodies apart between arthritis, head injuries, just the pain and suffering of a post NFL player. And what`s done to their bodies in playing this game. Even though yes, they are highly compensated. People are like -- feeling sorry for rich people. But at the end of the day, these guys are destroying themselves physically for our entertainment. And I think you are going to see a lot of parents, a lot of moms and dads wondering whether this is worth it. Because when you talk about the kids that are playing, the same lack of morality and the same lack of caring about them as human beings applies all the way down to pewee football. Allowing kids to go head first into the line when they say- they are playing as linemen, allowing kids to take the same physical risks, and risk the same physical pain, the same head injuries that adults are, this is getting younger and younger and younger. And I think a lot of parents are really rethinking it. Fans, not rethinking it. And I think that`s really the moral dilemma that I think we all have as people who love the game. KORNACKI: Right, all the concerns raised, as we say, more money than ever, ratings better than ever. REID: Yes. KORNACKI: So, those are the two bottom line indicators. Any way, I want to thank Bob Ryan. He is going to stick around. We`ll see you a little bit later in the show. Mike Freeman for "Bleach Report," thank you. Enjoy the game out there. We are very jealous of you, and MSNBC`s Joy Reid, thank you. You host "The Reid Report" here on MSNBC. Still ahead this hour, the very important question of what kind of hoodie Bill Belichick will be wearing today. We`ll tell you what that means, but first, military seems ready to decide what to do about Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. And that`s next. (cb) KORNACKI: The Japanese prime minister says this morning that he feels "indignation" over the apparent execution of a second Japanese man by ISIS. He`s vowing that Japan will not give in to terrorism. An online video released yesterday purports to show the beheading of Japanese journalist Kenji Goto. Here in Washington, the White House is confirming that Goto is dead, but is not confirming the authenticity of the video itself. President Obama expressing his own condemnation in a statement this morning as well as solidarity with the people of Japan adding that the U.S. will continue to take decisive action against the terror group. At times like this we like to turn to Colonel Jack Jacobs, MSNBC military analyst and a Medal of Honor recipient. So, Colonel, this was an unusual situation. There was sort of a three-way thing involved here. So, ISIS had this Japanese photographer and wanted from Jordan the release of an extremist. Jordan was -- and Jordan, a downed Jordanian pilot who ISIS had. So, apparently, the deal supposedly was everybody gets their people back. And it dissolved. Don`t we know exactly how that happened? COL. JACOB JACOBS, MILITARY ANALYST: Well, one of the reasons it didn`t happen is that Jordan wanted the proof of life for the pilot. And it was not forthcoming. And they weren`t going to do any further negotiations and figure out what else they were going to get if there was going to be money involved. All the details of any exchange until there was a proof of life. And ISIS didn`t provide it, and so I think thing has broke down on that case. KORNACKI: And so, you know, we`ve seen stories of European countries that apparently do pay these ransoms that ISIS demands, they have gotten people out. Of course, here in the United States we have the strict policy of don`t pay the ransom. The families, don`t pay the ransom. Is there a realistic way to get any of these people out? Because we keep seeing these innocent people who are trapped over there. And we say, is there any way to get them out. Is there? JACOBS: No. I mean there`s not any real way that you can guarantee you are going to be able to get people out who get captured by ISIS, no matter what you do. Indeed, there`s an argument that says that if you pay ransoms, if you exchange prisoners, that you are almost going to guarantee that you are going to lose more people because they are going to get captured. The people we exchanged for Bowe Bergdahl, for example, at least one of them has now contacted al Qaeda. And there are others we released from Guantanamo, for example, whom we subsequently killed on the battlefield or captured again. No, there`s no - There`s no way that you are going to be able to guarantee you are going to get your people back. And in any case, the expectation of ISIS is not necessarily make any exchanges any way. They`re a terror organization, and their objective is to control areas, in which they go into, not necessarily make any points or reach any kind of consensus with countries who -- of whom, from which they have prisoners. So, that`s not going to work. Either paying ransom or anything else. KORNACKI: Right. And you mentioned Bowe Bergdahl, so that was in the news sort of early last year. Now back in the news because we have reports, NBC reports that a decision is imminent now to charge him with desertion. That`s not official, but that`s what the reporting suggests that we are heading in that direction. Do you think that`s appropriate in his case? That he be charged formally with desertion? JACOBS: Oh, yes. I mean I think -- look, there`s an investigation that`s convened by the court-martial convening authority. A general officer investigates it. Makes a recommendation to the court-martial convening authority. Based on the investigation, whether or not somebody ought to be charged. After that, there`s the military grand jury procedure and article 32 investigation that goes into the details. But in this particular case, there`s plenty of evidence that indicates he should be charged with this. KORNACKI: What do you think - if he`s charged and if he`s found guilty what do you think the punishment should be for what he did? JACOBS: It all depends on what the facts really are. You know, you have - - to prove desertion, you have to prove intent to stay away. And ostensibly, if he`s charged with that, they have enough evidence to indicate that that`s worth bringing it to trial, in theory the penalty for just being found guilty of desertion is death. It`s not likely in this case. KORNACKI: Extreme in this case. JACOBS: It would be, especially since at least part of the time he was away because he was captured. If he told people in his unit that he was leaving to leave permanently, then he has got a real problem. But the likelihood is that he didn`t say that. That he just -- as a matter of fact, before all this began, when he was first captured, the time there was the exchange, there was a lot of talk from his -- people in his unit saying the guy was a doper. He spent a lot of time wandering off, anyway going to find hash, buy hash in the local village and so on. So I think that an extreme penalty is unlikely. KORNACKI: Also, and you mentioned this a minute ago, but there was a reporting this week that one of the Taliban five, these people who we traded to get Bowe Bergdahl back. One of them having communication with militants, obviously, against the restrictions that were put in place when the deal was cut. John Kirby, this is the spokesman for the Pentagon was asked about this on Friday. I`ll play what he said right here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY, U.S. NAVY: What I can tell you is that we remain confident, as we were when we sent them there, that the assurances we received are sufficient enough to help us mitigate any future threat that these individuals might pose. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And this was the whole debate back when Bergdahl came back. It was - do we leave anybody behind? Do we get our people out no matter what the cost is? Even if the cost is five Taliban going back there, or do we make some kind of an exception in this case. When you look back to that debate and you look at this, what do you think? JACOBS: Well, that`s like I said on the air at the time I thought it was a rotten deal. And I wasn`t the only one. A lot of people said the same thing. I think the idea about getting your troops back no matter what it costs in the military operation, that makes a great deal of sense. And we followed that dictum for a long, long time. The question about whether or not you make a deal like this for a guy like Bergdahl, that`s a different story altogether. And I and lots of other people said at the time that it was something you should not do. KORNACKI: Shouldn`t have made the deal. JACOBS: No, no, it`s a rotten deal. You`re going to exchange a guy like Bergdahl for five really dangerous people, at least some of whom were going to wind up going back to kill Americans and - or our allies. It`s a rotten deal. And, you know, it was a media event, and unfortunately the White House did not do its homework. I mean they had the family showing up. And it would appear that they didn`t even know what kind of guy Bergdahl was in the first place. So, I said at the time and I think everybody -- reasonable people with military experience would agree it was a rotten deal. KORNACKI: Yeah, no, it was a very sort of celebratory feel, I remember that day. JACOBS: Yeah. KORNACKI: And then the debate. JACOBS: For no good reason. KORNACKI: That the debate sort of kicked in. and people found out a lot of other things. My thanks, though, to Retired U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs. I appreciate that. JACOBS: You bet. KORNACKI: And I didn`t try to get a Super Bowl prediction out of you. Neither of you up here. Still ahead . JACOBS: Seahawks. KORNACKI: I shouldn`t have gotten that Super Bowl prediction from - How a smile from Patriots head coach Bill Belichick could make you money. He doesn`t do it often. And next, haters going to hate. Keep it here. (cb) KORNACKI: We`ve all heard the line General Patton made famous, Americans love a winner. If that were the case, the New England Patriots should be America`s team. After all the Pats were about to appear in their sixth Super Bowl in the last 14 years. They`ve won three of those games already. They`ve won at least ten games a year for the last 12 years, and they have arguably the best coach and the best quarterback in the NFL with Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. Instead though the Patriots are, they are practically the most hated team in the NFL. They finished second to the Cowboys in a recent poll on which team Americans hate the most. So how could one of pro sports most celebrated teams also be one of its more reviled? Maybe it`s the cheating accusations? Spygate eight years ago, the Deflate-gate thing two weeks ago. Or maybe those accusations are more of a convenient cajole for all of those fans who already hate the Patriots. It`s something to taunt New England and its fans with. Or maybe the source is Bill Belichick, his dour demeanor and one-word press conference answers probably aren`t that endearing to non-pats. Or maybe it`s something simpler, maybe it`s just that in sports, Americans actually don`t love winners. They actually love to hate winners and cheer to see them lose. They like underdogs. Long-time Bostonian, former sports columnist with "The Boston Globe" Bob Ryan is back with us, along with Drew Magary, "GQ" correspondent and columnist with the sport site Dead Spin who just wrote a column urging people not to root for the Patriots. So, we thought he would be the perfect person to bring on for this. Drew, just let me start with you. I`m guessing you`re speaking for about 95 percent of America right here. So, what is the case for hating the Patriots? DREW MAGARY, GQ CORRESPONDENT: That`s exactly right. I`m here for 95 percent of Americans, Steve. And, you know, the problem is, in my eyes, there is a disproportionate amount of media people and writers who happen, for some reason, to come from New England backgrounds. Every freacking Patriots fan ends up being a professional writer or broadcaster somehow. And so what happens is, you know, you have all these people who are Boston fans, and they grow up being writers, and sportscasters, and stuff like that, and you went appearing about the Patriots, and the Red Sox, and the Celtics from them. And not only do Boston people drone on and on about their teams, but they expect you to care. And so, instead of simply not caring which is what I usually do, I have grown to actively loathe Boston sports teams and I root for them to fail. KORNACKI: It sounds like you`re saying it`s just over exposure. MAGARY: It`s overexposure but then it`s also the type of overexposure, because listen, the Patriots could win today and Pats fans would still complain that the helmet catch was lucky. You know what I mean. Like it`s enough. Like there is always a bit of triumphant misery to go along with the winning. Like they could win ten years in a row and they would still find something to complain about, because they`re from Boston, Boston people tend to be generally unpleasant. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: And with Bob Ryan up in Boston, and full disclosure, I`m one of those born in Massachusetts guys who is in the media right now. MAGARY: Yes. See? Yeah! You are -- completely unnecessary. KORNACKI: I`m not miserable. I`m smiling. I`m happy, but Bob Ryan let me --let me ask you this. I mean what you are hearing from Drew, and I imagine you hear this from people all over the country, they don`t like the Patriots, Patriots hating is sort of a big thing right now. How does Boston handle that? How do they interpret that. What do they think is at the heart of it? Does everybody say, oh, it`s jealousy? RYAN: The prevailing opinion here is that it`s just the idea of people rooting against a proven winner, which is simply not the case. Drew is -- brought this to his antipathy to all Boston teams. And I have to remind - not remind him, but just prod him one of the reasons people take that opinion is that in the 21st century, there`s been no more successful city with eight parades, four other trips to the finals. And we are the only city in America that can boast of a championship -- to four major sports, which might remain true well into the 21 century, but in this particular issue, there was only one reason why everyone hates the Patriots, it`s not simply because they are good, it`s not a case of hate becuase we`re beautiful, it`s the coach, OK? And I have to remind you, that in 2002, when they beat the Rams as an underdog, they were beloved. Why? Because when they took the field, they took the field unmasked. They did not have the individual introductions. America fell in love with them. And they were the toast of America. But they have not become -- they have now squandered all of that via Spygate, a, and via the continuing public presence of a dour coach, as you mentioned. And that is it. They hate Belichick. They don`t hate Brady. They don`t hate Wilfork. They don`t hate -- they hate Belichick. That`s what it`s all about. MAGARY: I don`t know about that, because I think even though Belichick can be ornery, that`s more of a media issue. The media doesn`t like him -- because he doesn`t have much to say except for this past week for some magical reason. But you know, when he gets accused of Spygate, and Deflate-gate, and all that stuff, it`s really a byproduct of the fact that the team wins a lot. And so, when teams start winning a lot, I naturally begin to hate them, because my crappy team never wins anything. And so, this team is hogging. KORNACKI: Who is your crappy team, by the way? Who is it? MAGARY: The Vikings. The Vikings are terrible. KORNACKI: So, now, let me ask you a question, Drew -- Drew . (CROSSTALK) MAGARY: But I latch on to anything I can to disprove that team that`s winning too much because I don`t want them to enjoy the winning. Because that wouldn`t be fun for me because my team always loses. RYAN: Why was there no such antipathy towards the steel curtain Steelers or the 49ers in the Montana? MAGARY: I don`t like the Steelers. I don`t like the 49ers. I don`t like any of them. I hate them all. RYAN: Well, I think. (CROSSTALK) RYAN: That`s you. Because most people .. MAGARY: Yeah. RYAN: That I have heard never heard a negative word about the 49ers, ever? MAGARY: Oh, really? RYAN: Never. MAGARY: Oh, man, you have got to get out. RYAN: I get out a lot. I get out a lot. And I`m telling you, that this is a bunch of poppy cock. No one despised the 49ers the way they despised the Patriots. And that`s because there was nothing to this like about Bill (INAUDIBLE). And you`re wrong about Belichick, I`m telling you, I`m telling you, this is not about the media, it is about the fans. The media understands them better than the fans. By -- they always - the fans only see him on Sunday, when they should never appear before in public. By Thursday or Friday, he`s practically a raconteur. OK. Know that. (CROSSTALK) (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Can we say that there is something about sports where we like to cheer for the underdog? And I think at the end of today`s basketball tournament every year, and you get those arenas where like 18 are playing in the same place. In the 16th seed who no one`s ever heard of shows up, and they take Kansas down to the wire and 90 percent of the arena is on its feet cheering for this -- they need the players, they don`t know the coach. All they know that it`s the little guy, and they want to see the bug guy fall. MAGARY: Well, the other thing is that Bob thinks that it`s a strictly a Boston fan thing, which is true. Boston fans are annoying in their own specific way, but then they take that and they think that that makes them special and different from other fans which is not true. But somehow it makes them more annoying than other fans. Does that make sense? KORNACKI: Bob? RYAN: I preach this gospel to the people here all the time, Drew. That you are not enlightened. You are not -- entitled. You not entitled. You are no better than any other set of fans. In fact, you`re the luckiest set of fans in America because you have won eight times in this century and you have won in all four sports. I tell them this, OK? They are not any better than any other fan, so, OK, they are not. I know that. MAGARY: But they don`t listen to you. They are like -- give me another . RYAN: But they don`t even listen to you at all. KORNACKI: But it is . RYAN: Well, I just -- with the thing about it that`s important here on this particular issue, Drew, is this. It`s that fans here have never come to grips with Spygate. And don`t understand that what the ramifications were in the outside world. They don`t get it. They don`t know that it`s a stain that will never go away. They don`t know that if the Patriots win today, people will not give these great players their full credit because they will still hate the Patriots and assume something was amiss and they will always hate Belichick. That what`s happening. The Spygate will never go away. No one here wants to accept that. KORNACKI: Let me just say, as -- and I`m in New York now, but as a kid who grew up in the `80s and `90s with the Boston sports teams, we will also never forget when the Patriots were terrible. Nobody cared, and nobody talked about it. (CROSSTALK) MAGARY: I don`t want to hear that. KORNACKI: When I was a kid, I could not watch a Patriots game on television because Sullivan stadium was half full and it was blacked out in the area. So, there`s a lot of Patriots fans who say we went through rod, rust, and seriously, and all that, and you know what, if we got to be the enemy, we deserve, we`ll take it. Anyway .. MAGARY: You don`t get -- KORNACKI: Drew Magary, Bob Ryan, this was a really fun discussion. I really enjoyed it. Thanks you for joining us. I`m sorry, we`re out of time. I would love to keep going with this. Anyway, still ahead, how to make some extra money at your Super Bowl party tonight, plus the latest from Chicago where a potential blizzard bears down on the city. Stay with us for all of the info you need about that. (cb) KORNACKI: Right now we`re tracking that winter storm as it moves through the Midwest towards the northeast. 23 states now are under winter weather alerts. Storm could affect as many as 65 million Americans. It`s already created a travel nightmare with flight cancellations and delays. NBC`s Kevin Tibbles is live in Chicago. Chicago is now under a blizzard warning. Kevin, tell us what you`re seeing right now and what you`re expecting. KEVIN TIBBLES, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, first off, I don`t need you to be telling me we`re under a blizzard warning right now. I`ll tell you that much because we`re standing in it. I can give you sort of Kevin`s unscientific weather report here. And that is that the winds are blowing about 780 million miles an hour. The snow is blowing sideways. At this degree I understand that 750,000 flights have been canceled here at O`Hare Airport. And I can also tell you that it`s pretty darn miserable out here. Can you see Lake Michigan behind me? It looks like a gigantic slushy this morning, and this thing is just getting underway. We understand that between now and midnight or overnight, we are going to have about a foot to 15 inches of snow. Perfect for nestling up in front of the fireplace and watching the big game this afternoon. That`s the advice from me out here this morning. KORNACKI: Wow, Kevin Tibbles, from my vantage point on this shot, it looks like you`re on an iceberg in the Arctic circle. That`s a scary-looking place here. TIBBLES: I think -- I actually think that`s exactly where I am. The only thing is that the people who actually live in the Arctic are smart enough to stay indoors on a day like today. So, I got the place pretty much to myself. Although I have to tell you, there are actually joggers out here this morning running around. And, you know, go figure. KORNACKI: They are the most dedicated athletes. Rain, snow, sleet, blizzard. Anyway my thanks to NBC`s Kevin Tibbles live for us in Chicago. And still ahead, the role of luck, getting lucky and making money. That`s next. (cb) KORNACKI: All right, we are over at the big board, here with me is Mike Pesca, host of Slate`s podcast the Gist. And Mike has a lot of knowledge and expertise on the area we want to talk about right now. This is something, the NFL doesn`t necessarily like people talking about, but it`s a huge part of the game today, it`s a huge part of football, it`s a pretty big part of the economy when you come to think of it, and that is gambling. A lot of money, Mike, are going to be wagered in Las Vegas at these off- shore casinos. People can get to them online with their phones or computers. What are we talking about here in terms of just the amount of money that`s going to be gambled today? PESCA: Well, you will see figures out there. But I don`t believe any of them. Because I think for all the off-shore and all the Vegas, people still are making more illegal bets than anything else. So, yeah, in the bill -- it`s in order of . KORNACKI: Like the .... (CROSSTALK) PESCA: The bookie down the street? The bookie you might still be quasi- connected with the mafia. That still goes on. And you said the NFL doesn`t like talking about it. I think they don`t acknowledge that they don`t like talking about it, but they know that it is one of the drivers of their sport. Unlike, however, the NCAA tournament, which I think is pretty much now a gambling enterprise, wrapped up in the sporting event, people love football. And that`s why they want to bet on football rather than the other way around. But man, do they love to bet on football. KORNACKI: So it`s more like they`re already fans. PESCA: They are fans, and they have opinions about these things. And they really wanted to put money on how many rushing guards, because they already have an idea of how many rushing guards, as opposed to some other sporting events, like the NCAA tournament where it`s like Gonzaga, I have no idea. But I`m still at my bracket. Yeah. KORNACKI: Then, of course, it`s always the principle of the more you know, the worse you do. PESCA: Oh, that`s true. And you are taking advantage and remember, the guys setting the odds always know more than you. Always. KORNACKI: Also, with that in mind, let`s take you through some of the ways, I guess this is our money-making segment or money losing segment. But let`s take you through how this works, some of the bets you could be making today. And people are making today. Actually, this, first of all, we are going to start - this is from the start of the season. At the very beginning of the season, you could go out to one of these casinos, only sports books and you could say I bet the Denver Broncos are going to win the Super Bowl. The start of the season, Denver and San Francisco you can see. These were the two teams that people thought were going to win it. 6/1, I guess it`s basically bet $100, you win 600. PESCA: Yes. But the Seattle and New England odds, as you see there, that was preseason. They both started the season slow. And by midseason, Seattle was looking bad. You could have gotten longer odds on them at that point. They were less likely to win the Super Bowl, according to Las Vegas in week eight than they were before week one. KORNACKI: So, this is like -- this is like almost the stock market. You are trying to find the team, you know, on the two-game losing streak, and then you- win of Super Bowl. PESCA: Yeah. Except the stock market is not priced to lose. So, what they have is, if you make bets on all the teams and whoever wins, you are still going to lose a ton of money. KORNACKI: Right. PESCA: But 6/1 is not the true odds. The stock market will be closer to the true odds. KORNACKI: And of course, the Jacksonville, this was the longest odds on the board. If you put a dollar on them, you would have won 200. But they were terrible. PESCA: Every year since . (CROSSTALK) PESCA: Put a dollar on the . KORNACKI: Here`s the basic one, though. PESCA: Yeah. KORNACKI: This is the point spread for tonight`s game. So, quick primer, what is the point spread, how that works. PESCA: Point spread is the different, this is invented for football. It`s a way to make up the difference between the bad team and the good team or the worst team and the good team. Pick `em means they don`t think either team is better than the other. In the history of the Super Bowl, all the advanced computer simulations that I`ve looked at, these are the closest it`s ever been. Now, I think a lot of places have New England as a one- point favorite. But that`s such a -- between one and pick `em, is a much, pick `em mean there`s is no point spread on this game. Everything I said about point spread, forget it. Just pick a team straight up. KORNACKI: Yes, because and we were looking around. The place we decided to use -- pick them this morning you are right. There are a few who`d say the Patriots by a point. We found one that said, Patriots by two points. But I guess that`s part of the thing as you can shop around a little bit in trying to . PESCA: Yes, but the one that says Patriots by two points, you might have to pay a little bit more to get that. In other word, you`re paying ten percent which is called the Vig. To win $100, you have to bet 110, the two point spread, you maybe -- you have to bet 115 or 120 to get those two- points. KORNACKI: OK, let`s look at another one that a lot of people bet now. This is call the over under, 47 and ahalf. What are we looking at here? PESCA: Total number of points scored combined by both teams. I think that betters like to bet the favorite. There was no favorite. But that is also like to bet the over. So this might be a little high especially when you take into account the history of the Patriots and the Super Bowl. They often ome in with great offenses and then underperform. And also, Seattle just has the best defense. KORNACKI: So you say, Mike Pesca, the tout says take the under? PESCA: What I`m saying is to be fair and cautious, bet the mortgage, bet the kids college money, MSNBC endorsed. KORNACKI: 50 percent chance you`ll win. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: And let`s take a quick look. You can actually bet the coin toss. PESCA: And this is why the gamblers will always win. You have to bet $105 to win $100 on heads. Do you know heads was on this incredible winning streak? And I think the Super Bowl coin, it`s not like a regular coin. The mint has nothing to do with it. I think it`s really weirdly weighted. And I`ve held Super Bowl coins. And it does seem like the heads -- it`s just --has a little - is more concave. I would say. So, yeah, I would definitely bet heads. Again, MSNBC endorsed. (LAUGHTER) PESCA: Bet college money. KORNACKI: We`ll have a 1-900 number set up at the end of this, by the way. You want the rest of these pics. But quickly, we should say -- so we start talking about like betting the coin toss. These are called prop bets. In the Super Bowl, because it`s this game where just everybody in the country is watching. They come up with these random bets that you can only bet for this game. PESCA: Right. So, some of the bets, the ones that are actually based on chance, like this and like things on the field, Las Vegas will book that. But now it`s a proliferation of online -- that`s where we are going to say, there`s crazy stuff. Like how much will the Knicks score in the first quarter versus how many total points will Seattle score in the game? Number of references to, you know, Katy Perry`s hairstyle and stuff like that. KORNACKI: I would take those Seahawks in that Knicks comparison. But we have -- so, like you are saying, we have a bunch of these really funny, kind of crazy, random prop bets, some pretty funny stuff here, and we`ll -- Katy Perry, and we are going to show them to you and get Mike`s take on them when we come back. (cb) KORNACKI: All right, we`re back at the big board with Mike Pesca talking about these prop bets, these are these crazy, only on Super Bowl Sunday bets that you can go make, try to make some money on. So, we`re going to go through some of the funnier ones. When you get Mike Pesca`s take on them. So, here is one. This is something you can bet on, actually. How many times will the word "deflated balls" be said during the game tonight? So, you are watching the broadcast. How many times will that be said? And they have set the over/under at three. So Mike, what`s a good bet here? Over or under? PESCA: Well, remember, it has to be deflated, it can`t be a reference to PSI, or even underinflated. So, that`s a little wrinkle. Al Michaels is I think the best announcer in the sport. He has to set the scene. You have to say it once or twice. And he`s a funny guy. I think he`s going to make a joke. And because the over/under is three, if it only hits three, you win your money back so I`d take the over. KORNACKI: You take the over -- OK, let`s see what else we`ve got here. Will Bill Belichick smile during the game on camera? PESCA: No, I wish the word "smile" were in quotes. Because I could see him grimacing, I could see him giving a clenched teeth upturn of the lips. KORNACKI: How do you define a smile? PESCA: It`s with the eyes. That`s a real smile, but rarely do we see Belichick smile. KORNACKI: I mean . PESCA: It`s hard with all the, you know, dark side of the force working within him. KORNACKI: All right, let`s see what else we`ve got here. Bill Belichick hoodie top. He`s been known to cut them off. I say he`s going to cut them off, right? PESCA: Yeah, Glendale, Arizona, I hear they want to keep the roof open. That`s usually a good predictor for half sleeve. KORNACKI: All right. And now we`ve got will it be mentioned during the game that Pete Carroll was the last head coach of the Patriots? I say absolutely. PESCA: How could you not, again? And this is during the game, of course. There are 70,000 hours of pregame and it`s going to be mentioned 70,000 times, but I think Michaels will do it. KORNACKI: All right, now it gets a little funky. Which song will Katy Perry perform first at halftime? You look at this list. What do you say? PESCA: OK, I`ve done a lot of research on this. I`m incorporating elements of technology, history and musicology. I`ve looked over the last first songs at halftime for the last four years. So you have I`ve got a feeling, you have Vogue, You have the Beyonce song -- bad girls, you have Bruno Mars last year. All were in major key tonality. Actually, last year was D-minor key. So, I took that into account. Now what I did was I programmed my Pandora with all of those songs, right, heaven is locked, all four of those songs and then Katy Perry as a whole on the play list to see what the Pandora algorythm would pop out. Fire work. Fire work is a major, Fire work is major key tonality. Also, all the other songs have a -- o piano vamp, to begin. Firework has . KORNACKI: Firework. And look at these numbers. You bet $100, you win 225. PESCA: Don`t bet 100, Steve, again, we`re talking mortgage, we are talking kids college, Firework. Also, it`s either going to start or end the show. We can either end with firework of start with firework. I think she needs to gain credibility with the football fans. I mean the outfit goes far, but she has to show we`re here to play, come out a little smash mouth, punch him in the face, play action, go for the bomb on first down. "Firework" is your pick. Book it. KORNACKI: "Firework". There it is. "Firework". He wants the under and take heads on the coin toss. There it is, folks. You buy a new house next week if you listen to Mike Pesca. I want to thank you for taking us through all of that. Thank you, Mike Pesca, for joining us this morning. Thank you for getting up with us this morning. We are going to be back here next weekend -- Saturday, Sunday, 8 a.m. Eastern time. I think we all know where I`m going to be tonight, where we all are going to be tonight. We are going to be watching the big game. It starts at 6:30. You can catch it on NBC. But first, stick around for Melissa Harris-Perry, she has got a big special Super Bowl themed show herself and that starts next. Have a great week. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020101cb.450 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 2 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 1, 2015 Sunday SHOW: MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 10:00 AM EST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY for February 1, 2015 BYLINE: Melissa Harris-Perry, Craig Melvin GUESTS: Chris Valletta, Dave Zirin, Wade Davis, Kavitha Davidson, Anthony Alessi, Brad Lamm, Jill Filipovic, Caitlin Y., Drexel Bradshaw SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 14055 words HIGHLIGHT: Today is Super Bowl Sunday: discussion of the game and the league. I`m saying that the issue of domestic violence is now a major hot button in the NFL, like it or not or whatever reason. And the NFL is in a power position to take lead on the benefits for social change with domestic violence. Because before this change, cheerleaders who have sued the team say they were paid just $125 per game for ten games, paid in a lump sum at the end of the season. They claim they were not paid for any of the myriad other duties of the job, including practicing, appearing at a required ten charity events a year and posing for the team`s swimsuit calendar. I presume there are some dads out there who appreciate being portrayed as hands-on loving parents and not just sex-craved consumers. Almost 75 percent of women say they are the primary shoppers for their households and we know that the Super Bowl audience is pretty equally divided between men and women. MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST: This morning my question is did you see how Lynch responded to questions this week? Plus, the cash cow that is the NFL and the ladies of the league, but first I have a confession to make. I love football. Hi, everyone. My name is Melissa. I`m a fan. So, everyone, I guess it all began when I watched my first football game. I mean, I was just a kid. I loved to sit with my daddy in his big chair as he cheered his team and ranted against the opposition. Listening to him while he watched football was like being exposed to a foreign language. I was dying to crack the code. Did someone hold? What is offsides? But the real addiction started in high school. You see, I was on the cheerleading squad and our team was great. As in our star running back, Walter Henderson, went top to play for the Green Bay Packers and win a Super Bowl. Great. And when you`re in a town like mine that loved football and your team is fantastic, it`s hard not to just go and give yourself totally to it and love everything about the game. And I do, I love it all, the satisfying crunch of a brutal tackle stopping an opponent in his tracks, the thrill of an unexpected interception, shifting the energy of a contest and the beauty of a perfect touchdown rush and the sheer abandon of these gladiators as they celebrate their victory in dance. I am addicted to football. And I know it`s an addiction, because I just can`t quit it, even though I know it`s bad for me. Even though I am fully aware that indulging in all of football`s highest highs comes along with the consequences of some very low lows. Like the one-third of those gladiators who devote their lives to the sport only to see their lives diminished and some cases cut short as a consequence of their devotion to the game. Last year "The New York Times" reported on the rates of brain damage among retired players are materially higher than those expected in the general population, and the players will develop these diagnoses at notably younger ages than the general population. I know this is happening even as I celebrate the collisions that start the ticking time bomb that could one day explode in those players` brains. But I keep coming back. I keep coming back for the violent, physical aggression that is so thrilling between players when it happens on the field. Even, as I know the NFL fumbled its response to violence when players have turned it against more vulnerable people off the field. I can`t shake that football monkey off my back, even though there is plenty of evidence that the product is not pure, because today, on the high holiday of football worshippers everywhere, the integrity of the sport has been tainted by the scandal of deflate-gate. When the Seattle Seahawks face off against the New England Patriots it will be in the shadow of an ongoing investigation into whether or not the Pats underinflated footballs to their advantage in the AFC championship game. And, no, not even that scandal will stop me from cheering on today`s exhibition of football at its best. The camaraderie, the courage and the leadership that we see exemplified on the field. And although I always very much am aware of how football falls short of those ideals every time the Washington team plays with its dehumanizing and offensive name and logo, I`ll still be there in front of the TV, ready for some football. Because on gameday, football just brings out my inner addict. It just calls to me. I`ve got no control over it, I`ve just got to go to it, even though I know that this addiction of mine ain`t cheap. This habit helps line the pockets of my main product pusher, the NFL, to the tune of almost $11 billion, making it the most profitable pro sports league in the United States. And some of those billions are coming directly from my and your wallets, thanks to taxpayer money that supports hometown teams and the hundreds of millions of tax breaks enjoyed by the league, the teams, sponsors and corporate fans. In fact, we are so sought in the thrall of this sports that on Super Bowl Sunday, the NFL can guarantee a captive audience to sell to the highest bidder. Year after year, the Super Bowl is television`s highest rated event. And today marketers counting on all of us to keep watching through the commercial breaks are shelling out a record $4.5 million for every 30 seconds of our attention because they know that when it comes to football, we just can`t turn away, which is why I`m ready to admit it, I have a problem. Joining me now, Dave Zirin, sports editor for "The Nation" magazine and author of "Brazil`s Dance with the Devil, The World Cup, The Olympics and the Fight for Democracy," Wade Davis, former NFL player and executive director of the "You Can Play Project." Kavitha Davidson who is a sports columnist for "Bloomberg View," and Chris Valetta, a former NFL player and author of "Team Works, The Gridiron Playbook For Building A Championship Business Team." Thanks to all of you for being here to share my addiction with me a little bit on this Super Bowl Sunday. I want to start with you, Chris, on this idea that football is a uniquely American sport. You know, soccer is played globally, basketball is played globally, but this crazy game is just ours. So I guess part of what I`m wondering is whether that`s part of our almost irrational attachment to it as a people. CHRIS VALLETTA, FORMER NFL PLAYER: It`s interesting. The first time I was in New Zealand and I told somebody I played American football, they said isn`t that the one that you`ve got to put pads on for? I thought that was pretty funny, knowing the popularity of the sport here. But it is an amazing spectacle in the United States. I am a former player. I`m proud that I played the game and proud to represent the game. I like to represent it for not just the sort of gladiator mindset on the field, which I believe has some benefits. But I also like to represent it for what it can take off the field and I think that is actually a tremendous bridge that can be created. And I do think that the NFL is in a power position to better build that bridge. I think it`s been tarnished. It`s been beat up, especially this year, but there are certainly some opportunities to take advantage of the PR sort of nightmare that we`re under. HARRIS-PERRY: I was looking back, kind of digging back into this obsession. Teddy Roosevelt is kind of thinking through manhood and American identity at the turn of the 20th Century. His own son playing for the team, this was 1905. There is Teddy Roosevelt`s team is injured, right, playing for his ivy league team, and in that same year, 1905, 19 deaths caused by intercollegiate football. But we didn`t stop. I mean, that`s 1905 including the president`s son. We were like, well, yes, but this is our sport. Is there -- should we be reforming it? Should we be fixing it or should we be trying to abandon it? KAVITHA DAVIDSON, SPORTS COLUMNIST, "BLOOMBERG VIEW": I think that we need to kind of come to the realization that there is no such thing as safe football. There can be such a thing as safer football. The fact of the matter is the organization, the NFL and the NCAA as well has not taken enough steps to make it safer and has actually taken steps to deflect from the ways that can make it safer. That said, you know, I think what Chris said is absolutely true, that there are redeeming qualities in having football. There are great effects of athletes coming off the field and everything. Those of us who criticize the game and criticize the way that the power has corrupted the game as much as it has just want to make it better, I think. HARRIS-PERRY: And it`s always interesting to me that your response in part to what you see as challenges in the game in the NFL around issues of bigotry or pushing back make you want to open up the game to more people, right. The you can play isn`t about let`s get rid of it, it`s about let`s expand it and make it possible to get the kind of benefits that Chris talks about of teamwork, of camaraderie, of individual sacrifice. So how do you square that circle? Here are the challenges that I clearly see in it, that you were part of it, and yet a desire to open it up to more folks. WADE DAVIS, FORMER NFL PLAYER: I would say America without the sport of football is like breakfast without bacon. HARRIS-PERRY: Well, what would be the point? DAVIS: Exactly. So why even keep living. But as Chris said, we`re both biased. The sport of football has brought me so much. I wouldn`t be here if it wasn`t for that. So I think we just have to focus on the positive and really also think about what some of the other benefits that the NFL can do. I think they could move from like this one-time types of giving to more of like a philanthropic type of model where it takes on the form of like the Ford Foundation and creates kind of an institutional model. Where they say, we have these issues of domestic violence, of addiction, of brain injuries, right, and really start to invest in doing some systematic changes that now we can say this sport isn`t just about greed but it`s actually about doing some work to reform our entire world. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Dave, I have to say I know what`s going to happen this evening. We`re all going to tune in. When we tune in to watch the game, we`ll also be watching on social media. For the first quarter or so, you will not so much be watching the game on social media, is that right? DAVE ZIRIN, SPORTS EDITOR, "THE NATION" MAGAZINE: For the first 20 minutes I`ll be live tweeting an episode of "The Facts of Life." It`s my act of civil disobedience as everybody tunes in to watch the Super Bowl. It`s also a way to kind of say as much as I am a fan of this game that if we lived in a sane world this sport would not exist. This is brain damage for profit, that`s what it is. Science is not this sport`s friend. The more we learn about it, the more we have to reckon with the fact that we cannot wave a magic wand and make it go away. If you prohibited football in this country, I mean, it would be like prohibition in the 20s times 100. Imagine that there would be speak-easies in Texas of 10-year-old children playing football. You have to know the secret knock to see them play each other. It would be nuts if you tried to ban football. HARRIS-PERRY: And also if it would be like breakfast without bacon, with all due respect to my vegetarian and vegan viewers, it might also be like less -- I mean, that some things that are not safe in life are also worth being part of. DAVIS: But it`s worth it for us to watch as opposed to play. I was watching the game the other day. Every Sunday I practice what Homer Simpson calls the practice of ass horizonology on my couch. She said would you let Jacob play this? I said, no, Jacob is not playing it. She said how can you watch it? I said you need to leave. HARRIS-PERRY: I want to pause. Up next, how a billion here and a billion there start to add up for quite the haul for Roger Goodell`s NFL? And still ahead, how Nicki Minaj likes to pregame for the big game with our guy, Craig Melvin, when we come back. HARRIS-PERRY: On Friday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell went before the press to deliver comments and take questions in his annual State Of The League news conference. About 7 minutes into his opening statement, he dropped this shoutout to one of the NFL`S media partners. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROGER GOODELL, NFL COMMISSIONER: Finally, on steps to grow the game and serve the fans, we are excited about the success of Thursday night football and the extension of our agreement with CBS. We have the best partners in media, and together we will continue to develop new platforms, expand fan interaction and deepen fan engagement. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Now, according to a report in "GQ" magazine during Goodell`s time as commissioner, he has been able to boost total league revenues about 65 percent, and he`s told his team owners that he wants to see those revenues jump to $25 billion over the next 12 years. The reason he`s able to be so confident in those estimates is due in large part to that fan engagement and those media partners he mentioned. You see, unlike the latest episode of your favorite show, NFL games are often considered DVR-proof. Because while you may be able to wait a day or two to find out just how Olivia Pope manages her scandal of the week, we generally want to know whether our favorite team won or lost in realtime, which means NFL games are the one televised event where we likely won`t be fast forwarding through the commercials. And that makes the games very valuable for the networks that host them. So much so that they`re willing to pay the NFL these premium prices each year for the privilege, $950 million from NBC, $1 billion from CBS, $1.1 billion from Fox, $1.9 billion from ESPN and a $1.5 billion deal with DirecTV, which all adds up to more than $6 billion each year for Roger Goodell`s NFL. So I know I have a football addiction, but I`m just saying my employer may be jonesing particularly hard. Is there anything troubling about -- I mean, is this just good ole free enterprise? People want to watch it. We want to broadcast it. Everybody is making money, here we go, or is there something that should make us go, oh, I feel a little icky about those billions. ZIRIN: I think there`s nothing wrong with feeling icky about these billions rolling in. Part of the "GQ" story was the description of Bob Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, saying, wait a minute, we`ve got a problem with domestic violence. And calls up the head of CBS and get us in front of us, get us a woman to interview Roger Goodell. So the idea that it`s all stage managed because professional football is now the tent pole of broadcast television. And him bragging about Thursday night football when that`s the number one complaint of the players association and the players shows how little Roger Goodell has learned because of the extra injuries, because of the lack of preparation. So he says he`s listening and that to me is proof positive Roger Goodell hasn`t lenders a thing. When I saw his press conference, all I could think of was talk about deflated balls. HARRIS-PERRY: Dave Zirin for the win. Let`s back out of whether the NFL is a good partner to communities. If in fact players are saying, Thursday night problem is a problem for us. We need our week-to-week. We need those full seven days because of the kind of physical game this is. Is there an argument to be made that that`s actually bad labor practice even if it brings big money and an additional partner? DAVIDSON: The NFL is the worst of the four professional sports leagues when it comes to its labor practices. Back a few months ago, Richard Sherman did a mock press conference where he kind of made fun of the impetus for players to give media statements in the Marshawn Lynch context, for example. And one of the major things that he mentioned was, you know, you want us to talk to the media, but you don`t want us to voice our displeasure with Thursday night football games. You want to talk about player safety, but you don`t want to talk about, you know, the damage that this is doing to our bodies to have these extra games. VALLETTA: I would say that as a player, you may agree or disagree, but in games, in weeks that have shorter weeks because of Thursday night football or what have you, the practices have changed dramatically in the NFL since -- within the last five years. HARRIS-PERRY: They`re taking off the pads. VALLETTA: Pads are off, you`re wearing shells. It`s not nearly as physical as it once was. Two-a-days or three-a-days that used to happen back in the day. Those are almost gone for the most part. So I would say that practices are adjusted to the type of schedule. HARRIS-PERRY: Let me ask real quick on the two-a-days and three-a-days, is that gone just at the professional level? Because I swear I see the kids are still out there in the high school level like particularly doing the two-a-days. VALLETTA: Even at the high school level coaches, athletic trainers, and municipalities frankly are becoming much smarter about the game, the safety implicating of being out in the heat. Kids are out in shorts and t-shirts for the first couple of days to get acclimated to the weather and then graduate to shoulder pads and graduate a little further. So monumental steps have been taken in terms of player safety during practice, but I would say that, look, this is a -- the league has every right to make money, we can`t argue that and it`s clearly in high demand. There`s certainly no argument about that. I would say that there`s separating the issue of the NFL and its ability to be a gigantic business and also the issues of the day facing the NFL. Domestic violence, murder with Aaron Hernandez and you`ve got child abuse. Emotionally charged, aggressive, intense subjects that are certainly addressing major issues within the NFL, but these are also major national issues, not just NFL issues. HARRIS-PERRY: All right, stick with us, our guests are all hanging out with us throughout the day today, but up next, fans and celebrities are all flocking to Glendale. We`re going to take you there for a live report and a glimpse of the party scene, Super Bowl Sunday in nerdland. HARRIS-PERRY: Kickoff is still more than eight hours away, but the party started days ago. Fans have been ramping up to game time with pregame filled by selects and pregame performances. Some people are in Phoenix only for the parties. Joining me now from Glendale, a man who has attended some of these pre- parties, NBC`S Craig Melvin. Craig, what`s going on there? It looks kind of foggy. CRAIG MELVIN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: You know what, Melissa, let`s start there. You`re right, it is very foggy. This was not in the forecast. This is a fog that is so thick it`s actually stopped air travel into Sky Harbor International Airport. That`s the big airport in Phoenix, ground stoppage right now. We expect that to be lifted at some point soon and we also expect this to burn off as well. The forecast for game time this evening is supposed to be just fine, mid-60s, the sun is supposed to be out. In fact the dome here, they`re going to have the roof back so it should be quite nice once the Seahawks and Pats take the field at 6:30 Eastern, 4:30 here. You mentioned the parties. There have been a lot of them, Melissa Harris-Perry, a whole heck of a lot of parties. And here`s the thing, you know, we have to get up for these live shots on the east coast, but obviously the parties are in local time. So every night we`ve been getting like two or three hours of sleep and I`m not a young man anymore so it`s going to take me about a week to recover. HARRIS-PERRY: You should be totally used to two or three hours sleep at this point, right? This is not such a big deal. A year of that at this point almost. MELVIN: He started sleeping through the night and it threw me off. Six months ago would have been fine. HARRIS-PERRY: So let me ask you about Nicki Minaj because I loved seeing the two of you together. She posted a picture on social media with the two of you together saying that you are dope, which I concur about. MELVIN: Really? That`s nice. HARRIS-PERRY: So tell me, what`s your party experience been so far? MELVIN: So Nicki Minaj is performing at the Budlight party Friday night. Budlight had this big party at the house of whatever because folks had to demonstrate they were up for whatever so you have a thousand folks that show up for this concert not knowing who was going to perform. It was Nicki Minaj. So we sat down before the concert and she could not have been more gracious. She is one of the biggest names in rap right now in America. She`s about to kick off a big tour. And I asked her whether for her the Super Bowl was about the game or whether the Super Bowl was about the parties. Here`s what she said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MELVIN: The Super Bowl weekend itself, is it about the game, is it about the parties? NICKI MINAJ: For me it`s about the parties, of course, duh. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELVIN: At least she was honest, at least she was honest. HARRIS-PERRY: I have a question for you. If you had to pick, which is the best, watching the game at home alone so people aren`t talking over it, attending a Super Bowl party at a friend`s house or actually attending the Super Bowl? MELVIN: I know this is going to sound odd, but I -- like at a friend`s house watching the game with people who want to watch the game. There`s nothing worse than going to a Super Bowl with folks who don`t want to watch the game and just want to eat and talk. This is the second one we`ve been to. It`s a fantastic experience, love being inside. But you don`t get to see the commercials, you can`t drink as much as you want, you can`t eat as much as you want, you`re a bit restricted, Melissa Harris-Perry. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So just in case our bosses are listening, Craig doesn`t want to go to the Super Bowl next year. MELVIN: That is not what I said. HARRIS-PERRY: I`ll go, I`ll go. All right, NBC`s Craig Melvin in Glendale, Arizona. Thanks for showing up and hanging out with us a bit. MELVIN: Good to see you, my friend. HARRIS-PERRY: While temperatures at the stadium in Glendale will be in the mild and even enviable 60s tonight, winter storm line us is headed to the northeast with widespread snow and freezing rain. The storm is moving away from the Great Lakes, but they`re not out of the woods just yet. A snowstorm has been upgraded to blizzard status by the National Weather Service. Some parts of the area could see 17 inches of snow. Joining me now is NBC News correspondent, Kevin Tibbles in Chicago. Kevin, are the winds really picking up there? KEVIN TIBBLES, NBC NEWS: The winds are blowing the snow sideways. I just want to point out that we really loved listening to Craig Melvin coming to us from sunny, Glendale, Arizona, as we were waiting to come and deliver this remarkable shot from the shores of Lake Michigan, which looks this morning like a giant super gulp slushy at this time. Temperatures are just below freezing. They`re going to plummet as soon as the snow stops blowing sideways. I have no idea how many flights have been cancelled at O`Hare Airport, but I can tell you that there`s probably more than a handful. And the city of Chicago has more than 350 snow plows on the streets today trying to keep the roads open, but my advice would be just curl up on the couch, start the fire and wait for the game to start. Don`t go outside, take it from me. HARRIS-PERRY: Kevin, I just made a plea to get to the Super Bowl next year, but I`m pretty sure you`re the one that deserves it. That weather looks rough. TIBBLES: Just save me a chicken wing out there, Craig Melvin. HARRIS-PERRY: Kevin Tibbles in Chicago, please do try to stay warm. Coming up, head injuries within the league and among our smallest little pigskin players. But first, my letter of the week with a twist that I`m telling you, you are not going to want to miss. HARRIS-PERRY: So this is the moment of the program each week when I send a letter to someone whose actions or words have made me just have to respond. But today a first, I am yielding the floor to nerdland favorite, Dave Zirin. This week it is Dave who really has something to say and a letter to send -- Dave. ZIRIN: Don`t you hate it when a self-righteous pundit gets in front of a camera and says to someone in power, sir or madam, if you have any decency, you would resign. Allow me to join their ranks. The person in power I`m addressing, the person I`m asking to break out the want ads and find new work is NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Dear Mr. Goodell, it`s me, Dave. After the scandal-plagued year that the league just suffered through when everyone from Bob Costas to the folks in Vegas assumed you`d be fired, it would be better for all of us if you just resigned. No amount of spin, no number of media people rushing to your defense, no series of public service announcements featuring NFL players saying "no more" can hide a simple fact, 55 times since you became commissioner in 2006, a player in your league was arrested for domestic violence and 55 times you did next to nothing. If not for a certain leaked videotape, Baltimore Ravens runningback, Ray Rice would have been the 56th time you sat on your hands. When you wipe away the lawyer speak about whether you saw the tape, or didn`t see the tape, or didn`t see the tape, the fact remains that you are now connected to dozens of cases where a woman or child was beaten by one of your employers. Not only have I seen you do next to nothing to curb this problem, you have chosen to say next to nothing about the probable links between head injuries, the violence on the field, and the violence that can visit the families of NFL players. Yes, the overwhelming number of players does not take part in violence against women and, yes, domestic violence exists in many families where head injuries are not an issue, but the connection is still real and the league has done nothing, zero that I can find, to educate NFL families on looking for the warning signs. Yet you continue to praise your league and really yourself for making domestic violence, quote, "part of the national conversation," end quote. This is outrageous, kind of like praising Goldman Sachs for making corporate greed part of the national conversation. That`s why that`s Miko Grimes, the wife of Dolphins cornerback, Brent Grimes, basically broke Twitter last week with a too profane for TV rant against your league. I`m going to read some of her tweets anyway. Ms. Grimes said, "The NFL is the bleepiest, shadiest, disrespectful, professional sport in the world and as long as I breathe air, I will talk bleep about them. You have these campaigns going on about domestic violence and sexual assault when we all know that you don`t GAF about women. I have friends that were beaten, thrown downstairs while pregnant, guys arrested and the NFL suspended them one bleeping game? Now y`all care? Ray Rice clocked his now wife on camera, then all of a sudden no more? Get the bleep out of here, NFL. I`m not being quiet about this bull bleep no more. Miko Grimes is right and clear. No one should be quiet about this. If nothing else this last year, we have all learned that the continued profitability of the league means that NFL owners will protect and defend you no matter the moral cost. Be better than your employers, Mr. Goodell, show the country that despite all popular opinion to the contrary, there is still such a thing as shame in this world. Say that the league needs to get serious in how it discusses domestic violence and head injuries. That the league needs to work in partnership with the players association to figure out a new approach rooted in educating current players and caring for those who have retired. Make clear that your resignation is a precondition for making this partnership a reality. And most of all, be honest in your resignation speech that when it comes to issues of violence against women and head injuries, you have been profoundly ignorant. Be honest that you`re now damning quote when punishing the New Orleans Saints that ignorance is no excuse should apply to you as well and then go out and find a new job. I would recommend seeking work at the Walter Reed Hospital ward that deals with traumatic brain injuries. If the tragedy of your tenure as commissioner has been ignorance, I garrendamntee that will clear it up mighty quick. Sincerely, Dave Zirin. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOODELL: We reported yesterday that concussions were down 25 percent this past regular season continuing a three-year trend. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: That was NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell during his annual State Of The League address on Friday. But it`s worth digging into the statistics on concussions a little more. The commissioner noted that concussions were down 25 percent during this past regular season, but toss in practices and preseason games and the decline is a bit less dramatic, 12 percent. And while any decline in this statistic is welcome news, the NFL still reported 202 concussions. No matter what happens with head injuries in the future, we must also contend with the past. More than 4500 former players have sued the league, some claiming the NFL actively hid the dangers of head injuries. Now, even the NFL admits that it expects one in three retired players to develop long-term cognitive problems. And just this week, researchers at Boston University found that retirees who started playing tackle football before the age of 12 had an increased risk of memory trouble and related problems. Clearly none of this is good news for football players or the league itself. But the implications may reach even further, to the next generation of players. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 37 percent of Americans say they would steer their kids away from playing football because they are worried about concussions. We love football and we love our kids. Does all this mean that those two loves are in conflict? Joining our table, Dr. Anthony Alessi, who is a sports neurologist and a medical director at the University Of Connecticut Neurosport. I want to start with you, doctor. This new report about 12-year-olds will undoubtedly lead at least some people to look at the small ending study and say, all we need to do is keep the peewees from playing and if they start middle school, high school, it will be OK. Is that the right conclusion to draw? DR. ANTHONY ALESSI, SPORTS NEUROLOGIST: Melissa, you have to understand that throughout time mothers were always kind of against their children playing football, really. Let`s face it, but fathers have always won the argument until now. With this discussion about concussions coming up, mothers are starting to win and more and more kids are getting lacrosse sticks and they`re playing more soccer. HARRIS-PERRY: Is lacrosse safer for their heads? ALESSI: It`s not as much immediate contact. When you think of linemen, you know you`re going to get hit on every play, so there`s a big difference in the frequency of concussions. So you`re seeing fewer people. As a matter of fact, Pop Warner said this year they have lost 25 percent of their participants. So we`ve now empowered mothers and their argument and fathers are starting to lose the argument. HARRIS-PERRY: So if this is -- it`s an interesting case. My husband and I were chatting a little bit about it this morning as we were prepping for the show. Now, we have two daughters, but I asked so, you know, if we were talking about our nephew or if we had a son, would we want him to play. Look, the reality is, again, I know so many guys who were some of my favorite people in middle school and high school in part because they were kids, who played on the team and because they played on the team, for example, they didn`t get into drinking in high school. They were like, you know, special collective sweet, nice kids but I don`t know, would I want my kid to play? How do I balance that? DAVIS: You know, Melissa, I think what Vince Wilfork said is like the shirt. It`s kind of all in the game, Yo. You know, to be honest that it`s just a part of the game. And we both know that it`s a risk that you take, but you fall in love with the game. I really think that once you start playing the game of football, there`s something psychological that really happens. The NFL will always have a market for this -- for players because of poverty that your marks are right there. That there are people who truly believe that if my son plays a sport that they can take me out of poverty. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So that -- I have to say that`s kind of when I popped up when you said moms don`t want their kids to play football because I thought actually in many of the communities that I`m from, where I`ve worked in, actually moms do in part because there is a perception that there may be opportunities at least to get to college. Maybe not to the pros, but as a track man so I`m wondering does this mean that wealthy kids opt out to lacrosse sticks and poor kids end up with head injuries? ZIRIN: What do Russell Wilson and Tom Brady have in common? They both come from middle class families and stable homes. I think that will be the pipeline that we see sever in the years to come. HARRIS-PERRY: But Brady`s dad kept him out until he was 14. ALESSI: As did Archie Manning. Archie manning did the same thing. So I understand that youth football is not necessarily a ticket to the NFL. HARRIS-PERRY: Sure. ALESSI: As a matter of fact, many players didn`t play youth football. So there has to be another reason to play youth football. That`s why I`m not against abolishing youth football, but we need to work with information and that`s our problem. ZIRIN: And science is not the league`s friend. The more science we learn, the more dangerous the league looks. ALESSI: It depends on how you define science because a lot of the stuff out there is not true science. Let`s face it, when you think of it, most of the research we`ve done has been at the NFL and NCAA level. Nobody has really looked at high school athletes. Certainly no one has looked at youth athletes. The brain is different at that level and yet when you look at the pyramid, there are 3 million youth football players at grade school. REID: We`re not doing research on those kids at that time. ALESSI: Absolutely not. So we don`t have enough information. So it`s hard for a mother and a father to make any decision without information, and we don`t have it yet. VALLETTA: I`ve got a 2-year-old little boy. I wish I had a dollar for everyone that asks me are you going to let your son play football or not. My answer is emphatically that it will be his decision, but the life lessons learned in that game far outweigh the risks. HARRIS-PERRY: Let`s talk about saying it`s going to be his decision. There are all kinds of things we don`t let kids make decisions about because we don`t think they can adequately address that sort of now cost versus the long term. Heck, there are states where a teenage girl can`t even get an abortion without her parents` consent. VALLETTA: But the landscape is different today. Think about the landscape of youth sports today even when I was a kid. You have today -- when I was a kid we played every sport there was to play. Baseball, soccer, basketball, we played football, we played everything, right? It was go do it all. Now you have a single sport culture amongst 8-year- olds. So you`ve got kids that are playing baseball 12 months out of the year. HARRIS-PERRY: Because they`re trying to specialize. VALLETTA: That`s the professionalization of youth sports. They want their kids on that track in a way that I think can be very destructive for many families. Not all the life lessons from football are good. It actually depends on how the family processes those lessons and talks to their kids. It can be very ugly. ALESSI: People can me this all the time, should I let my child play youth football. As you said, Melissa, you need to meet a parent. If the coach is a knucklehead, get them out of there. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Dr. Anthony Alessi for your comments and also the rest of my panel for sticking around. Coming up, who wants in. Bets on everything from the hair toss to Katy Perry`s hair color during the halftime show. Just how much money is going into gambling this weekend that`s up next so much on Super Bowl Sunday in nerdland. HARRIS-PERRY: For millions of Americans, wagering on the Super Bowl is a big part of the big game. More people bet on the Super Bowl than any event in American sports, putting money on the line from everything from the point spread to who will win the coin toss. This year fans can even bet on what color Katy Perry`s hair will be during her halftime performance. The American Gaming Association estimates that fans will spend $3.8 billion on a variety of Super Bowl bets and that doesn`t include all those office pools and pretty much all of it is illegal. In fact according to the American Gaming Association, the illegal market for gambling is 38 times greater than the legal one. Still, most people don`t consider that during big sporting events like the Super Bowl, gambling is widely considered socially acceptable. Many of the people who partake from loyal fans to local officials are in it for fun, bragging rights, maybe a few extra bucks. But for the millions of Americans who suffer from gambling addiction, Super Bowl Sunday can be a potential minefield. Joining me now from Los Angeles is intervention specialist, Brad Lamm who`s also the founder of Breath Life Healing Centers, which focuses on addiction treatment. Talk to me a little bit about how tough a day like this is for people who may be problem gamblers, considering how many people will be placing bets. BRAD LAMM, FOUNDER, BREATHE LIFE HEALING CENTERS: Well, it`s all about the thrill of the win, whether or not it`s a $5 bet at the grocery store or hair salon, Melissa, or if you`re betting the house on it. Estimates are there are 5 percent to 10 percent of people who will go big on a day like this on Super Bowl Sunday will have a real problem with gambling. So for clinicians it`s all about that rush, it`s that dopamine experience that people get when they take money and hope for a big win. HARRIS-PERRY: So talk to me a little bit about why it`s a problem. So why it`s a problem for people that have a problem. I understand that just like you have alcoholism, but Dave was saying when you go to a prohibition, sometimes you create more problems. So I guess I`m wondering why is gambling on the Super Bowl illegal? LAMM: Look, we know prohibition doesn`t work, but it`s a problem when, going back to your idea of alcohol, your spouse goes to work on Thursday, comes home on Friday. The paycheck is gone and it`s past midnight and all the money is gone. So a family knows immediately if there`s a financial problem as a result of an alcohol or drug alcohol. The same creeps in with gambling for sure. One of the troubles with gamblers, though, who are gambling addicts is they show up at the point where they really need help and they have blown all their money. So sometimes the ability to get somebody treatment is just based on the financial considerations of the family. I can`t tell you how many times I`ve had that call of, we`ve spent all the money, can you help? Have you ever known anybody that`s lost big and really gotten into financial problems because of this thing that the rest of us consider no big deal like gambling is not my thing. Give me a drink or drug and I have problems with it, but gambling is not my thing. HARRIS-PERRY: I had a beloved close family member, who had a gambling problem. I guess part of what I`m wondering, though, is as a public policy, right, we recognize we`re in this kind of social culture milieu, a lot of people will be betting on everything from what`s going to happen on the next play. So is there a responsible way to recognize, folks are going to have a couple beers, but some folks near them may be alcoholics. Folks are going to be making some bets, but there may be folks near them who have a gambling addiction. What is the socially responsible way to engage here? LAMM: Well, I`d love to say that we can trust the government to end prohibition, tax it, and then spend the money in responsible ways so that people get treatment who have trouble with it, but we`ve seen pot legalization has rolled out and the government, the state is not spending money responsibly as they promised to help people who struggle with it. I`m not for prohibition. I think that the prohibition creates even higher stakes for the person who`s struggling with gambling addiction. But boy, we sure have trouble when the government tries to spend money responsibly to help people who are dying from it. Melissa, I have to tell you, you look super cute. They just turned my feed on here and I just saw your uniform. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you. LAMM: I am tickled by it. HARRIS-PERRY: It`s not every day that I can do my show, you know, in nerdland like basically in pads. Thanks so much for joining us today. I really do appreciate this point especially your point here about the public policy. I know John McCain has actually been calling for exactly the thing you`re talking about, liberalizing the laws, taxing it, potentially spending it, but it does continue to raise additional issues for all of us. Brad Lamm is out in Los Angeles, who finds my outfit adorable. And here in New York, I want to say thank you to Wade Davis, who is heading off at this point but is going to -- is going to be working with me on another big project I can`t wait to tell you about soon. Also Dave, Kavitha and Chris are all coming back in our next hour. Once you go football, you can`t go back. Coming up next, the league and its 50 million women fans including one woman who cannot, who will not forget. There`s more nerdland at the top of the hour. HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry and it is Super Bowl Sunday. More than one million people are expected to watch the game tonight right there in the stadium in Phoenix, Arizona. There will be as part of this game including more than 50 million women who will be watching. The NFL has realized in recent years how important its female fans are to the game and to their bottom line. And they started actively marketing to women who want more than tiny pink t-shirts with their team logo. But it wasn`t so long ago that articles like this could be found in your mainstream men`s magazines. "Make her a football fan, our four- point plan to get her into the game and put an end to those inane questions once and for all." My favorite part is how to explain the huddle, such as esoteric football phenomenon that can only be explained in words that women can understand. Quote, "Huddle, explain that this is identical to female group trips to the restroom. Once there, women decide on the play for that evening, whether it`s calling dibs on the guys they find attractive or concocting a plan to ditch their dates." Whew. Okay. For real, locally things are getting a little bit better in that regard. That "Men`s Fitness" article is from a few years ago and a few months ago when "Men`s Health" tried to do a similar thing, the twitter backlash was swift and severe. And wouldn`t you know, the original article is now nowhere to be found. People have gotten wise to the fact that women are fans themselves. Not the football widows or dim-witted girl friends or whatever their stereotypes are out there. Women make up about one-third of the NFL millions of viewers during the regular season and the playoffs and nearly half of those watching the Super Bowl. Spending on NFL women`s apparel increased more than 75 percent from 2010 to 2013, partly because the league got wise and started offering a more diverse set of options for their women fans. In fact, the NFL owes women viewers a lot. The league`s overall viewership has increased only because a record number of women are watching. Men are actually fallen off. If the NFL has a future, it`s probably wearing a pink jersey. And yet this year, when you think of the relationship between the NFL and women, it is one woman who comes to mind. Janay Rice whose NFL`s mangled management of the caught on video incident of violence perpetrated by Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice against his then fiancee now wife Janay that is the definitive NFL women`s moment of the season. The league initially suspended Rice for only two games after video surfaced of Rice dragging his fiancee`s unconscious form out of a hotel elevator. The punishment was less than other players received for using illegal drugs. It was only after the public saw the full video of the incident, including the sickening image of Janay hitting the elevator floor after being struck by Ray Rice that the league was pressured to suspend him indefinitely. And when they finally did take more definitive action, will they ran afoul of what most folks see of fair labor practices. The league couldn`t punish Rice for the same transgression twice and a judge didn`t buy the NFL`s claim that Rice had somehow misled Commissioner Roger Goodell about what had happened in that elevator. That Goodell could have possibly thought it was anything but Rice lashing out in a moment of brutality. Rice was reinstated to the NFL in December. He`s now a free agent and can be signed. It was a hard year for Janay Rice. The violence she suffered compounded by the intense media scrutiny of her and her family and the potential loss of her now husband`s livelihood. It was a hard year for all women who love football to see gender-based violence so poorly addressed by the league they generally love and gender-based violence was just one issue that plagued the league this past year to prompt a question to Commissioner Roger Goodell about how tough the year had been on him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROGER GOODELL, COMMISSIONER, NFL: It has been a tough year. It`s been a tough year on me personally. It`s been a year of what I would say humility and learning. We obviously as an organization have gone through adversity, but more importantly it`s been adversity for me. And that is something where we take that seriously. It`s an opportunity for us to get better. It`s an opportunity for us -- for our organization to get better. So we`ve all done a lot of soul searching, starting with yours truly. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: I just can`t. Joining the table now, Dave Zirin, sports editor with "The Nation" magazine, Jill Filipovic, senior political writer for Cosmopolitan.com. Kavitha Davidson, sports columnist of Bloomberg View and former NFL player and author Chris Valletta. Jill, it was a hard year for the commish. He`s been soul searching. JILL FILIPOVIC, SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER, COSMOPOLITAN.COM: He`s been feeling really bad for himself. HARRIS-PERRY: Just -- really? FILIPOVIC: Yes. It`s pretty offensive for him to really center that entire conversation on himself. You know, I think the NFL has a real opportunity here or maybe had a real opportunity to make a difference in the conversation about domestic violence, I mean, something that one in four women is going to experience in her life. And it would have been nice for them to really look back and do a real reckoning on how they went wrong to realize they will not the first or they will not be the last institution to screw this up. And to make some sort of, you know, public effort to show how they`re actually really going to change going forward and I don`t think we saw that here. HARRIS-PERRY: You know, and yet it is worth noting that despite sounding just strikingly like the guy from BP -- actually I want to play him for just a moment. Because remember BP, where people died on the platform and then, I don`t know, you know, the oceans were polluted and people were living with -- remember this moment? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TONY HAYWARD, FORMER BP OIL CEO: The massive disruption it`s caused to their lives. There`s no one who wants this thing over more than I do. I`d like my life back. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So he wants his life back and the commissioner has had a hard year. And so I`m sort of disgusted. But you know what I`m going to do this evening? I`m going to watch the Super Bowl. DAVIDSON: I`m going to watch the Super Bowl. I think all you really need to know about the NFL`s capacity for reform and Goodell`s impetus from reform you can get from that one press conference. He leads off in a year where we`ve dealt with domestic violence and sexual assault and concussions and pain killers, he leads off talking about the extra point, you know, because that`s what really matters. He never once to actually explicitly said domestic violence in that entire press conference. She kept referring to it in vagaries like these issues and I think it`s really hard to see that they`re actually taking this seriously. They`re going to run this very powerful domestic violence ad today during the Super Bowl. And while it`s nice to see that they`re giving public attention to it, it also just kind of looks like the NFL is just throwing money at the situation. HARRIS-PERRY: I want to pause and listen, just because -- in case folks haven`t heard I want to listen to the PSA that you`re talking about. Let`s take a look at it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Half pepperoni and half mushroom. 911 OPERATOR: You know that you called 911. This is an emergency line. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Do you know how long it will be? 911 OPERATOR: Hey, ma`am, is everything okay over there? Do you have an emergency or not? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes. 911 OPERATOR: And you`re unable to talk because -- UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Right, right. 911 OPERATOR: Is there someone in the room with you? Just say yes or no. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes. 911 OPERATOR: Can you stay on the phone with me? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: No, thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. VALLETTA: So I was part of the former player committee that met with Commissioner Goodell in order to advise him on restructuring the personal conduct policy. When he walked in the room, I had never met him before in person. We were not paid for this. It was literally he brought people together to say what can we do. And when he sat down at the table, I will say he addressed the room in a manner that acknowledged the fact that there`s been a major screw-up that has occurred and he put it on himself. But he did also put it on himself to surround himself with people and a group that could offer major revisions to the policies. He recognized that it was a failure. And do it in a way that is going to make the most long- term generational impact possible. When we realize that 83 -- there was an 83 percent increase in call volume to the national coalition for domestic violence hotline after the Ray Rice video was released, we can acknowledge the fact that the NFL and this issue with Ray Rice has put the issue of domestic violence front and center. ZIRIN: No, no, no. TMZ put the issue of domestic violence front and center. VALLETTA: Understood. They released it. But here`s what I`m saying. I`m saying that the issue of domestic violence is now a major hot button in the NFL, like it or not or whatever reason. And the NFL is in a power position to take lead on the benefits for social change with domestic violence. ZIRIN: Well, I agree with that entirely but it`s not Roger Goodell. He`s not going to be the person to do it. He`s not going to lead people out of the wilderness that he brought people into. What I was noticing during his press conference was Frank Luntz lurking in the background, the republican spinmeister who told us all that global warming we just call it, sunshine time. And he used the word integrity 21 times. I mean, it was incredibly robotic. And the one time he broke from script, what was it to do? Was to throw nasty shade at CNN`s Rachel Nichols, the woman in the audience, an amazing reporter, who asked him about the conflict of interest in these cases. And that`s when the mask slipped a little bit. He`s up there talking about integrity. He`s up there talking about all that he has learned but when you get to the end of the day, it`s about is the register moving and everything is a reactive pr race. HARRIS-PERRY: So, let me ask exactly that. Given that, I mean, so we reported earlier in the show about how many billions have come in. That if you`re a business and you`re looking at the bottom line, yes, there`s been a lot of scandal, there`s been a lot of problems, but at the bottom-line, this guy is doing the job you brought him to do. He`s made it more profitable and more money coming into the NFL. So when he`s asked, do you think you should resign? He`s like no. DAVIDSON: And that`s really what it comes down to. I think we need to remember going back to the Ray Rice thing with all of the public outrage, it was when sponsors started to talking, to speak out about this that the league actually felt the need to address this in some somewhat meaningful way. You know, I think that that`s really important when you talk about female fans and female dollars. HARRIS-PERRY: And so it`s TMZ and sponsors as opposed to women fans or the NFL actually doing it. ZIRIN: Right. He`s a 19th century commissioner in a 21st Century world. He does not realize that we are now an open media and that people are going to be talking about these things and circulating videotapes and you can`t do this authoritarian spinmeister Frank Luntz approach to running a business. DAVIDSON: And maybe reactive I think is the point as well. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So I`m wondering if I go back to Wade Davis saying, we have to change the model of how we respond to these questions, you know, I keep thinking about the October pink wash that happens in the NFL and the kind of breast cancer narrative and we care about women and whether or not that starts ringing hollow to women fans in the context now of what we see. FILIPOVIC: Yes, I mean, I think that there`s obviously something to be said for awareness raising campaigns but they have inherent limitations and I feel like the domestic violence ad, you know, kind of in response to the Ray Rice thing. It`s nice to raise awareness. Awareness is a very important first step but we`re aware of domestic violence, we know it happens. So what is the NFL going to do next? Where are they investing resources? What are they doing about all the other sexist ads that do create this kind of culture of misogyny around professional sports? How are they paying their cheerleaders? HARRIS-PERRY: I`m going to stop you right there because we have an answer to the question that you just put, how are they paying their cheerleaders. In fact, we are going to talk about that when we come back. The cheerleaders, they share the field performing alongside the pro football players and yet, according to a lawsuit, some are paid less than minimum wage. Also still to come, why prod pa-to-be, Richard Sherman, is not the only dad getting all the attention today. HARRIS-PERRY: For anyone who`s never been to an NFL game live, for those of you who only watch it on TV, know this, all that time during the time- outs, the commercial breaks, the debates over a call on the field, there isn`t much to watch on the field. But just off to the side is one of the most fun and entertaining parts of it all, the cheerleaders. The NFL cheerleaders make the atmosphere what it is. They rev up the crowd, they look pretty on camera, and actually they work pretty damn hard. And yet many cheerleaders who are paid by their respective teams, not the league, say they are paid close to nothing. The Oakland raiders quietly started paying their cheerleaders minimum wage this season for the first time ever. That`s $9 an hour. Minimum wage in California. And that`s a raise. A 156 percent raise. Because before this change, cheerleaders who have sued the team say they were paid just $125 per game for ten games, paid in a lump sum at the end of the season. That`s it. They claim they were not paid for any of the myriad other duties of the job, including practicing, appearing at a required ten charity events a year and posing for the team`s swimsuit calendar. The cheerleaders say they were in effect paid less than $5 an hour. And in September, the raiders agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought by its cheerleaders and will dole out about $1.25 million in back pay. But some of the raiderettes rejected that settlement and are pursuing their own lawsuits. One of them joins us today, Caitlin Y., Oakland raiderette end a plaintiff against the team, and her Attorney Drexel Bradshaw. So nice to have you both. DREXEL BRADSHAW, ATTORNEY: Thanks for having us. HARRIS-PERRY: Caitlin, you are not only suing the Raiders but you`re actually suing the NFL itself. Can you help to understand what it is you`re hoping to accomplish with that? CAITLIN Y., OAKLAND RAIDERETTE: Yes. That`s correct. So, my lawsuit includes the entire NFL because there`s cheerleaders on close to 32 teams and we all need to be paid according to the law and treated with respect. And I want to make sure that I`m not just helping my own teammates but I`m hoping all girls across the NFL. HARRIS-PERRY: So, let me just pause for a moment. I have much more to talk about with you but I do want, since you are in fact suing the NFL itself, let me just show you this statement by the NFL. I`ll read it here so that we can see it. The clubs determine if they want to have cheerleaders and their role. The league has no role in their selection, duties, hours or wages. So the NFL is saying, this is a team matter, this isn`t our issue. CAITLIN Y.: Right. They are. But it is. I mean I believe in their constitution they say something of that nature. BRADSHAW: The question whether the NFL is a joint employer with the teams is a legal question and I think the evidence pointing most directly to that is on the face of the NFL constitution where it directs what cheerleaders can and can`t do off the field. We haven`t even begun to begin the process of learning all of the internal memorandum between the NFL and its member teams, about how they direct in fact much more the cheerleader conduct that what happens on and off the field. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. I think that`s fascinating. Let me ask you a little bit about that, Caitlin. So, what is it that you are being told as a raiderette about what you can do, can`t do. This idea that it`s not just when you`re in your uniform. Help us to understand that. CAITLIN Y.: So being a cheerleader you have to keep up your appearance, you have to stay in shape, you have to keep up your dance skills. We are role models in our community so there`s a lot that they expect of us. HARRIS-PERRY: Hold on for me just one second. Jill, I want to come out to you because this has actually hit the California State legislature at this point. A California state lawmaker seeking to grant some basic labor protection saying, look, these are people who are working. Talk to me. Why don`t we see cheerleaders as -- look, I was a high school cheerleader, I take this very personally. Why don`t we see them as workers, as laborers, as people who are part of the game? FILIPOVIC: I think we actually see them as kind of accoutrements to the players. You know, we don`t look at them as athletes. When you watch what they do on the field, I mean, they are incredibly impressive athletes. They dedicate an enormous amount of time. As Caitlin just said, they`re expected to also behave a certain way off the field like the players themselves. So they really do have this kind of year-long set of expectations but then they`re getting paid, you know, pennies. Because I think there was this perception that they should feel lucky that they are the pretty girls and the cool girls and, you know, they`re cheering for the boys. And, you know, that should be some sort of exalted status and that should be enough payment. And it`s not. I`m glad to see this is finally becoming a labor issue. HARRIS-PERRY: I also wonder if part of it is, you know, many other sports, it keeps showing up in the NCAA too. There`s kind of a women and a men version of it. So, you can play women`s soccer or men`s soccer. Women are men`s basketball. We can have arguments about whether or not they are equally resourced but at least the sports exist at something we can talk about but there isn`t really a women`s football alternative. So the only role for us if we`re not allowed to be the athlete is to be the athletic supporters. And so, you know, I`m wondering if part of it is we just don`t see an equality there. DAVIDSON: Well, that`s absolutely true. I think that the purpose of cheerleading and also ice girls in the NHL, it`s another issue -- HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, right. DAVIDSON: -- where we`ve had some lawsuits about their treatment and their compensation. It kind of just reinforces that these sports are by men and for men and women only exist as the accessories and even the female reporters for example only really exist on the sidelines. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. DAVIDSON: The women executives only exist in ancillary roles. So I think that`s a really big part of this. HARRIS-PERRY: Caitlin, let me come back to you and just ask, so in the end, what is a win for you? I mean, what kind of change are you hoping to effect with this continued suit? CAITLIN Y.: Well, I hope that we all see league wide change across the entire NFL and all NFL cheerleaders are paid according to the law and treated fairly. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Caitlin Y. and to Drexel Bradshaw in San Francisco. There is still more to come this morning. The MVP of Super Bowl press conferences and trash talk. Nerdland style. HARRIS-PERRY: Look, I`m just here because I host this show, you know. They call it Melissa Harris-Perry. My name is Melissa Harris-Perry so I`m here, all right. I mean I`m here so I won`t get fined, okay? I`m just -- I`m here so I won`t get fined. Look, I`m here so I won`t get fined. And one more thing, I`m not Eric Holder. No, senator, I am not Eric Holder. Still to come this morning, the value of message repetition as learned this week from both Marshawn Lynch and Loretta Lynch. But up next, a little game we like to call hometown trash talk with two very special players. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Ari Melber, Garfield High School, MSNBC`s "The Cycle." STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Steve Kornacki, Boston University, by way of - - regional high school, host, "UP." (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Trash talk. Nerdland style when we come back. I`m just here. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So there was this time when Steve Kornacki was on his show "UP" and he was gloating about his New England Patriots beating my beloved New Orleans Saints. So I ran on the set and I choked him a little. I mean not too hard. Yes, that happened. Well, this year I have to admit it, Steve`s team made it and mine didn`t. So I sat down with my colleague to talk a little sports. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Since 2001, ending of the 2014 season, the Patriots have missed the playoffs once. Excuse me, twice. This is the sixth Super Bowl that they`re going to in that span. They have won three Super Bowls. I don`t think anybody else can match that kind of just consistent dominance. HARRIS-PERRY: Do you think as dynasty as you are that you guys are ready for Seattle? KORNACKI: I think -- I`m not sure Seattle is ready for New England. HARRIS-PERRY: We have another colleague from Seattle. You would trash talk to that colleague? KORNACKI: That`s not trash talk. This is truth talk. Here`s what I would tell him. Do you want to know the difference between Boston and Seattle? HARRIS-PERRY: I do. KORNACKI: All right. Boston, we got "cheers." Seattle, they got the spin-off. HARRIS-PERRY: I think I`m going to go talk to our colleague about this right now. KORNACKI: I`d like you to do that. HARRIS-PERRY: Ari Melber. MELBER: Nice to see you. HARRIS-PERRY: Good to see you. MELBER: How are you doing? HARRIS-PERRY: I was just having a little conversation with our friend and colleague, Steve Kornacki. He said to me that this tells you everything you need to know about the Super Bowl. Boston had "cheers." Seattle had spin-off. MELBER: First of all, "frazier" was a great show. If anything, I think it was more gentle than cheers because cheers was located to a bar, right? Which isn`t necessary we spent all your time. HARRIS-PERRY: So what do you think of Boston as a city, though? MELBER: I would say Boston is the nicest horse and carriage you`ve ever seen. But it`s still a horse and carriage. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. MELBER: And Seattle is a fast eco-friendly sports car. HARRIS-PERRY: I`m going to ask Kornacki about that. Nice shoes. I had a little chat with Ari Melber about your spin-off point and he says, well, basically Boston is a spin-off of Europe. It`s old, it`s musty, it`s basically, he said, like a really nice horse and carriage. KORNACKI: Well, first of all, by old I think you mean historic. If you want to know where this country started, where it got its start, where all these things we learn about in school come from, you go to Boston. If you go to Seattle, you get really pretentious coffee, you get a completely useless landmark called the space needle that they put up like 50 years. Oh, this is going to get tourists. They`re all going to come see this big building and guess what, it`s like the 58th biggest building on the west coast so nobody ever goes to that. And what do you get? You get rain. You know, tell him this, if you`re going to go back and talk to him again, tell him that I don`t even want to talk to him until he apologizes to all of America for grunge. HARRIS-PERRY: There`s basically no part of your city that Kornacki did not just come for. MELBER: Is that his thing, to come with the really original stuff, the Seattle rain joke? That is tough. That is just -- gets me right there with rain. HARRIS-PERRY: And then the final thing was he said he doesn`t even really want to talk to you ever again until you apologize to the whole country for grunge. MELBER: That`s fair. HARRIS-PERRY: It`s implied in the current news cycle that it may also be true that Seattle has bigger and firmer balls than Boston. Have you found that to be true in your experience, Ari? MELBER: This is what I will say about football. The Patriots got caught cheating before the Super Bowl. Seattle didn`t. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Ari there, of course, is referring to spygate, the investigation into the underinflated balls is still under way. My thanks to Ari and Steve for participating in that little bit of very nerdlicious fun. Up next, nearly naked ladies and dads who shop. HARRIS-PERRY: Millions of eyes will be glued to the TV screen tonight for the gridiron action, the commercials and of course the halftime show. After weeks of rehearsal Katy Perry will perform sharing the stage with Lenny Kravitz and another star reported to be a surprise guest. Joining me now from Glendale, Arizona, NBC`s Craig Melvin. Craig, what`s the latest scoop on tonight`s performances? MELVIN: Well, here`s the thing. The surprise perhaps has been ruined a bit because it was revealed, this is yesterday or the day before Missy Elliott, the Grammy award-winning hip-hop star rapper, she is going to be joining Katy Perry as well along with Lenny Kravitz for what has become the biggest 12-and-a-half minute performance every year for the entertainer lucky enough to get chosen. Here`s the thing, here`s what folks don`t realize about the halftime show at the Super Bowl. It hasn`t always been this blockbuster spectacular that we`ve grown accustomed to. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, yes, I remember when it was bad. MELVIN: Yes! Marching bands and like seedless performers and things like that. Really, in 1993 when Michael Jackson brought the house down, that sort of changed the game, for a half time performances. Since then we`ve seen Prince, Beyonce, of course. Last year Bruno Mars, and the record sales for these artists who perform at halftime historically skyrocket right after the performance. For instance, Bruno Mars last year, up 90 percent in the days after he performed. Beyonce was up as well 60 percent. So in the past, you know, the NFL used to pay these folks to show up. Used to pay them big money. Now it`s not the case. I mean, the NFL pays for -- or the advertiser, in this case Pepsi will pay for the production costs, but the artist gets the free pub and they like to think that that makes it more than worth it. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, so they work like the cheerleaders, just not for a lot of pay. NBC`s Craig Melvin in Glendale, Arizona. Let`s hope that fog burns off soon so you guys can have a good night out there. MELVIN: It`s supposed to burn off around noon. HARRIS-PERRY: Good. Very good. Richard Sherman may end up having a very, very big night tonight, and I`m not just predicting a Seattle Seahawk championship. Richard Sherman is also due to become a daddy any day now. Now, his coach has given him the okay to skip the Super Bowl in favor of the delivery room. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: If he`s faced with that decision, we`ll support him and we`ll see how that goes. You know, wish him luck and I can`t wait to see little Petey. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: And Sherman hasn`t said which he would choose. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD SHERMAN, SEAHAWKS CORNERBACK: I think he`s going to be a disciplined young man and stay in there until after the game. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So media and social media have been offering a lot of opinions about what is the right thing to do. But Sherman is not the only father getting attention this Super Bowl Sunday. Advertisers are celebrating dads in a big way in a trend that`s being dubbed advertising. Yes, that`s a thing now. Honestly it`s kind of heart-warming. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: Daddy! UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: Daddy! UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: Dad! (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: You know, I hate it when the commercials make me cry. Of course advertisers aren`t completely abandoning the adage that sex sells. Just take a look at this Carl`s Jr. spot that already has people talking. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Nothing between me and my 100 percent all natural, juicy, grass-fed beef. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Introducing the all natural burger. The first ever in fast food, with no antibiotics, no added hormones and no steroids. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So that one made me cry too, but for a different reason. Look, I mean, on the one hand diversifying reached an even wider group of men. It`s probably a smart move. I presume there are some dads out there who appreciate being portrayed as hands-on loving parents and not just sex-craved consumers. But let me throw this out there. Almost 75 percent of women say they are the primary shoppers for their households and we know that the Super Bowl audience is pretty equally divided between men and women. So ultimately is dadvertising actually just the newest way of marketing to women? You know, I watch the dad commercial with my husband this morning when I was prepping. He was not so moved by that ad but I was like oh, I wanted to go buy dove products, right? And I wonder if the dadvertising is actually momvertising, you know, still trying to get women to purchase the products. FILIPOVIC: Yes. I think that`s certainly a part of it. That, you know, I just watched that ad too and was like ohhh. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. Uh-mm. FILIPOVIC: You know, but I do think it also reflects changing family dynamics in the U.S. That dads now do spend more time with their children than they ever have before since we actually started studying these things. That`s very real. And so I think advertisers are probably latching on to two, you know, different but overlapping trends, you know. One of which is this change in what dads do in the home. And you know, in the second is the fact that women do still sort of dominate when it comes to family consumer spending. HARRIS-PERRY: I wonder if we could get the two dad. Like, I mean, I`d like to see, you know, advertisers kind of go out on a limb a little bit for what, you know, modern families look like, which is increasingly not just a dynamic of one man, one woman and their bio kids but far more diverse. ZIRIN: And all these ads are profoundly heteronormative. And it`s even very rare in these ads. But you have a biracial family. And as far as the Carl`s Jr. thing, first of all, if you`re bragging that your hamburger doesn`t have steroids, there are bigger problems in this country than that. And also Super Bowl and sexism, I mean, it goes together like Bill Belichick and skirting the rules. It`s what happens as part of the package of Super Bowl Sunday. And my experience of it is that when I`m at a Super Bowl party, progressive-minded men and the women, they roll their eyes and that`s when they find time for the bathroom break. And so if the NFL is actually serious about having a broader audience, a more diverse audience, they need to mind their ads a little more. HARRIS-PERRY: Do they really? Because what the progressives do at my Super Bowl party is they hate watching, right? So they`re like oh, my gosh, what is -- now what is going to happen? What is going happen now? But they`re certainly watching it. DAVIDSON: Well, they`re absolutely watching it and that`s the whole point but I think what you see in both of these ads is like, you know, when are we going to have Paula Abdul doing the halftime show because it`s one step forward, two steps back. ZIRIN: We come together because opposites attract. HARRIS-PERRY: Exactly. You see in this ad I think an actual attempt to kind of combat this hegemonic hyper masculinity that has plagued the league and that is contributing to all of its problems with domestic violence and everything. And then you see that completely thrown out the window with an ad like Carl`s Jr. and the way that cheerleaders are treated and the way that women on the sideline and reporters are treated and the fact that we`re really just kind of hood ornaments when it comes to the games. VALLETTA: Okay. Recent reports have also shown, you know, depending on what your goals and objectives are with these ads that some advertisers are pulling out because, you know, you`re either going after your brand or you`re going after results. If you want actual sales out of a Super Bowl ad, pull out because it doesn`t work. HARRIS-PERRY: Okay. So this -- one of the reasons I really wanted you at the table was to talk about this GoDaddy ad. So, GoDaddy have been criticized for its sexism in the past but this new GoDaddy ad that got yanked was making people angry because of what seemed to be an animal cruelty narrative. But here`s this poor little dog, it makes its way all the way home. It seems like it`s going to be this heart-warming moment but when the doggy gets home, it turns out that they`re just going to sell the dog, right? People were livid. They yanked it. But do you know why I know this whole story because I`ve seen it 40,000 times on all the morning shows. And I`m thinking, well, GoDaddy just won because they didn`t have to pay, right? They got all this free -- I mean, we`re doing it for free right now. ZIRIN: I mean if that was their objective, and clearly it was a brilliant move. I actually did see that ad, and I got to tell you, when I saw the little dog I kind of caught it out of the side of my eye. When I saw the dog running down the side of the highway and a car go flying past, I was like oh, my gosh, this isn`t effective, it didn`t work for me. But, you know, clearly it is a big, massive business and it`s either in the business of building a brand or building a response. VALLETTA: And haven`t we learned that America loves dogs, hates people? I mean, hasn`t that lesson been pounded home a lot? HARRIS-PERRY: A little bit, yes. I mean, like a little bit. And given that the GoDaddy had been in some other, oh, what`s the right words for it, real serious problems around animal cruelty issues, you had to believe that they knew this, that it was actually the pulling of it that was the thing that was planned. FILIPOVIC: Well, I mean, GoDaddy in the past several years has released a series of incredibly sexist ads and so it`s really striking to me that we see ads that had incredibly offensive for trails of women, that treat women like objects, you know, for advertising internet, you know, access which you think it would kind of be a gender and neutral thing. And those sexist ads, I mean, you know, they also get some level of outrage but GoDaddy isn`t pulling them but as soon as it`s a dog, then we care. HARRIS-PERRY: Well, look, for all the sexist ads, I do love the like a girl thing that is also going to happen tonight. And so, I mean, that`s the sort of, you know, fun counter is this idea that, you know, that because there`s an expectation of going together, you know, the sort of sexism the Super Bowl going together, that if you do the like a girl piece, then that also gets attention because here is this idea of, you know, young girls empowered, running like a girl, throwing like a girl, like being empowered in the context of -- DAVIDSON: Right. But I think that it`s still kind of notable that despite the fact that female fans are on the uptick and the fact that we`ve kind of, you know, agreed that women do make the purchasing decisions and are active, we need to be activating those dollars, the predominant line in most of these commercials is still courting men. We are still talking about football in the context of male fans and largely ignoring women and their money. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. We`ve got a little bit more on our football Sunday. Up next, we`re going to play a little game, so get ready. And you can join my panel in guessing which Lynch is which after the break. HARRIS-PERRY: Okay. This week the United States Senate and the American sports media had a lot in common. Really, they did. Let`s start on Capitol Hill, where members of the Senate Confirmation Committee finally got their opportunity to put the tough questions to a lawyer named Lynch. Loretta Lynch. The President`s nominee for Attorney General. Then we can pop on over to Arizona, where members of the American sports media finally got their opportunity to put the tough questions to a player named Lynch, Marshawn Lynch, the running back of the Seattle Seahawks. Both Q&A sessions ended up being quite memorable and it allows us to stage our very own competition right here in Nerdland. Which Lynch is which? Now, all of my guests have a paddle. On one side, there is a photo of Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch. On the other side, a photo of Seahawks running back Marshawn Lynch. Here`s what I`m going to do. I`m going to ask a question, and my panel is going to hold up their answer, and it`s going to be a little harder than you might think at home. After all, both Loretta and Marshawn Lynch have been invited to the White House because of their success on the job and both have been commended for work in their respective fields. But I have faith in our panel that they can figure out which Lynch is which. Okay, let`s start. The questioning was a bit tense in both Q&A sessions. And at some point, someone, one of our Lynches said this. I don`t know what story you`re trying to get or what image you want to portray me as. Was that Loretta or Marshawn Lynch? ZIRIN: Got to be about that action, boss. HARRIS-PERRY: Right? We`re going with Marshawn. Anybody else? That was a Marshawn or? FILIPOVIC: I`m going to go Loretta. VALLETTA: I am too. Marshawn doesn`t like to say anything flippant. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. All right. We got a split decision here. The answer actually was Marshawn. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARSHAWN LYNCH, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS: I don`t know what story y`all trying to get out of me. I don`t know what image y`all trying to portray of me. But it don`t matter what y`all think, what y`all say about me. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: It would have been gangster if Loretta Lynch had said it though. Right? I would have loved to have her -- and you did, moments, kind of feel that with her in the Senate. All right. Here`s the second one. One of our Lynches faced questioning about what we`re going to call a teammate. A teammate who`s got into trouble for being a little outspoken in recent years. Was that Marshawn Lynch or Loretta Lynch who faced tough questioning on that? ZIRIN: That was Loretta Lynch. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, okay. I get it. I can totally get why you think that it would be Marshawn. DAVIDSON: I mean, between Richard Sherman and Michael Bennett and all the fantastic people on the Seahawks who were actually speaking out about important issues. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. I mean, last year it was all about Richard Sherman saying way too many words, right? DAVIDSON: And this year, you know, Michael Bennett was very, very forthcoming about talking about the NCAA and all of the problems that go into college sports and Richard Sherman has been as well and, you know, has been very outspoken about Marshawn Lynch`s right to not speak, actually. HARRIS-PERRY: But that said, I just want to say, it actually was -- you guys were right. It actually was Loretta Lynch. So, let`s just quickly take a listen to her talking about her teammate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: The attorney general refers to himself as the President`s wing man, suggesting that he is not -- does not exercise independent legal judgment as the chief law enforcement officer for the country. You wouldn`t consider yourself to be a political arm of the white house as attorney general, would you? LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: No, Senator, that would be a totally inappropriate view of the position of attorney general. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So I loved it, right? Because it did feel like at certain ways -- you know, we heard in the kind of land of football, are they talking about the wrong things? But here we were in the land of American politics, you know, are you blocking for your team here basically? ZIRIN: Yes. Absolutely. And she got high feet, as Marshawn might say. So there you go. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. One of the Lynches used repetition as a way of kind of keeping the questioners from getting what they wanted out of the press conference. Which Lynch was that? ZIRIN: All right. This is a pretty easy one. VALLETTA: I`m going both. FILIPOVIC: That`s true, right? ZIRIN: I`m going both. HARRIS-PERRY: Actually, I think that we can go both. Let`s listen first to Marshawn Lynch doing his repetition. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARSHAWN LYNCH: So y`all can sit here and ask me all the questions y`all want to. I`m going to answer with the same answer. So y`all can shoot if y`all please. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: What`s the answer? MARSHAWN LYNCH: I`m here so I won`t get fined. I`m here so I won`t get fined. (INAUDIBLE QUESTION) I`m here so I won`t get fined. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: It was classic. What did you guys think ultimately? VALLETTA: I mean, look, he signed a contract, okay. And contractually, he`s obligated to be in front of the media and speak to the media. Now, I understand through some friends and the like that Marshawn Lynch has an issue speaking with the media. He doesn`t like it, he`s not good at it, he`s uncomfortable. And I get that. He should have voiced that opinion when he was signing the contract. He could have potentially negotiated that. That`s number one. Number two is, I truly believe that the skills of presenting yourself well and actually representing yourself and speaking in public and communicating are actually highly transferable to the rest of the world and the rest of your life. I think that the NFL could actually help him media train, actually give him some skills so he can learn how to do it. But that was a mockery. HARRIS-PERRY: And yet it was also ultimately classic. I think we could say both because Loretta Lynch did repeatedly also keep telling people, I am not Eric Holder. Thank you to Dave Zirin and to Jill Filipovic. Also, thank you to Kavitha Davidson and to Chris Valletta. That is our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. I`m going to see you next Saturday 10:00 a.m. Eastern. And don`t forget, you can watch the Super Bowl showdown between the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots. Tonight on NBC, 6:30 p.m. Eastern. Right now, it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT." Hey, Alex, what`s going on? ALEX WITT, MSNBC HOST, "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT": How could we forget? I mean, only unless you`ve been living under a rock. Right? Anyway, everyone, a dangerous snowstorm is hitting the Midwest, moving east at a time when many people are going to be on the roads. We`re going to tell you how bad it`s going to get? What happened to Whitney Houston`s daughter? The very latest as she remains in a Georgia hospital. Plus, what could be the most alarming commercial you`re going to see during the Super Bowl tonight. We`ll take a look. Don`t go anywhere. I`ll be right back. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 2, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020101cb.451 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 3 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 2, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 2, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Joy Reid, Josh Lipton GUESTS: Ruth Conniff, Bill Rhoden, Paul Douglas, John Garamendi, Leo Gerard SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7374 words HIGHLIGHT: Governor Scott Walker fuels speculation about a Presidential run, talking foreign policy and big picture politics on the Sunday morning shows. Patriots game-winning interception caused many sports fans to question Seattle Seahawks Coach Pete Carroll`s decision to throw the ball. Winter woes for Boston, once again, as the city prepares for another massive snowstorm. President Obama revealed his budget plan, utilizing funds to improve education by creating a universal pre-school and two-years of tuition-free community college. U.S. oil workers are staging the biggest strike in 35 years, fighting for adequate wages and safe working conditions. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is at the top of the list for... GOV. SCOTT WALKER, (R) WISCONSIN: It`s part of the exploratory process here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From Madison, Wisconsin... UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Scott Walker, what do you think of this motto? WALKER: I wouldn`t bet against me on anything. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: $10,000 bet... WALKER: I think, a fool`s bet. MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC NEWS CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: How do you stand out in that enormous field of GOP hopefuls? WALKER: A lot of confident. SCHULTZ: That`s what this is been all about in Wisconsin WALKER: I wouldn`t bet against me... (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching. We start tonight with the aftermath of the Mitt Romney decision not to run. Romney closing the door on another run for the presidency leaves the field wide open. So folks in Iowa are saying, what about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker? He ain`t D.C. This was the scene four years in Madison, Wisconsin. Thousands of protesters rallied against Walker`s anti-union radical legislation. That started it all. Walker`s bill took away the ability for public-sector workers to collectively bargain. The move caused outrage around the country. Now the Ed Show, we were on the ground in Madison reporting on the action back 2011. Walker`s radical bill put him right smack dub the media spotlight. And since then, Walker has been on the national scene as a Reagan disciple and a corporate darling. Every move walker made since 2011 has been under the microscope, who is this guy? Can he really get it done? That`s where the country has been on Walker. The Ed Show has been there covering it for four years. And later, now, Walker has his eyes set on the White House. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RADDATZ: 99 percent chance you`ll run? WALKER: I don`t know that I`d take the odds. I just would tell you one thing. After three elections for governor in four years in a state that hasn`t gone Republican since 1984 for president, I wouldn`t bet against me on anything. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: If you got swagger use it. It looks like Walker actually has a shot when you look at the numbers. The latest poll out of Iowa, with Romney out of the mix has Scott Walker in first place in 16 percent. Now, what`s interesting about this is it`s almost like a, who`s this guy Bush? Jeb Bush is in fifth place with folks in Iowa at 9 percent. There`s no shortage of name recognition there, so what`s going on? Walker is early front runner in Iowa, and walker no doubt impressed Iowa voters in Steve King`s Freedom Summit a week ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: We need leaders in America who understand who ultimately understand the measure of success in government is not how many people are dependent on the government. The measure of success in government is how many people are no longer dependent on the government. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I mean that is just raw meat to righties, ain`t it? A talk like that is going to get Walker a lot of praise. Now the -- same day that that unfolded, conservative thought leader Byron York who slammed Sarah Palin, he wrote this about Walker. "You can match his achievement staring down the mighty public-sector unions and then winning a recall -- and recall election in a blue state as the campaign begins, Walker`s record means GOP voters will cut him a little slack in the charisma and oratory department. It`s fair to say that Walker does not electrify a crowd. But his GOP cred as the man who took on the unions and the armies of the left means that he can win over an audience even if he can`t speak like Ted Cruz." I would agree with that. Now, if Walker runs, there`s no doubt things are going to get little tougher. Not everything is going to about attacking unions in slashing budgets, that`s the easy stuff. How is he on foreign policy? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RADDATZ: You talked about big, bold, fresh ideas, what`s you big, bold fresh idea in Syria? WALKER: Well, I think I go back to the Red Lion, I think... RADDATZ: Don`t -- let`s not go back, let`s go forward. What`s your big, bold idea? WALKER: I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS than any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it`s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it`s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we`re willing to take appropriate action. I think it should be surgical. RADDATZ: You don`t think 2,000 air strikes is taking it to ISIS in Syria and Iraq? WALKER: I think we need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world. I think it`s a mistake to... RADDATZ: So what does that mean? I don`t know what aggressive strategy means. If we`re bombing and we`ve done 2,000 air strikes, what does an aggressive strategy mean in foreign policy? WALKER: I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to be -- go beyond just aggressive air strikes. We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that`s what it takes, because I think, you know... RADDATZ: Boots on the ground in Syria? U.S. boots on the ground in Syria? WALKER: I don`t think that is an immediate plan, but I think anywhere in the world... RADDATZ: But you would not rule that out. WALKER: I wouldn`t rule anything out. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I mean the neocons are going to love this guy if they give him a chance. He`s talking about international intervention. He is taking the same philosophy that Bush had. That only think he didn`t say in that interview is freedom on the march. Walker knows how to stay in the spotlight. He`s a FOX News regular and can easily grab the headlines. Just last week, here we go. Walker proposed $300 million in cuts to higher education in the state of Wisconsin. Walker did not campaign on this and it really is a move that`s blindsided everybody in Badger state. And at the same time, walker wants to provide $220 million in bonds for a building, for the Milwaukee Bucks because they got new owners for the Milwaukee team? OK. This is what Walker does you see. He`s all about big business and he never backs down on the face of adversity to Democrats who challenge him. He`s Koch brother favorite. He is a Governor. He is not a D.C. insider. Walker is consistently moving forward with the radical agenda to attack unions and the middle class, he is a corporate darling and Walker knows how to fund raise. He`d proven that. He out raced Tom Barret at seven to one in the recall election and was smart enough to run against the recall. Walker ramp through a radical voter I.D. law, and he wants to drug test welfare recipients. Walker know who he is, you got to give him credit. And he makes no apologies. This is why I think he posses a real danger as a Republican candidate. He will be a better candidate than Mitt Romney. Number one, he won`t waffle. Number two, he knows who he is. They can school him up on foreign policy and he`s a corporate brotherhood. I mean, this guy will be a better candidate than Mitt Romney. And Mitt Romney is going to be the benchmark in all of this. Where were we in `12 and where can we be in 2016? It`s going to be interesting. And I think this early poll out of Iowa is a good indication that Walker has a real chance to get off to a great start. He has fought the workers, he has fought the liberal and the progressives, face to face in Wisconsin which is traditionally a blue state. He`s got street cred, he knows how to campaign. Who else has this? Oh, but wait a minute, there is that John Doe investigation. That`s the interesting thing about Walker. He could be surrounded by a lot of controversy yet it seems like its water off a duck`s back. He maybe their answer. Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Can Scott Walker win the Republican nomination?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com, leave a comment there. We`ve got results coming up for you later on in the show. For more, let me bring Ruth Conniff, Editor-in-Chief of the Progressive Magazine, also with us tonight, Joy Reid host of the Reid Report here on MSNBC. Great to have both of you with us. RUTH CONNIFF, THE PROGRESSIVE MAGAZINE: Thanks Ed. SCHULTZ: I`m not trying to cheer lead here for Scott Walker, not at all. I`m looking at solid record of where he has been on issues where the base is always been with him. And this time it goes back to the Bush and Cheney philosophy. You got to have the base with you if you`re going to get anything done. He`ll gather the social conservatives later on. But right now, it`s the fiscal hawks and it`s the international interventionist that he`s going to appealing to. Ruth, your reaction to what`s unfolding now that Romney is out of the race and these polls are coming out in Iowa in the favorable showing that Walker had, how do you unpack it? CONNIFF: Well, you know, Ed, you`ve been on the story for a long time. And I think that what`s really important about Walker is he is a real right-wing radical. And he is a right-wing radical not just, you know, his attacks on unions and his destruction of Wisconsin`s K-12 public school system and the effort to privatized that, to slash its budget to historic level. He`s recent attack on the University of Wisconsin which is, you know, a great university that is going to see a lot of to tier professor leaving with their grant money and a real hit to our economy because of that attack, but he is radical on that. But in Iowa, he also advertised his social conservative cred. He comes out to the any abortion movement. He bragged that he`s close Planned Parenthood clinics all over our state. He has a whole package as far as right-wingers in Iowa are concerned. And even better from their point of view, he presents better than Romney who`s a caricature of a rich guy. He might as well wear a top hat. Walker sounds really folksy and down to earth, and he`s able to sort of appeal to people as a regular guy at the same time that he is really pushing these most radical austerity policies favored by the very rich. I mean, if you look at what`s left in Wisconsin when he`s done with this. You`re going to see a really scary picture, if you live in the rest of United States of America... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CONNIFF: ... and think about what this really means of the middle class and regular people. SCHULTZ: And you know Ruth, it`s out of character isn`t it for a governor to propose $300 million to be cut out of the University of Wisconsin higher education system. I don`t believe he campaigned on this. This is kind of coming out of nowhere, isn`t it? CONNIFF: That`s right it really is a shock that people are absorbing here because the magnitude of that cut and what that`s going to mean for people whether it`s working families who are going to face a tuition hike, not immediately because Walker has cleverly frozen tuition until 2017. But then, he`s a got a board ready that`s going to take over governance of U.W. and they have plenty of power to hike tuition, which they`re likely to do given the huge funding crisis. It also a great research institution, a lot of industry, a lot of biomedical research that goes on in Wisconsin which our former Governor Tommy Thompson was a huge booster of and soft pedaled his pro-life positions because biomedical research here is such a big deal for our economy. That is going to take a hit. SCHULTZ: Yeah. CONNIFF: I mean a lot of our economy is bound up in our university system. And middle class families are going to see college become unaffordable. It is a major blow to our state, just huge. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Joy, nationally, it seems like the Republicans have figure out they`ve got to connect somewhere with the middle class. I think some people behind closed doors told Mitt Romney, Mitt you`re Wall Streeter, you`re a outsourcer. Here comes Scott Walker, he is not Washington D.C. and he comes from a modest background, he doesn`t come from wealth. What`s that connection going to do for him? And if he can connect with those types of middle class income earners in this country, could he be a tough national candidate? JOY REID, HOST OF THE REID REPORT: Well, you know what Ed? And I`ll start will the caveat that I think any Republican is going to start with a deficit because of the demographics, because of the ethnic of, you know, the black and Hispanic vote. It`s going to be very difficult because their not going to get -- they won`t get much of it with the candidates that I`m seeing so far. But that said, I think that Ruth is right. Scott Walker I think has a very strong chance at the nomination or getting on the ticket because he present so bluntly. I think in a way he`s bluntness actually works to his favor. He is just as far to the right in terms of being evangelical as Rick Santorum. But he doesn`t come across as scary to secular people. He is just as much for political critic (ph) wealth as Mitt Romney for slashing the taxes of the very rich and doing all of those things that turn people off about Romney. But he himself as you said comes from the middle class or at least presented that way. SCHULTZ: Yeah. REID: So I think that he is actually one of the candidates whose stock should be probably higher than it is in terms of his ability to get the nomination. I think that he would be attractive to the Republican base on all three of those fronts. He will attract the very rich, the Koch Brother remember they have a lot of leg into Wisconsin. And there`s a lot of money that`s going to be swirling around Wisconsin when Bradley foundation that does it through vote... SCHULTZ: So... REID: ... from Koch, he`s going to have money... SCHULTZ: Yeah. REID: And he`s going to have the regular guys of the Republican Party. SCHULTZ: So Joy, what does he do with this good start in Iowa? Move to Iowa? What`s his next play? REID: I think what he`s going to probably do next is start to show a little bit more leg on his evangelical background, in terms of being 100 percent antiabortion even in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. He`s going to start to show more of that... SCHULTZ: Yeah. REID: ... because he`s going to have face down Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is his real only competition in terms of evangelicals. SCHULTZ: Yeah. REID: Once he does that I think it adds to his appeal for the base. SCHULTZ: I mean nobody on the Republican side in 2012 or in 2008 had a good ground game. I mean, nobody had the infrastructure. Nobody had the moxy of President Obama or the campaign that they run. And so, maybe Walker will be smart enough to outflank everybody in that regard. But Ruth how is this John Doe investigation going to play if Walker runs for president? CONNIFF: Well, I think people are going to look into his background and there are going to find that some of his closes aids and associates are serving time for corruption, that there are picture of them in orange jumpsuits. You know, this is a story that was huge in Milwaukee when he was county executive there. There`s some really unsavory stuff, I means his right- hand man his closest advisor went to jail for stealing money from the widows and orphans or Iraqi War veterans. The rest of national media doesn`t know that yet. You know it, Ed, because you`ve followed that story I mean, there`s a lot of really shady stuff going on around Walker. But in Wisconsin he has been able... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CONNIFF: ... to slide on by and it hasn`t hurt him that much. SCHULTZ: That is amazing. Ruth Conniff, Joy Reid, great to have both of you with us tonight. I appreciate your time here on the Ed Show. Thank so much. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen, share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow and like us on Facebook @EdShow and also @WeGotEd. We appreciate that. Coming up, fresh reaction over last night`s nail biter in Arizona which was a massive television audience on NBC. Plus, Republican double talk on funding the programs that matter to you and your family. Keep it here, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight. Well the Patriots prevailed in last night`s Super Bowl and of course it came down the wire, you have to living underneath the rock not to know what happened. Seahawks wide receiver Jaimaine Kearse made a crucial catch with the ball deep in territory of the red zone, trailing by four. They had to get a touchdown. But the game changer, game clincher happened with less than 30 seconds on the clock. On second and goal, Russell Wilson good quarterback, great year, his pass was picked off by Patriots quarterback Malcom Butler who made a hell of play at the goal line. It was Butler`s first career interception and what a time for it to happen. The Patriots rundown the clock, won their 4th Super Bowl title and after the game, Seahawks Coach Peter Carroll took responsibility for the botched call. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PETER CARROLL, HEAD COACH SEAHAWKS: I told those guys, that`s my fault, totally. You know, everybody`s just, why don`t you just run it? You know, that`s a real good thought. We are playing for third and fourth down, give them no time left, (inaudible) but didn`t worked out that way. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson weight in on Twitter saying, "I won`t allow one play, or one moment to define my career. I will keep evolving." I will keep evolving, he wrote. Interesting, he knows his a young quarterback, he knows he`s got a lot years left and he`s just going to have to put this one behind him. But I also think it shows tremendous discipline on Russell Wilson`s part that the play was called and he run it. And as he gets on in his career he`ll be at point where, no wait a minute this is a commonsense department, this is a no-brainer. I`m going to call off the sideline. We`re not going to throw it. We`re going to ram our big guy Lynch in there. We`re going to win this thing. Here is what I think happened. Every team goes into a game with a ready list. This is what we`re going to do on our territory on first down. This is our short yard each game. This is our red zone best play calls. In tight, inside the five yard line, every team goes into a game with a real good idea of what they think is going to work on the goal line. They believe in their ready list, they used the ready list and they call off the ready list. And I think in 25 seconds, you get so wrapped up into a play after a big catch and then a run to get your close. All of the sudden, there`s a play call and you don`t think anything of it, well it`s on the ready list. Let`s go ahead and do it. They had their goal line defense in there. Well, they thought that Lynch was going to get the ball. So what a play by Butler, what tremendous recognition. You know what this was? This was preparation on the part of the Patriots that a young defensive back recognized the formation, knew they were going to come with the pick. You can`t argue with the call folks, and you really can`t. Throwing the slant on the goal line is one of the safeness passes you can throw. It`s also one of the most practiced. But it look to me like the wide receiver didn`t come out of his cut fast enough and give the D.B. just enough room to get it on the inside shoulder and make a play. Great recognition by Butler, no question about it. Was it a dumb call? Yeah, 9 out of 10 times the Seattle Seahawks would have punched it in but you know what? They called it pass play. The other team practices too. The D.B. made a play on the inside cut on the slant route. He recognized it and closed it quickly. It was a just a great play. I think if they had to do it all over again they will probably rammed it in there. If you wanted to throw the football, why not call time out and make sure you got the right pass play? It just seemed like Seattle wanted to win so bad. They were almost like in a hurry up offense to get this playoff instead of recognizing the moment, realizing that, you know, your offensive line knows what`s on the line, they`re going to move their guys up front as best they can with Lynch behind them we got this thing won. It just -- it`s unfortunate and if you`re a Seahawks fan and it`s one you`re going to playback in your mind over and over and over again. If that pass had been complete, it would have been one of the greatest calls of all time. But you know what? And the sad thing of it is it looks like Wilson was trying to hug the hero and hug the headline. Here he is. He drives the team down. Brady is at the heck of the game. Brady has got a great career, unbelievable almost unmatched in NFL history and here comes this young quarterback taking him down to repeat his super bowl champion. He throws a touchdown pass boom. He gets the spotlight. I don`t think that was that case but that`s what it look like. That`s what it look like. But what really happen is that they got a group of plays that they`re confident in and it doesn`t matter whether it`s run or pass. Damn it, this is how they can win the game and they happen to call pass play and it looks so ugly. You sit there and say, how in the world did you do that? And I could tell you that every offensive line coach in high school, every offensive line coach in college and every offensive line coach who was watching the game of the professional ranks were saying, what? My guys could have got it in there. Joining me now Bill Rhoden, of the New York Times, Sports Columnist who is very close to NFL. Bill, great o have you with us. Any -- I mean, what did you think of Pete Carrolls answers after the game and the way he unpacked why they called this play. Good to have with us Bill. BILL RHODEN, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Hey, how you -- you know, you hit so many but first of all there is nothing that you can say that with suit anybody`s feelings, I mean, everybody was sick. I think at that particular moment you had half of Patriots` nation was sick because of the game had turned like that and then you had half of the Seahawks` nation was kind of -- they`ve been sick. Now, they were sort of elated because it was like a miraculous situation. And then of all the plays that could have been called, I mean all of the plays that could have been called, all the things you have -- you talked about a ready list. Well, you got "Beast Mode". "Beast Mode", I asked him question last year about getting ready, he said, "ISR". So what that means?" "I stay ready." So, he was ready. So, you know, there`s nothing that Pete could say, could have said, will ever say to justify that call. I think you`re absolutely right in that there will come a point in Russell Wilson`s career -- and I like Russell Wilson`s a lot. I like him as a quarterback... SCHULTZ: Yeah. RHODEN: ... I like him as a -- but there will come a point of his career when he gets that kind of play, he`ll send it back. You know, we`re not running.... SCHULTZ: Yeah. RHODEN: ... we`re not running that play like, you know, like editors who edit your column. But at the end the day my name is on it. So but... SCHULTZ: Yeah. RHODEN: ... it`s a great, I mean, a great game and let me just say this. Tom Brady is one of the greatest clutch performers in the history of the National Football League. I mean, just absolutely clutch. SCHULTZ: There is no doubt about that. I mean, he is right there with you name any of them. I mean his record is unparalleled in the way he comes back and wins is just absolutely amazing. I think that Russell Wilson showed a great deal of discipline by doing what the coach has wanted and trying to execute the offense. I think you gave him two or three more years or maybe next year, he`ll have a lot better awareness about what to do and how to do it and that you entered the no-brainer, the common sense department and you just give it to the best running back in the league. RHODEN: Right. Right. SCHULTZ: I also think, you know, it... RHODEN: A great defensive play by the way... SCHULTZ: It was a great play by Butler. It was a... RHODEN: It was a good play. SCHULTZ: I mean Butler, if you look at the replay, you saw instant recognition. He at trigger, he said the slant pass is coming. I`m there. RHODEN: Right. Right. SCHULTZ: And you know what? The receiver could -- that was a real gamble on Butler`s part because the receiver could have cut behind him. RHODEN: Yeah. You`re right though. You`re right though. I thought when I look to that it didn`t look like that receiver really made -- I think he could have protected the whole play much better. It seemed like he was a little too casual going into it. SCHULTZ: Yeah. RHODEN: You know, I mean, you know, we can second guess it but I just -- the first time... SCHULTZ: Yeah. RHODEN: ... I saw it that once you going to do that, you might like, you know, (inaudible) or somebody would have been a beast... SCHULTZ: Well... RHODEN: ... and going after that, you know. SCHULTZ: Well, you come out of a cut because you want to leave the defender. You come out to the cut... RHODEN: Exactly. SCHULTZ: ... because you want to create separation. RHODEN: Right. SCHULTZ: If you come out to the cut and you slow down just a little bit you close the gap for the help of the defender and so... RHODEN: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... look, it was unbelievable play by the defensive back Butler. There`s no -- Butler did it I mean there is no doubt about that. RHODEN: Give all defensive backs... SCHULTZ: I mean, he made the play. RHODEN: ... of America give him some. SCHULTZ: No doubt about it. Bill Rhoden, always good to visit (ph) with you, great to have you on the Ed Show. Thank you so much. It was definitely one for the achieves, no doubt. Coming up. If winner potholes have you frustrated, you want to hear this. Republicans have thrown a road blocks to the President`s plan to fix the nation`s roads and bridges. Story ahead, but first a check on the forecast, as another storm batters the northeast. Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right back here on MSNBC. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Snow isn`t going anywhere. And by the time we`re done, it certainly looks like we`re going to have the highest amount of snow for a seven-day stretch that we`ve ever had here in the city of Boston. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Here we go again. It`s Groundhog Day and residents of Boston are getting a repeat of winter weather. Last week, the area was battered by blizzard that dumped three feet of snow in parts of New England. Now, they`re facing up to another foot and a second winter storm is burying down the Beantown and its happening all thanks to the storm that dropped record amount of snow through the Midwest. The area could see up a three inches of snow an hour with freezing rain adding to the mess this evening. Boston area schools were closed today and will remain close Tuesday tomorrow but government offices remained open. Governor Charlie Baker urged people to take public transportation if possible. Logan Airport remains open but half of all incoming and outgoing flights have been canceled. Travelers, of course, are urged to contact their carriers to check for delays or cancellations. And the storm will rain on the Patriots` parade. The Mayor`s Office says, the team`s victory parade has been delayed until Wednesday. Don`t they deserve good weather? Joining me now Paul Douglas, Senior Meteorologist at Media Logic Group at Minneapolis Minnesota. Great to have you with us Paul. You know, here we go again. What can New England expect from this latest storm? How severe, how long and how damaging? PAUL DOUGLAS, SENIOR METEOROLOGIST, MEDIA LOGIC GROUP: It`s going to be winding down over the next few hours. It`s moving fairly quickly. It`s going to be bad up until about midnight. But during the wee hours of the morning the snow will quickly cut off to flurries. But the damage has been done. Boston has been transformed into the super bowl of snow closing in on 35 inches of snow in seven days from two storms making it the snowiest week on record for Boston. And keep in mind, these records go back hundreds of years in Beantown but Boston isn`t the only city, Ed. Detroit picked up about 17 inches of snow, third biggest snowstorm for the Motor City. Chicago 20 inches of snow in a blizzard yesterday, fifth biggest storm on record for the Windy City. You would think intuitively as time goes on, it would get harder and harder to set records. And yet the treadmill of records keeps increasing. We`re seeing more precipitation records and I have a graphic from climate central. New England has seen the biggest increase in extreme precipitation events. We`re talking the most extreme 1 percent of all precipitation events. Summer rains and winter snows. A lot of skeptics, contrarians and deniers say, well it`s snowing, the planet can`t possibly be warming. And yet it turns out that a warmer atmosphere and a warmer ocean means more water vapor, more fuel for these storms. We aren`t seeing more storms Ed, but the storms that do spin up have a greater potential to set records and that`s what we`re seeing... SCHULTZ: Yeah. DOUGLAS: ... in the data. SCHULTZ: Well, on that chart that you had, 71 percent increase in the Northeast, that`s near the oceans obviously, 37 percent... DOUGLAS: Right. SCHULTZ: ... increase around the great lakes. You just mentioned Chicago and Detroit. I mean it`s, you know, it`s 17 and 20 inches of snow, what is it with the water? Is it the warming temperatures and just the conditions are unlike anything we`ve seen before? DOUGLAS: Well we`re seeing the steady warming over the past 15 years, the majority -- the vast majority of the additional warming has gone into the world`s oceans. Its also have gone into the Gulf of Mexico. The Atlantic is about two degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was for most of the 20th century. And again, last week we showed you the incredible Gulf Stream temperatures 12, 13, 14 degrees warmer than average just east of New Jersey. So you have this fire hose of water and that is actually producing more water vapor. About 10 percent increase... SCHULTZ: Yeah. DOUGLAS: ... in water vapor. So that is turbo charging some, not all but some of the storms and there`s new research from the University of Minnesota, Ed, during the summer months, we aren`t seeing more storms but we`re seeing a greater period between storms but when it does rain, watch out head for higher ground, the rain is falling much harder than it did and I keep telling people -- and even farmers now are acknowledging something is changing. It`s not your grandfather`s weather. We`re seeing more and more... SCHULTZ: Yeah. DOUGLAS: ... of this super size storms. SCHULTZ: No doubt, Paul Douglas. Always great to have you with us. Thanks for you time tonight. I appreciate it. There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right back here on MSNBC. JOSH LIPTON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Josh Lipton with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks posting solid gains today. The Dow soaring 196 points, the S&P up 25, the NASDAQ adding 41. Apple will spend $2 billion building a new global command center in Mesa, Arizona. It will employee about 150 full time workers and be totally powered by renewable energy. And meanwhile RadioShack is reportedly considering selling off half its stores and closing the rest with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy file expected at sometime this week. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for staying with us tonight. The GOP has been trying to rebrand itself as the party of the middle class. Republican reaction on President Obama`s 2016 budget proves its all talk. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN: What I think the President is trying to do here is to again, exploit envy economics. This top-down redistribution doesn`t work we`ve been doing it for six years. Look, it may make for good politics. It doesn`t make for good economic growth. (END OF VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Envy economics? Let`s take a look at the basics. Let`s be brilliant on the basics, the numbers. In the $4 trillion budget would expand and extend child care tax credits and the earned income tax credit. What`s wrong with that? The budget supports universal pre-school. It proposes two years of tuition fee community college for responsible students. And there`s $478 billion six-year surface -- resurface transportation reauthorization proposal. This would finally allow us to repair existing roads and bridges and modernize our infrastructure with new investments. You know what folks? This is the jobs bills America has been waiting for. But we got a problem here Houston, its Republicans. They want to have it both ways. They won`t side with the middle class if big business, banks and wealthiest Americans have to come up and pay their fair share. Now this new budget proposes raising the capital gain stocks, imposing a new tax on inheritances, limiting corporate tax deductions, that needs to be identified. Taxing overseas profits held abroad, money offshore, and levying a tax on those two big to fail banks. We`re talking about stratospheric income here. Now, this is a clear challenge to Republicans on middle class issues and a rallying cry for the Democrats. So where is the line in the sand for the Democrats? Joining me tonight, Congressman John Garamendi of California. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. Let`s talk... REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D) CALIFORNIA: Good to be with you. SCHULTZ: ... infrastructure. GARAMENDI: Sure. SCHULTZ: You bet. Do we have to cut a deal with the Republicans to get $478 billion to get done into the budget to do what has to be done for the country? Where is the deal here, John? GARAMENDI: Well, I don`t know where the deal is but I do know that we absolutely have to build our infrastructure. There are 63,000 bridges across America that are subject to failure. I still impose (ph) many of those are in Republican districts. Certainly, there`s a big one right in Mr. Boehner`s district across the Ohio River that is not in good shape at all. We call that the Boehner disaster. It`s going to happen. We`ve seen that happen up in Minnesota. We know that up on I-5 in Washington State. The bridge collapsed, shutdown the economy there for a long, long time. We need to build our infrastructure. You`ve mentioned potholes earlier on. Oh yeah, we got potholes. We`ve got drain. We`ve got sanitation systems, water systems, we have the need to build high-speed internet into our schools and by the way, we need to rebuild our schools. This is about building for America, the foundation for economic growth. This is not envy economics. This is the envy of America to build the infrastructure. SCHULTZ: What`s your response to Congressman Ryan? He`s the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee calling it envy economics. GARAMENDI: Well, he`s got the wrong envy. We want America`s infrastructure to be the envy of the world. Right now, we look to China, we look to Japan, we look to Europe and we envy their infrastructure. No, No, this is America, we`re the best, we`re going to build the best, we`re not going to be second to anybody. Let them envy us. As to the envy, he must be talking about trickle down economics. Now, I`m sure Americans want to be rich and wealthy and they can be if we actually create the jobs here in America, if we stick to the buy America theme. By now, Amtrak must have waved the buy America so that some 30 train sets for high-speed rail on the east coast are not going to be built in America. No, no and no. This is America. We`re going to spend our tax money on American build systems so that Americans can become the envy of the world, our manufacturing and our infrastructure. SCHULTZ: Congressman, last week when the Democrats got together in Philadelphia, what kind of resolve came out from that? It would seem to me that the Democrats are going to have to draw some lines in the sand that say, look if you want this, this is what you have to do. And put it on the Republicans, it`s their turn. They have a legislated power. What came out of Philadelphia? GARAMENDI: Well, just that. The President has proposed middle class economics. He`s proposed those tax deductions for middle class from childcare to education and forgetting the job. All of those things are the middle class economics, build the infrastructure, educate our kids, do the research, and pay for it by changing the taxes and so the American corporations -- the big ones, not the little ones but the big ones cannot escape American taxes. Probably a quarter of... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: ... America`s corporations don`t pay much if any corporate income tax. SCHULTZ: Well, getting the Republicans to even mentioned that. It would - - is quite a chore. They`re still in the mood of saying no to everything. It`s going to be interesting. Congressman John Garamendi of California, always great to have you with us. Thanks Congressman. GARAMENDI: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Coming up, oil workers` biggest strike in over three decades. They don`t make a habit of this stuff but they`re pushing to market now. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And tonight in the two-minute drill, experience as the voice of reason. One commercial which aired during the Super Bowl really stuck with me. An ad titled, "Wisdom" showed 11 centenarians giving advice for living life to the fullest. The commercial ends with a twist. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m 100-years-old and I want to tell the world what I have learned. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Live for now because life is good. You make it good. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will learn not to cheat. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are miracles all around you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stay young. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Always tell the truth. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Keep your eyes open and sometimes your mouth shut. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t complain. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tell him like it is. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don`t (inaudible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hesitate and you lose. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put the pedal to the metal. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Live fast UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And never, ever, forget where you came from. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: You know, too often in America we disregard the voice of experience. I like that ad. We always simply go for the next hot thing. Well, Dodge is still pretty hot. Dodge connected its 100 years of being in business to the people who have lived to be 100 years old. I thought it was pretty unique and interesting and wise. The punch out, they`re on strike. Why? That`s next on the Ed Show. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. This is the story for the folks who take a shower after work. U.S. oil workers are staging their biggest strike in 35 years. United Steelworkers are on their second day of work stoppage at nine refineries at chemical plants around the country. Now, the Union workers want adequate pay raises but most important, they want safe working conditions. Walkouts are happening at nine facilities from Texas to California. The plants account for 10 percent of U.S. refinery capacity, contract negotiations broke down early Sunday morning. A new deal could affect 30,000 workers coast to coast. United Steelworkers represent over 200 refineries terminals and pipelines, a fall strike of the USW workers could disrupt 64 percent of U.S. fuel production. Oil prices hit record loss over the past year. The price of crude still under $50 a barrel but smaller profits are relative for big oil. Money is still flowing and workers are fighting for what they believe should be fair treatment. Joining me tonight, Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers of America. Mr. Gerard, good to have you with us tonight. LEO GERARD, PRESIDENT, UNITED STEELWORKERS: Good to be with you. SCHULTZ: What`s the stumbling block -- you bet, what`s the stumbling block here, Leo? What`s it going to take? What`s happening here? GERARD: Well, the stumbling block is really the elite company Shell refusing to negotiate on some of the fundamental issues. As you`ve said, wages are piece of the puzzle. We`ve been talking about that. They don`t seem to be the difficulty. We`ve been talking about training. We`ve been talking abut the ability of workers to have meaningful occupational health and safety. We talked about the fatigue standard. Let me just give you a -- I don`t know only read on your show, Ed, but let me give you a statistic. Refinery fires, this is a fire in the refinery that has self-reporting. So these are the self-reported fires in refineries. In 2007, there were 52. In 2008, 41, 2009, 45, 2010, 53, 2011, 47, 2012, 41, 2013, 42, and the numbers aren`t in yet for 2014 or 2015. So what we`ve been talking about is shift schedules that allow people to have safe working conditions, shift schedules that where the company won`t manipulate the schedule to deny people overtime. Sitting down and negotiating a meaningful fatigue standard so that people go to work and are full of their needs. We`ve been talking about process safety officers. These are all things that companies so far has refused to talk about. They`re willing to talk about money but they`re not willing to talk about fundamental issues. The other thing is that... SCHULTZ: OK, so... GERARD: Go ahead. SCHULTZ: Go ahead. Well safety is the issue here and you think these fires could be prevented if they were to change our operational procedures? GERARD: Well -- look, I imagined that it`s kind of industry where things happen. But I think what we want is process safety. We want to be able do the best safety standards. We want shift schedules where people aren`t getting manipulated so they`re treated on their premium pay. We want to make sure that we`ve got training going on. So if somebody leaves the workplace, somebody from -- within the workplace can get train so they don`t bring people from outside who don`t know the facility. We`re not trying to take the job of the building trades who come in when there`s a big job to do. What we`re talking was our maintenance... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GERARD: ... forces need to be replaced. And Ed, there`s a big issue in our... SCHULTZ: Sure. GERARD : ... there`s a big issue on health care. This is the riches industry or one of the richest industries in America. The fact is that, our members are -- what`s called an 80-20, where they pay 20 percent of their premium. So if we have $12,000 premium for health care for the year, our members pay 12 times 200, $2400. Then there`s a 7,500 out-of-pocket maximum. So if you`re coming from a family whether you`ve got a sick child for a long time or you`ve got lots of need for your health care, you can end up having $21,000, $22,000, $23,000 of other pocket expenses during the life of a collective agreement. SCHULTZ: So this is -- this is a middle class fight all over again, isn`t it? GERARD: Absolutely. And when we said -- let me tell you why the tax broke off. When we said that we really -- we`re serious about wanting to talk about health care, the employer through Shell said to us, if you don`t withdraw that from the table we`re going to propose that you have to pay a higher premium. Instead of 80-20 we`ll go to 75-25. And they threatened us with that... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GERARD: ... and when we said that`s unacceptable, they left the table. We`re still there. We want to negotiate. We think that our positions are fair. We think that having safety standards and training and -- are going to improve productivity. Having safety standards is more important for the community because if there`s something happens, the community is at risk. It`s more important for the country. It is more important for our members. SCHULTZ: All right. GERARD: We`re going to fight for the middle class here. SCHULTZ: All right. We will see if big oil will budge and we`ll follow the story. Leo Gerard, President of the International Steelworkers, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020201cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 4 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 2, 2015 Monday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS for February 2, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Robert Gibbs, Miguel Almaguer, Howard Dean, Richard Lui, David Corn GUESTS: John Brabender, Susan Page, Sabrina Siddiqui, Jonathan Allen SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8786 words HIGHLIGHT: A new poll of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers showing that Jeb Bush is going practically nowhere despite Romney`s withdrawal. When asked by a reporter about vaccination, New Jersey governor Chris Christie says there needs to be balance and parents need a choice about whether to vaccinate their kids. What did Mike Huckabee mean when he appeared to be comparing gay to drinking alcohol or using profanity? CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: The football season is over. The HARDBALL season begins. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews back in Washington -- the HARDBALL Chris Matthews, by the way, not that brilliant guy on the Seahawks. What a whirlwind right now politically. Before this Super Bowl weekend, which seems a good while ago now, Mitt Romney made his big announcement. It was just Friday that he made the announcement that he`s out of the race for 2016. The reason? Well, it seems to have come down to a combination of rejection by a lot of the money people that Romney was counting on, the prospect of Jeb Bush staring him down, and Mitt`s own family. He didn`t want to spend the next year-and-a-half slogging through hell. Well, now comes a new poll of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers showing that Jeb Bush is going practically nowhere out there with that crowd, this crowd that has picked people like Mike Huckabee, and most recently, Rick Santorum to be their champion. So what gives? If the money people seem bent on Jeb and the grass roots right seems to be rejecting him, where is the party going to go to find a leader that can unite and excite it enough to give Hillary Clinton a fight? Well, John Brabender is a Republican strategist, and Robert Gibbs is the former White House press secretary and an MSNBC contributor. And as I mentioned, a new poll from "The Des Moines Register" just out and Bloomberg Politics shows that Jeb Bush has some ground to make up with the conservative grass roots of his party. Look at this poll. It shows that the leader of the pack in Iowa is the new kid on the block, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. He`s followed by Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee, no surprise there. Jeb Bush is fifth with 9 percent, the guy who everybody calls the front-runner, fifth out there. He also lags behind on favorability compared to other potential candidates. Scott Walker has a net favorable -- that means favorable over unfavorable - - of 48, meaning 60 percent of voters have a favorable view of him. Only 12 percent have a favorable view of -- well, the others, anyway -- unfavorable view, rather. Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry and others all have high net favorables among likely Iowa caucus-goers. They all look good out there. For Jeb Bush, his net favorability is low one digit, 3. So for Chris Christie, it`s even worse -- negative. He`s the only big negative out there, 18. We can (ph) get (ph) through that. John, why don`t they like Christie out in Iowa -- JOHN BRABENDER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, first of all -- MATTHEWS: -- among your party? BRABENDER: First of all, you do have to take some of this in perspective. I mean, everybody was talking about Michele Bachmann when she won the Ames straw poll only to finish last in the Iowa caucuses. But with that said, Iowa is a conservative state. Chris Christie is seen as relatively moderate. Jeb Bush is relatively moderate. The real problem for this in this poll is not where they are in the mix, it`s that they have high unfavorables. So they`ve got to change a lot of minds, which is difficult to do, especially because they`re not the type that`s all of a sudden going to move to the right. So I think they`ve got some problems, issues like Common Core, immigration. Their positions are just not going to play with mainstream Republicans in Iowa. MATTHEWS: What I`m stunned with is how much knowledge they have of these guys. I mean, these are regular voters, guys. They`re not people watching television all night long. They don`t real all the papers all day long. They seem to know all the candidates. They have a personal opinion of all the candidates already, two years out. They`ve had to judge that Chris Christie is not their guy. But they really like this new guy, Scott Walker who`s the governor of Wisconsin. And they know all about him, enough to say he`s a 48 percent net plus. That`s a hell of a lot of information, Robert. ROBERT GIBBS, FMR. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think, one, Iowans take their role exceedingly seriously. MATTHEWS: Yes. GIBBS: And a lot of these guys -- (CROSSTALK) GIBBS: None of these guys are going to seal the deal with any caucus-goer until they`ve literally had a chance to meet them five or six times. Secondly, caucus-goers are the highest-interest primary voter. So if you`re going to participate in a primary, that`s one thing. If you`re going to participate in a caucus, which is a different level of commitment, it`s that probably top 10 or 20 percent of people that would normally participate in a primary, heavy information voters, people that have a lot of information and are following these guys well before they ever come to Iowa to play president. MATTHEWS: It is impressive that people know this much. Anyway, this weekend, Scott Walker sounded very confident. I`ve always thought he was a sleeper, but I wasn`t that sure. Let`s watch him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 99 percent chance you`ll run? GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: Oh, I don`t know that I`d take the odds. I just would tell you one thing. After three elections for governor in four years in a state that hasn`t gone Republican since 1984 for president, I wouldn`t bet against me on anything. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: He also took a jab at both Hillary Clinton, and by implication, Jeb Bush. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: People want new, fresh leadership with big, bold ideas, and the courage to act on it. And if we`re going to take on a name from the past, which is likely to be former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, I think for the party, we need a name from the future. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, there you go. They got rid of Mitt. Now they`re going to -- this is an age war. This is "Logan`s Run" here, Robert. GIBBS: Well, I think, look -- MATTHEWS: Get rid of the old guys. GIBBS: The great thing about that bank shot was the explicit criticism of the ex-secretary of state and the implicit criticism of the -- MATTHEWS: Jeb. GIBBS: -- Jeb Bush. So look, I think -- I think it`s way premature to call anybody the front-runner. I think you have tiers of candidates, and I think clearly, in the top tier of candidates in Iowa, Scott Walker, probably Jeb Bush, and to some degree a social conservative, in that poll probably Mike Huckabee. MATTHEWS: Yes. GIBBS: And truth is, what puts Jeb Bush in the top tier isn`t his standing in Iowa as much as it is his standing writ large and his ability to raise probably the $100 million it`s going to take to win this primary. MATTHEWS: Have you been out talking to enough people to know whether people are just in a mood -- like, most people who vote want to pick the next president, but early going, they want to send a message, too. But do you get a sense this might be one of those years -- the Democrats had it back in `72, a long time ago, with McGovern. McGovern wasn`t going to be elected president against Nixon. Wasn`t going to happen. But it was -- it felt good for the people on the left. They felt great being for McGovern. He was anti-war. He was sort of an intellectual, you know? He was a war hero, but he was also a professor. He was perfect for the Democratic left. Do you think your party might be onto a year that`s just a little bit wackier than most years, they`re just going to pick somebody like Goldwater or McGovern and say, We don`t give a damn about the close election coming next November, we`re going to say what we really feel? And maybe one of these other guys, maybe Ted Cruz, maybe Ben Carson, maybe Rand Paul -- is it that wild a year? Can you tell if that`s out there? BRABENDER: Here`s the problem. The Republican Party isn`t a single entity anymore. It`s not homogeneous anymore. It`s broken into libertarians, Tea Party, social conservatives, establishment, working class, you know, anti- terrorism. They`re all different types of Republicans, so it`s splintered. The biggest difference you`re going to see this time in, is some sense, we`ve become the Democrats. We don`t have -- MATTHEWS: I agree. And it`s the other way, too. It`s working on the other side. BRABENDER: We get a lot of people out there. But I will say this. I think they`re all quality candidates. And the other thing to watch for this year, no one`s going to win Iowa with 30 percent of the vote. Someone`s going to win it with 20 percent of the vote. And that`s what`s going to happen in state after state. You`re going to see five or six candidates all the way to the end. MATTHEWS: Really? They can afford it? BRABENDER: The way that it`s set up this time, especially with a lot of states proportional, you don`t have to play statewide. You can pick -- MATTHEWS: They are switching. It sounds like your party in `08. GIBBS: Well, it is, and the truth is -- John`s absolutely right. Usually, Democrats have these big personality and issue-driven primaries with 10 or 12 people, and you don`t know what`s going to happen. Republicans are an establishment. They pick the guy that didn`t win the nomination last time. Those roles are completely reversed this time. I think it`s going to be fascinating. MATTHEWS: And you have people in the race, like Sharpton played in the Democratic Party a couple of those times, remember? You`re the most interesting guy in the debate. You`re not going to win necessarily, but you`re definitely going to be the best show. And I just wonder -- you won`t answer my question. Could this be a wacko year and you just go crazy -- we don`t care who`s going to win against Hillary. We`re running a person we really believe in, like a Cruz or a Ben Carson or a Rand Paul. BRABENDER: Well, I will say this. The primary thing is voters are not going to say in the Republican primaries who is the best November candidate. They don`t care about that. MATTHEWS: That`s what I`m asking. BRABENDER: They care, does the candidate represent their views, because there`s no -- MATTHEWS: That`s the way the Democrats used to be. BRABENDER: -- (INAUDIBLE) a Democrat-lite. And I will tell you, I think we have credible candidates so you can get away with it this year. You can pick any of these -- MATTHEWS: Well -- BRABENDER: -- candidates, and I think they`ll be competitive. MATTHEWS: And you think Ted Cruz would be competitive with Hillary Clinton? BRABENDER: Yes, I absolutely do. MATTHEWS: OK, let me -- you know what that reminds me of? The old days of the left of the Democratic Party in D.C. November doesn`t count. It doesn`t matter. We`re going to vote for the person we believe in. Let me ask you about the Democrats because just -- I didn`t intend to ask about it, but I don`t see any rebellion against Hillary Clinton yet of any significance. I mean, rebellion. GIBBS: No, I don`t think so. MATTHEWS: They`re open to her. GIBBS: I think, though, she has specific challenges that are apart from who the Republicans nominate. I think, first and foremost, she has to articulate exactly why she wants to run and what she`d do as president in a compelling way. Secondly, I think what`s going to be interesting to watch -- and the Obama campaign felt this in 2011 and 2012 -- without contested caucuses and primaries, it`s not as easy to get people excited as it is if you`re going through that process -- MATTHEWS: Yes. GIBBS: -- of every two weeks having this thing. So there`s a lot that - - I still think there`s a lot that she has to do. I actually think -- and I agree with -- I think this race is going to be super-close in November of 2016. I actually believe -- GIBBS: In November. I don`t think there`s any doubt about that. And I think, quite frankly -- you`ve seen Reince Priebus say this and others. I think Republicans -- I don`t think they`re going to pick (ph) Iowa. They`re not going to look at it and say, Boy, we have to pick the best person in November. But by the time we get into the fall, there`s no doubt that this is not going to be just a "send a message" election. BRABENDER: But if Hillary Clinton has Elizabeth Warren get in the race, does Hillary Clinton -- MATTHEWS: She`s not going to get in. BRABENDER: Does Hillary Clinton -- let`s say, hypothetically, she would. MATTHEWS: Biden has a better chance. BRABENDER: Who wins Iowa -- MATTHEWS: Of getting in. BRABENDER: Who wins Iowa between Elizabeth Warren -- (CROSSTALK) BRABENDER: -- Elizabeth Warren would win because she`d make the most noise. BRABENDER: Which is the biggest nightmare Hillary Clinton has. MATTHEWS: Anyway -- GIBBS: I wouldn`t necessarily bet on -- MATTHEWS: Well, anyway, look -- see, I disagree with you. I don`t think Hillary should go for a close election. I know you`re not saying that. But I think she should go for a 55 percent victory, 54 percent victory, because then she could bring the House in. She could bring the Senate in. And then she could really rule this country. This country needs somebody to get control of it. Somebody`s got to win this election. I don`t want another split down the middle. And I think -- so I`m more conservative. So I would think she should go more to the center. People that say, Oh, follow Elizabeth off to the left, and I would say, Well, there`s a way not to get 55 percent, go to the hard left. Anyway, we`re already out of time. God -- you`re really good at this. And you`re, of course, always brilliant. Thank you. GIBBS: You played a great game in the Super Bowl. MATTHEWS: Did you like these receptions -- (CROSSTALK) GIBBS: Absolutely -- I didn`t think you had it in you, but wow. (CROSSTALK) BRABENDER: The plug he got during the Super Bowl was better than any of the ads that people paid millions and millions for. I bet viewership triples tonight. MATTHEWS: OK, I`ll say it. Thank you, Al Michaels. Thank you very much, John Brabender. Thank you, Robert Gibbs. It was a thrill to be at the stadium and watching all this. Coming up: Chris Christie steps in a minefield over vaccines. The New Jersey governor says there needs to be balance and parents need a choice about whether to vaccinate their kids. Science, of course, says otherwise. So what`s Christie up to? I think he`s playing to the group we were talking to out in Iowa. Plus, President Obama`s budget just out there today is a bold progressive statement. He wants to raise taxes on the rich and spend money to put people to work. Good stuff -- corporate tax reform, tax reform, infrastructure. It`s everything I`ve been believing in. I don`t think it came from me, but it`s certainly what I think is right. It shows me that he wants to lead with swagger and dare the Republicans to say no to a really good centrist idea. And if you watched the Super Bowl last night, you heard plenty of talk about this guy, Chris Matthews, the Seahawks` Chris Matthews. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with why I think the Democrats need to hold their convention next year, national convention, in Philadelphia. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, New England is celebrating its Super Bowl win, and the Patriots are expected to arrive in home in Boston`s Logan Airport in the next few minutes. But they`re arriving home to a midst -- well, in the midst of a huge winter storm, the second in a week. NBC`s Miguel Almaguer is in Boston and joins us with the latest. Are they going to be able to get off the plane? MIGUEL ALMAGUER, NBC CORRESPONDENT: They will, Chris, if they`re wearing jackets. It`s bitterly cold out here. The temperatures are going to plummet over the next 24 hours. I should point out Boston has had some 14 hours of steady snow here, and also those whipping winds, where actually, on Boylston Street -- this is the parade route and this is a problem, the reason why the parade has been delayed until Wednesday. The street is a mess. There are mounds and piles of snow five, six feet high in this area. And it`s only getting worse. We`re going to see steady snow over the next few hours, and then it`s going to turn to bitterly cold temperatures. Roads across this region are a mess. In New York, there were several spinouts. At least two people were killed on the roadways. The conditions here only getting worse as it gets colder. But the good news is the snow will stop overnight. It`s just going to be those frigid temperatures they`re going to have to deal with. School has been canceled tomorrow, as well as, of course, as you know, the parade has been pushed back until Wednesday. When the Patriots do make their way out here, it`s certainly going to be cold, but probably not snowing, Chris. MATTHEWS: Great story. But Boston is strong, Miguel. You know that. Anyway, Miguel Almaguer, thank you, up in Boston, for that report. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie today opened a Pandora`s box over public health, suggesting at a press conference in London today that parents should have more of a choice when it comes to vaccinating their kids from infectious diseases like measles. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) QUESTION: Do you think Americans should vaccinate their kids? Is the measles vaccine safe? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: All I can say is that we vaccinate ours. So you know, that`s the best expression I can give you of my opinion. You know, it`s much more important, I think, when you think as a parent, than what you think as a public official. And that`s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things, as well. So that`s the balance that the government has to decide. It depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest. And so I didn`t say I`m leaving (ph) people the option. What I`m saying is that you have to have that balance in considering parental concerns because no parent -- no parent cares about anything more than they care about protecting their own child`s health. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, there`s a baseball player trying to tag every base at once. Anyway, his statement comes as the country here, our country, is going through the worst measles outbreak in two decades, a disease many thought had been eliminated just 15 years ago. In 2014, the number of reported cases of measles was tripled out of previous years, according to the Centers for Disease Control, with 644 cases across 27 states. Well, that spike is attributed to the growing anti-vaccination movement in this country, those who believe there are dangers associated with childhood vaccinations since the -- despite the scientific evidence that there is not. Well, President Obama was far less ambiguous on the subject when he was asked about it over the weekend. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We`ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated. There aren`t reasons to not get vaccinated. QUESTION: Are you telling parents you should get your kids vaccinated? OBAMA: You should get your kids vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, that`s pretty clear. But later this morning, Governor Christie appeared to walk back his comments, such as they were, with a statement from his office. Quote, "The governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection, and with a disease like measles, there is no question kids should be vaccinated." "There is no question kids should be vaccinated"! Joining me now is former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who`s a medical doctor, of course, and "USA Today`s" Susan (sic). Dr. Dean, I have to tell you, I don`t understand what game Christie`s playing there because he seemed to be saying everything at once. And the only reason I can think he`s playing that game is for trying to reach the Republican hard right or somebody out there on the yahoo regions that doesn`t like science. I don`t know what he`s up to. What do you think he`s up to? HOWARD DEAN (D-VT), FMR. GOV., FMR. PRES. CANDIDATE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I think he`s pandering. This is -- you know, this is the second time for him on public health. In general, politicians shouldn`t talk about something they don`t know anything about. He clearly doesn`t know anything about public health. He tried to quarantine some lady who came back from Liberia who was -- who did not need to be quarantined, and she fortunately -- he actually stuck her in a tent outside a hospital in New Jersey, and she finally got to go up to -- got to go up to Maine, which is where she lived, and the governor up there carried on about it. You know, there`s a science associated with medicine, and people probably ought to listen to what it is before they come to these kinds of conclusions, especially people who are running for president. MATTHEWS: Susan, I didn`t understand -- I listened closely. I read what he said before. He was asked about the measles epidemic, and then he ended up saying we ought to have parental choice of some kind. And then his office put back, Well, in cases of measles, they should be vaccinated, which is what he was asked about. So what game is he playing? SUSAN PAGE, "USA TODAY": Well, you know, if he`s -- DEAN: Well, you know, I think you`re -- I`m sorry. Go ahead, Susan. MATTHEWS: That`s for Susan first. I`m sorry. PAGE: Well, so let`s look at the politics of this. I do not think this makes much sense for Governor Christie because, in the first place, if he`s pandering the way Dr. Dean says and there`s a perception of that, that`s quite at odds with the kind of truth-teller, "I`ll stand up and tell you like it is" image he has. And if he`s pandering, he`s pandering to a group of voters that are not really his voters. I mean, the voters who are alarmed about vaccinations and likely to disbelieve that they`re the right thing to do for their kids and they homeschool their kids, this is not the Christie consolation voters. Those are voters who will go to somebody like Mike Huckabee or Rand Paul. MATTHEWS: Well, another prospective Republican candidate weighed in on the vaccination debate today, suggesting vaccinations can cause mental problems. Here`s Senator Rand Paul on CNBC earlier today -- earlier this evening. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I`m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they`re a good thing, but I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn`t own your children. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. PAUL: Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Dr. Dean, Governor Dean, that seems like a pretty loosey-goosey case of causality here. If you heard what he said there, they ended up having problems after they were vaccinated. Well, they -- people have problems after they, you know, do everything, go to New Jersey for the weekend. I don`t know. Everything happens after something else happens. This causality argument I think is pretty weakly explained there. He didn`t explain how vaccination leads to autism or anything else. DEAN: Well, first of all, it doesn`t lead to autism, and that was grossly discredited. I mean, that never should have been put out in the press 15 or 20 years ago, when it happened. Second of all, I actually believe this disqualifies Rand Paul from becoming president of the United States. If you`re a physician and you say what he just said, then you are clearly willing to override any set of facts that you ought to know. It`s one thing for Christie to blunder his way through this and try to pander. For Rand Paul to deny his entire education as a physician -- I assume he went to a good medical school and knows something about medicine -- that is truly appalling. And he -- a guy like that should never be let near the White House. MATTHEWS: Well, he may not be. Anyway, in 2009, in a campaign letter, Governor Christie, himself, also appeared to suggest a link between vaccinations and autism in children -- quote -- "I have met families affected by autism from across the state. Many of these families have expressed their concern over New Jersey`s highest-in-the-nation vaccine mandates. I stand with them now and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children." This is so much part of homeschooling, all this sort of, you know, get out of the government, get the government out of the way, the government`s bad, anything the government does is bad. And it`s like this -- DEAN: So, Chris -- MATTHEWS: -- sort of -- anyway, back to you, then back to Susan. Go ahead, Governor. DEAN: OK. Well, just very quickly, just -- this is -- look, just so I don`t want to be unfair to parents who are legitimately worried and anxious -- well, they`re not legitimately, but they`re anxious and worried, and that matters. But the issue is this. There are 310 million people in this country. A fairly significant number of them are either very small, that is, too young to be vaccinated and, therefore, at risk, or immunocompromised. That is, they have usually cancer or something like that. Those people are at risk of losing their lives. Before vaccines, we used to lose almost 1,000 kids a year to measles. So, this is not something you can just choose for your own kids. This affects every kid in your school that your kid goes to. This affects a great many people besides you. PAGE: And, of course, that goes to real consequences of just having this debate, because it feeds the concerns of parents who maybe have kids at the age that they should be getting vaccinated to worry about whether it`s the right thing to do it. It makes them, perhaps, not vaccinate their kids. That affects, as Governor Dean says, other families who for whatever reason their kids haven`t been vaccinated. That`s why we see the numbers that we have seen in this measles epidemic across this country. So, this is not really just an academic debate that politicians are having. MATTHEWS: Yes. PAGE: And it seems irresponsible, in the absence of being able to cite actual medical evidence that shows what they`re saying has some validity. MATTHEWS: Well, a 2011 study by the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, found out that 40 percent of American parents either delayed or refuse some vaccinations for their children. The data from Pew Research shows a generational shift in thinking on childhood vaccinations; 79 percent of adults over the age of 65 agreed that vaccination should be required, while just 20 percent said parents should decide, while among young adults 18 to 29 years old, just 59 percent said vaccinations should be required, while 40 percent said parents should decide. So, there you see the impact of all the scare, concern. Governor Dean, this reminds me of something that happened when we were growing up in high school and these debates would happen about fluoridation of water, because to save everybody`s teeth, it was decided that it was healthier for everybody to have some fluoride in our water, so that your teeth would be stronger. And the statistics are there. We have better teeth than a lot of countries do. And we know that. And the question is, is this something like -- and the word went out on the hard right wing, oh, this is something -- it`s a commie plot, a communist plot to sort of, I don`t know what, euthanize us or make us weak or stupid or whatever the plan was. It was supposed to do something to weaken us and it got all over out there on the right wing, the whispers, you know what fluoride does to you. And then we found out that the Soviets fluoride their own people. But I don`t know. Whatever. DEAN: In fairness, it`s not just the right. There`s also some people on the left who believe this often and sort of higher-income groups that -- this sort of an entitlement not to do this. And I understand where it comes from. Look, there are a lot of things we eat that are not good for us, a lot of antibiotics in meat that we shouldn`t have, hormones injected into chickens and meat and things like that. I understand why people are worried about this stuff. But I think part of it, Chris, is I grew up when -- I mean, I knew people who had had polio who were limping around, who were in wheelchairs as a result of that. My step-grandfather had had polio and limped for his entire adult life. So -- but I think, for our age, we have seen what happens when you don`t have vaccines. MATTHEWS: Yes. DEAN: I think that`s something the 18-to-29-year-olds you cited in the poll have never seen. And they don`t understand what the real danger to the public is by not getting vaccinated. MATTHEWS: And a lot of the young people today are not so pro-choice because they don`t know what it was like to live in an environment where you didn`t have a choice. PAGE: And if we go in this direction on vaccinations, maybe we will once again have a situation where people see the consequences of having these diseases come back. MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, I hope not. I hope that`s not the only corrective we have at hand. Anyway, thank you, Dr. and Governor Dean for joining us. It`s great to have your expertise, sir. I mean that. And Susan Page, as always. Up next, had the Seattle Seahawks won last night`s Super Bowl, a guy named Chris Matthews might have been the MVP. That`s a very good bet, by the way, four receptions, big ones. He has got the great name, but he has an even better story personally. We`re going to tell you the story of the other Chris Matthews, maybe the better one. And this is HARDBALL. Well, I`m not that nice -- the other one. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. More than 114 million viewers watched the New England Patriots take home the win in Super Bowl XLIX, according to NBC. That`s the largest audience, catch this, for anything in television history. It was a close game, of course, but there was one player with the Seattle Seahawks with a scarily familiar name, at least to me, his name, Chris Matthews, of course. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, we were talking about Chris Matthews. Darrell Bevell, the offensive coordinator, nicknamed him Hardball for Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who`s here at the game today. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of course. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Chris -- this Chris Matthews, the Seahawks` Chris Matthews said, I can`t believe it, every time I Wikipedia myself, it keeps coming up the other guy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Here we go, a little Hardball With Chris Matthews, down the field. This is the one. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Oh, my God. What a catch. Wow. Anyway, despite the Seahawks` loss, Matthews had a great night, scoring a touchdown just before halftime. He also had plenty of fans on social media throughout the game. The hashtag #ChrisMatthews has been tweeted out thousands of times since last night. But what`s even more amazing is this other Chris Matthews` backstory. This time last year, the 25-year-old was playing for the Canadian Football League and working two jobs in the off-season, one as a security guard and another at a Foot Locker. Anyway, he got the call from the Seahawks in February to try out, and his response at first, according to "Sports Illustrated," was: "I don`t get out of work until 9:00 p.m. I don`t know if I can make it." Well, a few minutes later, Matthews` agent called, saying, "What are you thinking? Get yourself home, pack up and go. Are you out of your mind?" Well, it turns out Matthews not only made the flight to the tryout, but he also made the Seahawks` practice squad. He was then bumped up to the active roster in December. That`s this past December, a month-and-a-half. And not only even two months later, he`s scoring a touchdown in the Super Bowl. That`s a Cinderella story. Up next: President Obama`s still got that swagger. He has laid out his priorities for this year, big spending on infrastructure and a tax hike for the wealthy to pay for it. And he`s daring the Republicans to say no to the deal. You`re watching HARDBALL, HARDBALL, the place for politics. RICHARD LUI, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi. I`m Richard Lui in the MSNBC newsroom. Former rap mogul Marion "Suge" Knight was charged with murder and attempted murder. It`s related to an alleged hit-and-run that killed one man and injured another. His $2 million bail was revoked. NFL Hall of Famer and network announcer Warren Sapp was arrested in Arizona. He allegedly solicited and assaulted a prostitute. And the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots back on home turf. The team`s plane just touched down in Boston. The victory parade, that is Wednesday -- now back to HARDBALL. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The economy is doing better, but you laid out a bunch of proposals that you know cannot get through this Congress that is run by Republicans now. Isn`t that kind of counterproductive? BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. No, I disagree with that. I think Republicans that believe that we should be building our infrastructure, the question is, how do we pay for it? That`s a negotiation that we should have. I assume.. GUTHRIE: You`re offering tax hikes, you know, for the healthy. That`s something they couldn`t even get through the Congress when it was run by Democrats. (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: But, Savannah, my job is to present the right ideas, and if the Republicans think they have got a better idea, they should present them. But my job is not to trim my sails and not tell the American people what we should be doing. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, today, President Obama revealed his budget proposal. And it mirrors the goals he laid out in his State of the Union. It`s unabashedly liberal. It`s a political document, of course. And while its chances of getting through a Republican-controlled Congress are slim to none, it does set the tone for the kinds of fights to come. The proposal gets revenue from taxes on the rich and corporations and uses that money for infrastructure projects, like roads, bridges, and mass transit. And it spends money on proposals like free community college aimed at Democratic constituencies, of course. Bloomberg`s Jonathan Allen joins us now. He lays out the challenge Obama has posed to Republicans -- quote -- "The spending blueprint challenges Republicans to make politically thorny choices between defending current tax rates for the rich and Obama`s proposals to boost spending for the middle class, the Pentagon, and companies that build domestic infrastructure. It also plays to the president`s Democratic base with proposals to increase spending for domestic programs such as education and child care and expanding Social Security benefits for some, for same-sex couples." Jonathan Allen joins me right now in the roundtable, along with Huffington Post`s Sabrina Siddiqui -- Siddiqui? SABRINA SIDDIQUI, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Yes, Siddiqui. MATTHEWS: Pretty good. And "Mother Jones" magazine`s David Corn, a very easy name to remember and to pronounce. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you, Sabrina. I want you to go. First of all, you started with this piece. It seems to me that you go where there`s -- where the money is and you go where there might be a chance for a deal. Now, Republicans have always believed in highways. They love it. Construction jobs, companies make money off that, not just workers, but businesses. They love bringing home the bacon. We`re going to get the road fixed in your neighborhood, we`re going to get the bridge fixed, we`re going to get sewers paid for, all kinds water projects. All that stuff has always been immensely popular with Republican members of Congress, and corporate tax reform of some kind to lower the rates. JONATHAN ALLEN, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Right. MATTHEWS: That`s the door opener for two doors opening here. ALLEN: Yes. The president is daring Republicans to basically vote against taxing corporations that keep profits overseas and taking that money and using it for infrastructure. And what you see today is a twisting in the business community. They want the infrastructure projects. They want the money spent on that. But they obviously don`t want the taxes. And even within the business community, tech companies, pharmaceutical companies, they get hit really hard by this. But there are other companies that make roads, bridges, work on the waterways, and they want to see some of this spending. He`s really trying to divide Republicans here and peel some of them off and bring them over to Democratic constituencies, doing the same thing by offering more money for the Defense Department in exchange for domestic programs. MATTHEWS: So, Sabrina, the question to you is, is the -- where`s the politics in this? I know where the parties stand. But when you go for the middle, is the middle more concerned about income inequality right now? Are they more concerned about protecting the rich so they can invest more? SIDDIQUI: Well, I think the reality is that -- MATTHEWS: Which way? There`s an answer. There`s a question here. Which one is it? Where`s the politics now? Is it fighting the problem of income inequality or is it the old thing of softening the bed of the rich? (CROSSTALK) SIDDIQUI: Fighting income inequality. I think even Republicans, you have heard them acknowledge a lot more in recent months the need to address those Americans who feel left out of this economic recovery, because, as the positive news abounds about the Obama administration`s economic progress, they have to find a new area to go after. And that`s those Americans who aren`t actually feeling the benefits. One of the things that Republicans face in terms of a challenge is that we finally got them to admit that the rich are getting richer. The problem is, the proposals to actually address that issue are ones that face deep divisions within their party or pose deep divisions within their party. MATTHEWS: What are they for? SIDDIQUI: What they`re for? There are some things they are for. Now, Paul Ryan did say he would be open to extending, for example, the earned income tax credit. That`s a low-wage subsidy to childless adults. They also are interested in reforming the corporate tax code in some way. It`s worth noting that the idea of taking money from overseas profits and putting that into spending toward infrastructure is something that Dave Camp, the former chair of the Ways and Means Committee, had also proposed at one point in time. MATTHEWS: Yes? DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: You have to remember, there are also within the Republican coalition the Tea Partiers who really don`t want any new spending. They don`t want -- whether it`s highways, they don`t care. They get voted out of office. They say they don`t care. And if it comes from Obama, they really don`t care for this. And so, you know, the old GOP which used to have some -- the Congress used to have maybe some mayors or governors who had become senators who liked all the shovel-ready projects that we talked about, particularly in states like Pennsylvania and Midwestern states like Michigan and Ohio. They`re going to be up against their right flank. Particularly if it comes with, you know, attached to tax hikes. Paul Ryan`s already out there talking about envy economics. Any time you talk about taxing the rich, the Republicans start to run away, no matter what it`s for. MATTHEWS: Well, that`s why because they have to pay the piper. Who`s paying for the campaigns? Anyway, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan -- I think the Koch brothers like that, don`t they? Anyway, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee which he is now challenged the president`s plan on "Meet the Press" yesterday. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: What I think the president is trying to do here is to, again, exploit envy economics. This top-down redistribution doesn`t work. We`ve been doing it for six years. Look, it may make for good politics. It doesn`t make for good economic growth. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: OK. Who`s smart enough to tell me if we`re getting anything done here or if we`re going to be talking about infrastructure for the next 20 years or actually fix this country? Anybody who gets to travel overseas, whether you go to Switzerland, or Germany, I was there last year, or China, I was there this year with my wife. She`s in the hotel business. She brings me along. CORN: What a deal for you. MATTHEWS: You see the world passing us. America used to be the ones that had the railroad across the continent. CORN: Airports. MATTHEWS: We had the best planes, the best airports. Now, you get the best airport in Johannesburg or anywhere in China. When are we going to catch up? SIDDIQUI: Realistically speaking, we`re not going to catch up under the Obama administration. As Dave was talking about, there are too many Republicans in Congress who oppose giving him any of those larger -- MATTHEWS: What`s he willing to put on the table? What`s the president willing to cut to pay for infrastructure? Doesn`t he just go up -- doesn`t he have to put up something on the table is. SIDDIQUI: Well, that`s what remains to be seen, what he might be willing to offer them. I think that they -- we have to also see whether now that they have control of both changes of Congress, they feel they have more leverage in some of these showdowns over the death ceiling, over funding the government. They`re already, of course, playing games with DHS funding. So -- (CROSSTALK) CORN: It`s a clash of fundamentals because the things that they want, at least the base of the party, go completely against what Obama wants to do. So, what can he give them? They want low tax cuts and no government. They think government spending is the problem. So, Obama wants to get the infrastructure going, invest in education. There`s a law in this budget, Jonathan, for NIH spending, medical research. You think people can get behind that? Most Republicans -- a lot of Republicans don`t want any of this. So, what do you offer up to get them off the dime? I don`t know. MATTHEWS: They might do chained CPI. We don`t know what they`re going to do. JONATHAN ALLEN, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Well, the Highway Trust Fund is running out of money. So, they`re going to have to do something to keep alive just the basic base level. There are a lot of other ideas in this tax plan for overseas. MATTHEWS: Let`s be honest. ALLEN: You might see an increase in the gas tax. The White House isn`t ruling that out right now. You`ve heard some Republicans on Capitol Hill start to say they might do that. They have to find some money to keep road projects going. MATTHEWS: I know this sounds very traditional, but we`re spending a lot of money we don`t have. Debt, debt, debt. We`re going to add $6 trillion debt right in this document the president came out with today, $6 trillion. The fact there`s a lot of things we`re not even paying for, let alone coughing up a few bucks to pay for something. CORN: We`re doing it less than we were a few years ago. MATTHEWS: That`s a great argument. We owe more money than we make. Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. And up next, what did Mike Huckabee mean when he appeared to be comparing gay to drinking alcohol or using profanity? This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, last week we showed you how John McCain went off some Code Pink protesters who disrupted a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing and called for Henry Kissinger to be charged with war crimes. Well, McCain called those protesters "low life scum". Well, over the weekend, he was still fuming. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I think they`re terrible people. OK? I think they`re terrible people that would do that to a 91-year-old man with a broken shoulder that to physically threaten him. That is -- that is beyond any normal behavior that I have ever observed. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Senator McCain called Kissinger one of the great states me statesmen of the 20th century which is by many people`s standards debatable. We`ll be right back. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: A lot of Republicans, particularly in the establishment and those who live on the either left coast or those who live up in the bubbles of New York and Washington are convinced that if we don`t capitulate on the same-sex marriage issue, and if we don`t raise the white flag of surrender, and just accept the inevitable, then we`re going to be losers. I tell you, Tim, it is the absolute opposite of that. And if the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and while you`re at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn`t matter either, because at that point you lose me, I`m gone. (END AUDIO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I`m gone. That`s pretty strong statement by Mike Huckabee. We`re back. That was the governor of Arkansas past. He vowed to leave the Republican Party there if establishment leaders don`t hold fast on their opposition to gay marriage. Well, this weekend, CNN`s Dana Bash asked Huckabee how he could square those convictions to his openness about having gay friends. He wrote about that in his book. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DANA BASH, CNN: You do write very eloquently about it being a religious conviction to oppose -- to oppose gay marriage, but then you also talk about the biblical backings of being heterosexual. So, given that, how do you kind of square that religious conviction with being open to having gay friends? HUCKABEE: People can be my friends who have lifestyles that are not necessarily my lifestyle. I don`t shut people out of my circle or out of my life because they have a different point of view. I don`t drink alcohol, but gosh, a lot of my friends, maybe most of them, do. You know, I don`t use profanity, but believe me, I got a lot of friends who do. Unless, you know, I get a new version of the Scriptures, it`s really not my place to say, OK, I`m just going to evolve. It`s like asking somebody who`s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Huckabee might have stirred a lot of -- some growling here, many of which sounded like this one from "Chicago Tribune" -- "Mike Huckabee compares being gay to using alcohol, profanity." I`m back with our roundtable, Jonathan, Sabrina and David. I don`t know how diverse we are here. But, David, what do you think about this comment? CORN: I ordered shrimp in delis. I don`t know what he`s talking about. MATTHEWS: Shell fish. CORN: Yes, I know, some juicy shell fish. Maybe he doesn`t know that. But the thing is about -- what he`s talking -- again, being gay is a lifestyle, it`s a choice -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So, does it make a person a bad person who still believes in nurture not nature? CORN: Well, that (INAUDIBLE). But I think is, I have say, he says he is not evolving and he actually is a little bit. MATTHEWS: Here we go. Sarcasm in the warning here. CORN: No, I`ll telling you, 2007, when he ran last time, I found a book he had written a few years later, in which he compared homosexuality with pedophilia and necrophilia. So, it`s about as bad as you can get. He`s not doing that anymore. He`s just comparing it to drinking. So, that I think is evolution. MATTHEWS: Being gay is like carnal knowledge of a cadaver. CORN: That`s what he used to say, that`s what he used to say. So -- ALLEN: Alcoholism, you know, I`m not a scientist, and neither is Mike Huckabee, but alcoholism has a genetic component. I like to think profanity does too, if you heard my mother talked when she was alive. That gets passed down. But the thing, to be serious about this for a second, he is expressing a view that is not bigoted about policy, per se, but about the people. And he is basically saying they`re making a choice to do something he finds to be reprehensible. And, you know, forgetting the science for a minute, that could turn off a lot of voters and certainly -- maybe not in the Republican primary, but certainly in the general election. MATTHEWS: Yes. I don`t think we have to decide nature versus nurture. I`m with nature, because every time I talk to someone who is gay, they tell me very early in life, they knew their orientation. They just knew it. It wasn`t an argument or a stuff call on who they were. So I`m sort of with the nature thing, but it could be something that affect you at a very young age, we don`t know, I don`t know, you know? SIDDIQUI: And Huckabee wants to position himself as a values candidate and sort of standard bearer for the socially conservative wing of the party, which is already shaping up to be a crowded space, with Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. He is trying to get out ahead by generating these headlines. But the issue is -- MATTHEWS: Let`s hold on for a second, Sabrina, you`re new here and I want to try something on you. Could it be that he means it. This is what he thinks? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: We always assume those guys are pols. Sometimes, they tell you what they think. SIDDIQUI: If you want to quote previous comments -- referencing those previous comments, he made, this is about as far as Mike Huckabee can go when you look at the turning tide of support for same sex marriage. He said he`s never going to evolve on the issue. He`ll leave the party if they embrace gay marriage. So, the best he can do is find some less, in his mind, demeaning way to explain his view to homosexuality. CORN: I think he is trimming his sails compare to previous position. You know, I`ll go drinking with a gay person, he is essentially saying, which he wouldn`t have said before. I do think because that field is crowded, it gets him attention. He gets talk and radio shows. But in terms of a political strategy, I don`t think this is a winning strategy. He won Iowa in 2008 but he didn`t go anywhere after that and now he has more competition. ALLEN: In a primary, I think it`s a very good strategy for him, and it does as Sabrina points out, had the benefit of being what he believes. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think that`s true about him. I think that`s him. I think that`s Huckabee. SIDDIQUI: And one of the thing strategically, though, is that there was a recent poll that showed among likely Republican voters in Iowa, the area where he is boxing himself in, is the top three issues that they identified their priorities where terrorism, the deficit, and jobs and the economy. Social issues like abortion and gay marriage only 7 percent said they care strongly. MATTHEWS: Yes. Anyway, thank you. Nice to have you. Nice to have you, Jon. Nice to have you, David. The shell fish is (INAUDIBLE) -- (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. CORN: He has to get out more. MATTHEWS: When we return, let I will say why I think Philadelphia -- you know why -- I think Philadelphia should be the convention city in 2016 for a lot of good reasons. I`ll give you one, a really good one. It`ll be an exciting convention. It means something. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this: This weekend, "The Washington Post" was kind enough to publish my case for the Democrats to hold their 2016 national convention in Philadelphia. When I was growing up in that city, my mother took my brothers and me to see the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall. She also took us to Carpenters Hall and, of course, Betsy Ross`s House. She wanted her children to know the history of our city which was vital to the beginnings of our country. Well, these historic sites are within quick walking distance of Philadelphia`s convention center. When Democratic delegates from all over the country arrive in July 2016 they could visit much of their country`s revolutionary history without leaving Market Street. But the greater opportunity is what a 2016 Philadelphia convention could do on television. Consider the themes at the heart of the current national debate over voting rights, marriage equality and pay equity. Now consider the opening words of our founding document. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." An African American could speak proudly of the election of Barack Obama and of the continued struggle against voter suppression. A gay couple could talk about marriage equality and their right to the pursuit of happiness. A female delegate could make the case for equal treatment and pay in the workplace. By gathering in iconic Philadelphia, Democrats could lay claim to not just the flag but what it stands for. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020201cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 5 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 2, 2015 Monday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 2, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Krystal Ball GUESTS: Chaka Fattah, Jared Bernstein, Jon Resnick, Issie Lapowsky. Joan Walsh, Dana Milbank, Dana Jacobson SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 6876 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama demanding Republican Congress to end mindless austerity, instead focus on middle class economy. Increased drone use raising concern about privacy and security. The issues of vaccinations is becoming political. As the President was telling Americans to get vaccinated, New Jersey governor Chris Christie was in England touring a flu vaccine plant, saying parents should have more balance in choice on vaccinations. The Super Bowl came down to the very end and it was the most watched show in U.S. television history with over 114 million tuning in. REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed, and thanks to you for tuning in. Tonight`s lead, President Obama releases his plan for a more fair country. Will Republicans get on board? The president unveiled his new budget today. An ambitious plan for taking aim at income inequality. Building on his State of the Union address. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Middle class economics. The idea that this country does best when everybody gets a fair shot. And everybody`s doing their fair share. And everybody plays by the same set of rules. That`s what this budget is about. It reflects our values. Making sure that we are making the investments we need to keep America safe, to keep America growing. And to make sure that everybody is participating no matter what they look like, where they come from, no matter how they started in life, they`ve got a chance to get ahead in this great country of ours. That`s what I believe. That`s what you believe. Let`s get it done. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The budget contains tax breaks, childcare subsidies, and education initiatives target at low and middle-income families. It invests in infrastructure projects and it wipes away those automatic cuts forced by the GOP Congress. All paid for by taxing corporate profits kept in offshore havens. Closing the trust fund loophole and raising taxes on investment gains for high- income earners. It`s detailed blueprint for the economy grounded in the president`s vision of fairness. And yet, even before it was released, Republicans like Paul Ryan went into attack mode. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: What I think the president is trying to do here is to, again, exploit envy economics. This top-down redistribution doesn`t work. We`ve been doing it for six years. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Envy economics is a new spin on their tired old claim of class warfare. But then Congressman Ryan took it even a step further. Quote, "The Obamanomics that we`re practicing now have exacerbated inequality. The wealthy are doing really well. They`re practicing trickle-down economics now." Now that takes some brass. The same congressman who wants to gut the safety net and lower taxes on the rich is accusing President Obama of trickle-down economics? He`s accusing the president of making inequality worse? Really? Republicans need to put these phony talking points aside and talk about real solutions for giving a fair shot to all Americans. Joining me now is Congressman Chaka Fattah, Democrat from Pennsylvania, and Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Biden. Thank you both for being here. REP. CHAKA FATTAH (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Thank you, Rev. JARED BERNSTEIN, FORMER CHIEF ECONOMIST FOR VP BIDEN: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: Congressman, Paul Ryan says the president, Barack Obama, is practicing trickle-down economics. Isn`t that the oldest trick in politics, accusing the other side of doing what you`re actually guilty of? FATTAH: Well, look, these guys have to deal with reality. The president has laid out his budget. Every dollar he lays out where we need to invest it. He says we need to move away from mindless austerity to a smart investment that strengthen our country. So what we have to do now is get past the rhetoric. They have to put their numbers on the table. He -- the president says, hey, we need to make permanent my legislation that created the American opportunities tax credit so that right now millions of families benefit by it, but it`s temporary. He wants to make it permanent. He wants to invest in great programs that create workforce development, job training. So they have to come with what they -- you have to get past the rhetoric. They`re going to have to put numbers on the table and join the president in this debate. SHARPTON: Well, you know, when you talk about numbers on the table, Jared, let`s look at what Congressman Ryan`s economic agenda is. Not really the numbers, but his agenda. BERNSTEIN: OK. SHARPTON: He wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He opposes raising the minimum wage. He called for cuts to Medicaid, cuts to food stamps, and cuts to Pell Grants. Now does that sound like a plan to combat income inequality to you? BERNSTEIN: No. And if you combine that with his budgets which consistently cut deeply into programs for low-income people while cutting even more deeply into the taxes paid by the wealthy, then you have what is actually trickle-down economics. That`s the definition of it. So he got trickle-down upside down, and I guess that can happen if you`re just in the business of saying whatever comes into your head. I very much like where Representative Fattah is coming from, which is let`s put the name-calling aside for a couple of days, sit dot down, roll up our sleeves, and actually deal with some challenges we face. I actually think Republicans would like to do something on infrastructure in this country. Perhaps they`d like to do something on educational opportunity. We know that even Paul Ryan has said he agrees that we should expand the earned income tax credit for childless adults. So how about actually doing some work? I go to work, you go to work, the congressman goes to work. How about actually stopping with this ridiculous upside-down name calling, getting together and trying to deal with the challenges that the nation faces? SHARPTON: Well, and dealing with those challenges, Congressman, is actually for what the president is proposing -- FATTAH: Right. SHARPTON: -- something the American people want. When you look at the items on the president`s budget, 51 percent support his call for free community college, 66 percent back his paid sick leave proposal, 58 percent support the idea of closing tax loopholes on higher earners and giving credits to middle-income families, 73 percent support taxing corporate profits kept overseas. Congressman Fattah, are Republicans worried that they`re losing the public debate on fairness to the president? FATTAH: Well, it`s obvious, because, you know, the president laid out a $470 million proposal to improve our roads and our bridges, our ports, our airports today. The Republicans have been talking about this, but now they have to come and react to that proposal, and on the president`s point, he`s made a budget that the numbers work out. You know, he says, look, we want to -- we want to tax corporate profits made by American corporations that those profits are held off shore. Let`s deal with that so that we can fund some of these important programs that we need funded in our country. The president is not running for election anymore. He`s running to strengthen the American economy. He`s done a darn good job so far and it would be great if we could get some of our Republican friends rather than try to tackle their own quarterback, to actually work with the president because we`re competing with our economic competitors abroad. It`s really not about Democrat and Republican. SHARPTON: Now, Jared, you talked about the way that some of the Republicans may work along with some things. You`ve even written about it. And you highlighted infrastructure investment, raising budget caps, expanding earned income tax credit, and upward mobility project and anti- poverty program. How optimistic are you, Jared, that Republicans will, in fact, come to the table and try to work around maybe some of these issues? BERNSTEIN: Well, I would actually put the odds on the first two that you mentioned that somewhere, perhaps above 50 percent. And I`ll tell you why. I`m talking about infrastructure and raising these spending caps otherwise known as sequestration. You know, we always have to have an obscure word here in Washington for everything. On infrastructure, at the end of may, the congressman knows this, the Highway Trust Fund goes bust. And so we`re going to have to come up with some way to prevent that from happening so that we don`t have to put a stop to programs that are actively in place repairing our transportation infrastructure. Secondly, when it comes to raising these budget caps, both sides are chafing at the bit, whether it`s on the defense side of the appropriations, many Republicans don`t want to see that spending cap bind, or whether it`s on the nondefense side where you`re talking about health and education investment, in research, in science, in infrastructure, nutrition. Obviously many people on the Democratic side want to see those caps go up. They`ve done it before. There was actually a bipartisan budget plan, Paul Ryan and Patty Murray did it. SHARPTON: Yes. BERNSTEIN: I believe they may go back to that again. SHARPTON: All right. But, Congressman Fattah, I mean, when you`re dealing, before we were hearing cut, cut, cut, austerity plans. It`s a different economy now. Do you think there can be a deal made? Do you think there can be some coming together for what the president is proposing? FATTAH: There will be a deal, Reverend, but let me say this. What the Republicans want to do is lie to -- not tell the truth to their constituency, to their base. The president is not a big spender. He`s never spent one dollar that the Congress didn`t appropriate. That`s number one. Number two, we`re going to come to an agreement around appropriations because it has to be done. SHARPTON: Exactly. FATTAH: Now we`ll go through the shouting, we`ll go through the back and forth but at the end of the year, there`s going to be an agreement about how to move our country forward and the Republicans are not getting everything they want. The president won`t get everything he asked for today. But we`ll have a meeting of the minds. We need to make sure that working people and those struggling to get into the middle class are not left out. SHARPTON: Well, I guess the devil is in the details. FATTAH: It is. SHARPTON: If you say the meeting of the minds, I just hope as it comes together, it provides jobs and some basics for the poorest and the middle class Americans that have so far not gotten the right growth in terms of this recovery. Congressman Chaka Fattah and Jared Bernstein, thank you for your time tonight. FATTAH: Thank you, Rev. Thank you. BERNSTEIN: You`re welcome. SHARPTON: Coming up, Governor Chris Christie and the vaccination debate. Why he had to clarify a statement today. And a drone lands at the White House sparking new questions about drone safety in America. Tonight, we`ll show you how easy it is to operate drones. Here in the studio. And a truly super, Super Bowl. From the catch to the call. To Katy Perry, to the ads. We`ll talk about it all ahead on POLITICSNATION. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: It was the most talked about Super Bowl ever on Facebook and Twitter. 28.4 million tweets were sent about the Super Bowl. And 265 million Super Bowl-related posts, comments and likes on Facebook. The top moments were people liked and talked about Katy Perry`s halftime show, that game-winning Patriots interception by the now household name Malcolm Butler. And the moment the Patriots were crowned Super Bowl champs. Coming up, we`ll talk about the game, the show, and the controversy. But please keep those conversations going on Facebook, or tweet us @politicsnation. SHARPTON: We`re back with growing questions about the potential uses and abuses of drones. The Super Bowl on Sunday was declared a no-drone zone. Last week, a drone crashed on the White House lawn, and another crashed near the U.S./Mexico border loaded with six pounds of meth. The FAA says drones can be used only for personal use, but everyone from photographers, to conservationalist, to real estate agents, wants to use them for commercial purposes. Amazon even wants to test drones for delivering packages to customers. But what about privacy? And security? We`ve already seen that a drone can be modified to carry a paint ball gun that accurately hit its targets. Recently I talked with Jon Resnick who works for the company that makes the drone that crashed at the White House and I asked what they`re doing to prevent another accident. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JON RESNICK, DJI MARKETING REPRESENTATIVE: It`s actually an extension of our no-fly program that we started last year, and expanding it to the D.C. no-fly zone was pretty much a no-brainer. SHARPTON: How easy are these drones to learn to fly? RESNICK: Well, they`re easier than older style RC aircraft, the traditional model aircraft, but they still take some practice. SHARPTON: Let`s see it fly. RESNICK: Here we go. Now you can see I can control how high it goes, how low it goes, left, right, forward, back. It normally will use GPS technology to know its position in space, but right now we`re indoors so it`s going to tend to wander around a little bit. SHARPTON: But you`re controlling all of its movement? RESNICK: Yes, I am, with these sticks right here. So -- SHARPTON: How long can one of these fly over us? RESNICK: Our battery -- we promote our battery life for as long as 25 minutes, but in reality, it really depends on how you`re flying it, what the weather conditions are like. SHARPTON: All right. We`ll bring it down so we can talk a little bit. RESNICK: Yes. Potential uses are myriad. All kinds of folks are looking at using these, besides just, like photographers, we`re talking about search and rescue folks, agriculture, conservation, forestry. SHARPTON: How difficult is it to modify a drone? After the White House incident, we heard people talking about whether you can attach an explosive or something to one. RESNICK: I can`t speak for other manufacturers, but we work all the time at maintaining the security of our drones, the software security of our drones so that they`re very difficult to actually alter. SHARPTON: Let`s see it fly again. RESNICK: All righty. Here we go. SHARPTON: Jon Resnick, I appreciate the demonstration. Both of them. Thank you for your time. RESNICK: Not a problem. (END VIDEOTAPE) SHARPTON: Joining me now is Issie Lapowsky, staff writer at "Wired" magazine. The February issue of "Wired" is out now, and features an article on the use of delivery drones. And the rise of this technology around the world. Thanks for being here, first of all. ISSUE LAPOWSKY, STAFF WRITER, WIRED: Thanks for having me. SHARPTON: Do you expect drone use to surge over the next decade? LAPOWSKY: Oh, absolutely, and it`s only going to get more popular once the FAA comes out with its rules around drone use. Right now, drones are sort of in this gray area, people don`t know what is legal, how they`re allowed to use it and once the FAA releases its rules I think people will be a lot more interested. Especially the more people use it and post what they`re doing with drones on social media as they collect videos and photos. If they`re collecting with their drones on Instagram, people see it and want to get their hands on that, too. SHARPTON: You know, some countries are already allowing drones for commercialism, like a pizza delivery drone in Russia, you just enter the coordinates and -- for your location and it lowers a pizza down online, or an ambulance drone being tested in Belgium that could offer emergency assistance in just minutes. What do private companies envision for the future when they think about drones? LAPOWSKY: I think that there`s -- everything. I mean, we`ve seen companies or companies in Bhutan delivering medical supplies to rural towns. You`re seeing weather photographers who want to use this to, you know, take really out of control photos. So I think that it really runs the gamut. And once -- again once these rules are out, then people will find more and more applications that we never even dreamed of today. SHARPTON: But how will the FAA address safety concerns? Is there any way to make sure drones don`t get where they`re not supposed to be? We don`t seem to have our arms around this yet. LAPOWSKY: That`s the thing. They`re going to have to release some rules around how businesses can use it. Already recreational use is legal as long as you`re flying under 400 feet. Again that`s pretty hard to enforce. You can set the rule but it`s pretty hard to enforce. There is a lot of talk of licensing. And we`re not really sure what would go into licensing. SHARPTON: But there`s the problem, Issie, because if we -- if we`re not enforcing it, I mean, are fears over malicious use of drones legitimate? We`ve already seen that a drone can be equipped to deal with a paintball gun. LAPOWSKY: I think they`re absolutely legitimate. And this is going to be an effort not just by the FAA but the National Counterterrorism Center. They`re going to have to work together because the FAA is used to regulating airspace. We`re going to need a lot more help to figure out how to combat terrorism and other misuses. SHARPTON: All right, Issie Lapowsky, thank you so much for your time tonight. And you can read more in the February issue of "Wired " available now. Still ahead, Governor Christie and the vaccine controversy. Was it a gap or a play to the base? Also what are people saying about the call? And Katy Perry`s halftime show. But first, how Speaker Boehner is a lot like Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day." It`s tonight`s "Gotcha." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He says that -- that he -- (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Ouch. This is the mayor of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, getting an earful from Jimmy the Groundhog on this chilly Groundhog Day. Of course, for many people, Groundhog Day triggers memories of the classic Bill Murray movie, where he lives the same day over and over again. It`s kind of like Speaker John Boehner. Threatening to repeal the Affordable Care Act year after year after year. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: We`ve made it clear that we want to repeal Obamacare and replace it. The House will act next week to repeal the job-killing health care law. This week, the House will vote to repeal Obamacare. We have voted to repeal Obamacare. We want Obamacare gone. The House, I`m sure, at some point next year will move to repeal Obamacare because it should be repealed and it should be replaced. We have 47 new members of Congress on the Republican side who`ve never had the chance to cast their vote to repeal Obamacare. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It`s the same old script year after year. And this Groundhog Day is no different. Republicans are gearing up to hold their 56th vote to repeal the health care law tomorrow. A law helping millions of people. President Obama has promised to veto it, but Speaker Boehner is still letting it happen. I`m going to toss it over to Bill Murray to help explain how we should all feel about this one. Couldn`t have said it better, myself. But at the end of the movie, Bill Murray`s character sees the error of his ways and breaks out of the cycle. I guess that means there`s hope for Speaker Boehner, too, but until then, as we`ve done year after year after year, we gotcha. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Measles is preventable. I understand that there are families that in some cases are concerned about the effect of vaccinations. The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We`ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated. There aren`t reasons to not get vaccinated. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Are you telling parents you should get your kids vaccinated? OBAMA: You should get your kids vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The issues of vaccinations is becoming political. As the President was telling Americans to get vaccinated, New Jersey governor Chris Christie was in England touring a flu vaccine plant, saying this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: All I can say is we vaccinate ours, so, you know, that`s the best I can give you is my opinion. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that`s the balance that the government has to decide. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It was a controversial statement that Christie tried to clarify. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRISTIE: It depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is and all the rest, so we have to have that conversation, but that has to -- that`s the move and shift, in my view, from disease type. Not every vaccine is created equal. And not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It set off a firestorm on social media. With many saying he was putting public health at risk. Others saying he was playing politics. His office tried to walk it back with a statement saying, "With a disease like measles, there`s no question kids should get vaccinated. At the same time, different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate." So, what was Christie saying and why was he saying it? Joining me now are Dana Milbank and Joan Walsh. DANA MILBANK, THE WASHINGTON POST: Hi, Reverend. SHARPTON: Dana, let me go to you first. What do you think Chris Christie was trying to say with these comments? MILBANK: Well, clearly he`s not up to date on his inoculation for foot and mouth disease. Because it sounds like whatever he was trying to do, he flubbed it. So, one suspects he was going at what happened to Rick Perry in 2012 with the HPV vaccine. And he knows there`s a fringe crowd on the rights there`s a fringe crowd on the left, too, that has declared war on vaccine. And he was trying to make a nod to that, but he clearly stepped in it there and he did something that would indicate to the average American and the vast majority of Americans understand the importance of vaccination to suggest that he`s not quite ready for primetime. Not necessarily that he`s in cahoots with the autism anti-vaccine crowd, but that he`s not just being very careful before speaking. SHARPTON: Well, Joan, let me go there. Because this isn`t the first time Christie has questioned vaccines. In 2009, as he ran for governor, he wrote that he supported parents who thought vaccines were linked to autism. Writing, quote, "I stand with them now and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affects their children." Joan, seems like a lot of flip- flopping from the governor on whether children should need to be vaccinated or not. JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: I agree. I mean, I don`t think it`s clear at all what he really believes given that history, Reverend Al. He should have been careful about it. He also looks kind of frivolous. You know, he`s in England, great. I guess it`s a trade trip. I don`t really know. He seems not to realize that back here, back at home in New Jersey, in California, in New York, we`re concerned about an outbreak of measles and so he seems to think he can have it both ways, he can nod to the parental choice, that`s always good for republicans, while saying I did vaccinate my kids. That`s sloppy. And it`s really irresponsible. And when it`s played back to back with the President`s clear message, it looks terrible. SHARPTON: Well, let`s cut to the chase, Dana. What are we looking at here? Is he playing politics? Is he trying to have it both ways? Is he trying to not go too far to appease certain crowds as he contemplates and many of us feel he`s going to enter this race? What`s really going on here, Dana? MILBANK: Well, I suspect, and we don`t know what`s going on in that great brain of Chris Christie, that he is trying to have it both ways and he wound up making a mistake in the way he spoke. Now, you know, it`s one thing for Rand Paul to come out and say, you know, parents should have a choice. He`s a libertarian. But Chris Christie, I mean, do you recall this is the same Chris Christie who was basically imprisoning this woman who they thought might have Ebola? SHARPTON: That`s exactly right. MILBANK: In New Jersey. Turned out she didn`t. But this is the same Chris Christie saying, oh, you know, measles, that`s really no problem, just don`t worry about that. SHARPTON: He basically -- MILBANK: He`s not going to -- yes. SHARPTON: He basically had this woman held because they questioned whether she had Ebola. WALSH: Right. SHARPTON: Now you`re talking about children with vaccines while he`s standing in front of a plant in England trying to look more global -- WALSH: Right. SHARPTON: -- with his political understanding. I mean, the question I guess is fine. Everybody does what they do to show what they`re trying to show to run for president. All of us that have ran did. But the question is, what do you really believe in and where are -- where`s your central standing ground? WALSH: Right. And in the case of Kaci Hickox, he basically defied public health. He was not symptomatic. What he did flew in the face of what experts were advising, Reverend Al. And now, again when he met the continuity in both cases, he`s ignoring public health experts, his setting his own judgment, and he`s doing something that`s not advancing public health. SHARPTON: Rand Paul, it`s not just Christie. Rand Paul. Listen to what Rand Paul had to say on CNBC. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I think they`re a good thing, but I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn`t own your children. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Okay. PAUL: Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Freedom. I mean, is this a new talking point, Dana, with the right? Freedom? MILBANK: I don`t know what freedom is when they`re saying you own your children. What are they, golden retrievers? I didn`t realize that parents own children. But look, this is a fringe element that he`s representing. The libertarians. You expect that kind of thing from Rand Paul. You don`t expect it from the governor of New Jersey. WALSH: Well, he went a little bit -- he went a little beyond what we expect and parents owning their children really is a staple of right-wing rhetoric. He also got abusive with the CNBC reporter today in a very touchy way. So this whole thing I think is backfiring on him. Both he and Chris Christie seem not to have thought very deeply about the implications of what they`re doing and when they get political pushback, they seem unprepared for it so that seems kind of lame to me. SHARPTON: But isn`t -- well, let me ask this. When he ran for president, Rick Perry in 2011 reversed himself on the HPV vaccine mandate in Texas calling it a mistake because he was getting a lot of pressure from the right. Quote, "The vaccine would encourage promiscuity, according to many conservatives who had long supported Perry`s views against abortion and same-sex marriage." Dana, I think you referred to it. Is this what they`re trying to avoid? MILBANK: Well, they seem to be stepping right back into that. That`s presumably why Chris Christie made this sort of statement because he knows about the trouble that Chris Christie got himself into. He knows that -- SHARPTON: You mean Rick Perry. MILBANK: Sorry, Rick Perry did. And he knows that Michele Bachmann had just a field day with that. And so, you know, the problem is whether they`re talking about vaccination or about birth control. You can see why they want to limit the number of debates on the republican side because they get into president 19th Century debates here in the 21st Century. SHARPTON: But isn`t that also part of what we`re looking at here, are these guys ready for primetime politics? The big stage. Where you`re going to have to deal with these issues and not stumble all over yourself in talking about it. WALSH: Right. It really seems like they`re not. And it`s somewhat surprising with Chris Christie because he`s supposed to be the moderate. He should not be, you know, appealing to the Michele Bachmann demographic but it seems like he thinks that he`s got to. SHARPTON: Dana Milbank and Joan Walsh. Thank you both for your time this evening. WALSH: Thanks, Rev. MILBANK: Thanks, Reverend. SHARPTON: Coming up, the epic Super Bowl ending. Some are calling it the worst play call in sports history. Do you agree? Plus, the ad that sparked outrage online. How far is too far? And where does Katy Perry halftime show rank? Our Super Bowl after party is next. SHARPTON: It was a game for the ages. The Super Bowl came down to the very end and chances are, you watched the Patriots pull it off. It was the most watched show in U.S. television history. Over 114 million tuned in. Including my next guest. Joining me for the after party, MSNBC`s Krystal Ball and CBS Sports Network Dana Jacobson. Thank you both for being here. DANA JACOBSON, CBS SPORTS NETWORK: Thanks, Rev. KRYSTAL BALL, MSNBC CO-HOST, "THE CYCLE": Thanks for having us here after party. It`s very exclusive. JACOBSON: I agree. A list of two. SHARPTON: How did you get tickets? Anyone want to guess where we`re starting? Seahawks fans, please look away. Seattle only had to go half a yard to win the game, but a Rookie who wasn`t even drafted saved the day for the Patriots with a goal-line interception. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Play clock to five. Pass is intercepted at the goal line by Malcolm Butler. Unreal. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The "Seattle Times" calls it the worst call in Super Bowl history, and many players agree. Dana, the Seahawks coach took the blame. What`s your take? JACOBSON: Somebody has to take the blame. I think it`s great that Pete Carroll took the blame because that`s what you want in your head coach, somebody who`s going to stand up and say -- BALL: A classy move. JACOBSON: Yes, this was my fault. It was the worst call that I have ever seen and I listened to Pete Carroll stand up there and say, blame me, don`t blame Russell Wilson. Also saying, don`t blame my offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell, this was on me. It was the worst call. You have Marshawn Lynch. Give Marshawn Lynch the football. Let him get into the end zone. I`ve heard this stat of this season 0 for five when the Seahawks were that close to the end zone for Marshawn Lynch to get into the end zone, I don`t care, it`s the Super Bowl, he had the ability to be your MVP. Give him the football. BALL: Dana is absolutely right. And to me, it`s not just that. It`s also amazing that everybody thought, myself included, that they would run the ball and still the Patriots were ready which is to me amazing. JACOBSON: Right. You don`t want to take away from the Patriots and the defense they had, but if you`re Pete Carroll in saying, it was my call and it was my fault, call a time-out. You did have chances. You had time- outs. SHARPTON: Yes. JACOBSON: Then if you didn`t like the way it looked, then it wasn`t the right situation to run the ball -- SHARPTON: They were ready. The Patriots were ready. BALL: I also don`t understand, I mean, the logic was we wanted to run down the clock, right? So that the Patriots wouldn`t have another chance. You also have to trust in your defense that if there`s ten seconds left on the clock -- JACOBSON: Pretty good defense, too. BALL: Seattle`s got a great defense. They could have absolutely handled that. SHARPTON: Well, now, I mean the conspiracy theories are crazed, but I mean, no one can really make rhyme or reason out of this, but I`ve got to give Malcolm credit. He`s a household name. He said that he had a vision he was going to make a big play, and his vision ended up being absolutely right. JACOBSON: You know, we`ve heard so much about Russell Wilson, talks about the visions that he has. SHARPTON: Yes. JACOBSON: He sees the whole game. It was sort of interesting now on the flip side somebody else`s vision enabled them to make the play and that`s how guys make names for themselves, get contracts. He wasn`t the MVP. Brady was. But that moment, that`s the moment we`re going to remember. BALL: Memorable moment, for sure. SHARPTON: Well, now to the best and the worst of the Super Bowl commercials. We saw it all this year from puppies trying to make their way home, to dads emerging in various ads. Celebrity cameos including Liam Neeson and few social media, a few had social media on fire including this one for toenail fungus. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Toenail fungus? Don`t hide it. Tackle it with new FDA approved Jublia. Jublia is a prescription medicine proven to treat toenail fungus. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But no commercial got people on social media fired up quite like this nationwide ad. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED BOY: I`ll never learn to ride a bike. Or get cooties. And I won`t ever get married. I couldn`t grow up because I died from an accident. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Krystal, what`s your take on it? BALL: I don`t know what they were thinking. I don`t -- I know they wanted to make a profound point. I know they wanted to make a big splash and start this conversation, but there was no understanding of what your audience would be doing at that moment. I mean, everybody`s at the party having a beer wanting to celebrate yourself is concluded. I know you don`t do such things. SHARPTON: Right. BALL: But wanting to celebrate. And then this commercial comes on. It was a very unfortunate -- SHARPTON: They had to come out with a statement today. BALL: Yes, that`s right. JACOBSON: They did but I got to say, I`m almost on the flip side. I know what you`re saying. It was, everybody was in the social setting and celebrating. But that was the point of the ad. It got everybody`s attention. If the idea was to raise awareness and say that there are these preventable accidents that cause us to lose children in our lives, they did that. They may have made us mad in that moment because my immediate thought was this is horrible, you don`t have this now. But the reason -- they got to it. SHARPTON: Yes. I guess it goes to what the goal was whether it was awareness or whether you wanted customers. But we have to talk about the halftime show. Katy Perry roared and soared. She started by taking the reins of a giant lion to sing her hit song "roar." Then she danced with two sharks. People on social media loved these guys. Miss Elliott and Lenny Kravitz took the stage with her and then she literally soared through the crowd singing her hit "Firework." Dana, what did you think? Not as big as spectacular as some performances, but still well received. JACOBSON: Yes, I will always be -- Prince will be my favorite I think forever, but I loved -- we were talking about this, Krystal, the way she came out on that lion. I was horrified, that people tweeted to me as a lions fan from Detroit that`s the closest the lions will ever get to the Super Bowl. BALL: I don`t buying that. SHARPTON: That`s mean. That`s mean. JACOBSON: This so was Katy Perry. I mean, this was vintage her. This was exactly what I wanted to see from her. SHARPTON: What`s your favorite halftime show from the past, Krystal? BALL: Actually, this is first time I have to say that I`ve actually gone back and rewound it and watched the whole thing over. I actually missed some of the game to go back and watch it again. I thought the part where they had the optical illusion tilting the field was just unbelievable. The only thing I didn`t like, I didn`t like the flame dress. Everything else I thought was incredible. JACOBSON: Didn`t do her justice. BALL: And Missy Elliott, that performance was spectacular. JACOBSON: Yes. SHARPTON: Oh, yes! BALL: And people are downloading her songs like crazy now. JACOBSON: Even though she was humming. SHARPTON: Yes. Missy Elliott and Malcolm with the Patriots -- JACOBSON: Butler. Yes. BALL: Yes, absolutely. SHARPTON: Malcolm Butler and Missy Elliott are the stars of this weekend. No doubt about it. Dana, Krystal, please stay with me. When we come back, how does President Obama watch football? And we`re having a great after party here, but Jimmy Fallon had some fun in Phoenix last night. That`s next. SHARPTON: We`re back with our Super Bowl after party. Krystal and Dana join me. Before the big game started, President Obama met with "Today" show host Savannah Guthrie over a beer, brewed at the White House. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: While we`re having this beer, football or basketball? OBAMA: I`m still a basketball guy, but I love football. GUTHRIE: Offense or defense? OBAMA: Always o offense. GUTHRIE: Wings or chips and guac? OBAMA: Now, that`s tough. You know, I`m going to go chips and guac. I`m a fanatic about guac. GUTHRIE: Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden? OBAMA: Love them both. Good try. GUTHRIE: I had to try. I had to try. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Krystal, not even the beer could get him to answer that Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden question. BALL: He was quick, man, right? I was with that, too. That was amazing. I mean, obviously he selected both of them to be with him, and I`ll say in terms of the way the race is shaking out, Joe Biden not looking so strong in the polls. Several of President Obama`s key advisers have gone over to support Hillary. It looks like they`re kind of tacitly backing her. And Joe haven`t said a whole lot lately. So, even though the President is never going to weigh in, there have been some sort of behind the scenes moves more towards Hillary Clinton. SHARPTON: Dana? JACOBSON: You know, to me, I`d want to see those three sitting watching the Super Bowl. I was impressed -- BALL: Now, that would be interesting. JACOBSON: That would be interesting, yes. I was actually impressed because I liked the setting. And I don`t know if that`s an NBC choice or it was the White House choice, because to me, I`ve always sat there as a football fan and said, why am I watching the President on Super Bowl Sunday? I get it, it`s the audience is there, but I liked that they just sort of kept that part to what -- BALL: Very smart. JACOBSON: -- to what anybody would just want to see. It made me laugh. It really did. I don`t think it was a tough choice between chips and guac. BALL: A very relaxed setting. SHARPTON: Very good in those settings. JACOBSON: Yes. BALL: Yes. SHARPTON: All right. And Jimmy Fallon had his own after party last night. The "Tonight Show" was on the road in Phoenix and celebrated with an epic lip-synch battle. (MUSIC PLAYING) Dana, who are you taking in a battle like this, Jimmy Fallon, Will Ferrell, or Kevin Hart? JACOBSON: I can`t take any. I mean, I`m really torn. They were all brilliant in their own way. Drew Barrymore jumping on. SHARPTON: Yes. JACOBSON: Honestly, I`m such a huge Will Ferrell fan. I would lean that way. But Kevin Hart when he was singing John Legend to Will Ferrell, and I know that Will Ferrell helped make that in what he was doing with him. But that`s that improve moment between the two of them that was just -- SHARPTON: Both of them very, very talented. BALL: We`re the real winners having gotten to witness that. I mean, Will Ferrell, though, Beyonce "Drunken Love." JACOBSON: On the floor. BALL: That was unbelievable. As Jimmy Fallon said, you can`t un-see that, although I see it in a good way. JACOBSON: Yes. SHARPTON: And that`s what you can keep running the tape back rewinding and watching. BALL: You can get a laugh out of that every time. I also liked his rendition of "Let it Go." SHARPTON: Well, I like the concept though. The whole idea of doing the lip-synch I thought was brilliant for Jimmy Fallon. JACOBSON: Yes. And it was great in the beginning, and it was Will Ferrell who was up first, they`re lip-synching and they have the microphone there, and then he likes, moves the mic behind him like obviously not going to need this right now. I don`t need a microphone, thank you. Yes. It`s great. BALL: I think you should add a segment to POLITICS NATION, we can start a lip-synch battle. SHARPTON: A lip-synch battle. JACOBSON: What`s the first song you do? BALL: Oh, that`s a good question. SHARPTON: Don`t give it away. Don`t give it away. I might do it. JACOBSON: I might do it. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: Tonight, I`m going to cut you off. Dana, Krystal, thank you for partying with us. BALL: Thanks, Rev. JACOBSON: Thank you. SHARPTON: When we come back, why President Obama`s budget is not just a document. But a moral statement on who he fights for. SHARPTON: The plan President Obama released today isn`t just a budget. It`s his vision for America. A moral document that seeks to answer one pivotal question. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or are we going to build an economy where everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That`s the question right now. Do we expand the American dream for everyone? Or do we trust in the conservative idea that wealth will trickle down from the rich? Look at this chart. Of the last 35 years, the top .01 percent has seen an income grow by 600 percent, but the bottom 90 percent income has been stagnant. The President wants to change that. His budget includes new funding for policies like head start, pre-k education, childcare tax credits, vouchers for low-income housing, free community college. Those are tools to help close the income gap. A blueprint to move our society forward. A budget shows our values. I hope as we negotiate in Washington we make Americans what is valuable. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020201cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 6 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 2, 2015 Monday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 2, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes, Michael Steele GUESTS: Kaci Hickox, Bonnie Bertram, Dean Baker, Liz Winstead, Mike Pesca SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8177 words HIGHLIGHT: Chris Christie suggests the government should let parents have a choice about vaccinating their kids, but back in October, he had a very different opinion on the government`s responsibility. Interview with Kaci Hickox, the nurse Governor Christie locked up in quarantine on the off- chance she had Ebola. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: Parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. HAYES: Chris Christie suggests the government should let parents have a choice about vaccinating their kids. Back in October, he had a very different opinion on the government`s responsibility. CHRISTIE: We`re not going to take any risks with the public health in New Jersey. HAYES: Kaci Hickox, the nurse Christie locked up in quarantine on the off-chance she had Ebola, joins me exclusively tonight. Plus, the president goes honey badger with the budget, the Northeast gets walloped with weather, and the Super Bowl ads go dark. UNIDENTIFIED BOY: I couldn`t go off, because I died from an accident. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VDIEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie`s staff is attempting to walk back controversial comments their boss made about vaccines today, as U.S. health officials continue to battle the worst flare up of measles in two decades. The Centers for Disease Control is warning, we could see a large measles outbreak in this country as the number of reported cases now surpass 100, a total of 14 states. Most of them linked to an initial outbreak at California`s Disneyland in December. According to health officials, unvaccinated individuals were a principal factor in the outbreak. Just 15 years ago, in year 2000, the highly contagious virus was declared eliminated in the U.S. But since then, the vaccination rate from measles has started to fall off, thanks in large part to misconceptions and misinformation about vaccine safety. According to Scientific American, concerns about safety have led up to 40 percent of parents in the U.S. to delay or refuse some vaccines for their children. And from 2013 to 2014, the number of measles cases in the U.S. shot up from just over 150 to almost 650. That`s in just a year. Now, in his big pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC`s Savannah Guthrie, President Obama was unequivocal about what the science tells us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The science is pretty indisputable. We`ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated. There aren`t reasons to not get vaccinated. SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: Are you telling parents, you should get your kids vaccinated? OBAMA: You should get your kids vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That assertion has been backed up by the country`s top public health officials, not just the CDC, also the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which said in a statement that all children should get the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella between 12 and 15 months of age, and again between 4 and 6 of years old, because while measles is one of the two most contagious infections viruses known to modern science, according to a top U.S. health official, the CDC rates the vaccine over 95 percent effective. Nevertheless, during a trip to England today, Chris Christie sounded a somewhat, well, surprisingly ambivalent note on the need for vaccinations. Responding to a question from our own MSNBC`s Kasie Hunt, the governor called for balance between health concerns and personal freedom. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KASIE HUNT, MSNBC: Do you think Americans should vaccinate their kids if the measles vaccine safe? CHRISTIE: All I can say is we vaccinated ours. So, you know, that`s the best expression I can give you in my opinion. You know, it`s much more important I think, what you think as a parent, than what you think as a public official. That`s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice of things as well. So, that`s a balance that that the government has to decide. But I can just tell people from our perspective, we had our children vaccinated and we think it is an important part of protect their health and the public health. HUNT: Do you think some vaccines are dangerous? CHRISTIE: I didn`t say that. I said, different disease types can be more lethal, so that the concern would be measuring whatever the perceived danger is by vaccine. We`ve had plenty of that over a period of time, versus the risk of public health. We have to have that balance. That`s exactly what I mean by what I said. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, this is not coming out of nowhere. In a 2009 interview with Don Imus, posted today on "Talking Points Memo", Christie defended the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism, which has long been debunked. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRISTIE: We need to look at all the different things that are affecting autism in New Jersey, because we have the highest rate in the country. Not just the environmental concerns, but vaccinations and, you know, parents of children with autism need to be heard. They need a seat at the table to be talking about these issues. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The plot thickens further, because as our own Benjy Sarlin reported, an anti-vaccination activist in New Jersey says her organization goes way back with the governor, who purportedly sent them a letter in 2009 offering his support for families affected by autism, and quoting from what they say is a letter from him, "Many of the families have expressed concern over New Jersey`s highest in the nation vaccine mandates. I stand with them now and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children." Now, Christie`s office tried to walk back the comments the governor made earlier today, saying in a statement, "To be clear, the governor believes vaccines are important public health protection, and with a disease like measles, there`s no question, kids should be vaccinated. At the same time, different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate." For observers of the hysteria over Ebola this past fall, there is something more than a little ironic about Governor Christie`s iconoclastic stand of personal freedom in the face of a public health mandate. He is, after all, the same governor who implemented what was effectively a forcible quarantine against public health advice on someone who tested negative for Ebola. Remember that nurse, Kaci Hickox, was confined to a makeshift detention center outside of New Jersey airport for three days in October after returning from treating Ebola patients in West Africa. In an exclusive interview today, Kaci Hickox told me exactly what she thinks the governor`s comments on vaccination. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KACI HICKOX, QUARANTINED BY GOV. CHRISTIE: You know, I think this is a good example of Governor Christie making some very ill-informed statements. We heard it a lot during the Ebola discussion and now it seems to have happened again, making these statements about vaccines and sort of balancing parental choice. And, of course, a few hours later, his office had to come out with a statement to kind of mitigate some of his words. I think the unfortunate thing or the scary thing is that I want a leader who consults experts and thinks about sort of all of the different sides to an issue before making statements and policies that are unfounded in science. HAYES: You had an experience which, it seemed to me if I can editorialize for a moment, the governor had a choice between demagoguing in a way that might proved popular or short term by taking this hand-fisted approach, or listen to experts who said there is no medical reason to do this quarantine. She hasn`t tested positive for Ebola. And what did you learn about the governor based on your interaction with him, and how he made that choice. HICKOX: You know, I keep learning that I just -- you know, I don`t see a lot of great leadership qualities in him. We need to consult medical and public health experts about these kind of decisions and discussions and again he is not doing that. Again, he is going against science. So, before he ignored science and is still ignoring science because of health care workers returning from Ebola affected areas are still being required to in-home quarantine in his state, which I think is completely unfortunate and unscientific, but also, you know, now, he is saying parents should be able to choose vaccines and we have a real threat in America today. The outbreak that started in California has had over 100 cases in 14 states. And we have seen what measles can do if we allow the disease to continue to grow in the community. So, we really need to advocate for vaccines. HAYES: Having worked up close at tremendous personal risk, I would add, in West Africa on the Ebola outbreak, an outbreak that does seem thankfully, mercifully, to kind of possibly be in its waiting stages, it looks like it`s in finally kind of being brought under control, what do you want to tell Americans about the stakes here, about what we maybe take for granted here in U.S., about the efficacy of our public health system compared to a place like Liberia, for instance? HICKOX: Yes, you know we know that vaccines are safe, and we know that vaccines save lives. I have worked in a measles outbreak in northern Nigeria before. You know, we were seeing about 2,000 children a week with measles and it`s a scary disease. I know these families of these 100 people who have the disease now can tell you a little bit about what the disease looks like and how much misery it causes. After the vaccine was kind of implemented in 1963, there was a large reduction in cases, about 98 percent. And in, I believe, in 1989 to `91, there was a resurgence. So, there were 55,000 cases in the U.S. and over 120 deaths. So, the stakes are high. You know, we have to protect our most vulnerable populations. And vaccines against measles and whooping cough are really important and necessary. HAYES: Kaci Hickox, nurse, current resident of the great state of Maine, if I`m not mistaken -- I really appreciate you talking to me. Thank you. HICKOX: Thank you. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Quick correction there, Kaci Hickox was put in a tent outside a hospital in New Jersey, not outside the airport. It was shortly after she went to Newark. Now, Chris Christie is not the only potential Republican candidate to express some skepticism of vaccinations. In an interview with "BuzzFeed", former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, who got good reviews in an Iowa cattle call last week, said, parents should have the right to make choices for their children. Quote, "I think vaccinating from measles makes a lot of sense. But that`s me. I do think parents have to make those choices. I mean, I got measles as a kid, we used to all get measles." In an interview today on Laura Ingraham`s radio show, Senator Rand Paul made a similar argument saying vaccinations should be a personal decision. When a CNBC host later challenged him on that idea, this was his response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I`m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they are a good thing. But I think parents should have some input. The state doesn`t own your children. Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In my own experience, the anti-vaccination debate does not fall along typical partisan, really even ideologically lines. I mean, I have certainly encountered in my life a fair share of lefties and liberals and Obama sticker toting yuppies who don`t believe in vaccinating their kids. But what the heck is going on, on the political right that apparently these Republican candidates think the anti-vaccines are strong enough in that constituency that they can`t be crossed. Joining me now to answer that question, MSNBC contributor and former RNC chairman, Michael Steele. This is, I got to say, this is surprising to me, like I don`t -- MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: It surprises me, too. HAYES: I was not anticipating a -- I was not anticipating a vaccination A block in 2015, on "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES", I`m being completely honest. And I was not -- and I`m a little flabbergasted by Rand Paul and Christie and Fiorina. What`s going on? What am I missing? STEELE: You know, I don`t know exactly what`s go on with this. I think you`ve seen with Christie, his people are already beginning to mitigate some of those comments and put them in a different lane. I think a lot of people are surprised because Rand Paul is a doctor. So, he knows, he had the medical training to know the importance of vaccinations. And again, with Carly, I`m not sure what the thinking is there. But I think in all these instances, I get the whole idea of freedom. And this is not a question about freedom. No one is, the government is not coming to impose anything on you. This is a public safety issue. I mean, as one parent said to me this evening, you know, my kid can`t take a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to school, but he can take measles under this thinking, because you don`t have to vaccinate the kid. And that`s just not where we want to be for a public policy perspective. HAYES: Yes. So, I think -- I should note in the case -- in the interest of fairness -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain all seem to kind of do a similar sort of pandering on the campaign trail back in 2008. STEELE: Sure, they did. HAYES: There is some perception maybe that the people that care about this issue care enough, you don`t want to alienate them and everyone else just gets vaccinated, so who cares? STEELE: Well, again, I don`t know why this is a real question or concern given the cases that have arisen so far in the country. This is a disease that we have eradicated. So, why do we want to go back to it? Why do we want to allow kids to be subjected to this in communities across the country, particularly poor kids who generally don`t get the level of medical treatment and vaccinations that they should get? Now, you`re laying on top of that his craziness? HAYES: Let`s also say, the Rand Paul, I mean, this sort of Christie dodge, the Rand Paul thing about I`ve heard about people walking around -- that is like grade A irresponsible nonsense. STEELE: It`s not even science. It has completely been debunked by science on both sides of the aisle, if you will. HAYES: Yes, right. STEELE: So, I don`t -- again, this is not an issue that should be political, folks. HAYES: Right. STEELE: This is an issue that deals with the public health and safety of our kids. Every politician in this country that get their head out of their you-know-whats and understand what parents need to have done here. HAYES: I wonder also how much -- it`s a weird kind of ideological transformation that`s happened because of the Obamacare and the mandate? The idea that like the mandate is toxic, right? The Obamacare mandate is toxic, that`s a government telling you do something. This is a mandate. And then I thought back to 2012, there was a vaccine issue in 2012 Republican primary. Take a listen to this. This is Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum talking about it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELE BACHMANN (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: To have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat-out wrong. That should never be done. That`s a violation of a liberty interest. RICK SANTORUM (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is big government run amuck. It is bad policy, and it should not have been done. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That is directed at HPV vaccine mandate, passed by Governor Rick Perry in the state of Texas, which I believe was the correct policy, that he got attacked on. But you see the seeds of similar -- not to say they are the same from a policy standpoint, because they`re not. STEELE: But they`re not. HAYES: Right. STEELE: And I think that`s the clear thing that you need to distinguish here. HAYES: Yes, they`re distinguishable. STEELE: They`re very different, and that becomes a very different conversation when you talk about 11, 12 and 13-year-old child, versus, you know, a kindergartner, or whatever. Having said that, that belongs in a same public debate environment in which you can have that conversation about what to do with my pre-teen or my teenage child. In this instance, this is very clear. This has been part of our policy for 60, 70 years. I don`t understand why all of a sudden now, we are backing away from it and we`re finding a liberty interest and not keeping our kids healthy. That makes no sense to me. HAYES: Thank you, Michael Steele. Let me just say for the record, Dr. Ben Carson had a statement to "BuzzFeed" that was evidently sensible about the importance of getting vaccination. So, good on you, Ben Carson. OK, Michael Steele. STEELE: You got it. HAYES: Even people who have been vaccinated are now in danger in getting measles. How herd immunity actually works, next. But, first, Senator Rand Paul`s charm offensive wasn`t limited today, this comment on vaccines. Here is how he reacted when CNBC`s Kelly Evans, who conducted a great interview, tried to get him to clarify the details of his bipartisan offshore tax holiday proposal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: The whole purpose of doing this is to bring money home. There`s -- (CROSSTALK) KELLY EVANS, CNBC: I`m sorry. Go ahead. PAUL: Shhh, calm down here a bit, Kelly. Let me answer the question. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Huge news in the world of the Internet today. "The New York Times" reporting the FCC is expected to propose regulating Internet service like a public utility sometime this week. This is really a huge, huge deal. It`s one of the biggest titanic policy battles happening underneath the surface in our country, and it could mean big things for what`s called Net Neutrality, basically insuring broadband providers aren`t cutting deals with online providers like Netflix, where their content plays faster, or slowing down content for other companies that are trying to disfavor it. It also mean no content is blocked. Now, the FCC wasn`t fully behind such a plan initially. But after President Obama weighed in on the issue in November, here we are, apparently. The vote by the FCC on the proposal is slated for February 26th. This proposal comes on the heels of the FCC increasing broadband speeds last week by changing the definition of broadband internet service, essentially what you get when you pay for that service, which now will be download speeds that are six times faster. So, all in all, yea for faster Internet. HAYES: If you`re watching the show right now and you`re among the overwhelming majority of Americans who vaccinate their children as recommended, you might be wondering what is going on with the people who don`t. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are very scary statistics out there regarding what is in vaccines. We feel like we are making the best decision for our kids. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A personal decision. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: OK. Personal decision. Now, getting your child vaccinated against potentially deadly diseases is being seen by a growing number of people, reality TV stars included, as a personal decision. Take, for example, the measles which is enjoying a major comeback here in America right now. Measles was declared eliminated in this country 50 years ago and vaccines were available for decades before that. And so, it seems we have gone so long without endemic measles outbreaks, that we kind of lost our collective cultural memory on what a horrible, and horribly contagious disease it is. Plus, since so many people did do vaccinate, the folks who might be swayed by those so-called various theory statistics they find on the interwebs, they probably figure their kids won`t get measles anyway, because everyone else is vaccinated. But here`s the thing -- that is really not how it works. The way we eliminated measles was something herd immunity. Crucial concept, OK? The idea is that pretty much everyone who can get vaccinated does get vaccinated that almost no one will get the disease, no one will spread it, and everyone is protected, including people who can`t get vaccinated, like people with allergies or compromised immune systems, or, this is important, babies, OK, before they get their vaccinations. Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to man. If you`re not protected and you`re exposed to measles, there is a 90 percent chance you`ll get it, OK? So, herd immunity, it doesn`t work if everyone who falls prey to scary Internet junk science starts opting out of the vaccine. Let`s say only some people are vaccinated, the yellow stick figures represent the people who are vaccinated in this chart from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the blue stick figures are healthy not immunized people and red stick figures -- well, they are the sick ones. In this case, an insanely contagious disease like the measles can still spread like crazy. Look at that. Medical experts say you have to get to a high enough threshold, 92 percent or 94 percent of the entire population needs to be vaccinated in order for this thing called herd immunity to kick in against measles. But anyone who hopes to maintain those crucial number should be worried about these numbers. While 73 percent of people 65 years or older think children should be required to get vaccinated against childhood diseases like measles, mumps and whooping cough, only 42 percent of 18 to 29 year olds share that belief. If you`re looking for what`s behind that gap, there is a piece of reckless, debunked, fraudulent pseudo science that`s really taking hold in recent years and it spread like its own virus. And joining me now, Bonnie Bertram, a producer for Retroreport.org, a nonprofit news organization whose documentaries are distributed by "The New York Times". She produced a fantastic new report called "Vaccines and Unhealthy Skepticism", which traces the current vaccine movement back to its origin. Excellent work. BONNIE BERTRAM, PRODUCER, RETROREPORT.ORG: Thank you. Thanks so much. HAYES: How did this get started? Why did this -- where did -- what happened? BERTRAM: Well, so, what`s interesting about Retro Report is we started looking into this story in April, and we thought this is so funny. Lots of people aren`t vaccinating. There are these enclaves where it`s really popping up. So, we started working on it last spring. And so, then, lo and behold, the Disney outbreak happens and we`re thinking, oh, my gosh, there is more to the story than we ever imagined. HAYES: OK. Where is -- who is patient zero of this? I mean, how does it start? BERTRAM: You mean the Disney outbreak? HAYES: No, I mean, of the anti-vaccine movement. Yes. BERTRAM: Well, it`s interesting. So, vaccines, since their inception, sort of been greeted with some element of skepticism, because it`s kind of a weird concept. You`re sticking something in your body that`s going to make you sick just a little bit. HAYES: That`s right. Yes, you`re introducing a foreign antibody. It`s a shot. It`s your little child. It`s kind of traumatizing when you take your kid to it. BERTRAM: Right. But if you look at where we are now, a lot of it goes back to this 1998 paper that was published in a very well-respected medical journal called "The Lancet", out of the U.K. And so, this guy, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, studied 12 children. He was a gastroenterologist. And he thought, there might be some correlation between gut disorder and autism. So, "Lancet" publishes it. And there`s all this wording on "The Lancet" study, early report, you know, it`s all very sort of precautionary. But he holds a press conference. And in the press conference, he goes way above and beyond what`s in the paper. And all of a sudden, he says, "I don`t think you should get the MMR vaccine in combination." So, all of a sudden, people like, oh my gosh, if I get my kid a shot, they`re going to get autism. HAYES: Autism, and we also see at the same period of time, huge rising autism rates. Of course, correlation does not equal causation, the key thing. Here is a bit of your report about Andrew Wakefield. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fact that you take a 12-person case study and make claims about the population as a whole is ridiculous. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Follow-up studies of hundreds of thousands of children could not find any evidence that the MMR vaccine causes autism. An investigation into Wakefield`s original paper revealed he distorted the data and acted unethically. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: So, the paper is withdrawn officially by "The Lancet" in 2010, am I correct, right? BERTRAM: Yes, and he lost his medical license. They`re telling him, you can`t practice medicine anymore. HAYES: So, the whole cornerstone, to the extent there were some kind of cornerstone -- BERTRAM: Crumbles. HAYES: It crumbles, and yet, it has taken on this cultural light of its own. BERTRAM: And yet, he`s sort of put himself in a position, where he is like a martyr to all of these people who need something to believe in about why their child has autism, because he is debunked. And then what happens is, there is a preservative in vaccines called thimerosal, and it contains ethyl mercury. And not a lot is known about ethyl mercury. But we all know methyl mercury, the stuff we find in fish, whey we don`t eat tuna fish, it`s really dangerous. So people were sort of confused about the nuance between ethyl and methyl mercury. And so, what happened was, the public health services and the American Academy of Pediatrics said, OK, let`s just take it out. And so, they sent this message, we`re going to take the preservative out of vaccine just to be safe. But, of course, some people hear that, if you hear say, just to be safe, then you`re thinking, oh, my gosh, it wasn`t safe to begin with. HAYES: This is exactly, I remember after the whole death panel thing was sort of level to Obama, there was actually an end of life care consultation provision of law that was taken out in response to it because they said, see, no more death panels. There we told you. BERTRAM: Right, it looks like you have culpability. So, what we also encountered in the course of doing this -- interviewing Seth Nukin (ph), who you heard that clip from. HAYES: Wrote a great book called "The Panic Virus" about this. BERTRAM: Terrific, and really sort of definitive word on all of this stuff. So, he wrote the book and he started talking about how, you know the language of science is very different than the language of English, of every day English. So, a scientist always talks in parse language because in their world, nothing is absolute. HAYES: Right. It`s probabilistic and they don`t say, 100 percent, you got to do this. BERTRAM: Right. HAYES: So, people hear those little nuances around the edges. BERTRAM: Right, all these parents want to hear a doctor say it`s 100 percent safe, go for it. HAYES: And they will never say that. BERTRAM: Because the scientists won`t, it`s like not in their DNA. HAYES: Well, I`m here to tell you, as not a scientist, 100 percent safe, go for it. Bonnie Bertram, thank you very much. BERTRAM: Thanks, Chris. HAYES: The Republicans are increasingly rallying around a pretty darn surprising economic message. Will we see Paul Ryan doing a mic check before this is all over? I will explain, next. And every year, we get an opportunity collectively to peer into the nation`s cultural subconscious. I speak, of course, of the Super Bowl ads, and last night, they were bleak as hell. What is wrong with us? That`s ahead. HAYES: Today, another major winter storm tore through much of the northeast. Don`t worry, I`m not about to get a new car. Boston, Massachusetts suffered through the second major storm in a weekend, and the victory parade for the Superbowl victors, the New England Patriots was postponed to Wednesday, perhaps the smallest price to pay really for bad weather. But Boston was not alone. The storm dumped snow and freezing rain from Bangore, Maine to New York City. And we know that winter brings winter storms and much of that is normal, include the attendant economic costs. But, over time, scientists have tracked extreme whether to see if winter is producing more damaging storms than normal, and if spring and summer and fall are producing more drought or tornadoes or hurricanes than usual. The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that extreme weather is on the rise. Over the past 34 years, the number of billion dollar weather related disaster events has increased, according to the National Climactic Date Center of NOAA. It`s not a tidy straight line increase, you get the picture, the trend is pretty obvious. Last year, there were eight billion dollar weather related disasters in the U.S., that`s less than the 16 billion dollar weather related in 2011, but still worse than 29 years of the past 35 years. Now, according to President Obama`s latest budget proposal, the U.S. has incurred $300 billion in direct costs from extreme weather and fire over the past decade. The president`s budget for fiscal year 2016 proposes 7.4 billion dollars to fund clean energy and 4 billion dollars to incentivize states to cut emissions from power plants and 400 million dollars to help local communities assess flood risks. Now, that may or may not sound like a lot in the context of a $4 trillion budget. It doesn`t sound like a lot, but climate change has far greater costs not in the abstract as in the future. Right now. And it is only getting more and more expensive, possibly exponentially so, in the very near future. It is a bit like infectious diseases. Prevention is far, far less costly and invasive than the alternative. HAYES: Republicans seem to be zeroing in in their economic message for the 2016 campaign, and I will admit it is not at all what I had anticipated. Faced with a resurgent economy in which the unemployment rate is below 6 percent, stock markets have risen to record highs, budget deficit has been slashed by two-thirds to below pre-recession levels. Prominent Republicans have been turning towards stagnating wages and rising inequality in a kind bizarro world Occupy Wall Street style argument that pins the blame for these trends on President Obama. That`s week John Boehner said the president`s policies made income inequality worse. During his brief flirtation with a third presidential run, Mitt Romney complained the rich have gotten richer under Obama. Ted Cruz said he chuckles when the president brings up inequality because inequality has increased during the Obama presidency. And yesterday it was Paul Ryan`s turn. In an interview with New York Times, Ryan complained, quote, "the Obamanomics that we`re practicing now have exacerbated inequality," adding the White House is "practicing trickle-down economic." Interesting rhetorical jujitsu. It is absolutely true. Inequality has rising during Barack Obama`s tenure. It is also true that in the face of massive Republican opposition, the president has consistently pushed redistributive policies designed to boost the poor and middle class often at the expense of the rich. That is basically the entire structure of Obamacare, not coincidentally the Obama policy Republican hate the most. The president is once again pushing for redistribution in the $4 trillion budget proposal released today which would hammer corporate profits overseas and raise taxes on the wealthy while boosting tax credits for families and the working poor. This budget, in keeping with everything we have seen from Barack Obama since the midterms is an unapologetic statement of his priorities as the New York Times points out it makes an unfettered case for, quote, in their words spreading the wealth. It`s also the president saying the age of what today he called mindless austerity is over and the time for investment is upon us. Joining me now economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economics and Policy Research, author of many books including "The Conservative Nanny State," which is one of my favorites. So, my prediction Dean, when the midterms happened, was with Republicans in control of both houses, we were going to see an end to essentially the budget control act era, that`s the piece of legislation passed with the threat of debt default in 2011 after the Tea Party was elected that has created the sequester, that has created this austerity. That`s over now. Do you think I`m right? Are we going to see the end of it? DEAN BAKER, CENTER FOR ECONOMICS AND POLICY RESEARCH: Well, we are seeing it whittled away. I don`t know if I`d go quite so far as to see the end of it. So, we are seeing more spending. And I think there`s agreement on both the Republican and Democratic side, the Republicans in particular want to see more military spending and they`re willing to go along with some more infrastructure spending because you know these are going to be Republican contractors that are going to be getting that, and, you know, you have Republican governors that want to see their roads in their states repaired as well. So I think we are moving away from that somewhat. Now I won`t go that far, because we`re talking about still in the scheme of things relatively small increases. We`re still very much bound -- I hate to disagree with President Obama here -- but by the age of austerity. I mean, we have a lot of people who would like jobs, people who are working part-time would like full-time employment, involuntary part-time, and that`s because we don`t have enough demand in the economy meaning the deficits are too small. Talk about junk science, concerns about deficits today, that`s junk science. So, you know, we`re going in the right direction, but very little. HAYES: Yeah, so what you`re saying is that we are still -- even if we sort of wriggle out from the most constricting elements of this kind of austerity era that we entered into, I would say, in 2011, even if we`re feting out of that, we still are under appreciating the size of the kind of gap of unused resources in our economy and what the federal government can be doing to, you know, essentially use those resources. BAKER: Exactly. And you know this is really basic economics. There is a clear story about how a deficit can be a drag on the economy. The idea is it is pulling away resources from the private sector. And we`re supposed to know that because, a, we`d see higher interest rates and, b, we`d see inflation. There`s too much demand in the economy. We`re seeing the opposite of that. Ten-year interest rates are at the lowest levels we`ve seen, you know, apart from you know 2009 they were a little bit lower. But these are way lower than what we`ve... HAYES: They`re insane. BAKER: ...so and inflation, of course, keeps falling. So we clearly are not suffering from deficits that are too large, which means we`re wasting resources and, you know, there`s so many needs. You were talking about global warming. We could be pushing clean energy. We`re doing some. President Obama has some in there. But we could be doing much, much more. So it is a long, long list. So, I give him credit for steps in the right direction but again we could be doing more. HAYES: You know, one of the reasons I wanted to have you on to talk about this is because it seemed that Republicans really succeeded, starting in 2010, in a, setting the terms of the kind of budget politics, about the need for austerity, tightening our belt, things like that; language that President Obama and other Democrats adopted, I think, much to their chagrin and much to the harm of the economy. But also this idea that the principle ideological battle of our time was the size of government and Democrats want to grow government, Republicans want to shrink that when there`s just nothing in the record that bears that out as actually the defining political feature. And I think we`ll see that once again in this budget fight. BAKER: Well, that`s right. I mean, this whole argument, we`re arguing about the size of government, Republicans look at the big government programs, the two biggest Social Security and Medicare, apart from the military, those enjoy overwhelming support from Republicans. You know, they get upset -- I mean, Mitt Romney when he was running in 2012 was attacking President Obama because he wanted to cut Medicare. I mean, it was largely nonsense, but the point was that is big government, right? HAYES: Yes. And we see this time and time again where what has ended up happening is the part of the budget that is most politically palatable for Republicans to focus on, which is non-defense discretionary spending, which is the part we`ve seen coming under the sequester, is actually a very small part of the budget, although I should say defense got hammered in the sequester as well. BAKER: Well, also it`s -- you know, when you talk about as non- defense discretionary, that is something you know, people don`t know what it is. You go, OK, you`re talking about our national parks, you`re talking about the criminal justice system, you`re talking about environmental regulations. Most of those things actually are very popular. So non- defense discretionary isn`t popular because no one knows what it is, but when you look at the specific programs they`re for the most part quite popular. HAYES: Dean Baker, thank you. All right, there are several endearing question we are left with following last night`s Superbowl. Like, why didn`t the Seahawks just give the ball to Marshawn Lynch? Is Tom Brady now officially the best quarterback ever, and what was the deal with Katy Perry`s left shark. At one point during Katy Perry`s medley, she introduced a Yo Gabba Gabba cast of plushies to dance along to Teenage Dream. And while the routine started out routine, at one point the shark on the left seemed to kind of lose the beat. And guess what, Twitter noticed. The hashtag #leftshark is still trending into today. But we may now know why the shark`s dancing was off. During a Reddit AMA today, one of the Palm Trees spilled the beans. As I`m reading this script, I`m realizing that none of this would have made sense to anyone just like six years ago. OK, according to the downstage right Palm Tree, the one that did the grinding with Katy Perry, there was a late shark substitution. "The sharks were originally supposed to be dancers from Mesa Community College, but two to three days before the performance, Katy decided she wanted her own people in costume." NBC News has not independently confirmed the right Palm Tree`s story about left shark, but this reporter can honestly say he didn`t mind Katy Perry`s sharks. It`s not like she cut the thing open and had the Kitner boy (ph) spill onto the stage. No, that was Nationwide Insurance, and we`ll talk about that next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAM SEDER: I have done calculations that show Mitt Romney is behind 18. HAYES: He has the hot touch. He`s like Brady with an underinflated ball in his hands. Does he have it here? Unbelievable. Mitt Romney, unbelievable. ANNOUNCER: Mitt Romney, the founder of Bain Capital. Former governor of Massachusetts, and he did something with the Salt Lake City Olympics. MITT ROMNEY, FRM. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: Bonjour. Je m`appelle Mitt Romney. ANNOUNCER: Is the third time the charm for Governor Mitt Romney? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Not even 24 hours after Sam Seder chose Mitt Romney as his final draft pick in the All In Fantasy 2016 Candidate Draft, his formidable roster, which also included such promising 2016 possibilities Scott Walker, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, lost a little bit of it`s luster when Mitt Romney suddenly announced he was bowing out of a running the president triggering a rush by supporters of other candidates, most prominently Chris Christie and Jeb Bush to scoop up his donors. So that is one of the 25 draft picks definitely out and a big one too. Watch this space to see how the rest of our players fair with their draft picks as the race for 2016 heats up. Who knows, maybe Josh Barro even has a chance. HAYES: One certainty about the Superbowl, it pretty much guarantees advertisers their biggest TV audience of the year. Last night, more than 114 million people, about a third of the country, tuned in to watch the New England Patriots beat the Seattle Seahawks, a very exciting game, making it the most watched program in U.S. TV history. And the ads, those millions of people saw, they cost a whopping $4.5 million for 30 seconds of air time. And because those ads reached so many people every year, they serve as a kind of statement of our collective unconscious. Where do we think we are as a nation, or more specifically, where do advertisers think we are as a nation? In recent years, the ads have been a lot like the one from super glue company Locktite -- goofy, random, slapstick. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don`t. This year, that ad was an outlier. Rather than playing for laughs, many of the Superbowl ads went for sobs instead. The one of Budweiser, in which a band of Clydesdales rescues a puppy from a wolf and leads him safely back to his owner, or the one for Nissan in which dad is there for his son`s birth, but after that it`s back to racing cars, because that`s what dad does. And while listening to Harry Chapin`s "Cats in the Cradle" mom and son are left wondering if dad`s next crash is going to be his last. But it was Nationwide Insurance that provided what is probably the darkest and most morbid Superbowl ad in history. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOY: Hey, wait! Guys, wait! I`ll never learn to ride a bike. Or get cooties. I`ll never learn to fly. Or travel the world with my best friend. And I ever get married. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Why won`t the cute little kid get married or travel the world? Let`s just say the answer will probably leave you depressed and more than a little confused. And that is next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOY: And I won`t ever get married. I couldn`t grow up because I died from an accident. ANNOUNCER: At Nationwide, we believe in protecting what matters most, your kids. Together, we can make safe happen. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A short time after that ad ran during the Superbowl, Nationwide released a statement read in part, quote, "the sole purpose of this message was to start a conversation not sell insurance. While some did not care for the ad, we hope it served to begin a dialogue to make safe happen for children everywhere." Joining me now Liz Winstead, co-creator of the Daily Show; Mike Pesca, host of Slate.com`s daily podcast The Gist. That ad really... LIZ WINSTEAD, CO-CREATOR DAILY SHOW: Did not strike up a conversation about making your house safer. It just made people go what is wrong with you? HAYES: What is wrong with you? WINSTEAD: I mean, it is tragic, and... HAYES: ...so upsetting. WINSTEAD: And people felt guilty about having fun, and then you were like that kid looked like Damian from The Omen. Like, then I had no sympathy. MIKE PESCA, HOST, THE GIST: And who doesn`t know to drain their bath tub. I mean, do we need the insurance company? WINSTEAD: Turn the water off. HAYES: Well, no, but here is the thing. So, we were debating this earlier today and there were a few people who said, look, you know, it is true -- I mean, the morbidity numbers for accidents for kids are high, kind of shockingly so -- eating toxins. They had the shot of the little dish detergent pods that kids get at. They think they`re candy. OK, fine. But if you`re doing like a PSA that is one thing. Like it is -- Nationwide saying this was not an ad to sell insurance, it manifestly is an ad to sell insurance. They spent 4.5 million dollars. PESCA: I saw a Nationwide logo. And to start a conversation, which is truly the last argument of the scoundrel. They totally struck out. We started a conversation. WINSTEAD: I know, because everybody at my Superbowl party stopped what they were doing and said, you know what turn this game off and I`m going to go retrofit my house to make sure it`s safe. PESCA: They bummed out a record number of Americans. HAYES: That`s right. PESCA: I think they really saved no lives... HAYES: But it wasn`t even -- it is a thing. I mean, I do think it`s a sort of weird cultural moment, the Superbowl ads, it`s been built up to be a real thing recently and they roll them out ahead of time. And obviously they`re -- like there have been in the past there has been this kind of trend, I feel like, of goofy ads. And those goofy ads sometimes have been kind of offensive, or they`ve trafficked in sexist tropes, or homophobic tropes. This year, I don`t know if it was fear of a comedy backfire in the era of social media or some sense about the national mood being really dark, but they felt very airless, and dark, and maudlin and sentimental and reaching into your chest. What was that about? PESCA: Well, I think that`s what it was. I think the successful ones, the ones that USA gave the top scores, are nostalgic. They all -- they all struck on... WINSTEAD: ...had super hot guys in them. Like hot dads that were like epically hot. HAYES: It was the year of hot dads. WINSTEAD: Oh my god. HAYES: It was the year of hot dads. WINSTEAD: In fact, at one point, I was like I don`t even know -- you kind of shoot yourself in the foot if you`re like I don`t know what this product is for, I just know that that dad is hot. PESCA: Hot dads for Toyota. Hot dads for Chevy. Hot dads... HAYES: No, dads were a popular theme in this year`s ads. WINSTEAD: I do think part of it is with all of the assault that the NFL has been under, right, you just can`t have your goofy sexist lady ads. And I think that they just knew -- and the record amount of story telling how many women now are watching the NFL, how many women buy jerseys, how much we spend on merchandise. HAYES: You think the ad makers are making a calculation about what the news cycle of the NFL has been? WINSTEAD: Absolutely. PESCA: I think that`s true. I think that ad makers do a little bit of research and they get a fact like millennial enjoy experiences more than things. What does that mean to you and me? WINSTEAD: It means they`re broke. PESCA: To the ad maker... HAYES: It means nonsense garbage. Nonsense garbage. PESCA: ...it means the Bud light commercial about the guy who was Pac-Man. Like that was their justification for that ad, because Millennials like experience... HAYES: By the way, I don`t know, I don`t know if we have the video of the Pac-Man ad, but it is like a guy who like wins this -- you know, Bud Light surprises him by like by like giving him the night of his dreams and he like plays human Pac-Man. The whole thing seemed like a horrible nightmare to me... PESCA: A garish nightmare. HAYES: Even this seems like super dark. WINSTEAD: We are human beings, and the night of anyone`s dreams involves having sex at the end of it, like let`s just be honest. Like that is the way it is, especially when you`re a millennial. And instead... HAYES: Yes. Certainly if you`re a Millennial. PESCA: I thought Inky, Blinky and Clyde were looking at him a little come hither. WINSTEAD: So you end up in a video game, yeah right. PESCA: What happens to that dog after he`s rescued? (LAUGHTER) WINSTEAD: Crazy PESCA: This is all dark now. HAYES: There was also this ad which I thought -- which pulled at the heart strings and I thought pretty effectively. This is the "like a girl" ad. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Show me what it looks like to run like a girl. Show me what it looks like to fight like a girl. Now throw like a girl. so do you think you just insulted your doctor. BOY: No. I mean yeah, insulted girls, but not my sister. GIRL: My name is Dakota, and I`m 10 years old. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Show me what it looks like to run like a girl. What does it mean to you when I say run like a girl? GIRL: It means fast as you can. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Totally got me. It`s like completely emotionally manipulative add, but 100 percent. WINSTEAD: Brought to you by Always. HAYES: Yeah, exactly. PESCA: Are you going to buy panty liners now? That`s what it`s for. WINSTEAD: No, but Marshawn Lynch runs like a girl wearing panty liner. His stance is like that is how women run wearing... PESCA: Another interesting thing about that, and I would tell you, but I died. WINSTEAD: What? HAYES: Can we make? Is it too soon, I guess it is a fictional world so we can make jokes about that, but I did think -- and I thought that also that particularly in the contest of what that game is, there was a PSA about domestic violence. It was interesting -- it felt like a lot of criticism in year`s past about the sort of gender politics of the ad had been listened to. It will be interesting to see if we can do that but also have like a little more fun with the ads next year. Liz Winstead, Mike Pesca, always a pleasure. Thank you. That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020201cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 7 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 2, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 2, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: Ryan Grim, Johnny Isakson SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7682 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama telling "The Today Show`s" Savannah Guthrie that parents should get their children vaccinated, a very different message than from Republican presidential hopefuls Chris Christie and Rand Paul today. Interview with U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee. CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: That is "ALL IN" for this evening. THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: I think it is a fair question whether or not you are sort of emotional reaction to that ad did make you want to buy panty liners more than before you saw that ad. HAYES: I hadn`t considered it until Mike asked me. So, I have to think on that. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mortgaged my house. (LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No place to live. MADDOW: That`s right. It will all be water tight. All right. Thanks you, guys. Amazing. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. I should tell you, anyone who wants to send me personal congratulations on the Patriots winning the Super Bowl, because I`m convinced I did it somehow, you can send those congratulations to my e-mail address, Rachel@MSNBC.com Also, I should tell you -- see how my finger looks like a funny shape. I have a giant band-aid on my finger because I was really excited watching the Super Bowl, watching the Patriots win the Super Bowl last night while I was simultaneously grating cheese. Exactly. So, that`s why I have the funny-shaped band-aid on my finger. OK. We`ll dispatch with that. At the height of the 2012 presidential campaign, the Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney, he took a trip to London. This is the summer of 2012, and Mitt Romney`s 2012 trip to London went very poorly. This picture I always thought shows exactly how poorly it went. This is pretty much the best summary ever written about how that trip went. Don`t look at the -- what`s going on in this photo is that Mitt Romney is doing a joint appearance with the leader of the Labour Party at that time in Britain. His name is Ed Milliband. How do you think Ed Milliband feels about Mitt Romney`s visit with him at this exact moment? During this joint appearance, Mitt Romney appeared to forget Ed Milliband`s name. He described him in that appearance as "Mr. Leader", which sounds like a nice complimentary thing. That`s not a term used in Britain. Nobody knew what Mitt Romney was talking about. To the British press, it basically seemed like Mitt Romney might have thought this guy`s name was "Ed Leader" instead of Ed Milliband. So, it`s very insulting to his host, and very awkward. And that`s how he felt about it. On that same trip, Mr. Romney also did an interview in which he disparaged British preparations for the Summer Olympics. They`re about to host the Summer Olympics. Mitt Romney in an interview cited his own experience with the Salt Lake City Games and he said during his visit to London that he has seen in Britain, quote, "a few things that were disconcerting" about the British preparation for the Olympic Games that summer. That prompted this response from British Prime Minister David Cameron, quote, "We are holding the Olympic Games in one of the busiest active bustling cities in the world. Of course, it`s easier if you hold Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere." Or as we call can it, Utah. On that same trip, all in one trip, Mitt Romney also bragged publicly to British reporters that he had been given a security briefing by the head of MI6. Now, MI6 is roughly the equivalent in Britain to our CIA here, except MI6 is way more secret than our CIA is. The politicians are never supposed to say the name MI6 or even admit that MI6 exists. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I appreciated the insights and perspectives of the leaders of the government here and opposition here, as well as the head of MI6, as we discussed Syria and the -- (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That meeting, whether or not it`s with the head of MI6, it had not been on Mr. Romney`s public schedule while he was in London. It was supposed to be a secret. He definitely was not supposed to talk about it with reporters, and even if he had still found it too irresistible that he had to tell them he had the meeting, you are still not supposed to say it was with the head of MI6. Anonymous British officials who met with Mitt Romney on that trip told "The Daily Mail" that his trip was, quote, "a total car crash". They told the press that he was, quote, "worse than Sarah Palin", and that they said in meeting with him, they found him to be, quote, "apparently devoid of charm, warmth, humor or sincerity." Mitt Romney, in the summer of 2012 when he was running for president, he just had a terrible, terrible trip to London. "The Sun" tabloid newspaper summed up their take on him, thus, "Mitt the twit: Wannabe U.S. president." The headlines were just terrible. I mean, over there and over here, "Mitt Romney`s Olympics gaffe overshadows his visit to London." "Mitt Romney visits London while stumbling on almost every front." "Mitt Romney`s Olympic stumbles in London." "Mitt Romney trip begins in shambles." That trip actually inspired the hashtag #Romneyshambles which trended both in Britain and the United States while he was there. Hey, Americans, this Mitt person is some sort of American Borat, right? #Romneyshambles. Which is terrible -- terrible, terrible trip. But it might not have been his fault. It might just be something about the mix of London and American politicians. You may remember, just a few weeks ago, the American TV channel FOX News, they became a laughingstock all over Britain when they put somebody on the air who insisted that there were parts of England where only Muslims were allowed, including he said the entire major city of Birmingham. That led to a very funny, online response where British people tried to explain the this Birmingham allegation from the FOX News perspective. The hashtag on that meme was #FOXNewsfacts. And it resulted on things like this, "The city is now called birming because ham is not halal. FOXNewsfacts." "Birmingham has a chain of fast food restaurants called Birqa king. #FOXNewsfacts." This one was sort of a photo one, "Jam jars across Britain are becoming radicalized." See jam jars in tiny little burqas. It`s very funny. The British prime minister had to weigh in again, in this case saying about the FOX News terrorism expert who made these claims about Britain, quote, "Frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools Day. This guy is clearly an idiot." Now, you heard about this when it happened, FOX News within a couple of days, I think to a lot of people`s surprise, they profusely apologized on multiple FOX News shows using multiple FOX News hosts. They said over and over again that they were sorry for having made this allegation, they would never book that guy again. What he said was not true. They were very sorry for having propagated those false claims about their being for no-go zones for non-Muslims in Britain. So, it was news when FOX did it, and Britain all collectively pointed and laughed at FOX News. It was I think even bigger news when FOX took a rare step and profusely apologized for having done it. But then right after the FOX News apology, literally the day after FOX News started to apologizing for this, an American politician named Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, man who wants to run for president in 2016, he went to London, danger, danger, danger, and he gave a speech what about he still believed to be these no-go zones for non-Muslims, even though it had been the funniest news story in Britain for a week by the time he got there. And even though the source of that false information, FOX News, had himself retracted the accusation and said they were sorry. Bobby Jindal apparently had his noise cancelling head phones on or something, he didn`t know it, and he went over there once the whole thing had been debunked, and gave a speech trying to revive it. London and American politicians not a good mix. Now, it has happened again, happened today. Honestly, the pattern here is bad. If you are an American politician who wants to be president, think of London as quick sand. I mean, feel free to go and look. Drink warm beer, enjoy yourself but don`t speak when you are there. It never goes well. Things started off a little bit okay, sort of, for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He went to a soccer match wearing a red and white scarf. That wasn`t too bad. There was also some rhyme and reason to his trip. New Jersey, that state, has always had a health care industry, drug manufacturers, medical device manufacturers. They have a good chunk of the New Jersey economy. So, it therefore made sense as part of this trade mission to attract international business interest in New Jersey, the state`s governor upon arriving in Britain would find a way to manufacture -- visit the manufacturer of a vaccine. He specifically went to the manufacturer of a flu vaccine. Plus, while he was touring the flu vaccine facility, he got to wear the safety glasses and the lab coat can. All made him look smart, right? So, you are trying to look presidential. This is good. It`s all going well, right? If you`re running for president, and you do a photo op at a place that makes vaccines, there are good things about this. But if you do that kind of a photo-op, at a place that makes vaccines, while the United States of America is undergoing a big serious epidemic of a disease that can be prevented by vaccines that people aren`t taking for some inexplicable reason, then even if it is in another country, where you`re doing this photo-op, you as a candidate for president are going to get asked about vaccines, and whether or not people should take vaccines. And so, you should probably have an answer ready for that inevitable question, Governor Christie. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Governor, this company makes vaccines. There`s debate going on right now in the United States, the measles outbreak caused in part by people not vaccinating their kids. Do you think Americans should vaccinate their kids? Is the measles vaccine safe? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: All I can say is that we vaccinated ours. So, that`s the best expression I can give you my opinion. It is much more important I think what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. And that`s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So, that`s the balance the government has to decide. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Parents need to have a measure of choice in things as well. Christie may have wanted the story of his London trip to be about him looking presidential abroad, or him in a lab coat in safety glasses, drumming up business for New Jersey, looking smart, right. But ended up instead being about Chris Christie appearing to support the super dangerous new trend of American parents deciding that their kids shouldn`t be vaccinated against the measles. His office then had to go back later in the day and clarify his remarks saying, of course parents should vaccinate their kids against measles. He didn`t mean to suggest anything different than that. By then, this is a big story and not at all what Chris Christie wanted his trip to London to be all about. Apparently, though, it is dangerous when American politicians go to London. They say stuff that gets them in trouble. And this, in fact, today with Chris Christie became a big enough story over the course of the day, particularly with the follow up comments from his office disavowing his earlier remarks, that became a big enough story over the course of the day when Chris Christie was in London today, that the story actually spread across the pond, spread back to the United States and also seems to have infected Rand Paul, and maybe in a worse way. Once this Chris Christie story about him appearing to question vaccinations for measles, once this story took off today, you know, other would be 2016 contenders like Rand Paul again should have known that they would be asked about this thing. You ought to have an answer ready, Senator Paul. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`m not anti-vaccine at all. Particularly most of them ought to be voluntary. I was annoyed when my kids were born that they wanted them to take hepatitis B in the neonatal area. And it`s like, that`s a sexually transmitted disease or blood born disease, and I didn`t like them getting 10 vaccines at once. So, I actually delayed my kids` vaccines and had them staggered over time. LAURA INGRAHAM: Smart. I should have done that before I got my kids vaccine. I should have talked to you. (END AUDIO CLIP) MADDOW: I should have talked to you because you are a doctor after all. Rand Paul is not that kind of doctor. Rand Paul for years was a member of a conspiracy theory-laden alternative doctor`s association called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Sounds like a very straightforward group. Always pick names that make them sound upstanding. But this association is a group that says that HIV does not cause AIDS. They say that it is evil and immoral for doctors to participate in Medicare. And they say, yes, vaccines cause autism and therefore, you maybe shouldn`t vaccinate your kids. So this conspiracy theory group, called the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. Here`s Rand Paul talking to them in 2009. This was posted online today by "BuzzFeed". (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: Thank you very much for having me. Catherine neglected to mention one thing I`m not a newcomer to AAPS. I have been a member since 1990, I think. It could have been when with I was in medical school but at least since 1990. I used a lot of AAPS literature when I talk. In fact, I just met -- (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Rand Paul addressing the Association American Physicians and Surgeons, anti-vaccine, conspiracy theory laden doctor`s association, he`s addressing them here in 2009, telling them he had belonged to that group for years, for almost 20 years at that point and maybe longer. Today, as the CDC announced that we are up over 100 cases of measles in 14 states now because people are inexplicably afraid of the vaccine because they believe scientifically untrue conspiracy theories about that vaccine. Today, as Chris Christie had his whole London trip overshadowed by his own woolly and confused initial statements of whether kids should be vaccinated against measles, today, Rand Paul, who has a history of associating with far fringe conspiracy theorists on this issue, Rand Paul was asked first about vaccinating against measles on right wing talk radio. That was what you just heard there, and obviously, there`s going to be a follow up to that. So, h was asked about it again in a follow up on CNBC, and look what he said when he was asked to clarify on CNBC today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky today really did say that on CNBC. And he wants you to think of him as a doctor as he is running for president. Senator Rand Paul until today was seen, I guess by some people as sort of a top tier presidential candidate. Honestly, with this thing he did today, he totally pulled a Michele Bachmann. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELE BACHMANN (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There`s a woman came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine. There are very dangerous consequences. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That is Michele Bachmann during the 2012 presidential campaign. The last she was heard of in that campaign. After she said that even the right, that loves Michele Bachmann, even when she says crazy stuff, even the right basically said that was a disqualifying ignorant and dangerous remark for somebody running for president of the United States. And the conservative magazine "The Weekly Standard," quote, "Bachmann seemed to go off the deep end." At the conservative blog, "Hot Air", it was, quote, "The most charitable analysis that can be offered in this case for Bachmann is that she got duped into repeating a vaccine scare urban legend on national television." Even on right wing talk radio, even on the Rush Limbaugh show, what Michelle Bachmann did back in 2012, that was too much too far. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I will tell you, Michele Bachmann may have blown it today. She may have jumped the shark today. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: On that same radio show, Mr. Limbaugh went on to say, quote, "There is no evidence the vaccine causes mental retardation". That was the Rush Limbaugh show in 2011. This is not a partisan thing. It didn`t used to be a partisan thing at least. I mean, vaccinations, this hasn`t been like global warming, right, where is a scientific consensus and conservatives decided not to believe it or say they don`t believe it for political reasons. But is that now what we are getting on public health and specifically on vaccines? I mean, does it make sense in the internal logic of the right? I mean, if you think of their internal logic, right, if you deny the science on climate change, that at least gets you the Koch brothers, right? And the Koch brothers and other corporate interest who don`t want steps to be taken to fight climate change, they will give you money and give you support and praise you in return for you denying the science of climate change. But if you deny the science on measles, what does that get you? What does that get you on the right? It started off today with Chris Christie being the latest would-be presidential contender who had a very bad day in London and got very, very bad press in London. This crossed back to this side of the Atlantic. This has become now a bigger and worrying question about whether there is a whole, new and really important part of the scientific consensus that conservatives are going to stop believing in for some inexplicable political reason that makes sense only inside their world. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: In that same CNBC interview today when Rand Paul said that about vaccines, he also said this a couple of moments later. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: The whole purpose of doing this is to bring money home. (CROSSTALK) KELLY EVANS: I`m sorry. Go ahead. PAUL: Quiet. Calm down a bit here, Kelly. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Calm down, Kelly. Hush. Calm down? She didn`t look hysterical. Rand Paul had a bad day in the press today. But it was a bad day in the press for a lot of reasons today and we have more on that ahead. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: Do you feel there should be a requirement that parents get their kids vaccinated? BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Measles is preventable. I understand that there are families that in some families are concerned about the effect of vaccinations. The science is, you know, pretty undisputable. We`ve looked at this again and again. There`s every reason to get vaccinated. There aren`t reasons to not get vaccinated. GUTHRIE: Are you telling parents, you should get your kids vaccinated? OBAMA: You should get your kids vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Obama telling "The Today Show`s" Savannah Guthrie that parents should get their children vaccinated, that the science about that is clear. The president making remarks in his pre-Super Bowl interview this weekend. But that clarity from him, that direct message, get your kids vaccinated, that is a very different message than we`ve heard from Republican presidential hopefuls Chris Christie and Rand Paul today. Joining us now is Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief for "The Huffington Post". Ryan, it`s nice to see you. Thanks for being here. RYAN GRIM, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Thanks for having me. MADDOW: So, when Governor Christie said today, parents should be able to choose whether or not to vaccinate their kids, who exactly is he appealing to or was this just a screw up? GRIM: I think what he was doing there is -- I think he flashed back immediately to his last public health intervention, a complete debacle during the Ebola freak out, where he basically detained this New Jersey nurse for a matter of several weeks saying like, look, you have been to Africa. We`re not letting you out of here. She is like, I don`t have Ebola. So, you know, he completely stripped her of all civil liberties. He then, you know, was completely embarrassed at the way that unfolded. So, now, I think he overreacted to his initial overreaction. He is thinking, OK, politically, how do I respond this time, and he started thinking about kind of the parent`s choice movement and these anti-vaxxers that are out there, and he wanted to throw them a little bone at the end there. He wasn`t prepared for the question. As you could tell, the way that his office came out a couple of hours later, and good for them, by the way, and came out and said that`s not what the governor meant. Everybody should get the measles vaccine. MADDOW: You reference parents choice groups and anti-vaccination activists. Are they significant enough number? Are they politically potent and I guess politically partisan enough that Republican politicians are running for president will be wanting to court those groups? GRIM: It`s a very diverse group. So, it would -- it would be hard if a politician actually sat down and made the disgustingly immoral calculations, OK, how am I going to win this small set of anti-vaccine people. Never mind it causes an outbreak. I think it actually is pretty difficult because the group of people -- their concerns don`t overlap a ton. A lot of them aren`t even voting in the Republican primary, for instance. You`ll find plenty of them either sitting it out completely because they don`t trust the government, period, or you`ll find them actually voting in Democratic primaries. So, you know, the only kind of overlap here is the kind of anti- authority, anti-government, and anti-science bent that you see among a lot of the climate change deniers. You know, that was very much generated and fuelled by the Koch brothers. MADDOW: So, if that`s the -- if that`s the story in terms of chasing any potential political upside here, there`s also the downside here. What Rand Paul said today was much closer to Michele Bachmann ala 2011 than it was even to what Chris Christie said today. He really went out there further. It turns out he had been a long time member of a conspiracy theory group that is anti-vaccination, that also thinks that HIV doesn`t cause AIDS. I mean, does that potentially play poorly for him inside mainstream Republican politics? Looking back at 2011, I was surprised how poorly it played even for Michele Bachmann. GRIM: It does. I think people are going to take, you know, politicians are going to take from today that they should probably stick to just climate change denialism. This gets much too complicated because everybody has -- not everybody but a lot of people have children. Everybody was a child at some point. Nobody wants to get measles, or mumps or rubella, things that we thought were completely gone, for absolutely no reason, or so that some kid can be on some bizarre organic diet that`s going to build up his immune system. And, you know, it plays to Rand Paul`s deeper weaknesses, which are that he has a consistent world view when it`s on the intellectual level. But the second it`s applied to reality, it starts causing a lot of problems for him. You know, 90 percent to 95 percent of parents are vaccinating their kids. So, this is a vanishingly small number but it`s a dangerous number because it`s gone beyond the 0.3 percent that would be protected by herd immunity. MADDOW: Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief for "The Huffington Post" -- Ryan, thanks. Appreciate your being here. GRIM: Thank you. MADDOW: All right. Stay with us. We`ve got much more ahead tonight. MADDOW: On New Year`s Day, Senator Harry Reid was working out at home using a resistant band of some kind, when the darn thing snapped. It sent him hurdling across the room. He broke ribs. He broke a bunch of bones in his face. He`s seriously damaged his right eye. Well, just a few days ago, Senator Reid had surgery in part to try to save the sight in that damaged right eye. It`s still apparently inconclusive as to whether his vision has been saved. But nevertheless, look, there was Harry Reid back at work today on the Senate floor. Behold the eye patch. He got a big welcome from his colleagues. Big welcome back. The senator`s office tells NBC News tonight that Senator Reid is, quote, "seeing more than he was before the surgery, but his eyesight hasn`t fully returned," and that, quote, "it is still day to day whether or not he will be able to see." Apparently, either way it is not going to keep him from working as he fights back from that terrible injury. Continued best wishes for your recovery, Senator Reid. If you need a reason to feel hopeful about things that could be possible, I have something to be hopeful about. Our next guest can tell you a little bit of hope that I feel about Washington. A little -- our next guest can tell you that miracles can even happen for Washington, because our next guest for the interview tonight is a real live Republican elected official, a conservative elected official who agreed to be a guest on this show with absolutely no trickery on my part. I swear. A miracle, a living miracle is about to happen right here on this show, next. MADDOW: We have caught a unicorn. We have found in the wild and captured tonight a thing that is not supposed to exist in nature anymore. We have found something in Washington that is absolutely, 100 percent totally nonpartisan. We found it in Congress. I know. I know you don`t believe me. But this is the most nonpartisan thing imaginable and it is about to happen. Yes, in our lifetimes. You might remember a few weeks ago, we had a couple of conservative Texas Republicans on the show. A mom and dad named Richard and Susan Selke. And we had them on the show because of a powerful appeal that they made to another conservative Republican, a senator, one senator, who was blocking the passage of a bill that was named after Richard Selke`s -- Richard and Susan Selke`s son. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD SELKE, CLAY HUNT`S STEPFATHER: Dr. Coburn, my name is Richard Selke and this is my wife, Susan. Susan and I are conservative Republicans from the state of Texas. And what I would say to you is thank you for your vigilance over our budget. But this is an exception. If I had $22 million in the bank right now, I`d write that check. I don`t have it. You don`t have it. But what you do have is you have power. All you have to do is not say no. All you have to do is allow this bill to unanimously pass the Senate today or tomorrow, hopefully, by the end of the session. Would you please do that? Would you please do that for Susan and for me, for Clay, and for every other vet who`s passed on or is still with us. These are valuable, valuable, precious children of God and precious, precious members of our society. It`s on your back. This is personal. Please, please don`t say no. Thank you. I hope we have the opportunity to meet some day soon. God bless you. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Susan and Richard Selke made that powerful appeal to Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. They appealed to him to stop blocking the Clay Hunt Veteran Suicide Prevention bill, which he was singlehandedly preventing from passing in the last Congress. Senator Coburn did not heed their call. He blocked the bill until the very end. And then when Clay Hunt`s mom and step dad came on the show to talk about that, you might remember I basically lost it on the air and got all vercleft (ph) and couldn`t properly finish the interview because I was moved by the loss of their son to suicide after he came home from Iraq in Afghanistan. The reason that was embarrassing for me, is because parents like the Selkes don`t need some TV host emoting about their story, right? That is not what they`re asking for. They`re asking for explanatory help in making their case. They are not asking for people to get upset. What they asked for and what Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America asked for and got from every other member of the United States Congress other than Tom Coburn was a short, sharp specific bill to plug up the gaps in the system that Clay Hunt fell through when he came home from Iraq and Afghanistan. He tried to get help for what he was going through after his deployments but he could not get the help he need. A bill to fix those gaps -- that`s what his parents asked for in their son`s name. And now that Tom Coburn is retired from the Senate, that bill is what the Selkes and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans are finally getting, and it is the rarest of all political things. It is a 100 percent nonpartisan thing. Since the bill failed the first time, the Senate has changed to Republican control. You might think that would change the politics of something like this is considered, but you know what? On the veterans committee, this is how new Republican control sounds right now in that committee. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON (R-GA), VETERANS AFFAIRS CMTE. CHAIR: This is going to be the most bipartisan committee in the United States Senate. Certainly, when you got 80,000 veterans a year committing suicide, which is more veterans that have died in all of Iraq and all of Afghanistan since we have been fighting, then you have a serious problem and this is duplicative. This is emergency legislation that needs to help our veterans. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That`s the new chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee talking about a bill that we thought would pass tonight. Now because of the East Coast snowstorm and few other things that will pass at noon tomorrow, noon Eastern Time tomorrow. And this small bill to try to fix the suicide prevention efforts for our veterans, this thing is going to pass tomorrow at noon and it will go to the president`s desk and it will be signed in to law without a partisan whisper anywhere near it. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia who has helmed this in the Senate from his new post heading the Veterans Committee since the Republicans took over in the Senate, Senator Isakson is as conservative as they come. Senator Isakson has sponsored legislation to abolish the IRS. He says climate change is not manmade. He put out a blistering statement condemning President Obama`s new budget as reckless, he says, and irresponsible. But on veterans issues, what you have got is a political unicorn. An apparently mythical beast that doesn`t have partisan colors on it even now, even in this Congress, even this year, in this Washington. And so, this thing is getting done for Clay Hunt and for his family and the for 22 veterans a day who are still falling to suicide. Joining us now for the interview to prove a miracle is at hand is conservative Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee. Senator Isakson, thank you so much for being here. ISAKSON: Thank you, Rachel. It`s good to be with you. MADDOW: So, the Senate vote on this bill looks like it is finally happening. We`re hearing noon tomorrow. I have to ask if you know if anybody sort of plans to pull a Tom Coburn here, block this bill at the last minute for any reason at all. Or do you think this will pass easily? ISAKSON: I think it will be unanimous. And to Tom`s credit, we found an answer to Tom`s problem on the 22 million. We found money within the existing agency budget to pay for the Clay Hunt bill. So, Tom Coburn is happy, our veterans are happy, and I (ph) is happy. We`re just happy that we`re addressing one of the single largest byproducts of the Afghanistan and Iraqi war, the tragedy of suicide among our veterans. MADDOW: Do you think that there have been substantive -- I mean Senator Coburn put this hold on it, and as you said you addressed some concerns that he had about paying for it. What I found remarkable is Senator Coburn in putting that hold didn`t convince anybody else to vote against this thing with him. Was there any objection to it in the Senate last Congress other than his objection? ISAKSON: Well, at that time I wasn`t chairman of the committee. So, I`m not sure I was aware of every objection but Tom was the most significant objection, which is why I took care of it, because I have a high regard for him and his commitment. MADDOW: You have said that this year, since taking over as chairman at the Veterans Committee in the Senate will be the most bipartisan committee in the U.S. Senate. As chairman, as the man with leadership responsibilities in that committee, what do you need to do to make sure that happens? ISAKSON: Make sure we understand our job is to see to it the people who voluntarily sacrifice and risk their lives so we could be what we`re doing what we`re doing today get absolutely every promise they have been made by the United States government for their health care, for their education and for their well being. I`m going to be committed to that, whether they are a Democratic veteran, Republican veteran, a libertarian veteran, or Rachel Maddow veteran, whatever it maybe. MADDOW: Do you think that spirit of a mission-driven bipartisanship, a part of policy where with being partisan just doesn`t smell right, doesn`t feel right to anybody involved in it -- could that extend to other areas the Senate is working on as well, or is this a veterans-only climate? ISAKSON: No, no, I don`t think it`s veterans-only. Certainly in terms of foreign policy and certainly our battle with ISIS and terror, there are a number of areas where we need to lock arms as Americans and get over our partisan differences and do what`s best for our country and our people. MADDOW: Pretty much everybody agrees the Clay Hunt bill is a start. I have been moved by the fact that Clay Hunt`s parents have been so articulate and so tireless in advocating specifically from the position of what their son went through and what he was trying to get and couldn`t get in terms of his V.A. care. It`s also been moved by the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America was integrally involved in creating what`s in this legislation but it is just a start. Is there a next piece on this agenda? If stuff can happen if the Veterans Committee that can`t happen anywhere else because of that spirit of bipartisanship, what`s the next step after this? ISAKSON: The next step is going to be the accountability that this bill calls for. So, we get reports from the outside auditors to look at what the V.A. is doing in terms of mental health care follow through and find out where we can improve it even more. This bill is about improving and hopefully perfecting the follow-through of mental health patients as they go through the V.A. One of the biggest problems about suicide is this, it is a stigmatize affliction. A lot of people don`t want to talk about it. They don`t want to share the fact they take their own life. We need professional psychiatrists and psychologists and people in the V.A. who can identify symptoms, can identify the people who are having trouble, and can follow them and track them along the way to help bring them back to good solid mental health. MADDOW: Senator Isakson, Republican of Georgia, chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, it is really great to have you here, sir. Appreciate you being willing to do this. If you would tell other Republicans the Senate that it`s OK to talk to me, I`ll send you a big box of chocolates. ISAKSON: I`ll tell them you are the greatest. MADDOW: All right. Senator, appreciate you being here. It is a remarkable thing actually what Senator Isakson just said there about what needs to happen next. If you go back and look at the transcripts of Bernie Sanders being on the show when he was the chairman of Veterans when the Democrats were in control, they are talking about the same things. It is happening on veterans issues even if it can`t happen somewhere else, but there is a place for real bipartisan or totally nonpartisan policy and stuff can get done. And I hope it`s an inspiration for other areas of policy, the veterans groups have made this happen. They have changed politics in Washington. So stuff can happen. It is a credit to them. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: OK. There`s lots ahead on tonight show, including the spy novel action movie part of the show. We`ve also got some slightly disturbing but technically newsworthy information that involves ear biting. That`s the thing that bothers you and you don`t want to see it you may want to watch the next segment or two like this. That`s all ahead. Stay with us. MADDOW: Stolen information, leaked information. Always give you the juiciest scoops, right? I mean, public announcements about stuff are rarely as exciting or newsworthy as something that was never supposed to get out but somehow nevertheless revealed. It`s the truth about journalism. It`s the truth about politics. It`s the truth about the news. The problem inherent, though, in that truth is that stolen information by definition is a single source thing, right? It can`t be corroborated. It can`t be confirmed. But the combination of the fact that something is juicy information, and that we know the powers that be didn`t want this information to be known, that can make us a little gullible when it comes to secret stuff. Secret documents and leaked documents, we are inclined to believe them, even when there is no way to check whether we really ought to. In the 1990s, the United States government secretly worked up a plan to take advantage of our natural inherent tendency to believe something specifically because it is a stolen piece of information. The CIA sometime in the `90s started to cook up this idea of using fake technical information as essentially a dangle. They cook up some fake technical information that would look on the surface like it would supposedly help in the process of building a nuclear bomb. But it would actually in real life do the opposite. They decided they cook up these flawed plans that look real, but an important flaw in them and they would shock these plans to Iran, as if they were real stolen nuclear plants. They had a fatal, technical flaw. So, if the Iranians did believe in these stolen supposedly documents and they did put them in effect, they put these plans into action, they would actually thereby set back their nuclear program in a way that would be really hard to fix. That was the idea. That was the CIA plan. So, the CIA had a Russian nuclear scientist secretly on their payroll. They drew up these fake plans that had the big secret flaw in them. They thought the Iranians wouldn`t spot the flaw, and in the year 2000, they sent this Russian intermediary to shop these supposedly stolen plans to Iran, and that`s where it all went horribly wrong, because the Russian scientist guy did give the Iranians these plans for their nuclear weapons but the Russian scientist guy also told the Iranians where the flaw was. Told the Iranians where the wrong part was. And so, this supposedly genius plan to set back Iran`s effort to build a nuclear bomb, it might have actually helped Iran progress further on the nuclear front, because once they knew to avoid that flaw that had been deliberately placed in the plans, that the Russian guy tipped them off to, well, once they worked around that flaw, the plans were actually helpful for building centrifuges, which is they needed for their nuclear program. It was a terrible intelligence phase plan. This too-clever-by-half plan cooked up over the course of years turned out to backfire, turned out to help the people that the U.S. was trying to hurt. So, OK, try again. That happened in 2000. In 2010, this time it wasn`t fatally flawed plans that they were going to try to shop to the Iranians, this time it was a piece of software. In 2010, the U.S. managed to get a computer worm into Iran`s nuclear program. It was basically a piece of software that Iran didn`t know had been introduced into their computer system. But what it did when that worm went to work is caused Iran`s nuclear centrifuges to spin out of control and break. The Iranians did not know why their centrifuges were spinning out of control and breaking. They didn`t know they were infected by this software worm thing. They just knew that something was very, very wrong. Something was so wrong that it was physically busting up their most sensitive nuclear technology. So, of the two plots, one of them worked, the virus one. One of them did not work, the almost good but secretly flawed centrifuge plans. All right. One worked. One didn`t. They are both amazing in terms of the spy novel drama of them, the gee whiz tech side of how these plans were designed. But ultimately, when each of those stories came to life, the biggest burst of drama around each of those CIA plots against Iran was, how come we know about this? How did these actions get Iran become public knowledge? In the Stuxnet case, that story about the computer worm that busted up the Iranian centrifuges, Iran eventually knew a computer virus was behind the damage, but it`s not clear whether the U.S. was still reaping rewards from Iran not knowing who was behind it. When it was revealed in this 2012 article in the "New York Times," was the U.S. still benefitting from it? "The Times" took tons of heat in Congress for publishing the story. On the Senate floor, John McCain said, "Our friends are not the only ones who with read the `New York Times.` Our enemies do, too." Senator John Kerry questioned whether the story served America`s interest and whether the public did have a right to know. A bipartisan group of House and Senate Intelligence Committee members called for a leak investigation. The other story, the one about the flawed supposedly stolen plans being shopped to Iran by the faceless Russian scientist, that story apparently had been spiked by "The New York Times" as early as 2003, before "New York Times" reporter James Risen decided to put his reporting on that plot in to his book "State of War." Last week, you may have seen headlines about a former CIA officer convicted of leaking classified information to a reporter. That was this case. Jeffrey Sterling, ex-CIA, convicted of leaking the flawed centrifuge plan story to James Risen, which he then published them in his book. Sterling could be facing decades in prison for that leak. So, these stories about our spy craft are as fascinating as spy novels are, right? They are incredibly controversial in terms of when and how we come about them and whether or not it hurts national security for these things to be made publicly known. But now, we got another one. This one happened in 2008. "Washington Post" publishing this scoop this weekend about how the CIA and Israel`s Mossad worked together to assassinate the leader of the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah. The story "The Post" got from several former intelligence officials is that the CIA and Mossad worked together to monitor this guy in Syria, in Damascus for months. The night of the planned assassination, they used facial recognition technology to confirm it was him. Then, as CIA agents monitored him on the ground, Mossad agents in Tel Aviv remotely detonated a bomb that had been hidden in the spare tire of an SUV. In order to make sure the bomb was big enough to kill him but small enough to avoid hurting anybody else. The CIA tried it in a facility in North Carolina, blowing up 25 test bombs in the process. And once again, these dramatic larger than life, I can`t believe this stuff really happens details about this plot fascinating, but also again, real, interesting questions about why we are learning this now. Who has told the "Washington Post" this happened? Is this somebody bragging, essentially telling a war story because they want the intelligence agencies involved to get credit for having done something that we wouldn`t otherwise know about? Is this being leaked for some strategic reason, especially as we are in the middle of this incredibly sensitive discussions with Iran? Is this a sign to help those talks with Iran or hurt those talks with Iran? "Washington Post" deserves credit for this incredible and incredibly dramatic spy novel style scoop. But the fact it is their scoop and it`s about super duper secret operation makes it impossible at this point for us to interrogate the basics of the story, and it also raises really interesting questions for us politically as a country about why this incredibly dramatic story is being made known now, and by whom, and why. What is the effect of telling us this thing we never knew before? Who does it serve? Who does it serve for this to be public? MADDOW: Happy, happy Groundhog Day. Naturally, this year, there is controversy. Punxsutawney Phil is our nation`s groundhog of record, 7:25 this morning in Pennsylvania, Phil came out, saw his shadow, thereby implicitly announced there will be six more weeks of winter. But also today, at around the same time, we`ve got the opposite news from Staten Island Chuck. He did not see his shadow. Nor did anyone drop him and kill him this year. But by not seeing his shadow, that means spring is on the way with. So, Chuck is not as famous as Phil, but today, the Staten Island groundhog delivered better news than Phil did. So which is it? Here`s the tie breaker. Watch carefully. This is Sun Prairie, Wisconsin`s Jimmy with the deciding (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MAYOR JONATHAN FREUND, SUN PRAIRIE, WISCONSIN: He suggest -- he says that -- CROWD: Ooh! (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Jimmy, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin groundhog bites the mayor really hard on ear, which I`ve checked the role book, means that winter is now, on principle. Also, tetanus shots all around. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL". Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020201cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 8 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 2, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 2, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, E.J. Dionne GUESTS: Robert Costa, Ken Vogel, Jonathan Chait, Robert Reich, Kent Sepkowitz SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7311 words HIGHLIGHT: The latest poll of Iowa Republican voters shows that Scott Walker is the new front runner. Paul Ryan blames President Obama for income inequality. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: See, Rachel, some of these small towns think that the Punxsutawney Phil act is a really easy act to follow. RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: Yes. Ah! O`DONNELL: Not easy. Not easy. MADDOW: Exactly. O`DONNELL: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks, man. O`DONNELL: Well, the fun has begun in the Republican presidential campaign. We have a new front runner, and if it`s anything like the last time, we will have many, many more new front runners. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today feels a little like Groundhog Day. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s appropriate that we`re talking on Groundhog Day. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rand Paul, Romney, Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mitt Romney out for 2016. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker standing atop a new poll, a 60 percent favorable rating. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If he tried real hard, he might be as charismatic as Mitt Romney. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re so mean. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Firebrand, he`s more of a smoldering stick. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jeb Bush is either in fifth or sixth place. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jeb Bush not even making the top five. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s as conservative as they come. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Christie is either in sixth or eighth place. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t think Christie has a chance. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chris Christie is going to London. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In London, across the pond today. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Never heard of him? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Never. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ring a bell? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you know who Chris Christie is? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Christie steps in a minefield. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Christie threw on a lab coat. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Groundhog Day brought to you by a debate over the vaccines. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: We vaccinated ours. Parents need to have some measure of choice. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Rand Paul also has said that this should be up to parents. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Parents are making the wrong choice. OBAMA: The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now we turn to the president. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is White House budget day. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That is an immediate battle that is looming OBAMA: You see Bill Murray playing the piano in the foyer, we`re probably going to do this again. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: In his statement explaining why he would run for president a third time, Mitt Romney said, "I believe one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well-known as I am today, one who may not yet have taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started may well emerge as being able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case." Mitt Romney gave no hint as to who that mythical character might be. After making that announcement, Mitt Romney had dinner with Chris Christie. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Governor, how did that dinner go with Mitt Romney? REPORTER: How are you doing? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks, guys. CHRISTIE: See you all. You can yell (ph) at him now. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And the latest poll of Iowa Republican voters, Scott Walker is the new front runner, with 15 percent. Rand Paul is basically tied at 14 percent. Mitt Romney`s still in that poll at 13 percent. Mike Huckabee at 10 percent. Ben Carson at 9 percent. And Jeb Bush at 8 percent. Now that Mitt Romney is out of the race, conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham said this today. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) LAURA INGRAHAM, RADIO HOST: And so I think Jeb Bush, you know, if I had to bet right now, he`d be the nominee, and if I had to bet right now, he`ll lose. (END AUDIO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Robert Costa, national political reporter for "The Washington Post", and Ken Vogel, chief investigative reporter for "Politico". Robert, it`s the race for the money. It`s the money that might have gone to Mitt Romney if he stayed in this race. Where`s that money going now? ROBERT COSTA, THE WASHINGTON POST: Money`s still on the sidelines. A lot of the Romney allies in the donor community -- they`re not sure about Bush. They think Bush is probably the front runner for the center right vote. But they are taking a closer look at Walker, Rubio, they like Christie. They`re waiting to see how this all unfold. O`DONNELL: And, Ken Vogel, there may not have been a whole lot of money sitting there waiting to go to Mitt Romney. And that might be part of why he pulled out of this thing. KEN VOGEL, POLITICO: Yes, that`s right. I mean, that was Mitt Romney`s real strength, for all you can say and all the valid criticisms about him as a candidate, his inability to connect with people, he was an amazing fundraiser and he really set the bar high. And so, his donor network, even though it may have splintered a bit, there`s still some unity there and a real effort to court those donors, including through his main fundraiser, a guy by the name of Spencer Wick (ph), whose phone line is burning up right now with Republican candidates, prospective candidates and their advisers, trying to lure him into their camp. O`DONNELL: I mean, the real -- the next poll`s going to be interesting, once you start doing them with Romney out of there and see where people start to redistribute themselves in Iowa. Let`s listen to what Rush Limbaugh said today about Scott Walker. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: For two years, I have been ballyhooing Scott Walker, not personally. But here`s a guy not only has he drawn the blueprints four beating the left. What are blueprints? They are designs for buildings. He`s built the house. He wrote the blueprint and he built the building. He built the machine that defeats the left. He has shown how to do it, and he did it. He is a walking gold mine. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Well, Robert, it`s worth pointing out that that is what we would call the Limbaugh curse. Rush Limbaugh has never supported the eventual Republican nominee at the early stable stages of the campaign. COSTA: True, but tomorrow, this week in Detroit, Jeb Bush is going to give a speech about his economic message, economic opportunity. And you have a lot of people in elite Republican circles talking about economic inequality. Who`s not talking about economic inequality? Scott Walker. The reason conservatives like Walker right now is he`s unabashed conservative. He`s not running to the center. He`s proud of what he did to fight the unions in Wisconsin. He also has a national fundraising base coming off of that 2012 recall. That`s going to be pretty powerful. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to Rush explaining Jeb Bush`s problems. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LIMBAUGH: Why is the base not thrilled about Jeb? Because Jeb Bush and the Republican establishment have made it clear they think the Republican Party`s big problem is Republican voters and not Democrats and their policies. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Ken Vogel, if Jeb Bush is still stuck down there in the next couple of polls, once you`ve cleared Mitt Romney out of the polls, if he hasn`t picked up something significant from Mitt Romney, it is going to start looking shaky for him. VOGEL: I think major donors are going to stick with him a while longer. That`s potentially one of his major strengths. However, a lot of the donors who I talked to are paying attention to this stuff. They are paying attention to the Laura Ingrahams of the world and they are paying attention to Rush and they are paying attention to these polls, because what they are nervous about is a potential splintering of the establishment vote that might allow someone like a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz to kind of squeak through, to emerge from the wreckage of the fight for the establishment vote, or even the fight between the establishment and the Tea Party. That`s where someone like Walker is so strong, that Walker has the potential to cull from both camps and to appeal to these big donors in a way that you don`t think you could say about say, a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or some other Tea Party favorite. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what Mike Huckabee had to say, because what we are seeing emerge here is that it looks like there`s going to be a fight, there`s going to be a cluster on the right side of the party, and cluster in the so-called moderate side of the party fighting against each other, and that may come down to one moderate versus one real conservative or extreme conservative. But let`s -- if Mike Huckabee`s that guy, let`s listen to the way he`s talking. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: This is not just a political issue. It is a biblical issue. And as a biblical issue, unless, you know, I get a new version of the Scriptures, it`s really not my place to say, OK, I`m just going to evolve. It`s like asking somebody who`s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli. We don`t want to do that. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Robert, that`s Mike Huckabee talking about marriage equality. Is that the way you see this field, a fight for the most conservative side of the party, while there`s a simultaneous fight fort moderate side? COSTA: And Huckabee`s certainly a threat for the right side of things. I was just on the campaign trail with Governor Huckabee in Iowa, as he went around evangelical churches. He`s still a retail political talent. This is someone who came out of nowhere in 2007 and 2008 to win the Iowa caucuses. He still has a base there. If you are Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, you`re paying attention to what Huckabee`s saying. The question, does Jeb Bush play in Iowa? He just hired Dave Kochel, an Iowa strategist to probably be his campaign manager. Jeb knows that Romney did OK in Iowa in 2012. The question is, is it worth the time and resources to really make a hard play for that state? O`DONNELL: And, Ken Vogel, going back to Jeb Bush, as we will, since he seems to be the center of gravity in that side of the party. The good news for him is, at this point, you know, Chris Christie is looking more and more unlikely. I`d bet him against him for a long time. I`ve expected Christie to be basically the Rudy Giuliani of this campaign. And so, is his attention now going to be aimed at how do I stop the Scott Walker surge? VOGEL: I think potentially, I think he does still have to pay attention to Chris Christie. One of the things that Robert and I both realize as Philadelphia fans is that Chris Christie likes a good fight. He likes to make it personal. Antagonize the Philadelphia Eagles fans. I think he`ll probably, if it ends up being a fight for that sort of centrist space on the Republican side, that he will, end up engaging with Jeb Bush. And Jeb Bush will probably be forced to engage with Chris Christie. That`s one of his sort of hallmark attributes as a politician, is the ability to mix it up and to bring his foe into the fight. O`DONNELL: Robert Costa and Ken Vogel, thank you both for joining me tonight. Coming up, Paul Ryan`s most shameless lie, according to "New York Magazine". Hint, it involves President Obama. And whacky, potential Republican presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson has emerged tonight as the voice of reason on one subject that the candidates discussed today. And in the "Rewrite", learning to laugh at blasphemy. O`DONNELL: And now, for the good news. The Detroit Free Press and WDIV-TV introduced us to James Robertson over the weekend because buses don`t cover the full distance between James home in Detroit and his job in Rochester Hill, he walks about 8 miles to work and about 13 miles home from work. That`s 21 miles total, five days a week, 105 miles. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES ROBERTSON: I can`t imagine not working, you know. I didn`t want to end up, you know, end up, you know, doing nothing. It`s -- you know, did you know how long it took me to find a job? (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Until today, James did not have enough money to fix his car, but thanks to a stranger who started a Go Fund Me page for him, that page has now raised more than $100,000. Looks like he`s going to be able to have a car and pay the insurance for that car and a little more. Up next, Paul Ryan blames President Obama for -- what else? -- income inequality. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? Or are we going to build an economy where everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead? An idea that this country does best when everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules. The budget that Congress now has in its hands is built on those values. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: In an interview with the "New York Times", yesterday, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan said, "The Obamanomics that we`re practicing now are exacerbated inequality. They`ve exacerbated stagnation. They`ve made things worse. The wealthy are doing really well. They`re practicing trickle-down economics now." "New York Magazine" columnist Jonathan Chait called that comment, "Paul Ryan`s most shameless lie ever." He said, "What gives Ryan`s comments a veneer of plausibility is that income inequality has increased continuously, punctuated by a few short reversals for more than three decades. Economists have extensively studied and debated the cause of rising inequality for years, clustering about multiple theories, the decline of labor unions, technological change, the growth of finance, and so on. None of the theories blame Obama`s economic policies." Joining me now is "New York Magazine`s" Jonathan Chait, and former secretary of labor, Robert Reich. His film "Inequality for All" is available on Blu-ray, DVD and iTunes. Jonathan, so this, you believe is Paul Ryan`s worse lie? JONATHAN CHAIT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: It`s tough competition I`d admit. I`ve never seen n Orwellian reversal of reality this brazen, as Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan, of course, has offered policies which, if enacted have engineered the largest distribution of wealth from the non-rich to the rich in the history of the United States, and he`s blaming Barack Obama whose policies have really substantially taken money from the rich and given it to the working class and the poor and to some extent, the middle class. So, for Ryan to be attacking Obama, for Obama having done things that Ryan opposed, is just mind-blowing. O`DONNELL: Robert Reich, it seems that we long ago entered the zone in Washington where a politician really can say anything he or she wants to about economics. That economics is confusing enough a subject to the general public that there just really isn`t any way really for people out there to fact check it. ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: Well, Lawrence, that`s right with regard to a lot of economic matters. I mean, if you`re talking about fiscal and monetary policy for example, many people`s eyes glaze over. They don`t know what the debate is all about. But if you`re talking about inequality, you`re talking about the fundamental issue that everybody understands, and that is that most people have gone nowhere in terms of their income and a very small number of people at the very top have got all of the economic gains over the past 30 years. So, when Paul Ryan comes along, as Jonathan Chait just said and provides this kind of Orwellian edifice of hypocrisy, I mean, it`s beyond the normal range of hypocrisy, I think if people understood and heard what he was saying, and, by the way, this is the kind of thing that Republicans have been saying for a while. Mitt Romney, before he dropped out was saying something very, very similar. If people simply wake up to the fact of what these people are saying, they will be utterly stupefied and amazed. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what Paul Ryan said on "Meet the Press" yesterday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: What I think the president is trying to do here is to, again, exploit envy economics. This top-down redistribution doesn`t work. We`ve been doing it for six years. Look, it may make for good politics. It doesn`t make for good economic growth. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Jonathan Chait, economic envy? CHAIT: Right. So, that`s the real Paul Ryan line that he`s been saying all along. That`s his attack on President Obama, saying you`re taking too much from the rich, you`re punishing the rich, the job creators, the people who are responsible for the wealth in this country and giving it to the takers he`ll sometimes call them or people he thinks are lazy or otherwise undeserving. That`s what he actually believes. So, you know, I think it`s a reprehensible belief. But at least that is Paul Ryan saying what he actually thinks, as opposed to the previous comments of him trying to get to Obama`s left, which is really the absurd thing that set me off this time. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what President Obama said yesterday to Savannah Guthrie about the economy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLPI) SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: The economy is doing better, but you`ve laid out a bunch of proposals that you know cannot get through this Congress that is run by Republicans now. Isn`t that kind of counter- productive? OBAMA: No, I disagree with that. Republicans believe that we should be building our infrastructure. Question is, how do we pay for it? That`s the negotiation that we should have. I -- GUTHRIE: You`re offering tax hikes for the wealthy, that`s something they couldn`t even get through the Congress when it was run by the Democrats. OBAMA: Savannah, my job is to present the right ideas, and if the Republicans think they`ve got a better idea, they should present them. But my job is not to trim my sails and not tell the American people what we should be doing. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Robert Reich, you worked for President Obama -- President Clinton as labor secretary when he had lost both bodies of Congress and had to deal with those Republican majorities in both bodies. It`s a very tricky situation of what does the president propose then, because as soon as the president proposes anything a lot of political media`s ready to say instantly, well, that`s impossible, they`re never going to do it, now what? I`m not sure what the alternative is for a president in that situation. REICH: There`s not much of an alternative except simply using a veto pen, but if you want to be a president who has any initiative, who sets the agenda in any way at all, you`ve got to be a president that is willing to take the brunt of criticism that it`s dead on arrival. But I think with regard to President Obama, this is somebody who`s become the master of political jujitsu. I mean, if you look at the proposals he set up, one proposal was to tax the foreign earnings of big American corporations. You know, they`re putting -- they`ve stashed about $2 trillion abroad that can`t be touched. And so, Obama`s saying let`s put a 18 percent tax on these foreign earnings and use it to rebuild the American infrastructure, roads, bridges, tunnels, mass transit. Let`s actually build the productive capacity of the United States on the basis of the foreign earnings of big corporations that are being protected by America in terms of their assets the around the world. Now this, if it`s understood by the public, could actually gain some traction. O`DONNELL: Jonathan Chait, if anything is to get done, President Obama and Paul Ryan are going to have to work together. They`re going to have to come to some agreements on something. Do you see any areas where that might happen? CHAIT: Well, look, it wasn`t that long ago that they managed to lift the lid on sequestration, which are these automatic budget cuts that neither party really likes and they sort of cut a deal to ease that budget pressure a little bit. So, I think the optimistic scenario is maybe they could ease that budget pressure a little bit and maybe get a little done on the infrastructure issues that you were just discussing. Look, there`s plenty of business leaders in this country who want to rebuild bridges and roads and ports. And there`s a lot of money to be made there if they can get past the anti-spending dogma that has a big hold on the Republican Congress. Now, I don`t think they can, but there`s a chance. O`DONNELL: Jonathan Chait and Robert Reich, thank you both for joining me tonight. REICH: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Coming up, a voice of reason has finally emerged among the potential Republican presidential primary candidates, and it is the least- likely voice of reason possible. And, later, the best ads from the Super Bowl. Janet Mock will join me. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We`ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated. There aren`t reasons to not get vaccinated. GUTHRIE: Are you telling parents you should get your kids vaccinated? OBAMA: You should get your kids vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: In the "Spotlight" tonight, the one thing that possible Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson and President Obama agree on. Ben Carson told "BuzzFeed", "Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in this country, and we should not allow those diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them." Some Republican candidates seem to be paying more attention to Jenny McCarthy than Dr. Ben Carson. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) JENNY MCCARTHY: I do not believe that vaccines are the sole cause for autism. I do believe they are a trigger. They are a trigger. And the dumbest way to explain it though, for me is, if you become overweight, you might trigger diabetes. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: All I can say is we vaccinated ours. So, that`s the best expression I give you my opinion. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So, that`s the balance that the government has to decide. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. (END VIDEO CLIPS) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Dr. Kent Sepkowitz, the deputy physician for quality and safety at Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center, and E.J. Dionne, MSNBC political analyst and columnist for "The Washington Post". Doctor, do you want to respond to what you just heard Rand Paul say? DR. KENT SEPKOWITZ, MEMORIAL SLOANE KETTERING: Well, first, I want to say how nice it is to hear Ben say something quite sane. O`DONNELL: It`s the first time he`s sounded like a physician to me. SEPKOWITZ: Right, right, it was sort of reassuring. Rand Paul, also a physician on the other hand, is pandering as fast as he can toward the illogical, desperate, make everybody happy approach to, you don`t have to do anything you don`t want to do. And this is the problem is libertarianism falls apart when it bumps into public health. You can`t have it both ways, and he wants to have it both ways as both politicians do. O`DONNELL: E.J. Dionne, I really -- I want to re-read the Ben Carson quote. We`ve listened to him now for a couple of years saying things like Obamacare`s the worst thing since slavery. He said that. Obamacare worse than 9/11. He has said that. The same man who said that, said this very precise, careful medically correct thing about immunizations, but Chris Christie can`t bring himself to say something that clear about it and Rand Paul can`t. E.J. DIONNE, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yes, I never expected to sit here and say I stand four square with Ben Carson. O`DONNELL: This is the night. DIONNE: And I think you heard the physician in him speaking. And when Christie puts himself to the right of Ben Carson, he might reconsider. I mean, the issue here, as Ben Carson said, is public health policies have helped eliminate a lot of diseases, and that we all have a responsibility to the health of each other, and that we don`t want our kids going to school with kids who are not immunized against disease. (END VIDEO CLIP) Because when immunization falls below a certain rate, you get the outbreak of diseases that we thought we had wiped out. And I think -- and somebody mentioned this earlier tonight -- older people seem to understand immunization better, perhaps because they still remember the polio epidemic -- the big polio epidemic. And vaccines were a great relief to people all over the country. And so, public officials should not be saying things that discourage people from being vaccinated. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Polio was a formative event in this country`s attitude towards the -- when I was a little kid growing up in Boston, the first mayor of Boston in my lifetime, John Hynes, was in a wheelchair because he had polio. DR. KENT SEPKOWITZ, SLOAN KETTERING: Correct. Right. It was in front of everyone, all the time, FDR obviously and others. And it was within everyone`s immediate memory that someone had either become severely ill from polio or from measles, or had been crippled in some way from one of the viral infections that vaccines, I think, may have gotten rid of. So, it`s exasperating beyond belief. I think one of the real problems we`re having is that logical, persuasive argument isn`t helping that much - - that there`s still a belief that you can believe anything you want to. And that there`s no reality out there. And that`s making it very difficult to win on the basis of merit. O`DONNELL: And, E.J., this is just one of those things that is, seems to be, connected to other thinking in the Republican party -- on issues of climate science, on things where they just can`t seem to be able to process the known scientific evidence. DIONNE: Well, I think there is definitely some of that, and I also think that, you know, every time we think well, there are certain issues that we`re not going to turn into partisan or ideological issues. We all used to agree, the very conservative AMA doctor and the very liberal unionized nurse used to agree that immunizing liberal kids against disease was a great advance for human kind. And, now, suddenly, those issues are turned into ideological issues. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And I do think there`s something about evidence playing less and less of a role in our public arguments that include scientific evidence. But as a doctor said, you know, if you feel something is true, that seems to be enough. (END VIDEO CLIP) And it is a problem with libertarianism because there are certain things that are in the public interest that work only if we agree to do them together. And I think immunization is a classic example of that. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what libertarian, Dr. Senator Rand Paul, said to Laura Ingraham today. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I think there are times in which there can be some rules. But, for the most part, it ought to be voluntary. The biggest one was -- I don`t know if you remember when Governor Perry made it mandatory to get -- for a sexually-transmitted disease, to have everybody have to take it. While I think it`s a good idea to take a vaccine, I think that`s a personal decision for individuals to take and when they take it. (END AUDIO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Doctor, he just said, for the most part, it ought to be voluntary. SEPKOWITZ: Well, he got the word, sex, in there very quickly to win his audience over. I think that if when we`re to argue with him vaccine by vaccine, rather than taking the extreme -- the real hot button one, which is HPV, -- O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. SEPKOWITZ: -- papillomavirus. That one`s a little edgier as an argument, so he was smart to go there politically, but sleazy to avoid the discussion. Although it`s very disappointing that a physician, and from a well- trained place, has got a big brain. You know, medically is pandering the way he is. I`m very disappointed. O`DONNELL: Dr. Kent Sepkowitz and E.J. Dionne, thank you both for joining me tonight. Coming up in the "Rewrite,"" after cartoonists were assassinated in Paris for blasphemy, Ireland has something to teach the world about blasphemy. For the second week in a row, another massive winter storm has rolled into the Northeast. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) The snow first buried the Chicago area in a foot of snow, leaving -- more than a foot there. And, tonight, Boston is expected to pick up a -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- total of 15 inches after the two feet they got there last week. Joining me now from Boston`s Copley Square is Katelyn Flint, reporter from New England Cable News. Katelyn, what`s the latest there. KATELYN FLINT, NEW ENGLAND CABLE NEWS REPORTER: You know, right now, it is looking like more of a snow globe than a city when you take into consideration all of snow that we saw from the blizzard last week, and then again, more than a foot that has fallen from overnight last night and just today. So, if you want to take a look behind me again -- you said, this is Boston`s Copley Square area, and you can see crews hard at work because they have been out plowing and sanding all night last night and all throughout the day. And if you can see from the streets that are behind me here, we are still not down to pavement. So, making for some very slippery driving conditions. And some concerns also, as we do move it to the overnight with concerns of dropping temperatures, all of this snow on the ground, that slush that remains there, basically just freezing over and turning into ice. So, they have been hard at work, especially with the blizzard from last week. You know, the mayor today said that they had shipped and moved, over the weekend, about 6,000 truckloads of snow from the city here in Boston. And that was before the storm that we saw today, where we`re getting about 16 inches in total. I want you to take a look over here just so you can get an idea of the embankments we`re seeing. Such large drifts covering these benches. The snow is that light and fluffy snow, so it`s not hard to shovel but anyone here will tell you that digging out under a foot of snow or more, is still digging out under a foot of snow. Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Katelyn Flint in Boston. Thank you very much, Katelyn. I don`t know, I`ve seen much worse there. The "Rewrite" is next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL MAHER, HBO HOST: New rule, no one can blame me when I say, this is a stupid country, when 60 percent of the adults in it think the Noah`s Ark story is literally true. The thing that`s really disturbing about Noah isn`t the silly, it`s not it`s immoral. It`s about a psychotic mass murderer who gets away with it, and His name is God. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: In the "Rewrite" tonight, blasphemy. As the 20th Century came to an end, we had a right to believe that the world we lived in was long past the point where you could be executed for blasphemy. The last person executed for blasphemy in Great Britain was Thomas Aikenhead who was hanged in Scotland in 1697. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) According to the indictment prepared against him, Aikenhead had claimed that theology was a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense. He also attacked the view that Scripture was divinely ordained, suggesting that the books of the Old Testament should be called Ezra`s Fables, since he claimed, described Ezra had made them up. And the New Testament should be titled, "The History of the Impostor Christ." Jesus, he said, had tricked His followers with magic he learned in Egypt, where Moses had acquired similar skills. (END VIDEO CLIP) The last person to be jailed for Blasphemy in this country was Abner Kneeland, who was convicted of blasphemy in Massachusetts in 1838. He was an ordained minister and theologian, who eventually came to see Christianity`s concept of God as a product of Christians` imagination. Blasphemy still had a foothold, here and there, in the laws of the western world in the 20th Century, but no one really noticed when the Republic of Ireland finally achieved full independence and wrote its own Constitution in 1937. It made blasphemy a crime and enshrined that in the Constitution itself. Article 40 of the Irish Constitution says, "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter is an offense which shall be punishable in accordance with law." The Irish Constitution also said, "The state recognizes the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Ireland is a Catholic country. Eighty-five percent of the Irish population is Roman Catholic, another six percent are members of other Christian religions, almost six percent say they have no religion, about three percent belong to religions they don`t identify in polls, and one percent say they are Muslim. Last night, Ireland was treated to quite a spectacle -- an Englishman came to Dublin, sat for an interview on a government-funded television network and committed extreme blasphemy. The comic actor, Stephen Fry, was interviewed by the legendary Irish talk show host, Gay Byrne, whose program is titled, "The Meaning of Life." Let that be a lesson to those of you who think the title of this program is a tad presumptuous. There`s a talk show in Ireland actually called, "The Meaning of Life." And that is indeed what the show explores. The interview took place in the one-time home of Oscar Wilde, the famed Irish writer who once denounced all the harm the Bible has done but found God on his death bed. Last night, Gay Byrne asked atheist actor, Stephen Fry, what if he`s wrong. What happens if he dies and then finds himself at the pearly gates. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GAY BYRNE, IRISH TALK SHOW HOST: You walk up to the pearly gates and you are confronted by God. What would Stephen Fry say to him, her or it. STEPHEN FRY, ENGLISH ACTOR: I will, basically -- that is the Odyssey. I think, I`d say, bone cancer in children? What`s that about. How dare you. How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It`s not right. It`s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect the capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world, which is so full of injustice and pain." (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: With a Catholic country watching, a Catholic country where blasphemy is technically against the law, Stephen Fry continued to describe God creations that led him to believe there is no God. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FRY: Insects, whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind, that eat outwards from the eyes. Why. Why did you do that to us. You could easily have made a creation in which that didn`t exist. It is simply not acceptable. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Stephen Fry wasn`t finished. I`m about to show you how he finished his point. And you will see how Gay Byrne reacted on behalf of his Catholic country, where blasphemy is illegal -- how he reacted to this energetic stream of illegal blasphemy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FRY: Atheism is not just about not believing there is -- it is not believing there`s a God but, on the assumptions there is one, what kind of God is he. It`s perfectly apparent that he`s monstrous, utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, your life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth-living, in my opinion. BYRNE: That sure is the longest answer to that question -- (LAUGHTER) -- about God in this entire series. So, well done and thank you -- FRY: Thank you so much. BYRNE: Good day to you. FRY: Thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: So, there`s Ireland`s legendary talk show host getting a good laugh out of the big blast of atheistic blasphemy, visited upon all of Ireland by an invading Englishman. With cartoonists being shot dead at their desks in Paris for blasphemy, we can only wonder, in what century will an English actor be able to offer several uninterrupted minutes of blasphemy to Saudi Arabia`s premiere talk show or Pakistan`s premiere talk show host, then have a good laugh about it, a handshake, and get out of that country alive. Twenty-five percent of Super Bowl viewers, the smart 25 percent, say that the commercials are the best thing about the Super Bowl. And here`s why. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS 1: Marcia, what happened? DANNY TREJO, ACTOR: Peter hit me in the nose with a football. I can`t go to the dance like this. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS 1: Well, I`m sure it was an accident, sweetheart. TREJO: An eye for an eye is what dad always says. UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: I never said that, honey. TREJO: Shut up. I`ve got to Peter a lesson. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS 1: Marcia, eat a Snickers. TREJO: Why. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS 1: You get a little hostile when you`re hungry. Better? UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS 2: Better. STEVE BUSCEMI, ACTOR: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS 1: Jan, this isn`t about you. BUSCEMI: It never is. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We`ll be back with the best commercials of the Super Bowl. Janet Mark is here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Over 114 million people watched the Super Bowl last night, making it the most watched television program in the history of television in the United States. In a recent survey, 25 percent of viewers said, the most important thing is not the game. It is, of course, the commercials. Here is Bryan Cranston`s contribution to the most important part of the Super Bowl. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRYAN CRANSTON, ACTOR: Hi. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: My doctor called in a prescription. CRANSTON: Uh, yes. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: You are not Greg. CRANSTON: I`m sorry, Greg. We`re both over 50 years old. We both used to own a Pontiac Aztek and we both have a lot of experience with drugs -- sorry, pharmaceuticals. So, say my name. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Sorta Greg. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE-OVER: Esurance helps make sure you only pay for what`s right for you, not someone who`s sorta like you. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Janet Mock, host of "SO POPULAR" on shift by MSNBC. Janet is also the author of -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "Redefining Realness." (END VIDEO CLIP) Janet, they redefine the possible every year with these commercials. They`re so great. JANET MOCK, MSNBC HOST: They really are. And, you know, seeing Walter White there. O`DONNELL: Oh. MOCK: I think a lot of people were so excited to hear him say, "Say my name." And also to have the yellow hazmat back on. O`DONNELL: That was my favorite. And then, of course, there is the return of that famous "Today`s Show" team, Katie and Bryant. MOCK: My 80s heart just -- O`DONNELL: Let`s take a look at that one. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRYANT GUMBEL, NBC HOST: That 56 pass. I wasn`t prepared to translate that. KATIE COURIC, NBC HOST: That`s right. GUMBEL: That little mark with the a and then the ring around it. ALLISON: At? GUMBEL: See, that`s what I said. Katie said she thought it was "about." COURIC: Yes, -- GUMBEL: But I`ve never heard it -- COURIC: -- or around or about. GUMBEL: -- I`ve never heard it said. I`ve only seen the mark. There it is -- at am feedback com. I mean, what is Internet anyway. What -- do you write to it, like mail? COURIC: Miss Allison, can you explain what Internet is? GUMBEL: See, that`s what I said. What do you mean there`s nothing under the hood. Katie said she thought this was a car. COURIC: Yes. GUMBEL: And it`s built using wind, like from a windmill. COURIC: Or a fan. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE-OVER: The all-electric BMW i3, built-in wind- powered factory with the strength of carbon fiber and BMW performance. COURIC: Come on, loosen up, Gumbel. GUMBEL: Can you twerk. COURIC: Maybe. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Now, Janet, I know you`re too young to remember not knowing what the Internet was. But -- (LAUGHTER) -- I was -- I think I was about 18 months ahead of them, maybe two years ahead of them on asking the same questions. It was so great to see that. My first thought was that, "Did they really say that on the `Today Show." It turns out, yes. MOCK: Yes, I love the fact that they kind of poked fun at themselves, their younger selves, not quite understanding the hip technology. And I love that. Now, I think we`re all in the same space with the electric car. I think it`s something that, maybe, we`ll look back on and see as the space in which we didn`t quite know. I loved other commercials, too, where celebrities kind of made fun of themselves, you know, there was like Kim Kardashian in the T-Mobile ad, and Mindy Kaling, of course, with the -- O`DONNELL: I think we have the Mindy ad. Let`s look at that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MINDY KALING, ACTRESS: Taxi. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE NARRATOR: After years of being treated like she was invisible, it occurred to Mindy, she might actually be invisible. ROY ORBISON, SINGER: Pretty woman, walking down the street. Pretty woman, the girl I`d like to meet. FEMALE NARRATOR: But Mindy was actually not invisible. MATT DAMON, ACTOR: Whoa, excuse me. KALING: Did you see me? FEMALE NARRATOR: She had just always been treated that way. DAMON: Yes, yes, ma`am. KALING: You don`t want to kiss, just to make sure? DAMON: Absolutely not. KALING: No, I didn`t want to kiss you either, Matt Damon, so -- NARRATOR: Join the nation that sees you as a priority. Nationwide is on your side. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: She is so brilliant. And that`s kind of a snatch of her show, too. I mean, her show behaves an awful lot like that commercial. MOCK: It does. And this is also a young writer and creator who made her first break by playing Ben Affleck and Matt Damon in that OffOffOff Broadway play that kind of got her to where she is today as a writer and a thinker. O`DONNELL: Yes, it was just fantastic. What are the other -- oh, wait, I`m told -- MOCK: The puppy. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: -- I`m told, the Budweiser puppy ad, they say, is the most popular. Is that based on the social networking commentary. MOCK: Yes, and it`s also because there`s a puppy lab. So, you write it like there`s a horse who`s going to save a lab. O`DONNELL: No need to describe it. Here it is. (LAUGHTER) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (HORSE NEIGHING) THE PROCLAIMERS, SCOTTISH BAND: When I wake up, when I know I`m going to be. And I will walk 500 miles. And I will walk 500 more just to be there for all the thousand miles to fall down at your door. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Boy, Budweiser knows its audience. They`re not going for cool, they`re going for America. MOCK: Yes. O`DONNELL: And heartwarming, and they got it. MOCK: They`re giving you -- they`re giving you a feeling. There was no Budweiser -- O`DONNELL: Yes. MOCK: -- in the commercial at all, right. O`DONNELL: Yes. MOCK: And, also, it brought me back to kind of looking at -- watching "Homeward Bound," where it was about these puppies and these animals who find their way back home. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And I also think about this "Lion King" kind of scenario that also happened here with this viral video. (END VIDEO CLIP) And so, it`s very click-baity in that sense. O`DONNELL: And it`s just the wicked cute dog. What else did you like among the commercials. MOCK: I also -- I think, another one that I loved, too, was the Dove. There`s a Dove commercial talking about what real dads do. And it kind of framed, you know, obviously we`re watching the Super Bowl, so there`s hypermasculine -- American hypermasculinity. And you have these dads who are kind of centered in, taking care of their children. O`DONNELL: We don`t have time for another commercial, so just tell us one more because we`re running out of time. (LAUGHTER) We don`t have 40 seconds for another commercial. MOCK: Oh, I also loved -- there was also a darker one, which is more of a P.S.A. -- Nomore.org, which was, you know, in this space about domestic violence. O`DONNELL: Oh, yes, right, right. And an important one for the NFL this season. MOCK: Exactly. Thank you very much for joining us. Your show is entitled, "So Popular," according to the teleprompter. (LAUGHTER) The teleprompter says that it`s at 11:00 a.m. Easter on MSNBC.com. Thanks, Janet. Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020201cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 9 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 3, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST New Hampshire One Year Out BYLINE: Chris Matthews GUESTS: John Sununu, Raymond Buckley, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, James Pindell, Neil Levesque, Amy Walter SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8376 words HIGHLIGHT: We`re one year from the pivotal New Hampshire presidential primary, and no candidate of either party has won the nomination for president without placing at least first or second in the state. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Win here or die. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. Welcome to this special edition of HARDBALL. We`re now one year from the pivotal New Hampshire presidential primary, and no candidate of either party Democrat or Republican, has won the nomination for president without placing at least first or second in the "Live Free or Die" state. And as we pass the months between now and New Hampshire, it becomes clear to me that the mainstream candidate, a Jeb Bush, a Chris Christie, perhaps a Scott Walker, has to do especially well in New Hampshire or else face being knocked from the race in the hard-right states of Iowa and South Carolina, who have their contests just before and just after New Hampshire. A strong showing of first or second New Hampshire itself can be the life preserver that allows a mainstream conservative candidate like Jeb Bush to move forward to the big state contests that come later. A failure to win or place in New Hampshire, on the contrary, can ring the death knell. John Sununu served three consecutive terms as New Hampshire governor and was President George Herbert Walker Bush`s chief of staff. Governor Sununu, I first have to talk about or ask you about the horror over in Syria, in the ISIS world over there. They -- burning someone alive to make a point? JOHN SUNUNU (R), FMR. NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR: Look, that horror is affecting the whole country. I think America is developing a real anger. In New Hampshire, you know, that anger started last year when they beheaded James Foley... MATTHEWS: Yes. SUNUNU: ... from Rochester, New Hampshire. I think it is beginning to seep in, and a country that had become a little bit anti-participating in these conflicts around the world is beginning to inch back because of the anger. It remains to be seen how the leadership takes advantage, I think, of this opportunity to do the right thing. MATTHEWS: Well, I have to be political because we planned to do this despite the horror. And the question is, would a candidate who`s more for an isolation approach, a pull-back approach like Rand Paul -- would he be in trouble in this kind of atmosphere? SUNUNU: I think it hurts him tremendously. I think -- I think people may be a little more reluctant to commit troops, but I think the anger is getting to the point where they don`t want to be isolationists. MATTHEWS: Let me ask (INAUDIBLE) Main Street Republicans, New Hampshire -- it`s is a win or die up there. In 2012, after losing narrowly to Rick Santorum in Iowa, Mitt Romney needed a win in New Hampshire to establish himself. Same in 2008 after, Huckabee, Mike Huckabee, won Iowa, John McCain needed New Hampshire to establish himself as the party leader and did so. What is the role of New Hampshire, as you look at it? I mean, it`s your state. You are essence of the state. It seems to be the state that rights the wagon. If it`s been tipped over in Iowa, it comes back, like Reagan came back, and you know -- and Bill Clinton pulls that "comeback kid" thing up there, and it wins for him and he wins the whole shebang. SUNUNU: Well, you`ve heard me say it before. Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents. MATTHEWS: That`s pretty corny. (LAUGHTER) SUNUNU: Touche! Look, I think what happens in New Hampshire is people underestimate how hard the electorate, both Republican and Democrat, work to be part of the process. The voters show up. They go out. They don`t just go and look at their own candidate, they go to all the gatherings. MATTHEWS: Yes. SUNUNU: And I`ll give you a number that sticks in my mind. When we ran George Herbert Walker Bush in `88, he shook 50,000 hands and we took 5,000 Polaroid pictures of the vice president with somebody, based on the theory that if you have a picture of yourself and the vice president on the mantle, you`re going to work awfully hard to make it a picture of yourself and the president. MATTHEWS: You know... (CROSSTALK) SUNUNU: ... involved. MATTHEWS: Yes, and Bob Dole, who has the handicaps from the war, his war injuries, would say and said back then he couldn`t keep up with George, Senior, because he was out there moving around physically. It`s a physical event. SUNUNU: It is. You go to events. People look you in the eye. They talk to you. They reach out. I call it a "see me, touch me, feel me" campaign. MATTHEWS: Yes. Let me ask you about -- about Jeb Bush. Would he be a good president? SUNUNU: I think he would be a good president. I think -- you know, I think the country needs a governor or former governor. I think Jeb Bush would be a good president. I think Scott Walker would be a good president. I thought Mitt Romney would have been a good president. I think you go across -- the country needs somebody with government executive branch experience to come in and deal with the needs today. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about Jeb here because he -- I said to you before the show tonight that I thought he has been a conviction politician. You don`t have to like the guy. I like him, but you don`t have to like him. You don`t have to agree with him. But he has been consistent -- Common Core, a positive attitude towards immigration, illegal immigration and how we can fix it. He doesn`t seem to be pandering, which is... SUNUNU: No... MATTHEWS: I thought Christie was pandering the other day when he was talking about you should have the option with vaccinations or not. I mean, what was that about? SUNUNU: Yes, I think what Jeb is going to have to do, though, as he goes into this, is not change his positions, but in essence, realize that language counts in a presidential campaign and where you put the emphasis counts in a presidential campaign. And I think he doesn`t have to change his positions, but he`s got to articulate them in a way that is much more reaching out to the breadth of the party. MATTHEWS: When are going to you make an endorsement? SUNUNU: I may not. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Really? I thought you liked Jeb Bush (INAUDIBLE) SUNUNU: I like Jeb Bush. I like Scott Walker. I like a lot of the governors. Look, I`ve got a son who may run for governor, and I don`t want to put my foot in his mouth. MATTHEWS: He`s a good guy. I like John Sununu, the other John Sununu. SUNUNU: No, it`s the other -- Chris Sununu. MATTHEWS: Oh, it`s Chris Sununu. OK. SUNUNU: The other namesake. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: So you don`t think that Christie was pandering. SUNUNU: No. I think -- I think... MATTHEWS: Do you think we should have an option whether to have vaccinations or not for our kids? Or should -- I mean, you go into a school, there`s a bunch of kids that aren`t vaccinated for measles, wouldn`t that scare you if you had a kid? SUNUNU: Every one of my grandkids got vaccinated. And I have to tell you, it`s a tough issue because some parents really do feel strongly that - - about having their kids vaccinated. I think there has to be a good education program that moves them in the right direction. MATTHEWS: But you think the right direction is vaccination. SUNUNU: Is vaccination. MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, Governor John Sununu. We`ll be seeing a lot of you in the next year. Joining me right now, New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Raymond Buckley. Mr. Buckley, Mr. Chairman, thank you for joining us. This is HARDBALL, so I`ve been pretty nice to the governor, so I`ll be tough with you. Should there be, as a matter of principle, debates heading toward the Democratic primaries next year, a year from now? Should there be, as a matter of principle, debates? RAYMOND BUCKLEY, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC CHAIRMAN: Well, there have to be more than one candidate to be able to have a debate, and we don`t know if there`s going to be more than one candidate at this point. MATTHEWS: Jim -- isn`t Webb running? BUCKLEY: He hasn`t contacted anyone in New Hampshire that I`m aware of. MATTHEWS: So you`re going to -- you`re going to -- you`re going to do this number on me the whole night, right? You`re going to basically say, Until we have candidates -- but as a matter of principle -- OK, I`ll play your game, Mr. Chairman. You`re my guest, so I`ll play your game. If there are other candidates -- Bernie Sanders or Martin O`Malley, the governor of Maryland, credible candidates, U.S. senators, members of -- governors who are in office right now. If you have credible people of presidential rank or candidate rank, should there be, as a matter of principle, debates, including Secretary Clinton? BUCKLEY: Oh, I`m sure that the secretary would participate in debates if there were legitimate candidates running. You know, nobody knows New Hampshire better than Bill and Hillary Clinton, so they understand what it takes to win the New Hampshire primary and they understand how to communicate and work with that. And they certainly respect the people of New Hampshire, and I would anticipate having a full campaign going on, whether she`s opposed here or not. MATTHEWS: Well, are you supporting the idea of debate? I`m going to say this until you answer me. As party chair, do you want to see debates in the New Hampshire primary if there are multiple candidates? BUCKLEY: If they`re legitimate candidates, sure. And I would be -- I would assume that she would do that. I can`t imagine... MATTHEWS: Why are you so hesitant? BUCKLEY: ... if there are legitimate opponents... MATTHEWS: Why are you so hesitant (INAUDIBLE) There have always been debates in these elections. All -- I grew up with them. There have always been debates. They`re the best thing in television. You get a good debate in New Hampshire, Obama makes a stupid remark, like she`s likable enough, and it turns things around. Reagan says, Give me that mike. Turn -- I paid for it. Don`t you want the theater of it, at least? BUCKLEY: Well, you know... MATTHEWS: Don`t you personally... BUCKLEY: ... there`s a lot more to the New Hampshire primary than... MATTHEWS: ... want to have some activity in a -- in your primary? Are you so afraid of Hillary Clinton and her peeps that you won`t just say, Damn it, we need to have debates? This is the Democratic Party. We believe in debates. Say it, please. BUCKLEY: Well, we don`t even know if the secretary has decided to run or not. So it`s a little premature. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you this... (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: This is absurd! Anyway, (INAUDIBLE) Anything else you want to tell us? Will there be any activities in the Democratic primary campaign up there in addition to debates, since there may not be debates? (LAUGHTER) BUCKLEY: Sure. Senator Sanders was here this last weekend having house parties. MATTHEWS: OK. BUCKLEY: Governor O`Malley is coming up in a couple weeks doing... MATTHEWS: So there are other candidates! BUCKLEY: ... a number of local fund-raising... MATTHEWS: My point! BUCKLEY: ... events... MATTHEWS: Thank you. You walked into my trap. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... there are other candidates. There are other candidates, and therefore, you think there should be debates. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you very much, Raymond Buckley. I know where you stand right now. You don`t! Anyway, much more to come in this special edition of HARDBALL, one year before the New Hampshire primaries, and maybe debates. Coming up -- does it hurt or help Hillary Clinton if she doesn`t have an opponent in the Democratic primary? Should there be debates as a matter of principle? Maybe I`ll get an answer tonight! Plus, the vaccine debate. Why is Chris Christie playing footsie with the anti-science side of this fight? And the early line on the 2016 general election. There`s only one Republican who can keep it close in the big swings states, big -- one big swing state. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with the dispiriting sound of a pandering politician. This is HARDBALL, obviously, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, here`s some evidence of how far Republicans have to go to catch Hillary Clinton in three key swing states. It`s still early, so we`ll call it the morning line. Let`s check the HARDBALL "Scoreboard" as of now. According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Clinton leads -- Mrs. Clinton leads her Republican rivals by double digits, starting in Ohio, where she tops Jeb Bush by 11 points. It`s Clinton 47, Bush 36. Secretary Clinton tops Rand Paul in Ohio by 12 points. It`s Clinton 48, Paul 36. And she leads Chris Christie by 13 points, 47 to 34. Down in Florida, Jeb Bush keeps it close, but still trails by a point, 44 to 43. Hillary beats Jeb Bush in his own state. But Clinton beats Rand Paul down there by 12, 50 to 38. And she has an 18-point lead over Chris Christie down there in that state, 51 to 33, despite all the New Yorkers and New Jersey people down there. Finally, to Pennsylvania, where Hillary`s lead is even bigger, 11 points over Christie in Pennsylvania. Against Jeb, 15 points, 50 to 35. Against Rand Paul, Hillary wins by 19, 53 to 34. She is in good shape. So in eight of nine contests, it`s a Clinton blowout. We`ll be right back right after this. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. With a year to go right now before the New Hampshire primary for president, the big question for the Democrats is whether Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, will face a Democratic challenger. Well, back in 2008, it was New Hampshire that kept Clinton`s presidential campaign alive after a third place finish a few days earlier in Iowa. After falling behind in Iowa, Hillary Clinton fought her way back in the Granite State, taking on her opponent, then Senator Barack Obama, on the debate stage, when this unforgettable moment occurred. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What can you say to the voters of New Hampshire on this stage tonight who see a resume and like it, but are hesitating on the likability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more? SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, that hurts my feelings. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m sorry, Senator. I`m sorry. CLINTON: But I`ll try to go on. (LAUGHTER) CLINTON: He`s very likable. I agree with that. I don`t think I`m that bad. SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You`re likable enough... CLINTON: Oh, thank you so much. OBAMA: ... Hillary. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Thud! That landed with a thud, and she never looked or acted better as a political leader, ever, I don`t think than that moment. "Likable enough" -- it was a side to Obama we had not seen before, and the women of New Hampshire didn`t like it, either, apparently. Using old- fashioned retail politics to win over New Hampshire voters against tough odds, Hillary Clinton in those days kept up the fight, and on the day before the primary voters went to the polls, the typically ultra- disciplined Hillary Clinton slipped off message, becoming a bit teary-eyed and emotional speaking to voters at a coffee shop in Portsmouth. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: It`s not easy. And I couldn`t do it if I just didn`t, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country, I just don`t want to see us fall backwards. Some people think elections are a game. They think it`s, like, who`s up or who`s down. It`s about our country. It`s about our kids` futures. And it`s really about all of us together. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, the next day, the New Hampshire voters handed another Clinton a big comeback when Hillary Clinton went on to win the crucial first-in-the-nation primary contest, resuscitating her bruised campaign, bringing it back to life. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: Over the last week, I listened to you. And in the process, I found my own voice. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) CLINTON: Now together, let`s give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Anyway, as 2016 approaches and Hillary Clinton gears up for a second run for the White House, no credible challenger has emerged. Well, challengers, but no one to take her down yet. Will Hillary Clinton sail through the New Hampshire primary this time around, or will she have to work for a victory, like she did back in 2008? One person who knows New Hampshire and Hillary Clinton better than anyone is the Granite State`s senior senator, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. As it turns out, every candidate that she has endorsed since Jimmy Carter in 1976 has gone on to win the New Hampshire primary. She was one of the few Democrats to win reelection, by the way, in 2014, defeating Republican Scott Brown by 3 points. She joins me now. Senator, thank you so much. Also joining me right now is political expert and "Boston Globe" reporter James Pindell -- Pindell. Let me go to Senator Shaheen. I was so taken, as I`ve told you, with your ground campaign and your effort up there last November, coming up and seeing you. It was so gung-ho. So I`m going to ask you a couple -- you have endorsed Secretary Clinton, is that right, for president. SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), NEW HAMPSHIRE: Well, I think Hillary Clinton would be a terrific president. I was one of the Democratic senators in the Senate who -- the women Democratic senators who sent a letter to her, urging her to consider running. And I hope she does. He hasn`t gotten into the race yet, but I think she`d be terrific. MATTHEWS: You want her to run and you support her, right? SHAHEEN: I do. If she runs, I think -- as I said, I think she should run. I think she`ll be a great candidate, as she was in 2008. And I think it`s a tribute to New Hampshire and the New Hampshire primary that candidates come into the state, they go into living rooms, they talk to voters, they engage with voters, they answer questions. New Hampshire voters are very smart on the issues. They pay attention. They talk to all the candidates and then they make up their minds. MATTHEWS: Well, the most recent polling among New Hampshire Democrats shows that Secretary Clinton has an overwhelming lead over potential Democratic rivals -- 62 percent, 3 in 5, of Democrats said they would support the former secretary of state in a 2016 Democratic primary. Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, who says she`s not running right now, registered at just 13. Let me ask you about -- I know I was bothering the chairman of your party up there, but I`ll ask you only one time. Do you think there should be, as a matter of principle, debates leading up to your primary in New Hampshire? SHAHEEN: I think we`ve always had debates in New Hampshire. As I said, one of the great things about the New Hampshire primary is that candidates go into living rooms. They have to answer questions from real voters. If you ask John McCain or Al Gore or Bill Clinton or Hillary or Barack Obama, they will all tell you that that`s the strength of the New Hampshire primary. And of course there should be presidential debates. I think that`s -- voters are entitled to hear what candidates think about the issues. MATTHEWS: Well, Associated Press reporter Ken Thomas (ph) writes that, quote, "Few Democrats see an insurgent candidate in the mode of Barack Obama on the horizon. Well, that raises the potential of a pedestrian -- a pedestrian Democratic primary season with few televised debates and little of the drama expected from a crowded and likely combative race on the Republican side." I think he`s being a bit premature there, but Democratic primary voters may not be thrilled about the lack of competition. One Clinton supporter told CNN: "The American people don`t like to see a candidate assume that something is theirs for the taking." And a Democratic strategist said, "If Hillary Clinton is trying to avoid a coronation, it really is a terrible way to go about it. It sends a message that we don`t have a campaign in the primaries." I think there`s going to be debates as well. Let me go over to -- hold on there, Senator. I want to go to James Pindell here right now. Who do you see actually putting together an organization up there right now, whether it`s Webb or it`s O`Malley of Maryland or it`s Bernie Sanders of Vermont? Who has got their act even beginning to take place against a formidable opponent like Secretary Clinton? JAMES PINDELL, "THE BOSTON GLOBE": I got tell you it`s very early to have any organization, even on the Republican side. Right now, it`s about testing the waters and seeing what kind of energy would be out there for a potential campaign, and right now the energy is on the left and it is with frankly Bernie Sanders, of all people. Very surprising. When he made his first trip to Saint Anselm College, his first trip to New Hampshire, just last year, there were 400 people in that audience, standing room only, had to worry about the fire code. MATTHEWS: Yes. PINDELL: There`s an energy there on the left. I just don`t know how big that energy would be. Right now, New Hampshire is certainly Clinton country. MATTHEWS: Is that because of the uncomplicated message from sort of the 1960s left? I know all about it. I`m cheered by it sometimes, but I do know it`s uncomplicated, and therefore, probably not right. What Bernie offers up is the bad guys are the Republicans, the bad guys are the corporations, the bad guys are the ones you don`t like and we`re always the good guys, and all we need is more Democrats and everything is going to be great. That`s a good message. Everybody -- in fact, more people on the left, the better things are going to be. Is that a student thing, or is that a voter thing to buy that? PINDELL: I think what`s really going -- I think what`s really going on here, and you touch on a lot of it -- is that I don`t think liberal in New Hampshire have had a valve really since Howard Dean in 2003 to really let off some steam. And so whether it`s Bernie Sanders are it may be eventually Elizabeth Warren, even though she says she`s not running, there is some amount of energy there, but one more time, New Hampshire is the firewall for Clinton in the same way it was for Mitt Romney in 2012. Iowa is going to do what Iowa is going to do, but Hillary Clinton knows she is going to be in the game, the same way Mitt Romney knew he was going to be in the game because New Hampshire is going to have their back. MATTHEWS: Let me go back to Senator Shaheen. You know that state. What is about New Hampshire that everybody like me seems to like? You put it in your words, because I love going up -- it used to be every four years, I would bring one of my kids up there, I would sit in the bathroom knocking out my column for the San Francisco papers, and they would be there watching television and then we would go out to dinner or some place in Manchester or somewhere. I love Portsmouth. I think I would like to retire to Portsmouth. It`s so great. SHAHEEN: Oh, good. Come on up. MATTHEWS: It`s a fantastic state. There`s something gritty about it. How would you describe it? What would be your word as a Democrat? What says New Hampshire to you? SHAHEEN: Well, let me do that, but let me first respond to your question about Bernie Sanders. Bernie is well known in New Hampshire. MATTHEWS: Sure. SHAHEEN: And I think he and Elizabeth Warren, whether they actually get into the race or not, are speaking to a disenfranchisement, a frustration that too many Americans feel right now about whether they`re being left behind by -- as members of the middle class. And so I do think it`s important to speak to that disparity that currently exists in our economy, in jobs, and the frustration that middle class Americans feel. Now, what is so exciting about the New Hampshire primary and our state is that we have had the presidential primary, we have been the first since the early 1900s, and people are used to checking the tires on presidential candidates. They want to hear what they have to say. You can`t get by with just bumper ticker answers, 10-second responses. You really have to go in, you have talk to people, you have to engage with them on what`s really on their minds, talk about a vision for this country and where we need to go. And that`s I think what is so special about the New Hampshire primary, and there are very few places in the country today where you still have to do that. MATTHEWS: Would Kelly Ayotte be a good running mate on the Republican ticket? SHAHEEN: I think New Hampshire would be very happy to have Senator Ayotte on the ticket. MATTHEWS: Because it wouldn`t be -- she wouldn`t be senator from New Hampshire anymore, right? SHAHEEN: No, because, listen, any time we have somebody who understands the state, who knows what we need, who appreciates and is committed to New Hampshire -- that`s one of the reasons we like having all the presidential candidates there so much is because it gives us a chance to talk about what`s on people`s minds in the state, what we want to see. And that`s good for New Hampshire. It`s good for the country. MATTHEWS: Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who knows that state and she just won it 51-48 in a very tough race with the attractive, of course, Scott Brown. Beat his number. Two women in a row beat him in two different states next to each other. What an amazing history Scott Brown has got. SHAHEEN: That`s history. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Is he heading to Maine? (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you very much. James Pindell, thank you, sir, for joining us. Please come back, both of you. Up next, from Ronald Reagan to Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire is the place for comebacks. We have got the most memorable moments coming up next. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE H.W. BUSH, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, New Hampshire. Thank you, New Hampshire. (CROSSTALK) BILL CLINTON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think we know enough to say with some certainty that New Hampshire tonight has made Bill Clinton the comeback kid. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let`s keep fighting all the way to the White House. Thank you, New Hampshire! Thank you! (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) JOHN KERRY, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I love New Hampshire. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, you can tell by those pictures who is going to win those elections, by the way. You can really tell. Anyway, welcome back to HARDBALL. There`s no question that the New Hampshire primary can make or break a presidential campaign. Historically, a candidate of either party must win or at least finish second, a strong second, to have a chance of getting the nomination in the first place. It`s where candidates are put to the test up there in New Hampshire. And we have seen over the years there have been many iconic moments in the long history of the New Hampshire primary. Topping the list is Ronald Reagan`s famous comeback in New Hampshire in 1980. Reagan`s campaign had agreed to pay, apparently for a one-on-one debate with their chief rival for the nomination then, George Herbert Walker Bush. But after Reagan lost to Bush in the Iowa caucuses, he began to have second thoughts. At the last minute, just before the debate was scheduled to begin, Reagan tried to renegotiate the rules to include all four of the other Republican candidates in the debate. Bush refused, as did the moderator of the debate. And what happened next helped propel Ronald Reagan to victory in New Hampshire just three days later. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Enter the former California governor, grim and angry. Behind him, the others who seem to be rather enjoying the whole thing. Editor Breen ruled Baker, Crane, Anderson and Dole could not participate in the debate. Reagan tried to speak. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would the sound man please turn Mr. Reagan`s mike off for the moment? (BOOING) RONALD REAGAN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Mr. Breen... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could you turn that microphone off, please? (CROSSTALK) REAGAN: I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Breen! (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: That`s a Spencer Tracy line direct from "State of the Union." Check it out. Joining me right now to talk about the legacy of the New Hampshire primary is Neil Levesque of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. Thank you very much for joining us. These moments, they can almost be predicted. It seems like likable enough, we saw. It certainly some of the gleam off of the Obama campaign last time around in `08 and made Hillary look like a victim, but it also showed a nice personally opportunity for her in contrast to Obama`s kind of dark, this sort of, you know, likable enough. That`s why I love debates. They show off something that you don`t usually get in canned campaign speeches. NEIL LEVESQUE, SAINT ANSELM COLLEGE: Well, thanks for having me on. I will say that those moments really do define candidates and they really show their personalities. And that`s the great thing about New Hampshire. The primary is the place where you can ask the second question, you can ask the follow-up question. You can be right there and see what these candidates are really like. It`s not just all staged, like it is in other states. MATTHEWS: Well, what did you think of the Democratic Party chairman who was on the show earlier that refused to say he was for debates, given four opportunities, I believe, my count? LEVESQUE: Well... (CROSSTALK) LEVESQUE: Being here at Saint Anselm, where we have had many presidential debates, I can tell you that we do want a presidential debate on the Democratic side. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You guys are so polite up there. LEVESQUE: The fact is, is that she really should be considered at this point... (LAUGHTER) LEVESQUE: She really should be considered almost as an incumbent president seeking her second term. There`s no one really standing in her way. The Warren campaign has everything, but it doesn`t have a candidate. They have energy issues, et cetera. But unless you have a candidate, you can`t print yard signs. MATTHEWS: That`s right. I always say to people we don`t pick our presidents, they pick themselves, and then we choose among those who have picked themselves. The first primary is in your heart. Anyway, Bill Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary by eight points back in `92, but nobody remembers that, because he was able to claim victory for a stronger-than-expected showing that year. In that final week, he managed to reenergize his campaign, showing off his fighting spirit with these famous lines. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: I will never forget who gave me a second chance. And I will be there for you until the last dog dies. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: You know, an amazing thing, Neil, is the morning after that and he had lost by eight to Paul Tsongas, he came in to WMUR for "Good Morning America," I think it was. And I was right there. I was a commentator back then on that program. And he came in looking like he had won. And he lost by eight. LEVESQUE: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: And Tsongas came in very sheepishly, asked if I could have a -- if he could have a doughnut. Bill of course had already filled himself with those doughnuts, but this -- it just shows if you put the right spin on something, you win. Clinton just says, I won. I`m the comeback kid. LEVESQUE: Absolutely. And he showed his personality again on that moment. Here was a guy. He had been through so much different scandalous issues. And he was behind. His voice is very hoarse. He goes way over to Dover, New Hampshire, and he gives this great speech, and it really showed voters, hey, look, I`m here to fight for you. And he wasn`t giving up. And that kind of spirit of somebody as tenacious as Bill Clinton is, is the kind of thing that we may see in one year from now in this New Hampshire primary. MATTHEWS: Grit, I love the word. Anyway, in 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush waged an aggressive campaign we talked about up in your state against front-runner Bob Dole, who had just beaten Bush in the Iowa caucuses. Bush pulled through in New Hampshire, but not without a lot of bad blood. Here`s NBC`s Tom Brokaw with both candidates live on television on election night. Dole appeared less than gracious, I would say, in defeat. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM BROKAW, NBC ANCHOR: Mr. Vice President, if you look right down at that monitor, you will see the man that you beat that night. That`s Senator Bob Dole, who is standing by in his headquarters. Anything you would like to say to him at this point? BUSH: Yes, just wish him well and meet him in the South. BROKAW: And, Senator Dole, is there anything you would like to say to vice president? BOB DOLE, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, stop lying about my record. (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Well, that was rather -- Neil, that was rather menacing, I would say. If you want honesty from a candidate, we just got some from Bob Dole. (LAUGHTER) LEVESQUE: And there`s an -- there`s an example of why Reagan was so different. Reagan could show that anger and show that energy to voters, and Dole couldn`t pull it off. Muskie, he had a difficult time. We have seen this before and after Reagan, where the candidate tries to show a little anger and just goes a little bit too far. MATTHEWS: It helps to be an actor. Anyway, thank you, Neil Levesque of Saint Anselm`s up there. It`s great. We will be seeing a lot of you, I hope, in the next year. Up next, more 2016 candidates are wading into that hot debate over vaccinations, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We will get to that next with the roundtable. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. RICHARD LUI, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi. I`m Richard Lui with breaking news this hour. President Obama and Jordan`s King Abdullah met a short time ago at the White House. The two took no questions from reporters in the room. That meeting of course follows the release of an ISIS video purportedly to show a captive Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage. It has not been authenticated, but Jordanian officials believe the pilot was killed on January 3. And in the New York area, Metro North commuter train has struck a car in Valhalla, New York. At least 12 people were reportedly injured. Three patients have been transferred to a local hospital, which is preparing for more victims -- now back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, yesterday, Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, and Rand Paul seemed to question whether child vaccinations should be mandatory. Today, they`re getting major pushback, including some -- from some in their own party. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I don`t know that we need another law, but I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated. REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), TENNESSEE: This is far too serious an issue to be treated as a political football. People still die from measles. REP. MICHAEL BURGESS (R), TEXAS: It is important for parents to have their children vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, that`s impressive. Anyway, other potential 2016 presidential candidates also weighed in. Dr. Ben Carson told "The Hill" newspaper: "Certain communicable diseases have been largely eradicated by immunization policies in the country. We should not allow those diseases to return by forgoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons, when we have the means to eradicate them." Boy, that`s a doctor`s opinion. Governor Bobby Jindal and Senator Marco Rubio both urged all children to be vaccinated. Meanwhile, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tweeted yesterday, "The science is clear: the earth is round, the sky is blue and vaccines work. Let`s protect all our kids. #grandmothersknowbest." Anyway, for more, I`m joined by today`s roundtable, Jonathan Capehart, he`s an opinion writer for "The Washington Post" and MSNBC contributor, an Amy Walter is national editor for "The Cook Political Report", and Michael Steele is the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and also an MSNBC political analyst. Let me go with you, Amy, what do you make of this, all of over, let`s do -- I think we have Senator Rand Paul, by the way, who is a doctor, he`s an MD, weighed in as well yesterday. Let`s watch him before we go to Amy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I`m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea, I think they`re a good thing, but I think the parent should have input. The state does not own your children, parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And this afternoon, Rand Paul tried to clarify those comments if you will, quote, "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporarily related. I did allege causation, I support vaccines, I receive them all myself and I had all of my children vaccinated." You know, he did say that, and if he didn`t express causality, I don`t know what he was saying because he said kids had these mental problems after being vaccinated. That was a statement of causality. Now, he`s coming out saying, they were just related in time and sequence, they were serial developments, sequential developments. No, no, that`s not what he said. These guys are all over the place now. AMY WALTER, THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT: He at least came into this, when you watch that whole interview, with the basic framework of freedom. People have the freedom of what they want to do. Yes, vaccines are good, and they`re important, but you as a parent, you have the freedom to do this. This is right in the Rand Paul libertarian framework. So -- MATTHEWS: So, you can step into an elevator shaft if you want, even though there`s no elevator there, that`s freedom, OK. That`s freedom. WALTER: But at least it the framework. I don`t think Chris Christie was doing anything more than simply realizing how difficult it is to be under the media scrutiny in the way he has been. You know, this is like welcome to the NFL. You`re now, you want to be a presidential candidate, you better be able to -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Kasie Hunt of MSNBC was there reporting, she asked the big question to the governor. He must have thought, she came all the way over here to cover me, this is going to be a powerful question, this is a question requiring some deliberation on my part. So, he answers it and thinks, how many bases can I tag before I stop talking? I`m for it, I`m against, I can do it round, I can do it flat, whatever you want to hear, Kasie, because he wasn`t going to make a mistake overseas. And he did and making one because he wouldn`t make a statement. CAPEHART: Well, what`s interesting is I believe it was Kasie who tried to ask a question about NATO, and he said, no, no, no, I`m not going to answer any of those questions. And then she -- I don`t know if the vaccine question came before or after. MATTHEWS: Here`s what he said, I`m getting ahead of myself. Here`s what Governor Christie told MSNBC`s Kasie Hunt yesterday over in London. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: All I can say is we vaccinated ours, so, you know, that`s the best expression of my opinion. I think it`s much more important I think what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. That`s what we do, but I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So, that`s the balance that the government has to decide. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: The balance, whatever that means. Later in the day, his office tried to do walk back his comments. Walking comments seems to be the new phrase these days, issuing a statement that said, "The governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection, and with a disease like measles, there is no question, no question kids should be vaccinated." I didn`t hear that in his statement. Well, today, "The Wall Street Journal" chided him, and, boy, if you get it from "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page and you`re Republican, you get something wrong. Anyway, Christie measles stumbled I called it. This is "The Wall Street Journal." They wrote that Governor Christie offered a meandering meditation on parental rights and the real public health problem isn`t a lack of parental choice, but a lack of common sense about vaccines and politicians should do more to promote the latter." Boy, that is stuff. CAPEHART: No, it`s very tough. I mean, when "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board goes after you, that`s like being called to the principal`s office if you`re a Republican. But, you know, here`s the thing -- you know, what Amy was saying about Rand Paul and freedom, and Chris Christie trying to cover all the bases, it seems to me that they thought they knew where their party was on this issue and where the people were on this issue, and found out pretty quickly, which is why they`re walking it back that, no, the people are not exactly with them, and the party certainly isn`t with them. When you have all those people you just showed, Speaker Boehner, I believe Majority Leader Mitch McConnell came out with a statement for vaccines, Ben Carson, Governor Jindal, all these people who you might expect be a part of the no science crowd saying, no, actually, science works, you have a problem. If you`re Rand Paul and you`re Chris Christie, you had a problem. MATTHEWS: Did you heard about Carville this morning on "MORNING JOE", he made the point, there`s no distinction between working people and people who believe in science. It isn`t like the elite rule. The average working family that gets their kids into school wants the kids vaccinated. They know what the problem is. They understand medicine. (CROSSTALK) WALTER: But where this broke out was in some of the most liberal enclaves in America. That`s what`s fascinating about this issue. It`s not red and blue. MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: This whole debate is really a non-debate. I mean, this is not -- this is not about science. This is not about your presidential aspirations. This is by freaking common sense. In fact -- MATTHEWS: Why didn`t Governor Christie give us that? STEELE: I think Amy hit it on the head. With the glare of the lights, in the moment, and here we are in London, I`m going to meet with Cameron and all this stuff, and I get a question about measles? So, the reality is, you know, you`re in the game -- just do what you know best, apply common sense. Christie is the governor of the state that had some of the strongest vaccination policies in the country. You stand by what you`re currently doing in your state. You don`t need to go shop outside of that. (CROSSTALK) STEELE: But Rand Paul is a physician, he has studied and knows the science, knows the benefits. This is not about some philosophical orientation you may have. This is about saving lives and protecting kids. And if the party gets away -- if these gentlemen want to be president of the United States, let`s get away from crazy and stay focused on common sense. MATTHEWS: Wow. The moderate and common sense voice, plus the "Wall Street Journal" editorial page both agreeing. Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. And up next, another problem for Chris Christie: his taste for the good life. This is HARDBALL. Wait until you catch this stuff -- the place for politics coming back in a minute. MATTHEWS: Groundhog Day was, of course, yesterday, but for House Republicans, today was another chance to do something they have tried to do 66 times before -- repeal at least part of Obamacare. Late today, the House voted 239-186 to repeal the president`s signature health care law, it`s the fourth time the House has voted for a full repeal and 67th time they have tried to repeal, change or defund it. Of course, that House bill is not expected to go anywhere in the Senate, even if it did, the White House says the president would obviously veto it. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: We`re back with our great roundtable: Jonathan, Amy, and Michael. This has not been a good 24 hours for the New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is still, let`s face it, great copy. After sparking controversy yesterday for comments on vaccinations, today this headline in the "New York Times" and a big piece following it is haunting him. "In Chris Christie`s career", it writes, "a fondness for luxury travel when others pay the bills." Well, "The Times" lays out several examples. He flew to Israel with his family on a private plane lent him by billionaire, big time contributor Sheldon Adelson. At the end of that trip, Christie and his family went to Jordan where their hotel rooms cost $30,000. The tab was picked up by Jordan`s King Abdullah. As Christie told "The Times" last summer, "I relish these experiences and exposures, especially for my kids. I try to squish all the juice out of the orange that I can." I don`t know what to say. That is a strange defense, Amy Walter. It`s usually they would say they did it for safety reasons or you can up with something. You don`t say, I`m pigging (ph) out here and have the time of life. You don`t say that. WALTER: Well, you say it in the context of your kids, right? This was really for them. Here is an opportunity. I`m going to get everything I can out of it. MATTHEWS: But Sheldon wasn`t doing it for the kids. He was doing it to influence him. WALTER: Right. Well, that`s the time. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That`s supposed to be a business expense. CAPEHART: Clearly, he likes it. I mean, if anyone remembers -- remember during Super Storm Sandy and he gave the press conference after the president was there and he spent the entire time talking about what it was like to ride on Marine One, and to be there -- MATTHEWS: Yes, but that`s legal. CAPEHART: That`s legal, but how many people get to ride on Marine One? How many people get to chump it up with the president? MATTHEWS: Isn`t the governor of Virginia heading to the can for 10 years for this kind of stuff? Relishing the perks of office, relishing gifts that people give you. You know, in trips -- I`m serious, it`s what McDonnell -- McDonnell is going down for it, taking trips paid for by other people. That`s what`s about and the Rolex watch. STEELE: I just think at the end of the day, what you do is you separate all of that, you remove yourself from it. You don`t have questions raised and you don`t have "New York Times" headlines like that. You say there are other ways to engage without having to take the perks of office -- MATTHEWS: Adelson has, look -- it`s fair enough. He`s pro-Israeli, he`s very right wing, that`s what he cares about. So, he sends the guy in a trip to Israel that he pays completely for. I would call it influence- peddling. Isn`t it? STEELE: The question is, what does state law allow him to do as a sitting governor of the state, what can -- what benefits can he take from trips and from gifts like that. Maybe New Jersey state laws allows -- MATTHEWS: Well, I think we saw in Virginia, there are different interpretations. One could be by the governor who interprets it widely, and the other guy is the court, the judge who decides you blew it. CAPEHART: Well, you know what? Here`s the thing and you raised a very good point, what are the ethics laws in New Jersey. They might be legal in New Jersey, they might not be so on the federal level, but -- MATTHEWS: You mean, if it`s not nailed down, grab it? CAPEHART: Sure, but the bigger part I`m trying to make is, if the mistake, again, not being ready for the NFL here, if you`re going to run for president, you`ve got to operate like a president. One of the reasons why Hillary Clinton isn`t running for president officially right now is because she is giving speeches. She can`t give speeches if she`s running for president. Chris Christie shouldn`t operating in a way -- STEELE: But that`s the other problem that`s really big, is juxtaposing what we laid out here with the headlines about the eight times that your credit has been downgraded in the state, the investigations that are going on at the federal level because of how you handle federal funds, that`s the problem. WALTER: The bigger problem. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: It`s always the macro that`s more important. But the little nitty-gritty is what gets people in trouble. STEELE: Right. MATTHEWS: Jonathan, thank you. Amy, thank you, so much. I`m going to ask you all about these races one of these days because they aren`t coming up in about a year and a half. Anyway, Michael Steele as always. When we -- common sense and the "Wall Street Journal" both agree. Let me finish tonight with the dispiriting sound of a pandering politician. You`re going to hear from in a minute. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this: Few sounds are that as dispiriting as that of a politician pandering. You watch them out there performing like Governor Christie`s hula hooping the issue of measles vaccination. And though they are doing it not because they believe what they`re doing, but merely to please or in this case not please some group in their party that wants, in fact, demands to be appeased. I could say they all do it, but it embarrasses just the same. Those of us who believe in electoral democracy are the ones diminished by a governor who knows better appealing to those who don`t. Remember the Senior George Bush telling the evangelicals that he has been born again. Couldn`t he have just simply said that he practiced his religion as he was raised to practice it, and no further information is going to be forthcoming? That there are no religious tests in the Constitution and he believed in honoring that principal. Would that have cost him votes? If so, God help us. I`m watching Jeb Bush show a lot of guts out there, depending national education standards, and the opportunity for people who came to this country illegally, to become Americans. Both are going to be a challenge out there on the stomp and all of those town meetings coming down the road. But I hope he sticks to his positions, because those of us -- a lot of the people who watch this program want to believe there are conviction politicians out there, even those we disagree with. Otherwise, an election just becomes a bidding war among those so desperate to win that they`ll say anything the crowd demands. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020301cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 10 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 3, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 3, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Mary Thompson GUESTS: Wendell Potter, Jonathan Alter, Steve Clemons, Nancy Snyderman, Bruce Bartlett, Bob Shrum, Nina Turner SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6944 words HIGHLIGHT: House Republicans pass Obamacare repeal, despite the overall success of the law. ISIS released a video depicting the brutal murder of a Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh. Presidential hopefuls weigh in on the vaccination conversation, following an outbreak of measles linked to anti- vaccination policies. All eyes return to the critical swing states of Ohio and Florida with potential changes to voter I.D. laws playing a crucial role in the 2016 election. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R-KY) MAJORITY LEADER: I`ll do everything I can to repeal and replace Obamacare. REP. STEVE KING, (R) IOWA: Repeal ever word of the Obamacare. SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: Must be repealed. SEN. JONI ERNST, (R) IOWA: Keep fighting to repeal. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time to repeal. SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: The answer is to repeal. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: I want to repeal the law of the land. Is that clear? (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So the Republicans want to talk about health care. OK, we`ll play along. Good to have with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching. We start with Breaking News. At this hour, Republicans are holding a vote to repeal Obamacare. Today will mark 67th time House Republicans have voted to repeal, defund or change the Affordable Health Care Act. These votes represent a colossal waste of taxpayer time and money. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi twitted out on Monday, "Now, I know how Bill Murray felt in the movie Groundhog Day. Mash-up for eve of GOP`s 56th try to repeal health care". Today`s vote is big. And it`s big and it`s different for a number of reasons. First of all, it gets house freshman on the record about repealing the health care law. Second, Mitch McConnell leader of the Senate will likely bring this Obamacare repeal vote up for a vote in the Senate. Now, a Senate vote means what? Well, all these Democrats didn`t run around during election season saying they weren`t so sure about Obamacare, now let`s find out. Moderate Democrats will have to go on record about Obamacare. And no matter the outcome, President Obama has promised that he will veto the bill. The Republican repeal vote comes as Obamacare is -- I don`t know how you call it. It`s working better than ever. Last week, the government announced roughly 9.5 million Americans signed up or renewed coverage for 2015. The original goal was 9.1 million enrollees have already been passed. Now, there are still 12 more days to enroll so the numbers only going to grow, the deadline is February 15th. The Congressional Budget Offices reported Obamacare will cost 20 percent less over the next decade than originally projected. They say lower than inspected health care inflation has lead to smaller premiums. Now earlier today, President Obama met with Americans who have benefited from the Affordable Care Act. It`s a fact that Obamacare is saving lives. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Everybody here has directly benefited from the Affordable Care Act. We have folks like Tonya and Regina and Don, who had cancer, in come cases, before the Affordable Care Act was passed and were having trouble getting insurance. And because we no longer allow insurance companies to bar people because they`ve got preexisting conditions, they were now able to get health insurance and have the security and relief that was needed. Regina said, you know, for the first time since she was 12-years-old, when she was first diagnosed with cancer, she felt free and now is planning her wedding with her fiance. Tonya, who shortly after signing up for the ACA, in a checkup was diagnosed with a brain tumor, would not have even discovered it had it not been for the Affordable Care Act, and certainly would not have been able to afford treatments. The same is true for Don, who, as a consequence of regular check-ups, in a colonoscopy that was part of the prevention regimen in the Affordable Care Act, was able to catch a tumor early and is now cancer-free. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHUTLZ: Now, those stories right there that the President is talking about or a microcosm, for what Obamacare is doing all over the country. Americans don`t have to worry about preexisting condition, lifetime limits on coverage and preventive care. President Obama said health care should not be a political battle. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The bottom line is that the Affordable Care Act is not an abstraction. The debate about making sure that every person in America is able to get basic, high-quality, affordable health care is not some political, ideological bet. It`s about people. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: To Obamacare and to the Republicans, it`s been nothing but a political battle since day one. Today`s vote to repeal Obamacare is just the latest chapter in abstraction of this President trying to get something done for the American people and trying to screw up his legacy. These votes represent nothing but symbolic hatred for this President. Republicans have absolutely no plan to replace Obamacare. How do I know? On Monday, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven said this. "I`m on board with repeal and replace -- We are trying to figure out what`s the best strategy to do, do that. Now, if Republicans actually cared about Americans, they would put something on the table. Those who have benefited from Obamacare should have confidence that the Republicans are going to have something that will replace what they`ve been complaining about. But, you know, what? They have nothing. These repeal votes speak volumes about the ineptitude of the Republican Party in where they are right now. And, you know what they`re like? They`re like a disgruntled employee in the workplace, that goes into the boss over a years time, 67 times and complains about the way the company is being run. And the boss listens and listen and the employee said, you know, we`ve had a lot of meetings on this. I`ve got a lot of employees that are -- they feel the same I do boss in the workplace, you know. And so finally, the boss breaks down and says, well what your solution to fix all of the things you`ve been complaining about for the last year? Well, I haven`t figured that out yet. It`s a typical disgruntled employee, when everybody else around this person is doing pretty good, if not heck a lot of better. It even happen their lives saved. I mean it is absolutely amazing to me that after all of the complaining of two years, out of all the obstruction, after all of the votes that are being taken, even votes today that`s happening at this hour. The Republicans still don`t have something where they can come to the American people to say, I`ve got something better. We`ve got something than what Obama`s been doing and this is how we`re going to do it. They don`t have that. Now, I want to bring your attention to this. I got this in the mail today. Now, it`s well documented that our family has had some health issues. Last month, we had $11,189.51 worth of charges on our insurance, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota. It has right here on the sheet. Total charge covered them out, your responsibility zero. This is what it`s like when you illness in a family and you have insurance. So I ask myself the question when I got this in the mail. This is a documentation of the benefits that we have and what`s covered and what`s not covered. What does a middle class family or what does an economically challenge family do, when they have $11,000 worth of charges and no insurance? Here comes the bankruptcy. Here comes the financial problem for the hospital. This is what Obamacare is doing. It`s keeping people, number one, covered, number two, from filling bankruptcy, and number three, from stick in the hospital. How can you be against that? And if you`re going to complain about it as Republicans, you mean your holding a vote to get rid of this? And let me clarify, I don`t have Obamacare. We have our own private insurance. But imagine people who do and Americans who do have these kinds of charges. So the Republicans are willing to take something like this away from consumers yet they don`t have anything to replace it with. This is what you voted for in November, and they feel empowered that because of that vote in November and because of a low voter turnout of -- 72 years in record that they can move forward and do this. Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Do you think Republicans will ever come up with a health care plan? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment on our blog at ed.msnbc.com and we`ll bring you the results later on the show. It`s not a liberal broadcast we`re saying this. It`s a conservative Senator from North Dakota who says, yeah I`m all for repeal and replace, but we just haven`t figured out what we`re going to do yet. That was in the Washington examiner which a right-wing reg (ph). Let me bring in Wendell Potter, Senior Analyst for the Center for Public Integrity and Jonathan Alter MSNBC Political Analyst. Now gentlemen, let me show you what a government takeover looks like. Health insurance stocks to this very day are up over the last six months. Now, I had our Ed team go through UnitedHealth Group, Humana, Aetna, Cigna and Anthem. Over the last six months because you see, we were getting to the run of round two in the sign up for Obamacare in the middle of October. But over the last six months UnitedHealthcare Group is up 32 percent, Humana is up 25 percent, Aetna is up 19 percent, Cigna`s up 19 percent, Anthem is 23 percent. And here are the Republicans who are holding a vote to tinker with the private sector where they`re making double-digit increases over the last six months. Now, I`ve done this story before over the last year but I want to pick the last six months because I thought, maybe since the Republicans are complaining so much about this, maybe there`ll be a little downtick in profit. JONATHAN ALTER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah. SCHULTZ: If I`m running the UnitedHealthcare, I want the Republicans to tell me that I`m not going to have my 32 percent increase over the last six months screwed around with because, you know what? My stockholders are pretty concerned about that. That`s where we are, there`s no rhyme, there`s no reason to what the Republicans are doing. It`s all anti-Obama. Jonathan Alter, you first, your reaction to this latest repeal vote that is going on at this hour. ALTER: Well, this is all about the freshmen, Ed. They had campaign these House freshmen, a few Senate freshmen against Obamacare. They told all their radical right-wing constituents that, you know, they were against this and they had to show that they were going to Washington and vote on what they said they would do. What`s fascinating to me about it is how it could end up someday, not right away maybe, some day blowing up in the face of every Republican who was voted to repeal Obamacare. Its one thing as the President said when it`s an obstruction, when it`s something that they can say, oh the Boogeyman is coming. He`s going to hurt you big bad Obamacare. It`s easy to vote against it then. But what happens when their constituents, if the Supreme Court rules, you know, blows up Obamacare which could happen in June. What happens if their constituents then start getting thrown off of their health insurance by the millions? As many as 8 million people could get thrown off of their insurance if the Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare. At that point, every one of these guys and women who voted to repeal Obamacare is going to be facing ads from Democrats saying, they voted to throw you into the snow. SCHULTZ: Yeah. ALTER: That could powerful. Politics can change very quickly in America. SCHULTZ: No doubt, especially when it`s direct to consumers that are affected. The House just voted for a full repeal. The numbers are in 239 to 186. No Democrat voted for repeal. Wendell, where is the insurance industry in all of these? Life is pretty doggone good for them right now, your take. WENDELL POTTER, CENTER PUBLIC INTEGRITY: Yeah, it`s very good. The insurance industry would not like to see this bill repeal, this law repealed. And neither would other sectors of health care. The hospitals have done well too, the for profit hospitals in particular. Doctors are doing quite well. And certainly the pharmaceutical companies are getting move revenue as a result of the law. So, industry likes this law. They were fighting it -- well at least parts of it when it was being debated, but they`re doing quite well financially, health care -- excuse me, HCA a big hospital company has been doing almost as well if not better than the insurance companies. And the pharmaceutical companies have been doing gangbuster too. So, this is -- I think Jonathan is exactly right. This really is all for show and you`re right too, Ed. They know that this will go nowhere. It is for the freshmen for those who campaigned against it. And if they were really genuinely thought that this had chance, we would see something about what their replacement ideas would be and it just simply haven`t come forward to any kind of replacement idea. SCHULTZ: They have not and, you know, the insurance industry -- Mr. Potter, if they were against it, wouldn`t we be seeing commercials? POTTER: Oh, yes. SCHULTZ: Would we be seeing a platter (ph) of commercial on televisions saying, get rid of Obamacare, if they didn`t like it? POTTER: You`re exactly right. What you`re seeing instead are commercial and the insurance industry to get more customers. I`m in Florida and we just learned that this state has seen more people signed up for coverage through Obamacare plans than any other state in the union. Including states who are bigger like California. So you`re seeing a lot of people in red states and that`s another point too, a lot of people who`ve enrolled in plans in red states. So I think you would see if this went away, if this repealed or declared unconstitutional that millions of people... SCHULTZ: Yeah. POTTER: ... in red states would lose their coverage. SCHULTZ: Jonathan, let`s go to the Senate for a moment. I mean, I think this vote today is certainly important. Harry Reid would never bring it for a vote in the Senate, obviously now that there`s been a shift. Mitch McConnell is going to do just that. Where does this leave conservative Democrats who would not campaign with President Obama and run around their districts and states saying, oh, you know, we got to fix Obamacare. I mean, I can, you know, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester... ALTER: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... Claire McCaskill, you know, Bennet from Colorado. I mean, where are they`re -- they`re going to -- is it going to mean not one Democrat voted to repeal in the House, is that the way it going to be in the Senate? ALTER: I think it probably will be. I don`t want to prognosticate too much, Ed. But when it comes to full repeal where you`re basically saying we`re going to throw a millions of people off their health insurance, I don`t think you`re going to find Democrats going for that, where they might vote against Obamacare is on pieces of it, for instance the medical device tax, which is part of Obamacare. SCHULTZ: Yeah. ALTER: If that can get separate out. It`s unpopular. It`s a tax. The manufactures of these devices don`t like it. So it maybe that could get some Democratic votes. But even on that, you know, some people are saying that, you know, Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren who where from states that are big manufactures of these devices that they would go along with the critics... SCHULTZ: Yeah. ALTER: ... of Obamacare and that, they apparently will not unless there some other way to make up the revenue which there is not. And that goes to your larger point that there basically is no alternative on the table right now to Obamacare. And I don`t think there will be until June when -- if the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional then you`re going to see all kinds... SCHULTZ: Yeah. ALTER: ... of alternatives from the Republicans to try to fix that mess and that kind of, you know, game of 52 card... SCHULTZ: All right. ALTER: ... pick up that the Supreme Court would create. SCHULTZ: Gentlemen, great to have you with us. Wendell Potter, Jonathan Alter, I appreciate your time tonight on the Ed Show. Thank you. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen, share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow and like us on Facebook @WeGotEd. We appreciate that. Coming up. New information on the horrific killing of a Jordanian Pilot at the hands of ISIS, details ahead. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We are following breaking news at this hour, in just about 40 minutes at 6:00 P.M. Eastern. President Obama will be meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan following news of a pilot in the Jordanian Air Force being killed by ISIS. Right now, people are gathering in the streets of Jordan demanding revenge. The terrorist group released a new video showing a captured Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage. Earlier today, President Obama said ISIS represents nothing but death and destruction. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: But should, in fact, this video be authentic. It`s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And it - - I think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Jordanian state television has confirmed the video`s authenticity and says the hostage was killed on January 3rd, less than two weeks after his capture. The pilot had been the subject of recent hostage negotiations between Jordan and ISIS. The Jordanian government has been demanding proof that pilot was still alive. The news of his death comes shortly after the death of two Japanese citizens also held by ISIS. Steve Clemons, MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-Large of the Atlantic join us tonight on this subject. Steve, Jordan says that they will avenge the death of this pilot. Similar reaction came from the Japanese leadership as well. What does this mean? And it`s a horrific way to gather a coalition but in some strange way this is possibly going to strengthen the coalition as I see it, and it`s going to get more people a hell of a lot more serious about what we`re dealing with globally right now -- your thoughts on all of these? STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I very much hope that you`re correct. I mean, Jordan has been tightened in emotional knot. As these videos came out of the Japanese hostages that we`re beheaded demanding the release of Sajida al-Rishawi, would-be suicide bomber from November 2005. And there were efforts to push the kingdom to make a deal, to offer this trade for these imprisons, heroine if you will to ISIS terrorist and other al-Qaeda terrorist to make that up. And Jordan asked for proof of life which of course they never received. But Jordan has been deeply tied a knots and there`s been a debate going on inside the country about how much burden they should be carrying fighting ISIS. And perhaps, what ISIS just did tragically and horrifyingly to this brave pilot may in fact have backfired because I was with leading officials of the U.S. government and a Middle Eastern government last night that feared depending on how this evolved. This could knock Jordan out of the coalition. If anything, this may now strengthen Jordan coalition but it depends on how the King behaves. They have threatened to execute Rishawi by daylight tomorrow morning. And I think it`s important that Jordan not waiver in what it decides to do because the King needs to send a signal of strength to his people. The one last thing I`d add is, we`ve seen both in the Iraq conflict and now in the Syrian conflict, Jordan take more refugees than any other country in the region. It`s literally bursting at the seams with the load that it has taken as these crises unfold in the region. So it is an emotional kindling pot (ph) if you will just waiting to explode. And so, this is a very delicate time. SCHULTZ: Well, the Jordanian people in the streets protesting pretty much underscores what they want... CLEMONS: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... the President to do. And so, this may have backfired on ISIS and motivated the country to be far more resourceful in fighting ISIS than they were before. But what about the type of execution that took place? We have evolved from seeing heads being cut off to now bodies being burned alive. What does that mean? CLEMONS: Well, I think it means that ISIS is trying to work up the scale of creating spectacular horrifying death and attracting, you know, it`s almost become a sort of death cult -- and attracting people to these images of things it -- it takes you back into the early deep medieval period in Europe when you -- we see kinds of things like in religious persecution and religious zealotry at that time in Christianity, frankly. And I think they`re trying to bring back just this ancient horrifying cult behavior because it attracts people that I think are the most unhinged, the most unstable and the most radical to their cause. You know, one of the things about this kind of terrorism when people see it, the majority of most publics even in the Middle East and particularly among Muslims are as repulse by it as you and I are. And so, hopefully as you`ve said, not only in Jordan but throughout the broad Middle East, North Africa region, they -- ISIS begins to put out its own fuel and begins to choke itself with this horrifying behavior. SCHULTZ: To Jordanians, certainly good allies of the United States, we can only imagine that the expectations maybe upped quite a bit by our allies in the Middle East to do more. And I`m sure that the Republicans will be pushing hard on that but Democrats... CLEMONS: Right. SCHULTZ: ... as well. This cannot be a political issue. I think this is just pretty much gone beyond that at this point. Steve Clemons, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. Thanks. CLEMONS: My pleasure, Ed. Thank you. SCHULTZ: Coming up. We`ll look at the challenges -- you bet -- we`ll look at the challenges of facing -- that are facing Hillary Clinton for 2016. Plus, the dangerous political game some Republicans are playing with your children`s health. I`ve got your questions next. Ask Ed Live is just ahead. Stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show on MSNBC. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I appreciate all your questions. I love hearing from our viewers. Tonight, in our Ask Ed Live segment, our question comes from Dan. He wants to know -- or he makes a statement. He says, "I live in Wisconsin and I don`t trust Governor Walker. Which state should I move to?" Well, you don`t have to go over far. It`s very progressive and very -- yeah, progressive and moving forward. State of Minnesota, why not? You got the same weather, but you do have a better football team over there. All right, our next question is from Johnathan. He wants to know, "Is Brady the best quarterback to ever play in the NFL?" You could make the case based on the numbers, based on the number of Super Bowls. What is interesting about Brady is that he`s been with the team for 15 years and he`s won the Super Bowl and had great success just about every one of these years with a different supporting cast. But if you look at it in totality, Unitas, Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Favre, Brady -- I mean, is there really any difference to joining any of them? Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show. MARY THOMPSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Mary Thompson with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks soured in a late session rally. The Dow climbing 305 points, the S&P adding 29, the NASDAQ up 51. Auto Sales were strong last month with the 14 percent to 15.3 percent increase in sales, and G.M. sales jumping more than 18 percent. After the bell Disney post result that easily beat estimates, shares are up about 3 percent after hours. And Chipotle`s quarterly revenue fell slightly short of targets and shares are down sharply in late trading. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUBIO: Absolutely, all children in American should be vaccinated. REP. DIANA DEGETTE, (D) COLORADO: ... vaccinate your children against measles. There is no reason not to. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: I don`t know that we need another law but I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated. OBAMA: There is every reason to get vaccinated. There aren`t reasons to not. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. The President is exactly right. Vaccinations are the key to preventing and spreading disease. Some Republicans want to turn back the clock on public safety. After a measles outbreak, 2016 Presidential hopefuls, they are speaking out. Hillary Clinton says, "The science is clear, the earth is round, the sky is blue and vaccine`s work." Hear here, Hillary. I agree. Potential Republican candidate and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, he`s on the same side he says, "We should not allow diseases to return by foregoing safe immunization programs." Not all the doctors eyeing the White House feel the same though. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: I think they`re a good thing but I think the parent should have some input. The state... UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. PAUL: ... doesn`t own your children. Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey went soft on vaccination rules. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You think the Americans should vaccinate their kids (inaudible) state. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) NEW JERSEY: All I can say is that we vaccinate ours. And so, you know, that`s the best expression I can give you my opinion. You know, it`s much more important I think, what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. And that`s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measures of choice in things as well. So that`s the balance that the government has to decide. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I think you could come to the conclusion Christie is playing politics, he is ignoring the science again. Without scientific justification, the Governor force nurse Kaci Hickox into quarantine after she tested negative for Ebola last fall. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KACI HICKOX, MAINE NURSE: We need to consult medical and public health experts about this kind of decisions and discussions. And again, he is not doing that. Again, he is going against science, so before he ignored science and he is still ignoring science. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So what do we have here? Republicans are determined to vilify (ph) government at the expense of scientific reason and public health? Joining me tonight are the Rapid Response Panel, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC Chief Medical Editor, and Bruce Bartlett former George H. W. Bush Policy Advisor. And Mr. Bartlett, I`ll start with you first tonight because Senator Rand Paul just release a statement saying this, "I did not say vaccines caused disorders just that they temporarily related -- I did not alleged causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all my children vaccinated. In fact today, I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I to Guatemala last year." This sure seems like a political walk back in a confused candidate and maybe even doctor for that matter. Mr. Bartlett, what`s your response to that? BRUCE BARTLETT, FRM. H.W. BUSH ADVISOR: Well obviously, he is trying to have it both ways. You have to understand that when you`re a member of a party that institutionally hates government, they`re going to blame government for everything that happens as their knee-jerk reaction. And so, if some new issue comes up that they haven`t given a great deal of thought to and somebody sticks a microphone in their face and says, what do you think about this? Their answer is going to be, the government is wrong. We should let parents decide. We would do everything privately. And I thought actually quite one of the most interesting things about Rand`s statement was that parents own their children. Think about that for a minute. It`s not just a matter of caring for them, they own them like, you know, chattel slaves. I think that`s a rather bizarre attitude especially for a libertarian. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Dr. Snyderman, how dangerous is this anti-vaccination sentiment that seems to be all of sudden a big problem for Republicans? DR. NANCY SNYDERMAN, NBC NEWS CHIEF MEDICAL EDITOR: Well, it`s growing and I worried that it`s hitting Republican and Democrats. I think this a great instance where politics and medicine make for very, very bad, bad fellows. I think Bruce hit the nail on the head. This is now not the anti-autism groups as much as the anti-government group. It`s either well-healed upper class people who have never seen these illnesses before therefore, I don`t have to vaccinate my children for them, or I don`t want to put toxins in my child`s body. Or, I don`t rust the vaccine. So the FDA and the CDC can get out of my life. But we call it public health for a reason, and that`s because particularly as Americans, we decided long time ago that we had moral and ethical responsibility to take care of our neighbors. We vaccinate ourselves to protect the children of leukemia and the older people with immune compromised illnesses. We protect the mothers who are pregnant and the babies who aren`t old enough to get their first shots. When we let these numbers of measles cases grow and grow and grow. It really to me is the first crime crack (ph) in what should be a healthier health care system. And frankly... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SNYDERMAN: ... I think it`s a national disgrace. SCHULTZ: And Dr. Snyderman, have you ever heard of doctors advocating against vaccination? SNYDERMAN: I have seen doctor backpedal against -- with parent saying, well, you can not change your vaccinations schedule, we`ll unbundle them. I just want to remind people, when a fetus is inside the womb, that`s a sterile compartment. And once a baby comes to the birth canal, that baby is challenged with millions of bacteria and viruses, and that only happens because Mother Nature has a plan to stimulate that baby`s immune system, to rev up those antibodies. It`s all part of the master plan to have a happy healthy baby. So the idea of inoculating children on very specific schedule is all part of keeping that immune system robust and smart. Doctors didn`t just make this up. This has been a generation... SCHULTZ: Sure. SNYDERMAN: ... in the making, and I worried that this measles outbreak could be the canary in the coal mine, if we don`t pay attention to the fact, they were now seeing disease that 10, 15 years ago, we weren`t talking about in this country. When we will see a case of polio, is it around the corner? SCHULTZ: Yeah. SNYDERMAN: I`m not so cocky anymore to say that it can`t happen. SCHULTZ: Mr. Bartlett, I want you to respond to Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama, his take on measles. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MO BROOKS, (R) ALABAMA: I don`t think there is any heath care professional who has examined the facts who can honestly say that Americans have not died because the diseases brought into America by illegal aliens who are not properly health care screened, as lawful immigrants are. It might be this measles outbreak. There are any number of things. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: What do you think of impending the outbreak on undocumented immigrants? BRATLETT: Well, again, these guys come up with knee-jerk reaction to things. And they already hate Latino immigrants -- whether they`re legal or illegal. And so, they`re just dumping on the way -- frankly, they did in Europe in the old days when the Jews we`re the ones who are to blame for everything that happened. And in the old south, they blame black people for everything that happened. This is really just scapegoating and is just reprehensible. SNYDERMAN: Ed, viruses laugh at things... SCHULTZ: Yeah. Yes. SNYDERMAN: ... like this. When we have viruses that jump from animals to humans, when we have viruses that jump walls and from country to country in -- state lines, you can`t legislate against this. You immunized people and you make people smarter. Comments like this just sets us back. SCHULTZ: Dr. Nancy Snyderman and Bruce Bartlett, great to have both of you with us, I appreciate your time on the Ed Show tonight. Thank you. Up next. The two minute drill, Warren Sapp in trouble, Johnny Football goes to rehab and Rex Ryan makes a major life change. Keep it here. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Tonight at the two-minute drill on a Sapp`s Super Bowl hangover, not good. Former NFL lineman and former Hall of Famer, Warren Sapp was arrested in Arizona early Monday morning. Phoenix Police took Sapp in custody on suspicion of soliciting a prostitute and allegedly assaulting two women. Police said, Sapp admitted to involvement in the act of prostitution but denied the assault charges. Sapp faces a maximum penalty of $2,500 in fines, six months in jail and three year probation if convicted on the prostitution charge. Sapp was fired by the NFL network just hours after his arrest. Up next. Johnny Football`s fumble and road to recovery. Browns quarterback Johnny Manziel checked in to a rehab center on Wednesday. The Heisman trophy winner rookie voluntarily entered treatment to be a better family member, friend and teammate. Manziel is expected to be in rehab for at least a few weeks but sources say the Browns were optimistic that Manziel will be back with the team by training camp. I would hope so. That would be six months. Hopefully Manziel gets his act together and he certainly gets the help that he needs. Finally, a reminder to think before you ink. Former Jets Coach Rex Ryan commitment to the Buffalo Bills goes skin deep. Ryan infamously pledged this allegiance to the Jets within an arm tattoo of his wife in nothing but a Jets jersey but it`s a bad tattoo to have when you`re put in charge of a division rival. On Thursday, Ryan visited an Arizona tattoo parlor and underwent the needle to darken the jersey from Jets green to Bills blue. Rex, come on. Tattoos don`t win football game great quarterbacks do, why didn`t you try to get one of them. There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. And finally tonight, we`re just under a year away from the Iowa Caucus` taking place even with Hillary Clinton on the side lines. It`s looking more like a draft than a primary for Democrats. Clinton holds a 44 point lead over the next closes Democratic challenger in the latest polls out of Iowa. But the general election, well, it`s not going to be a sure win. According to a new Quinnipiac poll, she is losing ground against potential Republican opponents in key states. For instance, in Florida, Clinton holds just a 1 point lead over former Governor Jeb Bush, over in Ohio, Governor John Kasich trails Clinton by just a percentage point. In a closed race where every vote could count, these states have made it harder for everyone`s vote to count in Ohio and in Florida. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted spent his first four years in office working to cut early voting hours and the same day voter registration. Florida Governor Rick Scott called for a voter purge in 2012. An appeals court later ruled it was illegal. With Republicans in control of both state legislatures, voting rights could face more attacks. If Democrats want to win in 2016, they may have to find a path to the White House that doesn`t travel through Florida or Ohio. I`m joined tonight by Bob Shrum, Democratic Strategies and Warsaw Professor of Politics at USC, also with us tonight Nina Turner, Former Ohio State Senator. Great to have both of you with us. Senator, you first tonight, what do you make of this polling? Hillary Clinton so strong everywhere but Kasich so close in Ohio, what do you think of that? FRM. SEN. NINA TURNER, (D) OHIO: Well Ed, and a woman shall lead them. I think we should see it as the glass half full. I mean, it`s fabulous that a former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in statistical (inaudible) in both Ohio and Florida against two Governors who have concentrated their service in those states. That is a wonderful and beautiful thing. It shows that those in the heartland are certainly ready for Hillary. SCHULTZ: Bob, is this is a save your energy moment for Hillary Clinton? I mean, these poll numbers -- there doesn`t seem to be any incredible challenger out there. We all know where the money is going to go or at least it seems like it right now. And it`s really getting to be the hourglass turned on possible challengers if they want to get some kind of a grassroots effort or maybe I`m wrong on all the timing. You`re thoughts on this. BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: No, I don`t think you`re wrong on the timing. And first of all, by the way, I`m surprised that Bush isn`t further ahead. I mean it`s basically a one point race in Florida and he`s way behind in Ohio. Kasich is nowhere in Florida. They don`t even know who he is and he is competitive with Hillary Clinton in Ohio. But Republicans I think cannot get to the Presidency without carrying both of those states given the way the electoral map has configured now. So maybe the Republican establishment is going to try to come up with the Bush and Kasich ticket. Problem with that is, they`re having a harder and harder time imposing their wishes in each succeeding cycle and in fact, Bush himself is running behind in Iowa in the Caucuses and he is only in tens (ph) in Republican polls. I think Hillary Clinton is actually very strong. I think she is making a very wise decision to prepare carefully before she enters this race. I think she`ll enter it with a compiling message about opportunity for the middle class and for other Americans who have been left behind. She won`t make the mistake of 2008 and look to the past. She`ll look to the future in fairness and she won`t run away from the -- or shy away from the historic change that her election would represent. So I guess we`re going to hear a lot about Benghazi which I don`t I think will have any impact with voters at all except people who already dislike Hillary Clinton. And in the meantime, all of these Republicans have huge problems with the rising electorate, with Hispanics, with women, with younger voters and I don`t see how they`re going to be able to deal with issues like immigration reform and marriage equality and get through these Republican primaries. SCHULTZ: Yeah. But Bob, isn`t this just a take your time moment for Hillary? I mean, there`s nobody on the horizon right now that seems threatening at all. She is really in a really good spot, isn`t she? SHRUM: I think she is on a very good spot. I think she`s taking the time to prepare, to think this through, I don`t think you`ll see mistakes like ignoring the Caucus states which we saw on 2008. I think this will be a very well-run campaign and I think she will go out there and speak to issues Ed that you speak to all the time. She will speak to income inequality. She will speak to job. She will speak to the things that happened to the 99 percent of Americans who haven`t benefited so much yet so far from this recovery. I think she`ll make a very powerful... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SHRUM: ... case and it`s hard for me to see what`s the Republicans are going to argue on the other side except trying to bash her and throw mud at her. It won`t work. SCHULTZ: Nina, interesting politics in Ohio. John Kasich expanded Medicaid in your state under Obamacare and it`s very interesting. Now, he wants to have enrollees above the poverty line pay between $15 to $20 a month towards their coverage. Is this purely a political move on his part something that he is doing it because it`s populist? TURNER: I mean, definitely you have to give Governor Kasich the credit for expanding that. As you know in the general assembly at that time, the Republicans did not want to do it and he had to do the expansion in the different way. But we are going to have a coming to Jesus moment in the state of Ohio when it comes to bad expansion because the Republican legislature has made it harder to do. You know, it is the right thing to do whether you are Republican or Democrat when it comes to making sure that that health care is expanded for all people because if folks are not healthy, they can`t go about there day. But I do agree with Bob in that what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going to bring to the table is the work that she has done throughout her life, whether it was first lady of Arkansas, first lady of this nation, senator and secretary of state. She has never let the people. Her heart and her work has always been with the people. And so we should not be surprised that folks who would be -- the poll is a snapshot but it`s a very strong snapshot in time that folks in this nation are craving for the leadership that Hillary... SCHULTZ: Yeah. TURNER: ... Clinton bring to the table. SCHULTZ: I mean, look at those poll numbers. Bob Shrum, have you ever seen it like this? I mean, this is kind of one for the archives, isn`t it? I mean, 56 percent than Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, you know, in single digits, what do you -- I mean this is really incredible stuff, isn`t it? SHRUM: Yeah. For a non-incumbent president, we haven`t ever seen anything like this. You know, Al Gore for example won every caucus and primary but there were points the year before... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SHRUM: ... when Bill Bradley was close to him. This is unprecedented. SCHULTZ: OK. Bob Shrum, Nina Turner, great to have both of you with us. SHRUM: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Thanks for being on the Ed Show. That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020301cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 11 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 3, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 3, 2015 BYLINE: Rev. Al Sharpton GUESTS: Jim Arkedis; Tulsi Gabbard; Regina Moran; Emanuel Cleaver; Angela Rye, Jason Johnson, Faith Jenkins, Liz Plank, Eric Guster, Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6669 words HIGHLIGHT: House Republicans voting yet again to repeal the affordable care act, the first full repeal vote of the new Congress for the 67th times. Measles outbreak is forcing the 2016 GOP field to speak out on vaccinations. Williams left his kids personal items and memorabilia, like his Oscar from "Good Will Hunting" and his widow says the kids should get his famous suspenders from "Mork & Mindy." But here`s why it is complicated: Williams left his wife the house, its contents and money for upkeep. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. We start tonight with breaking news. President Obama meeting with a key ally, King Abdullah of Jordan, at the White House. Just hours after ISIS released another video of a brutal execution, a Jordanian pilot burned alive in this highly produced clip, you can see the pilot wearing an orange jumpsuit and speaking into the camera. Later he was locked in a cage and burned alive. The execution reportedly took place a month ago on January 3rd. This video shows the moment when the pilot`s father heard of news of his son`s execution. Around the same time the president was saying that the execution will not slow the coalition`s attacks on ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think we`ll redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It also just indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they`re operating off of, it`s bankrupt. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: King Abdullah will return to Jordan following tonight`s meeting with President Obama. Jordan has vowed revenge. Some reports say they`ll execute at least one of their own ISIS prisoners. Joining me now, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat of Hawaii, and Iraqi war veteran as well as a member of the house armed services committee. Also with me is Jim Arkedis, a fellow at Truman Project. Thank you both for being here. JIM AKREDIS, FELLOW, TRUMAN PROJECT: Thank you for having me, Reverend Al. REP. TULSI GABBARD (D), HAWAII: Thank you, Reverend. SHARPTON: Congresswoman Gabbard, the president is meeting with King Abdullah as we speak. Was this execution aimed at scaring Jordan out of the coalition against ISIS? GABBARD: Well, first of all, I just had the chance to meet with King Abdullah, along with other members of the armed services committee just a few minutes ago. We were able to express our condolences to him and the Jordanian people directly and to let them know that we stand in solidarity with them in this fight against Islamic extremism. Under which these horrific acts are being conducted. I think that whatever the intention was of this slaying, I think it`s having the opposite effect, where the Jordanian people are very angry and are absolutely doubling down on their commitment to fight against not only ISIS, but each of these Islamic extremist groups that are causing so much death and destruction, not only in the Middle East, but in other parts of the world. SHARPTON: Now you say you just met with the king, and that the Jordanian people are very angry. What was his mood? Did he give any indication of the level of his anger? Did he even discuss, infer, anything about execution of ISIS members there in Jordan? GABBARD: He was very resolute, exhibited strength and commitment to fighting against ISIS, and these other Islamic extremist groups, wherever they are, that this is not just a situation of an eye for an eye, but he recognizes that this is a battle that will not only be won militarily, but also will be won idea logically, and that we have to look at it within that context of a short-term goal and a long-term goal and the fact this is as much an ideological war as it is a military war. SHARPTON: Jim, you hear the congresswoman talk about the anger, and you hear her talk about the king being resolved that they must fight both in the military, and in ideological way. How do you combat something like is, Jim? How do you fight this? ARKEDIS: Well, first of all, at this point it unfortunately has to involve our military. I say that with a fair amount of consideration, because at this point, and obviously going back to last summer, there is no question that our military has to be involved. And the first step for Congress to take is to approve a new authorization of the use of military force directly related to ISIS. Right now the Obama administration is basically relying on authorizations from 2001, 2003. We have to update those. But, as we pivot to a longer term, this is about ungoverned spaces, groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda and Iraq, and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Al-Qaeda core have all come -- have all gained power because they`re allow to do thrive in areas that don`t have governance. SHARPTON: I got that, Jim. But what I`m trying to do is really cut through a lot of what people consider beltway talk. What can be done? I understand what has been permitted, but what can be done? We`re talking about people beheaded. We`re talking now about people being burned alive in a cage. How does their -- how do we stop this? How does there develop from this a real approach that the Arab nations that joined the fight against ISIS and others will be willing to participate in. ARKEDIS: Well, if there was any doubt that they would before -- I mean, this video that we have seen is obviously galvanized. It has driven a wedge between perhaps in fence sitters, where we`ve seen that both in its - - in what the attackers have said in terms of the coalition, and its involvement, will probably get to a point where the Arab street, for lack of a better term, will become enraged at what we have seen, and quickly pivot and begin to support their leadership in this fight. SHARPTON: All right. Now Congresswoman, on that -- this is the first video where a victim was burned alive. What are your colleagues do you feeling on both sides of the aisle? I understand authorization, I understand the need of Congress to exert its influence, but what do you think that the Congress, both Republican and Democrats are prepared to do in light of this, with the whole world looking at the United States? GABBARD: I think first of all, you are right, Reverend, this is an issue that transcends partisan politics. This is an issue where you have Democrats and Republicans coming together from a broad ideological/political spectrum, recognizing the direct threat that this Islamic extremist movement, these horrific activities are posing, and that we must take action against that. And I think the first step to do that is recognizing exactly who our enemy is. I`ve served in the army now for about 11 years. And one of the very first things that you learn is you must know your enemy in order to defeat them. So the very first thing we have to do is understand exactly who they are, understand their motivation, understand their tactics, that these are radical Islamic extremists, and then come up with the very effective strategy to defeat them, and that strategy may vary based on the geographic locations of where they`re active. So it`s not going to be a cookie cutter one size fits all the solution in order to defeat this enemy. And I think the second thing we have to be careful of is to make sure this doesn`t become a so-called religious war. Just the other day I heard Senator Lindsey Graham call this a religious war. And that`s a very, very dangerous thing because what that does is confuse the issue, and it actually has a dangerous effect of fomenting religious bigotry, implying that this is a war somehow maybe from Christians to Muslims, and mixing up the fact that this is not a war against all Muslims. This is a war against very radical Islamic extremists. SHARPTON: Jim, reports say that the prisoners that Jordan was planning on trading in exchange for the pilot will be executed, including a female would-be suicide bomber. What`s your reaction? ARKEDIS: Well, as you mentioned in the piece, King Abdullah of Jordan said that he didn`t want to get down to an eye for an eye level. And I`m afraid that this is basically what it is. I would encourage Jordanian leadership not to just chuck out the rule of law. Yes, this woman was engaged in a plot in 2005 that went awry. She was convicted, but there was a stay of execution, and moratorium on executions throughout Jordan in 2006. It was reinstated last month. And then all of a sudden once we have this burning of the pilot, Jordan has been prepared to it looks like chuck out the rule of law and speed up her execution. So when we stoop, when we in the coalition stoop down to the level of those who would do us harm, it really hurts our own legitimacy. So let`s adhere to the rule of law and let`s make sure that we are holding ourselves to a higher standard. SHARPTON: All right. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and Jim Arkedis, thank you for your time this evening. GABBARD: Thank you, Reverend, aloha. ARKEDIS: Thanks, Reverend. SHARPTON: More breaking news ahead. The GOP voting just moments ago to repeal Obamacare. We`ll hear from a cancer survivor whose healthcare would be directly affected. Also the vaccine debacle for two Republican contenders. Chris Christie and Rand Paul scramble to contain the damage as Hillary weighs in. Plus, an ugly legal fight brewing over the Robin Williams estate. And a surprising twist with Mike Huckabee`s comments about Beyonce. "Conversation Nation" is ahead. SHARPTON: He was known as the world`s greatest athlete, and today Bruce Jenner is once again a very hot topic on the social media scales. The Olympic gold medalist reportedly plans on publicly coming out as transgender, and it has our "Politics Nation" social media community very interested. Dee wrote, no judging here Bruce. I wish you peace. Eric said I applaud Bruce Jenner for sharing what must be a very different decision and process. It will help others. We`ll be talking about Bruce Jenner later in the show and what his change means for transgender rights in America. But please keep the conversation going on facebook, or tweet us @politicsnation. SHARPTON: We are back with more breaking news. Late today House Republicans voting yet again to repeal the affordable care act, the first full repeal vote of the new Congress. It`s their 67th attempt to repeal, revise or defund the law since 2010. Sixty-seven times we`ve heard them roll out their tired old talking points on the house floor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP, TOM EMMER (R), MINNESOTA: Today Congress will vote to get rid of this fundamentally flawed an unworkable law. REP. PETE SESSIONS (R), TEXAS: Big liberal gourd government that is embodied in the laws that are known as Obamacare. REP. STEVE KING (R), IOWA: This unconstitutional mess called Obamacare. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It`s an act of pure political destruction. Republicans have offered nothing in place of the law. They have offered nothing to help the 9.5 million people who have signed up for coverage this year, and who would lose that under repeal. President Obama has vowed to veto the bill if it gets to his desk. Today he met with ten people who have directly benefited from the health law. And he talked about how the GOP`s political games could hurt real people, people like Regina Moran of Philadelphia. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Regina at the age of 12 was asking to have a series of cancers. And anybody who has a chance to talk to her would know we want her to succeed. She`s overcome incredible odds. Why would we want to take health caraway from her. To my friends on Capitol Hill, I would ask them once again to consider why they would think it an important priority to take away health care for some 10 million people. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now is Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, Democrat of Missouri, and Regina Moran who we just heard the president speaking about. REGINA MORAN, MET WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT ACA: Thank you both for being here. REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER (D), MISSOURI: Good to be here, Rev. Thank you for having me. SHARPTON: Congressman, why are Republicans so determined to repeal a law that`s helped million regain health coverage. CLEAVER: Well, I just voted against it again. You know, even a horrible football coach would not run a play 57 times if it didn`t work. The worst coach wouldn`t do that. But I think what is going on here is this law has been demonized so much and so badly and so often that in order to try to gain or maintain some level of response to that base, they`re willing to do this over and over again, with their hoping the base doesn`t understand it`s going no place. It`s not going anywhere. It is one of those redundant political acts that signifies nothing. SHARPTON: Regina, you met with the president today. Tell our viewers what would happen to you if the affordable care act was repealed and your coverage was taken away. MORAN: Well, Mr. Sharpton, if the act was repealed, I would then again be penalized for having a preexisting condition. And I don`t think myself or anyone else in America would ask to have cancer once, let alone twice. I would probably most likely be forced to pay a premium of about $500 or more a month with absolutely no prescription coverage. And I am on several medications that I have to take for the rest of my live that would probably cost about $1,000 a year alone just for medications. SHARPTON: So you`re not a political leader, you`re not into the partisan bickering, but you had a preexisting condition and this act helped you. And you`re saying that without the act not only would you be barred because of the preexisting condition, but it would be beyond your means to be able to afford the premiums. MORAN: It would be the act nod just helped me. It saved my life. It allowed me to breathe and relax and enjoy being cancer free. I`ve been able to plan my wedding and pursue my graduate degree. And without this incredible piece of legislation, I wouldn`t be able to do that, you know. I`m not asking for a handout, I`m just asking for basic health coverage. And I don`t feel that I should be penalized for a disease, again, that I never asked for. SHARPTON: I mean, you know, Congressman, you and I are preachers, but no one said it better than Regina -- I`m not asking for a handout. I want coverage. What about that can we get the Republicans and others to understand? This is above partisan politics. CLEAVER: Well, I think that the majority of Americans, the overwhelming majority of Americans are supportive of the affordable care act, even if they don`t know it. We have, you know, 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions who now don`t have to worry about not having insurance. And I think it`s a theological issue. It is a human affairs issue. It is a medical issue. It ought to be a human right that if we have the capacity to provide medical care for anyone, and this young lady is a perfect example, we ought to do it. She`s not asking for somebody to give her some kind of check that she doesn`t merit. She is asking for the opportunity to be a healthy American, and she`ll take care of herself if she has her health. SHARPTON: Regina, you know, the president reads ten letters a day. You came to the White House`s attention, because you wrote the president a letter, not knowing that he would read it and respond. What made you write the president? MORAN: I wrote the president, Mr. Sharpton, just because I really wanted to thank him. As I said in my letter, there are no words in any language that did describe my deep and heartfelt gratitude. He truly along with everyone who worked on this amazing piece of legislation really impacted my life. And I just wanted to express my sincere gratitude because they finally have allowed me to breathe and to relax. And other than hearing I was in remission, this was the best news in the world, hearing that I would have insurance and I wouldn`t have to worry about it for the rest of my life. SHARPTON: What did you say to the president today when you met him? MORAN: After saying, of course, it was an honor, I just thanked him and I just explained to him my story and really truly how he`s helped me and millions of other people in this country. I just continue to express my gratitude and really just let him know that I truly appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. SHARPTON: Congressman, I might add, when I mentioned Regina`s preexisting condition that she had already mentioned here tonight, she had cancer since she was a child. And I think that it`s important people understand the severity of some of the preexisting conditions that has no hope without something like the affordable care act in terms of that being able to get insurance and get coverage and this kind of repeal the Republicans would just take it away. CLEAVER: It`s tragic because many preexisting conditions don`t just occur to Democrats, they don`t just occur to people who don`t have jobs or don`t have insurance. It is all over a country, all over the country. Regina has just inspired me, because I complain about the fact I have to trek from my office over to the capitol and vote no on attempt after attempt to repeal the affordable care act, but every now and then I think it`s helpful for the nation and certainly for those of us here in Congress to see a human face, to see someone who has been helped by the legislative action. I feel good. I thank the president for signing that bill. SHARPTON: Well, thank you, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, and thank you, and God`s blessings to you Regina Moran. And I`m going to tell you, the Congressman nor I will forget you. Thank you for your time tonight and thanks for share your story, Regina. MORAN: Thank you. It was an honor. CLEAVER: Thank you. SHARPTON: Coming up, a measles outbreak is forcing the 2016 GOP field to speak out on vaccinations, and let`s just say it`s getting awkward. Plus, Olympic gold medalist and reality TV star Bruce Jenner, is ready to talk about transitioning to a woman. And emotional testimony today in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial today. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: Now to a developing story. With the measles outbreak, the vaccination debate is becoming a heated political football. Hillary Clinton is now weighing in tweeting, the science is clear, the earth is round, the sky is blue, and vaccines work. Let`s protect all our kids. Grandmothers know best. But while she says the issue is settled, a lot of Republicans -- a whole lot of Republicans disagree. Chris Christie went into damage control mode after saying parents need, quote, "some measure of choice with vaccines." And Senator Rand Paul said this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I`m not arguing vaccines are bad idea. I think they are a good thing. But I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn`t own your children, parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But the theory linking meant to disorders the vaccines has been thoroughly debunked. And today, he had to walk that statement back, too saying quote "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related. I did not alleged causation. I support vaccines." Meanwhile, others on the right are using the issue to attack the big bad government. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know what morals and values are right for my children, and I think we should not have an oppressive state telling us what to do. SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I`m not trusting president Obama to tell me whether or not to vaccinate my kids, by the way. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: This shouldn`t be about President Obama and it shouldn`t be about politics. It should be about public health. Joining me now are Angela Rye and Jason Johnson. Thank you both for being here. ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Thank you, Rev. JASON JOHNSON, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR: Glad to be here, Rev. SHARPTON: Angela, each of these republicans have said they vaccinated their own kids, so why do they say the issue should be up for debate? RYE: Because the President Obama said something different than what they said. Rev, just like you said in the coming into this block, you know, this should not be about President Obama, so much so that now Dr. Rand Paul -- let`s not forget that, this medical doctor had to walk a journalist in with him to get a vaccination today to demonstrate just how supportive of getting vaccines he is. This is all crazy, it`s politics, and this is not a political football. This is a measles outbreak that has now hit 100 people, as you know Rev, more people than the Ebola outbreak has hit. So, when you think about a Chris Christie who wanted to quarantine someone who just displayed symptoms of having Ebola, not even diagnosed to having Ebola, it`s interesting that his take on measles is so much different. SHARPTON: But Jason, this is not a party line issue. Some people are on the right and left are opposed to vaccines. But we`re not seeing high- profile democrats kind of deal in this issue. Why? JOHNSON: Well, because they recognize that it`s not necessary for them to get votes. What the republicans are doing is because there`s a train of people in the republican grassroots who don`t the government, who don`t trust Obama, and who think that anything that has to do with institutions are inherently bad. And I think this is a real problem for the Democratic Party. Much less so than the Republican Party. You know, this is a same party that 25 years ago, you remember Rev, that Barbara Bush sat down with baby`s ahead HIV, and hugged them and kissed them and played with them. SHARPTON: Right. JOHNSON: And she says in a public, look, you know, we don`t want to believe in this sort of mess about HIV, I can`t believe the Republican Party is going to these kinds of mess now but they used to have a much better history. SHARPTON: It brings me to this, Angela, a lot of republicans are also coming out today in support of vaccines. Just today, Speaker Boehner, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Bobby Jindal and conservative commentator Dr. Ben Carson. All kids should be vaccinated they said. Even Ted Cruz said children should be vaccinated. How do you see this playing out inside their party? Specifically with 2016, and the 2016 field. RYE: Well, what I think we`re seeing is more of the same, Rev. You didn`t mention there is also I think Representative Marsha Blackburn who said the same thing that this should not be a political situation. This is something we`re needing to protect the lives of children. And the reality of this is, is again, we`re seeing the Republican Party being extremely divided, there`s the extreme far right, there`s the libertarian wing and the Tea Parties. Folks kind of all involved there. But you also have Ted Cruz who is a Tea Party member with having a very common-sense approach to this. Another doctor Ben Carson having a common- sense approach to this. And that`s the first time I`ve said that since reading his book "Gifted Hands." So, I think that this is again more the same. They are very divided, and they are going to do whatever they need to do to peddle more votes. SHARPTON: But Jason, it seems that the GOP has a problem with Science, I mean, a little while ago, it was climb that change now it`s vaccines. It seems like there`s a problem with them dealing with things that are scientifically well established. JOHNSON: Well, yes, especially when you have two doctors who are going to be running for president with Ben Carson and Rand Paul. But unfortunately I don`t think it`s necessarily the republicans have so much of an issue with science. They have an issue with anything that`s going to go against their ideology. They don`t believe that pollution is an issue, so they`re going to fight the science that`s against pollution. But notice, republicans love science when they want to argue against abortion. Republicans love science when they want any sort of argument about how the economy works, so Republicans only like certain kinds of science that happened to work with their ideology. Unfortunately when it comes to something like the measles, it`s a communicable disease, we shouldn`t be arguing about this, because it`s a safety issue, not a politics issue. SHARPTON: You know, Angela, a lot of this is about republicans being anti- regulation, anti-government, but if you take that too far, it can be scary, it can even be gross. Listen to what Senator Thom Tillis said about the regulation that restaurant employees wash their hands after using the bathroom. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. THOM TILLIS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: I said, I don`t have any problem with Starbucks if they chose to opt to this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don`t require our employees to watch their hands after -- in the restaurants, the market will take care of that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, really, Angela? Really? RYE: No, really no! Like that is so disgusting. Let me just say on behalf of Starbucks, as a Seattle Washington born and raised person, that`s disgusting. And I wish he would have used another example. I hold that lowdown dirty, and that has a brand-new meeting now. Low down dirty, Thom Tillis never touches me or anyone close to me. You know, you have my former boss on earlier, Congressman Cleaver. And Rev, he used to say all the time, if someone does not wash their hands, they are a bad person. I think that is so true. That`s disgusting. That`s disgusting. SHARPTON: Yes, it is. And what is enlightening, Jason, is we never knew Angela had a boss. (LAUGHTER) Angela Rye and Jason Johnson -- RYE: You`re my other boss. SHARPTON: Thank you both for your time tonight. JOHNSON: Thank you. RYE: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Coming up, an emotional day in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. The victim`s girlfriend takes the stand. Plus, Robin Williams` widow and his kids fighting over the estate. The Justice Files is next. SHARPTON: Time for the "Justice Files." Joining me now former prosecutor and host of "Judge Faith," Faith Jenkins. We start with the legal fight that pits the late Robin Williams` children against his widow. They are locked in a battle about how to speed up everything he left behind according to court document. Williams left his kids personal items and memorabilia, like his Oscar from "Good Will Hunting" and his widow says the kids should get his famous suspenders from "Mork & Mindy." But here`s why it is complicated, Williams left his wife the house, its contents and money for upkeep. His wife says that as she grieved, things were taken from the house. Spokesman for the children released a statement to NBC saying, in part, quote, "Robin`s children want nothing more than to be left alone to grieve. The fact that they are being force into these legal proceedings adds insult to terrible injury." NBC also reached out to Williams` widow, but she has not yet replied. Faith, legally what does this fight boil down do? FAITH JENKINS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: I think it`s going to boil down to the definition of memorabilia. Which in how it`s to be define and interpreted in Robin William`s will. Here`s the thing. This is his third wife that he married in 2011. Prior to that, in his will, he left his entire estate to a trust with his three kids as the beneficiaries. After he married his third wife in 2011, he updated that will to include her in the will, now saying if I die, everything in the House, in this house is to be left to her. So now the kids want to go in and they say, hey, there`s memorabilia in there, that belongs to us. We want to go in, we want to get our father`s memorabilia, you`re not entitled to that, so she was going to court essentially to get clarification on what the memorabilia means. SHARPTON: How does a judge work that out, Faith? JENKINS: Hopefully the judge is going to try to get the parties to talking come to some kind of resolution. But then he`s going to look at the intent, what is Robin Williams` intent? This is a recent marriage, 2011. SHARPTON: Right. JENKINS: So, I think the judge is probably going to look at most of the memorabilia that Robin Williams accumulated. He accumulated it before he ever married his third wife. And so I think the judge is going to take that into a strong consideration and the children probably have a good argument that a lot of that memorabilia was intended to be left to them. SHARPTON: Will there be attempts as they each side prepares for this if they don`t -- to try to get outside parties or some outside evidence as to what Williams might have meant more specifically? JENKINS: Right, if it goes forward and go to court, I`m sure they`ll have testimony, and people may be caught in the children will probably testify as to what was meant about this will, but the judges want to look at the four corners of the document first, and see if he can interpret the four corners of the document that will and they go forward from there. SHARPTON: All right. Now to an emotional testimony in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial today. The former NFL start is on trial for first-degree murder. He and two other men are accused of killing semipro-athlete Odin Lloyd nearly two years ago. The victim`s girlfriend took the stand today and got emotional talking about the phone call from police she`ll never forget. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAM MCCAULEY, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Approximately how long did that call last? SHANEAH JENKINS, GIRLFRIEND OF ODIN LLOYD: Maybe ten, 15 minutes? MCCAULEY: And did you learn something at that time? S. JENKINS: Yes. MCCAULEY: And what did you learn? S. JENKINS: That Odin was dead. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: She talked about seeing Hernandez as well moments after the murder, saying he comforted her by saying the pain would get better with time. Faith, this was dramatic testimony. What`s your take? JENKINS: The prosecutors -- Odin Lloyd is dead, but he was a person who was loved by people, his girlfriend, his mother, his family. The prosecutors want to show that through these witnesses. This is not just someone we`re going to put up on a screen, a corpse they found on the ground, this was a human being who was loved by a lot of people. In addition her testimony is crucial. Because she`s talking about the relationship between Odin Lloyd and Aaron Hernandez, a big part of the defense`s strategy here is to say the prosecutors can`t show a motive. Odin Lloyd was Aaron Hernandez`s friend. Why would he kill his friend? And then you have this witness Odin Lloyd`s girlfriend who say they were cordial, they weren`t that close, and remember, her sister is Aaron Hernandez` fiancee. So, you have those two women on opposite ends of the courtroom in this case. Very interesting dynamic. SHARPTON: Yes. Very interesting, very painful. Faith Jenkins, thank you for your time tonight. JENKINS: Thank you. SHARPTON: Coming up, reality star Bruce Jenner begins his personal journey. And also Mike Huckabee`s comments on Beyonce, it could be backfiring, and everyone is going crazy for left shark, could his moves be America`s next hot dance craze? "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: It`s time for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, Mic.com`s Liz Plank, legal analyst Eric Guster, and HuffPost Live, the host of HuffPost Live Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani. Thank you for being here this evening. LIZ PLANK, MIC.COM: Thanks, Rev. ERIC GUSTER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thanks for having us. CAROLINE MODARRESSY-TEHRANI, HUFFPOST LIVE: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: I want to start with a surprising celebrity story. Olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner is probably best known now as a reality TV star, as Kris, Kardashian`s soon to be ex-husband, in "Keeping up with the Kardashians." You thought you knew everything about it, but today we are learning the 65-year-old is transitioning to become a woman. His mom confirming it to radar online, saying, "I have never been more proud of Bruce for who he is. I am more proud of him now than when he stood on that podium and put the gold medal around his neck. I support him wholeheartedly." Jenner is expected to tell his story in an upcoming TV interview. Liz, how much of an impact can this have on the transgender community? PLANK: I think it has an incredible impact. And for two reasons. First of all, Bruce is taking control of the narrative. He`s taking control of his own story and telling it, you know, in his own words. And I think that`s incredibly powerful. At this point, he hasn`t done that. His mom has spoken for him. So, I`m excited to see the interview and we`re going to be able to know, you know, how he identifies if she identifies as transgender, or if it`s a cross-dresser situation, or just identifies as someone who is gender fluid. So it will be really interesting to see Bruce really choosing his own language to identify himself. And also for us as the media to have a moment of introspection and look at the way that we`ve talked about the story in the gender police and that`s been happening. I mean, the tabloids have been atrocious. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Absolutely. PLANK: It`s been really hard to watch. So, hopefully this is the moment where we can -- SHARPTON: Caroline? MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: You`re absolutely right. I think that the way that we`ve been talking about this issue has been quite frankly appalling in some cases, the way that we have been presuming on Bruce Jenner`s behalf as this rightly says. I mean, we have not heard from Bruce Jenner yet, and transitioning isn`t a start/stop process. I think that the education that needs to happen around people that are going through a transition is marked and underlined by the way that we`ve been treating Bruce Jenner throughout this process. SHARPTON: But Eric, here was one of the most famous athletes in the world. Seventy Six Olympics won. I mean, for him to take a stand, this is huge. GUSTER: It is. And the problem for the people who don`t understand it, he`s 65 years old, three wives later and a house full of kids later, he`s doing a transition, which is very hard for some people to grasp their minds around. Because he waited so long to go and do this. Even to identify himself as wanting to not be a man, so it`s very hard for some people to grasp. PLANK: Well, and when we look at the media coverage, it`s clear why. I mean, look at the way that he`s been treated. SHARPTON: Yes. Let me move to something quickly. Could Mike Huckabee`s Beyonce obsession be backfiring? Last month the former FOX News host was very vocal in his criticism of Beyonce, calling her music mental poison in his book. Now in a new poll of likely Iowa republican caucus-goers, it shows 61 percent thinks he went too far, when he questioned the President and the First Lady to letting their daughters listen to Beyonce. Caroline, is the culture war more complicated than he thought? MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: I think that Mike Huckabee is perhaps more simplistic than we all thought, I`m not saying something. I mean, absolutely. And I think it says a lot when as a republican and you`re appealing to an Iowa base, that they are siding with Beyonce over you. I mean, talk about -- SHARPTON: Well, Eric, Iowa voters and republican voters are certainly an example, are very example, yet they are siding with Beyonce on this. GUSTER: Yes, music transcends any political party. And when Huckabee went after Beyonce, a pop icon, he messed up. And this is the same guy who sang a Ted Nugent song, make a blank purse, so he is not the type of person that people want to follow. He has almost sunk himself as far as he`s political hopes, I believe. SHARPTON: What is the instruction here for other politicians? Is there a lesson? Is this a teaching moment? I mean, this is Iowa. PLANK: Well, I mean, the lesson is don`t go after Beyonce. I think it`s clear. I mean, Beyonce is like an apple pie, we can all agree she`s amazing, so it`s interesting to see to the Republican Party disagree on that, or all agree that she is amazing, but she also, I mean, she`s more than a music icon. She`s a female music icon, she`s a feminist icon. So, in a way she sort of serves as a proxy for women. So, for Huckabee to go after her I think will not just turn off the base, but turn out the female base. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Yes. GUSTER: And not just music. SHARPTON: But Caroline, I think also in this was not only Beyonce and the music, he went after the President and the First Lady`s parenting on this. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: I mean, it`s just tacky, and it`s quite frankly. I mean, if you can`t attack the President for his policies, let`s not attack him for the budget which was proposed this week, instead let`s do this low blow and go after his parenting? I mean, it`s not for the desperation that quite frankly one would hope going into 2016, you would want to avoid that. SHARPTON: Eric? GUSTER: And when he attack the parenting, based upon them listen to this music. So many of his republican base have children who are listening to it. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Exactly right. GUSTER: So, if you say that -- SHARPTON: and they`re listening to it. GUSTER: Yes. And they`re listening to it. If you take the iPod into the gym, they`re listening to Beyonce. So, you`re telling them that they`re bad parents as well, which will really -- SHARPTON: Calling it poison. And people everywhere listening to it, what are you saying about them, Liz, when you say the music is poison? PLANK: Exactly. You`re insulting everyone because everyone loves Beyonce. This comes back to my point about Beyonce. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Don`t touch Beyonce. PLANK: Yes. And it`s just interesting to see the Republican Party make an issue of Beyonce, I mean, whether it`s FOX News talking about Beyonce voters as, you know, a synonym for young female voters. Or, how can we just reigning on Beyonce, I mean, can we just talk about policies? MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Well, it shows how out of touch they are, right? SHARPTON: But I think there`s a silver lining to this. Because I`ve seen republicans use the culture wars very successfully against democrats in the past. Maybe that day is over. Maybe it doesn`t work anymore. I think this is a good thing. Liz, Eric, Caroline, thank you for joining the conversation. PLANK: Thanks, Rev. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Thanks, Reverend. SHARPTON: When we come back, two women who helped change American views on race in the news today. SHARPTON: Rosa Parks and Harper Lee, two women who helped reshape America`s views on race. More than 50 years ago, and who are still having an impact today. That`s next. SHARPTON: We close tonight with news about two women who helped changed America`s views on race in very different ways. Civil rights icon Rosa parks, and award-winning author Harper Lee. Tomorrow the library of Congress will open a special Rosa Parks collection, revealing a new side of the woman who famously refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus in 1955. In one note, she talks about that decision, saying, quote, "I had been pushed around all my life and felt at this moment that I couldn`t take it anymore. Also today, exciting news about Harper Lee, who wrote "To Kill a Mockingbird," the story of a southern lawyer who defends a black men against a false charge of rape. It became an award-winning film. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view. UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: To decline inside his skin, walk around in it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The literary world was stunned today to learn Harper Lee will publish a new novel, her first in 50 years, continuing many of the characters and themes of mockingbird. Rosa Parks and Harper Lee, two women who were small in stature, but who made a big impact on how Americans thought about race. I think about Viola Louisa, who lost her life fighting to give all Americans the right to vote in Alabama, as we look at the movie "Selma" and prepare to go to Selma for the 50th anniversary. I think about how as a teenager, I was a youth coordinator for Shirley Chisholm`s campaign for president, another woman small in stature, but moved America forward. These women that faced racism and sexism, but faced it with dignity and integrity and helped change the nation for the better and make us all better in the process. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020301cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 12 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 3, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 3, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes, Ayman Mohyeldin GUESTS: Richard Carmona, Matt Welch, Michael Elliott, Brian Murphy, Jeff Smith SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8674 words HIGHLIGHT: : The debate over vaccinations continues into politics. ISIS executes the Jordanian pilot being held captive. Republican Congressman Aaron Schock redecorated his office to look like "Downton Abbey" despite voting against funding PBS. Colorado has a weird problem on its hands: its economy keeps getting better. This morning 88-year-old Harper Lee`s publisher announced the upcoming release of what is basically a sequel to her masterpiece, American classic To Kill a Mockingbird. A look into Chris Christie`s ethically questionable gifts in office. CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC ANCHOR: Tonight on ALL IN -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: The state doesn`t own your children. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. PAUL: Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Rand Paul steps out on an anti-vac ledge and everyone else lines up for their shots. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Absolutely, all children in America should be vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Tonight, how public health somehow became a political flash point. And what happens when being anti-government and trying to run the government collide? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we should not have an oppressive state telling us what to do. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Then, "The New York Times" blockbuster on the epically questionable Chris Christie. The marijuana windfall that could force Colorado to send rebate checks to residents. Untold story behind Harper Lee`s first book since "To Kill a Mocking Bird." And never before seen pictures of one congressman`s "Downton Abbey" themed office. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who pays for it? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, good, let`s talk about money. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. And amid the worst U.S. measles outbreak in 20 years, the question of whether or not vaccinations should be mandatory has somehow remarkably emerged as the first major controversy of the Republican presidential primary. It all started yesterday when our own Kacie Hunt asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie whether, in the midst of an outbreak that has now sickened over 100 people across 14 states, Americans should vaccinate their kids. Christie stopped short of saying children should be required to get the vaccination for measles, mumps and rubella, calling for a balance between public health concerns and personal freedom. That sentiment was later echoed by another perspective 2016 candidate, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a former eye doctor, who trotted (ph) out some questionable science in an interview on CNBC. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I`m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they`re a good thing. But I think the parent should have some input. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. PAUL: The state doesn`t own your children, parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Today, Senator Paul attempted to walk back those comments, saying in a statement, quote, "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related -- I did not allege causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact today, I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year." Lest anyone doubt his sincerity, the senator brought "The New York Times" along with him to document the occasion. It is no surprise Rand Paul is now trying to do damage control. Since he and Chris Christie spoke up yesterday, the backlash from what you might call the establishment wing of their party has been overwhelming. "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page, which is basically a mouthpiece for the Republican donor class, blasted Christie`s, quote, "vaccine stumble," condemning him for pandering amid the outbreak of preventable disease. While on Fox News, Bill O`Reilly and Megyn Kelly argued mandatory vaccinations are an example of government actually doing something right. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: My take is that every school district in the country should require immunization for measles. If you don`t have it, your child can`t go. Period. That`s it. MEGAN KELLY, FOX NEWS: This is going to be a big issue for these politicians going forward because it`s about big brother, but, on the other hand, some things do require some involvement of big brother. O`REILLY: Some things do. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Speaker of the Republican controlled House, John Boehner, told reporters, quote, "all children ought to be vaccinated." A good sentiment. And at a hearing held by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee today, Republican members made a strong case in favor of vaccination. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is important for parents to have their children vaccinated. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is far too serious an issue to be treated as a political football. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Past publications have been discredited and data was deemed fraudulent to multiple studies say there`s no link between develop of disorders, such as Autism, and vaccines. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When I hear about counties in California that have lower immunization rates that the Sudan and Chad, this is something that is of concern to me. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For people who are listening and paying attention today, please have your children vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, some of the other presumptive GOP candidates have weighed in distancing themselves from the comments made by Christie and Rand Paul. Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson both issued statements saying they put public health first, while Marco Rubio argued pretty forcefully all children in America should get vaccinated. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Unless they`re immune suppressed obviously for medical exceptions, but I believe that all children, as is the law in most states in this country before they can even attend school, have to be vaccinated for a certain panel. There is absolutely no medical science or data whatsoever that links those vaccinations to onset of autism or anything of that nature. And, by the way, if enough people are not vaccinated, you put at risk infants that are three months of age or younger and have not yet been vaccinated, and you put at risk immune suppressed children that are not able to get those vaccinations. So, absolutely, all children in America should be vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, the personal freedom camp still has its adherence, however, particularly among certain individuals, the predisposition, to mistrust the government. For example, Tea Party backed Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin and Fox News` host Sean Hannity. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. SEAN DUFFY (R), WISCONSIN: And I want that to be my choice as a parent. And, you know what, I know my kids best. I know what morals and values are right for my children. And I think we should not have an oppressive state telling us what to do. SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: I got my kids vaccinated, but I believe parents should have the choice. I`m not trusting President Obama to tell me whether to vaccinate my kids. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: While the anti-vaccination movement itself doesn`t have any political affiliation, it appears, in some instances, at least in this case, to dovetail with a certain strain of libertarian ideology. One that sees any kind of government mandate as a first step on the road to tyranny. In fact, before he was a senator, Rand Paul laid out exactly that logic in a 2009 interview with truther and Rand Paul fan, Alex Jones, talking about the vaccine for swine flu. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: The first sort of thing you see with martial law is mandates, and they`re talking about making it mandatory. We have to weigh the risks of the disease versus the risks of the vaccine. But I`m not going to tell people who think it`s a bad idea that they have to take it because everybody should be allowed to make their own health care decisions. And that`s the problem with allowing more and more government. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And mandatory vaccinations are apparently not the only type of public health mandate that encroaches on our personal freedoms. According to Republican Tom Tillis, newly elected senator from North Carolina, those signs you see in restaurant bathrooms, yet another example of the oppressive hand of government. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TOM TILLIS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: We were sitting back at a table. It was near the restrooms. And one of the employees just came out. She said, for example, don`t you believe that this regulation that requires this gentleman to wash his hands before he serves your food is important, it should be on the books? I said, matter of fact, I think it`s one that I can illustrate the point. I said, I don`t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy, as long as they post a sign that says, we don`t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom. The market will take care of that. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now, Dr. Richard Carmona, who was U.S. Surgeon General from 2002 to 2006. Dr. Carmona, are you surprised, dismayed, amused by the fact that in January or February of 2015 we`re having apparently a debate about vaccinations? DR. RICHARD CARMONA, FMR. U.S. SURGEON GENERAL: Well, Chris, thanks for the opportunity. Nice to be with you again. Yes, I am dismayed. I`m disappointed that something that`s purely scientific has become a dysfunctional partisan political issue. HAYES: Well, it does seem, though, that, I have to say, today there does seem to be a kind of rush away from the position that was taken yesterday. It does seem like there`s a kind of establishment strikes back in which, you know, people are coming out of the woodwork across the political spectrum to say, hey, look, this is the law of the land in most, if not every state, except for a few exceptions where they have wide loopholes. You know this -- it makes good common sense. CARMONA: It does make common sense. The science is clear. For over a half a century we`ve had experience with the measles vaccine. And when it first started in the `50s, mothers worried every day about their children getting measles, getting pneumonia. There was a death rate associated. A pregnant woman could get infected as well and have complications with their births. We don`t see that any more. Measles has almost been eradicated if it were not for the fact that there are people today that are preventing their children from being vaccinated, which allows their children to become vectors and infect others. HAYES: So you worked as surgeon general in the -- under George W. Bush. And, you know, there is -- CARMONA: Yes, that`s correct. HAYES: It does seem like there is some kind of point of ideological contention here about the way in which public health often acts, which is sometimes heavy handed, sometimes through mandates and requirements and regulation. And some of the articulations you`ve seen from people like Congressman Sean Duffy, that that is an imposition on freedom, it`s an incursion on liberty. Did you have dust-up fights with the Bush administration when you were surgeon general on that terrain? CARMONA: Well, you know, every surgeon general has battles with their administration on a number of issues. On immunization, though, President Bush, Secretary Card, who was the chief of staff and others, they pretty much gave me the free hand and my colleagues when we made suggestions, especially about vaccinations. I went and got my small pox vaccination on TV and I believe the president did as well. So there were other problems, of course, so, you know, but this happens in every administration. I think the issue here, Chris, is a real larger one. This is about individual rights versus the rights of society. The government has a compelling interest to be able to keep society safe. It has information that if children are not immunized, it will not only cause death and disability and morbidity, but it will raise the cost of health care at a time that we`re trying to keep it down. So there`s many compelling reasons why government should be involved. Speaking as a surgeon general, and from my colleague surgeon generals, all of us would hope that informed parents would make good decisions based on the best science and so, therefore, all children would be immunized. When and if they don`t, government does have a compelling interest to step in and ensure the public safety. And so that`s what has to be done. I`m disappointed at this issue becoming politicized because this is strictly science. Those who are running for office should differ these type of discussions to health professionals who understand the complexity of these problems. HAYES: Are you surprised that one of the most prominent people here, I mean, is, in fact, a doctor, Dr. Rand Paul, although today he clearly made a show of going to get immunized with a booster shot. Does that surprise you at all? CARMONA: Well, it doesn`t surprise me because this is all politics. You know this better than anybody, you`re the expert in political theater. We`re ramping up now into the two-year cycle for the presidentials. Everybody`s lining up. And as you pointed out, interesting, our first platform is one about science and immunization. And it`s been politicized right away and now those who have stepped too far are backing away from it when really we saw this happen with Ebola just a few months ago, you remember -- HAYES: Yes. CARMONA: Where I did a lot of commentary like this about that also. There are health professionals at the state level, at the city level, at the surgeon general`s office who are able to address these issues in a purely scientific manner and then those we elect should take the appropriate action to insure that the public is safe. HAYES: Dr. Richard Carmona, former surgeon general, thank you, sir. CARMONA: Thank you. Nice to be here. HAYES: Joining me now, a man I`m happy to have back at the desk, Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of the libertarian magazine "Reason." Good to have you, Matt. MATT WELCH, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "REASON": Great to be back. Thanks for having me. HAYES: All right, all right, Matt, here`s the thing. WELCH: Yes. HAYES: I -- let just say I`ve got a friend that wants to be a libertarian, wants to join your tribe, also believes mandatory vaccination, you know, schools essentially require it for admittance, can he get in? WELCH: Well, if he reads Ron Bailey (ph) in "Reason" today, if he reads Richard Epstein (ph) at The Hoover Institute today, if he reads Virginia Postrel (ph) on Twitter, he will see three very loud voices saying that the anti-vaccine movement rit-large (ph) has been based largely on junk science and fears that have been debunked all over the place and that we need to conceive a public policy to get over some of these kinds of nonsenses that have arisen. But I`ve got to stick up for my libertarian pals (INAUDIBLE) here. HAYES: That was such a long prologue. WELCH: Thank you. HAYES: Drop the but hammer. WELCH: No. I mean let`s talk about swine flu -- HAYES: Right. WELCH: Or a flu shot. HAYES: Right. Right. WELCH: Michael Bloomberg, one of his last acts as mayor of the city that both you and I live in said that you can`t send your kid to daycare unless he gets a flu -- he or she gets a flu shot -- HAYES: Right. WELCH: Before age five. HAYES: Right. WELCH: Those are the hard questions. Hepatitis B. I had a daughter born nine days ago -- HAYES: Yes. WELCH: The hospital said, you should really get a Hepatitis B vaccine. Why? HAYES: Right. WELCH: I mean those are high risk groups that I don`t belong to, my family and my daughter does not belong to. So we do have probably more vaccines than we need. The problem is, people take those kinds of objections and think, well, let`s apply those to the mumps and the measles and other things out there. I think there`s a really understandable and twilight (ph) of the elite (ph) kind of moment. HAYES: Yes. WELCH: There`s an understandable distrust that people have in institutions. HAYES: Right. That`s right. WELCH: The same government -- HAYES: And they have -- the mistrust in the medical profession. I mean we`ve seen -- we have seen trust for doctors, you know, plummet over the last 20 or 30 years. Some of that is, I think, understandable. Trust in drug companies, certainly. We saw the whole Vioxx debacles, right? There are reasons, there are rational reasons -- WELCH: Right. HAYES: For people to just not say, well, this expert told me to do it, so I`m going to do it. WELCH: So the question from public policy -- HAYES: As a general rule. WELCH: It`s easy to poke fun at the crazy people right now. HAYES: Right. Yes. WELCH: So the question is there, do you have opt outs? We have religious opt outs in 40 plus states. We have philosophical opt outs of getting your child vaccinated before going to public school. HAYES: Right. WELCH: So what should the cost of those opt outs be? HAYES: Right. WELCH: In California, they came up with this thing of like, OK, if you`re going to opt out on whatever basis, sign a note from your doctor saying that you understand the health risks associated with it, which might have all kinds of implications later. And, as a result, they saw, finally, because California`s been going crazy on this stuff -- HAYES: Yes. WELCH: That those levels went down. These are surmountable problems. HAYES: That`s right. That`s a great point. There is -- WELCH: Right. HAYES: So there`s -- there`s this kind of -- this public shaming that`s been happening about, you know, this is not -- this is -- this kind of view is outside the main stream, and I think that`s actually effective and useful and I actually think the Rand Paul walk back is effective and useful -- WELCH: Right. HAYES: In terms of the message it sends to people. You know, at the same time, you`re right, you have to conceive of this in a broader sense of what the policy -- I mean, look, Mississippi has -- is arguably the most conservative state in the union, right? Has some of the strongest mandatory requirements, right? They`ve got -- WELCH: Right, without -- without any opt outs at all. HAYES: Yes, there are no opt outs. And it has a very high, you know, it has a very high rate. WELCH: No, and -- HAYES: And I don`t think -- I also don`t think, from what I`ve read, and I was looking at this a little bit, this isn`t actually like a burning issue in Mississippi, that folks feel like they are put upon by this -- WELCH: No. No, and it`s not a burning federal issue either. HAYES: No. WELCH: I mean it`s very wired that we`re getting excited about what punitive presidential candidates -- Barack Obama today said this is basically not a federal issue. We`re not going to pass a federal law. HAYES: Right, yes, there are 50 states -- right. Right. WELCH: This is local school districts, state laws. So we`re making a lot of politics and theater about something that is essentially a state issue. HAYES: All right. The hand washing. Where do you come down on the hand washing, mandatory hand washing? WELCH: Well, should there be a federal law requiring mandatory -- HAYES: There should be no federal law, but here`s the -- WELCH: That`s it. Yes. HAYES: Here`s my favorite thing about the Tom Tillis thing. WELCH: Yes. HAYES: Let me just quickly say this. I love the fact that the regulatory regime you would have to event to enforce the transparency requirement is identical to the regulatory regime -- WELCH: (INAUDIBLE). HAYES: Of the mandate, right? Like, the idea that you would just say, well, we`ll have them say whether they opt in or out. Well, you have to check that, right? WELCH: Here`s -- here`s what we are thinking about all this kind of stuff, right? Every single additional nonsense regulation that you mandate -- HAYES: Yes. WELCH: Discredits the ones that you absolutely need. HAYES: That`s a -- that`s a -- that`s a -- WELCH: So we need to focus on the things that -- I mean communicable disease is the definition of what a libertarian wants the government to be paying attention to -- HAYES: Oh, exactly. We could -- we could -- WELCH: So, let`s do that. HAYES: OK. Communicable disease. Watch your hands after you use the facilities and serve food. Thank you, Matt Welch. WELCH: Thanks, Chris. HAYES: That`s also a controversial thing. Some late-breaking news to bring you tonight that has meant total disaster for people who ride the busiest commuter railroad in the U.S. That`s next. Stick around. HAYES: All right, we`re following breaking news at this hour on one of the busiest passenger railroads in the country just over an hour and a half ago. A Metro North train, full of commuters, collided with at least one car at a crossing, sending at least one vehicle in flames 150 yards up the track. That`s a shot you`re seeing there of the incident. It happened near the Valhalla stop on the Harlem line about 40 minutes north of New York City. Local police are calling it a mass casualty incident. Unclear if they mean casualty in the sense of injuries or also fatalities. At least a dozen people are being evaluated at the scene and three people have been taken to a local hospital. A worker there describing the injuries as definitely serious. This is the third high profile incident involving Metro North trains in just the last two years. December 2013, a train derailed in the Bronx killing four people and injuring at least 63. And in May 2013, two trains collided in Connecticut, injuring at least 60 people. Right now, the Harlem line is closed in both directions as officials deal with tonight`s accident. The train and at least one car are still smoking. We`ll be right back. HAYES: All right, we have reached the point in this new hour where I tell you about the latest atrocity committed by ISIS. An atrocity you have probably already heard about since news of it broke earlier today. I`m not going to show any image supplied by ISIS of the captive before his execution. ISIS seems to relish murder. And aside from murder and mayhem, the thing ISIS is by far most proficient at is finding ways to beam out the images of their murders in order to cause the maximum amount of possible trauma for the family and the country from which the victim hails. ISIS, of course, used this tactic against the U.S., the beheading of American journalist James Foley by ISIS helped precipitate this country`s entry into a defacto (ph) war against ISIS, which was not a particularly popular notion before that event. ISIS has executed at least five westerners, American and British citizens, drawing both of our countries into the battle. This year ISIS murdered two Japanese hostages, causing outrage and anger in Japan. And today, people filled the streets of Amman, Jordan, after learning that one of their own pilots was executed by being burned to death. The pilot, First Lieutenant Muath al-Kasaesbeh, had been captured by ISIS militants when his F-16 fighter jet crashed in northern Syria on December 24th. According to "The New York Times," quote, "Jordanian officials attempted to negotiate with the Islamic State, which demanded the release of Sajida al- Rishawi, an Iraqi woman incarcerated in Jordan for her role in a 2005 bombing attack in the country`s capital. The fact, according to Jordanian intelligence sources speaking to NBC News, three prisoners in Jordanian custody, including al-Rishawi, were going to be swamped. All three are on death row in Jordan. Negotiations broke down and ISIS killed the Jordanian pilot, releasing a 22 minute video today that showed that execution. Jordan`s King Abdullah, who was coincidentally on a trip to the U.S., met with President Obama just hours ago. He`s reportedly cutting the rest of his trip short. Joining me now, NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin. Great to have you here. AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, thanks, Chris. HAYES: OK, why? Why did they do this? I mean, one level is, these are monsters. They`re -- this is a sick death cult. George Pakert (ph) today saying, "ISIS is less a conventional authoritarian or totalitarian state than like a mass death cult." And sometimes when you read ISIS followers on Twitter, is seems like that. It seems very cultish. Then there`s another argument that this -- that they are essentially rational actors, cruel, sadistic, immoral ones who are attempting to achieve some strategic aim through these kind of atrocities. What -- what do you think? MOHYELDIN: Well, I think it`s a little bit of both on different levels. I think, on a big picture of the organization, when you watch the video that they produced today, they certainly lace it with political messaging. They attack Jordan for its policies, they attack the U.S. for what it`s doing across the region, they try to bury a very grotesque murder in a political message because they know it probably will resonate louder in the region. But at the core of what ISIS is doing is barbaric. They`re using murder to scare people, to keep control of the territories that they contain. They are not trying to promote an ideology beyond their borders, they are trying to essentially bring the house down on the region so that they can control the area in the vision that they -- HAYES: So, that`s always the question to me is like, who is the audience of this sort of horrific kind of propaganda directed at? Is it directed internally because if you are someone who is just a random Iraqi under ISIS` control you think, man, these guys are terrifying, I`m going to shut up and do what I`m told? Is it other people to recruit them into the fight from everywhere from, you know, Amsterdam to Jordan? Like, who`s the audience? MOHYELDIN: Well, I think it`s a little bit both. Again, in -- there`s certainly an attempt to recruit people. They want to recruit people. These videos are made, they`re produced in languages, foreign languages, subtitles sometimes in French, English, Russian. They use very slick production. They know it`s going to appear to a lot of people on the Internet. It`s not really made for their own kind of domestic consumption. The fear inside the areas where these people are living, ISIS does that with their brutal tactics. HAYES: They threw two guys off a freaking tower -- MOHYELDIN: Yes. HAYES: In an Iraqi city the other day. MOHYELDIN: They behead people, they execute people, they lash people. That`s what they`re using to control the area where they have power. Trying to recruit people from abroad is through this video. HAYES: OK. So -- MOHYELDIN: And messages to the governments. HAYES: Right. MOHYELDIN: And that -- HAYES: Right. So that`s the other part here, right? Jordan, already part of the coalition that has been bombing. MOHYELDIN: Yes. HAYES: In fact, the reason this fighter pilot was there is because Jordan has been one of the most involved entities in this collision with the U.S. MOHYELDIN: Right. HAYES: Flying these raid -- bombing raids over ISIS controlled territory. The question then becomes, OK, right, we all agree, horrible, monstrous murders. Then what? What? What is the policy solution? Is what we`re doing now working? MOHYELDIN: Well, the short answer is, it`s not really doing enough. Certainly when you hear from the military Pentagon spokesperson today, they have degraded ISIS. The organization is not functioning the way it used to. They`ve made that very clear. But it`s not doing enough to actually eradicate ISIS. And what you really need are some of these Arab countries to do more. You need these countries -- HAYES: But do more from a fighting perspective? MOHYELDIN: Certainly to do more from a fighting perspective. I mean when you look at the group, something like ISIS, they don`t control their territory by simply the weapons. I mean when you talk about countries like Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, they have their American fighter jets, they have the tanks, they have the technology to fight. If there`s a real political will from some of these countries, they can try to address this by putting their boots on the ground, trying to clean up this mess if they really felt that this was an existential threat. But that does -- doing that is going to open a whole can of worms about the -- about regional geopolitics that none of these countries are willing to step up and fight it out. HAYES: It also -- it also just seems to me that you can`t separate the kind of like deep, annalistic, sadistic darkness that we are seeing channel through ISIS from the fact that they are operating in a place that has been the site of some of the worst carnage and mayhem and ceaseless war and destruction for 12 straight years, right? MOHYELDIN: Yes. And there`s an ideology to this that is not being combatted. And the ideology is separate from the battle on the actual field, so to speak. The ideology to beat it really has a long term strategy, and that has to do with reforming a lot in that Arab world. You`ve got to -- you`ve got to push these countries to reform themselves, to dry up that ideology. I mean we say it all the time. HAYES: Right. MOHYELDIN: But at the same time, in the short term, you have to step up the military capabilities of these countries trying to fight. I -- HAYES: You think there`s a military solution to defeating ISIS in a military sense that involved the surrounding countries essentially stepping up militarily? MOHYELDIN: Absolutely. I mean Turkey can shut down its border. Turkey can push troops into some of these areas in the northern part of Syria to flush out some of these ISIS strongholds. It`s not that far away from that. But doing so would put Turkey in a direct confrontation with other regional politics, powerhouses -- HAYES: Right. MOHYELDIN: Iran, Saudi Arabia, the government of Assad in Damascus -- HAYES: Which they don`t want, right. MOHYELDIN: Hezbollah. And they don`t want to do that. And that political paralysis is why we have this situation that we see today. HAYES: We could just clone the Kurds and let them go -- MOHYELDIN: It seems they`re the only ones -- HAYES: They`re the only ones -- MOHYELDIN: The ones willing to fight on the ground right now, right? HAYES: They took Kobani and they -- they`re -- they have a 1-0 won-loss record so far. NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin, thank you. MOHYELDIN: Thanks. HAYES: All right, Colorado residents may be getting a tax refund from an unlikely source. Plus, is Congressman Aaron Shock`s "Downton Abbey" themed office worse than this accidental interior decorating error on "Downton Abbey." That`s a water bottle. I think the answer is yes and I`ll tell you why, next. HAYES: So, if you have ever visited our nation`s capital, you likely found the Capitol Building itself is open to the public. The offices of members of congress who are after all the people`s representatives, they`re open as well. If you happen to be in town, you can just walk into your representatives office. In fact, it`s encouraged. In fact, there`s probably no more space that is public than that, which is why it seems strange that one member of congress took great pains to decorate his office and then refuse to talk about said decour. It all started when the Washington Post Style section reporter Ben Terris walked in Republican Congressman Aaron Schock`s new office. What he found was, quote, bright red walls, a gold colored wall sconce with black candles, a federal style bulls eye mirror with an eagle perched on top. It turns out the color scheme was not random. According to a woman behind the front desk it was, quote, based off of the red room in "Downton Abbey". Now for those of you not obsessed with early 20th Century British soap operas," Downton Abbey" is the masterpiece PBS smash hit. The woman behind the congressman`s red room, however, is Annie Brawler, an interior decorator from a company called -- and I`m not making this up -- Euro Trash. And it was Brawler who offered to show the Post reporter the congressman`s private office which was revealed, was quote, another dramatic red room, this one with a drippy crystal chandelier, a table propped by two eagles, a bust of Abraham Lincoln, and masses arrangements of pheasant feathers. And that`s when the calls started coming in. According to the Post, Schock`s communications director called and asked, quote, "are you talking pictures of the office? Who told you you could do that? OK, stay where you are. You`ve created a bit of crisis in the office." After that, according to a report a staff member asked the reporter to delete the photos he`d taken. He refused. Then Congresman Schock declined to talk about his office`s decoration, thus ensuring the decor would, in fact, become the story. But it`s not the bold walls that are creating problems for the congressman, it`s how the decorator`s services were paid for, or rather, not. Schock`s office told the Post Brawler offered her services for free but the congressman did pay for any actual objects. House rules, however, prohibit members of congress from accepting most gifts valued at $50 or more, including, quote, gifts of services. Today, a D.C. watchdog group asked the office of congressional ethics to look into whether or not Schock violated House rules officially making red walls the least of his problems. HAYES: At the tale of what has been this long era of crisis and austerity in the state governments, Colorado has a weird problem on its hands, its economy keeps getting better. As the Wall Street Journal put it last fall, quote, "by a host of measures, Colorado economy now outpaces nearly every other state in the U.S." With economists predicting the state to continue to lead the way this year in population growth, employment growth, wage and salary growth and personal income growth. And then there`s marijuana. In 2013, you`ll recall, one year after voters in Colorado approved legal recreational use of marijuana, they went back to the polls and approved new taxes on the drug intended to generate more money, a 15 percent excise tax on the wholesale price, meaning a tax on growers when they sell to dispensaries, and an initial 10 percent sales tax on the retail price, a tax on consumers when they buy. Now here`s where it gets weird. Because of Colorado`s booming economy, and it`s windfall from marijuana taxes, the state has now found itself with more money than it is legally allowed to have. You see, back in 1992, taxpayers approved something called a taxpayers` bill of rights, it`s something pushed by Grover Norquist and conservatives which effectively caps how much tax money the state can collect, legally. And now because of this measure, and because Colorado has been bringing in so much money, the state may be forced to give back some of those marijuana tax dollars to its residents. The final numbers aren`t available yet, but the Associated Press, citing state officials, estimated that, quote, "pot refunds could amount to $30.5 million, or about $7.63 per adult in Colorado," or 76.3 percent of a dime bag. And in an apparent show of bipartisanship, the AP reporting, quote, "Republicans and Democrats say there is no good reason to put pot taxes back into people`s pockets. State officials are scrambling to figure out how to avoid dolling out the money." Joining me now Michael Elliot, the executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group. All right, Michael, what should you guys do with the money? MICHAEL ELLIOTT, MARIJUANA INDUSTRY GROUP: Well, first and foremost we want to make sure that the state has all the money that it needs for licensing and regulating the industry and protecting the integrity of this program. Our industry group and the industry in general endorsed the tax campaign, you know, this campaign to increase taxes on us and we helped fund the effort. I was one of the lead spokespeople in favor of it. And as we were on the campaign trail we talked about having money available for education campaigns and teen marijuana prevention, and, well, basically whatever the state wanted that they saw as a safety issue. HAYES: So, you to see it socked away so that it gets used. You don`t think they should cut a check for $7.63 to every resident of Colorado? ELLIOTT: Well, you know, our central feeling is we want to make sure that the state licensing and regulatory program has everything it needs to work. Outside of that, you know, this is probably a fight that we`re going to let the state legislature and governor`s office have. HAYES: OK, so let me ask you this, the reason that there are so many taxes, the reason there is such tax revenue is because you guys have this essentially regulated industry, very tightly regulated. If I moved to Colorado, can I just sort of plant my flag in the marijuana business tomorrow? ELLIOTT: Not directly in the industry. Now we have, there is about 500 pages of state marijuana law and regulations, a whole host of requirements on owners with background checks and financial disclosures, but a big piece is a two year residency requirement for owners. This is -- you know, the idea that this is a state program that got passed, but there are lots of opportunities for construction, accounting, security, of course attorneys, we need help with just about everything. HAYES: But my point I guess here is that you in the marijuana industry in Colorado, and you know hats off to you, it`s America and you`re making money selling a product people want, but I mean you guy are basically sitting on a license to print money. The demand is high, as we`ve noticed. And supply is essentially constrained. The 500 pages of regulation you talk about -- and I think there`s a good reason for it to be there, but that regulation you talk about means that new entrants into the market have a high barrier to get over which means the people that are there, the people you represent, they`re sitting on basically a money printing machine. ELLIOTT: Well, I`d describe it a bit differently than that, Chris, but we`ve got -- there are about 2,000 state marijuana licenses. There`s hundreds of owners in the state already. You got to realize that these regulations are very hard to comply with. We have state and local licensing. And, you know, most of the cities and counties in Colorado have actually decided to ban the businesses, but the bigger areas like Denver and the sort of front range in Colorado have embraced this. But you have got to realize, too, that these regulations cost a lot of money to comply with, you know, mandatory video surveillance -- you know, child resistant packaging, labeling, testing, just kind of getting started with that, and then taxes, it`s not just the state taxes, but we get dinged at the federal level, too, where we don`t get to take normal business tax deductions like just about every other industry you can name. HAYES: What has happened to the price there at the consumer level over the course of the trajectory of what is this now experiment that`s been running for a good chunk of time? ELLIOTT: Well, you know, beginning January 1, 2014, prices for recreational sales were pretty high up. And that`s -- you know, there weren`t many places to buy it from. There was a shortage of supply. But now it has definitely come back down. And it`s basically -- you know, the black market is trying to under cut the license businesses because they don`t have pay the taxes or do the licensing, comply with the regulations. But the price is -- well, it`s affordable here I guess. HAYES: So you feel like it is a competitive market? ELLIOTT: Well, yeah, and it`s getting more competitive as time goes on, because more licensees are opening up. There`s -- you know, there`s more product becoming available. You know, this is a balancing act because we can`t take it and sell it in Kansas City or New York City or Paris like all the beer companies can do. HAYES: Right. Michael Elliot, well thank you very much. ELLIOTT: Thank you. HAYES: All right, is New Jersey Governor and possible 2016 contender Chris Christie really a jet-setting freeloader? That`s ahead. Plus, good news of the fans of Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird, though possibly not great news for Harper Lee herself, we`ll explain, next. HAYES: It is not every octogenarian who can break the internet, but this morning 88-year-old Harper Lee`s publisher announced the upcoming release of what is basically a sequel to her masterpiece, American classic To Kill a Mockingbird. And the entire universe of online news and culture practically exploded understandably. To Kill a Mockingbird was published in 1961, one Lee the Pulitzer Prize in 1961, and she never published another novel, quite famously in fact. So, it is no small thing to hear 55 years later a new novel is forthcoming. According to a statement from her publisher, the new book Go Set a Watchman was actually written before Mockingbird and it finds Scout Finch, as an adult, returning home from New York to visit her father Atticus. According to the statement, the manuscript was believed lost and rediscovered last fall by Lee`s friend and lawyer. But, and here is where the news takes a turn towards the dark. Harper Lee is said to be nearly blind and deaf following a stroke in 2007, and many fans and followers are skeptical of her actual participation in the release of Watchman. The new book deal was negotiated by the same friend/lawyer who rediscovered the manuscript. And in fact the publisher acknowledged having had, quote, no direct contact with Harper Lee. That said, in case you`re wondering, yes, you can pre-order the new book. And, oh, it is already a bestseller. HAYES: Remember about a month ago when Chris Christie sat in the Cowboys owners box during a playoff game and engaged in the now infamous and undeniably hilarious semi-hug thing with Cowboys owner Jerry Jones? Then we found out that Jerry Jones had paid for Christie to attend the game, including a ride on Jones` private jet, which prompted a state ethics inquiry tied to the fact that Jones has a business relationship with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Well, it turns out that Chris Christie was accepting ethically questionable gifts long before that trip to Dallas. A front page story in the New York Times today, a brutal one I`d say, today detailed Christie`s fondness for accepting luxury benefits from people who have something to gain from him. And the details are pretty amazing. In 2012, Christie reportedly flew to Israel with seven family members, four staffers and two other allies on a private jet owned by billionaire casino magnet and big-time donor GOP-donor, Sheldon Addleson who at the time was trying to stop legislation in New Jersey to legalize online gambling. Christie did ultimately sign the online gambling bill, though he assured Addelson that had he vetoed it, his veto would have been overridden. After that trip to trip Israel, according to the Times, Christie, his family and staff enjoyed a lavish weekend paid for by King Abdullah of Jordan, which included parties at the king`s residents with U2 lead singer Bono. The tab for the rooms used by Christie and his group was a cool $30,000 all paid for by the king. There are a lot more examples. Christie and his family have reportedly gone on at least four international trips, including his current trip to London, partly paid for by a group called Choose N.J, which is financed by companies legally forbidden from donating directly to Christie, because, well they had business before the state. Trips where the Christie clan can stay in lavish five-star properties. And there`s my favorite example from the story, which does not quite raise the same quid pro quo questions, but is pretty telling. In the 2012 presidential campaign, Christie reportedly only make out of state campaign stops for Mitt Romney if he was flown in on a private plane even at a time when Romney`s wife Ann was flying commercial to save money. Now, in all fairness to Chris Christie, and I`m not saying this tongue-in- cheek, he is definitely not the only politician with a penchant for luxury travel on someone else`s dime. In fact, this gift economy that is described so well in this article is endemic in politics. And when we come back, we`ll take you through some of the more ugly, ugly details. HAYES: All right, joining me now to talk about the gift economy in which Chris Christie is himself embedded, is former Democratic Missouri State Senator Jeff Smith who went to prison for campaign violations during his 2004 campaign, now assistant professor at The New School; and MSNBC contributor Brian Murphy, assistant professor at Baruch College. All right, first of all, can we start on the Christie story. Where in the scale of this -- I mean, you`re a politician, you`re around state houses -- by the way, state houses, America, are a cesspool, OK. State houses are a cesspool, let`s just be clear on that -- at least the ones that I`ve covered. Where do you think this is? JEFF SMITH, THE NEW SCHOOL: I don`t think it is that bad, I mean... HAYES: $30,000... SMITH: Come on, Chris, who among us hasn`t spent $30,000 on a couple hotel rooms, Chris. But for real, I just think the timing is terrible for him. You know, he has got a couple people that he is really competing with for establishment money. One is Jeb Bush and one is Scott Walker. To push off Jeb Bush, he is trying to play I`m the everyman guy, the Jersey guy. And this really hurts that. And then when you have got him sitting in a box with Jerry Jones and Scott Walker out there with a cheese heads, you know, in the cheap seats, it`s just not a good look for him right now. HAYES: Right, yeah. It`s not a good look politically. I think the optics here. Would you think -- what do you think about the -- I mean, the most striking thing to me in the entire article was you`re flying on a guy`s private jet on a trip when he is very publicly and clearly lobbying you on a pretty important piece of legislation that is going to come before you that will absolutely 100 percent affect his bottom line and he came out on the right way it, right, contrary to the interests of the jet owner, but that just seems like manifestly corrupt. BRIAN MURPHY, BARUCH COLLEGE: I think also he would have had legislative opposition had he come out and done something different, because of the way the politics were in Jersey around this. I think the problem -- I thought the more more interesting part of that story was wondering who the sources were and wondering if it was a former member of his staff who he might have publicly trashed a year ago. Because if you`re doing that -- and this is something that I wrote about last year that a lot of us talked about last year. There are people involved in the Bridgegate scandal who the governor was delighted to slam publicly who would I think note... HAYES: Know where bodies are buried metaphorically. MURPHY: Things that happened in that office. And I`m a little -- I think again this like sort of why he didn`t he take a little bit more care of his long-term political viability if he knew that he was going to be running in this position now, why did he do this a year ago, or two years ago? HAYES: So let`s talk about the psychology of free stuff, OK. Let`s just be clear here, people like free stuff. Like, if you`re watching this right now, like come into your office tomorrow with 12 donuts and watch people descend like hyenas on a GD carcass. SMITH: It`s like your college. HAYES: Yeah, like people like free stuff. I like free stuff. I like when someone buys me dinner. Like that is just -- but like what is the psychology of like that, specifically, do you think as a former elector rep, particularly the state house where in some ways you have a lot of power, but you don`t have a lot of money relative to a lot of the people you`re interfacing with . SMITH: Yeah, I think that is exactly right. When you get elected, one thing you learn is you suddenly get a lot better looking. You get funnier. And people want to buy you stuff all of the time. So, it is a heady experience, right? But what you have to do is you have to try to separate yourself and take yourself back into a milieu that is completely separate from politics. For me, it was my parents house. Every Sunday night I would have dinner at parents` house. And they`re to two cheapest people alive, like they`re so cheap that when I was growing up and I`d be away at camp, I thought my last name was irregular because it was in the back of all my clothes. So, you need to get yourself out of that situation so you can remember how regular people live. HAYES: But I guess the question then is how corrupting is it? Just the steady stream of it -- and you covered Jersey politics, Jersey actually has pretty strong rules on this. Here in New York we have got, you know, the new assembly speaker who has got a per diem budget of $20,000 plus. Like how corrupting is it? What do we know about how corrupting it is? MURPHY: I think the problem that we have, and this is I think a problem in a lot of states -- and I`ve seen this up close in Jersey-- is that the definition that we operate under is that you`re allowed to do what is legal, and what is legal is the distinction between a bribe and a gift is almost meaningless distinction the way it`s been written into the laws today. So we have sort of creating all of these avenues for money and influence to be exercised in politics in a way that that like never shows up on a donation form, right. Like, if you`re going to cover influence in politics and you`re looking at donation forms, like you are starting in the wrong place. HAYES: So, this point about all you have to do to transform a bribe into a gift is temporally separate them. So, a bribe is I come into your office, I say Senator Smith, I really need you to deliver on this bill for me, and here is X dollars. A gift is come to my house on the beach, stay for a little bit, six months later, you know, I could really use a talk with Senator Smith about what`s going on before his committee. SMITH: So, I obviously made some mistakes in public life that didn`t have anything to do with bribery. But one of the things I speak now to state legislatures around the country, and one of the things I counsel them is something that I learned to do, which was to never have a conversation about a contribution in the same time or place that you have a conversation about public policy. So if you call and you ask for money, and then they call you back two days later, and they, hey, you know, I want to talk to you about this bill, and also I`m good to go for the $10,000. What you have to learn to do is to you say okay, I appreciate that, I`ll call you back tomorrow and we can talk. HAYES: But that is a perfect example -- and again it gets back to this Christie gift giving thing, which is that like OK, by the letter of the law I understand that, but lets understand the milieu that you`re operating in. The milieu you`re operating in is lots of people with lots of money who want stuff from you. If they don`t want it now they`re going to want it in the future, who could buy you and your family stuff that is going to incur a sense in any normal non sociopathic human being of obligation. MURPHY: And that is exactly -- I think the issue that we have to think about in designing policy and writing law around this is how do you create independence among your elected legislatures? And right now we have people who are totally -- they are dependent on the fund -- and right now they`re not even pretending in this cycle... HAYES: Someone is giving you a ride on their private plane, you are not independent. Jeff Smith. MURPHY: I need my billionaire. HAYES: And Brian Murphy, thank you both. All right, an update to the breaking news story we brought you earlier in the hour, the crash of that Metro North train into a vehicle in New York State, there are now six confirmed fatalities, according to an MTA press release. The Metro North train full of passengers collided with a car. The MTA saying it was a black Jeep Cherokee that had stopped at a narrow crossing and the gates came down on top of it. The train shoved the car about 10 train lengths northward, again according to the MTA press release. There are also at least 12 injuries from the crash in which passengers evacuated at their own accord. About 400 customers were taken to a rock climbing gym for shelter. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020301cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 13 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 3, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 3, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel GUESTS: Anthony Fauci SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7540 words HIGHLIGHT: In 2015, Republican politicians have to prove they understand measles vaccinations, because some of the most high profile among them apparently don`t. Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH. At least six deaths and multiple injuries from a crash between a commuter and an SUV in Valhalla, New York. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Chris, thanks. And thanks you for joining us at home this hour. We do have a lot coming up on the show tonight including Richard Engel joining us live on the ISIS story. We have got some unexpected and good news out of Alabama tonight, we got a lot of news, it`s a busy show, we will get to all of it. But as Chris mentioned there, we do have some legitimately breaking news tonight, some upsetting news, from the town of Valhalla New York. This is less than 30 miles north of New York City, and one of the New York City area commuter rail systems is called metro north, just after 7:00 Eastern tonight, a metro north commuter train carrying hundreds of passengers apparently struck a vehicle, an SUV that was stopped on the tracks. Transit officials at this hour, as Chris just said, say that six people have been killed in this crash, the driver of the SUV and apparently five passengers who were on board that metro north commuter train. These are some images from people on scene, from the scene of the crash. There are reports tonight of at least ten injuries. MTA`s press release that`s just come out a couple of minutes ago say there are at least 12 injuries. There is some ambiguity in terms of the number of injuries and also the nature of the injuries. According to NBC reporting, already three people have been brought to Westchester Medical Center tonight with injuries that are being described as, quote, very serious. Again, the confirmed death toll at this point is six. What we were told by MTA is that one of the six confirmed fatalities was the driver of the SUV. It was a female, and she was outside the car at the time of the crash, but also in addition to her, five customers onboard the train. Transit officials have obviously stopped service on that line between White Plains and Pleasantville. They have also closed a highway nearby. The Taconic State Parkway. Again, this is a crash between a commuter train, a very busy, very crowded commuter train heading north out of New York City and an SUV happen in the town of - near the town of Valhalla New York. Multiple injuries, as yet the total number of injuries and the nature of those injuries is unknown. But six confirmed fatalities. Joining us now from the scene is reporter Gus Rosendale from our New York Station WNBC. Gust, what can you - you tell us about the latest, and anything that`s known about why this crash may have happened. GUS ROSENDALE, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rachel, I was talking to some of the passengers just now on board. There were about 400 on that train. And their account of what happened, really very depending on where they were. I talked to one man who was in one of the last cars and he said he felt the slight bump and he didn`t realize how serious the situation was until he got out of the train. And I talked to one man who was about four cars back and he says quickly smoke started to fill the train, and that these 400 passengers were pretty much on their own, they had to as the MTA put it, self-evacuate. (INAUDIBLE). That they essentially had to smash the glass to get out to escape what was happening there. The fire, and I think you`ve been looking at some of those images, seems to have started a little after the initial crash when the train ran into that jeep Cherokee, then pushed about ten train car length back. So there was some delay before there was - flames started to consume that first car. In terms of a cars, we figured that (INAUDIBLE) from the scene, that there was arms that come down across, and were down, so whether this was a case of a car stalling and getting caught on the tracks, that all speculation at this point. The one note that is interesting here is that the woman who was said to be driving the car was apparently outside of the car when the train finally hit, so (INAUDIBLE) MADDOW: And Gus, we`re told that they, as you mentioned, that the train upon hitting that car moved it ten train cars length, which is a very long distance that would imply that this crash happens at least at some considerable speed. Do we know if there were any other people inside the SUV, other than the driver who as you say had exited the vehicle, apparently, at the time of the crash? ROSENDALE: We have not heard any reports of that. It sounds at this point like the only person involved in that - was this ... MADDOW: And in terms of the passengers and their reaction, again, it sounds like what you heard from passengers who survived this crash that they didn`t have much communication, at least some of them didn`t have much communication in terms of what to do, but they took it upon themselves to kick out emergency - kick out the emergency glass, kick out those windows in order to get themselves out? ROSENDALE: Very well put. According to one person that I talked to here, he said there was a short announcement from a conductor saying there was some sort of - some sort of issue, and then there was no follow up. There were no extended instructions on what to do. And so, again, what we`re hearing from passengers here is that it was on their own to get out of the train. And you are - absolutely, you were dealing with severe weather conditions here. They have initially - were huddled outside of it, and then - they brought to a local gym when they were trying to be reunited with their families at this point. They described (ph) it like they were on their own. They did describe it as orderly and not chaotic. Some concerns that smoke spread and when there was - when you could hear that explosion. We will hear how - become sort of a heightened situation, but it is in the high fully - train at the Grand Central, you know that it`s packed, there were quite a number of people who were standing when this happened, and it sounds like these folks conducted themselves in an orderly way during for what could have been a very, very chaotic and even worse situation as we are looking at it right now. MADDOW: Gus Rosendale, reporter with New York NBC station WNBC. Gus, thank you very much. This is very helpful for us understanding this. I appreciate it. Joining us now is one of the passengers who was on this train, Neil Rader. Mr. Rader, thank you very much for joining us. Can you tell me where you are right now and where you were when the crash happened? NEIL RADER, PASSENGER ON TRAIN: Sure, you may lose me because my battery is very low. But I was on the train in the middle of the back of the train. So, we did not feel as much of a jolt as the folks in front. We evacuated. Right now I`m actually on a bus, we were waiting in a place called the cliffs, but - in an hour and a half, now on a bus getting actually, taken to a train station to try to get back home. MADDOW: And you said you were in the middle back of the train, when it happened to you. It didn`t feel that much in terms of the collision. Were you able to tell at that point what had happened? Did you have instruction in terms of what to do and what the train had just collided with? RADER: No, there was probably that ten seconds or so that we were all kind of wondering what happened. The train basically had a small jolt. And then we were waiting and it basically stopped. There was a quick announcement, and then it sounded like they tried to make another few announcements, but nothing came out of the speakers, so probably a good I would say three or four minutes went by until a conductor came running through the train, looked like he was coming from the back up towards the front. And then probably another four or five minutes later he came back and that is when people started evacuating. MADDOW: Mr. Rader, I don`t want you to speculate on something that you don`t know about, but I will ask you in case you do know. We`re told that five people onboard the train were killed in this crash, do you have any sense from what you saw or what you experienced on the scene as to whether or not those fatalities would have been just because of the force of the collision, or was there a fire or explosion or something else immediately after the crash that might have explained that? RADER: It would be speculation, but from where we are, there was no one injured, but as we were evacuating the train and looked up north, they could see the smoke, they could see that something major had happened. So, you know, I don`t want to speculate, but I would guess it was the folks in the front car, or the front two cars, and the actual cars that we heard were on the tracks. MADDOW: Last question for you, Mr. Rader. I don`t know if you ride this particular train, the - 44 out of Ground Central frequently, but whether you have in the past or tonight, can you tell us how crowded the train was, if there were standees, if it were the pretty packed commuter train tonight? RADER: Yeah, I take this train very often - sometimes the 6:10, sometimes this one. It was pretty crowded. It normally is. Almost every seat was filled. Some three across, some two. I don`t recall that there were people standing in our car, but there may have been one or two, but it was pretty crowded. MADDOW: Neil Radar, I know this is a traumatic experience. Thanks for helping us understand what you saw and what you went through tonight. Good luck tonight. Thanks, sir. RADER: You are very welcome, thank you. MADDOW: Thank you. Neil Rader, again, one of the passengers onboard this Metro North commuter rail train tonight, which has collided with an SUV just north of New York City. You know, we got the initial news reports across the wire that there have been a car/train collision. That`s not the rariest thing in the world. You see these things frequently. There was an audible gasp throughout our news room when the word came across the wire that this car train collision had resulted in six confirmed fatalities so far and multiple serious injuries on top of that. Again, we don`t have a firm number on injuries, we were told 12 injuries by the MTA. NBC reporting early tonight indicated that some of those injured were considered to have very serious injuries. We`re obviously hoping and praying that the death toll does not rise tonight, but again, the basics of this accident, as we`re told, about 30 miles north of New York City, around 7 p.m. tonight, a crowded commuter train, an SUV on the tracks. We don`t know why. The arms were down indicating that there should not be somebody crossing the tracks. The female driver of that SUV was apparently outside of the vehicle when the train collided with her vehicle. She, we`re told was killed as were five people onboard that train. Patients - excuse me, people self-evacuated. Some patients were taken to a nearby medical center. Again, we`re told with serious injuries, but as the passenger who just - we just spoke with told us, they were evacuated to a local rock climbing gym called "The Cliffs" and now some of the people who survived that train tonight, hundreds of people are now trying to make their way home. We`ll keep you posted on this as we learn more, and keep an eye on those casualty totals tonight, praying they don`t go up. Stay with us. MADDOW: As promised, we`ve got lots to come on tonight`s show including the nation`s top expert on infectious diseases, who`s going to be here as the interview tonight. Plus, Richard Engel is going to be joining us live on the situation today with ISIS, this terrible situation and ISIS and potential retaliation tonight against ISIS by the nation of Jordan, that developing story is next, please stay with us. MADDOW: People who carry out suicide bombings don`t end up in prison. Right? By definition. Say what you will about being a suicide bomber, as your personal life choice. Suicide bombers don`t have to worry about getting arrested, or going to prison, or anything else that might happen next here on earth. When you do get a suicide bomber put on trial and put in prison, what that means is they did it wrong? As to the suicide part of the suicide bomber job description. They failed. And that is the case for this failure. Her name is Sajida al-Rishawi. She is an Iraqi woman, she was married, she and her husband had close ties to al Qaeda in Iraq. Her brother was one of the top confidents of the founder of al Qaeda in Iraq. The guy - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. military airstrike in Iraq in 2006, but before he died in late 2005, November 2005, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi orchestrated an al Qaeda in Iraq bombing that had international shockwaves. Al-Zarqawi lead this group in Iraq, but he was Jordanian by birth. And in that November, 2005 bombing, he decided to extend the reach of his branch of al Qaeda beyond Iraq to instead attack his native country. Al Qaeda in Iraq under Abu Musab al- Zarqawi sent Iraqi suicide bombers into the cosmopolitan large, basically safe capital city of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. And those suicide bombers set off three nearly simultaneous bombs. When NBC News broke into its regular coverage that day, with that special report of these shocking bombings in the capital city of Jordan, part of what was so shocking about it for an American audience particularly was the familiarity of the names of the places that those suicide bombers blew up that day in Jordan. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is an NBC News special report. Here is Brian Williams. BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Good day from New York. We`re coming on the air to report apparently a violent series of bombings in Amman, Jordan within about the past hour. Three different hotels, home to usually a lot of tourists, a lot of westerners, military contractors, what have you, the Hyatt Regency, the Radisson and the Days In, and we believe, perhaps, in that order. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The Hyatt Regency, the Radisson and the Days In in Amman, Jordan. That was November 9th, 2005. Now, in terms of who was responsible for that attack, two days after the bombing on November 11TH, Jordanian authorities announced they had identified the bodies of three suicide attackers. One suicide bomber from each of the three hotels that was bombed. Weirdly, though, at the same time, al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for those bombings, but they put out a list of four suicide bombers who they said had been sent to attack those hotels. They put out a list of four names, not three. Three other suicide bombers did succeed in their mission. They were dead. They each detonated one bomb at each of three hotels in Amman, in total those three bombers killed 57 people. They were all Iraqi men, all sent by al Qaeda in Iraq. But the fourth name on that list that al Qaeda and Iraq put out when they claimed responsibility, the fourth name - what they called the fourth bomber, that was a woman. She had apparently planned to take part with her husband, specifically in the bombing of the Radisson hotel in Amman. That was a bombing that killed dozens of people including 27 members of one wedding party. But once they were inside that hotel, she either apparently lost her nerve, or her bomb vest didn`t explode. After Jordanian police arrested her, they then broadcast this spooky tape of her wearing some version of some explosive vest showing how she had hidden it under her clothes and demonstrating she said confessing how she planned to set it off. So, she is a failure as a suicide bomber. She a wannabe failed suicide bomber. After this televised confession, she was convicted in Jordan, she is now the only woman on death row in that country. Now she is not somebody who has become a widespread cause celeb in the terrorist world. I mean some al Qaeda prisoners honestly are, the blind sheikh, for example, or the MIT trained scientist who`s now at super max jail in Texas. Some of them are celebrity prisoners. This woman, this Iraqi woman in Jordan who failed that her part in otherwise successful terrorist bombing campaign, she has not been a very high profile figure in the terrorist world. But that bombing of those hotels in Jordan was probably the most murderous international terrorist attack that al Qaeda in Iraq ever carried out. Her brother, as I mentioned, was a top leader in al-Qaeda in Iraq, and al Qaeda in Iraq has since morphed into this group, ISIS. ISIS, which operates both in Iraq and in Syria. So, because of that background, it was a surprise but not inexplicable when ISIS decided that they were going to elevate this woman in this Jordanian prison. They were going to elevate her from obscurity just within the last couple of weeks, when they demanded her freedom in Jordan in exchange for the life of two Japanese hostages held by ISIS, and possibly, a 26-year-old Jordanian air force pilot who had been shot down over Syria, and his F-16 on Christmas eve, December 2004-2014 and was held by ISIS ever since. There had been reports that Jordan was willing to trade her, they are willing to trade that failed suicide bomber, that Iraqi woman in order to get their own pilot back out of ISIS custody. NBC News reports tonight that Jordan not only would have been willing to trade her, then also have been willing to trade two other al Qaeda prisoners that they had on death row in addition to her. So, three al Qaeda prisoners, all convicted terrorists, all on death row in Jordan, Jordan reportedly was ready to trade all three of them to ISIS in exchange for ISIS returning that air force pilot. But then after last week, ISIS uploaded a video apparently showing the death of the first Japanese hostage, and then this weekend ISIS uploaded another video apparently showing the death of the second Japanese hostage, today ISSI uploaded another video that purports to show the death of that Jordanian pilot. And what the video again purportedly show is that they killed him not by beheading or by gunfire, the way they have killed other hostages in previous videos, what the video today appears to show is that they killed this young pilot by burning him alive while he was trapped in a cage. Whether or not the government of Jordan had actually expected to be able to trade that Iraqi woman, trade Sajida al-Rishawi, and those two other al Qaeda prisoners to ISIS in exchange for that pilot, whether or not that was a real plan, and they really thought they were going to be able to do it, no such exchange was ever made. And now, this is the story tonight: Now Jordanian intelligence sources tell NBC News that Jordanian authorities have made a request to the King of Jordan that Jordan be allowed to retaliate against ISIS tonight for the death of their pilot by executing those three al Qaeda prisoners in Jordan, the ones they had offered to swap for him. If there`s now swap and they`ve killed him, can Jordan kill those three al Qaeda prisoners? Again, NBC News reporting tonight, according to intelligence sources in Jordan that that request has been made to the king. King Abdullah of Jordan is a very close ally of the United States. Not just in the sense of his country, Jordan being a close ally of the United States, but him personally. The king of Jordan went to high school in Massachusetts. He was captain of the wrestling team at Deerfield Academy. He formed King`s Academy in Jordan, modeled on a New England prep school and his experience at Deerfield Academy. Before the ISIS video was posted today, he was already in the United States, as he frequently is, taking high level meetings with multiple different leaders in the United States government. But after the purported execution video was uploaded showing this Jordanian pilot, Jordan announced today that the king would be cutting short his visit, he would be heading home to manage the situation, but not before taking one last individual meeting, an individual meeting, one on one in the Oval Office tonight, him and President Obama. After this meeting tonight in the Oval Office the king will reportedly be heading straight back to Jordan, which by all accounts is in absolute uproar over this murder. The propaganda video that ISIS put out today apparently showing this murder, it was really long. It was more than 20 minutes long. And the murder itself was embedded in this larger argument that the propaganda video made, that Jordan is wrong to be participating in the coalition of countries that are bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. So ISIS is trying to use this shock, torturous murder of this pilot as propaganda, specifically as a way of turning the Jordanian people against their government`s decision to participate in this military fight against ISIS. Now, the Jordanian government tonight is banking that this murder of this pilot will actually have the exact opposite effect on Jordanian public opinion. Look at this statement today, this is remarkable statement. Look at this, it`s from the official government spokesman in Jordan. "For any Jordanians who doubted the savagery of Islamic states, this is the proof. He who thought they represent the true Islam, this is the proof. Those who doubted the unity of the Jordanians in the face of this evil, we will show them the proof. He who doubted that Jordan`s response will be decisive, and shaking, and strong, the proof will come to them. That statement, again, today from the official spokesman for the Jordanian government. "Jordanian king is on his way home. Meanwhile that international military campaign against ISIS continues including with more Jordanian pilots. The Jordanian air force is participating in bombing ISIS targets in Syria, not in Iraq. That has been the decision of most of the Arab countries involved in this coalition. Today that Pentagon announced nine new airstrikes in Iraq, five new airstrikes in Syria, all against ISIS targets. The United States was first in in this air campaign starting in August under President Obama`s orders. Incredibly -- I find this I incredible, I know that I`m alone ... (L) MADDOW: It`s quite incredibly, the U.S. government still has not formally weighed in on this military action that we started in August. The U.S. government still has not formally weighed in on this, let alone debated what we are doing against ISIS in Iraq or Syria. There still has been no move in the U.S. Congress to authorize that campaign of airstrikes or debate it beyond the committee level. Tomorrow President Obama`s nominee to be the new Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, he will have the first round of his confirmation hearings to be the new head of Pentagon, and may be that might conceivably be a venue to discuss our nation`s military strategy against ISIS. This ongoing war that we are waging even though we never declared it and never debated it and never voted on it. Maybe the Ash Carter confirmation hearing wills be a chance to consider our military strategy against ISIS, our relationship with our allies in fighting ISIS. The risk to American pilots and personnel, in carrying out these airstrikes and supporting that mission, and whether it is worth it, because that mission is working. Or is that mission working? Maybe the Ash Carter hearings will be an occasion to discuss that. But, you know, it might not come up, we have not really focused on it as a country. Meanwhile we know that ISIS continues to hold at least one American hostage, a young woman she is 26 years old. We know that ISIS also claims to be holding multiple other foreign national civilians, and we have now seen just in the past few weeks, that they have decided that beheading is not shocking enough, it`s not provoking enough, right? It does not upset people enough anymore. Just in the past few weeks, we`ve seen them move from beheading prisoners to this video, you`ll remember? Where they had a child, a boy who appears to be about nine or ten years old, himself, carry out the execution of adult prisoners? And now they`re trying to up the terror level even further with this new video that purports to show this young pilot being set on fire while he was still alive, and while he was in a cage, unable to get away from the flames. And we`re absorbing this as news as it is happening, right, in this country, but we`re having no political debate about this in this country. And so, our decision making capacity as a country around how to respond to something like this is thereby stunted. If you`re having a real binding debate, that makes you come up with good arguments for what you`re doing. And the need for good arguments is how you get to good decisions. In the absence of that formal political debate in this country, which unbelievably we`re still not having, we`re sort of left just as civilians, as regular citizens, as observers to try to figure out what makes sense to do here, right? What is ISIS`s strategy here? What are they trying to do? What our best hopes for preventing them from achieving their goals, and is what we`re doing already making any sense? Tonight we await news from Jordan to find out what that country`s response to be. What that country`s king`s response will be to this latest provocation, the killing of one of their soldiers? That includes, tonight, waiting for news from a Jordanian prison tonight about whether that country has decided to execute three al Qaeda prisoners tonight including the only woman that country has on death row. In retaliation for ISIS`s murderous boast today that they have killed this Jordanian pilot in the most horrific way possible. We await that news right now. Joining us now from Istanbul is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, thank you so much for being here. RICHARD ENGEL, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It`s a pleasure. MADDOW: So, Richard, one of the unknowns here is the timing of the death of this young pilot. It was interesting to see your report tonight on nightly news that Jordan believes that this - the apparent killing in this video might not have been right now, might not have been recent. Do we know any more about that? ENGEL: There were reports initially, so you had it exactly right. He was taken captive by ISIS on December 24. There were initial reports on the third and the sixth and also the eighth of January all coming from Jordanian media, all siting Jordanian intelligence sources, saying that he had already been killed. There were reports on Twitter in early January, that first week in January, that activists from ISIS were tweeting that the pilot had been killed and that he had been killed by burning. And I think most - well, Jordanian officials now believe that he was, in fact, killed in early January. And if you remember, one of the key things that Jordan was insisting upon, in order to make this prisoner swap for that woman, the failed suicide bomber, Sajida al-Rishawi, is that Jordan was insisting on proof of life, and they said we`ll hand over this woman and we`ll hand over two other al Qaeda militants on death row as well in Jordan, but we want the proof of life and that proof of life was never forthcoming. And I think now after the video is taken - been broadcast, Jordanian officials are even more convinced that it was filmed shortly after he was - shortly after he was captured. Also, I have seen the video, I wouldn`t recommend anyone watching it, and the Internet has been pretty scrubbed of the video. It is quite hard to find now, which is a good thing. When he was initially captured, he was being dragged out of a body of water by several ISIS militants. He was half naked, and he had a bruise under one of his eyes, and black eyes do last a long time. But in this execution video, he had the same bruise under the same eye. So, that would suggest that the video was taken not very much longer after he was captured. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Some of those timing issues, and this question about whether or not Jordan was essentially trying to negotiate a prisoner swap, knowing that he potentially had already been killed, having gone through all of this with this back and forth with ISIS, floating that they`d be willing to trade these prisoners, do you have any news or any insight into this decision about whether or not they`re going to kill those three al Qaeda prisoners basically as retaliation? ENGEL: Yes. Actually, I have been told it is not three, it is six. MADDOW: Wow. ENGEL: It is Sajida Rishawi, plus five others. And that it could take place in a few hours, that it could take place after the Fajr prayers, which are the early morning prayers across Jordan and across the Islamic world. So, that would be -- well, just around sun up which in this part of the world comes in about three hours from now. Whether they actually go through with them, we will see, but Jordan seems quite intent to do it, carry out the executions of Rishawi and five others. MADDOW: Richard, from what you understand about ISIS and how they tick, where they came from, what they`re goals are, what do you think the impact would be if Jordan goes ahead with that decision? Obviously, it would be a dramatic decision. It would be an understandable. But how do you think it would resonate? ENGEL: I think in Jordan, it will resonate well. I think there are a lot of people tonight demanding action and justice. You mentioned earlier imagine if this was an American pilot, what the visceral reaction would be in the United States. So, I think the king is playing to his tribal audience. He`s playing to the population, in the town where this young pilot, his hometown called Karak (ph). There was some attacks after the video emerged on government buildings. Some people went out and tried to set some government buildings on fire. So, there was an angry reaction among the pilot`s relatives and extended family. That didn`t spread nationwide and it was contained, but that is something that the Jordanian king is very concerned about. He doesn`t want to seem weak. He doesn`t want to look like he was off on a world visit to Washington while one of his pilots was facing the worst death imaginable. MADDOW: NBC News chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, Richard, super valuable reporting tonight -- thanks. Thanks very much. It`s good to have you here, thank you. Sobering stuff, obviously, incredibly sobering and terrible story, but I think it`s important new development that Richard just reported here, which is that, again, according to his sources, he is hearing that it is not necessarily that Jordan is considering executing the one al Qaeda prisoner that we had been told. They were thinking about swapping for their pilot who ISIS now says they have killed. We heard later that it might be that they were thinking about executing her and two other al Qaeda prisoners who are on death row in Jordan. What Richard has just reported tonight is that the plan in Jordan may be that it is six prisoners, the female suicide bomber from the Jordanian suicide bombings in November 2005, who they had publicly said they were willing to swap for that pilot, plus five other al Qaeda militants in Jordanian custody, whom may be killed within a matter of hours in retaliation for that pilot`s death tonight. We`ll know more as the night progresses. Stay with us. MADDOW: OK, check this out. That very recognizable black door right there with the 11 on it, that`s 11 Downing Street in London. The British prime minister lives next door at 10 Downing, but this is next door where the Chancellor of the Exchequer lives. The job is roughly equivalent to our treasury secretary. Earlier this morning, the press gathered at 11 Downing Street, because inside, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was meeting with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. According to the schedule announced ahead of time, Governor Christie was supposed to walk out that door with the 11 on it and then deliver brief remarks to the press. That`s why there was a bank of microphones set up there in the foreground. That is what was supposed to happen. This is what happened instead. Governor Christie, his wife, the Chancellor of the Exchequer all come out of 11 Downing Streets, they shake hands for the cameras, hello, thank you very much, they exchange a few pleasantries. And then Chris Christie, watch what he does. OK, I really enjoyed speaking with you, hmm, yes, all right. And now the microphones -- wait, hold -- wait -- but! Governor Christie makes a B-line in the other direction, away from the cameras and the reporters as they shouted questions toward him and he walked away pretending he couldn`t hear. Governor Christie was supposed to make brief remarks to the media after that visit that was on his schedule in black and white, but he apparently decided to bag it and go for a walk. Then, this was the scene a few hours later when Governor Christie took a tour of Shakespeare`s Globe Theater. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: No questions today. REPORTER: In your meetings, did you discuss the Islamic State at all? CHRISTIE: Is there stuff that you didn`t understand about new questions? REPORTER: Governor, would you put troops on the ground to fight ISIS? REPORTER: Is there a reason you won`t take questions today? (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Is there a reason you won`t take questions today? We`re only here because you said you`d take questions. Chris Christie dodged the press on three separate occasions today. There were three press avails listed on his London schedule, he bailed on all of them. Governor`s office explained they changed their mind. But this is Governor Christie who loves talking to the press more than he loves life. I mean, the whole point of this junket to Britain is to get it covered by the press. The problem, of course, is that yesterday on this junket, the governor became the biggest story in American politics in a bad when he suggested to reporter that it was a parent`s choice whether or not they should vaccinate their kids against diseases like the measles. He insisted that it should be a parent`s individual choice. Cue, giant 19th century American measles outbreak that breaks out at Disneyland. Governor Christie`s office walked back his vaccine choice comments after he made them yesterday. He then completely avoided making any further comments on the subject today. Actually, he avoided making any comment about anything today. But the conversation that Chris Christie inadvertently started and apparently now regrets starting has gone off in a sort of hard to believe direction starting with this from his fellow 2016 presidential hopeful, Senator Rand Paul. He`s a doctor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That was yesterday on CNBC. Today, Rand Paul tried to take that back by in his own inimitable way by saying he never said that thing he said. The senator`s statement today, quote, "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related. I did not allege causation. I support vaccines," he said. "I received them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated." He then posted pictures of himself getting a vaccine today. Pay attention to what I said yesterday, when I said kids, quote, "wind up with profound mental disorders after vaccine", I wasn`t actually saying anything at all about vaccines you crazy liberal media. But the Rand Paul and Chris Christie vaccine denialism stuff that happened yesterday has now caused, today, what apparently is going to be the first litmus test moment of 2016 presidential campaign, at least on the Republican side. Watch this. This was the scene earlier today when Republican senator and potential presidential hopeful Marco Rubio emerged from a Senate hearing on Cuba, not on vaccines. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Senator, should children be vaccinated for measles, and do you think -- SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Yes, absolutely. REPORTER: Should it be mandatory for children to be vaccinated? REPORTER: Absolutely. Unless they`re immune suppressed, obviously, for medical exceptions. But I believe that all children, as is the law in most states in this country, before they can even attend school, have to be vaccinated for a certain panel. There is absolutely no medical science or data whatsoever that links to those vaccinations to an onset of autism or anything of nature. So, absolutely. All children in American should be vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Notice how he is looking right at the camera while he is saying that? Use this in an ad, use this in an ad, use this in an ad. Should kids get their vaccinations is now a legitimate and interesting question to ask Republican politicians. Legitimate and interesting because we don`t really know what they`ll say. I mean, before Chris Christie and Rand Paul jumped into the deep end yesterday, I`m not sure we knew this would be a hard question. But now, in 2015, Republican politicians have to prove they understand that stuff, because some of the most high profile among them apparently don`t. And so, today, in Republican-ville, it went like this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Mr. Speaker, do you believe that parents should be required to vaccinate their children under law? And is this something that Congress should step in on? Or do you think this is an open question -- REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I don`t know that we need another law, but I do believe that all children ought to be vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The top Republican in Congress, House Speaker John Boehner, holding his weekly press conference today. That was the first question he got from reporters in his weekly presser. It was also then the second question. Louisiana Republican Governor Bobby Jindal today, he proactively without being asked, put out his own statement on the subject today, saying he supports kids getting their vaccinations. It is sort of astonishing this is a question in mainstream politics for supposedly mainstream politicians. But this is now a question in mainstream politics. John Boehner, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, planting a flag on the yes, get your shots side today. Ted Cruz, I kid you not, today when he was asked about it, said it`s a state`s rights issue. Carly Fiorina, who wants to run for president as well apparently her comments on the subject today included the assertion that, hey, measles just isn`t that bad a big thing. I can`t believe this is a topic of discussion and disagreement right now among mainstream politicians, but apparently this is. Hold that though. MADDOW: So, our guest for "The Interview" tonight is the nation`s top authority on infectious diseases, somebody please call Senator Rand Paul and ask him to watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TIM MURPHY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Should parents have their children vaccinated, Schuchat? DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT: Vaccines save lives and the best way to prepare is to protect their children from vaccine preventable diseases? MURPHY: Dr. Midthun, yes, or no? Yes? DR. KAREN MIDTHUN: Yes, I have three children they were all vaccinated on time with all of the recommended vaccines? MURPHY: Dr. Robinson? DR. ROBINSON: Absolutely? MURPHY: Dr. Fauci? DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NIH: Definitely. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Dr. Fauci is Dr. Anthony Fauci. He`s the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH. That was him testifying today in the House, with other leading medical experts about this newly controversial issue of vaccines that should never be controversial at all. Dr. Fauci is our nation`s top expert on infectious diseases and he joins us tonight for "The Interview". Dr. Fauci, thank you so much for taking time to be with us tonight. FAUCI: Good to be with you. MADDOW: So, you obviously come at this not from a political perspective but from a scientific perspective. I have to ask if you are worried about the scientific and public health consequences of this becoming a politically controversial issue. FAUCI: Well, I certainly hope that it doesn`t, Rachel, because -- I mean, this is something that is a scientific public health issue. We have this outbreak currently. This is not something that we should take lightly. Measles can be a serious disease, and it`s really unfortunate when you have a highly contagious, infectious disease, a highly effective vaccine, with really a very safe vaccine, and yet children are not being vaccinated. You know, it just does not make any sense. It`s not a trivial disease. I`ve heard people say, well, measles is a relatively mild disease. You can have serious complications, middle ear infections, pneumonia, encephalitis and even death. So, we can completely suppress it, the way we did in this country. By 2000, there were essentially no measles cases in the country. And with then with children not getting vaccinated, we`re seeing the outbreak that we`re going through right now. MADDOW: I think, because of ideological leanings and political constraints that derive therein, the argument that we are hearing now from some national leaders, or at least want-to-be national leaders, is that vaccines are a good thing but they ought to be voluntary, they`re not for everybody, that each individual parent ought to make their own case and the government shouldn`t prescribe this. From a public health perspective, why is it important that these things shouldn`t be just an individual family`s individual decision? FAUCI: Well, for two very important reasons. First of all, it`s for the protection of the child, the individual child. But also, we have a communal and societal responsibility to protect society. And when you do vaccines in which certain members of society, such as babies who are less than 12 months old, children who have underlying conditions like leukemia, people on chemo therapy was suppressed, they can`t get vaccinated. So, in our mind as a public health official and an infectious disease physician, I believe we have a responsibility to society to protect those children by making sure we don`t have outbreaks. And you make sure by essentially vaccinating every child that can be vaccinated. That`s pure simple public health principles. MADDOW: Dr. Fauci, there`s obviously a segment of the population that thinks that they shouldn`t get these vaccinations for their kids. I don`t believe those folks are bad people, by and large. But their theories about vaccines are, as you say, turning out to be a really bad problem for public health in our country. What do you say to those folks? How do you explain it to people who are driven by fear about these things, even though those fears aren`t scientifically grounded? FAUCI: Well, what we try as best as we can is to get them the scientific and evidence-based information as to why the reason that they may have a problem with vaccine is not a valid reason. And, you know, one of the most glaring examples of that, Rachel, was that years ago, a claim that has been completely discredited that measles vaccine is associated with autism. And a lot of mothers understandably and fathers were frightened by that. Since then, it`s been clear that that was fraudulent data that was completely discredited. Yet, there`s still that lingering feeling, unrealistically and not based on scientific data. So, what we try to do is to try to make sure people, when they do make their individual decisions, they make it on a real solid, scientific data. And, hopefully, when people do that, it will be patently obvious that they really should vaccinate their children. MADDOW: Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, our nation`s leading expert on infectious diseases, Dr. Fauci, I know your time is valuable. Thank you for being so clear and for being here tonight. FAUCI: Good to be with you, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us. MADDOW: We`ve been following this breaking news story tonight about a fatal train crash north of New York City. Total number of fatalities at this point is six. We`ve got the latest, including some new video from the scene, right after this. Stay with us. MADDOW: I want to update you on this breaking news we`ve been following tonight about a fatal train crash in New York state. We`ve just gotten this video, apparently from a passenger onboard that packed commuter train when it crashed into an SUV near the town of Valhalla, New York, about 30 miles north of New York City. James Barnett posted this video showing the immediate aftermath of the crash that killed the driver of the SUV that the train hit, as well as five passengers on the train. There are also reports of at least 12 injuries, including apparently some that we`re told are serious. We`re told tonight that about 400 passengers self evacuated from the train cars after this devastating crash. Officials have stopped service along portions of that train line and they`ve also closed a nearby highway, the Taconic State Parkway. But, again, this tragic story out of Valhalla, New York, tonight, at least six deaths and multiple injuries from this crash between a commuter and an SUV that for some reason was on the tracks. Stay with MSNBC tonight for the latest. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020301cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 14 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 3, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 3, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Howard Dean, Ayman Mohyeldin, Chris Jansing, Andrea Mitchell GUESTS: Carl Krawitt, Gus Rosendale, Kate Zernike, Cecilia Peck, Steve Clemons, Laith Alkhouri, Shane Harris, Gus Rosendale SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 13936 words HIGHLIGHT: Republican presidential hopefuls struggle with the issue of measles vaccinations. At least six deaths and multiple injuries from a crash between a commuter and an SUV in Valhalla, New York. Today`s front page of "The New York Times" chronicles Chris Christie`s fondness for luxury benefits. Jordan executes two terrorists in response to ISIS killing of Jordanian fighter pilot. Press conference in New York in response to Metro North train crash. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Rachel, we`re going to be covering more about that crash, including an eyewitness who actually saw the whole thing happen. RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: Good. O`DONNELL: That`s coming up in our program. Thank you very much, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Well, in Amazon`s brilliant comedy series about politicians, "Alpha House", Penn Jillette was cast as a libertarian candidate for Senate. Now, we`ve got to figure out how to get him cast as a real libertarian candidate for president who is not afraid to tell the truth about vaccinations. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PENN JILLETTE, COMEDIAN: Hi, I`m Penn, this is my partner Teller. You may have heard autism causes autism in one out of 110 children. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that. Total (EXPLETIVE DELETED). It doesn`t. But let`s imagine it does. We`ll compare two groups of children. Teller`s group gets no vaccination. My group does. I use this flexi-glass to represent the vaccination. That`s my bad. My vaccination wall knocked one of the children out of line. That`s our own one in 110 with autism. In the 1920s, before the theory vaccinations was common, there were 13,000 to 15,000 deaths a year from that disease. If you got it, your chances of dying were about 40 percent. In 1952, just before the vaccine became common, there were 58,000 cases of polio. If you get unlucky, you might end up perfectly disabled or dead. Meningitis, hepatitis A and B, flu, mumps, whooping cough, pneumonia, rotavirus, rubella, small pox, tetanus, chickenpox, chickenpox. We have vaccinations against all of them. Which side do you want your child to stand on? So, even if vaccination did cause autism, which (EXPLETIVE DELETED) doesn`t. Anti-vaccination would still be (EXPLETIVE DELETED). (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: The Republican chairman of the subcommittee in the House of Representatives today asked four of the nation`s top public health officials if parents should vaccinate their children. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TIM MURPHY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Should parents have their children vaccinated, Dr. Schuchat? DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT: Vaccines save lives and the best way to prepare is to protect their children from vaccine preventable diseases? MURPHY: Dr. Midthun, yes, or no? Yes? DR. KAREN MIDTHUN: Yes, I have three children they were all vaccinated on time with all of the recommended vaccines? MURPHY: Dr. Robinson? DR. ROBINSON: Absolutely. MURPHY: Dr. Fauci? DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NIH: Definitely. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: The Centers for Disease Control say there were 644 cases of measles in the United States in 2014, compared to less than 100 in the year 2000, when the disease was declared eliminated in the United States. That`s a 600 percent increase. The measles outbreak that began in December at Disneyland has infected 102 people, 59 are in California, which, like many states, legally allows parents to refuse to vaccinate their children for religious or personal beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are. Dr. James Cherry, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at and told "The New York Times" the outbreak was 100 percent connected to the anti- immunization campaign. It wouldn`t have happened otherwise. It wouldn`t have gone anywhere, he said. There are some pretty dumb people out there. Orange County, California, has now barred unvaccinated students from going to school and a father of a 6-year-old boy with leukemia in Northern California has asked the superintendent of Marin County Schools to do the same thing. Carl Krawitt`s 6-year-old son Rhett is in remission but has a compromised immune system because of the cancer treatment and can`t get the vaccine, which puts him at risk of being infected. Joining me now is Carl. Carl, tell me what you think your legal options are here. Does the school system have the authority to ban unvaccinated children? CARL KRAWITT, WANTS UNVACCINATED KIDS OUT OF SCHOOL: The school system has the authority to ban any unvaccinated child in the event of a measles outbreak. But our request is to be proactive and not let that happen. And ban those children that are unvaccinated because of a personal belief exemption. Not children like my son who can`t be vaccinated for medical reasons. O`DONNELL: Now, there are some children like your son who have had cancer treatments who cannot be vaccinated, they`re too vulnerable to accept these vaccinations. Are you saying that they should be allowed to go to school, even though they are unvaccinated, with full legitimate reason to be unvaccinated? KRAWITT: Yes, as long as there`s not an outbreak in the school. Meaning, the regular day-to-day life that we all knew for many, many years, when this disease was eradicated, which is because of herd immunity, there was no measles. And therefore, those children are protected by the herd immunity of the community. So, I would never expect a child to be kept home from school. Our son was kept home from school because his immune system was so low that any illness could have an affect on his health. But at that time when his immune system is high enough, of course, we want him to go to school and we want to be around other children and socialize like a regular kid. O`DONNELL: What do you say to those parents who say I don`t want to take the chance of vaccinating my child? KRAWITT: I say read the science books, that the risk is very low. We all know that. And I also say, don`t go to public school then. You know, they -- I often ask the questions, who responsibility is it to isolate their children for fear of an illness? Is it mine because my child can`t be immunized for medical reasons? Or is it the person who is defying science and has this fear that something bad is going to happen if they immunize their child? And my opinion is, it`s that person that can keep their child home. O`DONNELL: What kind of reaction are you getting to this proposal in Marin County? KRAWITT: We are getting overwhelming support. But not just overwhelming support, our news story has actually made people vaccinate their children. I mean, the superintendent of schools today called me and he said, Carl, I`ve got to tell you something, our numbers are down almost 50, 60, 70 percent. Of all the people we had on record that were not immunized for reasons of bad records, or they didn`t have their second or third shot, even some of the personal belief exemptions, a lot of them have gone out and immunized. O`DONNELL: Carl Krawitt, thank you very much for joining us tonight. And good luck with your son. Joining me now is former Vermont governor, Dr. Howard Dean. Dr. Dean, it has been fascinating to watch the way this conversation has gone politically over the last couple of days. We -- let`s listen to what Rand Paul started saying about this the other day. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I`m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea, I think they`re a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn`t own the children, parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Now, Dr. Dean, you were very critical of that yesterday, and he seems to be moderating some of his comments now. DR. HOWARD DEAN (D), FORMER VERMONT GOVERNOR: Well, the thing that`s so disturbing about it, this is a guy with a medical education. If you have a medical education, the science is really clear about this. The discussion about autism or, quote-unquote, "mental conditions" that he -- it was the phrase he used -- related to vaccines has been completely discredited. That was a scientific paper that was published in and retracted and debunked and the scientist is not -- is not been respected ever since. It was a fraud. And so, for a doctor, I think it was a higher bar for Rand Paul than there is for Chris Christie. Chris Christie made a bunch of, you know, pandering statements to the public because he thought he was going to run into trouble with conservatives in Iowa. He`s not expected to know much about medicine, why should he? He`s not a physician. Rand Paul is a physician. He should know better. And he -- I just was -- my confidence in him, not that I had a lot any way, was absolutely shaken by what he said. It`s just -- it`s flatly untrue. O`DONNELL: Well, I get the feeling he definitely heard your criticism of his comments yesterday on this network, because he issued a written statement today -- his staff issued a statement saying, "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related. I did not allege causation." And, Dr. Dean, he may not have specifically, in the language of the sentence`s alleged causation yesterday, but he certainly implied it. He said he knew people after their kids had vaccinations. DEAN: In some ways, the denial is more damaging than the actual statement, because everybody knows what he said. They saw him on television. For him to try to pretend he didn`t say what everybody saw him say is a big political mistake. O`DONNELL: And, you know, the hearing today, the subcommittee hearing in the House, I have to say in general, reason prevailed, even among most Republicans, including some tea party types who you might expect to echo Tea Party or libertarian feelings. Not so much today in that hearing. But these presidential candidates struggle -- are struggling with this, and we`ve seen Chris Christie struggle with it. Do you think they`re going to find their way in the next few days to solid ground here? DEAN: Well, I don`t think this is going to be a major issue. Here`s the problem with this stuff, or these guys. You know, this is not a major political issue. Who would have thought we would be talking about measles vaccines? The big problem for them is their own personal credibility. If they flip-flop around on stuff like this, what will they do in the White House? That`s a problem they`re all going to have. So, I think the issue will go away, but the character issue will not. O`DONNELL: And Hillary Clinton took advantage of it politically when she said, the science is clear, the earth is round, the sky is blue, vaccines work. She`s trying to suggest that the position you`re hearing from Chris Christie, from Rand Paul, is so absurd, it`s like saying the earth isn`t round. DEAN: Well, it`s equivocating on an issue that`s been settled and it`s also taking advantage of parents who are genuinely scared. There are parents who still believe this, and you`ve got to work with them to convince them this isn`t so. You can`t just tell them, no, no, no, it`s not so. But people need to be reassured. O`DONNELL: Dr. Howard Dean, thank you very much for joining me tonight. Coming up, we have breaking news in the New York area where a train has collided with an SUV. At least six people are dead. We will have a live report. And tonight, an update on the story we first told you about this summer. You will find out what has happened to the officer who did this to a subdued suspect. And Republican presidential candidates are now lining up to confess about their personal illegal use of drugs. Tweet me your guesses about who is now confessing to using pot back when they were young and foolish. And 50 years later, a full 50 years later, we will finally have a second novel from the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird." O`DONNELL: We have breaking news in Valhalla, New York, tonight. About an hour north of New York City, six people are confirmed dead and at least 12 people injured after a train collided with a Jeep Cherokee. According to reports, the gates came down on top of the vehicle, which was stopped on the tracks. The driver got out to look at the rear of the car. Got back in, and drove forward, then was struck by the train. Six people are confirmed dead. The female driver of the Jeep Cherokee and five passengers on the train. About 400 passengers were rerouted by bus. Joining me now by phone, from the crash site is WNBC reporter Gus Rosendale. Gus, what`s the latest there? GUS ROSENDALE, WNBC REPORTER (via telephone): Well, Lawrence, the MTA, which controls that railroad, said the female driver of the Jeep was outside of her car when she was hit and killed instantly. What we`re hearing from passengers onboard the train, their accounts depending very much on where they were seated. If they were in one in the rear cars, they feel just a slight jolt and wasn`t fully aware of what`s going on. Then, I talked to one man who was in the fourth car. He says he felt an enormous crash, and that very soon after that collision, the train care started to fill with smoke. There was a brief announcement, he said from the conductor, and then essentially radio silence. So, you have this commuter trained, at the height of the rush hour, a lot of people were standing on board this train, and then hundreds of people were forced to smash through emergency windows, forcing doors open, and then trying to jump down to the ground outside. And as they got out of the train, they saw and I think you`re seeing some of the chopper video as well, that that vehicle had been hit by the train and pushed back essentially 10 car lengths. And as that happened, it burst into flames and it was creating some of the devastating damage that we saw here. O`DONNELL: Gus, how long of a line of sight did the train operator have on this vehicle? Was this a situation of the train coming around a bend and suddenly thereupon a car? ROSENDALE: It`s somewhat unclear at this point. I don`t know how fast the train was going. It`s certainly not the height of speed, given that you`re going through small towns. So, the speed would be lower. The gates were down. In terms of visibility, we don`t know. We`ve been looking at the maps. There seems to be a slight bend there. It doesn`t seem like a through straightaway. But in terms of how much time the engineer would have had to apply the brakes and slow down, that`s something we`re not clear on at this point. O`DONNELL: The NTSB just announced they`re sending a team to the site immediately. Gus Rosendale, thank you very much for joining us tonight. We will bring you updates on this story as new information becomes available. Up next, some difficult news for Chris Christie on the front page of today`s "New York Times." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: No questions today. REPORTER: In your meetings, did you discuss the Islamic State at all? CHRISTIE: Is there stuff that you didn`t understand about new questions? REPORTER: Governor, would you put troops on the ground to fight ISIS? REPORTER: Is there a reason you won`t take questions today? (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: A more talkative Chris Christie once explained his try of accepting lavish gifts this way, "I relish these experiences and exposures for my kids. I try to squeeze all the juice out of the orange that I can." An article on today`s front page of "The New York Times" chronicles Chris Christie`s fondness for luxury benefits. The governor, a Republican now preparing a run for president, shot to national prominence, as a cheese steak on the boardwalk. Everyone who bluntly preached transparency and austerity as the antidote to bloated state budgets. But throughout his career and public service, Mr. Christie has indulged a taste that runs more towards champagne at the four seasons. He has also quietly let others pay the bills.` Including his three-day trip to London this week, that was paid for by the non-profit group Choose New Jersey, which according to the New Jersey record, has, quote, "backing from some of the state`s largest public utilities, labor unions, law firms, and contractors." Some that received multi-million dollar contracts and tax breaks from the state. At times, New Jersey taxpayers have also footed the bill, including his trip to the 2013 Super Bowl in New Orleans, airfare for four passengers came to $8,146. Mr. Christie`s hotel for three nights cost $3,371. And last month, a report found that the state police security that accompanies Chris Christie everywhere he goes cost New Jersey taxpayers nearly $1 million for the first four years and nine months of his governorship. A New Jersey watch dog reports, quote, "The current average monthly travel cost to protect Christie for a single month are 50 percent more than former Governor Jon Corzine`s entire final year in office, according to state records." Joining me now, Kate Zernike, one of the reporters who wrote today`s "New York Times" piece on Chris Christie. Kate, you know, when I look at these things, what always strikes me about it, having worked in the Senate, is that all this would be completely illegal. Every single thing he does if he was in Cory Booker`s position as New Jersey`s representative in the United States Senate or in the House of Representatives. You can`t bring spouses on trips. He -- you have a depiction of him loading up Sheldon Adelson`s -- one of his private planes to fly to Israel with his wife, three of his four kids, his -- KATE ZERNIKE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Mother in law. O`DONNELL: Keep going. ZERNIKE: His father, stepmother, law partner. O`DONNELL: It`s like Thanksgiving dinner in the plane. I mean, that would be wildly criminal for a senator. But governors can just get away with it? ZERNIKE: Well, the governors mostly do. More important to that is Sheldon Adelson was then the most prominent backer, most prominent, most prominent opponent of online gaming, of which New Jersey was the most prominent state, the only state proposing to legalize it. So, you`ve got him taking a gift from someone who is lobbying against this. The governor`s office said that he was not lobbying directly. But, clearly, it`s a gift and there was lobbying going on. So, I do think the ethical conflicts are really striking here. O`DONNELL: This group, this Promote New Jersey group, was actually his idea. This group of big money entities with New Jersey interests who got together and said, let`s create a fund that we can pay for his travel. ZERNIKE: Right. And under state pay-to-play laws, those companies are not allowed to donate directly to him. O`DONNELL: To a campaign. ZERNIKE: To a campaign. O`DONNELL: Right. ZERNIKE: So, the other thing, he`s put very a close confidant as head of that group. They paid for him to go to London this week. Interestingly enough, London is a place where presidential candidates in 2012 got more money than -- from American expatriates than anywhere. But it`s also a place where Choose New Jersey said, you know, business interest in New jersey isn`t very high. So, you sort of have to question why the governor would go to London in the first place on this. O`DONNELL: Well, he said London is one of his favorite tourist places. ZERNIKE: Yes. O`DONNELL: It`s very interesting that when he`s on a presidential debate stage, he`s going to be on there with some United States senators who can`t do any of this. And know that. ZERNIKE: Well, if you were president, you couldn`t do this. O`DONNELL: Right. And so, you don`t have to because you have Air Force One. It`s a whole different game when you`re president. But it`s going to be interesting to see if they go after him on this kind of thing, knowing that, you know, the rules they live under is so much stricter. ZERNIKE: Well, I also think there`s a pattern here. You know, when he was U.S. attorney, he was criticized by the inspector general for staying at hotels that doubled the government rate he was allowed to use, not taking away (INAUDIBLE) getting those rooms. So, this is something we`ve been seen before. We saw it with the Jerry Jones story, when he accepted tickets and a plane ride to the Dallas Cowboys game. He said he`s a friend of mine. This is my favorite team since childhood. There`s a certain pattern of, because I can. I think that`s what is going to be a problem for him overall. It`s a sort of lack, you know, it`s a lack of, well, it`s probably not the right -- even by appearances, this is not going to look good for me. That`s going to be -- O`DONNELL: I guess I was really stunned by the part where he`s actually abusing the expense account of the Justice Department. The one group you do not want to fool with on this kind of thing. Kate Zernike, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Coming up, an NYPD officer who was caught on video doing this to a LAST WORD guest, former guest of this show, gets indicted. That`s coming up. But first, we`re going to have details about the second novel, the second novel to be written by Harper Lee, the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird." The second novel comes just 50 years after her first novel. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now gentlemen, in this country, our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal. I`m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system. That`s no idea to me. That is a living, working reality. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: In the spotlight tonight, author Harper Lee finally publishes again. It was announced today more than publishing "To Kill a Mockingbird," which has sold more than a million copies, 88-year-old Harper Lee will publish her second novel. The reclusive author said in a statement today, "In the mid-1950s, I completed a novel called `Go Set a Watchman`. It features the character known as Scout as an adult woman, and I thought it a pretty decent effort. My editor, who was taken by the flashbacks to Scout`s childhood, persuaded me to write a novel from the point of view of the young Scout. I was a first-time writer, so I did as I was told. I hadn`t realized it had survived, so was surprised and delighted when my dear friend and lawyer Tonja Carter discovered it. After much thought and hesitation, I shared it with a handful of people I trust and was pleased to hear that they considered it worthy of publication. I am humbled and amazed that this will now be published after all these years." "Go Set a Watchman" will be released July 14th. You can pre-order the book now. It is already number one on both Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com. Joining me now is Cecilia Peck Bowle. She is the daughter of Gregory Peck, who won an Oscar for his performance as Atticus Finch in the 1962 film version of "To Kill a Mockingbird." Cecilia, this is an amazing day. The world has been waiting only 50 years for this book. You know Harper Lee. And this is whether she`s been close to your family over the years. What can you tell us about how she decided to do this. CECILIA PECK, GREGORY PECK`S DAUGHTER: You know, Lawrence, she did think the book -- the manuscript had been lost. In those days, there was obviously only one typed manuscript. And she had kept track of it through several moves but lost it around 1980. And it was just discovered in a secure place where she had actually hidden it, along with her original manuscript of "To Kill a Mockingbird." So, she had to decide whether to publish it or not. And I think it`s so exciting that we`re going to get to read this book. O`DONNELL: Among the many documentaries you`ve now done is my personal favorite called "A Conversation with Gregory Peck." And I want to show a piece of that where your dad is telling us about how he used the watch in "To Kill a Mockingbird," Harper Lee`s father being a lawyer, and how Harper Lee talked to him a bit about her father. Let`s listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GREGORY PECK, ACTOR: I had visited Monroeville. And I`ve gotten acquainted with him. And I borrowed the mannerism. And he did a habit of fiddling with that watch, which he had this strung across from one vest pocket to the other, through the buttonhole in the middle. And he did it in the courtroom. And he did it in the courtroom. And I borrowed that mannerism in the trial scene, not with his watch, with a prop watch. I fiddled with that watch, and give me time to think straight. And after he died -- unfortunately, he did not live to see the film -- she gave me his watch. Harper gave me his watch. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Cecilia, Greg and Harper Lee were very close. Tell us about their relationship. PECK: Well, you know, they`re both from -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- small towns in the United States. And, I think, when they met, it wasn`t just between Harper and my dad, but everyone on that film. It was though they all came together for a reason. And they formed a life-long friendship. And it was like a family really that included Alan Pakula and Bob Mulligan and everybody who was involved in the film. So, I was a little tiny girl on the set of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and I`ve known Harper my whole life. She, I think, was probably my father and mother`s very dearest friend. And -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- when our son, Harper, was born, she would come and read to him in New York. And, you know, she was my advisor on a lot of things -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- through my whole life. And we`re still very close. O`DONNELL: I`ve had the pleasure -- (END VIDEO CLIP) of seeing your father`s version of the script, with all of his handwritten notes on every page, and stunning detail all the way through. And as I`ve once revealed on this show before, on the very final page of the script, in his hand, his note says, "Fairness, stubbornness, courage, love." That`s what that whole story, that character came down to for him. PECK: Yes, that`s how he summed it up in those words. And I -- the script, which is at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, has notes on every page about how he saw the character, what he would have done if he were -- if he were Atticus. I think he really, you know, put all of himself into that part. And it was probably the closest character to himself that he ever played. O`DONNELL: Well, Harper Lee had that wonderful quote, where she said, "Atticus gave him an opportunity to play himself." PECK: You know, I think I got to really grow up with Atticus Finch, you know. Of all the girls in the world who wish they had -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- Atticus as their father, I got to have him. And I think he became Atticus and Atticus became him. (END VIDEO CLIP) Maybe it informed his -- the way he parented myself and my brother, he really -- you know, if he had been that lawyer in the 1930s in the south, he would have taken on that case. He would have -- he would have been Atticus. O`DONNELL: Cecilia Peck, thank you very, very much for joining us on this special night. Coming up in the "Rewrite," politicians lying about their personal drug use. And a group of firefighters, later in the program, who went above and beyond the call of duty and inspired the hashtag, shovelitforward. We have breaking news from Jordan at this hour. There are reports that Jordan has just executed an Iraqi prisoner it had hoped to exchange with a -- for a Jordanian pilot, was killed by the Islamic State militants. Earlier today, the Islamic State released a 22-minute video showing the burning of that Jordanian pilot, burned to death. The execution apparently happened January 3rd. We`ll be back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL CLINTON, FORMER UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two and didn`t like it, and didn`t inhale, and never tried it again. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: In tonight`s "Rewrite," politicians lying about drug use. Whenever you hear politicians lie about their personal history with drug use, what they`re really trying to say is, "I would like to be president of the United States." Nothing creates more media interest in your personal drug use than running for president. And there is no higher incentive to lie about your personal drug use than running for president. The latest entry in the art form comes from Senator Ted Cruz, whose staff issued this statement to the daily mail -- TEXT: "Teenagers are often known for their lack of judgment. And Senator Cruz was no exception. When he was a teenager, he foolishly experimented with marijuana. It was a mistake. And he`s never tried it since." We don`t know whether Ted Cruz was 13 or 19 when he experimented with marijuana. We do not know exactly what experiments he conducted. We don`t know how many experiments he conducted, whether they were in high school or college. If he stays in the presidential campaign long enough and the political media summons enough interest in his candidacy, he will be asked a few more precise questions about marijuana and other drugs. He will be asked how often he experimented with marijuana in the seven-year period he left open in his very vague answer, the kind of answer a politician gives when he`s very uncomfortable with the truth. But Ted Cruz, like everyone else running for president, will live under the protection of Bill Clinton, who gave the most laughably, ludicrous answer in the history of the question. Ever since Clinton`s preposterous, "I did not inhale" answer, all a politician has to do is be less ridiculous than Bill Clinton was in answering that question. Rand Paul passed the Clinton ridiculous test in December when he said this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE INTERVIEWER: Did you smoke marijuana. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Let`s just say I wasn`t a choir boy when I was in college, and that I can recognize that kids make mistakes. And I can say that I made mistakes when I was a kid. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Politicians are schooled by their handlers into getting that word, "mistake," in there whenever they talk about their illegal drug use. President George W. Bush often mangled words to the point where he sometimes actually sounded high. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: There`s an old saying in Tennessee, I know it`s in Texas -- probably in Tennessee -- that says, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you." If you fool me, you can`t get fooled again. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Can we hear it again. No? OK. But as much as he mangled words, when he first faced the question of his drug use in his first presidential campaign, George W. Bush`s answer was pure Texas poetry -- TEXT: "When I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish." When he was later pressed on the question of cocaine use, George W. Bush stayed absolutely silent and just waited a couple of weeks. That`s all it took for the political media to just move on. His little brother, Jeb, gave a refreshingly direct answer to the question to "The Boston Globe" this weekend in an article about his days at the Bush Family Boarding School in Andover, Massachusetts. Jeb said -- TEXT: "I drank alcohol and I smoked marijuana when I was at Andover. Bush said both of which could have led to expulsion. It was pretty common." Notice how Jeb Bush simply said it was simply common, where he was supposed to say, it was a mistake. He didn`t even say it was foolish. He just said it was pretty common. And he equated it with alcohol use, which I really admire. I`m so glad he joined those two things. Now, the most honest answer ever given to the drug use question came from Barack Obama. And he gave it long before anyone ever asked him the question, long before we ever saw Barack Obama give a speech, long before he was running for president. He had written the answer in a book called, "Dreams from My Father." It stands today as the finest literary work ever authored by a president of the United States. The book doesn`t contain the whole truth of Barack Obama`s life. Books can`t do that. But it is, by far, the most honest and open book and artful book ever written by a president. "I fell back on the couch and lit a cigarette, watching the match burn down until it -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- tickled my fingertips, then feeling the prick on the skin as I pinched the flame dead. `What`s the trick,` the man asks. The trick is not caring that it hurts." "I tried to remember where I`d heard the line but it was lost to me now like a forgotten face. No matter, Billie Holiday knew the same trick." "It was in that torn up, trembling voice of hers. And I had learned it, too. That`s what my last two years in high school had been about." "After Ray went off to junior college somewhere, then I set the books aside and I had stopped writing to my father. And he`d stop writing back." "I had grown tired of writing to untangle a mess that wasn`t of my making. I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years." "Pot had helped, and booze, maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. Mickey, my potential initiator, had been just a little too eager for me to go through with that." "He said he could do it blindfolded, but he was shaking like a faulty engine when he said. Maybe he was just cold. We were standing in a meat freezer in the back of a deli where he worked." "And it couldn`t have been more than 20 degrees in there, but he didn`t look like he was shaking from the cold. It looked more like he was sweating -- his face, shiny and tight." "He had pulled out the needle and the tubing. And I`d looked at him, standing there, surrounded by big slabs of salami and roast beef." "And right then, an image popped into my head of an air bubble, shiny and round like a pearl, rolling quietly through a vein and stopping my heart -- junkie, pothead, that`s where I`ve been headed, the final fatal role of a young would-be black man." "Except the highs hadn`t been above that. Me, trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway." "I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory." "I had discovered that it didn`t make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate`s sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you`ve met down at the gym or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl." "Nobody asked you whether your father was a fat cat executive who cheated on his wife, or some laid-off Joe who slapped you around whenever he bothered to come home." "You might just be bored or alone. Everybody was welcomed into the club of disaffection. And if the high didn`t solve whatever it was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world`s ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bull and cheap moralism." No one running for president on president on the Democrat or Republican side, this time, has ever or will ever write or say anything that honest, which is not to say, you will not hear some novel approaches to the drug question. Republican Senator Marco Rubio is trying to get away with refusing to answer the question, while claiming a noble position. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Have you ever smoked marijuana. SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: You know why I never answer that question. REPORTER: Why not. RUBIO: I`ll tell you why I never answer that question. (LAUGHTER) If I tell you that I haven`t, you won`t believe me. And if I tell you that I did, then kids who look up to me, "So, I can smoke marijuana because look how he made it." (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: If Marco Rubio`s presidential candidacy survives long enough, that answer to the drug question will not survive. He will be pressed for more specifics. And if you do hear anything more from Marco Rubio, or any other presidential candidates this time about drug use, it`s not going to sound like this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAY LENO, NBC HOST: I have to ask this question. Remember, Senator, you are under oath. Did you inhale. (LAUGHTER) OBAMA: You know, I was telling somebody who asked this question. I said, that was the point. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We have more breaking news from Jordan tonight. Jordan has executed now two prisoners that they had hoped to exchange for a Jordanian pilot who was killed by the Islamic State militants. Earlier today, the Islamic State released a 22-minute video showing the burning to death of that Jordanian pilot. The execution reportedly happened on January 3rd. That`s apparently when that pilot was burned to death. Joining me now on the phone is "The Antlantic`s" Steve Clemons. Steve, we`ve been wondering all day what the Jordanian reaction was going to be. It seems we now have it. STEVE CLEMONS, EDITOR AT LARGE, THE ATLANTIC (via telephone): Well, Jordan -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- the anger, the frustration is palpable in Amman and throughout Jordan. There has been, before this -- because there had been so much trepidation and, actually, so much desire to exchange this terrorist that they had been holding in Amman for this pilot, who was executed, who was burned alive, that the king was in trouble. But, today, the king and the leadership in Amman showed resolve and strength. And I think they`ve turned a very unstable situation in Jordan into iron-resolve, into responding to ISIS. It`s remarkable turnaround in the basic temperature inside that country. O`DONNELL: But, Steve, they were working on trying to pull off this -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- exchange. And all they were waiting for in Jordan was proof of life, something that could show them that their pilot was, indeed, still alive. CLEMONS: Yes, there was a lot of hope among many Jordanian citizens that he might still be alive. But I believe that many terror watchers feared that he did die on January 3rd. They noticed some minor social media traffic that had indicated that someone that ISIS had held had been burned. And so, the worry had been, by the Jordanian authorities, that he was not alive. And I think they adroitly asked for proof of life. They never received that. And they went through this odd antic with the two Japanese hostages that they held, saying that they would trade them for Sajida al-Rishawi, who was executed today. And I think that Jordan showed itself to be strong. But I have to say that, you know, yesterday, I had the Foreign Minister of Qatar in my office. I had a number of senior U.S. government officials who, then, were worrying about the death of this pilot, the potential death. We didn`t know that it happened yesterday, that it could move Jordan out of the coalition against ISIS, that it could destabilize Jordan and the king. But if you look at the reaction through that country today, it`s a remarkable strong coming together. And I have to say, Jordan, of all countries in the Middle East, has borne the biggest brunt of carrying the refugees that have run out of Syria, out of Iraq. And so, the place is bursting with emotion right now over this. O`DONNELL: And, Steve, people have been watching the Islamic State`s march -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- and wondering when the moment will come, if it can come, where they will go too far with one of the other regimes in the area. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Might this that moment. CLEMONS: It might be a key moment. But as anyone who looks at this situation in Iraq, Syria, and the way it has touched Turkey, Lebanon and, of course, Jordan, one of fears that military strategists that are planning a major spring offensive against ISIS in Iraq, pushing it out of hand bar, ISIS rolls across into these other pockets of instability and embed itself in other places, like Jordan. So, it`s very important that ISIS be squeezed from every corner. And I think that the kind of reaction you see in Jordan today demonstrates a resolve. It strengthens the hand of the government in making the hard choices ahead. And I think it will increase the confidence of the United States and western powers, that the neighborhood will become toxic for ISIS, and that there would be greater investment by the neighborhood in creating greater problems and pressure on ISIS as the western European powers and American forces try to pound them from a different direction. So, I think it helps enormously in the eventual run against ISIS. But we`ll have to see how it unfolds. But that was what some of the discussions in Washington were about this week -- was how ISIS can be squeezed from multiple corners, and how you strengthen the resolve, particularly of Arab states. So, the timing of this is rather important. And this may have backfired in a big way on ISIS, at least, many of us watching this hope so. O`DONNELL: The President spoke today after learning that the Jordanian pilot had been burned to death, had been executed. I think we have the video. But what he actually said was, "I think we will double the vigilance and determination on the part of the global coalition to make sure that they are degraded, meaning ISIS, ultimately defeated." And also, just indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of -- it`s bankrupt. Steve, the Islamic State has done these executions in the most flamboyant way, the most attention-getting way they possibly can. It seems they have decided that beheadings were no longer enough. They had to go to another level, another version of this. And so, they burnt him to death. They actually burnt the pilot to death. It took 22 minutes of video time to do it. And what does that tell us -- the fact that the Islamic State decided it had to move to another attention-getting methodology at this point. CLEMONS: I think it -- this may sound strange but from briefings that I`ve had recently, I think ISIS is finding itself under pressure. These kinds of spectacular killings attract people from around the world. And they`re trying to compete with other jihadist and extreme Islamist groups for attention, for funds, for resources, for support and trying to demonstrate that they are the cutting edge, globally, of this movement. One of the things that we`ve seen, which has been very interesting, is the kinds of pressure that we, and our allies, have been putting on ISIS, had been resulting in defections and - (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: Let me just interrupt for a moment here. I just have to alert the audience that it is now 11:00 p.m. Eastern. We would normally be concluding this program, but we are going to continue our live coverage of the developments in Jordan tonight. Joining me now on the phone is Ayman Mohyeldin. Ayman what do we know about what has occurred there tonight? AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC FOREIGN CORRSEPONDENT: Lawrence we`ve gotten confirmation now from the Jordanian government officially from the Ministry of Interior, that shortly after dawn in Jordan, the Jordanian government carried out the execution of two convicted terrorists that it had in its custody. The identity of these two individuals, one of them known to us very much so because it was on the name list that Jordan had offered up to exchange for that Jordanian pilot. She is known as Sajida al-Rishawi, a convicted would-be suicide bomber, who was part of a series of bombings that took place back in 2005 of course did not detonate to the Jordanian authorities arrested her. She has been on death row since 2006. And Jordan had offered to exchange and release for that pilot after the news came out today that he has been in fact executed. The Jordanian authority now confirmed they have executed her. It is also being widely reported on all Jordanian state television news outlets as well as the news agency. In addition to Sajida al-Rishawi, the Jordanian government also confirmed that they have executed Ziyad Karboli, another individual who is believed to have been a right-hand man of a (INAUDIBLE) who was one of the most notorious figures of the Iraq war and who was killed in an a U.S. air strike. He also was believed to have been a senior operative within that organization that Jordan had arrested and he had also been on death trial for some time. Now, his name also was known to officials that certainly known to people have been following the story for the past couple of days, but the fact is that the Jordanian government this evening has confirmed that it had gone ahead with the execution of these two individuals. And although they don`t officially say, that it is widely believed that in response to the execution of the Jordanian pilot that was confirmed earlier today. Lawrence. O`DONNELL: And Ayman, it`s so striking that all of this is happening on a day when Jordan`s King Abdullah met in the Oval Office with President Obama. Does that trip to Washington have anything to do, do you think with the Islamic State`s timing on releasing this video today? MOHYELDIN: Well, there`s no doubt that the Islamic State in the past has been very sharp with its messaging and its propaganda value is certainly been a key objective of the organization whatever it`s made its statements in the past. I would be very comfortable in saying that they were probably aware the Jordanian King was in Jordan -- was in United States didn`t schedule to meet with President Obama scheduled to a profile meeting and that was not lost on them in trying to get maximum attention for their action today. Jordanian officials believe, again, this is according to the armed forces that put out a statement earlier, they believe the execution of the pilot happened some time ago, as far back as early January. The timing of releasing the execution of this pilot`s video certainly speaks for itself, given the fact that the King was already in the United States today. And also another point to keep in mind, the video itself, the propaganda video that was released around the execution showed a lot of previous meetings that the Jordanian King had with President Obama, it showed it had several news clips of the two leaders` meeting. It also showed images of the Jordanian Armed Forces working alongside with U.S. Armed Forces to try to illustrate that strong relationship between the two. There is no doubt that Jordanian and government today feeling a little bit of pressure on the streets given that the anger that has been directed toward ISIS for the execution of this pilot acted very swiftly in response to that execution by carrying out its own set of execution. So, the timing as you say, Lawrence is actually not lost on both parties, one ISIS for carrying out that execution on the day that the Jordanian King was in the United States, and two, the Jordanian government acting swiftly with its own execution as people have been taking to the street at the course of the night demanding swift action. O`DONNELL: We`re joined now by phone by Laith Alkhouri terrorism expert. Laith what is your reaction to Jordan`s swift response to the discovery that their pilot had been burned to death? LAITH ALKHOURI, TERRORISM EXPERT: As you said it Lawrence, I mean it was a very swift reaction. I think the Jordanian government carried out what it had promised, which is if the Jordanian pilot was not returned, Sajid al- Rishawi unlike the others whether affiliated or not, who are on death row already would be executed. It`s not only just a response to the killing of the -- of Muath al- Kasasbeh, the Jordanian pilot, but I think the Jordanian government needed to make a point to the international community that it`s still committed to the war on terror, it is still committed to being an ally of the United States to combat this cancer in the region. O`DONNELL: And Laith the -- you`ve studied the Islamic State`s methods, especially their public relations methods, their need to get a certain kind of attention. Much has been said today about this change in methodology from beheading to now burning to death and the very elaborate video, highly produced video that recorded that horrible burning to death today. ALKHOURI: Yeah. O`DONNELL: What do you make of this change of technique and even the enhanced production values in this video? ALKHOURI: You know, indeed. I mean, the video had a high production value, but I think the point of burning Muath al-Kasasbeh alive was this. I mean, it was clear message from video that just as we are caged in Syria and Iraq, being bombarded by your bombs under rockets of fire, we are going to do the same with the best of our capability. It`s a symbolic retaliation against the Jordanian involvement in this U.S.-led coalition targeting the Islamic State. It was merely symbolic to show that, you know, beheading will no longer just work. It is not as effective for, you know, charred (ph) purposes. This is a lot more residual, it`s a lot more excruciating, and it`s obviously a very clear message that the Islamic State is not backing off, and it`s also that it`s putting the Arab armies that are part of this U.S.- led coalition in the same bracket as what they call the crusader armies. O`DONNELL: And Laith, what do you expect to be the reaction in Jordan among the people of Jordan? ALKHOURI: You know, the reaction, for the most part as what I`ve seen so far has been in support of the family of the pilot. They have, you know, gone to the streets and said, "We are all Muath. We support his sacrifice against this terror group." However, there has been a slight negative backlash against the Jordanian government because some people believe that the Jordanian government did not do enough to negotiate his release. So, there has been, you know, a mixed reaction, but I feel that the Jordanian street is in support of the government. They believe that ISIS is not only a cancer in the region, but it`s also giving really close to home. O`DONNELL: We have images on our screen now of people in Jordan holding up pictures of the pilot in early -- those -- that is, of course, earlier today because of the time zone differences. But clearly at that stage in that particular demonstration, that was very supportive of the pilot. Laith, what do you expect now to be the Islamic State`s reaction to what has happened with these two executions? ALKHOURI: You know, the -- at the end of the video they put out today, they had a list of a few dozen Air -- a Jordanian Air Force officers. They put it on a hit list essentially, and they called out for -- essentially, for -- offer this in Jordan to take revenge against every single Air Force pilot. They put their names, they put their locations, they put their addresses, they put their ranks, and they offered 100 gold dinars for every person who would kill one pilot. So clearly, the Islamic State is capitalizing on this action and is calling for more. O`DONNELL: And how much -- how many assets does the Islamic State have in Jordan? ALKHOURI: I mean, obviously, it is very difficult to ascertain, but throughout the last four years of the Syrian conflict and essentially toward the last couple of years of Islamic State operating in Syria, it has attracted many Jordanians to come across the border and join the ranks. But it`s also found acceptance among a number of Jordanians in places like the province of Ma`an where a number of, you know, radical Salafist (ph) have demonstrated their -- not only pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State`s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but they have demonstrated resentment against the Jordanian government. The fear of -- The fear would be if these operatives or if these radical individuals would act now and would start operating inside of Jordan. O`DONNELL: Laith Alkhouri, thanks for joining us. We`ll be right back. O`DONNELL: We`re back with more live coverage of the situation in Jordan tonight. We`re joined now by Shane Harris of The Daily Beast who joined by phone. Shane, what do we know about the Jordanian pilot who we now know today was executed some weeks ago? SHANE HARRIS, THE DAILY BEAST: Well, we`re hearing tonight that he probably was killed possibly as early as January 3rd, maybe around the 8th of this month as well, first week of January. There have been reports coming out both from intelligence, National Security Sources that we have as well as people who are on the ground and then retreating around January 8th that ISIS is bragging about having killed a Jordanian pilot. And in fact having burned him alive. So we`re finding out now that he may in fact have been dead for quite some time before this video was actually put on the internet today. O`DONNELL: And the methodology as we`ve been talking about today is new for the Islamic State of burning to death. What is the most reasonable interpretation of why they changed this methodology? HARRIS: Well, one interpretation as it`s posited to us, the people of the Pentagon as well, is that in the Muslim faith, burning a body is not the way to dispose of the dead. But the dead have to be buried and not by burning him, it is possible they were trying to send a message that he was not going to be given a proper burial it is almost sort of a sacrilege to do it in this way. That`s one interpretation. The other, frankly is that given at the beheading videos have attracted a lot of attention. But frankly there have been many of them perhaps ISIS felt that it was time to change the game and do something even more dramatic and more horrific. And, you know, having -- unfortunately to seeing a lot of these videos, I can attest that this one was quite a lot more ghastly. They think and even the previous ones that we`ve seen and quite more vivid as well. So if they were trying to shock people even more than they have in the past, they may have succeeded. O`DONNELL: And Shane, Jordan was ready apparently to make deal or a make an exchange, prisoner exchange for their pilot and of course didn`t happen because as it happens he was already dead. But it -- that means that the Jordanian people were primed for the possibility of this exchange and the pilot coming home safely. What do you imagine are the variety of reactions we can expect among the Jordanian people to this? HARRIS: I think, yeah, there`s already been tremendous outrage and upset over his capture. There were protests in Amman that were allowed to continue by the authorities. They were just quite unusual. But the big question I think people are going to have now is that what point do the Jordanians know he was in fact dead. And if they did know this and why were they offering to engage in some kind of a negotiation? Did that prolong the agony and the public rank are over this? It`s possible we should add too that they had suspicions that he was dead but no absolute confirmation. This is one reason that they wanted to see a proof of life video. But obviously this is -- it`s kind of huge is from Jordan which is already facing its own internal security challenges and were the campaign against ISIS is quite unpopular. Jordanian officials have been telling me today though that this is going to strengthen their resolve, they do not plan to back down, we`ll see in coming days whether that`s true and whether they maintained their role in the coalition. It`s important to know that they did not stop participating in air strikes with the U.S even after the pilot was killed -- oh sorry, after he was captured. O`DONNELL: Shane Harris, thank you very much for joining us tonight. We will be right back. O`DONNELL: We`re back with our live coverage of the Breaking News in Jordan tonight we`re joined by phone now by NBC News Senior White House Correspondent Chris Jansing. Chris is there any word yet on the White House`s reaction to the two executions that occurred in Jordan tonight apparently in retribution for the execution of the Jordanian pilot? CHRIS JANSING, NBC NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Lawrence. I actually was with some administration officials tonight. Came back, turned on your show and saw the banner I`ve only been watching it a few minutes like I don`t see any direct reaction. I can tell you, though, that this was something that had been anticipated. Jordan`s president, as you know, has said immediately after this happened that they would pay a price and a lot of what the world was watching and certainly the coalition partners were watching was what effect would this have because of course back in December, after the Jordanian pilot was captured, the United Arab Emirates stopped participating in air strikes and this is always been a somewhat (INAUDIBLE) coalition there`s always been a lot of internal politics (INAUDIBLE) as you know. And so, I think this (distracted) their swift retaliation such that Jordan feels much like the president did, the President was having an event this afternoon just as he was going into this event, which was to tout the benefits of ObamaCare. He was at a table surrounded by people who had sent him letters thanking him for their health care coverage. He had been briefed on this, on the video itself and, of course, that was still in the process of being authenticated at that point. But you know, he used some very strong orders he has before, about (INAUDIBLE) that send on death destruction and he has told (INAUDIBLE) when she did the interview for the Super Bowl about how he had seen the videos and how it only strengthened his resolve And I can just tell you that in talking to administration officials today and into tonight that is the feeling at the White House that they believe it will strengthen the coalition which is not to say that they are not aware of the fragility, in some ways, that this kind of brutality potentially brings. O`DONNELL: Chris, I`ve been wondering do you have any indication from the White House that the President revealing that he has actually seen some of this execution videos by the Islamic State was a planned revelation or is that something that just slipped out? Because one wonders if that isn`t something that actually would then please the Islamic State to know that their work has made it directly to the President`s office? JANSING: Yeah, I think this is something obviously that members of the administration knew that he had seen them and he had indicated that he was being briefed and as all of these were in progress. I mean, it was in a matter of something, one it was just several but I think it was a statement to him of eventually bring the (INAUDIBLE) he don`t want to imply that I`m speaking for what the President`s motivation was, but he is sitting then he was clearly sending a message today. (INAUDIBLE) is that going into the Oval Office And the brief time that we were in there which the President (INAUDIBLE) Abdullah that how somber the mood was and how determined and how quickly in the afternoon the President`s mood, which, you know, he was hosting these Americans for whom it was a big thrill to have several (INAUDIBLE) at the President let alone be invited into the Roosevelt Room and when I was able to ask him that one question at the end of what we (INAUDIBLE) O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what the President. JASING: A picture of that event but, you know, he quickly changed to being very somber and I think that revelation was not something that was unlikely and it was clearly meant to send a message. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what the President had to say today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I`m sure this in fact, this video be authentic, it`s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And it - I think we will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. And it also just indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it`s bankrupt. We`re here to talk about how to make people healthier and make their lives better. And this organization appears only interested in death and destruction. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We`re joined now by phone by NBC News Andrea Mitchell. Andrea, the -- we`ve been waiting today, since we discovered that the Jordanian pilot had been executed for what would be the Jordanian response on the ground we now seem to have it. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: I think it`s very clear that Jordan is first of all, experiencing the horror, the shock. There has been support for the king and for the royal family and this is something that would be very, very important in that society. This was a prominent family. The government had agreed to make the trade of the very well-known hostage, the woman who was the attempted suicide bomber, and that was something demanded and expected by the head of the family, the father of the pilot. As this is a very important tribe in Jordan society. And the fact that the King flew back, he clearly informed the President at 6:15 when they met this evening, 6:15 Eastern, and then flew back cutting short his trip and basically signaled that they were not going to roll over, that they were not going to back off of the coalition against the ISIS. This is an existential moment for Jordan. Jordan now has 800,000 refugees from the Syrian civil war. They were today signing a memorandum of understanding with Secretary Kerry for $1 billion in aid with an increase of $400 million a year to help them sustain this refugee crisis, which is a number of refugees are 21 percent of their total population now. Their country is being overwhelmed. And the fact that this brutality, you know, none of these executions have been easy to take but this one so far exceeded the beheading season. It seemed as though ISIS was outdoing itself for shock value. And that, I think, has gotten exactly the contrary reaction I think that King Abdullah having consulted with foreign relations and appropriations committees and the committees from the outside of (INAUDIBLE). The White House having met with the vice president and with Secretary Kerry today, flew home feeling really empowered to face down this crisis. O`DONNELL: And Andrea, with the different possible interpretations of what`s occurred here in Jordan, are there -- will there be any domestic strains for King Abdullah with this? I mean, for example, agreeing to that the trade of prisoners which could be seen by some as weakness, it`s something United States refuses to do. And then having come to that willingness to make that kind of agreement, it turns out that negotiation was going on in a completely fraudulent way by the other side because they had killed the pilot weeks ago. MITCHELL: I think in fact that strengthens the king. I mean, it`s only interpreted both ways and this is really fraudulent is they`re difficult to predict from over here exactly how it`s going to play out. I don`t feel entirely comfortable making that judgment because I`m not on the ground and I`m not talking to people there. But I have talked to a lot of people in the region and Jordanians here as well as others from, you know, the immediate neighborhood who has been in and out of Washington and of course, I`ve covered it for many years. I know the king well and his colleagues and Foreign Minister Judeh. And the fact is, they likely having very good intelligence sources, they very well may have known that this Jordanian pilot was killed shortly after his capture and killed in this brutal fashion. It`s the judgment of some of our experts who follow all of this but the complexity of this 22 minutes 34 second video was graphic, could not have been done in recent days, could not have been done quickly and that he was killed and killed in this brutal fashion and then the video created terrify -- to scare, to break the coalition, to divide the coalition, to say to the others (INAUDIBLE) to the UAE or Moroccan`s or others who are, you know, less vulnerable to back down and not keep picking on ISIS and not send more pilots into the air. Let the Americans do it. And, you know, I think what this very well may have been a negotiation where they knew the pilot was dead but they made the offer and now it is on ISIS having demanded this -- the proof of life, it`s now ISIS that shows their brutality and that they were acting in bad faith all along. And so, I think it could go down to the king`s favor. O`DONNELL: Yes. So it basically puts King Abdullah in the position of being able to say to his people said his country, "I tried everything that I could to get that pilot back but look who I was dealing with". MITCHELL: Exactly. And I`ve heard experts say and I don`t pretend to be an expert on this but the burning of the body was particularly offensive so that that is just another step in ISIS potentially infuriating. I think in particular the Jordanians. Now, perhaps to those who are going to (INAUDIBLE) sick-minded and be inspired by a brutal, horrific video somewhere in the west to other potential followers, this could be a successful propaganda tactic, that in Jordan this is a very prominent family. This was a highly respected pilot, a young man, recently married, was going to start his own family. I think that the Jordanian national identity was very tied up at him and that this is bad fire. O`DONNELL: And Andrea, do we have indications that the Islamic State knew who this pilot was, who he was in Jordanian society? MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. He`s completely sophisticated and wired. I`m so struck by these stories that The New York Times I guess was the first to report it today and the Washington Post, the certification of the underground railroad by which they extricated the young woman, the co- conspirator and partner of the attacker on the kosher supermarket in Paris, I mean the way they got her back across the border, she had motorcade, she had bodyguards, it was a complete operation. This is a network... O`DONNELL: Andrea, we`re going to have to break it there. Andrea Mitchell, thank you very much for joining us. We`re now going live to our other breaking news story tonight. The train accident on Metro North here in New York. Six people dead. THOMAS PRENDERGAST, MTA: (INAUDIBLE). As it was approaching a great crossing immediately at this location, it came upon a car that was on the crossing. It struck that car, which is about 400 feet down the track. The car remained in front of the train. There was a fire and explosions and emergency service personnel responded and got injured people off the train. Some people self-evacuated. And that`s where we stand right now. In terms of service for the morning, we`re putting together a service plan for people who ride the Harlem line to the extent that they can get down to White Plains and catch the service there, that`s what they should do. If they`re north of Brewster, we`re going to have buses take them over to Beacon on the Hudson line. And then the south of that point, we`re going to bring trains down to, I believe Pleasantville and then bus them down the White Plains. Governor? GOV. ANDREW CUOMO, D-NEW YORK: As you heard from Mr. Prendergast what we know, what appears to have happened, now there`s going to be investigations that follow up that determine all the facts but what appears to have happened is a car was stopped on the tracks. It was hit by the train and the resulting fire and explosion of hitting the car consumed the car, the vehicle and then the first car of the train itself. At this time, we believed the driver of the car has perished as well as six people in the train itself. Again this is all preliminary information, there`ll be follow up investigations as to exactly what happened, but as far as the available eye witnesses and what can be put together, tonight that`s what the situation looks to be. Most importantly, you have seven people who started out today, to go about their business and aren`t going to be making at home tonight, and it`s a painful reminder to all of us how precious life is and sometimes how random it can be. This is truly ugly and brutal site, the track, the third rail of the track came up from the explosion and went right through the car, so it is truly a devastatingly ugly situation to see. I want to thank all the first responders who were on site on the very difficult circumstances and are doing a really phenomenal job to do everything that they can. Other than that, any questions for myself or Mr. Prendergast? PRENDERGAST: We have a call of this witness who`s claiming it was right behind the car that was hit and that the gates would be a malfunction. Any information on that? CUOMO: We have not heard that, as I said, all we know from eyewitnesses, et cetera, and the best facts that we had us that a car was stopped on the tracks with the gates down and was then hit by the car. But there will be records, these are electronic devices, so when people actually go through the facts, we`ll know exactly what happened. Louder please. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sorry. CUOMO: No, we didn`t know, the locomotive engineer was injured and he was taken to a hospital to treat his injuries, he`s not one of the casualties. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many injured at this point? CUOMO: Don`t know, don`t know that number. The train normally leaves Grand Central with about 655 people on it, that`s the count, usually. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Approximately what`s going to be seen in that train doing at this point? PRENDERGAST: I believe the maximum allowable speed is 60 miles an hour here, so that could be distributed as going at, but as the governor said, there`s an event report on the train, part of the investigation at the National Transportation Safety Board is going to do is to make sure they gather all those facts and ascertain them before we actually come to the -- draw on conclusions. CUOMO: When you look at the damage done and the damage right at the fire, it`s actually amazing that not more people were hurt on that train. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did the third rail somehow get in to that car? PRENDERGAST: The third rail entered the floor of the car and the sections of the third rail on the first car. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any idea how that would happen? PRENDERGAST: Well, the third rail stops at the grade crossing and so that`s where the contact with the automobile was made and it entered through the automobile and up through the floor of the car. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Anything else? CUOMO: OK. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. O`DONELL: That was Governor Andrew Cuomo explaining what happened on the Metro North Train crash on north of New York City, about an hour north of New York City, that is the second busiest rail line in the United States, the Long Island rail road being the busiest normal passenger load on that train about 655 passengers, we have confirmed that six of them tonight are dead. We`ll be right back. O`DONNELL: We are back with more Breaking News coverage of our live news events tonight both the train crash in upstate New York and the situation in Jordan. We`re joined again by phone by Steve Clemons. Steve the reaction in Jordan to the execution of the two prisoners that Jordan was ready to hand over in exchange for the Jordanian pilot who had been captured by the Islamic state. We are seeing some of that, some video of that reaction in the street. It seems supportive of both of the pilot and King Abdullah. What is your read of the complexities of the reaction to the situation in Jordan? CLEMONS: Well as I think Laith said earlier the situation inside Jordan as you`ve described it was complex and was tensed for the government because there was a lot of criticism that the government was not doing enough to move forward with the exchange of Rishawi for this pilot. And that he -- that there grew a lot of antipathy inside Jordan about what the cause of allying with United States and others against ISIS were, that Jordan has absorbed into its country many of the refugees from Syria in Iraq over the years and received very little on a relative basis aid from the rest of the world. At least not on par with the burden that Jordan has been carrying and those stress signs were showing. And so, there was a fear in Washington, talked about as just yesterday in meetings that I was participating in that if this pilot had been alive, if he had been executed, have they not made the trade, this might have exploded inside Jordan, might have become a politically destabilizing factor for the government and the king and might have resulted in Jordan withdrawing from the anti-ISIS coalition. Now what you see unfolding is exactly the opposite of that. And I believe -- I agree with Andrea Mitchell that while we have a lot to see how unfolds, this appears at first glance to have strengthened the king and I think it was very important that he and the government showed immediate resolve in these executions and showing they will meet ISIS where they are and that they will confront ISIS as harshly as ISIS has been behaving the other way. So, I think it`s rather important and heartening to see the Jordanian people rally around their government, rally around what Muath represented to them because it could have very easily gone the other directions. So this is very important what you`re seeing in the street today because I have to tell you, Washington policy makers at the top levels of government were very, very worried that Jordan would have to step back. O`DONNELL: And Steve, was there any feeling in the Jordanian government that they should not negotiate with terrorists over this pilot? CLEMONS: I believe that there is, in many cases, in all of this, you know, a diversity of views. I think that -- you know, I think even I said perhaps on your show or one of the other shows that, you know, thinking that the pilot was alive, if they had in fact negotiated, given this woman an acquiesce to ISIS` demands, that it would heighten the market, that it would reach. O`DONNELL: Yes. Sure it would. CLEMONS: .that the fact that the people would continue to be kidnapped, that ISIS would continue to play these games. And so I do believe there were voices to that but they were quiet. O`DONNELL: And Steve, the prominence of this pilot`s family, Andrea Mitchell was educating us about that a great deal earlier in the hour. Did you think that was -- that amplified the response in some way? CLEMONS: I think it made him better known but I think it could have backfired the other direction too because his father was very well-known, he came from a powerful tribe that if the government did this for this pilot because he was well-connected, what would the government do for those people living inside Jordan that were not well-connected? There`s always the tension in the societies between, you know, essentially if they haven`t have not challenged. So, I think it would be a mistake to think that just because he was from a powerful family that the government might have proceeded with this that there wouldn`t have been a backlash inside Jordan to that had they moved in that direction. O`DONNELL: Steve, I would imagine King Abdullah has to be concerned with how long lasting and how unifying the reaction to this might prove to be. It could that, you know, there could be crowds of a certain size on the street today and tonight about this. But a month from now, two months from now, who`s going to be winning the argument about what Jordan`s involvement in supporting U.S. policies in the region means to Jordan? CLEMONS: There`s may be an unfair critique and I want to be careful, but I think many people have perceived King Abdullah in Jordan to be a weak king, a soft king, a doddering kind and someone who likes to spend more time in Washington than Jordan. This may be very well his moment where he rises to the occasion and he begins to demonstrate a kind of resolve and behavior that reminds people of King Hussein of Jordan who was such a key, vital, nimble fixture in Middle Eastern politics. I think that this could very well be a transition point for the kingdom and I think if the king and his advisors use this moment to rally the world to recognize that Jordan has played this extraordinary role taking in the region`s refugees for years and that at risk, you know, reach the certain breaking point and they could turn that around and at the same time join -- I think that there`s an anger, a palpable anger again that Qatar Foreign Minister Khalid Al-Attiyah was in Washington yesterday met John Kerry. The two of them released a statement, you know, talking about the delegitimization of ISIS, the fight against ISIS, the efforts to defund and cut off the funding sources for ISIS. That only works if every single one of these governments has deep, deep resolve to do this and I think that Jordan is a major pillar in this. And if Jordan can bring that around and the king can look as if he`s crafted this new and different and harder Jordan than this, then he comes out a really different kind of leader in the region and ascends and I think a very important way that he just hasn`t yet. So, that is what I think the next two or three months hold as you ask and I think, you know, it`s his moment either to lead or I think if he doesn`t lead in this, then Jordan is going to have some real problems in the next two, three months. O`DONNELL: Steve, the -- in our coverage of the region, we`re always emphasizing the news always seems to be emphasizing how unpopular the United States is in the countries in the region outside of Israel. But explain to us how the Jordanian people -- how is it that they support the extent of the alliance with the United States that Jordan has had? Now, it`s a kingdom. He -- the King Abdullah does not run for re-election, we get that, but he does have to be sensitive to how much support his position has among the people. And so, where does -- how would that support be described among people in the street in Jordan who do support the king`s position and relations in the United States? CLEMONS: I think it`s a bet on modernity. Jordan and King Hussein has invested in the education of the people. Fundamentally, now the kind of instability issues you`re talking about, the way the king sort of makes things move is dealing with, as in many of these governments, balancing favors to tribes, positions to the various tribes, and trying to sort of modernize their government and move it forward in a way that the people feel that they`re getting a fair shakes from the political system. Jordan has long had a problem and frankly, many think a worsening problem in corruption and the question about competence of government. And I think that the king has not made as much headways on those issues as many might like. For when it comes to the partnership and alliance with the United States, I think that that Jordan for a long time in part because it along with Egypt has had peace with Israel and is unique in the region. They`ve also been exposed to the modernity of that and they`d step forward and they realize that they live in a sort of unique part of the region and Israel is a part of that picture and the United States was the sculptor and architect in event and essentially the security guarantor for that. So the degree that there`s dislike of the United States or antipathy to the United States that be -- that much bigger problem is not that. Its fear throughout the region that that the United States is not playing the role that it once used to play in the region and that a void has emerged that groups like ISIS are felling or Iran and its transnational networks are feeling. And that`s why there is, in many of these countries, less Jordan than places like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others are in the private sector continuing to send money and to privately support groups like ISIS or now Al-Nusra because they believe that these groups are the only check on growing Iranian power because the United States is absent and that the United States is only bombing from the air and fundamentally is not the kind of bold, decisive cutting-edge power that it used to be. So, I would worry less about people not liking the United States than folks in the region doubting America`s resolve to be engaged in the region. O`DONNELL: Steve Clemons, thank you very much. We`ll be right back. O`DONNELL: We`re returning now to live breaking news coverage of the train crash in Valhalla, New York, that`s about one hour north of New York City, it is on the Metro-North commuter rail line, the second busiest commuter rail line in the United States. Six passengers on that train tonight are now dead. The train crashed into a Jeep Cherokee which seems to be stuck on the tracks at a crossing. We are joined now from that site by WNBC reporter Gus Rosendale. Gus, there`s some confusion after the governor said that there were six passengers that were dead and then he also said the driver is also dead. Is it clear to us whether this is now a total of six or a total of seven? GUS ROSENDALE, WNBC REPORTER: Lawrence, it has fluctuated throughout the evening. The latest from the governor is that the total number is seven. That was from a briefing from just about last half hour ago. I`d like to say that it move over here because we have a truck coming through. Excuse me. The governor pressed upon us that this was still very early on in the investigation here but he said that number of loss here is seven. The injury number about 12 here. The latest of what we do know, around 6:30 here at a crossing in Valhalla, just north of the city, Metro-North train heading north after making one stop, collided with a Jeep Cherokee. For some reason, it`s unclear why the Cherokee was on the tracks. We don`t know if it was stuck there, or stalled there, why it was there. Our local news chopper showed that the gates were down. The gates did appear to be working. The female driver of that vehicle, the MTA, the agency that runs the railroad here says that she was out of her vehicle when she was hit and struck instantly. Six other people were killed. We learned a little bit more about exactly the chaos. What happened immediately after when the train hit that Jeep, it then also hit the third rail as well. The third rail which (INAUDIBLE) the train went right through the train car. The governor here saying despite the tragic loss of life, it is truly amazing that more people were not killed in all of this and you also have to bear in mind, this was a packed commuter train. Hundreds of people on board, the MTA says roughly on an average day, 650 people or so would be on board. And most of them were able to exit the train safely and without too much chaos. O`DONNELL: Gus, the National Transportation Safety Board is there. We will be learning more about these details certainly tomorrow. And then the investigation will be ongoing to find out how this impact occurred. The governor said that the maximum speed in that -- for the train in that area was 60 miles an hour and what you`re seeing there, what would have prevented the train from if you can tell us, seeing that Jeep Cherokee from a distance were it had enough time to close down the breaks from 60 miles an hour. ROSENDALE: We had talked earlier in the evening about visibility in regards for some of the maps here. And it does appear that right before this collision, there is a bit of bend this is not a straight away if you will. So if the train was going 60 miles per hour and came around that bend. And then all of the sudden the vehicle stopped in the tracks there at a rate of 60 miles per hour if in fact there was a speed that was going or something like that. The engineer would have had only a minute or so to apply the breaks in a train like this. So would not have stopped on a dime obviously and we do know that after the impact the train did keep moving and that jeep was essentially dragged about 40 feet even more underneath the train. And that`s what caused the explosion and the fire that you eventually saw. So obviously the engineer did not have a lot of time for whatever reason and could not stop in time after seeing that truck. O`DONNELL: And this is not the first problem they have had on that route north of New York Gus. Rosendale WNBC thank you very much for joining us tonight Gus on that breaking news story. Our coverage of these stories will continue after this break. LOAD-DATE: February 4, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020301cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 15 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 3, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: MSNBC SPECIAL 12:00 AM EST Rep. Sean Duffy Interview BYLINE: Jose Diaz-Balart GUESTS: Sean Duffy SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 1080 words HIGHLIGHT: Discussion of Obama budget proposal and vaccination. JOSE DIAZ-BALART, MSNBC: Let me bring in Wisconsin Republican congressman Sean Duffy. He`s a member of the House Budget Committee. Congressman, good to see you again. REP. SEAN DUFFY, R-WISCONSIN: You, too, Jose. Thanks for having me on. DIAZ-BALART: So, thank you. The president calls this plan practical and nonpartisan. Is that what it is? DUFFY: The president knows that we just won a historic majority in the House, and just won the Senate. We didn`t do that by selling the American people on the fact we`re going to raise taxes and have a slow-growing economy. We`re going to look at the president`s budget, we`re going to talk about it for a couple days. But then the House and the Senate are going to do the hard work of putting together a proposal that actually is going to work towards balancing our budget. As you know, the president`s budget, though it raises trillions in new taxes, it never, ever balances. And that`s a real problem for us in the House. We think that we should be on a course to actually balancing the budget and making sure we leave off the next generation with a set of opportunities that are just as great as we had. DIAZ-BALART: I`m just wondering if, with this large budget, are there things in there that you feel that you can work together on to maybe get something that will be beneficial, and something that the country can see as a bipartisan work that comes through from you guys and the president? DUFFY: First off, he`s proposed all these new taxes. We have historic revenues coming in to our federal coffers. We`ve never brought in this much money. And it`s because the economy is starting to grow. And so to think that we`re going to increase taxes -- we believe that`s going to tamp down growth and putting our middle class families back to work. What we think we can do is actually, as more revenue comes in, we can slow the growth of spending. And that`s one of the key templates that can bring us to a balanced budget. But with the president saying I`m going to raise taxes, I`m going to increase spending and never balance, I think it`s going to be hard for us to find a bipartisan solution. And that`s why the president`s proposal, Jose, is just that: It`s a proposal that we talk about a couple days. We have the purse strings in the Congress, and we`re going to pass a budget for the American people. DIAZ-BALART: The president does talk about closing some loopholes -- for example, the inheritance tax, taxing inheritance et cetera, that wouldn`t be considered maybe necessarily a tax, a direct tax, but that would benefit the middle class. DUFFY: Listen, so what we think in tax reform is that we should actually restructure the whole code. Take out all the loopholes, the deductions, the preferences that have been put in it there for generations, that have been put there by people who have powerful lobbyists in Washington, and start over, reducing rates. But taking some one-offs, I think that the president and his proposals increasing taxes are one of the reasons why so many corporations are doing these inversions, finding foreign partners to buy them, so they get lower tax rates in other parts of the world. We have one of the highest tax rates in the industrialized world. Let`s be competive again. Let`s actually lower our taxes and make America competitive, put our people back to work. That`s the engine of opportunity. But just coming out with new tax increases over and over again and never balancing the budget is not a way for bipartisan solutions. The president knows that this is going to be a big dud over here in the Senate and the House. This was not an olive branch to work with us. He knew he was going to get pushed back. DIAZ-BALART: I want to switch topics to something a lot of people are discussing. You and your wife have seven children. Do you agree with Scott Walker, for example, that our children should be vaccinated? DUFFY: For me, I want that to be my choice as a parent. You know what, I know my kids best. I know what morals and values are right for my children. And I think we should not have an oppressive state telling us what to do. Now, the community might say, Mr. Duffy, if you don`t want to vaccinate your kids, you can`t send them to school, that may be fair. But I do think we want to make sure we continue to let parents make these decisions for their kids. And I think it`s a slippery slope when we start having the state getting so involved with our children. DIAZ-BALART: It may be. But here`s a thought. I have two little girls, one is in first grade, one is in fifth grade. DUFFY: We have five; I`ve got you by three. DIAZ-BALART: But you`ve got, like, 20 kids. So I`m worried that if -- what about someone in my daughter`s class who decides not to give a vaccine to their child, and then they get get something and they pass it along to my kid. In other words, don`t we as a community and as a society have a responsibility to protect our children and your children as well? DUFFY: Which is my point. You might say -- your community might go, well, you know what, if you don`t vaccinate your children, we can`t send them to public school. That may be the community`s option. But as you know -- I don`t how many sicknesses I have gotten from my kids going to school and coming home with colds and flus. At some point we have to say, listen, let`s give control to our parents. I can choose to vaccinate my kids, but I hate to have more state control over what I do with my children. DIAZ-BALART: Not everybody is a great parent. I got to tell you, not everybody really cares as much as maybe you do. DUFFY: But I`ll tell you, Jose, I think a lot of parent who are smart, they`re well read, they are some of the ones who are choosing not to vaccinate. And often times those who may not be as well read, they are vaccinating. So to say you just have a bunch of crack pots who are choosing not to do this with their children, I fon`t think that`s actually true. You have well-read parents who are making this decision. I pick and choose. I vaccinate my kids on most things, but there some things I might go, you know what, this might not work for me and my values and my family. Let`s not have the state come in and start being repressive and telling us how to raise our kids. DIAZ-BALART: Wisconsin congressman Sean Duffy, thank you for being with me. Good to see you. Appreciate your time. DUFFY: Thanks, Jose. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 3, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020301cb.455 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 16 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 4, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 4, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Morgan Brennan, Steve Clemons GUESTS: Tim Ryan, Brad Woodhouse, Angelo Carusone, Holland Cooke, Terence Moore SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7345 words HIGHLIGHT: Jeb Bush`s return to politics tour takes him to Detroit touting a "conservative agenda" to improve the nation`s middle class. Nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran could be on the verge of a major breakthrough with a key compromise on the table. Six people are dead after a Metro-North train hit a SUV outside of New York City. Florida State University drops its commitment to three-star linebacker Brian Bell on National Signing Day after he`s named in a wrongful death suit. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: First, we start with Jeb Bush`s new reform conservative agenda. There`s something new out there. Earlier today, Jeb Bush gave a speech in Detroit where he previewed his economic plan if he was the boss. It`s really his first major address since he announced the possibility of running for president. The theme of his speech was, "The right to rise", OK, "The right to rise". That was the theme of his speech. Jeb promised a new vision with details yet to come. He wants to raise income by ensuring economic freedom for Americans. Bush had some harsh words for the government. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FRM. GOV. JEB BUSH, (R) FLORIDA: Our nation has always valued such economic freedom because in economic freedom, each citizen has the power to propel themselves forward and upward. This really isn`t understood in Washington, D.C., you can see why, it`s a company town. And the company is government. It`s all they know. For several years now, they have been recklessly degrading the value of work, the incentive to work and the rewards of work. We`ve seen them cut the definition of a full-time job from 40 to 30 hours, slashing the ability of paycheck earners to make ends meet. We`ve seen... (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Government does not degrade the value and incentive to work. The safety net does not trap people. It`s therefore the worst case scenarios. And it`s been there for decades. Bush is wrong on all fronts. After Bush`s brother wrecked the American economy, the government was responsible for the recovery, have we not done the stimulus package where would we be? It`s been six years since President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. It`s also known as the stimulus package. Oh yeah, I remember that. Since early 2010, folks you can`t argue with the numbers. 58 straight months of private sector job growth, what do you think Republicans would be saying if that was on their watch, we`re talking about 11 million jobs have been created. Where is the fault of the government? The employment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent, that`s good news. Now, if Jeb Bush got his hands on the economy, we can only imagine what would happen to these numbers. Bush`s attack Dodd-Frank and the consumer financial protection bureau, he wants to deregulate Wall Street and give power back to the big banks. Bush is already talking less government oversight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: You want to close the opportunity gap, grow the economy. This is a principle that concentrates the mind. If a law or rule doesn`t contribute to growth, why do it? If a law subtracts from growth, why are we discussing it? And for what it`s worth, I don`t think the United States should settle for anything less than 4 percent growth a year -- which is about twice the current run rate estimated by most economists. At that rate the middle class can thrive again. And in the coming months, I intend to detail how we can get there. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So, if I had an opportunity to sit down and visit with Jeb Bush. I would ask him, what government rule or regulation got in a way of 59 months of private sector job growth? Could we have gotten 11 million jobs at it had we had not done the stimulus package? This is where it gets really tricky for Bush and any other Republican who wants to be president. The Republicans have to sell that they even know what the middle class is. Jeb Bush went on to say that he cares about opportunity for everyone? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I know some in the media think conservatives don`t care about the cities, but they are wrong. We believe that every American in every community has the right to pursue happiness. They have a right to rise. So I say, let`s go where our ideas will matter the most, where the failures of liberal government policies are most obvious. Let`s deliver real conservative success. And you know what will happen? We`ll create a whole lot of new conservatives. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I`m sure the people of Detroit are just all over that. I`m sure the people of Detroit after what they`ve been through are really feeling good about more conservative utopia propaganda about what really could be done. They want to privatize absolutely everything. In fact, they`ll even cut off the water. If Jeb Bush really cared about people in cities, he would have support the automobile loan program. Here`s what he told Congressman Chris Van Hollen back in 2012. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, (D) MARYLAND: Many of us believe that it was also appropriate to take the actions that President Obama did to help rescue the auto industry and a million jobs. Did you support that effort? BUSH: No. VAN HOLLEN: No. OK. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: No, no he didn`t support that. Jeb didn`t support the automobile loan program that saved the American automobile industry and look where it is today. Moments later, Van Hollen asked him if he supported the Wall Street bailout. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VAN HOLLEN: Did you support the rescue of Wall Street banks? BUSH: You know, I`ve never been ask that either. Again, it was out of office, so now you asking... VAN HOLLEN: Yeah. BUSH: ... and I think given the circumstances of the potential for a meltdown it would have been hard to recover, some support was appropriate. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Well, you know what? We were on the verge of total financial collapse, and had we had not stepped in that would be we, you and me, the tax payers. Had we had not done that, who knows where we had been? We were in uncharted territories, so I do believe that we did the right thing with Wall Street. It`s the aftermath and the lack of accountability is where we got into trouble. We were on the verge of a total financial collapse. Given that situation, look where we are now. Had it not been for the government that would be you and me, where would we be? The conservatives, they speak in circles. They want to be friendly to the middle class but they got no ledger to prove that they are. And the middle class in this country is the economic engine the will drive us to prosperity. The wage separation that`s taking place in America right now is something the Republicans are going to have to address or they`re not going to have any credibility with the working folk and they`re not going to win the White House -- unless of course they steal it. Bush never supported a loan for Detroit`s automobile industry. But keep in mind, when it comes to the fact that`s down on Wall Street. He`s all about it. He`s all for it. Those clips are from 2012 and they`re just a glimpse of what Jeb Bush presidency would look like. Or maybe back then when he was answering those questions, he really hadn`t thought about it too much. That`s the kind of stuff that comes back and hunts you. Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is already talking about losers. Think about that. This is a guy that wants to be president of the United States, and he is already picking and choosing -- in an interview he`s asked, who would be the whiners if you were president. He is choosing the losers. He is identifying the losers if he were to become president. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you were to win the presidency, who losses? Meaning, who`s mad that Scott Walker in the White House? Who gets fired? What gets cut, what gets eliminated? GOV. SCOTT WALKER, (R) WISCONSIN: Well, I think the biggest loser in that case would (inaudible) in three of the last four elections for Governor of Wisconsin, the big-government special interest. In Washington, we took the power out of their hands, they`re the ones that came to Wisconsin four years ago and tried to shut us down, they`re the ones that tried to recall me. They`re the ones who tried to take me down as their number one target last November. And they would be the ones losing in Washington because we would take the power out of their hands nationally, and put it in the hands of the hardworking taxpayers and free them up to make the choices. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I mean, I think it`s absolutely stunning that Walker is admitting that there would be losers in the American economy if he becomes president. He calls him special interest. He is referring to unions. You know, the folks that want to voice the workplace, the folks that want health care, they want pension, they want to be able to negotiate for a better rate as corporations go through the roof with profits. He wants to take all of that away and those people would be the losers. That means under Walker, middle class Americans will become losers, he admitted it. People who want pensions, health care and middle class and collective bargaining rights, they would be the losers if Scott Walker is the man, if he is the President. This is exactly what Republicans want, they want to see losers. I believe that. These are my thoughts. I believe that the Republicans have a philosophy. That there`s going to be some folks that simply aren`t going to make it, there`s going to be some folks that are going to have the same opportunity. And for the sake of profit, we are going to be the man and we`re going to squash some worker`s rights in this country because that`s socialism. And they want to know why the middle class is upset in this country. They want to know why that there`s income gap? You know what? To this day, I still say that Walker is the perfect candidate for the Republicans. The interview he gave speaks volumes. Off the cuff, think about that. There is someone who wants to be president that`s willing to identify who`s going to pay the price if he goes to the White House. That`s just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Get you cellphones out, I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Do you think Jeb Bush has any new ideas? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can always go our blog at ed.msnb.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show. You can follow me on Twitter @edshow and @WeGotEd. For more, let me bring in Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio. And, Congressman, let me ask you, have you even been asked if you get elected, who would be a loser in your district? REP. TIM RYAN, (D) OHIO: No. That was very creative question, I have not. Most people asked how you`re going to help, what are going to do to make things better. But for him to go, you know, directly -- and even if someone asked you who are losers going to be, you should have a more comprehensive agenda that make sure that everybody`s going to have some opportunity. SCHULTZ: So, what do you make a Jeb Bush`s economic plan that he laid out today? Did you hear anything new in Detroit? RYAN: No, it look like a lot of general talking points trying to make sure that he can communicate to the conservative based that he is not anything other than an extreme conservative. And I think his record in many ways although he is nice fellow, I think his record on voting rights, women`s rights, labor rights. These kinds of things put him in the category of the Scott Walker. And I found it very interesting that he was taking potshots, Ed, and talking about economic freedom and incentives to work. The entire Heath Care Reform Bill was to help people who are working for a living. It`s not the Medicaid program that we were talking about, where people who maybe down and out on their lap (ph), maybe they`re older or their children and could have Medicaid, that`s not what we were talking about. The reform was about making sure people did have economic freedom. That they could move between jobs... SCHULTZ: Yeah. RYAN: ... that they could be entrepreneurs because they knew they weren`t going to loose their health care, that there were some basic justice. So to say that economic freedom is to repeal Obamacare which we try to do for the 59th time yesterday, it lies in the face of how this program actually hits the ground for the American people. SCHULTZ: Yes. You know, a first impression is a lasting impression. There are maybe some people out there across America that are starting to investigate Jeb Bush who don`t know a lot about Florida politics that want to hear what he has to say. And some things comeback to hunt candidates for instance, Mitt Romney said he wouldn`t let Detroit go bankrupt. He just could not live that down, said he like to fire people. He could live that down. Jeb Bush now seems like he is trying to fine the path to the middle class. And on the hills of your meeting last week in Philadelphia when the House Democrats got together, do you think that Democrats have a strong advantage over Republicans when it comes to the middle class and especially since you`ve heard what could be one of their leading candidates talk about trying to make that connection? RYAN: I think we do. I think we have the inside track but we got to hammer the message home. Take Scott Walker for example, he comes in, he want to talk about Davis-Bacon for our construction folks making sure that they have prevailing wage, these kinds of things that allow average people to earn a living. With the Republican House and Republican Senate, and a Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, those kinds of things are going to get eliminated. You`re talking about almost a national right to work law that could potentially pass in Congress and get signed by an extremely conservative president who is controlled by the Koch brothers. SCHULTZ: Yeah. RYAN: ... and you look at the Democratic agenda with the president talked about -- what we`re talking about. We know we need to deal with wages, they should sit down and help us. In the mean time, if you have affordable child care, which the President proposed to reduce the cost for average families in America to help them with child care, you reduce that cost. SCHULTZ: Yeah. RYAN: Universal care for community colleges, universal preschool, these kinds of things are going to put money in the pocket of average Americans. SCHULTZ: And Republicans are saying all of that is dead on arrival. Congressman Tim Ryan, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. Let me bring in Brad Woodhouse, President of American Bridge 21st Century. Brad, good to have you with us. BRAD WOODHOUSE, AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY: Hi, Ed. SCHULTZ: Are we looking at George W. Bush like here, what do we seen here in the early look at Jeb Bush? WOODHOUSE: I`m not sure it`s George W. Bush like. I mean, I think its typical Republican. I think its more Mitt Romney like than anything else. I mean, you know, I think Jeb Bush went up there, I think the congressman is right. It was standard talking points about economic freedom which really means allowing more big tax breaks for Wall Street, allowing more tax breaks to shift jobs overseas, allowing people to have these tax havens overseas. And it means, you know, nothing for the middle class, there wasn`t any prescription in his speech... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WOODHOUSE: ... that was a prescription for helping the middle class. SCHULTZ: Well, I think the Republicans have to come to grips with this, that there`s no philosophy that`s going to make an immediate change in any kind of wage as being uplifted in this country. And if they`re not going to address the immediacy of it, how were they going to connect with the largest voting block in the country. I mean, you know, what would happen to regulations like Dodd-Frank if Jeb Bush was president? Is that what the American want to hear? No, they want to hear that there`s going to be jobs created, they want to be hearing that there`s going to be a chance at a better wage and all of the things that they are for right now are stagnant from the standpoint of pushing all of those programs down further. So, what`s new on the table with Bush is my question. WOODHOUSE: Well, I mean look, they`re for the same old things they`ve been for, Ed, is called trickle-down economics like -- if you repeal Dodd-Frank well, Wall Street will do better and everyone will benefit. If you repeal Obamacare, the insurance company will do well and all of a sudden everyone will benefit. It just doesn`t -- it doesn`t stand a reason. It didn`t work. I mean we`ve had two Bush presidencies that ruined the economy, we had two... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WOODHOUSE: ... Democratic presidencies in, you know, the Clinton and Obama that revived the economy. We know the Bush way is not the right way to deal with the economic problems. SCHULTZ: Well, you mentioned the parallel to Mitt Romney and I guess we have to right to the automobile loan program. Romney said, he`ll let Detroit go bankrupt, Jeb Bush on record saying that "No, he wouldn`t have gone down that road", is that going to haunt him? WOODHOUSE: It is going to haunt him. I mean look, I think you got to remember -- this is a swing -- Michigan is a swing state, Ohio is swing state. There are a lot of these Rust Belt states that really dependent on this auto rescue. You know the irony of this is he was in Detroit today making an economic speech, he opposed the auto rescue program and guess what G.M. announce today? Record profits, now where do you think those record profits are going. There helping -- all of those... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WOODHOUSE: ... auto workers who jobs... SCHULTZ: Well... WOODHOUSE: ... would have been lost, if Jeb Bush has gotten his way. SCHULTZ: Not only that but Ford is talking about restructuring the wages for their workers. How much more positive could that be? Now I want your quick response to... WOODHOUSE: Sure. SCHULTZ: ... Governor Scott Walker identifying losers. I mean, he`s telling wagers in America that you`re in for a long haul if I`m ever a president. I mean that`s historic. WOODHOUSE: It`s absolutely despicable. It`s also -- it`s hard to explain, I mean someone who is running for president wants to get everyone`s vote and wants to try to attract every constituents that they can. By saying that the unions will be losers in a Walker presidency, he`s saying workers will be losers and if he saying workers... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WOODHOUSE: ... will be loser you see he`s saying Wall Street will be the winner. SCHULTZ: All right. Brad Woodhouse, always good to have you with us. Thanks so much... WOODHOUSE: Thank you, Ed. SCHUTLZ: ... for your time tonight. Remember -- you bet. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen, share your thoughts with us on Twitter. Follow us on Twitter @edshow and @WeGotEd, like us on Facebook. We appreciate that. Always want to know what you think and we do read your comments. Coming up. A nuclear deal the United States is on the verge of agreement with Iran. The question mark, this could be a make or break moments. Story coming up. And later, format flip. We`ll look at how social media is making things a little rough for the right-wing talkers in the advertising department. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. On international news, tense talks continue over the future of Iran`s nuclear program but a breakthrough could be on the horizon. The Associated Press reports the United States and Iran could be coming close to a compromised. Two diplomats familiar with the talks told the A.P. that deal would let Iran keep much of the technology used to enriched uranium. Yet, however, would have to reduce their potential to make nuclear weapons. Under the proposal, Iran would be able to keep most of their centrifuges operating while configuring them to produce less material. And the country could store a limited amount of uranium gas used for enrichment. Iran would be required to ship out the majority of enriched uranium they produce. This would leave them with less than what is needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Now, this potential deal comes as a deadline nears for an agreement. The White House has been trying whatever it can to keep Iran at the table. Congress hasn`t been so patient. Last week, the Senate banking committee voted to tighten sanction on Iran if an agreement is not reach by the end of June. The President has previously said that he would veto a sanctions bill if it landed on this desk. It`s clear that international security hinges on disarming Iran. This deal could make it a reality, but how close are they? Joining me tonight Steve Clemons, MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-large for the Atlantic. Steve, its not often, in fact it has been decades since we have come close to any kind of a deal with Iranians on anything. What`s you`re reaction to two people close to the negotiation would tell the Associated Press that, you know what? There`s a compromise in sight here and the details of it as I just reported, your thoughts on it. STEVE CLEMONS, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, THE ATLANTIC: Well, as you and I discussed in the past. I have felt that a deal within the offing (ph) that was something close that we were -- getting to in the administration was working very hard to get to that point. And that they hadn`t made assessment that they really thought the Iranians were incredibly trying to get that too. That said I`m very surprise by what`s leaked out, because forgetting the Republicans in Congress. The French have been the most resistant in agreeing to any sort of centrifuge arrangement that maybe part that what was leaked. You know, originally we want to see -- a reduction to about 2,000 centrifuges. We came back with a minimum threshold of about 4,500 centrifuges. The idea that they would be allow to keep 10,000 even with these other adjunct operations with the uranium gas and then shipping out the process fuel is very surprising to me because I think it`s going to be... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: ... harder for the President to convince the world that this was a good deal. SCHULTZ: Well, the President -- the convincing that has to be done here and a scientist are going to have to speak up on this and those in the no, is that Iran would not have enough material to make a bomb. I mean that`s really what it comes down to. And there`s a serious trust but verify situation here. And there really is no line of credibility that we can point to that says that Iran will uphold their end of the deal. CLEMONS: Right. SCHULTZ: I mean that`s the $64 point isn`t it? CLEMONS: Right. And I think is also, you know, a view around the world that Iran has a right to peaceful uses of nuclear power, has a right to enriched for peaceful uses. What`s going to have to come -- be part of this and I`m sure the White House has worked out many of these details, is you`re going to have inspectors embedded in every part of that country. The trust and verify part of this is so fundamental. But I`m sure that the White House has thought that through. SCHULTZ: Well, nuclear power is somewhat archaic and some, you know, environmental communities the way they think at it. There`s a lot of other ways to power your country and supply for your people as opposed to nuclear power. So that`s another discussion but... CLEMONS: Right. SCHULTZ: ... how do you think the international community is going to react to this? CLEMONS: I think overwhelmingly, you`re going to see a change in the way global gravity works. If we really get a deal, this becomes President Obama`s "Nixon went to China" moment. It changes everything, it changes relationships... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: ... new relationships and possibilities opened up. It`s the largest deal in international affairs we`ve seen in many, many decades. Far bigger than normalizing with Vietnam, it is a very big deal if they get a deal because this... SCHULTZ: Well. CLEMONS: ... will lead to perhaps other trust building opportunities down the road that could change what our expectation is of Iran`s behavior elsewhere in the world. SCHULTZ: Well, the fear here is that if you do this deal and you trust the Iranians, you never going to reverse it. I mean I don`t know, I wouldn`t envision a scenario where or once they are given the capability to keep some type of centrifuges to the number that they`re talking about, that you won`t able to get to negotiations later on and have them reduce at even further. So that is -- that`s a tight rope, there`s no doubt. I want to talk about another big international story that is going on right now. And that is the conflict in Ukraine. Vice President Joe Biden is set to discuss the situation this week with European leaders. He`s going to be in Brussels and in Munich, Germany. And he`s going to be talking about options for security and also financial aid I believe to Ukraine. And further sanctions on Russia. Now, this comes as pro-Russian forces setup their campaign in the region and of course there`s a lot of activity, there are a lot of bloodshed. What`s the best course of action for the United States in this situation? I mean, and I think backtrack of all of these Steve, is that you have got oil prices that are depressed. You have the Russian economy that runs on oil. And this is one of the reasons why Putin has annexed a certain portion of Ukraine and -- with all of these activity because of the coal reserves on the Eastern portion of the country. I mean, there`s a big dynamic playing out here. And it`s a whole new can of worms if we start arming these folks. Where this going to go... CLEMONS: It`s going to be. SCHULTZ: ... should we arm the Ukrainian -- yeah, should we armed the Ukrainian fighters? CLEMON: I worry about arming the Ukrainian fighters only in the sense that that could lead to an escalation, a new arena of conflict that we`re ill prepared for and haven`t thought through. That said, I think we should give Ukraine every other element of support and as you`ve just describe Vladimir Putin, you know, by his own actions has his people in a terrible vice where the combination of sanctions and collapsing oil prices is making the Russian economy implode. And so he`s making his people pay a very high price for this misbehavior, what he`s doing in Ukraine. But I think the broader issue is a very important, as tragic as what we see unfolding in Ukraine is and I think there a lot of elements of power we can deploy beyond slipping into a potential military escalation. This is a global relationship and we need to come to a global deal with Vladimir Putin. And we`ve got to figure out what his incentives already getting there. SCHULTZ: Steve Clemons, always great to have you with us on Ed Show. CLEMONS: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: We appreciate your time, sir. Thank you. You bet. Still to come, the extinction of righty talk radio when it comes to advertiser. Rapid Response Panel weighs in. What`s behind the down turn? And a mysterious death could take a star athlete from a football field to the court room. We`ll have the details later on the Ed Show. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We`re following breaking news at this hour from the New York Metro area. At this hour, the National Transportation Safety Board announced that they will have more information in the last night`s deadly Metro-North train crash and that information will be made available tomorrow. The train hit a Mercedes SUV at a railroad crossing during the height of rush hour and pushed it for a thousand feet. Six people died, 15 others were severely injured. The train line takes thousands of commuters from New York City to the surrounding suburbs daily. We`ll continue to monitor the story and bring you the details as they develop. More ahead on the Ed Show. Stay with us. MORGAN BRENNAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Morgan Brennan with your CNBC Market Wrap. A triple-digit rally fades on concerns about Greece. The Dow ends with 6 point gain, the S&P sinks 8 point and the NASDAQ is off 11 points. Staples is agreed to buy Office Depot for more than $6 billion. That deal will be highly scrutinized by antitrust regulators. As for the economy, employers added 213,000 jobs to payroll last month, that`s according to ADP. Economists expected a gain of 225,000. The government`s closely watched employment report is out Friday. That`s it from CNBC, first in business world wide. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST, RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW: So Scott Walker`s doing it and he is running away, and these clowns on our side don`t even understand it yet. Stop and think. Here`s a guy who won three elections in four years in a blue state. He has neutered the employee`s union, the teachers union. He`s got the support of the majority of people in Wisconsin. You would think at Republican headquarters and consultant headquarters, they would be eager to find out how he`s done it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: It sounds like an endorsement to me. Welcome back to the Ed Show. You know, for years, Rush Limbaugh has ruled the airwaves with his right- wing chatter. Now, advertisers are running from Limbaugh and other right- wing talkers. Talk Radio was still popular. No doubt about that but companies don`t want to attach their brand to a risky message whether it would be political or vulgar. Rush Limbaugh pulled in huge numbers until attacking a Georgetown law student for testifying about women`s health three years ago. Limbaugh`s half-hearted apology couldn`t save his image. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Limbaugh`s verbal mea culpa followed a paper apology over the weekend. But neither stopped advertisers from abandoning the radio host. Today, AOL joined the growing list of companies suspending advertising on the show. AOL`s statement echoing what some of the others said -- that Mr. Limbaugh`s comments are not in line with our values. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Pressure mounted for advertisers to cut ties with Limbaugh but then there was a snowball effect. Media Matters built an advertising boycott campaign around the radio talker. The landscape today has evolved from that to a higher mountain to climb. Social media has mobilized listeners like never before. Advertisers cannot ignore the discourse. The Wall Street Journal reports, "according to one radio executive, advertisers don`t want to risk being Twitter-bombed. Radio stations have to consider what the fallout will be when deciding to take a new show." Social media has taken talk radio into an era of accountability. Some people view it that way. Joining me now on our Rapid Response Panel, Angelo Carusone with us tonight, he is the Executive Vice President at Media Matters, also with us tonight Holland Cooke, Talk Radio and Media Consultant. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. Holland, you first on this. Are stations worried or advertisers worried about being Twitter-bombed? I mean, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Social media is good but then again it can be a big enemy. What`s happening here? HOLLAND COOKE, TALK RADIO CONSULTANT: That`s why I`m saying, video killed the radio star, it was social media. And I have two notable quotes for you from a radio station I visited earlier this week. The station has Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin. The station owner himself a staunch conservative ask me what is the next generation of talk radio because even the righties are now yawning at this crazy uncle act. And other sound bite was, the station owner claims that five people behind all of these. And he had these I.T. Departments backtrack the e-mails back when the boycott begun. And there were all from out of state. I think that verifying the size of the boiler misses the point. Social media is so big in scope that it`s given one person let alone and organized boycott effort, a great big megaphone. And it hasn`t stop in the couple of years since the (inaudible). SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well, it can definitely injure your image. There`s no question about that. And that`s the last thing advertisers want. I don`t know if -- is it political or is it more vulgar? Angelo, when you started this Media Matters campaign to boycott right-wing talkers, did you think that it would have such as sweeping effect throughout the entire category? ANGELO CARUSONE, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Yes I did. And I think in large part because the business model of Rush Limbaugh is the business model of right-wing talk. I mean, the attacks that he put on Senator Flake, which spanned three full days and we`re 46 in total are actually part and parcel what Rush Limbaugh is about every single day. Then he -- what we saw with our radios there is actually just another day for Rush Limbaugh and I think that`s why, you know, he and his other conservative talkers didn`t really think it was a big deal initially because as part as they were concerned, there was nothing usual in here. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Holland, there`s millions of dollars out there on network radio, where is this money going if it`s not going to these talkers? COOKE: The timing for this was awful because along came digital media and this is the shinny object. Ask any radio station -- manager and he will tell you that the digital guys are calling on the car dealers. This is the shinny object now. Some of these digital guys, there are twoguysandagarage.com, others are sophisticated consultants and money is moving from the car dealer`s radio budget to the digital budget and some of these advertisers are making earnest mistakes because the internet is the shinny object. So this is the wrong time for talk radio to get radioactive. SCHULTZ: Mr. Carusone, when you look at what Media Matters has done in the impact that they`ve had, I mean the right-wing talkers can say, well, I`m still on the air and I`m still making a living and everything is good. The fact to the matter is that if there is a long list, as long as your arm, of people that used to advertise on network radio that are not doing it now because they don`t want to be associated with it... CARUSONE: I think that`s correct. SCHULTZ: ... where is this going? Can that be rehabilitated? CARUSONE: I don`t think it can be because the business model itself is a failed model. I mean, you know, we statements from over -- and there are statements from over 1,800 advertisers that have been proactive and said, don`t put -- my ads on Rush Limbaugh or any kind of programming like Rush Limbaugh. And I think, you know, with the respect to what Media Matters did, what Media Matters does is take their own words, transcribe them and put them on the internet. And so, you know, it`s not that we`re doing some magical thing. It`s that we`re just simply, you know, pulling back the veil. We`re exposing them to a large audience so that consumers and there were thousands of them out there and the Stop Rush Movement and the Flush Rush Movement to take their own words and send them to the advertisers that they have relationships to it. It allows consumer to talk to advertisers. So, the reason I don`t think it`s able to be rehabilitated is because it`s what their model is, there`s nothing to rehabilitate here as far as they`re concerned. SCHULTZ: Your thoughts on that, Holland. What about that? COOKE: What`s going to cure this is a return to local programming because this early 90`s style national political shout-fest is like the 1980s light beer commercials, all you hear day after day is it tastes grade, less feeling. It`s like a movie Groundhog Day. Every show sounds the same and what the smart... SCHULTZ: Yeah. COOKE: ... stations are doing is reinvesting in the local programming that is more relevant, more advertiser friendly and isn`t tainted... SCHULTZ: Yeah. COOKE: ... and isn`t in the demographic bullseye because young people just don`t want to listen to this anymore. SCHULTZ: Well, the digital folks are at the right place at the right time. That`s what it sounds like. Holland Cooke and Angelo Carusone, great to have both you with us tonight, interesting landscape that`s out there. Up next. In the two-minute drill, Pete Carroll explains just what happened. Tom Brady shares his MVP price and the Colts linebacker is in deep trouble. Stick around, two-minute drill coming up and a lots more in the Ed Show. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: All right, two-minute drill. Here we are hack it up. I don`t think you`re ever going to get over this. Seattle Seahawks fans, they`re demanding answers about the final call which of course sent the Super Bowl and the trophy to the New England Patriots. Seahawks Head Coach Peter Carroll is facing the music. He is going to be talking with NBC`s Matt Lauer and it`s his first sit down television interview since losing the Super Bowl. The exclusive interview will air tomorrow morning on the Today Show, portions of the interview air tonight on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. Next up. Special delivery, D`Qwell Jackson with a huge free agent pickup for Indianapolis Colts, he stepped in a big way as a leader of the team`s defense this past season but he is running with some trouble off the field. According to reports, Jackson was arrested in Washington D.C. on Tuesday night. He allegedly punched a pizza delivery boy in the face and the back of the head after fighting over a parking spot. A little bit news finally, MVP overhauled, we go to Patriots` quarterback Tom Brady won a 2015 Chevy Colorado pickup truck for being the game`s MVP. He is planning to give the truck to the Patriots defensive back Malcolm Butler, what a nice guy. Butler an undrafted rookie out of West Alabama became the Patriots unlikely hero when he made the Super Bowl winning interception. We got a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We are right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. And finally tonight, today was National Signing Day. It`s been called the Super Bowl of recruiting. It`s the day that the best high school football players of America across the country submit their letters of intent to their future universities where they want to play college football. Three-star linebacker Brian Bell may not be the top recruit but there`s a lot of folks watching to see where he ends up. Until recently, Bell expected to join Florida State University on a football scholarship. He committed to the Seminoles a year ago in February of 2014. Today, FSU withdrew its scholarship offer. Now, the family of high school classmate Kendrick Johnson wants to see Bell in court. In January of 2013, 17-year-old Kendrick Johnson was found dead inside a rolled up mat in his Georgia High School gym. At the time the Lowndes County Sheriff`s Department ruled the death a freak accident. They said the teenager got trapped after falling into the upright mat trying to retrieve a shoe. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation sighted asphyxiation as the cause of death. Kendrick Johnson`s family wasn`t satisfied and sent his remains to Orlando for a second independent autopsy. The private pathologist hired by the family determined that Johnson died from "blunt force trauma to the neck" and his death was non-accidental in nature. Last month, Kendrick Johnson`s family filed a $100 million wrongful death suit in the state of Georgia. The Johnson`s alleged Brian Bell, his brother and three other students were responsible for their son`s death. It`s important to note, Bell and the others were never charged with a crime or listed as suspects. The Johnson family claims, that`s part of a conspiracy that cover up their son`s death. The suit also includes member of the Lowndes County Sheriff`s Office, the Valdosta Police Department, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation along with Bell`s brother and Bell`s father who is an FBI agent. The Bell`s family attorney denies all allegations made in the complaint. Joining me tonight is National Sports Columnist Terence Moore. Terence, good to have you with us tonight. This is sad on all fronts across the board but it`s interesting that Florida State which had it its own controversies to deal with. They`ve made a decision not to sign Bell. Bell was never charge with the crime or listed as a suspect, is this move all about avoiding bad press? What do you make of it? TERENCE MOORE, NATIONAL SPORTS COLUMNIST: Well, I would not (inaudible) to sit on the back for this. I mean, this all goes back to Jameis Winston`s knucklehead moves so he basically had no choice. At Florida State, even before the Winston controversies, contrary to popular believe, this has always been an outlaw program even going back to the days of Saint Bobby Baldwin, OK? And Bobby Baldwin would get away with a lot of stuff with his (inaudible) and I think of -- yes the star punter Sebastian Janikowski who`s with the -- Raiders right now and his nickname was Polish Cannon. He was always involve in all kind of mess and before a ball game, when everybody thought he was going to be suspended because of all these knucklehead stuff he was doing, Bobby Baldwin laughed and said we forgot Warsaw rules when it comes to this guy. SCHULTZ: Yeah. MOORE: So as a result, this is what we`ve see all the time with Florida State so this is -- they`re doing this because they have to do it, not because of some kind of social consciousness. SCHULTZ: Well, we need to point out that Winston was never charged with anything. MOORE: Yeah. Well, that`s true. But look at all the others that he was involved with, it tells you that this is a program that`s been out of control. SCHULTZ: OK. Now, there was a big social media campaign to persuade Florida State to withdraw the scholarship to Bell. Apparently, it worked. I mean do you see that method being used in the future? MOORE: Well, I mean, let`s hope so. And let`s put this in perspective, Ed. I live here at Atlanta and I`ve been in Atlanta for 30 years and I`ll tell you. Is this 2015 or 1815? And one of the things I`ve seen through the years here not in all of Georgia but in a lot of places in Georgia, you know, the difference -- when we talk about the new south that means you and I can drink out of the same water fountain and to put this in total perspective, this is a high school football state. This takes place in Lowndes County. Lowndes County has been one of the top football programs forever in the state and it`s not a coincident that we`re talking about a lot football players involved here. So I do believe that has a lot to do with this that makes it even more but hideous scandal than even we see on the surface. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well, is it unusual for a school to have a commitment from a player and then a year later say, no, we don`t want anything to do with you. You got to go somewhere else. And Bell, I should pointed out, had other scholarship offers from other schools. Do you think those will still be on the table? What about all that? MOORE: Well, your first question, it is highly unusual. This is almost never done. Now, as far as whether or not he`s going to play somewhere else, somebody is going to pick him up and I`ll use example here. Again, the University of Georgia has more -- has had more arrest per year than any other program in college football and they kicked one of their star defensive lineman off the team because he was chocking his girlfriend this summer. Who picks him up? Alabama. And yet Nick Saban saying that, well I just believe we given the guy a second chance. Well, they can play? Yes. So this is all about whether they can play and remember the FCC is the next best conference out there, a league next with NFL. They just go by at OL Al Davis line, "Just win, baby." SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well, do you think Florida States` turning a page here? MOORE: No. No. Not one bit. And remember again, going back to the Jameis Winston situation. You had Jimbo Fisher, the head coach who continuously supported him saying that, oh this guy, he`s being picked on and so on and forth and it had something to do with the fact that they were trying to get Florida State into that final four for the college playoffs... SCHULTZ: Yeah. MOORE: ... if Winston could not play, trust me he would have been just another guy out there. SCHULTZ: All right, Terence Moore, National Sports Columnist, great to have you with us tonight. It is a very exciting time for high school football players to be able to sign that scholarship and know where they`re going to be going next year. It`s an exciting time no doubt. Congratulations to all of them who got that done. That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020401cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 17 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 4, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST Grandmothers Know Best; Middle East Turning Point? BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Joan Walsh GUESTS: John Feehery, David Ignatius, Michael Kay, Irshad Manji, Susan Milligan, Susan Milligan, Sahil Kapur SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 9074 words HIGHLIGHT: With one tweet, Hillary Clinton has served notice that she`s embracing her new position as a grandmother with gusto and taking it on the road politically. Is the burning alive of a Jordanian pilot by ISIS the turning point that may rally the Muslim war against the bad guys? CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Grandmothers know best. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. That`s it. You just heard it right, grandmothers know best. That`s the word from Hillary Clinton. The recent secretary of state has served notice that she`s embracing her new family position with gusto and taking it on the road politically. When she signed off Monday night about the need for vaccines with that hashtag, #grandmothersknowbest, it was a statement meant to be noticed to friend and foe alike. Quote, "I am who I am," I think she was saying, And I think it gives me a vital status in taking this country into the future. I care about the future because our Charlotte -- that`s her grandchild -- and all the other children of her generation are going to be living in it. Well, joining me right now to talk about this interesting development, Republican strategist John Feehery, as well as Joan Walsh of Salon. By the way, here`s how Hillary weighed in on the vaccination debate on Twitter late Monday night. "The science is clear," she wrote. "The earth is round, the sky is blue, and vaccines work. Let`s protect all our kids. #grandmothersknowbest." Anyway, Hillary and Bill Clinton became grandparents this past September, but now some say Secretary Clinton`s new family status as a grandmother could soften her image and also disarm her critics over the age issue. As Politico reported today, quote, "Democrats see this rhetoric as a way to spin Clinton`s age to her advantage and as a chance to show off Clinton`s family life to female voters and her personal warmth to young voters." I`ll start with you, Joan. I think it`s a statement -- that`s why I`m leading with it -- the first time Hillary has come out of the box and said, Guess what? Here`s how I`m running this time... JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. MATTHEWS: ... somebody who cares about the future because I got a stake in it. WALSH: Right. And the age thing is something that people are going to use against her, Chris, so I think it`s really great to get it out there this way. I think it`s really -- it`s great to own it. She`s a grandmother. She`s proud of it... MATTHEWS: You mean the way that the Democrats said that Bob Dole was lurching around... WALSH: No, I never said that! MATTHEWS: ... lurching from position to position that way? (LAUGHTER) WALSH: Both sides can use age, I will admit that. But I think that it is something that people are a little bit afraid of. And I think this is a great way of her saying, I`m at this time of my life. I`m having the time of my live. I`ve got a granddaughter I adore. And I care. She did start with science. I do want to point out she started with science. It wasn`t entirely based on "grandmothers know best," but she -- she owned it. MATTHEWS: It was almost like a nursery rhyme, John, mothers know best... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... a certain rhythm to it. Your view about Hillary and the way she`s apparently handling her self-definition, because Al Gore once said -- not that he was the most successful politician, but he`s a smart guy -- he said, If you don`t define yourself early on, the other guys will. JOHN FEEHERY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, it`s uncharted territory. We`re not quite sure how the American people will react. You wrote in a book many years ago that you put a spotlight on your problems or... MATTHEWS: Bobby Kennedy said, Hang a lantern on your problems. FEEHERY: Yes. And I think that -- that`s one of her biggest problems is she`s going to be 70 when she runs. That`s always an issue. When John McCain runs that -- that old, or when Ronald Reagan was that old, I mean, it`s an issue that comes up. I think that you`re right, she`s trying to define this in the most positive terms. And we`ll see how it works. MATTHEWS: How does it come up? FEEHERY: How does it come up? MATTHEWS: Yes. FEEHERY: Well, that`s a good question because... MATTHEWS: You just brought it up. FEEHERY: I think -- I think -- I think Republicans are going to have to tread very carefully on this because for them, you know, they`re -- they`re -- you have to be able to appeal to that voting bloc, older women... MATTHEWS: Who vote. FEEHERY: ... who vote... WALSH: Right. MATTHEWS: ... and many times vote for Republicans. So they have to handle it... MATTHEWS: OK, let`s... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about what you just said because you`re a good guy, so I`m not going to jump on you like I normally would to somebody who just said what you did. But I could argue that you`ve just stepped into a trap. Just a minute. Mitt Romney is basically a grandfather... FEEHERY: Right. MATTHEWS: ... of many grandchildren. And it has never come up that this was a negative. He`s about the same age as -- look at his family there. Look at that progeny. WALSH: Right. MATTHEWS: That`s a statement. FEEHERY: Right. MATTHEWS: That`s never been an issue. Jeb Bush is a grandparent. The idea that Hillary`s a grandparent, why would that be a potential negative? FEEHERY: Well, I -- I -- I`m not... MATTHEWS: Or her age even, just generally speaking, her age. Why is her age an issue with her, rather than with her peers? FEEHERY: Any time you`re around... MATTHEWS: Male peers. FEEHERY: Any time you`re around the 70 age barrier, it gets to be an issue, and that`s just... MATTHEWS: Well, why didn`t it ever come up with -- with -- with Mitt Romney? FEEHERY: Well... MATTHEWS: And he`s not running as of a week ago. FEEHERY: He`s not... MATTHEWS: A week ago... (CROSSTALK) FEEHERY: He`s not -- he`s not near 70. He`s not going to be 70 when he runs. She`s going to be 70. I think that -- that is a big -- that`s a big age difference there. MATTHEWS: He`s six months older than her. WALSH: They`re... MATTHEWS: Let me -- why don`t you absorb that, John Feehery. FEEHERY: Well... MATTHEWS: He`s six months... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: He was running a week ago, and it never came up! WALSH: I think -- I mean, look, there is a double standard for women. We had Rush Limbaugh telling us and we had Drudge telling us no one wants to watch a woman get old before their eyes. I mean, it`s clear that we really have to endure more scrutiny. I don`t think you were bringing this up yourself. Karl Rove brought it up in terms of her health. Some of them would be very -- you know, very dignified concerns about her health. Does she have the stamina? FEEHERY: It was an issue for Ronald Reagan when he ran at 70. It`s just an issue. I mean, now... MATTHEWS: No one wants to see a woman grow older before their eyes -- what is marriage, if it isn`t growing old together? WALSH: Well, he`s on his fourth -- Rush is on his fourth wife so, you know... MATTHEWS: He got the new model... (CROSSTALK) WALSH: If you just keep trading them in, you`re not stuck with that problem. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Oh, great, you know? A lot of mileage (INAUDIBLE) (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) FEEHERY: Listen, I`m not saying it`s an issue. I`m not saying it`s an issue. WALSH: No, you`re not. FEEHERY: I`m saying... WALSH: You`re one of the good guys. FEEHERY: ... she`s trying to define it in a most positive way. She`s the one... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think -- I think -- I think -- I do -- two things go on in politics. One is self-definition. You have to define who you are. WALSH: Right. MATTHEWS: Look, we`re Americans. You start with that. Then you go with, I`m a conservative or a liberal or whatever. Then you define that. And then you say, What offices have you held? You help the people out here, step by step. And one of them is, Look, if you noticed, I`m female. Number two, if you noticed, I`m of a certain age. Anyway, Ross Baker (ph) -- I`ve known him forever. He`s a professor at -- he writes a lot of columns. He presented a different view in "USA Today" actually this week on how Democratic women affect their party. Joan, you`re going to jump on this baby. "Women have assumed dominant" -- I love that word, "dominant" -- positions and have scared off serious male challengers. Take Hillary Clinton and Representative Nancy Pelosi. Both are towering and intimidating figures who have sucked the oxygen out of the spheres they dominate. True, they have successfully promoted the candidacies of women, championed issues that appeal to women and generally been rewarded with their support. But the very elevation of these extraordinary women has placed male Democrats in a position of being unwilling to challenge them." WALSH: Oh... MATTHEWS: Although Steny Hoyer did run against Hillary. (sic) WALSH: Steny Hoyer ran against her! MATTHEWS: Against Pelosi. WALSH: And in 2008, a whole bunch of guys ran against Hillary Clinton, and one of them beat her. I mean, this is just preposterous. But I do want to thank both of you guys for manning up and showing up here with me tonight and not being intimidated and not letting me suck the oxygen out of the room. (LAUGHTER) WALSH: There`s still room for male pundits at the table. MATTHEWS: Oh, God! I can`t breathe! I can`t breathe! (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) FEEHERY: The interesting thing about Nancy... WALSH: It`s ridiculous. FEEHERY: The interesting thing about Nancy Pelosi is no one can beat her as leader because she is really where the heart of the Democratic caucus is because she`s liberal and -- as the caucus is liberal and she raises the most money. (CROSSTALK) FEEHERY: It`s all about the money. MATTHEWS: And your party`s been knocking off the moderates now for years. WALSH: Right. FEEHERY: And I -- and I still don`t think that Hillary Clinton -- I still think there`s a chance that someone is going to knock off Hillary, and it might be... MATTHEWS: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... FEEHERY: It might be a male. MATTHEWS: Place your bets. You`re on television. We`ll hold the tape for you. What is it? Who`s going to beat her? FEEHERY: Well, to be determined. I`m not sure... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... Martin O`Malley... FEEHERY: I`m not sure. MATTHEWS: ... Bernie Sanders? FEEHERY: It could be Jon Tester. Who knows? I mean, somebody could beat her. And she might not run. It`s a possibility. You`ve got to lay it out there, and then, you know, who knows what happens. MATTHEWS: So how`s your guy doing? How`s Bush doing? In a question and answer session after the economic speech he gave today in Detroit, Jeb Bush actually addressed his biggest -- (INAUDIBLE) he made the change. It was last week it was Mitt. Now it`s Jeb. Here he is. He talked about his last name, the Bush name. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FMR. FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I love my dad. In fact, my dad is the greatest man alive. And if anybody disagrees, we`ll go outside unless you`re, like, 6-5 and 250 and much younger than me. Then we`ll negotiate. (LAUGHTER) BUSH: I`m still not going to change my mind, for sure. And I love my brother, and I think he`s been a great president. It doesn`t bother me a bit to be proud of them and love them, but I know for a fact that if I`m going to be successful going beyond the consideration (ph), then I`m going to have to do it on my own. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Your witness, John. That was the first time he... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... self-definition. He`s now joined the question. WALSH: Right. MATTHEWS: How do I -- how do I get to be a new Bush while I`ve got the baggage of the old Bushes? FEEHERY: The Bush -- the bumper sticker is not going to be Bush. It`s going to be Jeb. And I think that Jeb... MATTHEWS: Like Hillary. FEEHERY: I think Jeb has got to identify -- define himself, which I think he can easily do, as opposed to his brother. He`s going to chart a new course. And I think that he`s -- with his authentic kind of approach to politics, he`s going to be much more appealing than anything we have... MATTHEWS: You (ph) are a spy on the Republican Party. You`re a centrist Republican, I think. Let me ask you this. Is he going to be more his dad, who most of us really like, or is he going to be more like W. as a hawk? FEEHERY: I think he`s going to be a pirate (ph). I think he`s going to be secretly conservative, unlike his dad, who was actually secretly moderate, but he`s going to be campaigning more as a moderate... MATTHEWS: Will he be a hawk? Will he be a hawk? FEEHERY: I`m -- I -- I think he`ll be... MATTHEWS: Going into new countries with armies! FEEHERY: I think he`ll be... MATTHEWS: Banner flying! FEEHERY: ... much more towards his father than his brother. MATTHEWS: Good. So his people won`t be a bunch of neocons. FEEHERY: I don`t think his people (INAUDIBLE) Although he will -- he will have neocons that support him. MATTHEWS: No, I was hoping he`s going to bring in people like Richard Haass and reasonable Republicans. FEEHERY: And Brent Scowcroft and guys like that. (CROSSTALK) FEEHERY: And I think he`ll do that. I think he`s going to have a far more... MATTHEWS: I think that`s the number one concern of people of my politics, sort of center-left... WALSH: And it`s... MATTHEWS: ... that they ever -- or even in the center, who think they might vote for him because they like him, they just like the guy -- their fear is not his education policy or his immigration policy because they like that and they like Common Core. What they fear about him is, as moderate as he seems domestically, all those cowboys, all those right-wing hawks... WALSH: And that is... MATTHEWS: ... are going to come after him. WALSH: I think he does need to get out there and talk about what is this Bush doctrine and... MATTHEWS: Here he is. Here he is. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Meeting your demand, Governor Bush unveiled what he calls his "reformed conservative agenda for America" out in Detroit today. It was a mix of economic populism and conservative doctrine. Here he is putting it out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: The recovery has been everywhere but in the family paychecks. The American dream has become a mirage for far too many. So the central question we face here in Detroit and across America is this. Can we restore that dream, that moral promise that each generation can do better? If we can`t answer that question, look, no tax, no welfare program will save our system or our way of life because America`s moral promise isn`t broken when someone is wealthy, it`s broken when achieving success is far beyond our imagination. So I`m getting involved in politics again because that`s where the work has to begin. The opportunity gap is the defining issue of our time. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I can`t argue with that. I`ll tell you, that goes with community college, with educating kids... WALSH: Well, right. MATTHEWS: ... and all the good stuff. He didn`t fill that blank in, though. WALSH: I think it`s terrific that Republicans are talking about this now. I really do. If we can agree this is a big problem, we can solve it together. However, that speech had nothing about community college, earned income tax credit... (CROSSTALK) WALSH: How would he -- well, it`s time to fill it in. MATTHEWS: He can`t (INAUDIBLE) taxes for the rich and say he`s doing it to help (INAUDIBLE) FEEHERY: I think his biggest challenge... WALSH: We`ll see. FEEHERY: His biggest challenge is going to be putting meat on the bone. WALSH: Yes. FEEHERY: What are the policies that fill this thing that are conservative that conservatives will embrace? His brother had two policies, No Child Left Behind and prescription drugs... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: They`re not letting him behind. That`s a Dianne Feinstein joke. The other night, she told that. Their policy is... (CROSSTALK) FEEHERY: I think Jeb would be a great president, but how you define policies... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, I hope he`s got a -- by the way, tell me, what`s a conservative to for a working kid in a bad neighborhood who wants to break out and get a real job and make a living? How do you help that guy? FEEHERY: Well, there`s a couple things. First you have to deal with crime control and you have to make sure that education -- that schools are -- are solid. And you have to deal with families. You`ve got to make sure the family structures... (CROSSTALK) FEEHERY: ... and support of the family, all of those... MATTHEWS: I think it`s broad (ph) education in high school, real technical stuff, too, not just... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Thank you, John Feehery. We can figure it out right here at this table. Turn off the camera and get it done here. Joan Walsh, thank you. That`s the nicest thing you`ve said about Republicans in my hearing (ph) lifetime. And I really have a soft spot. I want to hear from Jeb. I`m not ready to put that guy down, and I hope I don`t have to. I hope he`s a real contender because of all that crowd running, you got to like him. Coming up: The horrific murder of a Jordanian pilot -- talking about horrific by ISIS. Jordan executed two ISIS prisoners today, and Jordan`s king is vowing "relentless war" against the terrorists. Is this the turning point that may rally the Muslim war against the bad guys? Plus, Chris Christie goes to London to try to build a foreign policy imagine out of nowhere, but he returns home in worse political shape than when he left Jersey. And why was President Obama so irritated after Mitt Romney called him to concede -- concede! -- 2012 the election? Obama didn`t like the sound of his concession on the phone! Well, that`s ahead with the roundtable. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with Secretary Clinton`s role in life, which is -- she`s defining it now. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Confirmation hearings began today for Ashton Carter, President Obama`s pick to be secretary of defense. And things got hot over Syria. We`ll get to that in a minute, but right off the bat in his opening statement, Chairman John McCain took this shot at the White House. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I must candidly express concern about the task that awaits you, if confirmed, and the influence you would have on some of the most critical national security issues facing our nation. Two of your predecessors, Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta, have severely criticized White House micromanagement of the Defense Department and over- centralization of foreign and defense policy. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Carter vowed to work with the White House and the Republican-led Congress on smatter of national security and said he`d be a stickler for the chain of command. And we`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, Jordan, the country of Jordan, vowed to wage a relentless war against ISIS the day after that horrific video was released by the group showing a captured Jordanian pilot being burned to death while trapped in a cage. According to "The New York Times," quote, "The latest atrocity by the Islamic State was met with revulsion and outrage across the Arab world. Jordan immediately promised an "earth-shaking" response. Well, overnight, it executed two Iraqi jihadists, including a woman, an attempted suicide bomber. Influential religious leaders have also spoken out. The head of Al Azar University in Cairo, which is the top Muslim authority in Egypt and revered by Sunnis, called for punishing ISIS fighters. He said they should be, quote, "killed, crucified or their hands and legs cut off." David Ignatius is a columnist for "The Washington Post" and Michael Kay`s a former senior British officer. Irshad Manji is the director of the Moral Courage Project at NYU. Thank you all for joining -- David, you`re here. Anger over atrocities, whether it`s that beheading or -- we all feel it. We feel it for three or four days, and then we go back to the policy that made sense over time. Will the Jordanians or any of the other Arab countries, the Saudis included, take really up arms against ISIS? DAVID IGNATIUS, "WASHINGTON POST": We`ll have to see. They already nominally are part of the coalition that`s fighting ISIS. An important aspect of the anger that`s clear in the Arab world is that it gives cover for people like King Abdullah of Jordan, for the new leadership in Saudi Arabia, other Arab leaders to move forward with the U.S., not to be embarrassed about it. It`s interesting that Lieutenant Kaseasbeh, the poor pilot who was so brutally killed, is from a very tribal area of Jordan. He`s from a town in the south... MATTHEWS: He`s a Bedouin. He`s a Bedouin. IGNATIUS: He`s from the Bedouin area, and people in that part of Jordan and that part of the Arab world, when they swear revenge, they mean it. So people are angry and they`ll stay (ph) angry (ph). MATTHEWS: So you think they`ll go to war. IGNATIUS: Well, they`re at war. The question is whether they`re going to stick with it. And you know, we always say, Why don`t the Arabs speak up? Why don`t they say something? Why don`t they express anger? Today they did, from one end of the Arab world to the other, and I think that`s important. MATTHEWS: Michael Kay, how does this translate into reality and the fact that even when you listen to John McCain, who`s pretty hawkish, you don`t hear a coherent plan to beat ISIS, even over a reasonable period of time, or any period of time. You don`t hear it. How`s it work? How do you defeat a country, which now is a country, that has all of that land that it owns right now? MICHAEL KAY, FMR. BRITISH ARMY OFFICER: Well, John McCain`s got a very specific view about what to do with rebels and arming rebels. Let`s come to that in a second. The bottom line is, is that ISIS is a global threat, and with a global threat, it requires a multi-lateral response, and that isn`t just militarily, it`s holistically. Now, as already mentioned, Kaseasbeh was a devout Sunni Muslim. There are Sunni Muslims being slaughtered. There are Shias being executed in the hundreds. There are Christians, Yazidis. There are Jews, and from every part of the world. So everyone is at threat here from ISIS, so we can either take the fight to ISIS, or we can let them come to us. I suggest the former. Now, there -- the problem is, is that there are geopolitical problems going on around the world involving key players that we need to galvanize support from. Russia absolutely essential on the U.N. Security Council in the P5. We have got a big problem with Russia and the Ukraine at the moment. That is clouding a coordinated effort. If you look at Iran, there are negotiations going on about the enrichment of uranium and Iran`s nuclear problem. That is clouding a coordinated response. If you go to Saudi Arabia, the problem with Saudi Arabia is that the U.S. has home basing for its Predator drones in the southwest of the country which are being used in Yemen. That will effectively -- that will get in the way of conversations with Saudi Arabia. MATTHEWS: Yes. KAY: Egypt needs to be harnessed because Egypt has made the decision that it`s a sovereign nation and it`s not going to be under the command of the Muslim Brotherhood. There are areas around the world which are clouding a coordinated response that we kind of need to get our head around before we move forward with what John McCain said, which is a military response, which is short-term. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Michael, let`s watch what -- because I think he`s pretty circumscribed for a hawk. Here`s John McCain and he was asked what the United States needed to do to combat ISIS. Let`s listen to his words. Very careful here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I`m very much in favor of forward air controllers, special forces, some embedded trainers and others that literally make the difference between a fighting force that`s capable and one that is not. That does not mean, as the president always sets up the straw man, massive American troops. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: But, earshot, that is the question to Americans. As angry as I feel, as most people do, I don`t see, even in his words do I hear a call for another war, like to go in like we did with Afghanistan or Iraq twice, to go in there on the ground with a famous general leading the charge and kill everybody that gets in our way. I don`t even hear that even from him now. IRSHAD MANJI, MORAL COURAGE PROJECT: No. And there is no appetite in the United States for that, Chris. Even among moderate Republicans, there isn`t. I want to go back, though, to the point about, you know, whether various allies of the United States in the Middle East will sustain their membership in this coalition against ISIS. Look, that coalition is fragile and nominal at best. Let`s take a country like Jordan, which is, in all meaningful ways, a moderate Muslim country. A few years ago, my own entry visa to Jordan was pulled by the royal court. Why? Because they did not want to be accused by the Muslim Brotherhood of allowing somebody like me to come into the country. MATTHEWS: I know. MANJI: That`s how skittish the Jordanian government is about being accused of allying itself with anybody who smacks of Westernism. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, that may have changed? That`s what I want to get to tonight. Did that change? MANJI: No. MATTHEWS: And the sight of a guy having gasoline poured on him, knowing it`s all going to happen to him, realizing it and watching this guy go through this horror? Anyway, many Jordanians rallied behind their country`s king, King Abdullah, of course. He was greeted with cheers when he returned from the U.S. yesterday, and today the king promised a long, hard fight against ISIS. He said: "We are waging this war to protect our faith, our values and human principles and our war, for their sake, will be relentless and will hit them in their own ground." David, can he hold the meds and the beds together in his country? Can he hold his country together facing down a neighboring Arab reality? IGNATIUS: He has a better chance, tragically, after this terrible event. Last week, there were a lot of people concerned in Washington and Amman that the family of this pilot, many people from -- were saying, why are we in this fight? This isn`t our fight. It`s America`s fight. I think there`s a lot less of that now. The point I would make for your viewers is, 90 percent of the Arab world, I think, was outraged today in the aftermath of this. The target audience of ISIS is the 10 percent who may not have been outraged. MATTHEWS: And the hate. (CROSSTALK) IGNATIUS: Well, you know, the shock value. MATTHEWS: Why do they like this? IGNATIUS: Because this is shocking. It`s a scream in the face of the people who have been dropping bombs, in their view, on Arabs, they would argue, killing Arabs. That`s the way they set up this video before the horrible burning of the lieutenant. So, I think also there`s a kind of romance and adventure that ISIS projects. Join the fight. Be with us. And for the 10 percent, that`s powerful. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Irshad. MANJI: Yes, just quickly, that there is also blowback against ISIS among younger Muslims. I can tell you that there is plenty of commentary coming out of the Middle East written by young Muslims saying that this culture of vendetta and countervendetta has to end and that, in fact, the violence being perpetrated by ISIS, the barbarity, the savagery is pushing more and more young Muslims into speaking up and speaking out openly against the abuse of the faith. MATTHEWS: OK. OK. MANJI: So, we very well may see that ISIS has its work cut out for them in recruiting even more young people a year or two from now. IGNATIUS: That`s the best news -- that`s the best news I have -- if she`s right, that`s a big thing. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, let me go to Michael, last question. Michael, briefly, it seems that Israel has had to live with a situation like this. Suppose 90 percent of people in the West Bank don`t want to kill Israelis. They just don`t want to. They want to their life, make a buck, survive, have their kids grow up in some kind of peace and middle-class existence. But the 5 percent or the 2 percent who are willing to go over there and be suicide bombers ruin any chance of that mattering. My question is, if most of the Arab and Islamic world say this is the most horrific thing they have ever seen a human do to another, but the 2 or 3 percent say, no, this is a good excuse for me joining up and going and joining the crazies over there, what matters? In the long run, what matters, the passionate few, the small percentage of hell-raising evil people or the grand number of people who would like to see peace? What matters most? KAY: Well, I think it`s the latter, Chris. It`s a no-brainer. But it takes -- it takes decisions like Egypt -- Egypt made the decision last week, an Egyptian court made the decision to actually rule the militant wing of Hamas as terrorists. That was -- that`s -- that`s unthinkable, given that Egypt in the past has been a power broker in between Palestine and Israeli talks. But let me just finish on the point that John McCain was saying in terms of what his recommendations are on the battlefield. There`s a serious issue here. John McCain is right in one respect, in that there needs to be fusion between a ground force and an air force in order to gain the maximum leverage militarily. But we had 160,000 coalition troops in Iraq with the most sophisticated and powerful air force in the world. Did we get success in Iraq? We also had the most sophisticated air force and ground forces, over 100,000, 300,000 if you include the Afghan national army. How did we get on in Afghanistan? Training 5,000 rebels in Syria and 5,000 Iraqi troops in Iraq in order to tackle effectively what is ISIS isn`t going to cut it. We have got to find another way. We have got to find a political solution, a political alternative, and then we have got to fuse whatever the military solution is with what the political road map turns out to be. MATTHEWS: OK. And that`s a hopeful assessment. Anyway, thank you, David Ignatius. Thank you, Michael Kay and Irshad Manji. Thank you all. It`s been great to learn a terrible story, unfortunately. We will be right back after this. MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Senator John McCain expressed his outrage last week when CODEPINK protesters disrupted a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was about to testify. McCain called the protesters lowlife scum, a phrase that has found its way into a David Letterman parody. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN") DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST, "LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN": NBC used the network time on the Super Bowl to tell about a show called "The Voice." We have a copy of it right here. NARRATOR: The new season of America`s favorite singing competition is coming soon. Don`t miss the premiere episode featuring mind-blowing performances and special guest judge, Senator John McCain. MCCAIN: Get out of here, you lowlife scum. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) NARRATOR: Next: A debate over whether or not to vaccinate children against measles has been a hot topic this week. So it was only a matter of time before Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" weighed in, making his point that vaccines only work when everybody has them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART") JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": It`s like America is in an isolated farmhouse and the measles are zombies. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: And for some inexplicable reason, they have risen from the dead and are looking for, oh, I don`t know, brains. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: So, everybody in the farmhouse has been given a task of boarding up windows and doors in their area to keep out the zombies, because it`s well-established science that zombies have a very difficult time with wood... (LAUGHTER) STEWART: ... have trouble getting it. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: And you trust everybody`s going to do their job. And then you wake up and it`s 2:00 in the morning and there`s a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) zombie gnawing on your brain. And you`re like, what the (EXPLETIVE DELETED)? Who didn`t board up their window? And that`s when some lady from Marin County who you let into your farmhouse goes, oh, I read an article on a wellness forum... (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) STEWART: ... that says we shouldn`t sleep in boarded-up rooms because it (EXPLETIVE DELETED) you all up! And you know what you would say back to them? Brains. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Finally, don`t look for a painted portrait of Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah any time soon. The new House Oversight Committee chairman says he won`t sit for some painting because the practice is -- quote -- according to him, "so 1800s." Well, "The Hill" newspaper reported last month that the Republican from Utah has removed the portraits of past chairmen from the committee room. He told CNN, "I just think this room should be inspired not by those who served as chairman, but by those we work for." Well, Chaffetz said the portraits are a waste of money. Hmm. Up next -- no comment there. Up next: Talk about a bad trip, if you will. Chris Christie may have wished he had stayed home. Nothing seemed to go right for the Jersey governor in his jaunt to London. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. The SUV that was struck by a passenger train in suburban New York, killing six people, has been removed from the scene of the crash. It`s the deadliest accident in the Metro-North system`s history. Taiwanese rescuers have lifted the fuselage out of a doomed TransAsia plane out of the river where it crashed; 31 people were killed when the plane went down last night. And in Boston, fans lined the streets to celebrate the Patriots` Super Bowl win. The parade took place a day later than expected due to a winter storm -- back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Chris Christie is back on U.S. soil and his London trip, as we have seen as we have covered it, has been short of success or any success. Christie`s measles comments left him looking clueless at best, pandering at worst. A page one "New York Times" story on his champagne tastes headlined "Chris Christie Shows Fondness for Luxury Benefits When Others Pay the Bill" puts a ding in his regular guy persona And Christie reverted to form when he snapped at reporters. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: No questions. QUESTION: In your meetings, did you discuss the Islamic State at all? CHRISTIE: Is there something you didn`t understand about no questions? QUESTION: Governor, would you put troops on the ground to fight ISIS? QUESTION: Is there a reason you won`t take questions today? (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And for the first time in New Jersey`s Monmouth University poll, Christie is viewed unfavorably by more people in his state than favorably. And joining me right now to talk about Christie, the HARDBALL roundtable tonight, NBC`s Perry Bacon, "U.S. News & World Report"`s Susan Milligan, and Talking Points Memo`s Sahil Kapur. Thank you all. Susan, I want you first there, because a lot of things went wrong on this trip. SUSAN MILLIGAN, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": Yes. MATTHEWS: This was like a bad trip, as we used to say in the `60s, a bad trip, yes. MILLIGAN: Well, first of all, the whole idea that you can go to Great Britain and call that a foreign policy experience is sort of laughable to me, and the fact that it went so badly makes it even worse. MATTHEWS: They speak English over there still, don`t they? (CROSSTALK) MILLIGAN: Yes, and have flush toilets and hard currency. It`s not a foreign assignment. He should have gone to Greece, actually. That would have been more useful. But what was interesting to me is that I think what we have all wondered is, are we going to see Chris Christie, the straight-talking guy who said get the hell off the beach during one of the storms that everybody liked, or are we going to see Chris Christie the bully? And I think what we saw in his interaction with the press was Chris Christie the bully. And it -- he was so -- you know, it was such a minor situation. It was -- it`s early on. And to say to somebody, you can`t ask me a question? I mean, you don`t want to answer it, don`t answer it. But his problem is that -- I have always thought is that when he -- if he goes to Iowa and he`s at a barbecue and someone asks him a question that he doesn`t like, and he starts saying, are you stupid? Are you stupid? Are you asking me that -- that`s going to be the end of it. He`s got to bring that under control. MATTHEWS: Yes. I think in the beginning, we all thought, I included, thought it was kind of charming to hear a guy speak straight, instead of the usual P.C. stuff. MILLIGAN: Yes, exactly. MATTHEWS: But this stuff of no comment and what`s wrong with no questions, like he`s bridling at the press. Just shut up. You don`t have to talk. MILLIGAN: Right. MATTHEWS: But you don`t attack the reporters, whose job it is to ask you questions about major national issues, international issues. PERRY BACON, NBC NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I don`t mind him not answering questions. Hillary hasn`t answered anything from anybody in a long time. So, that`s fine. His attitude about it is not great. But the big problem was the measles comment was just wrong. I mean, you`re running for president. We want you to be the leader of the country. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. Spell it out. Who is he talking to? BACON: I guess he`s talking to the conservative base, he`s talking to libertarians. MATTHEWS: OK. BACON: It doesn`t mattered. He got criticized. He made Ben Carson seem like the reasonable candidate. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Sahil, I want you to react. I want you to interpret what he says here. This is called meandering, somebody called it, "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page. He was over -- all over the place this week on vaccinations. At a press conference in London Monday, he suggested that parents should have more of a choice, more of a choice when it comes to vaccinating their kids against infectious diseases like measles. Watch this and tell me you can interpret what he`s saying. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) QUESTION: Do you think Americans should vaccinate their kids? Is the measles vaccine safe? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: All I can say is, we vaccinate ours and so, you know, that`s the best expression that I can give you of my opinion. It`s much more important as what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official, and that`s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in this as well. So, that`s a balance that the government has to decide, it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest. So, I didn`t say I`m leaving people the option. What I`m saying is you have to have the balance in considering parental concerns because no parent, no parent cares about anything more than they care about protecting their own child`s health. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: So, I`m not saying give the parents an option but -- I`m telling you, I listened to that carefully. It was impossible. He was touching all the bases, hoping he wouldn`t offend anybody. He wanted the yahoos, whoever he thought they were, these people are working class not believing in measles. I mean, don`t believe in the stuff that we all grew up with. Everybody grows up with measles and mumps and other stuff, and you get vaccinated. That`s what you do. SAHIL KAPUR, TALKING POINTS MEMO: Right. A few things stuck me about that. First, I think it was the first time, you brought up "The Wall Street Journal" editorial, I think it was the first time that they had praised President Obama and criticized Chris Christie on something -- that was pretty extraordinary, the editorial board. But, you know, this idea that a lot of -- a number of Republican lawmakers, presidential hopefuls, have taken the position that I personally support the vaccine, I would do it for my kids, but I wouldn`t force it. We want to know if you would force it. It`s not really important what you would do personally. You`re a lawmaker. We want to know what laws you would make. And another thing to keep in mind here is, the Republican presidential candidates who are kind of sort of pandering to this anti-vax movement as we call it, are not doing it because they don`t believe in the science or they doubt the science, they`re doing it because in the conservative movement, it is borderline toxic to want to mandate anyone to do anything, even if it`s good for public safety, even if it`s good for public health indisputably. MATTHEWSD: Well, what about the Jon Stewart critique that if you leave one of the windows open, the zombies come in. I mean, that was an interesting metaphor because -- I went to Catholic school for 100 years, 16 years I`ll tell you. You always came home because the kids were packed together in classrooms, some kids had sniffles and some got worse. You got the disease and you come sick. If you got three or four brothers, one of you is going to get it. I had four brothers. You get sick all the time because not every kid was healthy -- and also the desire for perfect attendance was ridiculous. Do you remember? Get that kid to school. You want that perfect attendance badge. KAPUR: The science is unequivocal on this. SUSAN MILLIGAN, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT: My mother was a nurse. I could never get away with pretending to be sick. And (INAUDIBLE) you`re fine, go to school. But, yes, everybody got sick. The thing is, look what Thom Tillis said earlier this week, where he said, well, maybe, you know, they shouldn`t have requirements that employees wash their hands, you know, at the restaurant. MATTHEWS: What is that about? Explain that. MILLIGAN: Well, I think that the idea behind it was that government shouldn`t be mandating that a business do anything like that. And as long as they put up a sign saying, we don`t require our employees to wash their hands and the market will take care of it, and people won`t go to this restaurant if people aren`t washing their hands. MATTHEWS: Well, hold on -- (CROSSTALK) MILLIGAN: Would you say, well, we dump our waste into the river and, you know, just don`t buy our product. MATTHEWS: I know that sign is aimed at me, not the employees. It`s aimed at the customers to know that the employees who give you your soup or your coffee or whatever else, a bacon and eggs, that they have clean hands. MILLIGAN: Yes. MATTHEWS: That`s what it is for. To make us feel better. I don`t want that on the door -- ha! KAPUR: No one does. It`s a perfect illustration of what I was talking about, what Thom Tillis said -- MATTHEWS: Who complains about having to wash their hands? KAPUR: Nobody. But they were complaining about what Thom Tillis was saying if you don`t like the mandate -- MATTHEWS: I watch everybody at the airport. I make sure I watch everybody who has -- and if somebody doesn`t wash their hands, everybody knows it, you know? MILLIGAN: And I`m not shaking Senator Tillis` hands again, I`ll tell you. PERRY BACON, NBC NEWS: Exactly right. MATTHEWS: Anyway, Governor Christie has crossed the significant line and it`s not good (ph) with New Jersey. His unfavorable numbers as of now are more than his favorable. The New Monmouth University poll has 38 percent of New Jersey residents with a favorable opinion of Christie. That`s 38. But 40 in unfavorable. In June, Christie was still above water at 45 favorable, 38 percent unfavorable. Even last February, with the bridge-gate scandal in full swing, Christie`s favorables were higher than the unfavorables, 42-37. Well, these things matter. Is this normal? Maybe it`s normal. Is it normal for a politician on his way up to be noticed taking leave from the state that he was elected to govern? BACON: The polls are showing people know what`s going on. Christie is done with Jersey, and the polls are showing that they understand that. Ultimately, Christie cares about a poll in Iowa, but that also is not looking for him right now. MATTHEWS: Yes. But they`ll be asking the citizens of Iowa who read every newspaper, what we`re saying, I hear they don`t like it back home. Sahil, I`m always impressed by the knowledge base of the person being polled. And we`ll be polling here, showing the polls, good polls on all these candidates on the Republican side. You know, there`s a dozen of them. Everybody has an opinion on every one of them. KAPUR: Right. MATTHEWS: How can everybody know -- or is it just a fake? Do they say, oh, yes, I`ve got a very strong opinion about Ben Carson? I have no idea what you`re talking about. KAPUR: And Chris Christie scenario, he`s coming off a year after -- you know, since he got elected, he spent I think something like 40 to 50 percent of his time outside the state. I read this in "The New York Times". And, you know, he`s taken steps that are clearly suggests that he`s looking at the presidential election, that he`s not really thinking about New Jersey. MATTHEWS: What was he doing in London? Running for president. Anyway, the roundtable -- KAPUR: Foreign trips. MATTHEWS: I don`t think you announce that you`re home by going to London. Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. He`s lucky about the snow, I guess. And up next, why was President Obama irritated at Mitt Romney when Mitt Romney called him to concede the 2012 election? This is HARDBALL. This is a great way to end the show today. This is so fascinating, by sensitivity and awkward statements. Anyway, the place for politics. Back in a minute. MATTHEWS: Well, President Obama`s getting back at congressional Republicans with a PR offensive on the each of immigration, of course. Republicans are trying to undo his executive actions on immigration by tying him to funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security. We know about that. Well, today, the president hosted a half a dozen DREAMers at the White House. They`re all young immigrants that would be subject to deportation if the Republican bill gets passed. The president accuses the Republicans of ignoring the human consequences of their legislation. We`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: We`re back. Well, today, "The New York Daily News" released an excerpt from a new book written by President Obama`s political guru, David Axelrod. It`s coming out next week, which reveals the president`s displeasure during the election night, a concession call he got from his 2012 opponent, the defeated Mitt Romney, writing that Obama was shocked and irritated by that phone call. According to Axelrod in the book, Obama was, quote, "unsmiling during the call and slightly irritated when it was over". And Axelrod wrote, "The president hung up and said Romney admitted he was surprised at his own loss." Quote, "You really did a great job of getting out the vote in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee. In other words, black people, Obama said, paraphrasing Romney. That`s what he thinks this was all about." This is Obama being described, interpreted, of course, by Axelrod. But late this afternoon, Romney`s former body man, that`s the guy who gets you your cookies at night, Gary Jackson, disputed Axelrod`s claims, tweeting saying that "Mitt called Barack Obama from my phone. I was right next to him when he conceded. I know for a fact he didn`t say what Axelrod claims." Well, Jackson also told CBS, quote, "I just hope this lie," that`s the word he used, "is the work of David Axelrod and not the president. It`s ridiculous. I was very disappointed he would make that up." Well, back with the roundtable, Perry, Susan and Sahil. Perry, first of all, the president`s sensitivity to the line, not just the line, but the two parts he said it, he said you did great in Cleveland and Milwaukee. Now, I wouldn`t think of Milwaukee as an African-American dominated area. It`s just a city that people are liberal in, or Democrat. But the president apparently saw it as an ethnic jab. BACON: Remember, Romney did make a comment about that. There was a conference call after the election where Romney said Obama won because he gave, quote-unquote, "gifts" -- (CROSSTALK) BACON: Gifts to minorities and young people and Hispanics. So, we know Romney -- MATTHEWS: You linked to something we had on a conference call, with campaign donors, just one week after losing in 2012, Romney blamed his loss to President Obama on what he called big gifts, that`s the word, to loyal Democratic constituencies, especially African-Americans, Hispanics and young people. Here it is. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It`s a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money from the government to a group and, guess what, they`ll vote for you. (END AUDIO CLIP) MATTHEWS: There you go. They bought it. They bought the poor people and minorities. That`s why they won the election. MILLIGAN: Well, I mean, obviously, none of us was there. So, we don`t know exactly what was said. But this is very much in sync -- MATTHEWS: We know what he just said there. MILLIGAN: Right. But it`s very much in sync with what his campaign was saying in late November, after the election in 2012. Everybody trooped up to Cambridge and sat at this event in Harvard University and they spoke very frankly about the campaigns. At one point someone said, did you really think that everyone else`s poll was wrong and yours were right? They said, we think our polls were right, we think we just didn`t get out enough of the white male vote. At which point, we all looked at them and said there isn`t that much of the white male vote anymore in this country that you can rely on it to win a national presidential election. So, I don`t think they really fully understood what the demographics of a presidential electorate is. And that comment, this idea that -- well, we would have won but you whipped up the vote in these, quote unquote, "ethnic areas", that actually makes sense to me. MATTHEWS: Let`s talk turkey. If you`re backroom pol talking to your pollsters, talking or campaign, you`re talking about the big city vote. You may call it the urban vote with all the nice euphemisms, but you`re basically talking the base of the Democratic Party. The African-American votes have been the most consistent supporters of the Democratic, with 90- some percent. In fact, they grow with Obama, of course, for loyalty, yes, the same community. So, what`s wrong with saying it a little differently, saying, you guys did a hell of a job turning out the vote in Cleveland and Milwaukee? Why is that offensive in itself? KAPUR: Well, it could be perceived in two different ways. One is that the Romney campaign was genuinely baffled at the Obama team`s ability to turn out the low propensity, low income voters, especially in the cities. They pointed out, Paul Ryan pointed out -- MATTHEWS: See, you got all the terminology, low propensity, how else to throw in low knowledge. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That`s how sophisticates talk in the back room. KAPUR: The other point which is that, it can also be seen as a dog whistle, they`re pointing out that you won because of African-American voters and minorities. And President Obama is very sensitive to this idea of the sentiment that he`s the president of black America. He doesn`t want to be seen that way. He`s not that person. So, I think that`s the way he put -- MATTHEWS: By the way, that`s an argument that`s fair on his part because the African-Americans are always pro-Democrat, with the Clintons, it will be that again. (CROSSTALK) PERRY: Also, Chris, Iowa, New Hampshire. Not a lot of black people in those states. Obama won those just fine. MATTHEWS: My hero Jack Kennedy had the same complaint against the great beloved Walter Cronkite, after the Wisconsin primary of 1960. That night, Cronkite said he only won because he got the Catholic vote, and Kennedy went steaming out of that room. He said, you have just taken away my victory -- now I have to go to West Virginia because you`ve taken away my victory saying I won because my peeps showing up. MILLIGAN: But also, Chris, why would you say anything other than congratulations, Mr. President, it was a tough fight and it was an honor running against you? Why do you have to come up with excuses as to why he beat you? It sounds just a little petty. MATTHEWS: Well, you know, the first Nixon-Kennedy debate before they started debating, Kennedy said, Nixon said to Kennedy -- no, Kennedy said to Kennedy, Nixon said to Kennedy, you had a great turnout in Ohio, because Nixon carried oil (ph). Anyway, thank you, Perry Bacon, Susan Milligan, Sahil Kapur, thank you, for "Talking Points Memo". When we return, let me finish with Secretary Clinton`s new role in life, which has become sort of a political identification in her life. You`re watching HARDBALL, a place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with Secretary Clinton`s role in life. Many people pull back from the title of grandparent. They come up with nicknames. My wife Kathleen likes to be called Magya (ph), I`m Bobey (ph), both are Swazi names I brought back with from the Peace Corps over there in Swaziland. Well, Hillary Clinton is going with the more traditional. She`s a grandmother and has no problem with the name and I presume the idea is where she is in life who wants the world to know there are certain strengths and a serious amount of wisdom that comes with being a parent of a parent. I think there are good politics in the position she`s probably claimed, of course, that a grandmother, by my lights, it puts her out there looking over the horizon to the world, her grandchild is going to live in, rather than make it with someone holding on when another generation is pushing to take over, she`s leapfrogging to the future by talking about the world that`s coming for, in her case, granddaughter Charlotte. Look, we never know how much thought goes into a comment from a politician. Sometimes they speak without deliberation and say something brilliant. And sometimes they speak without thinking and say something we call a gaffe. But having paid attention to Secretary Clinton over these recent months, watch her discipline, see how she keeps her own counsel and the preparation I assume she`s making for a presidential run, I don`t think she made this grandmother reference blindly. Someone, smart ones, said that if a politician doesn`t define himself or herself early, his enemies well. Secretary Clinton is letting it be known that she`s proud of her position and her family and her generation, and in her country, and she knows its strengths. I take what she said very seriously. I mean that in a political sense. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020401cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 18 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 4, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 4, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Abby Huntsman GUESTS: Jonathan Capehart, Donna Edwards, Katherine Higgins, Jim Tilmon, Faith Jenkins, Ken Padowitz, Tara Dowdell, Jimmy Williams, Vanessa De Luca SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6778 words HIGHLIGHT: Up first, the so-called mommy blogger who`s accused of killing her young son by poisoning him with salt. Lacey Spears had used her blog to post about her son`s sickness but prosecutors say she`s the one who made 5- year-old Garnet sick by force feeding him salt through a stomach tube over time. Our next topic, the alleged mid-flight meltdown of Paris Hilton`s brother. Twenty-year-old Conrad Hilton, an add to the family fortune is accused of going on a midair tirade in July, allegedly even ranting that he would kill several flight attendants and a co-pilot. Thirty-one are confirmed dead, 15 have been taken to the hospital and 12 are still missing in the Taiwan plane crash. Former governor Jeb Bush went to Detroit and gave what was supposed to be a major speech on the economy. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Thanks to you for tuning in. I`m live tonight in Chicago. Tonight`s lead, if you thought Republicans had a serious alternative over President Obama`s agenda, think again. Today, one of the GOP`s top contenders for 2016, former governor Jeb Bush went to Detroit and gave what was supposed to be a major speech on the economy. But instead we heard the same old talking points, attacking the safety net and slamming the president on immigration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I don`t think the president should use his executive authority where he has gone beyond his constitutional powers. That creates greater doubts as well. President Obama likes to say, you play by the rules. But for President Obama, one of the rules is this. He reserves the right to change the rules. Instead of a safety net to cushion our occasional falls, they have built a spider web that traps people in perpetual dependence. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The safety net traps people`s independence? That`s the new pitch to attract voters who rejected Mr. 47 percent in 2012? And there was another problem for Governor Bush today. A deep irony in his decision to rule out an economic agenda by visiting Detroit, a city whose economic engine, the auto industry, he once said should have been left to go bankrupt. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: To report what the president did in bailing out General Motors. BUSH: I don`t. I don`t and I think it`s been way overplayed, the difference between a more traditional approach and a controlled bankruptcy. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Here`s the bottom line. President Obama has a record of lifting the country out of a deep recession. And now, he`s outlined a bold vision for how to fight inequality and move America forward. That`s what Republicans are up against. But from the 2016 field to the halls of Congress, the GOP is clearly a party still searching for answers. Joining me now is Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Democrats of Maryland and Jonathan Capehart of "the Washington Post". Thank you both for being here. REP. DONNA EDWARDS (D), MARYLAND: Thank you. JONATHAN CAPEHART, OPINION WRITER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: So Congresswoman, whether it`s Jeb Bush or John Boehner, do Republicans have any real solutions for issues like inequality or immigration or health care? EDWARDS: Well, the short answer is no. And listening to Jeb Bush today, it`s so sad to see him go to the bankrupt -- you know, bottom of the Republican Party with the same words but nothing with an action or agenda. And you can actually see that in the Congress right now. I mean, the president put up in his state of the union message, and Democrats has a message that is about hopefulness for people, you know, dealing with things like affordable child care and college tuition and creating jobs through infrastructure and Republicans are still stuck to their same old tired, bankrupt agenda that does nothing for the middle income Americans. SHARPTON: You know, Jonathan, Governor Bush also made a bold prediction of how the country`s economy would do under the GOP leadership. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: And for what it`s worth, I don`t think the United States should settle for anything less than four percent growth a year. At that rate, the middle class can thrive again. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Four percent growth? Now maybe he`s forgotten about the other Bush economies. Under his dad`s presidency, the economy grew at 2.1 percent. Under his brother, it grew at 1.6 percent. Is this a problem, Jonathan, for his candidacy, that all of his statements will be measured by his family`s record? CAPEHART: Yes. He would be measured by his family`s record because he`s a son of a president, the brother of a president. But what he says will be judged by the other presidents, President Clinton and President Obama who, you know, come in between those two. Look, it`s really difficult and actually not quite smart, I don`t think, for candidates to make predictions about where the economy will be and how much they can deliver and how quickly because it`s a recipe for failure, especially if your prediction does not come true. And many times -- I mean, how many times did we talk about and did Republicans slam the president for making predictions early in his first term about green shoes for the economy digging its way out of the recession? It hammered time and time again. So I don`t think it`s a smart idea to do that. I mean, maybe they are thinking that if we put a number out there, then we`re being bold and we`re being dynamic and in our prediction that, again, sets yourself up for failure. SHARPTON: Congresswoman, you know House Republicans, as you know, voted against -- again to repeal the affordable care act. But today we learned 9.9 million people have now enrolled in plans in 2015 beating expectations. House Republicans have now created a working group to come up with an alternative to the affordable care act but they claim to be working on an alternative for years. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My guess is, sometime this fall you`re going to see an alternative solution from the house Republicans. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After the first of the year, we`ll bring forth a bill that will be able to unite Republicans around specific health care issues. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: They have introduced 126 ideas about how to fix Obamacare and how to replace Obamacare. We are working on this. I have a discussions amongst their members. We have a lot of different views. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: So the bottom line is they`ve got no alternative, yet they want to repeal this law anyway, despite the fact it would deny millions of Americans` health coverage. EDWARDS: Well, that`s right. And actually, you know, for the first time on the 56th vote to repeal the affordable care act, the Republicans also lost three Republicans on that vote precisely because they don`t have an alternative. I mean, listen, here`s the reality, 9.9 million people who now have health care, hundreds of thousands of young people who can stay on their parents` health care plan, eliminating the requirement that you can only get health care by demonstrating that you didn`t have a preexisting condition. I mean, these are all things that the American people are, you know, just really eating up by taking advantage of the affordable care act. The Republicans don`t have any ideas for health care. They don`t have a replacement for health care. And you know what? The fact is, they don`t even have a replacement for the way that the president has grown this economy. Eleven million jobs out of a deep recession, 58 straight months of job growth. The Republicans really don`t have any answers. And Democrats are saying, you know what, we`re putting concrete proposals on the table that are going to grow paychecks and improve the lot of the American middle class and Republicans have -- you know, what`s that score? Zero. SHARPTON: Jonathan, how do the 2016 candidates handle the affordable care act in their campaign? I mean, we talked a little about Jeb Bush. How does he and the other contenders handle the affordable care act issue? CAPEHART: Well, they are going to say that it needs to be repealed. Some of them might even say it needs to be repealed and replaced. We`ll have to listen to what that -- SHARPTON: But will they have to come up with a specific plan, though? CAPEHART: Well, the point I`m getting to, Rev., is that they are going to be forced to come up with a plan if the Supreme Court at the end of it is term in June renders invalid the subsidies of the health care exchanges, which would completely gut the affordable care act and suddenly you might have the situation where millions of Americans, the 9.9 million Americans that Congresswoman was just talking about. They are going to lose their health insurance. And that is why that vote yesterday, the 56, 57 votes to repeal the affordable care act is irresponsible without a replacement there. Whether they like it or now, the members in the building behind me are going to have to come up with an alternative if the Supreme Court renders of those subsidies invalid. And right now we`re not even talking about an alternative. You saw how long it took to get the affordable care act passed. It was a year and a half. Do you think Congress is going to be able to do that in four months? Not a chance. SHARPTON: It`s really going to be a scene if that were to happen, if the Supreme Court rules that way. Congresswoman Donna Edwards and Jonathan Capehart, thank you both for your time tonight. CAPEHART: Thanks, Rev. EDWARDS: Thank you. SHARPTON: Straight ahead, shocking video of a plane crashing in Taiwan. What happened and what clues will this video hold? Plus, "American Sniper" star Bradley Cooper speaks out about the controversy surrounding the war movie. And "Sports Illustrated" swim suit issue makes history. And this. Let it go, let it go I`m one with the wind and sky (VIDEO CLIP PLAYING) SHARPTON: Why some on the right-wing TV world can`t let it go when it comes to "Frozen" and male movie heroes. SHARPTON: Two disasters on opposite sides of the world. A shocking plane crash in Taiwan caught on dash cam video and a horrific train accident in New York State. What are investigators looking at right now? That`s next. SHARPTON: Now to that breaking news on the horrific plane crash in Taiwan. At this moment, investigators are combing through the wreckage for clues on what brought the plane down. The crash was caught on this dramatic dash cam video from a freeway. Rescuers searched for survivors but had difficulty reaching parts of the plane that was still under water. Thirty- one are confirmed dead, 15 have been taken to the hospital and 12 are still missing. Just before the crash, the pilots reported an engine problem and called "mayday, mayday, engine flame out." Joining me is Jim Tilmon, retired American airlines captain and Katherine Higgins, former NTSB board member. Thank you both for being here. JIM TILMON, RETIRED AMERICAN AIRLINES CAPTAIN: My pleasure. KATHERINE HIGGINS, FORMER NTSB BOARD MEMBER: (INAUDIBLE). SHARPTON: Jim, it`s rare that we can actually see the plane crash. What do you see here? TILMON: Well, I see a lot. And a lot of this is going to have to be backed up with further investigation. But if you just take a look back at the first part of this flight that we can see, the airplane was substantially level and looked to be flying very low, very close to the buildings but fine and then it began to stall. A stall happens when you don`t have enough air flow over the wings to give lift to the airplane. And, of course, if in fact there was a flame out on the left engine, that would exacerbate that. You would begin to see the plane roll, roll into the dead engine. The good engine giving the power and rolling the airplane because it has power on one side and not the other. So if you look at this in slow motion, look at the wing as it makes contact with the ground for the first time. It`s not just slicing through it as it would be if you really had just forward motion. It`s almost falling into that wing. As a matter of fact, I think at this point the airplane was, in fact, falling. SHARPTON: Now, Jim, I want to show the video in slow motion. Do you think the pilot was intentionally moving the plane away from the freeway? (VIDEO CLIP PLAYING) TILMON: I actually think, Reverend, that he was trying to maintain enough altitude to clear the buildings. That may have brought the stall on a little prematurely. Because if he was that close on his air speed to maintaining flight to anything, to create descent so we could get a little air speed, it would just exacerbate things. So he did clear the buildings and, in my view, that was a heroic act and then, of course, he lost it because he just couldn`t fly without air speed and began to roll. SHARPTON: Kitty, how important is this video to the investigation? HIGGINS: Well, it`s extremely important. We always talk about the black boxes but obviously having visual images that you see will tell them a lot. And I think your other guest has suggested a scenario that makes a lot of sense. When we get the black boxes and finish the investigation, we will know whether, in fact, that`s exactly what happened. Also, the voice records, we have this apparent message to air traffic control. So that, in this accident, we`ll know very quickly, I think, what exactly happened and why. SHARPTON: Jim, you can see a taxi cab was clipped by the wing of the plane as it crashed. Is it surprising more people weren`t hurt? TILMON: Yes. This was a miraculous kind of a situation in terms of the number of people that survived this crash. It could have been a whole lot worse. I think one of the things that may have helped us is the fact that it was going so slowly. And, of course, when it did make an impact, the major impact was in water. We used to call that an auto fire extinguisher. SHARPTON: Jim Tilmon, thank you for your time tonight. TILMON: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: Now to breaking news on that horrific metro north train crash in New York. The NTSB board, it`s been on the ground for nearly 24 hours and trying to find out how the commuter train out of New York City struck an SUV on the track. A fire through the first car, six people were killed and five in the train and the driver of the SUV. Moments ago the SUV was moved off the tracks. Kitty, one witness was in the car behind the SUV when it was hit and described what he saw. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICK HOPE, EYEWITNESS: As we`re waiting to cross the tracks, the gate comes down in front of me and comes down and hits the top of her car. She gets out of the car. She gets out, walks around the back, looks at the arm that`s on the back of the car, she looks at me, I gesture to come back, I backed up again further to indicate that there`s plenty of room to back up. And she turns, walks and gets back in the car, slight hesitation and then moves forward and at that instant the train hit. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: How will investigators use witnesses to figure out what happened, Kitty? HIGGINS: Well, again, Reverend Al, those reports are very, very significant. I think there is probably also a camera on the front end of this train. And that will also tell us what happened. The fact that the gates came down and she was caught there is very troubling. We have technology that is apparently supposed to go into effect, I believe by the end of this year that would, in some instances, perhaps not in this instance, but stop a train if there is an interruption in the signal going to the train. We don`t know that in this case yet but I would argue that we have technology that could have prevented this accident by automatically causing the train to brake because there was something on the track. SHARPTON: These kinds of accidents are not that uncommon. "Today`s" show Jeff Rosen has that story. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEFF ROSEN, REPORTER, TODAY`S SHOW: It has happened before. Check out this dramatic video from inside a train crash just outside of Orlando last May that demolished a sports coupe. The car stalled on a railroad crossing just before the gates came down. The driver got out with seconds to spare. Just last month in Houston, a mother, father and six children escaped injury with when this freight train struck their car at another crossing. Officers say the conductor sounded the horn several times but the two cars didn`t move in time. And in Glendale, California, an SUV stuck on the tracks caused this commuter train to derail, hitting trains on both sides of it. Killing 11 people. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Kitty, your reaction? HIGGINS: Well, my reaction is, these are tragic accidents. The NTSB and the federal railroad administration, federal transit administration have tried to improve gray crossings by including more signals, including more cross-bars to prevent these kinds of accidents. But we still see them. And the question is, what are the next level of improvements that can be made so that when people get trapped and they panic in a moment like this, that there is technology? I firmly believe there is an answer in technology that will cause the train to automatically brake so we don`t have the scenario that we saw yesterday and in previous accidents. SHARPTON: Well, let`s hope and pray we can get that technology soon. Kitty Higgins, thank you for your time tonight. HIGGINS: Absolutely. Good to be with you. SHARPTON: Still ahead, Bradley Cooper speaks out on the "American Sniper" controversy. And Paris Hilton`s brother in trouble for allegedly disrupting a flight, yelling about the, quote, "peasants on board." But first, why does FOX News have a problem with "frozen?" We talked to some special experts about it. And you`re going to want to hear what they have to say. That`s next in tonight`s "Got You." SHARPTON: When I woke up this morning, I almost felt like my brain was frozen after seeing this segment on the FOX News show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is being called the frozen effect. And no, I`m not talking about the latest winter storm. Are movies like the Disney smash hit about the ice queen and her sister empowering girls by turning our men into fools and villains? It looks like they depict men as evil and cold and bumblers. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Let me get this straight. Are they really using their time to say the most popular animated movie of all time, about the love bond between two sisters is anti-men? Yes, yes, they were. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s crazy. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I wouldn`t go that far, Olaf, but there is more. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don`t have to build up women at the cost of tearing down men. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It would be nice at poor Hollywood end war male figures in those kind f movies. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Strong male figures. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Strong male figures as heroes? What a great idea. I wonder why Hollywood hasn`t thought of that one. I guess except for superman, and batman or Spiderman. And, of course, there`s iron man and then there`s captain America. Who can forget the hulk? And buzz lightyear and Woody in their too, but who is counting? I guess to the FOX morning show, these heroes are really zeros. But "Politics Nation" has a world exclusive tonight. Reaction from some of those very heroes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: That`s your reaction to this? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it is the best that anybody can have right now, you know, because we need to have a strong superhero, yes, we do. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Do you feel like you`re being overlooked here? This report is saying there are not enough superheroes. What about you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am the only one. They already miss super hero. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Do you feel like you`re being overlooked? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am. I am over here in Times Square and I`m overlooked. Yes. This is the (INAUDIBLE). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: And you look like a pretty strong superhero. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are strong. The superheroes are all here. Yes, me and batman. Yes. The superheroes. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Thor was so distraught he couldn`t even talk to us. But we did manage to get exclusive reaction from one of the stars of "Frozen." (VIDEO CLIP PLAYING) SHARPTON: That`s right, Olaf, I think the morning show could use some advice from one of your co-stars. (VIDEO CLIP PLAYING) SHARPTON: So I can`t conceal, I must reveal and let them know that we got you. SHARPTON: It is time for the "Justice Files." Joining me tonight, former prosecutor and host of "Judge Faith," Faith Jenkins. And criminal defense Attorney Ken Padowitz. Thank you both for being here. FAITH JENKINS, HOST, "JUDGE FAITH": Thanks, Rev. KEN PADOWITZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you. SHARPTON: Up first, the so-called mommy blogger who`s accused of killing her young son by poisoning him with salt. Lacey Spears had used her blog to post about her son`s sickness but prosecutors say she`s the one who made 5-year-old Garnet sick by force feeding him salt through a stomach tube over time. He died last year when the sodium led to a swelling in his brain. In opening arguments on Tuesday, the two sides gave two very different pictures of the defendant. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DOREEN LLOYD, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Lacey spears is a calculating child killer. STEPHEN RIEBLING, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Lacey spears did exactly as we wanted and expected parents in her position to do. She comforted Garnet. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: She pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and second-degree murder. Ken, the defense says there`s no eyewitness and no motive. So what`s the prosecution`s case? PADOWITZ: Well, the prosecution`s case is based on circumstantial evidence. Nobody actually saw her harm her son but circumstantial evidence, Reverend, can be very, very powerful. It`s as if you went to bed at night and grass as far as you could see out your window and then when you woke up in the morning you saw a snow. You might not have seen actually snow but you can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it snowed during the night. That`s circumstantial evidence and that`s the kind of evidence that they have in this case against this woman. And there appears to be a lot of very powerful circumstantial evidence that indicates that she, in fact, may be guilty of this crime. SHARPTON: Faith, investigators say that they found a search on the mother`s computer for, quote, "dangers of high sodium in a child." How strong is a search like that as evidence? JENKINS: Well, when your child ends up dying of sodium poisoning, it`s very strong and very compelling. If I were the prosecutor, I`d be arguing, that`s not a coincidence. It reminds me of the case in Georgia with the hot car dad who left his son in the car and they found out that he searched his computer about how long it will take for a child to die in a car. Those things just don`t happen. And then in this case Rev there was a cover up. She apparently called one of her friends and asked her friends to get rid of a bag that was used to put salt in the back to feed her son. She called that friend and asked him to get rid of the bag. So, not only do you have suspicious behavior before her son died, suspicious behavior in the hospital taking him to the bathroom and then him getting sick. That`s on video but also the cover-up afterwards is very compelling evidence against her. SHARPTON: All right. Our next topic, the alleged mid-flight meltdown of Paris Hilton`s brother. Twenty-year-old Conrad Hilton, an add to the family fortune is accused of going on a midair tirade in July, allegedly even ranting that he would kill several flight attendants and a co-pilot. The FBI affidavit says, he told the co-pilot, quote, "If you want to square up to me, bro, then bring it on and I will fight you." It says, Hilton also twice called the other passengers peasants saying he would, quote, "own anyone in this flight. They are peasants." Witnesses say he used the "f" word 25 times and made children cry before the crew finally handcuffed him to his seat. He surrendered yesterday to face charges of interfering with flight crew members. He didn`t enter a plea and was released on $100,000 bond. Faith, Hilton told investigators that he intimidated crew members because he was defending himself, he says. What do you make of that argument? JENKINS: I think it`s nonsense. And I think his behavior was extremely outrageous and I`m glad that he was charged. Listen, his defense attorney has said that he took some type of sleeping pill. There was something going on with him, there was some kind of mental breakdown. I actually hope that`s the case. Because if not, if that`s how he acts and he behaves in such an irrational and irresponsible manner on a flight, that he deserves to go to jail, that he deserves to spend some time in jail. Because you can`t do that, you can`t threaten people and also just threaten the safety of everyone on a flight. That was a 10-hour flight and for four hours they had to put up with his belligerence and his non-sense completely unacceptable. SHARPTON: We are talking, Ken, midair and I think Faith`s keyword is safety. We`re not talking about just something on the ground. This could be a very scary proposition if you`re on that flight. PADOWITZ: Absolutely. I mean, this is not a bus where you can just pull over to the side and get a police officer. You`re over the Atlantic Ocean. This is an intercontinental flight and it`s very, very outrageous conduct that he`s accused of. There are numerous witnesses. This is a federal charge. He`s been charged federally where he`s facing a maximum of 20 years in federal prison. So this is very, very serious and I`m sure that the defense is going to allege, as indicated, he`s taking a sleeping pill and these drugs had an effect that caused this outrageous behavior but it was terrible, I`m sure, for the people on that plane. The defense attorney has a lot of work ahead of him to cut out a plea bargain to help his client avoid prison time. SHARPTON: All right. Ken Padowitz and Faith Jenkins, thank you both for your time tonight. JENKINS: Thanks, Rev. PADOWITZ: Thank you. SHARPTON: Coming up, behind the scenes on election night 2012. Why President Obama was irritated with Mitt Romney`s concession call. Plus, the star of "American Sniper" Bradley Cooper responds to the movie`s criticism. And a first for "Sports Illustrated" swim suit edition. A plus-size model. It`s all coming up in "Conversation Nation," next. SHARPTON: Time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining us tonight, democratic strategist Tara Dowdell and Jimmy Williams and MSNBC`s Abby Huntsman. Thank you all for being here tonight. ABBY HUNTSMAN, MSNBC CO-HOST "THE CYCLE": Thanks, Rev. JIMMY WILLIAMS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you. TARA DOWDELL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you. SHARPTON: We start with President Obama irritated with Mitt Romney`s 2012 concession call. Former senior Obama adviser David Axelrod writes in his new book about how the President was not smiling during the call and, quote, "slightly irritated when it was over." After he hung up, the President said, "You really did a great job of getting out to vote in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee and, in other words, black people. That`s what he thinks this was all about." Tara, former Romney aide disputes this call calling it, it`s a lie. What do you make of this? DOWDELL: Well, if he did make those comments, which I think he did, given the other comments that -- made about the President, it`s not like this is in line with other things that have been said. If he did make those comments, they were weak, they were classless, they were lacking in grace and they were passive aggressive. So the President should be upset. The bottom-line is, news flash here, black people only make up 13 percent of the United States population. So clearly his win was more about more people than just black people. Seventy percent plus of Asian-Americans voted for the President. Seventy plus percent of Hispanic-Americans voted for the President. The majority of Jewish people voted for the President. Overwhelming numbers of young people voted for the President. This is a pattern of republicans seeking to diminish this President`s accomplishments and, frankly, it`s tiring and it`s ugly. SHARPTON: Now, Jimmy, this was according to David Axelrod, the President`s interpretation of what Romney said. Do you think Romney was minimizing the President by only giving them one constituency, his base black vote, or do you think he was trying to, in some ways, excuse the fact that he had lost and lost by a large margin? WILLIAMS: I think Mitt Romney was as ineloquent as he normally is. That`s what I think happened. I think Mitt Romney said something that he thought was perfectly nice and what he actually ended up saying to most Americans was perfectly awful. That`s why when you go into a room and you don`t think there are cameras, and you say things like the 47 percent. When you say things -- he didn`t say this but Newt Gingrich said, the food stamp president, et cetera et cetera. These kinds of things, they are not mistakes. They just say them because that`s what they believe. And when you believe something that`s absolutely, you know, opposite of what a majority of the American voters believe. By the way, don`t forget Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by five million votes. SHARPTON: Absolutely. WILLIAMS: I`m sure that those five million were not all African-American. So, here`s the deal, Republican Party, as Tara just said, if you would like women to vote for you as a majority and gay people and Latinos and black people, you should probably acknowledge that they exist as gay people, as Latinos, as women and as black people as opposed to just Americans because, in fact, they are. SHARPTON: Abby, you are the republican on the panel tonight. Let me put you on the spot. HUNTSMAN: Sure. SHARPTON: Do -- you hear that the Romney spokesman said that it`s a lie. What do you think? Do you think Romney said this? HUNTSMAN: You also have to remember that this is a book and you want to sell books. This is the first of -- I mean, not the first, rather, one of many books that have come out within the Obama administration and with any book there`s always another side to that story. I think, you know, to Jimmy`s point, there are a number of things that have been said from folks within the Republican Party. This, though, I`m not really on the same page as the panelist because I think you have to think about the man who said it. Mitt Romney, who is a very awkward guy. And the one thing he wants more than anything in the world, is to be president of the United States. So, that call had to be very, very difficult for him to make. So no matter what he said, it was going to come out awkward. So I don`t know if what he said really came across the way that people took it. So, you know, I don`t want to believe it. But I hope that`s not what he meant, if that`s the case. It`s probably best that he didn`t end up winning in the end. But look, I`d like to think that there`s another side of this story and maybe he was just being his normal awkward Romney self. SHARPTON: Well, I`m sure we`ll hear more. But it`s a little like, you know, losing the best essay in school and saying to the winner, you did a great job even though your mother helped you cheat. HUNTSMAN: Yes. SHARPTON: But anyway, from the campaign field to another kind of battleground, the new Bradley Cooper movie, "American Sniper" has faced all kinds of criticism with some saying it glorifies war. And now the movie`s star is speaking out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRADLEY COOPER, PRODUCER: The fact that it`s inciting discussion that has nothing to do with vets and it`s more about the Iraq war or why or what we did not do to indict those who decided to go to the war, you know, every conversation that is in those terms, Terry, is moving farther and farther away from what our soldiers go through and the fact that there`s 22 people -- 22 vets commit suicide each day. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: He says instead of debating the Iraq war, the movies should make us talk about veterans. Jimmy, does he have a point? WILLIAMS: He does. And this is something that you and I discussed last week on your show, which is exactly this issue. Which is, I don`t plan to see the movie. I care more about what happens to our veterans. We supply them to go to war and when they get home except for waiting in the VA line. There`s a great organization out there called justice for vets, Justiceforvets.org. It is a place where, here`s what we know, we know that right now, 700,000 of our veterans are under criminal justice supervision. We know that one in six out of every one of our post 9/11 vets is somehow, some way addicted to something, alcohol, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, et cetera. That`s a problem. SHARPTON: Yes. WILLIAMS: Why? Because the community is not there to support them. DOWDELL: Right. WILLIAMS: There`s a great thing called Justice for Vets, which is there to support them and give them an alternative and that`s something that we should be talking about on a daily basis, honestly. HUNTSMAN: Rev, if I can jump in there -- SHARPTON: Abby, jump in. HUNTSMAN: I was waiting to hear what Bradley Cooper had to say because I knew he would say exactly what this nation needed to hear and he hit right on the point. And I have two brothers that are in the military and what he said is the 22 that commit suicide every day and as an actor you have to get inside the mind of the person that you`re playing and so I`m sure he felt with him while he was playing this role. And he wanted all of us to realize the most important thing here are our veterans and taking care of them. And that`s more important than any of this other stuff that we`re talking about right now. SHARPTON: All right. Everyone, stay with me. When we come back, the "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit issue makes history with its first plus-size model. SHARPTON: We`re back with the panel, Tara, Jimmy and Abby. Making history in "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit issue for the first time ever, this year`s issue will feature a plus-size model. Ashley Graham will model a string. In an ad for plus size swim wear. She talked a lot in the past about how the media needs to do more to feature women of every size. Tara, is it about time we`re seeing a plus-size woman in "Sports Illustrated"? DOWDELL: Absolutely. And it`s about darn time. And she looks fantastic. She looks hot. I mean, are we still pretending like women are all size 0? The average woman is not look like this women in the "Sports Illustrated" magazines. Actually, the women in the "Sports Illustrated" magazines don`t look like that because they are air brushed. So, I mean, I think this is great. It`s progress. We need more of it and let`s keep it going. Let`s reward this. I might buy the magazine just to encourage it. HUNTSMAN: I mean, the question I have though, Tara is -- SHARPTON: Abby, you seem to be agreeing with this? HUNTSMAN: I do. And she brought up airbrushing, I do wonder though even if plus-size models if they like to be air brushed as well. I`m with Tara though. I mean, she`s so beautiful. She looks so happy out there. And the crazy thing about it being a plus-size model, the average dress size for woman is between a 12 and 14 and that`s about what she is. So it`s really looking at a girl that`s just like you. So, I`m surprised it`s taken this long for a magazine to put that on the cover. Because you want to see somebody that is beautiful just like you want to feel beautiful. So, you know, instead of calling her plus size, we should just call her a beautiful woman. SHARPTON: Jimmy? WILLIAMS: A little bit supportive in "Sports Illustrated" for the simple reason that this is an ad. She is now actually a part of the women that are going to be in the layout if you will. SHARPTON: Right. WILLIAMS: So, kudos. Congratulations. It`s wonderful that they`re doing it. Although, the non-misogyny part of me thinks, oh, dear, here we are having this conversation. But again, at least they are acknowledging the fact, as my colleagues have just said, that most women don`t look like that. And thank goodness that they are actually putting someone that looks normal on there. I think it`s fantastic. DOWDELL: And for the record, a lot of men actually -- I mean, this magazine`s obviously geared towards men. A lot of men like women -- HUNTSMAN: Yep, they do. DOWDELL: Who are curvier women. HUNTSMAN: I was just going to say that, Rev. DOWDELL: That notion that, you know -- HUNTSMAN: They prefer that. DOWDELL: Yes, exactly so. HUNTSMAN: Tara, they don`t want us. DOWDELL: Yes. WILLIAMS: I`m so very left out of this conversation. SHARPTON: Well, I`m not left out but I`m going to stay out of this. (LAUGHTER) Tara, Jimmy and Abby, thank you for joining this conversation. HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Rev. WILLIAMS: Thanks so hot. SHARPTON: When we come back, "Essence" magazine makes history, next. SHARPTON: Finally tonight, I`m here in Chicago where civil rights and policing are always big topics of conversation and those topics are also front and center in this month`s issue of "Essence" magazine. For the first time in the magazine`s 45-year history, there`s no image on its front cover. Just these words. "Black Lives Matter." I had the honor of contributing an essay along with people like Carmen, John Legend and New York City`s First Lady Chirlane McCray. It`s focusing debate on some of the biggest challenges facing the African-American community. And the crucial question, where do we go from here? Joining me now is "Essence" editor-in-chief, Vanessa De Luca. Thanks for being here tonight, Vanessa. VANESSA DE LUCA, ESSENCE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Thank you so much for having me. SHARPTON: You know, Vanessa, "Essence" has never done a cover like this before. Why now? DE LUCA: We felt that it was absolutely essential for us to chronicle and note and make a point that this is an unbelievable time in our history. That this is, what we are witnessing is a new civil rights movement unfolding right before our very eyes. SHARPTON: You know, in my piece for the magazine, I wrote about how long it can take to achieve lasting change. How can "Essence" help keep people focused on these issues? DE LUCA: Well, one of the things that we`re doing beyond obviously turning over our coverage this month is continually, from now on, we introduce a new -- called civil rights watch. It will showcase people in the movement, who are making great strides, bring attention to people you may not even know about or have heard off like the young ladies who have organized the New York City millions march that happened, you know, not too long ago, people who are on the ground in Ferguson, people who are in the justice halls. SHARPTON: One of the things that I think is great is that people are doing different things, different ways. Some don`t even agree on tactics but the people are moving and that`s a movement. DE LUCA: What I absolutely love about this. And to our artists, you mentioned Carmen and John Legend. SHARPTON: Right. DE LUCA: The song that they wrote that`s featured in the movie "Selma," Glory -- SHARPTON: Right. DE LUCA: That`s a new version of a civil rights anthem, right? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We must march, we must stand up. (MUSIC PLAYING) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: And I think that the key for me at this moment is that we -- and I`m so glad to hear about the civil rights watch, is that we don`t let the moment pass without being committed to real change. DE LUCA: Absolutely. And that`s why it was so important for us to hear not just from a few voices but a lot of desperate voices. Not everyone agreed on what is the path. SHARPTON: That`s right. DE LUCA: How we should move forward. That`s okay. SHARPTON: And we never were monolithic. I mean, we had Dr. King and Malcolm X and Thurgood Marshall and Adam Clayton Powell, Ella Baker, all at the same time. DE LUCA: Yes. Yes. SHARPTON: And there`s nothing wrong with that as long as we are headed towards a better way for everybody, not just us but everybody. DE LUCA: We just felt that in this issue, particularly, we wanted to make it clear that there are many different points of view and many different ways to get to the success that we`re seeking. SHARPTON: And I think you did a great job. Vanessa de Luca, thank you for your time tonight. DE LUCA: Thank you for having me. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That was my conversation with Vanessa de Luca of Essence earlier this week. I`m often asked over the last several months of being active and this question of how we move forward. What community and police is, what are we going to win out of this? But something we`ve already won. We`re young activists and veteran activists and those in entertainment and athletes, white and Black and Latino and Asian, is America has begun to have a conversation about change. The conversation in itself is a victory. Now we must turn toward more substantive victories but just getting the conversation is how it began in the `60s and how it`s beginning now. I`m glad "Essence" put it on the cover. It`s on the cover of American`s minds. Let`s move forward even if we don`t all agree on the tactics, we all agree we need to have this conversation. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020401cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 19 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 4, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 4, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes GUESTS: Andrew Exum, Laith Alkhouri, Kitty Higgins, Susan Crawford, Silvina Sterin Pensel SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7920 words HIGHLIGHT: Jordan vows relentless war and executes two prisoners following the murder of one of their pilots. Investigators are on the scene after a New York commuter train smashes into an SUV, six people dead. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN: (CHANTING) HAYES: Jordan vows relentless war and executes two prisoners following the murder of one of their pilots. Tonight, what does military victory against ISIS look like? And what`s the plan the day after? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: How in the world are we going to dislodge ISIL from Syria without a ground component? HAYES: Plus, a look at one major news organization`s decision to share ISIS propaganda with the world. Then, the biggest Internet news since the invention of the Internet. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Allison, can you explain what Internet is? HAYES: Presidential murder mystery in Argentina takes another incredible twist. And let it bro. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks like they depict men as evil and cold and bumblers. That`s what it looks like. What kind of message does that send? HAYES: ALL IN investigates Disney`s "Frozen" and the war on men. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don`t have to empower women at the cost of tearing down men. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. The Middle Eastern nation of Jordan is vowing further revenge tonight in the wake of the release of a horrific video from ISIS depicting the execution of a Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh who is burned alive by ISIS while trapped in a metal cage. At dawn, less than 12 hours after the release of the ISIS video, Jordan executed two prisoners to avenge the death of their pilot, including this woman, an Iraqi militant who ISIS had demanded be released potentially in a prisoner exchange. The executed prisoners were involved in 2005`s suicide bombings that killed at least 57 people. She was captured after her suicide vest failed to explode. In Jordan, soldiers and civilians gathered today to pay condolences to the family of the pilot killed by ISIS, and in the streets of Amman, protesters clutching images of the burned pilot and calling for revenge, gave a warm welcome to King Abdullah II who cut short a trip to Washington to return home and meet with senior military staff amid a Jordanian promise of a, quote, "earth-shaking and decisive" response to the ISIS provocation. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MOHAMMAD AL-MOMAMI, JORDANIAN MIN. OF STATE FOR MEDIA AFFAIRS: We are talking about a collaborative effort between coalition members in order to intensify our efforts, and work to stop extremism and terrorism. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The planned intensification comes amid a lot of frustration among Arab nations that are part of the American-led coalition against ISIS. As first reported by "The New York Times" and confirmed by NBC News, the United Arab Emirates suspended air strikes against ISIS in December, citing fears for the pilot`s safety in the wake of the capture of the Jordanian pilot. The UAE saying the U.S. had not put proper assets in northern Iraq for rescuing downed pilots. Meanwhile, the execution of the Jordanian pilot appears to be strengthening public support in Jordan for military confrontation or increased military confrontation with ISIS. With one Jordanian saying, "After what we`ve seen, no one will support them." At the confirmation hearing for Defense Secretary Nominee Ashton Carter on Capitol Hill today, meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham reiterated his long-standing call for American boots on the ground to fight the terror group. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GRAHAM: How in the world are we going to dislodge ISIL from Syria without a ground component? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me is Andrew Exum, a former army ranger, did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote a book about his service in Afghanistan, served as adviser to the Pentagon also on Middle East issues. Great to have you here. ANDREW EXUM, FORMER U.S. ARMY OFFICER: Yes, thanks for having me. HAYES: We`ve never met in person. I`ve been following you for a long time. So, it`s really nice to have you here. EXUM: Sure. HAYES: OK. There`s this cycle that happens. ISIS commits an atrocity, it understandably outrages the populous of the country that it commits it against, and there`s this feeling of, OK, we want revenge, and Jordan saying, we`re recommitted to this endeavor. The question to me is, OK, what does that mean? What`s that cash out into it? Like, is it a lack of will that is the problem now, or there`s real tactical and strategic reasons that it`s hard to roll that? EXUM: I think there are a couple things going on. I mean, first off, I think absent this video, which is kind of putting is back on the front pages, I don`t think it`s been a good past six months for them. And I think if we take an assumption, it`s a big assumption, that they have a coherent strategy that they thought about, an effective command and control to figure this all out, then I don`t think their strategy is very good. You know, there was a lot of worry they were trying to lure the United States and other nations back into the fight against them, maybe to increase their recruitment. If that was their strategy, it was probably a bad strategy, because they brought CentCom into the fight, not in significant numbers, but enough numbers to push them out of Kobani, and to give the Kurds a pretty big victory there. And I think we`re starting to see them rolled up in Iraq as well. I think, for me, the big issue -- HAYES: You think they`re being pushed back right now? EXUM: Yes, I don`t think that the past six months have gone very well. I think their high watermark has probably passed. The problem is, we`ve seen this movie before. So, in 2007, I think we were able to pretty decisively defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. But, of course, you can win that victory, but all you`re really doing is buying time and space for some sort of political reconciliation process. I think that`s not on the horizon in Syria, because they`re in a civil war. HAYES: So in fact, some of the exact same people who were members of al Qaeda in Iraq are now fighting for ISIS, I mean, actual individuals. EXUM: Yes. And a lot of the Shia partisans to the civil war in Iraq are currently in the government. There`s not a lot of trust on either side of that equation in Iraq. HAYES: So, let`s say that we saw a really strong push from a coalition partners, and let`s say, stepped-up activities that really did have success against ISIS. And my question always is, let`s say ISIS were defeated, right, it`s Monday and we say ISIS is defeated. What does Tuesday look like? EXUM: That`s a good question to ask. And I think there`s one narrative that says, well, we`ve got resurgent Islamic militancy in the Middle East. And I think that`s true. Another lens you can look at is we`ve got two really weak states in Syria, and Iraq, that don`t have functioning, competent national institutions. So, I think on the Iraq side of the equation, it`s probably easier to address, but it`s still going to be a big lift, which you`ve got to build up competent security forces, you`ve got to broker political reconciliation between varying demographic communities in Iraq, and that`s going to be difficult. But I think it`s largely a nation-building exercise. In Syria, I don`t know what the solution is there. That conflict, you know, these types of civil wars last, and the past 100 years, an average of about nine years. If that holds true for Syria, then I think we`re a long way away from seeing some sort of resolution to that conflict. And until you see that, you`re still going to have the fundamentals in place for an ISIS-like group or for a dissatisfied, or disaffected Sunni group in eastern Syria and western Iraq. HAYES: That`s an interesting point. So, the idea of this sort of fundamental driver being power vacuums with weak states, because the fundamental driver being Islamists fundamentalism where Islamism. EXUM: Yes, the conditions that led to an al Qaeda in Iraq, or an ISIS. I don`t think those have gone away. They`ve ebbed and flowed, but they haven`t gone away in either countries. HAYES: There was -- you know, in some ways we`ve seen this movie before, you referenced 2007. You had al Qaeda in Iraq, Sunni militants who were just absolutely barbaric, I mean, slaughtering children as they prayed. And there was a certain point at which the sheer barbarity served to backfire on them. EXUM: Yes, that`s right. Keep in mind there`s barbarity on both sides. HAYES: Yes, that`s right. EXUM: But that, of course, makes reconciliation all the more difficult. It did after the civil war in Lebanon. It will after the civil war in Iraq. But you`re exactly right. So, what we`ve seen with al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS, I think ISIS has learned from al Qaeda in Iraq, their previous iteration, they`re now providing social services to people in eastern Syria, for example. But it`s almost as if they`ve got something in their DNA that they can`t help but burn a Jordanian alive in a cage or decapitate prisoners on video. And that`s the stuff that I think is going to cost them not just within the broader Arab world, but it also motivates the international community in a way that were not motivated, for example, to intervene against Boko Haram in Nigeria. HAYES: Or Assad dropping barrel bombs and killing people. EXUM: That`s right. HAYES: Andrew Exum, really a pleasure. Thank you. EXUM: Sure. HAYES: The success of ISIS in capturing the world`s attention is about more than the extreme barbarity and atrocity its members have committed. It`s also about the way they packaged the atrocities. Part of the group`s sophisticated aggressive propaganda machine seemingly designed to seduce new recruits to a cause and scare enemies into submission. Today, ISIS released footage purporting to show people in the ISIS controlled city of Raqqa in Syria watching the group`s latest horrifying spectacle on a large projector screen in that city. It`s a video showing of Jordanian pilot being burned to death. Video images from that atrocity have already been beamed across the world by Western media outlets. The NBC Universal News Group which includes this network has aired stills from the video, but do not show the pilot`s death, as well as a brief video snippet before the execution begins. At ALL IN, we made a decision not to show anything from the video, which ISIS so clearly wants to see widely disseminated. FOX News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, made a very different decision. The cable network showed a brutal still image from that video, showing the Jordanian pilot succumbing to flames. And on its Web site, FOX News made the entire 22-minute video available in unedited form with a warning that it is, quote, "extremely graphic". "The Guardian" reports the Twitter accounts associated with is supporters have been sharing the video which has been taken down from YouTube and Facebook, via links to the FOX News page, with one ISIS sympathizer saying, reportedly crowing, quote, "Whoever is looking for the full conversion of the video, here it is, and it cannot be deleted because it is on an American network." In a statement, FOX`s executive editor said it, quote, "decided that giving readers of FOXNews.com to see for themselves the barbarity of ISIS outweighed legitimate concerns about the graphic nature of the video." Adding, quote, "Online choosers can choose to view or not view this disturbing content." Earlier, I spoke to Laith Alkhouri, senior analyst at Flashpoint Partners. I asked him why ISIS screened the execution video for the residents of Raqqa. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) LAITH ALKHOURI, SENIOR ANALYST, FLASHPOINT PARTNERS: Not only they screened the film, they actually had interviews with locals in Raqqa and they asked them, what do you think of this film? And the response was, you know, an eye for an eye. We punish just like how we are being bombarded. So, the entire video is supposed to be propaganda to show that the locals support ISIS, that the locals are indeed siding with ISIS, and that they are actually, you know, in agreement that this is punishment. HAYES: Let`s just be clear to stipulate for a moment that nothing that appears in that video can be taken at face value for the obvious reasons, that ISIS is capable of burning people alive. So, we can`t imagine this is the genuine feeling of the citizens of Raqqa. ALKHOURI: Indeed. I don`t believe so. I mean, you know, ISIS rules with terror and fear and intimidation. It`s all provocative. The people there know that their punishment could be similar to the punishment of others executed by ISIS if they rebel against the group, or if they defect from the group. I mean, the punishment for ISIS, for anybody, who defects from the group is death. Once you vow allegiance -- HAYES: Once you join ISIS -- ALKHOURI: You can`t leave. And that`s, you know, part of it, that, you know, you are under the rule of ISIS and Raqqa. You are all part -- you know, citizens of this Islamic State. And thus, you have to almost agree with us on what we do. HAYES: There`s a question about whether this is strategic or this is not strategic, right? There are some that view this as trying to recruit, they want to try to intimidate their enemies, the degree to which it`s useful for them to be feared by the people they might encounter on the battlefields. There are others who think this is part of, like as Andrew was just saying, part of their DNA. They can`t help themselves but kind of enjoy this. What is your feeling? ALKHOURI: You know, I think, look, ISIS always has a message in every video it puts out. You know, they spend days, sometimes weeks producing this high-quality material in order to make a specific point or a few points. In this sense, besides delivering the message to the locals, which I don`t think was the primary message, I think the primary message was to show the world that they`re trying to bring Jordan to its knees, that Jordan has to be humiliated for its part taking in this U.S.-led coalition. So, in a sense, it`s trying to send a message, yes, maybe to the locals on one hand, but also to the Jordanians, that you need to tell your government to step back and withdraw from this U.S.-led coalition. HAYES: OK. But here`s the things, it was the same message they had to the U.S. government with the succession of American hostages that they murdered. It backfired there. All it did was serve to increase U.S. support for U.S. involvement, right? They have to know that at this point, right? Or they are misreading the public opinion? ALKHOURI: I think -- I don`t think they`re in tuned with what the Arab world, really, their view of them. I mean, they think the Arab world maybe supports them in some sense. HAYES: So, they believe their own propaganda about themselves, about how they`re viewed in that region. ALKHOURI: I believe so. I think they believe that Jordanians would have kind of revolted against their government and blamed the government for being part of this so-called crusader coalition. HAYES: The appearance of this video on a major U.S. media outlet, on its Web site, what is the significance of that? Is that not significant? Do you have a feeling about whether videos like this have enough newsworthy value? ALKHOURI: Look, I don`t think the entire video should have been shown in full, because this is essentially disseminating terrorist propaganda, whether it disappeared from YouTube or not, disappeared from Twitter or not. You know, there is a solid permanent link to this video on the American channel. I think that was not a wide decision. On the other hand, showing the barbarity of ISIS has been demonstrated over and again. So, this is only one extra step in demonstrating that ISIS is barbaric. But, you know, there was -- I believe the propaganda value here is that ISIS does not want the video to disappear, ever, because -- HAYES: They want it to have a stable home. ALKHOURI: Absolutely. Absolutely. And by having it on a network that is presenting it in full, in a way, you`re helping them. HAYES: Laith Alkhouri, thank you very much. ALKHOURI: Thank you. HAYES: The incredible picture, people are who are scared of flying are going to use to justify that fear, ahead. HAYES: Important update to bring you on a story we did, last night. But for some context, let`s rewind the ALL IN time machine. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You know, it all started when "Washington Post" style section reporter Ben Terris walked into Republican Congressman Aaron Schock`s new office. What he found was, quote, "bright walled walls, like gold colored wall sconce with black candles, a federal style bull`s-eye mirror with an eagle perched on top." It turns out the color scheme was not random. According to the woman behind the front desk, it was, quote, "based off of the red room in Downton Abbey." Today, after refusing to discuss the office decor and after a D.C. watchdog group asked the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether Schock broke House rules by accepting the work for free, ABC`s Jeff Zeleny managed to get an interview with the congressman who said he had never seen the highly British popular drama and he`s planning to pay for the interior decorating seen here himself with a personal check as soon as he gets an invoice from the decorator. He also said this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. AARON SCHOCK (R), ILLINOIS: Taylor Swift said haters are going to hate. REPORTER: What shade of red do you think this is? SCHOCK: I don`t know, it`s bright. My overwhelming reelection last cycle despite having dark navy walls, was over 70 percent. REPORTER: But this is British. We defeated the British. SCHOCK: So, we`ll see -- well, it`s British, it`s also Republican. Red. So I had Democratic blue the last four years. So, I`m going to do red maybe for the next four years. Maybe we`ll do yellow after that. I don`t know. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: All right. So there you go. Except that might lead to another possible violation of congressional rules, as the "Washington Post" reports which dictates how office walls may be painted in just a few select colors. Although, to be honest and fair to Congressman Schock, that rule sounds like it was written by haters. Back in a moment. HAYES: What should have been a pleasantly mundane train ride home turned into a disaster for passengers on one of the country`s busiest passenger rail lines last night. Today, investigators are trying to determine if the terrible deadly accident could have been prevented. Six people were killed, making it the deadliest accident in the history of New York`s Metro North railroad. The crash occurred when an SUV was struck by the train at a crossing in Valhalla about 30 miles north of New York City. The train pushed the SUV about 1,000 feet down the tracks, about the length of three football fields, according to NTSB investigators, detailing their initial investigation today. The third rail, the electrified rail, pierced the front car of the train, resulting explosion made in the combination of the electrified rail and gas from the SUV, according to the investigators, the driver of the SUV who died as been identified as 49-year-old Ellen Brody, a mother of three. Five male passengers in the front part of the train also died. The SUV had stopped on the tracks when the safety arm of the train crossing came down on the back of that SUV. Part of the investigation will be to determine if the driver of the SUV was confused by the signals at the crossing, or felt it impossible to back up. But an eyewitness, the driver of the vehicle behind her, described what he saw when that safety arm came down on the vehicle in front of him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It comes down and hits the top of her car, the back of the roof, and actually slides a little bit down the back towards the back window. I fully expected her to back up, so I looked behind me, and luckily there`s nobody behind me, I`m able to back up, and waiting for her to back up, instead she gets out of the car. She gets out, walks around the back, looks at the arm that`s on the back of the car. She looks at me. I gestured to come back. I backed up again further to even indicate there`s plenty of room to back up. And she turns, walks and gets back in the car, slight hesitation, and then moves forward, and at that instant the train came. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: At least 12 other passengers were injured. One is listed in critical condition, another in serious condition. The rest of the ride was in stable condition or have been released from the hospital. But as NTSB investigators began their work this morning, there was one unmistakable bright spot, the rest of the more than 600 passengers in that train evacuated safely. Joining me now, Kitty Higgins, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board. Kitty, how do you start an investigation of this kind of accident? What are you looking to reconstruct? And is there some sort of policy, judgment you can make, or is this essentially just a horrible freak accident? KITTY HIGGINS, FORMER NTSB BOARD MEMBER: Well, Chris, in these kinds of accident investigations, you start with saying everything is on the table until you take it off the table. So what the investigators will look at, they will look at the signals. They`ll look at whether they were working properly. They will look at the -- what the driver was doing. They will look at all of the aspects of the train movement itself. Was it going at the appropriate speed, was it functioning properly, were the signals functioning properly. They will look at things like the evacuation procedures, were people -- did people know how to get out of the train. All of that, and they`ll take issue by issue, and address it until they can say, OK, that wasn`t a factor in this accident. We know in general what happened. They will look at the -- I`m sure there`s a camera at the front end of this train that will provide a perspective from the engineer`s point of view. Until they can rule things out, everything is still on the table. And, you know, unfortunately this is not the first grade crossing accident we`ve seen. But -- and this has been a priority issue for the NTSB for a number of years. HAYES: I want to talk about the data on that, which I was looking at today, and was actually surprised and heartened by what I saw. In 1981, you have 9,461 collisions at crossings, 728 fatalities, which is a lot. By 2013, you`re down to just over 2,000 collisions and 251 fatalities. What`s been done to bring those numbers down as rapidly as they`ve come down? HIGGINS: One of the things that`s been done is prioritize the crossings themselves and to make sure there`s the appropriate signaling and lights and crossbars at the intersections where there is the most traffic. There have been, unfortunately, accidents involving school buses, for example. So, we`ve done a much better job at the state level, at the local level in terms of protecting these crossings. Obviously, it is not foolproof, as we know from this accident yesterday. The question is, again, determining the facts of exactly what happened here, and looking at what else can be done to make the system that is very safe even safer. HAYES: Yes. You said this is very safe. That`s been my sense always about rail travel in the U.S. I mean, how safe is it compared to other modes of transportation, chiefly driving and flying? HIGGINS: Well, everybody -- flying, people worry about the most, and I think it`s in part because when accidents happen, they`re catastrophic. But they`re also very rare. More people are killed in highway accidents. So, people will often say you`re at more risk driving to the airport than you are flying. I would say rail, again, is very safe, but there are commuter accidents. Whether there are accidents like this, accidents on passenger lines, I was involved in being on site for an accident between a freight train and a commuter rail in California a few years ago. We had a metro accident recently in D.C. So, they happen. But again, we have to remember, and put it in context that we`ve got thousands of people, probably millions of people riding commuter rail every day, and they get to their destination safely. HAYES: Kitty Higgins, former investigator with the NTSB, thank you very much. Lots more ahead here tonight, including huge news today that could easily be the most important thing Barack Obama did as president. We look back at the years, and in the future. Stay with us. I`ll tell you about that. HAYES: Officials in Taiwan this evening are searching for survivors and working to determine the cause of a deadly crash of TransAsia Airways Flight GE 235. The plane went down shortly after takeoff today and footage of the crash is extraordinary and harrowing. Recorded from the dash camera of a nearby car, it shows the plane in the final moments dipping between buildings, while rolling to its left and then clipping a taxi you see there, on an overpass before crashing into the river below. It happened this morning as the plane was leaving Taipei`s Songshan Airport, heading for Kinmen, which is a nearby island off the Chinese mainland. 53 passengers and 5 crew members were on board, at least 31 are dead with a dozen still missing. 15 people have been hospitalized. New York Times reporting that one survivor found his 1-year-old son in the water three minutes after the crash and immediately began performing CPR. At least two local papers are saying that boy is now in intensive care. The Guardian is reporting the driver of that taxi is in the hospital with a head injury, but in stable condition, somewhat miraculously. According to the New York Times, shortly before the crash, a pilot indicated engine problems, saying, quote, "may day, may day, engine flameout". The plane that crashed was a Turboprop ATR 72600, was less than a year old. It appears to have been just inspected a few weeks ago. Asian airlines have had a string of disasters over the last year. In December, an AirAsia flight headed for Singapore crashed soon after taking off, killing all 162 people on board. Last July, another TransAsia flight went down, killing 48 people. Also in July, Malaysia Airlines had a plane shot down over Ukraine. And in March, one of it`s planes just disappeared. A combined 537 people died in both those flights. In recent years, Asia has quickly become the world`s biggest market for air travel, explosive growth, with more than a billion passengers flying in 2013. The question now is, whether that explosive growth is adding to a potential safety risk. HAYES: Today, get ready for this, drum roll, a Semi Obscure Federal Agency made an announcement about a semi obscure regulatory issue, which, 50 years from now, we may look back on as the most consequential development during Barack Obama`s presidency. Seriously. For the future of innovation in this country, the way we communicate, our economy, and the way that we consume information. Basically for the way we live our lives decades from now. And in order to understand the impact, first consider this, okay? When you move into a new house or apartment, the place is empty. Stuff is all in boxes, you`ve got to order pizza because nothing works yet. And in order to get the place functioning, you`ve got to make a few calls. First, you may need to call the water company and make sure the waters running. At some point you`re going to need to use the bathroom. You`ve got to call the electricity company to get the lights turned on, or, if they`re already on, at least transfer the bill into your name. At this time of year, you definitely you`ve definitely got to call the gas company and get the heat turned on. You`re going to want to cook. And then you`re going to need internet. You may have had the experience, as I have, of sitting in an apartment you just moved into without internet and it is maddening. It`s like you don`t even live there. I mean, what are you supposed to do, talk to the people in your apartment? Here`s the thing, all those things you have to get turned on when you move, that checklist, we understand those is intuitively as utilities, they`re services you essentially cannot live without. That is not how the law sees them. Under current law, water, electricity and gas are utilities. The internet is not. it`s basically just like any other products subject to the whims of the market. Now, as of today, however, that may be about to change. The Federal Communications Commission just announced a proposal to reclassify internet as a public utility, regulated by the government to maintain free and open access. A principle we know as net neutrality. In an online essay for Wired Magazine, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler wrote today, quote, "I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want. And the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone`s permission." These new rules will have profound implications for the future of the internet, because the government will have a lot of power to require broad band companies to offer services to everyone on equal footing. Perhaps even more remarkable, is just how unlikely these rules seemed only a few months ago. Seriously, last May, four months after a federal court struck down previous net neutrality rules, the FCC voted to move forward with what was called an internet fast lane. Basically, allowed broadband providers to charge a premium for faster service, effectively creating a two-tiered internet. And, as John Oliver pointed out in a now legendary segment on his HBO show, the deck seemed to be pretty stacked in the broadband company`s favor. JOHN OLIVER: I can show you the troublingly cozy relationship between cable companies and Washington in any number of ways. I could show you the president of golfing with the CEO of Comcast. Or saying at a fundraiser at a cable executors house that he`d been there so many times the only thing I haven`t done in this house is have Sabot dinner. But perhaps the most succinct way is this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president has picked Tom Wheeler, a former top lobbyist for cable and wireless companies to be the next chair of the federal communications commission. (END VIDEO CLIP) OLIVER: Yes. The guy who used to run the cable industry`s lobbying arm is now running the agency tasked with regulating it. That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo. HAYES: ... is very funny. Alright, so, cue an outpouring of public support for net neutrality, opposition of the Fastlane proposal with the record 4 million comments posted at the FCC`s website, actually crashing the page at one point over the summer. Now, by October the FCC was considering more of a hybrid approach to regulating the internet. And the last November, President Obama comes in and drops the hammer. President Barrack Obama: Cable companies can`t decide which online stores you can shop at, or which streaming services you can use. And they can`t let any company pay for priority over it`s competitors. To put these protections in place. I`m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under title 2 of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. In plain English, I`m asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication, and everyday life. HAYES: Joining me, Susan Crawford, former special assistant to President Obama for science and technology innovation policy, author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age. Great to have you here. SUSAN CRAWFORD, AUTHOR: Great to be here. HAYES: All right, I should say obviously, cable companies include my parent company, Comcast, who back in November when the president issued that statement, said they agree with the goals, but disagreed with the classifying this title 2 classification. So, first let`s start basic. What should I care? Like why does this matter to me in terms of my consumer experience every day of the internet? CRAWFORD: Well, Chris, this is unleashing the regulatory ideal, which is providing opportunity for everybody. So, you as a consumer with internet access, should be able to access whatever you want whenever you want. And it... HAYES: Can`t I do that already? CRAWFORD: Well, it`s not clear because actually, these gatekeepers have unlimited power to do whatever they want. Their potential power is unconstrained. So here the government is saying, we`re in there, we`re going to be a cop on the beat, we`re make sure that when internet access providers connect with other networks like Netflix and other players, they have got to treat them fairly, and when they sending stuff to me, they have got to be fair. HAYES: OK, right. So the nightmare scenario here from your perspective, activist perspective is something this this. Cable companies find itself competing with Netflix, right. Netflix wants to sell you the stuff. Of course they have got to use the cable company`s pipe to get you that stuff. The cable company says, huh, well maybe we`re just going slow down that Netflix connection a little bit, and then you`re trying to watch it and it doesn`t work and you`re like, you know what, screw it. That`s the fear, right? The fear is that under the previous regulatory environment, it was theoretically possible for those providers to do that, essentially to strangle their competition. It was at least regulatorily possible. CRAWFORD: Absolutely. So, like Chris Christie and the traffic cones on the bridge, same thing if I`m the consumer would never know what was happening. What happened today... HAYES: Ah, that`s a great example, right, you`re sitting -- that`s very good. So, you`re sitting in the traffic, and you`re like why is this traffic? And it turned out that someone put those cones there on purpose, but you had no idea. CRAWFORD: How would you know? And so the problem for the FCC is that its regulatory authority was unclear, not because they don`t have the authority, but because they`d slapped a different label on high-speed internet access during the Bush era in 2002, 2003. They called it an unregulated information service. It turns out that`s not what internet access is, it just gets you from point a to point b with information. So the FCC is has put a better label on it. They called it telecommunications services. HAYES: OK, it`s telecommunications service. So let me say this. Let`s say that David Cohen of Comcast were sitting here, or someone else from my parent company were sitting here, I think they would make the following argument. They would say something along the lines of the following. This is investment capital intensive investment we`ve done to lay this cable. There`s fiber that certain companies are laying. We need to be confident we`re going to recoup that investment. You`ve now just squeezed off our market incentive. You`re laughing as I`m saying this, but this is the argument they`re making. You`ve now squeezed off our incentive. We don`t know. We`re not going to be regulated like a utility. So, maybe we`ll stop laying cable everywhere. CRAWFORD: In fact all these actors are saying different things to Wall Street. They`re saying this will make absolutely no difference to the way we invest our plans for investment. Verizon said that, Comcast said it, Google said it about their Google Fiber plans that title II classification makes no difference at all. HAYES: So, they`ve been saying -- you`re saying they`re telling Wall Street, don`t worry, don`t run from our stocks if this comes down. CRAWFORD: And in fact, their stocks went up today. HAYES: Their stocks did go up today. So, OK, so the stocks went up today. Is there some argument that this is actually some kind of crony capitalist way of essentially creating barriers to entry, that you basically said the companies that exist now are going to exist forever and, god, does anyone really like their utilities? CRAWFORD: Actually, what they`re banking on is the certainty that the chairman is not going to impose any form of rate regulations, not going to be setting prices, not going to be requiring them to share their facilities with anybody else. So they`ve got that, they`re hanging on to that, and that gives them a lot of certainty. But the president at the same time is pushing competition into this marketplace, because right now, three out of four Americans can only get one choice for their... HAYES: One choice. Three out of four. One choice. You move into the apartment, you`ve got one choice. Susan Crawford, thank you very much. CRAWFORD: Thank you for having me. HAYES: All right, I will tell you the actual craziest story in the world right now. I`ll tell you what it is. Plus, also, Fox News takes on Frozen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEVE DUCEY, FOX NEWS: Are movies like the Disney smash hit about an ice queen and her sister empowering girls by turning our men into fools and villains? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Steve Ducey over at Fox News was fretting this morning along with his guest, the president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, that the sequel to the Disney hit movie Frozen is going to ruin boys. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DUCEY: The new Frozen movie that`s coming out in a little while, from what we`ve seen, it looks like they depict men as evil and cold and bumblers. That`s what it looks like. What kind of message does that send? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE; Well, and it`s not just Disney. I mean, it`s Hollywood in general has often sent the message that men are superfluous, that they`re stupid, that they`re in the way, and if they contribute anything to a family, it`s a paycheck. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Some real hot takes there from your friendly neighborhood Fox News stars, uncovering the hidden injustice men are suffering in Hollywood right now, particularly at the hands of the shameless man-hating Disney empire, which has a long history of brainwashing our children with evil or bumbling male characters like Hercules or Tarzan or Aladdin, to just name just a few. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We want to raise real men. We want to encourage masculinity and not villainize masculinity. DUCEY: It would be nice for Hollywood to have more male figures in those kind of movies. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Strong male figures. DUCEY: As heroes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely. We can both be heroes. DUCEY: Indeed. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That`s true. Seriously, if Mr. Ducey truly does feel marginalized by Hollywood`s reputation of his gender, I might point him to some numbers collected by the folks at USC`s Annenberg School last year. The top grossing film in 2013 across more than 4,500 speaking roles, about 30 percent were women and 70 percent were men. Not surprisingly just 28 percent of films even have a female lead or co-lead. And just 2 percent featured more female characters than male characters. So, my advice to Steve Ducey is, let it go, let it go. HAYES: International terrorism, accusations of a vast government cover-up and conspiracy, an arrest warrant for a world leader, a president, and then the death of the man who was apparently about to reveal it all. The actual craziest story in the world right now is happening in Argentina. And it all began 20 years ago. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Horror of a different kind in Argentina today. Crowds gathered quickly around the rubble, all that was left after a powerful blast leveled the seven-story building. There was no warning for the people inside. HAYES: It was the worst terrorist attack in Argentina`s recent history. 85 people killed, hundreds more injured, when a car bomb blew up outside a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Attention quickly centered on Hezbollah and Iran as the culprit. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After the explosion, Argentina sealed its borders and detained an Iranian citizen as he was about to board a flight out of the country. HAYES: But the initial investigation into the bombing was so badly botched, no one was successfully prosecuted in connection with the bombing. So a new investigation was launched, ten years after the attack. And then President Lester Kirchner put prosecutor Alberto Nisman in charge of it. Nisman also believed that Iran and Hezbollah were responsible. Then recently, as he worked on the case, a shocking allegation emerged. Nisman charged that the current president of Argentina, Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, the wife of now deceased president who appointed Nisman to his position, was trying to cover up Iran`s involvement in the bombing in return for oil. Kirchner strenuously denied all charges. And then one day, before a scheduled appearance before the national congress, Nisman was found with a gunshot wound to the head. UNIDENTIFIED FEAMLE: Investigators said the death happened under questionable circumstances just hours before the prosecutor planned to detail explosive allegations of a high-level government cover-up. HAYES: Protests broke out in the streets with many accusing the government of orchestrating Nisman`s death. Meanwhile, the administration said it looked like a suicide. HANIBAL FERNANDEZ, PRESIDENTIAL CHIEF OF STAFF (through translator): You don`t have to be a genius to realize that it looks like all in conclusive to the same point. HAYES: The president also suggested it was a suicide, then appeared to change her mind writing on her Facebook page that, they used Nisman while he was alive, then they needed him dead. As to who "they" are, reports suggest the president could have been referring to Mossad, the CIA, or Argentina`s own very powerful intelligence service which she has now vowed to disband. Meanwhile, the journalist who broke the news to Nisman`s death, fled to Israel saying he was being chased by Argentine security forces. DAMIAN PACHTER, JOURNALIST: I was the first to report on that. And now I`m kind of suffering the consequences of that. HAYES: Now, there`s new evidence of just how far Alberto Nisman was prepared to go with his investigation. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Officials now say Alberto Nisman had drafted a document requesting the arrest of Argentina`s President Christina Fernandez. HAYES: Found in the garbage of Nisman`s apartment after his death, drafts of arrest warrants for President Kirchner and her foreign minister, which just opens up more questions in what is rapidly becoming one of the biggest spy thriller whodunits of all-time. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: There`s so much more to this story. Is there a Syrian connection? And the mysterious spy master fired just a month before Nisman`s death. We`ll get into all the incredible details next. Stick around. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: All right, joining me now to walk us through this, Silvina Sterin Pensel, a New York based correspondent for Argentinean TV station Todo Noticias. This story is hard to believe is happening. It really does feel like a movie. SILVINA STERIN PENSEL, TODO NOTICIAS: It`s a movie, or a novel and the country`s completely shocked and outraged, and puzzled. Everybody. HAYES: Yeah, I mean, everyone must be just at the edge of their seats. So, let`s start with this, OK? First of all, did he kill himself? That was the original determination of a police investigator, and people said this is crazy and suspicious. He was going to testify in two days. He was making interviews with journalists. Do we know one way or the other? PENSEL: Let me start by saying for the American audience, that this is -- imagine the CIA or the National Security Agency working line in line with a high-profile prosecutor. And after a rigorous investigation, they accuse President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry of secretly dealing with al Qaeda to cover up something related to 9/11. So it`s huge. It`s unprecedented. HAYES: Right. PENSEL: Put it that way for the American audience to fully understand... HAYES; It would be the most explosive news story in the history of the American republic, or at least since -- I don`t know when -- I mean, in the modern era. PENSEL: It`s terrible. That`s why everybody`s puzzled. And the biggest fear is that this case never gets a solution, never gets solved, of the 1994 bombing. HAYES: Which remains unsolved. OK, so let`s say -- so, his ex-wife -- his ex-wife -- I guess ex-wife, right. PENSEL: Yes. Alberto Nisman`s ex-wife... HAYES: she doesn`t believe it was a suicide. PENSEL: Exactly. During the burial ceremony, she gave a very powerful and very moving speech and said that she`s persuaded this was not a suicide. HAYES: OK. We have no definitive, though, medical determination from an autopsy medical person, whether it was or not, right? PENSEL: There are -- you know, the initial reports came back, the toxic reports and the forensic reports found no gunpowder in his hands. So, you know... HAYES: It`s hard to imagine, right. PENSEL: But I mean, everything`s possible. And I`m not here... HAYES: To say one way or the other. PENSEL: Exactly. HAYES: But let`s assume he was killed, OK. Then it becomes this whodunit. Who`s got the motive. There are some people who think this somehow was the Kirchner government. He was going to blow the whistle on this corrupt deal they made with Iran to cover up a terrorist bombing in exchange for oil. They got wind of it. There was an arrest warrant in the garbage and Kirchner had this guy whacked. There are some people who believe that. PENSEL: Supposedly in exchange for oil, and for an arms deal of some sort. HAYES: Right. PENSEL: But, you know, I saw many interviews on TV with the former prosecutor who is now dead. He seemed very confident, very secure of the evidence he was going to show before congress. It`s important to remark that he appeared dead in his apartment the day before he was going to present his evidence before congress. So the whole public, the whole country wanted to listen to what he had to say. And we were prevented... HAYES: Right. And so then the question becomes, OK, so let`s -- now, Kirchner appears to be saying essentially that she`s being set up by a rogue head of an intelligence agency, a man by the name of Jaime Stusso (ph), who is kind an Argentine J. Edgar Hoover, right? I mean, he was there -- he ran -- ages, this intelligence agency called SIDE (ph). There`s like one blurry photo of him that exists. That`s the one you`re looking at. PENSEL: First it was called SIDE (ph), then it was called secretary of intelligence, and now last week in a very political speech, President Kirchner announced that she was dissolving the whole thing and submitted to congress a new bill to completely dismantle it and create something new called the federal intelligence agency. HAYES: Right. So this is like the equivalent of coming saying like we`re dissolving the FBI or the CIA, the president saying that. Now she fired this guy... PENSEL: On a televised speech. HAYES: In a televised -- she fired this guy six months ago, right? PENSEL: Yes. HAYES: So there is a -- wait... PENSEL: For many, many years he was a legend and the secretary of intelligence. HAYES: So there`s a theory of the case that they pulled to which is that this was a reprisal, firing him, he`s basically engineered some setup to frame her for this murder. PENSEL: Exactly. That he planted false information, and misled prosecutor Nisman, who has been investigating the bombing since 2005, so for many years, and he was in fact the one who formally accused the Iran government and one (inaudible). So, yeah, that`s the... HAYES: These are the different theories. PENSEL: That, you know, the -- he was misled by Jaime Stusso (ph), so he may... THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020401cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 20 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 4, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 4, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Ayman Mohyeldin GUESTS: Ben Hodges SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7812 words HIGHLIGHT: "The New York Times" reports that the UAE in December suspended its airstrikes in support of the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS. "Foreign Policy" reported that the Obama administration is apparently divided internally about whether to try to launch raids to free the remaining hostages if they can find them. Interview with Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, commander of U.S. Army Forces in Europe. In December, "Time" was first to report that Reince Priebus invited the 168 members of the RNC to go on a nine-day trip to Israel, paid for by the American Family Association, and now, Reince Priebus apparently bailed out of that trip because they couldn`t take the heat. SILVINA STERIN PENSEL, TODO NOTICIAS: -- formally accused the Iran government -- CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: Right. PENSEL: -- and one Lebanese national. So that`s the -- HAYES: These are the different theories. PENSEL: You know, she was misled, so he made the government look really bad. And then -- HAYES: And then he turns around and essentially -- Silvina Sterin Pensel, thank you for being here. Incredible story. PENSEL: You`re welcome. I hope it gets solved. HAYES: Yes. That is "ALL IN" for this evening. THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thank you. I will tell you, I was in the makeup room as you were laying out that whole story, and as soon as you finished telling the story about what happened in Argentina, everybody in the room went, wow. HAYES: Yes. MADDOW: That`s an amazing story. Thanks. Appreciate it. All right. What do the St. Louis Cardinals have in common with the kingdom of Belgium? This is not a trick question. It is not a beer- related question. What do the Cardinals have in common with Belgium? Turns out it`s this guy. This is Stephen Brauer. Mr. Brauer was America`s top diplomat in Belgium under the George W. Bush administration. Brauer did not speak Flemish. He did not French either. He did not have any background in government service or diplomacy. But he did part own a baseball team. And he had raised more than $400,000 for President Bush`s first presidential campaign. And so, a short while later, however unlikely it seems, he actually got the ambassadorship to Belgium, even though he, at least on paper, had absolutely no qualifications for that job. It is a dirty little, totally bipartisan, totally open secret in American politics, that American presidents give out ambassadorships basically as thank you notes to a few of their chosen biggest funders. Pretty much every president does it. When it inevitably happens, members of the opposing party always cry foul and say this is a terrible thing. It is, though, one of our grosser bipartisan traditions. And it goes back a ways. This is from "The Philadelphia Inquirer" in 1989, quote, "The Worst Ambassador?" This is about one of George H.W. Bush`s nominees. A guy named Joseph Zappala. "The most embarrassing nomination may be that of developer Joseph Zappala, who gave the GOP more than $100,000 and found himself named to be the main man for the United States in Spain. A foreign affairs neophyte, he knows little about Spain. Mr. Zappala can`t even speak Spanish, even though it is the second language of the former Spanish territory he calls home which is Florida." I mean, lest you think this is a Bush thing, it`s really not. It`s not even a Republican thing. President Obama has carried on this tradition with some gusto. This is what happened last year during one confirmation hearing for the president`s nominee to be the ambassador to Argentina. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Have you been to Argentina? NOAH BRYSON MAMET: Senator, I haven`t had the opportunity yet to be there. I`ve traveled pretty extensively around the world, but I haven`t yet had a chance. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: No, I haven`t -- never occurred to me I should go there. Also last year, President Obama`s nominee to be the ambassador to Norway, who had been a major fund-raiser for the president, he told senators that Norway has a president. Norway does not have a president. The Norway guy pulled himself out of contention for ambassador after that mistake. So, sometimes our ambassadors to certain countries are objectively not qualified for their jobs. But that`s not true of all of them. And sometimes they really, really are qualified. Sometimes you`re glad they got picked. This is Barbara Leaf. She is our ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. She was confirmed by the Senate in November last year. Before she became ambassador to the UAE, she was the deputy assistant secretary of state for the Arabian Peninsula in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Before that, she was deputy assistant secretary for Iraq, before that she worked for a year in Basra in Iraq. She left a job in Rome in order to go to Iraq. Most people don`t choose Iraq when they`re already in Italy. Ambassador Leaf speaks Arabic, she speaks French, she speaks Italian, she also happens to speak Serbo-Croatian in case that`s necessary. She`s our ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. She is a very experienced diplomat. But she has not been in the job on the UAE for very long. And it`s very clear that it`s good we have somebody highly qualified and highly experienced as a diplomat in that position right now, because Ambassador Leaf has had a difficult first month on the job. In this scoop today, "The New York Times" reports that Ambassador Leaf was confronted last week by the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, what they described as a blunt exchange. The reason for that blunt exchange, the reason why the foreign minister from UAE let our brand- new ambassador to his country have it, it`s the words that were used in the article. The reason they had this confrontation is the issue of search and rescue. Specifically, search and rescue of coalition military pilots who might fall into enemy hands, who might fall into ISIS` hands if they crash while conducting air strikes over Syria in the war against ISIS. That foreign minister told our ambassador last week that in his country`s view, U.S. Central Command, the U.S. military is not doing enough, is not putting enough assets in place in the region to allow for the capability we would need to go in and rescue a pilot who for whatever reason found himself in trouble during that air strike campaign. We got that story today for the first time. We learned that that meeting happened last week in Abu Dhabi. We also learned that the United Arab Emirates suspended its participation in airstrikes against ISIS. They suspended that key part of their involvement in the U.S.-led coalition in December. They haven`t been flying air strike missions since Christmas Day. The UAE is part of the coalition that agreed to conduct strikes against is alongside the United States. They`ve been dropping bombs on ISIS targets in Syria, along with this crucial international coalition. But since Christmas Day, since the day after a Jordanian pilot was downed and captured in Syria, the United Arab Emirates has stopped conducting air strikes, apparently for fear of the safety of their pilots. Yesterday, of course, ISIS released a video purporting to show that Jordanian pilot burned alive while trapped in a cage. Today, "The New York Times" reports that the UAE in December suspended its airstrikes in support of the coalition, and that news raises a couple of really interesting points. One is about the integrity of this coalition in which we are engaged in our military campaign against ISIS. It`s us and a handful of Arab countries, Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Securing the support of those four Arab countries, those four Muslim countries was incredibly important to this administration when they undertook this air campaign in Syria. They said not only do we not want to do it alone, we don`t want to do it without Sunni Arab allies. A lot of political import plays on that united front. This was not going to be the United States going it alone in the Middle East again. This was going to be the United States engaging in air strikes against is with Syria`s Arab and Muslim neighbors. Is that coalition now falling apart? Important point number one. Important point number two, is the United Arab Emirates right in being afraid for the safety of their pilots? Is there adequate search and rescue protection for pilots, for any of the coalition countries, flying these air strikes over ISIS targets? Is there adequate protection, are there adequate assets in place to rescue them if need be if they go down while dropping bombs on ISIS, including our own pilots? An unnamed American defense official gave a very un-reassuring quote to the "Washington Post" today in response to this criticism from UAE, that there wasn`t enough preparation and planning on the ground, there weren`t enough assets in place to save that Jordanian pilot after his plane went down over ISIS territory in Syria. The defense official told "The Washington Post" today that the UAE was quibbling over the speed with which the response happened. Quibbling. Yes. The speed with which the response happened, that was kind of everything. The speed of it sort of turned out to be everything here. That timing made a life-and-death difference for that pilot because they didn`t get to him in time. And that`s how ISIS got him. We know how it turned out. And maybe no search-and-rescue effort would have been feasible in the case of this pilot. Maybe it was just a terrible stroke of luck in terms of when he went down and where he went down. Maybe he was un-rescuable. But this is a real question for all of the countries who agreed to participate in these air strikes against ISIS. What happens if a pilot goes down, another pilot goes down? It`s a real question for all five countries engaged in these airstrikes over Syria. It is an especially important question for us, given that American pilots are flying the lion`s share, really, the lion`s share of these sorties. Of the more than 1,000 airstrikes in Syria against ISIS, the United States has conducted 943 of them. So, yes, if you want to worry about pilots, worry about our pilots. We reached out to the Defense Department today for their response to this contention made by a coalition member, that our search-and-rescue operations in our fight with ISIS are not reassuring enough. And the Pentagon responded with this strongly worded statement. Quote, from the Defense Department official, quote, "When American pilots fly over enemy territory, they know there are risks involved, but they also know they`re backed up by an unswerving commitment to recover them if they go down. The same military personnel and resources are there to support pilots from the nations that fly with us. There is no risk coalition airmen are taking that American airmen don`t share." So it`s a seemingly attempt from the Pentagon in that statement to us tonight to reassure the world about the safety of the pilots who are involved in this military effort against ISIS. Or at least the commitment that the United States has to every pilot involved in the effort regardless of nationality. At this particular time, this horrible case, the pilot happened to be a Jordanian air force pilot. But it was a reminder to everyone how dangerous this mission is. Yes, it`s an air campaign, but that`s not magic, right? It`s still incredibly dangerous. If that poor guy had been an American pilot instead of a Jordanian pilot, given what happened to him, can you imagine how we would be reacting as a country right now? I mean, that`s just the human reaction we would have for the family of an American service member captured by ISIS, and treated that way. But imagine what that would do to our country politically, right? What kind of decisions would we make as a country in the wake of something horrible like that happening? I mean, you can see the change, both in our country and around the world, not just in Jordan, in response to the Jordanian pilot. Can you imagine if it had been an American? We`ve already seen how devastating it is to us as a country when American civilians are held hostage and murdered by ISIS. Well, there`s some new reporting on that front as well today. It`s being reported that ISIS is now holding fewer than 20 foreign hostages from different countries around the world. That includes reportedly at least one American, a 26-year-old American woman. According to reporting in "Foreign Policy" magazine today, U.S. intelligence officials believe this young American woman is still alive in part because they have some sort of proof of life they received, something specific as recently as a couple of weeks ago. Now, the United States policy doesn`t pay for hostages, we don`t pay ransom. Some European countries and Middle Eastern countries do, we do not. We also do not trade for hostages most of the time. Surprising enough that Jordan made that offer to trade prisoners with ISIS. That offer ultimately did not work. They didn`t get their pilot back. But as a rule, in general, we don`t make those offers either. What we do as a matter of preference when we can is get hostages out. And there was new reporting on that front today as well. In general, the U.S. does everything in our power to free hostages when we can. But according to "The New York Times," after ISIS released that horrific video yesterday, President Obama decided to instruct national security officials and the intelligence community to devote resources to locating other hostages held by the Islamic State. It`s not like we weren`t looking for them before. But according to "The Times," the president has redoubled those instructions, find the hostages. We have a long history of swooping in and trying to get our people out when they`re being held in circumstances like this. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. There was a rescue mission mounted by Special Operations troops to try to save American journalist James Foley and Steven Sotloff. That rescue mission last year failed and they were both ultimately killed by ISIS. Last month, the United States launched a mission to try to save another American journalist who was being held by al Qaeda in Yemen. His name is Luke Summers. That mission also failed. Luke Summers was killed by his captors, as was a South African citizen was apparently just hours away from being freed because of ransom negotiations. We sent in special operators, both of those hostages were killed. So, sometimes those raids don`t work. Sometimes it does work. When it does, it`s amazing. 2005, Army Delta Force operators rescued an American contractor who had been kidnapped and held for almost a year. He was rescued about 15 miles outside of Baghdad. In 2009, there was the incredibly tense and dangerous and dramatic rescue of Captain Richard Phillips who was being held by Somali pirates onboard the USS Maersk Alabama. U.S. Navy SEALs were successful in saving Captain Phillips, and that has become legend, deservedly so. Just a couple of years ago, Navy SEALs rescued two Americans being held in Somalia. At the time, the Obama administration called that rescue, quote, "a daring raid that will be the hallmark of future U.S. military missions." When we are successful at going in, and saving American hostages, it`s an amazing success, and they`re stories that we tell forever. But sometimes that kind of rescue operation fails. One of the most harrowing new details that was just reported today in the wake of that ISIS propaganda video and the murder of that pilot that we all saw the film of yesterday, one of the most horrifying things that was reported today concerning ISIS and the remaining hostages that they hold was this detail. Reported again in "Foreign Policy" today, that the Obama administration is apparently divided internally about whether to try to launch raids to free the remaining hostages if they can find them. Given that relevant history about our success, in terms of freeing American hostages, and what happens when we fail, there is reportedly a debate in this administration about whether specifically the families of the hostages, whether the families of the people being held, specifically presumably the family of this young American woman who is being held by ISIS, whether her family members basically get a say, whether they can veto a proposed military operation to go in and try to save her. It`s impossible to think about having to make that decision, right? I mean, if you were that girl`s mom, right, and the administration came to you and said, do you want us to send Delta Force, send the SEALs in to try to get her, here`s the track record. Do you want us to try? The decision now in part in the administration, at least reportedly today, is whether or not families -- families of these hostages get to help make that decision. What would you do? Joining us now is NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin. Ayman, it`s great to have you here. Thanks for being here. AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: So, do we know enough to know whether Emirates has a valid point to make with regard to the search-and-rescue missions, and whether or not the pilots who are doing these sorties are adequately protected in case they get shot down? MOHYELDIN: Well, I think there`s two points to this. There are some I`ve been speaking to have suggested that the United Arab Emirates wants the United States to commit more resources to this fight. But as you mentioned, these resources apply to everybody equally. They`re putting the American soldiers and fighter pilots just as much at risk as the United Arab Emirates fighter pilots. So, it`s not that United States is only using its resources just for its pilots. That argument is being made very clearly, I believe, to the United Arab Emirates government. But the United Arab Emirates government feel there is some criticism to be leveled not just against the United States, but these countries in the coalition who are not taking this fight seriously enough, who are not committing all of their resources to try to eradicate this problem with ISIS. They feel these coalition air strikes, which they were a part of for the first month or so, are not doing enough. So, there has to be new tactics, new resources, things brought to the table. This, if you will, schism between the United Arab Emirates and the United States about this particular issue of search-and-rescue resources, perhaps is just a cover, if you will, for a broader debate that the United Arab Emirates is trying to engage in. MADDOW: Although it`s hard to say we need to be doing more, therefore, we`re going to do nothing. I mean, United Arab Emirates, they are key ally here, not just because they`re in it, in the same way that Bahrain and Jordan are in it. I mean, they were -- United Arab Emirate, they were the country that came out before the United States even asked and they volunteered to say, we want to be part of the coalition to do this, and we will fight, we will go there. They were in on proportionately high number of the early strikes. They have a well-funded, well-resource military. They fly all- American jets. I mean, they`ve been seen as a country we didn`t have to ask to come along. If they`re peeling away from this now, does that mean that the whole coalition is in jeopardy? MOHYELDIN: Well, you know, they made very clear early on, on our air, the ambassador in D.C., saying this is our fight. It`s not just America`s fight. This was a fight for the UAE. And the same thing that we are now hearing from Jordan. Without these countries, two things happen. And as you mentioned, again, tactically, it`s not going to change the coalition from a military strategic point of view. But the optics of it would be disastrous. If the coalition begins to fray and fall apart, it is going to be seen as a propaganda victory for ISIS. They will certainly jump on that. They play up to that. If you watch that 22-minute video yesterday, a big part of that is targeting the coalition. They singled out every single member of that coalition and said that they are going to pay a price for participating in this U.S.-led operation. So, the optics of it, I think, would be much more significant, and the symbolism of it would be much more significant than the military component that these countries are really bringing to the table. MADDOW: Do we expect Jordan is going to up the intensity of their involvement, or the type of their involvement? Obviously, we saw Jordan yesterday retaliate against ISIS, at least indirectly, by killing two al Qaeda associated prisoners. Do we expect that Jordan is going to do something they haven`t otherwise done in terms of the military fight against ISIS? MOHYELDIN: Well, the bottom line is Jordan`s technical capabilities, military capabilities are limited. There`s only so much they can do. The coalition without the United States cannot exist. That`s a fact everybody agrees with. None of these countries are going to be able to put their own ground troops on the ground. And more importantly, all of these countries are now somewhat held hijacked by geopolitics of the region. None of them want to take on the ISIS forces along without addressing the big picture, which is the Assad regime in Damascus. The United States does not want to address that right now. It`s in a sensitive negotiation with Iran that could tip the balance. All of these geopolitics, all of these proxy issues have paralyzed the situation in trying to deal with it. So, to make it, a long answer short, there`s only so much Jordan can do. Yes. You can see them carry out a few executions in their country in retaliation, they can intensify the airstrikes. But at the end of the day, it`s going to be more of the same, not a paradigm shift in this operation. MADDOW: NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin -- Ayman, it`s great to have you here. Thank you for helping us understand. MOHYELDIN: My pleasure. Thanks. MADDOW: All right. We got lots more ahead, including yet another thing that Senator Rand Paul has to say about vaccines. Why? Why, sir? Why? Please stay with us. MADDOW: My boyfriend Alex Jones is the Swiss chess mind behind "Info Wars", a conspiracy belching factory of paranoia dedicated to unveiling the government operations that are happening right into your nose sheeple, 9/11, Ebola, it`s all a conspiracy to take your guns ,or whatever. This week, a conservative Web site dredged up footage of Rand Paul, telling that crazy show the most amazing thing about the government`s false flag plan to take over your lives, starting with vaccines. This thing Rand Paul said is a wonder. And it is straight ahead. MADDOW: This was the front page of "The Lexington Herald Leader" newspaper today. This is one of the biggest newspapers in Kentucky. And, look, right on the front page, above the fold, on the right side there, Rand Paul plagues himself over vaccines, potential presidential candidacy in damage control. Oh, another day, another day of horrifically bad press for senator and would-be presidential candidate Rand Paul. Started on Monday, when he gave an interview to CNBC when he suggested parents should maybe not vaccinate their children because, quote, "I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." He said that Monday. Yesterday, Tuesday, Rand Paul was forced to walk back those comments saying he never suggested vaccines cause mental disorders, even though he very obviously and directly did. But he went on to say, in fact, if you really want to know what he thinks about vaccines, he loves them. He gets vaccines all the time. Look. So, Monday it was vaccines are terrible. Tuesday it was vaccines are great. What would today bring for Rand Paul? Happy Wednesday. This is Rand Paul before he was a senator. Rand Paul speaking to "Info Wars", which is the online outlet of noted conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Alex Jones is the 9/11 was perpetrated with by our own government guy, the Boston marathon bombing was a false flag operation launched by the U.S. government. Alex Jones is the guy who seriously says the Newtown massacre was faked. It`s all a conspiracy. Rand Paul is an Alex Jones guy from way back. And back in 2009, Senator Paul spoke to the Alex Jones outlet "Info Wars", and he said that he, Rand Paul, was worried that the flu vaccine would lead to martial law in America. Yes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RAND PAUL: The first sort of thing you see with martial law is mandates, and they`re talking about making it mandatory. I worry because the last flu vaccine we had in the 1970s, more people died from the vaccine than died from the swine flu. I think you have to use your brain. But I think every individual should be allowed to make that choice. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: First comes mandatory flu vaccines, then comes martial law. Very slippery. Make your own call on vaccines, Alex Jones listeners. Don`t believe the man. Well, Rand Paul is now trying to act like the media spun his words this week, and tried to make him seem anti-vaccine, when really actually he loves vaccines. Just watch this clip from his interview with the Alex Jones people back in 2009. This is Rand Paul talking about how dangerous vaccines are. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: You have to be careful. You have to weigh the risks of the disease versus the risks of the vaccine. But I`m not going to tell people who think it`s a bad idea that they have to take it, because everybody should be allowed to make their own health care decisions. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Rand Paul goes on at length in this interview about how risky vaccines are and how people have to make their own choices about whether or not they want to risk getting vaccinated. And this wasn`t like, you know, back in the 1970s. This wasn`t an Aqua Buddha diversion for him. This was 2009. The silver lining in all of this, if there is one, may be the widespread backlash, even on the right, that both Rand Paul and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have been getting this week on their whack vaccine advice. This backlash is coming, refreshingly, from all quarters. "Washington Post" yesterday published a blistering editorial saying that the remarks from both Chris Christie and Rand Paul, quote, "call into question their judgment, and their fitness for higher office." And it`s not just the "Washington Post." It`s also conservative media outlets. The Alex Jones video was flagged at the Web site "Red States", which called Rand Paul`s comments on vaccines, quote, "facially insane, and beyond the pale of reasonable debate." This was the reaction today from the conservative op-ed page at "The Wall Street Journal". They slammed Rand Paul for indulging in bad science and engaging in, quote, "libertarian dormitory passions." One thing if you`re running for president to get knocked by the "Washington Post." It is quite another to get knocked by "The Wall Street Journal," and by conservative base public indications like "Red State", especially if you`re a Republican trying to win your party`s nomination for president. But that is the sort of week that Rand Paul has had so far. And, unfortunately, for him, it really is only Wednesday so far. MADDOW: For days now, we`ve been looking for the chairman of the Republican Party. Have you seen this man? Reince Priebus, leader of the National Republican Party. Reince, where are you? We`ve been e-mailing Republican Party staffers over and over again over the past few days asking where in the world Reince Priebus might be. They would not tell us. Finally, tonight, we can report a credible Reince Priebus sighting. The Republican Party`s national chairman has turned up where we least expected him. The story is going to be so much fun. Please stay with us. MADDOW: It has been a terrible year for plane crashes, and even for lost planes. From the Malaysian flight that went missing last March and still never been located to the AirAsia crash that went missing for days over the Java Sea before its wreckage was finally found, to this astonishing, and terrible crash yesterday in Taiwan, as this TransAsia flight lost altitude and clipped a raised highway and then crashed into a Taiwanese river. This footage is just almost impossible to believe it was captured on dashboard cameras from cars that were on the highway, when the highway got hit by the plane. Thirty-one people, including the pilots, are confirmed dead in that crash. Incredibly, it appears that at least 15 people survived that crash. It has just been a terrible year for air crashes. This past July, though, there was a different type of terrible air crash when a Malaysia airlines plane did not just crash, it was shot down, it was shot out of the sky over Ukraine, near the Ukraine-Russia border. This is last summer, 298 people killed. And it appears that what happened there is that passenger jet was shot out of the sky by pro-Russian separatists who thought it was a Ukrainian military plane that they were shooting at. The separatists supported by Russia had been fighting in Eastern Ukraine for months already at that point. Vladimir Putin had annexed Crimea, part of Ukraine called Crimea, right, taken the Crimean Peninsula, and tried to make it part of Russia. And the Obama administration and European countries had denounced Russia. They imposed what turned out to be fairly crippling economic sanctions on Russia. They told Russia to get out of Ukraine and stop interfering in that country. But the downing of the plane in Eastern Ukraine on the Russian border, that upped the stakes immensely. Everybody all at the same time, left, right and center started asking the same scary reductive question, new Cold War? Is this a new Cold War? Are we, we, the United States, going to fight some sort of new war with Russia, set off by Vladimir Putin`s aggression toward this neighboring nation of Ukraine? President Obama seemed pretty clear on his answer to that, even right after that plane got shot out of the sky. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Is this a new Cold War, sir? BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. It`s not a new Cold War. REPORTER: So far, sanctions haven`t stopped Vladimir Putin. Are sanctions going to be enough? And are you considering lethal aid for Ukraine? OBAMA: Well, keep in mind, the issue at this point is not the Ukrainian capacity to outfight separatists. They are better armed than the separatists. The issue is, how do we prevent bloodshed in Eastern Ukraine? We`re trying to avoid that. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So, this is not a new Cold War, we`re not going to send weapons into this fight because that`s not what Ukraine needs. And they could cause more bloodshed. That was President Obama speaking in July. Fast forward to now, and it seems like this whole question, which sort of feels old, right, it feels like last year`s news, it feels like maybe this is on again. I mean, on security issues, the reason I say this feels like last year`s news, right now, our national attention is focused on ISIS, and the confirmation hearing for the new defense secretary, and the other stuff that`s going on in national security. It hasn`t really been focused on Ukraine in terms of the national discussion. I mean, at the confirmation hearing for Ash Carter today, there was even a peep or two about Afghanistan where 10,000 U.S. troops remain and for where there`s apparently invisible gag rule that means we can`t talk about that fact. Right? So, we`re willing to talk about ISIS. We`re willing to talk even a little bit about Afghanistan. But this Ukraine thing? Are we having a war with Russia? It has fallen out of the national discussion over the last few months. But one level below those surface discussions, it really seems right now that this thing is back on. And you should know about it. In Ukraine, a cease-fire was agreed to in September. That cease-fire has been blown through. The Russian-backed forces in Ukraine have taken a couple hundred square miles of territory away from the Ukrainian government, including a major airport, shown here in ruins after the fighting was done. They`ve taken those couple hundred miles and the airport just since New Year`s this year. The Russian arm shipment to the forces fighting against Ukraine have reportedly been way up, to including lots of heavy weapons. So, that thing that President Obama said last summer about the Ukrainian government actually being better armed than the separatists, than the insurgency? Our government apparently no longer believes that is the case, given the kind of Russian weaponry that Putin seems to be shipping into the Ukrainian separatists. And so, the ground game seems to have changed. And now, the Obama administration, this week -- granted, with everybody talking about ISIS and vaccines and Rand Paul and Paris Hilton`s brother and all the rest of it -- that`s the major national discussion. But this week alongside that, below the surface, the Obama administration seems to be making a concerted effort to get the idea out there that we might be about to start fighting Vladimir Putin and Russia with more than just economic sanctions. This report from a bunch of big named military diplomatic officials, it says send $1 billion worth of weapons to Ukraine right now, send them now. "The New York Times" reported this week reported that Secretary Kerry is open to the idea, as is the chairman of the joint chiefs. They reported that national security adviser Susan Rice used to be against the idea, but she is now, quote, "prepared to reconsider." They report that the outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, he wants to get weapons into Ukraine now. And then, today, at this confirmation hearing, the man who would replace Chuck Hagel, the new nominee for defense secretary, Ash Carter, said he is, quote, "very much inclined to send American weapons into Ukraine." Secretary of State John Kerry is on his way to Ukraine right now. Vice President Joe Biden is going to be meeting with the president of Ukraine this weekend. The president of Ukraine is already publicly saying, hey, yes, America is about to start arming us, about to start shipping us weapons to fight against Russia and these Russian-backed forces. He`s already saying that publicly. Are we? It is barely started to penetrate the headlines here at all. But after last summer`s freak-out about whether we were about to restart the Cold War with Russia right now, just barely under the surface in our politics right now, our whole military and diplomatic apparatus, you can feel it shifting into gear, start talking about a new war -- at least putting us into a situation that feels an awful lot like a proxy war with Russia. And proxy war with Russia isn`t a phrase we`ve really heard since Nicaragua, or Afghanistan in the 1980s. Are we going to do that again? Are we about to start arming Ukraine as a way of fighting Russia? Would arming Ukraine actually change the situation on the ground there materially? Would it make it better? Would it risk making the war bigger and worse? And are we about to do this? The commanding general of the U.S. Army in Europe is our guest next on "The Interview." Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: General, the official regional command bread product. BRIG. GEN. BEN HODGES, U.S. ARMY: Official Afghan product, with seal approval. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: It`s good, man. It`s like pizza dough. HODGES: It is. It`s wonderful. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That was from my 2010 trip to Afghanistan, inside an MRAP, breaking bread with the top U.S. officer in Southern Afghanistan, then- Brigadier General Ben Hodges. Well, tonight, Ben Hodges joins us for "The Interview" as Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, commander of U.S. Army Forces in Europe. General Hodges has just returned from Ukraine to Wiesbaden in Germany where he`s now based. General, it`s really nice to see you again. Thanks very much for being here. HODGES: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: So, I know you recently returned from Ukraine. We`ve been talking a little bit about a lot of political noise, and media noise in this country right now that the U.S. might be seriously looking at sending lethal aid into Ukraine. When you were there, what was your assessment of how things are on the ground there now? HODGES: Rachel, I was very impressed with a couple of things when I was in Kiev three weeks ago. First, our ambassador, Ambassador Pyatt, and the U.S. country team there, they`re effective and committed. They have a good feel for what`s actually going on there. I was also impressed with civilian and military security force leadership, their earnestness and their commitment to get their institutions ready for sustained effort to improve training, leader development, this sort of thing. So, I was very impressed with that. And I did visit a military hospital in Kiev. Frankly, the quality of care was quite good. The capacity is what they lack. MADDOW: In terms of the prospect of U.S. arms, and again, there`s been no decision made. But if our government is considering sending a lot more weapons into this in the Ukrainian side for this fight they`re having with these Russian-backed separatists, do we know whether the Ukrainian forces are well-trained enough, that they can actually make good use of advanced American weaponry, sort of anti -- the kind of weapons that you would use against these armored personnel carriers, for example, that Russia that is sent in, in such large numbers? HODGES: Well, you make a couple of great points, Rachel. First of all, providing weapons is not a strategy. The military support for what`s going on would be a part of the strategy. And I think identifying what is the desired end state that the United States, the West has with respect to Russia, and to Ukraine, which is a manifestation of that, is what`s really important. And also, just providing weapons by themselves is not necessarily going to help. The equipment that`s being provided requires training, it`s typically part of the system, and that`s why what Russia has provided, you know, not only is it sophisticated equipment, but you have to have the experts to come with it. That`s why it`s laughable that people would think this is militia that`s using this. MADDOW: The reason that you can point that out is because Russia has sort of been saying, oh, it`s not us, it`s just the separatists, we support what they`re doing, but don`t think this is Russian troops and there`s a lot of reason to be skeptical about that. But I think given that, if the U.S. military did decide overtly, all right, we`re going to get involved, and really arm the Ukrainian side, I just imagine, like, if I were Vladimir Putin, I would see that as a great opportunity to triple down on the fighting and what I was going to put my name on, what I was willing to admit to, and how much military commitment I was willing to make to Ukraine, if only because his war-making is sort of the only thing working for him with his own domestic audience. His economy has totally cratered, he`s seen -- being a little weaker with the Russian people than many other issues. But they like him in terms of the war. If I were him, I would scale up if we did, too. HODGES: Well, certainly, President Putin has two objectives, I think. Number one is to continue moving boundaries around Europe, to destabilize those countries that are on his periphery so that they cannot be in the E.U., that they would not be -- could not join NATO. So, to create the instability around his periphery. And certainly, Ukraine is the most important country on the periphery of Russia, in terms of non-NATO countries. His second objective is, I`m sure, to splinter our great alliance, NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to put a wedge between North America and Europe, to create doubt in the minds of the smaller NATO countries, that the risk of the alliance would be there. Those are the two objectives. And -- so, that`s why I think you`re right, he`s emphasizing the use of military force, and it seems to me that he`s shown no indication to back off despite the very strong sanctions that are in place. MADDOW: Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, commander of U.S. Army Forces in Europe. When we met in 2010, I was doing this job, I`m still doing this job. You, meanwhile, are now the commander of U.S. Army Forces in Europe. Congratulations on your success thus far in the Army, sir. And thank you for taking the time to talk with us tonight. HODGES: Rachel, thank you. And thanks for helping to educate your viewers. MADDOW: I appreciate it, sir. Thank you. All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us. MADDOW: We got word tonight from the White House that President Obama`s longest serving staffer at this point, Dan Pfeiffer, the communications department there, is going to be leaving the White House. He`s been with President Obama from the beginning. So, his decision as an Obama original to not stay on for the last couple of years -- that`s interesting. Although we don`t know what senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer will be doing next. He`ll be stepping down a couple of weeks. Then, late this evening after that, we also heard that the second announcement, White House Communications Director Jen Palmieri is also leaving. Again, I don`t know what Dan Pfeiffer is leaving to do, but Jen is leaving to go work on the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, which doesn`t officially exist yet. You always wonder when you get these announcements in bursts, right? I`m not sure they`re connected, but we`re keeping an eye on movement in and out of the White House, and movement toward the 2016 campaign. Stay with me on that one. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: We found him. We`ve been looking for him for days. Here is Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Party. He attended the Senate Republican lunch yesterday, in Washington, and that isn`t a weird thing for him to do as Republican Party chairman, but it is weird or at least is unexpected that he was in .D.C at all. And that`s because, since December, it`s been reported multiple times that this week, Reince Priebus was going away on an all expenses paid to Israel, paid for by the American Family Association, and organized and led by this guy. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) DAVID LANE, AMERICAN RENEWAL PROJECT: So, here we are, killing 60 million babies, red ink as far as the eye can see, homosexuals praying at the inauguration. If America gets mercy, I believe -- this doesn`t sound good -- I think the process of mercy looks like car bombs in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Des Moines, Iowa. I think we get mercy, the process is going to be a very painful process. (END AUDIO CLIP) MADDOW: That`s David Lane. He works for part of a far right religious group called the American Family Association. In December, "Time" was first to report that Reince Priebus invited the 168 members of the RNC to go on a nine-day trip to Israel, paid for by the American Family Association, and led by that guy David Lane. There`s no reason RNC members can`t pay themselves to go to Israel, or go themselves, but this trip was free to them, all expenses paid. So, it basically amounts to an in-kind donation of several hundred thousand dollars to the National Republican Party from the American Family Association. That set off alarm bells for the people who spend their time documenting who the American Family Association is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRYAN FISCHER, AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION: Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual soldiers basically had no limits on the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whoever Hitler sent them after. So, he surrounded himself, virtually all of the storm troopers, the brown shirts, were male homosexuals. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So, that`s the American Family Association. That`s who Reince Priebus invited the members of the RNC to go to Israel with, all expenses paid. People for the American Way and Southern Poverty Law Center, groups like that have exhaustive work cataloguing exactly who this work is. They`re pretty notorious, even within Republican politics. After they and David Lane specifically joined other far right activists in 2012 saying Mitt Romney shouldn`t be the Republican nominee for president because he worships a false god. These guys are notorious, even inside Republican politics. But Reince Priebus took hundreds of thousands from them, made this arrangement and would be hosting this big trip for the National Republican Party. "Time" magazine and "Haaretz" in Israel reported that a third of the members of the RNC said yes to go on the trip and Reince Priebus himself would also be going on this trip, with the American Family Association and David lane. After the trip sort of getting reported more widely, there was an announcement of the American Family Association distancing themselves from their most inflammatory spokesman, Bryan Fischer. Still, this is radio show for them. But after years of earning them terrible press, they finally demoted him within the organization before this trip with the RNC. The story started getting more and more press. Conservative Jewish group the Anti-Defamation League called the RNC to not go. The National Jewish Democratic Council did the same. The story got covered on "Politico", Jewish daily "Forward", "Haaretz" more than once, kin Israel. And now, the RNC is getting weird. First, we asked if they had anything to do with Bryan Fischer getting fired right before the RNC took its trip. No answer from them on that. We asked the RNC if Reince Priebus was still planning on going on a trip as had previously been reported. No answer from them on that. We asked the RNC if the trip was still on, if they`re still planning on going on, no answer from them on that. That seemed weird. Then, we called back the American Family Association to tell us if the trip was still on. Their lawyer told us Monday, "I don`t know that." That was literally his quotes, three days into the trip they`re paying for and leading and their line was they had no idea if it was happening. And now, as we`ve continued to badger the RNC to find out if they actually went on this trip to Israel with this controversial group, that all these Jewish groups are horrified by, to find out if Reince Priebus followed through and actually went to Israel with this organization that says Jewish immigrants to this country should be forced to convert to Christianity, Jews have no First Amendment right to practice their religion in this country, after refusing to say if Reince Priebus is really going through with the Republican Party trip to Israel led by the guy who says America was founded to advance the Christian faith and he couldn`t vote for a Mormon like Mitt Romney, after dodging those questions for more than a week now and just refusing to say anything about it, there was Reince Priebus yesterday, not in Israel but in Washington, D.C. Apparently, the RNC caved. Reince Priebus bailed and they couldn`t take the heat and they`re hoping if they refuse all comment about it, no one will notice. Mr. Chairman, we noticed. That does it for us tonight. I can`t believe they`re trying to "no comment" their way out of this. That does it for us tonight. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 5, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020401cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 21 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 4, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 4, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, James Rossen GUESTS: Phyllis Bennis, Michael Kay, Alan Diehl, Jordan Schultz, Bruce Beck, Eve Ensler SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 6916 words HIGHLIGHT: King Abdullah of Jordan called for a relentless war against the Islamic State. Now, the White House is considering its next move. Medical examiners are using family dental records to identify the rest of the victims of a deadly commuter train crash that happened just north of New York City last night. In Taiwan, 12 passengers from TransAsia Flight 235 are still missing tonight after the commercial plane crashed after takeoff. Seattle Seahawks head coach explaining what`s being dubbed as the worst call ever in the Super Bowl. One Billion Rising global event set on Valentine`s Day. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Rachel, no one would have noticed were it not for you. RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: Well, I`m a little fixated. I`ve got to admit. O`DONNELL: Great job. Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. O`DONNELL: Today, King Abdullah of Jordan called for a relentless war against the Islamic State. Last night, the king ordered the executions of two terrorist prisoners in response to a 22-minute video showing a Jordanian combat pilot being burned to death. Now, the White House is considering its next move. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ADM. JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: President Obama said today that the U.S. was going to double down on the efforts to defeat and degrade ISIS or ISIL. What does that mean? REPORTER: What does that mean? KIRBY: You know, we don`t talk about future operations, Jim. There`s been a long concerted effort here over the last seven months to degrade and destroy their capabilities. Nothing is going to slow down about that. We`re going to continue to put as much pressure on them as possible, with our partners in Iraq and in Syria. JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We did see reports that the Jordanian government did carry out the execution of two prisoners. These were two individuals that did go through the Jordanian justice system. REPORTER: So, the White House is not criticizing this, unlike the European Union? EARNEST: Jean, I refer you to Jordanian authorities. ASHTON CARTER, DEFENSE SECRETARY NOMINEE: We need partners on the ground to beat ISIS. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Do you believe that we need to have a strategy to combat ISIS? CARTER: Absolutely. MCCAIN: What do you understand the strategy to be? CARTER: Mr. Chairman, in Iraq, the force that will keep them defeated is the Iraqi security forces. That`s our strategy is to strengthen them. We are trying to build the force that will keep them defeated, and that`s going to be a combination of moderate Syrian forces and regional forces. MCCAIN: Well, it sounds like - -it doesn`t sound like a strategy to me, it sounds like a series of goals to me. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: There is one remaining American hostage held by the Islamic State. In a "Foreign Policy" magazine article entitled "Can the Islamic State`s Last Hostages be Saved?", a report says a rescue by elite military forces could be the only realistic hope of survival for the group`s one known remaining American hostage, a 26-year-old female aid worker who the U.S. government believes was alive as recently as two weeks ago. A former office with the military`s Joint Special Operations Command said that even with fully accurate intelligence on the woman`s location, a rescue mission`s chances of success would be less than 50 percent. Joining me now, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, and Michael Kay, an international affairs correspondent and former senior British officer and military strategist. Michael, this question of now that we`re down to, as far as we know, one American hostage left, and maybe 20 overall is the rough count they think they have, the Islamic State, the question is coming up again, is a rescue possible? MICHAEL KAY, INTL. AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I would actually put it less than 50 percent, Lawrence. I would put it maybe at 10 percent. There`s a very good reason for that. It`s because ISIS has become very adept at moving themselves around, they don`t stay in a location more than two or three days. That`s key for Special Forces who are trying to get fixation, or a target fixation (INAUDIBLE) to any form intelligence. What`s absolutely which they`re lacking as well is what`s called human, which is human intelligence. Human intelligence is a huge part of allowing Western forces to be able to operate effectively against targets, whether in Afghanistan or whether it`s in Iraq. There`s a vacuum in Syria, because everyone has been brainwashed by the ISIS ideology, especially in the areas that they are operating in, whether Aleppo or Raqqa, (INAUDIBLE) which is coming right down in the middle of Syria. So I think the chances are very, very slim. John Cantlie is the other guy that is also very prominent in the news is the U.K. journalist that ISIS have been using quite uniquely in terms of his skill set of being a journalist, and being able to spread that propaganda with an English voice to the West. What`s interesting here, Lawrence, we are down to about two. One of the key things that ISIS can do is they can infect and recruit by leveraging Western media with these hostages. But they`re down to the last two. So, I think in terms of what we do next, in terms of how we counter their ideology, we have to look at what their critical capabilities are. This is one. The other one is using social media. The other one is leveraging disenfranchised individuals and foreign countries. And then the last one is socio-economic problems. And I think the non-military options that we need to be looking at in terms of this holistic approach to counter ISIS. O`DONNELL: Phyllis Bennis, in "The New York Times" today, there was a piece by Kenneth Pollack which begins by saying, American forces appear to be turning the tide against the Islamic State. Do you see it that way? PHYLLIS BENNIS, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: No, unfortunately I don`t. I think we have to be very clear that, as President Obama himself has said over and over again, there is no military solution here. The fact is, you cannot bomb terrorism out of existence. You don`t bomb terrorism, you bomb cities. You bomb people. And you kill them. That doesn`t, in the long run, or even in the medium term here, that doesn`t end the horrific realities of what ISIS is doing to people in that region. We`re looking at a scenario, we`re getting new figures that have come out in some of the congressional hearings, indicating that the Pentagon claims they have killed somewhere in the area of 6,000 ISIS fighters, maybe that`s accurate, maybe it`s not. I`m not sure. But they also admit that somewhere between 4,000, 5,000 just foreign forces have already replaced those dead fighters for ISIS. That`s not even counting additional local fighters who have been recruited by the numbers among other things, of civilians who have been killed in the bombings. So, the notion that somehow we are degrading ISIS is not the case. You cannot use a military weapon to try and go after an ideology. I think what Michael just said is right, except I think it has to start with take away the military option. You don`t sort of add on to it and hope it works. The military option has failed. It failed in Iraq for over a decade. It`s failed in Afghanistan for over 13 years. Remember, Lawrence, we were told that the numbers of al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, because the U.S. had been so successful, was down to somewhere between 50 and 100 guys. And yet we kept at that time, it was still over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for those 50 guys. And in the meantime, while we have killed however many members of al Qaeda, al Qaeda-like organizations and organizations that grew out of al Qaeda like ISIS have sprung up throughout the region. So, calling that a victory is a very mistaken approach. O`DONNELL: Michael, to be care to Kenneth Pollack, he does say that a military mission alone cannot be successful. It does require political elements and all sorts of healing politically within Iraq that we see no evidence of. In addition to the very, very public things like these beheadings and then this burning video that we saw, we have a report from the United Nations about what the Islamic State is doing that we don`t see, that they are not seeking Western publicity for. The United States saying the Islamic State militants are selling abducted Iraqi children at markets as sex slaves and killing other youth, including by crucifixion or burying them alive. This is not a group that is trying to win hearts and minds. This is a group that is working it seems entirely on fear. KAY: Let`s be absolutely clear here, Lawrence. ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh, the Arabic acronym, it is a cult. If you`re a Sunni, you`re not safe. If you`re a Shia, you`re not safe. If you`re a Christian, you`re not safe. If you`re Yazidi, you`re not safe. If you`re a Jew, you`re not safe. If you are Russian, you`re not safe. If you`re European, you`re not safe. If you`re American, you`re not safe. If you`re Saudi, you`re not safe. It goes on and on. The point is, this is a global threat, and a global threat requires a multifaceted and a multilayered and multilateral response. Not just regional. Regional is key and they should be taking the lead. Saudi Arabia should be taking the lead. UAE should be taking the lead. Jordan should all be there. Egypt, pivotal. But we also need Russia. We need international legitimacy to try and work on a political road map, a political roadmap cannot be sanctioned unless you have agreement on the permanent five on the U.N. Security Council. Without Russia`s buy-in, we won`t be able to get that. Assad is a critical component of this problem. Going back to what Phyllis was saying, I don`t share exactly that view. I think the military do have a role, but whatever the military does has to be fused to a political road map. And without that political road map, any military action is short-term. It is useful. We have just seen Kobani. Kobani has been liberated by the Syrian Kurds on the ground and by coalition airstrikes going in. I mean, Kobani is leveled from the air strikes, I mean, that`s another conversation in itself. BENNIS: That`s the same conversation. KAY: But what we need is a political road map. So there are geopolitical problems that we have to get around. Russia, Ukraine, we have to look at Iran and the nuclear problem. Saudi Arabia and exporting Wahhabism. Let`s leverage Egypt a bit more. We need to galvanize this and we need to work our way, a coordinated effort to attack ISIS globally. O`DONNELL: And, Phyllis, all of these elements have been floating around these issues for years, everything that Michael just identified. And certainly American strategists have never been able to come up with something cohesive that held onto every one of those moving parts at the same time. BENNIS: And I think part of the problem, Lawrence, is precisely the focus on the military. You`re right that these ideas have come and gone. We`ve seen them in various proposals, but they all say when we start to have a policy based on vengeance, we`re hearing it again after the horrific murder of the Jordanian bomber pilot, we are hearing again we have to destroy them. You can`t build a strategy out of vengeance, which is what we`re starting to hear once again. Unfortunately, as long as the focus remains on the military, the other issues that are so important, questions of what do you do about a cease- fire, how do you get a cease-fire in Syria? How do you work on an arms embargo on all sides? I absolutely agree with Michael. We need to be engaging with Russia. We need to be engaging with Iran. But you don`t do that. You`re not going to get Russia to sign on what`s known as a Chapter 7 resolution at the United Nations that would set the stage to authorize more military force. You might have a chance to engage Russia if you said, let`s not talk about the military, let`s talk about how to get a cease-fire. The United Nations is taking the lead in trying to make some arrangements for temporary cease- fires in some small areas of Syria as starting point. We should be supporting that, instead of saying new bombing in Syria, let`s see what we can do to encourage cease-fires. Maybe a cease-fire in some areas could lead to talk of an arms embargo. That`s not going to happen right away either, but we need to have that on the table, something we`re moving towards, because otherwise, we keep falling into the same trap that George Bush posed to us, that we either go to war or let him get away with it. That`s never the choice. It wasn`t the only choice then. It`s not the only choice now. And as long as we keep the focus on what is our military going to do, how many new ways can we talk about, we`re going to fail at the political side. We will not win support from Iraqi Sunnis, as long as we are bombing Iraqi Sunni towns. When the hospital in Fallujah gets bombed, we`re not going to win supporters away from ISIS, we`re driving people right into their arms. O`DONNELL: Michael Kay, quickly before we go, what do you expect from King Abdullah next? KAY: It`s the million dollar question. And, again, I think Jordan, on its own, isn`t going to be able to kill this problem. Jordan has to reach out to Saudi. Jordan has to corral the regional partners to be able to get everyone around the table and say, politically what are we going to do here? I do think there are ideas to explore, leaving off from Phyllis. One of them is decentralized governance. The mission in Afghanistan in the last 12 years was about centralized government, what`s about extending the reach from Kabul out to the provinces, the districts. That doesn`t work when you have effectively a country full of tribal units that transcend national boundaries. So, maybe decentralized governments coming out of Damascus might be a way forward. But again, hugely complex issue that needs military and political solutions. O`DONNELL: Michael Kay and Phyllis Bennis, thank you both very much for joining us tonight. KAY: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Thank you. BENNIS: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Coming up, another tragic and deadly plane crash in Asia. And later, the biggest loser in the world finally speaks. The Seattle Seahawks coach who called the play that gave the Super Bowl to the Patriots told Matt Lauer what that moment felt like. And in the "Rewrite" tonight, the bravest kissers in the world. The guy sitting behind them in that photo -- oh, get that photo back up. That guy hitting behind them in that photo now wants to put those women in jail. And later, the brilliant Eve Ensler, the author of "The Vagina Monologues" will tell us what she has planned for V-Day this year. O`DONNELL: Tonight, medical examiners are using family dental records to identify the rest of the victims of a deadly commuter train crash that happened just north of New York City last night. Witnesses say an SUV was sitting on the track when the crossing arm came down on the rear of the vehicle. The driver got out to check for damage, then inched forward into the path of an oncoming train. Tonight, the death toll stands at six. The names released so far include that driver, 49-year-old Ellen Brody, mother of three, 53-year-old Eric Vandercar, father of two, and 69-year-old Walter Liedtke, a curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. NBC News Jeff Rossen explains how tragedies like this can happen. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JEFF ROSSEN, NBC NEWS (voice-over): Right now, officials are investigating the deadly crash in upstate New York, trying to figure out exactly what went wrong. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a loud bam, like an explosion-type thing. And then once we jumped off on the side, there was another explosion. ROSSEN: And it`s happened before. Check out this dramatic video from inside a train crash just outside of Orlando last May that demolished a sports coupe. The car stalled on a railroad crossing just before the gates came down. The driver got out with seconds to spare. Just last month in Houston, a mother, father, and six children escaped injury when this freight train struck their car and another crossing. Officers say the conductor sounded the horn several times, but the two cars didn`t move in time. And then in Glendale, California, an SUV stuck on the tracks caused this commuter train to derail. Hitting trains on both sides of it, killing 11 people. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Almost like a pretzel. I came off the chair and I was just tumbling basically the hallway. ROSSEN: According to the Federal Railroad Administration, more than 230 people were killed in nearly 2,100 collisions nationwide last year alone. Vehicles stopped on the track for any number of reasons. For mechanical failure to intentional thrill seeking. But what if you get stuck on the track? Experts say you should be aware that trains cannot stop quickly, so don`t expect them to stop on a dime. Get everyone out and immediately off the tracks. Leave your possessions in the car, don`t take anything with you. And once you`re out, experts say you should actually run toward the direction of the oncoming train off to the side. It may seem counterintuitive, but you`re running away from the collision site and any flying debris from your car. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: That was NBC`s Jeff Rossen. Coming up, the tragic video of the TransAsia plane crash. O`DONNELL: In Taiwan, 12 passengers from TransAsia Flight 235 are still missing tonight after the commercial plane crashed after takeoff. Automobile dash board cameras captured the final moments as the wing and tail of the plane hit a freeway and fell into the river below. The plane`s final communication was a mayday sent to air traffic control, which one of the pilots said they had, quote, "an engine flameout." Thirty-one of the 58 people on board were killed, but 15 survivors, including a 2-year-old child. They were pulled from the wreckage, and taken to local hospitals. Search and rescue crews have recovered the black boxes and an investigation is under way. This is the second TransAsia plane to crash in less than a year. Joining me now is former investigator for the NTSB and Air Force, Alan Diehl. He is the author of "Air Safety Investigators." Alan, what do you make of that mayday message engine flameout? ALAN DIEHL, AIR SAFETY EXPERT: Clearly, Lawrence, they lost one of their engines. It`s been reported that it was probably the left engine. That`s very interesting, because when you lose an engine, you`re not supposed to turn towards the engine that`s failed. They tell you to raise the dead engine, in other words, lift that wing. This captain was in a very precarious situation. He had buildings to his right and he had to make a calculated decision to turn into that dead engine and save the people in that building and abort the aircraft, but running at great risk of losing control of the aircraft. O`DONNELL: So, Alan, when you look at that video, you`re seeing what you believe is a deliberate turn, not a plane out of control turning against the will of the pilot. DIEHL: Lawrence, it`s obviously very hard to tell and the recorders will tell the story. We always say that the flight data recorder tells you what happened. The cockpit voice recorder tells you why. But there may have been some conversation, and I`m speculating here, that captain, we can`t turn right, the buildings or something like that. O`DONNELL: Yes. DIEHL: That`s why they may have consciously turned to the left against the basic rules about never turn into a dead engine. Never turn in that direction. O`DONNELL: But that could have been, if deliberate, a life-saving decision for other people. In other words, making that calculation, we absolutely must not go into the building, that could lead to more loss of life. DIEHL: Exactly, Lawrence. We know that Captain Sullenberger had that same decision over Manhattan there. That`s one thing that all pilots try to do is protect the people on the ground, as well as their passengers. But we don`t know, at this point we don`t really know. It`s possible there may have been a malfunctioning propeller system on that left engine. When you lose an engine, they`re supposed to go into what`s called feather, and the blades align with the swoop stream, or the air stream, and that reduces resistance. That may not have happened. It looked like that. I couldn`t tell from the photographs or videos, but maybe there was a mechanical problem with that left engine. We still don`t know so much about this, Lawrence. We`re only speculating at this point. O`DONNELL: But there are scenarios which you could lose that engine and safely proceed, even at that point in takeoff? DIEHL: Absolutely. They climbed to 1,300 feet. Again, this is data reported. And normally, that would be enough to safely conduct an emergency procedure, and take the aircraft around and land it. But obviously something very wrong happened. We don`t know if perhaps -- I`m speculating here, but on the leeward side of those building, but may have caused turbulence, causing more problems. But we don`t know if there`s a mechanical factor on top of basic engine failure, if that propeller did not properly feather, we may have had a real difficult situation for anybody to handle. O`DONNELL: I was on a flight once out of Washington, D.C., it was a two- engine plane, lost an engine, and it felt like the plane was going in reverse. It wasn`t, but that`s the shocking sensation in the loss of momentum from just the loss of one engine. DIEHL: Absolutely. Of course, you want to twist towards the dead engine. That`s what you try to avoid as a pilot. O`DONNELL: Alan Diehl, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Coming up next, an NBC News exclusive. The Seattle Seahawks coach talks about the play that lost the Super Bowl, the play that he called. And in the "Rewrite" tonight, how brave do you have to be to kiss your girlfriend in public? Well, if you do it in Russia, there`s a guy there who might want to send you to jail for that. O`DONNELL: In the "Spotlight" tonight, the worst call ever by a head coach in a Super Bowl, or was it? With 26 seconds left to go in the game on Sunday night, the Seattle Seahawks were 36 inches from a second straight Super Bowl victory win. Coach Pete Carroll sent in the play that gave the ball and the game to the Patriots. Instead of doing what the world expected, handing the ball to star running back Marshawn Lynch to pick up a yard, Pete Carroll ordered a quick pass over the goal line that was snatched by the Patriots` Malcolm Butler. As great as that moment felt for Patriots` fans, and as horrific as it felt for Seahawks` fans, imagine, imagine how it felt for the man responsible for tossing away a Super Bowl victory. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATT LAUER, MSNBC`S "TODAY" SHOW: Take me back to when you weren`t right. I watched your expression as you saw that play unfold. And you bent over at the waist and my heart broke for you. To be perfectly honest. How were you feeling inside? PETE CARROLL, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS HEAD COACH: Immediately, I mean, within the instant of the turnover, the gravity of what just happened, and I understood. And there`s only a second or two before you stand up and start looking ahead and getting ready for what`s coming. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: You can see more of Matt Lauer`s exclusive interview with Pete Carroll on the "TODAY" show tomorrow morning. Joining me now from Seattle is Huffington Post sports columnist Jordan Schultz and here in New York WNBC`s lead sports anchor Bruce Beck. Jordan, you`re in Seattle. I imagine exactly no one in Seattle has gotten over this yet. JORDAN SCHULTZ, HUFFINGTON POST SPORTS COLUMNIST: Lawrence, you`re 100 percent right there. I was actually at the game in Phoenix, and Patriot fans were getting ready to leave, because the game was over. And so I`m here to tell you that I can`t possibly defend, as a Seattleite, and a lifelong Seahawks fan, to be honest, what happened on the one-yard line. He said 36 inches, I think it was even closer. Regardless, Ricardo Lockette had 11 catches all season long in the regular season. If you`re going to throw that play, you`ve got to go on a -- roll Russell Wilson out, a much less risk play, throw it up to Chris Matthews, 100 yards of the game, he`s 6`5", and live to play another down there. Obviously he didn`t do that, and here we are. O`DONNELL: Bruce Beck, there`s a very interesting kind of revisionist history coming up here now, defending this call, saying look, this -- if incomplete, it stops the clock, they needed the clock to stop, so that they could regroup for what would be that handoff that gets you the yard. BRUCE BECK, WNBC-TV SPORTS ANCHOR: Pete Carroll said we`re going to run the ball, but it wasn`t on that down. O`DONNELL: Right. BECK: It`s unthinkable. It makes no sense. Give the ball to your workhorse, give it to Marshawn Lynch. You`re at the one-yard line. He`s got 100 yards in the game. They couldn`t stop them. I liked the other option with Russell Wilson maybe doing a little play-action, and running to the left, a little bootleg. But do not throw the football, especially to the middle of the field. If anything, throw a fade. The ball is not going to be intercepted. You still have a chance. O`DONNELL: Yes, that`s the thing, Jordan, is that you`re throwing it into a crowd on this play. SCHULTZ: Yes. O`DONNELL: And what you and Bruce are talking about is, OK, if you are going to toss it, you`re -- there`s a way to do this that will get you either an incompletion or a touchdown. This wasn`t that way. SCHULTZ: It really wasn`t. And you know, I`m glad Bruce mentioned the play-action with the run. Seattle with the read option, which they really did not use at all in the game. Russell Wilson, 849 rushing yards this season, led the NFL for quarterbacks, sixth all-time in a single season for a quarterback. That would have been a safer play. And look, I only had one-time timeout, they had three downs, under 30 seconds. They were a little worried about time. They wanted to waste a timeout or waste a play so that Tom Brady potentially wouldn`t have a lot of time to lead New England down the field. But at that point you`ve got to get in the end zone. And I thought, which was talked about in a big study by 538 today, an article saying that hey, Bill Belichick didn`t call a timeout, you really bailed him out because New England was in such dire straits. Really the only thing that could have happened for them to lose the game, Seattle was, what happened. And the chances are so slim. It was a terrible mistake that you can`t justify. BECK: And, Jordan, I like the fact that they didn`t call timeout because you`ve got the lead. And an all-wise coach named Lou Carnesecca at Saint John`s who went 526 and 200. SCHULTZ: St. John`s. BECK: Once said to me -- SCHULTZ: Let them play. BECK: -- when you have the lead, you don`t call timeout. And Belichick almost created confusion for Seattle, thinking maybe something is going on here. SCHULTZ: Yes. BECK: Might have put a shadow of doubt in their minds. I think it was a good call. O`DONNELL: Right. SCHULTZ: Yes, but -- you know what was interesting, Lawrence, sorry to cut you off, is that -- and to Bruce`s point, not calling a timeout, but also Seattle was number two in power situations this year. New England was dead last in defending it. And they said, Pete Carroll said, Darrell Bevell said, we don`t want to run against their goal line package. That was to create the confusion that Bruce was talking about, by not calling a timeout that Belichick was able to install. O`DONNELL: And Bruce, what about this? By the way, the three of us I know I`m next to zero about NFL stats, but I know this. I learned this today. BECK: OK. O`DONNELL: In this entire season of NFL play, on the one-yard line, quarterbacks threw 66 touchdowns, with zero interceptions until the final 26 seconds of the season. (CROSSTALK) BECK: I know. That just amplifies this mistake. Is it the worst in Super Bowl history? I`d say yes. Is it the worst in sports history? You can look at the Miracle at the Meadowlands in 1978 when Joe Pisarcik fumbled the ball and Herman Edwards scooped it up. You can look at Grady Little with the Boston Red Sox against the Yankees in the 2003 ALCS game seven when he left Pedro Martinez on the hill, going into the eighth with a 5-2 lead. But you can`t say anything tops this. O`DONNELL: Jordan, what about coach`s response and what he said to Matt Lauer, how is that playing in Seattle? SCHULTZ: Not well. I mean, there is a sense that Seattle -- Seattleites are appreciative of Pete Carroll kind of falling on the sword and really showing class here. And that I think is commendable. But, you know, Darrell Bevell, the offensive coordinator, is ultimately responsible. And whether or not Carroll will admit that it was Bevell`s idea, I have a hard time understanding that the offensive coordinator for the last three years, Darrell Bevell, was not involved in this and that it wasn`t his play. But to even entertain a throw here, especially on a slant route with that much traffic is just beyond words to me. O`DONNELL: But, Bruce, I`ve got to say, I love the attitude that he expresses to Matt Lauer. I love mental set where the worst thing in the world has just happened and he immediately, his brain immediately goes into, OK, what do we have to do next. BECK: I think Pete is a class act here. O`DONNELL: Yes. BECK: I mean, this could have been his legacy. Two NCAA championships. SCHULTZ: Yes. Yes. BECK: Two Super Bowl titles. Jordan, that`s amazing stuff when you think about it. Instead, he`s looking at one of the biggest, you know, mistakes in the history of the Super Bowl and in all modern sports. But I think he can handle it. This is a guy who`s seen the high note. He`s seen a lot of problems. SCHULTZ: Yes. BECK: He was a guy who was fired in New England. As a matter fact, New England is saying we finally won a Super Bowl with Pete Carroll. (LAUGHTER) SCHULTZ: Yes. BECK: Because he helped get them the Super Bowl. SCHULTZ: Well, you know -- O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Jordan. Last words. You deserve it. You`ve earned. SCHULTZ: Yes. Really quickly. Well, with Pete Carroll, this happened, a similar situation at USC. They lost to Texas in the `05 title game. Reggie Bush was the Heisman Trophy running back, was a fourth in two, he gave it to another running back who let -- who went on to be an NFL player, but not the Heisman winner. They lost the game and he was blamed a lot. He will get over this, to Bruce`s point. But to me, the bigger story is legacy. The legacy that they could have had back-to-back titles for the first in a decade. It`s almost impossible and who knows when you have another opportunity? BECK: Absolutely. O`DONNELL: Jordan Schultz, who has absolutely no plans to get over this, thank you very much for joining us tonight. SCHULTZ: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Bruce Beck, thank you very much. BECK: Good to be with you. O`DONNELL: Thanks for coming across the hall. Thank you. You can see more of Matt Lauer`s interview with Pete Carroll tomorrow morning on the "Today" show. In the "Rewrite" tonight, how kissing can get you in big trouble in Russia. O`DONNELL: And now for the good news. Four firefighters in Greenfield, Wisconsin, went above and beyond the call of duty on Sunday when they were called to help a 50-year-old man who suffered a cardiac incident after working too hard removing snow in his driveway. After rushing him to the hospital, the firefighters then returned to the man`s home and shoveled the rest of his driveway. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM KONIECZKA, FIREFIGHTER: At the time it seemed like an obvious thing to do. I talked with my partner a little bit about it, and, you know, it was just a nice thing to do, I think, to make their life a little bit easier when they were having a little bit of a crisis. JON COHN, FIRE CHIEF, GREENFIELD, WISCONSIN: Informally, we created a mission statement that was do the right thing. And this is the epitome of what we`ve done, and our members have embraced it and they continue to do the right things and this happened to get noticed. There`s an appetite for good news and we provided that. KONIECZKA: A lot of us firefighters love our job and want to keep doing what we`re doing. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: You can see more of that good news interview on our Web site LastWord.MSNBC.com. Coming up in the "Rewrite" the bravest kissers of the year. So far. Followed by the brave playwright and activist Eve Ensler. O`DONNELL: In the "Rewrite" tonight, the bravest kissers of the year. We`re only 35 days into 2015, and the frontrunners for bravest kissers of the year are a couple who kissed on an airplane. Just kissed. No Mile High Club stuff. Just a little flash of PDA. Now how brave is it to kiss your girl on an airplane? Not very. Unless the airplane is in Russia, and you`re a lesbian kissing your girlfriend. And you`re doing it just to humiliate a viciously homophobic St. Petersburg councilman, who you have deliberately captured in the background of your selfie. A club owner whose screen name is Kseniya Infinity posted this photo that she took on a light from Moscow to St. Petersburg knowing it would drive St. Petersburg councilman Vitaly Milonov crazy. Vitaly Milonov who actually was already crazy, was the architect of Russia`s anti-gay propaganda law signed by Vladimir Putin in 2013. Councilman Milonov recently reacted to Apple CEO Tim Cook`s announcement that he is gay by insisting that Tim Cook should be banned from Russia for life. Milonov said, "What could he bring us, the Ebola virus, AIDS, gonorrhea? Ban him for life." When Milonov later discovered that he`d been photo bombed on that airplane by a lesbian couple on the flight that the photo -- and that the photo had gone viral, he told Agence France-Presse, "The lesbians went through with this photo session due to their stupidity. It shows that all LGBT people are mentally ill. They have overdosed on so-called European values." And Milonov vowed to retaliate saying, "They should have to do a photo session in a police station." This brave couple knew just how crazy Milonov is when they took this photo and posted it. They knew that Milonov would love to get them thrown in jail for something, anything. But they did it anyway. And they`re thrilled that they did it. Along with her posting of the photograph, Kseniya said, "The whole flight from Moscow to St. Petersburg, Milonov said nothing to us. We staged the photo shoot in front of him and he hid behind his tablet when he realized we`re -- when he realized it. We`re all super happy. Him, probably not so much." Many people on Russia`s most popular social media sites simply could not believe that the photo was real, so Kseniya uploaded more photos and said, "Lots of people are asking me about my last post. Did we really go and kiss in front of Milonov? Was it really Milonov? Maybe it was just somebody who looked like him. What was the flight like? And so on. Here are my answered. Yes. It was really Milonov. As fate would have it he was sitting in the row right behind us." If you would like to enter the LAST WORD`s bravest kissers of the year contest, please go to Russia and find Milonov and outrage him, at least as much as this photo does. O`DONNELL: We have breaking news at this hour about a computer hack that could affect you. The FBI tells NBC News that the bureau is investigating a computer hacking attack against one of America`s largest health insurance companies, Anthem. Anthem says it does not appear that personal banking or health information was stolen -- does not appear yet. But the hackers did get access to personal information, including names, birthdays, Social Security numbers, street addresses, e-mail addresses and employment information, including income data. Anthem says it will notify victims of the attack. We`ll be right back. O`DONNELL: "When you rape, beat, maim, mutilate, burn, bury, and terrorize women, you destroy the essential life energy on the planet." Eve Ensler wrote those words in her play "The Vagina Monologues" 19 years ago. She then used the worldwide success of the "Vagina Monologues" which has been translated into 48 languages in over 140 countries to fight violence against women around the world. She created V-Day, a global activist movement to end violence against women and girls, which always finds a way to seize our attention on February 14th. This year on February 14th, V-Day will continue its fight with the third One Billion Rising global event. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ISATOU TOURAY, ONE BILLION RISING: Everywhere you touch, you either check the Internet, you read the papers, call other countries, you hear everybody talking about One Billion Rising against violence against woman, One Billion Rising for justice, and so many other issues that lead to violence against women. That is such a magical. The energy was so extraordinary. DIYA MALIKA, ONE BILLION RISING: I`m rising because I`m one of those individuals, one of the billion women that has been sexually assaulted. KHAMLA BHASIN, ONE BILLION RISING GLOBAL COORDINATOR: Justice has been part of our struggles all the time because we have always struggled against injustice. This time when the entire world together for One Billion Rising, ask for justice. It obviously became bigger. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Eve Ensler, founder of One Billion Rising and a Tony Award winning playwright. Eve, where does it feel like you are in this movement? Meaning, beginning, middle, you know, somewhere toward not an end, but real progress? EVE ENSLER, ONE BILLION RISING: It`s such a good question. I ask myself really that all the time. I mean, sometimes it feels like we really move forward, sometimes it feels like we`re just beginning. I don`t see the end yet. O`DONNELL: Right. ENSLER: But I think one of the things I have really experienced of the last three years of this campaign, One Billion Rising, and now One Billion Revolution, is we have definitely seen an escalation in the energy, the attention, the response, and the kind of coalition building that`s happening around the world. And that`s very exciting. I think it`s hard to tell because I think as we progress more women come forward to tell their stories so it may seem as if more women are being violated. So it`s hard to tell, is it that we`re having progress or is it that we`re moving backwards? At the same time, having just toured the world in the last few months, I am seeing so much grassroots uprisings around the world. I was in the Philippines, I was in Taiwan, I was in India, I was in Brussels, I was in France. And I think what`s happening right now is we`re at a tipping point. I think if we really move forward, if we really say this is the moment where violence against women cannot be denied ever again, and we have the kind of uprising that we had last year, and we -- it`s very clear from everything that`s coming in right now, that this movement has taken fire around the world. It is going to be the biggest rising we`ve ever had, in villages, in towns, in cities. I mean, cultures were riding in today who are up in Oregon, and they have put posters for -- cultures are rising to end violence against women. We`re seeing vets, women vets who are being raped in the military, doing vets across America. We`re seeing the restaurant workers who have been working with One Billion Rising who are rising because of the minimum wage. $2.13 an hour restaurant workers are still making. So they rely on tips, which makes sexual harassment the largest and the highest in the restaurant business. And they are rising to end low wages and end tipping as a dependable wage. So we`re seeing also this great coalition and this great intersection of looking at economic rights, looking at gender rights, looking at racial justice, looking at environmental justice, and a kind of coming together into one story of uprising. O`DONNELL: I last saw you after a great -- another great evening of theater, OPC, which you had at American Repertory Theater, and you did a great conversation with the audience, and I sat there and I wondered, you know, Eve does all this activist work every year, year in and year out, whether she has a new play coming out or not. And then -- and somehow you find the time somewhere in the day to continue to write brilliantly. That`s -- I mean, OPC is another enormous theatrical burst from you. And I just don`t -- tell me how you manage this time, how do you get these things done. ENSLER: You know, I was so privileged. I get to be in this ginormous movement and campaign with extraordinary activists around the world. Many of whom have just flown into New York for our big uprising on February 7th at the Hammerstein Ballroom. I mean, my sisters are here from the Philippines, from Kenya, from Congo, from Afghanistan. And I look at the amazing, brave, daring, extraordinary work they`re doing on the front lines, in situations that seem absolutely untenable, and let - - they`re transforming consciousness. So it seems to me that gives me an abundance of energy and an abundance of, to be honest, hope because I see the kind of grassroots uprisings that are happening across the planet. O`DONNELL: You also talked that night, though, about how vulnerable you can be to the news, how too much of what we do here can just kind of break you down emotionally and so you have to fight against that in order to continue this larger fight. ENSLER: Well, you know, I was talking to someone about this today. I think one of the problems with America, sometimes, and I really feel this when I come back here, is this kind of individualism. You know, us, me, me, me. And I think the anecdote to that is really thinking about the bigger story, the bigger we. And what we are privileged with, and many of us in this country, is time and the ability to think and when I feel overwhelmed by the stories I`m hearing, I try to turn that into action. I try to do that into doing something in terms of lifting -- the world. And changing at least 1 percent a day and making it a little better. And I think that`s why I really strongly suggest that people -- LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020401cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 22 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 5, 2015 Thursday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST The Saudi Connection; Being Bush in 2016 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Evan Kohlmann, Eugene Robinson, Michael Steele, Milissa Rehberger GUESTS: Robert Grenier, Liz Mair, Ken Vogel SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8493 words HIGHLIGHT: Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th 9/11 hijacker, has told lawyers for 9/11 victims of what he describes as a Saudi involvement in the worst act of violence in this country`s history. Former Florida governor and likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush deals with his famous name head on. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: The 20th hijacker. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. "Let Me Start" tonight with this. Here is the horror of 9/11 -- 19 terrorists that hijacked four planes, two hit the World Trade Center, one the Pentagon, one crashes into a Pennsylvania field, more than 3,000 Americans murdered. Fifteen of those nineteen hijackers are from Saudi Arabia, which makes you wonder why we went to war against Iraq. The man known as the 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, is now serving six life sentences in a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. Moussaoui has told lawyers for 9/11 victims what he describes as a Saudi involvement in the worst act of violence in this country`s history. Is he telling the truth? Evan Kohlmann is an NBC terrorism analyst. He was in the room when Moussaoui gave his deposition. Robert Grenier is a former CIA agent and author of "88 Days to Kandahar." Thank you so much. Evan, tell me about -- you were in the room when this deposition was given by Zacarias Moussaoui, in which he pointed to the role, larger than we`d ever believed before, played by the Saudi -- the Saudi people -- the Saudi leadership clique. Explain what he was arguing. EVAN KOHLMANN, NBC TERRORISM ANALYST: Yes, look, I went in there a skeptic, I think, as many others would have been. My understanding of Moussaoui was that he was a crazy lunatic. And I have to say, you know, that opinion was wrong. After I sat with him for close to two days and got to question myself in two different languages, it was pretty clear to me that Moussaoui is quite sharp. He`s very coherent. He has a very, very deep understanding and -- deep understanding and knowledge of al Qaeda, al Qaeda`s financial networks and other aspects of the organization. I obviously can`t verify every single fact he had to say with regard to the Saudi royal family or his private meetings with them. But I can tell you this. I was actually brought into this interview specifically to try to see whether or not there were any aspects of what Moussaoui was saying that could be corroborated with other facts. And I can tell you that there was a lot of stuff that he said during that interview about a variety of aspects of al Qaeda, everything from financing to training camps, guesthouses, individual commanders that was correct and accurate down to the tee. And what`s more is, is that Moussaoui was given an opportunity to talk about people where we were seeing -- you know, is this guy just going to say he has information about everyone? Moussaoui declined those opportunities. When he knew -- when he was given a name of someone who didn`t know, he said, I don`t know that person, I don`t have any information about that person. He was very specific about the people... MATTHEWS: Yes. KOHLMANN: ... who he identified and who he -- you know, he laid the blame on. Whether or not everything he said is true, it`s difficult to say. MATTHEWS: I just want to put a little bulletin out here right now. You were working in this case for the families of the Americans who were -- who lost someone at 9/11. So -- just so everybody knows why you were in that room... KOHLMANN: Correct. MATTHEWS: ... because it was an amazing place to be. Anyway, Moussaoui, Zacarias Moussaoui pointed the finger at the following Saudi leaders, "The New York Times" reports. Quote, "He said in the prison deposition that he was directed in 1998 or `99 by al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan to create a digital database of donors to the group" -- to al Qaeda. "Among those he said he recalled listed in the database were Prince Turki al Faisal, then the Saudi intelligence chief at the time, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the long-time Saudi ambassador here to the United States, Prince al Waleed bin Talal, a prominent billionaire investor, and many of the country`s leading clerics." Now, I want to show you something, an interview right now. I want to show you what happened to me. In the months right after 9/11, I interviewed Prince Bandar, who was mentioned there, Bandar bin Sultan, who was then Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Here was his reaction to my argument that a lot of people in America thought that the Saudis played a game. They paid al Qaeda off, they left their kids alone -- it was a younger generation -- let them go around the world, proselytize, cause trouble, commit terrorism as long as they left he country of Saudi Arabia alone. Here`s how he responded. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BANDAR BIN SULTAN, SAUDI ARABIA AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Does it makes sense to you, Chris, if bin Laden and his likes (ph), those evil people, are supposed to be the product of the Saudi religious teachings -- if that is true and they consider -- bin Laden was in public was saying the Saudis are infidels, get rid of the infidels, the religious leaders -- are we stupid? Why would we go and teach people so they can come and attack us? MATTHEWS: So they can attack somebody else. BIN SULTAN: The premise is wrong. No. They stopped (ph) to do this. They could -- what Taliban has been doing for three yours, now five years? Killing other Afghanistanis, other Muslims! MATTHEWS: Yes. BIN SULTAN: You just... MATTHEWS: But you know the sense in this country is that -- that your government has been very smart to buy off the younger generation... BIN SULTAN: No, no, no. MATTHEWS: ... give them all the money they need to go proselytize around the world and do their dirty will, and leave them alone. They`re paying protection money, in a sense. BIN SULTAN: You know what? This is (EXPLETIVE DELETED), to be honest with you. MATTHEWS: OK. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, he said it was BS. He actually used the actual word. Anyway, Mr. Grenier, what do you make of this right now? Because the Soviet -- I mean, not Soviet, the -- there`s a mistake -- the Saudi government obviously denies any role in 9/11. The Bush administration never accused them of anything, and yet there a lot of people that wonder how come there were 15 Saudis on that plane out of the 19? Most of the terrorists, three quarters of them, were Saudis. Bin Laden comes out that world, angry at their parents, a generational dispute, but yet it just seemed to me that with all this Wahhabism going on in Saudi Arabia, all this culture of Islamism, extreme Islamism, how does the Saudi culture and society, an elite clique, get out of any responsibility for 9/11/ That`s my question. Because he`s pointing the finger at them, Moussaoui, right now. ROBERT GRENIER, AUTHOR, "88 DAYS TO KANDAHAR": Well, look, I mean, if you look at Saudi society, I mean, it`s a -- it`s a complicated picture. And absolutely. I mean, these are Wahabbis. I mean, they are religious... MATTHEWS: Zealots. GRENIER: They`re zealous. They`re fundamentalists. And yes, absolutely, there are wealthy Saudis, others who wanted to proselytize. And so absolutely. When I lived in Pakistan, there was a large religious school that was just down the street from me, and it was -- it was built with Saudi money. That doesn`t necessarily mean -- it casts suspicion on them. It puts a doubtful light on them. But it doesn`t necessarily mean... MATTHEWS: Well, what about Moussaoui`s argument now in this deposition he made this fall that we`re just getting access to now? What do you make of his accusation? Was it just a desperate prisoner`s effort to win some sort of relief, or is there truth there? GRENIER: Yes, I don`t know if he was -- if he was trying to, you know, build himself up, to make himself seem more important than he was. I have no brief for either party in this, but... MATTHEWS: Well, let me go back to Evan on this because this is what everybody in Washington wants to know right now. Is this guy another stoolie in prison, trying to BS his way out of prison, or is he a guy who had something to offer, knowing he`s going to be in prison the rest of his life and he just wants to do something that has some truth telling to it? What is your sense of his motive, Evan, when you watch him? Why is he spilling the beans, if they are the beans? KOHLMANN: Well, he has no doubt that he`s going to be in prison for the rest of his life. He knows that. And he`s also up front about the fact that he still considers himself to be an enemy of the United States. I think -- my perception is, is that Moussaoui is deeply embittered towards other members of al Qaeda, as well as the Saudi government, as well as others, who I think he feels played a role in all this and were not held to account, and he`s paying the price for that. So there`s no doubt Moussaoui appears to have very personal reasons for wanting to do this. But I -- you know, again, I think it`s quite clear he`s not trying to paint himself as America`s new best friend. And he was also very explicit about the fact that, look, he wasn`t going to try to play games. He wasn`t going to try to con us, or at least that`s what he said, because he realized we had more information about this than he did, and we were asking him questions from a perspective... MATTHEWS: OK... KOHLMANN: We could know exactly what we were asking him about. If he made up an answer, we would be in a position to know about it immediately. He could not... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK, let me suggest another interpretation. He`s watching television. He obviously has access to the news. He knows that we`re in a coalition right now against ISIS and against the terrorists. And one way to screw up our coalition is get us suspecting the Saudis of a role in 9/11. GRENIER: There you go. MATTHEWS: It`s a perfect way to bring us all apart. Right? GRENIER: Absolutely. Absolutely. That`s what I would be trying to do. I mean, if -- this is somebody who has to hate Saudi Arabia. And this is somebody who believes, as an article of faith, that if the U.S. ever cut off support for Saudi Arabia, they would fall. He wants to see these people fall. MATTHEWS: Isn`t that possible, Evan, that what this guy is doing is screwing up our coalition right now by just... KOHLMANN: It`s always possible, and I think one of the only... MATTHEWS: ... spreading the seeds of doubt. KOHLMANN: The only justification here for withholding this information is if it had some tremendously deleterious impact on U.S.-Saudi relations. But there`s two things to say about this. Number one, my understanding is that Moussaoui has been emphasizing this information or has been trying to put forward this information longer than Saudi Arabia has been part of our coalition in Iraq and Syria. So that simply doesn`t make any sense. I think the other part about this is -- again, I -- I -- Moussaoui appears to have had this long-standing sense for a while. I really don`t think this is born of anything recent. MATTHEWS: Yes. KOHLMANN: Moussaoui is very clear about this. Now, again, I think everything he says should be measured up against any information we can, any information about his travel records or others. If we can verify this with official information, we should do so. But that`s the point, is there`s no point in withholding this information anymore. You know, even Saudi Arabia wants... MATTHEWS: OK... KOHLMANN: ... the 28 pages from the joint intelligence inquiry out there. The Saudis want this out there. If the Saudis want this out there, the families want this out there, the American people want this out there, then what possible reason is there to not release this information? If there`s anything in here that implicates the government of Saudi Arabia, we should know about it. If the information in there exonerates the government of Saudi Arabia, it`s their right to have that information and be able to defend themselves... MATTHEWS: OK... KOHLMANN: ... knowing what the information actually is. MATTHEWS: But gentlemen, the United States government, the very much respected commission on what happened on 9/11 -- it was generally roundly respected -- said no Saudi government role in 9/11. GRENIER: They could find no evidence for it. MATTHEWS: What about this idea... KOHLMANN: And yet... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Evan you make a point, here. I think it`s debatable, but it`s a good point. He says they should release these 24 (sic) pages of the Senate and House Investigative Committee on 9/11. Now, I know there`s always a problem, and I understand it, the decency factor. Do you release raw data, raw -- I mean, people say the wackiest things to FBI agents. Do you just throw it out there, and somebody could be a truther out there, somebody could just be throwing out the theory that this -- and all of a sudden, that becomes gold. Should they release the 24 pages of the Senate- House investigation? GRENIER: Well, we can only speculate. So there may be lots of good reasons why these 28 pages shouldn`t be put out. As President Bush said before, you know, there are sources and methods reasons why they shouldn`t do that. I don`t know, but that`s what the president has said. There may be some things in that report which are embarrassing to the Saudis and would -- and would have made it more different for the Saudis to take effective action in their domestic political context if that stuff were known. MATTHEWS: What could it be? What would that be? GRENIER: Well, for instance, maybe there were members of prominent Saudi families who it would be very difficult for the Saudis to move against in an overt way... MATTHEWS: Yes. GRENIER: ... and yet if this were out there, they would essentially be sandbagged. MATTHEWS: Who made the decision, Evan, to release all the Soviet -- I mean, all the -- why do I keep saying that? -- all the Saudi -- the Saudi diplomats that went -- they lived right near the -- their embassy is right next to the -- to the Watergate apartments, of course. Why did they all get a sort of a free ride out of the country right in the middle of all that security concern, where nobody was allowed to fly for a couple hours or a couple days after 9/11? They were given the exception. people want to know, why were all the Saudis allowed to split so easily against all the rules at the time? KOHLMANN: Well, look, I think it`s very easy to answer that. It`s that these were wealthy and important people. They were -- some of them were diplomats or they were related to diplomats. They were people that had a tremendous amount of influence, and they had people that could reach out to people in our government. And I think part of the problem is, is that then, as of now, there were a lot of people who just -- the idea that Saudi Arabia, one of our closest allies in the Middle East, could have been involved in funding or coordinating 9/11 -- it sounded ridiculous. It sounded ridiculous. MATTHEWS: Yes. KOHLMANN: Unfortunately, there`s enough evidence out there from very credible sources, from people that should have had a reason to know, that it behooves us to look into those documents and those questions... MATTHEWS: OK... KOHLMANN: ... and verify if there`s any truth to them because the FBI has had information going all the way back to 1995 that wealthy Gulf governments, wealthy Persian Gulf governments were providing money to al Qaeda in order to -- protection money, essentially, for their regimes. And we know that the current king of Saudi Arabia, King Salman, when he was the governor of Riyadh back in the 1990s -- he was raising money for Saudi charities that have since been shut down not just by the U.S. government, but the Saudi government, for funding al Qaeda. So there`s no doubt that money was exchanged. The question is, is were the Saudis aware of where that money was going and who they were contributing to. MATTHEWS: OK. Well, Evan... KOHLMANN: And any information we have that helps illuminate that question, I think it`s incumbent upon all of us, including the Saudis, to be honest in answering that question, now more than 10 years after 9/11. MATTHEWS: OK. Well, you made that point here and you made it in the "New York Times" front page right at the fold -- I mean, top of the right- hand side of the paper. You`ve made it in the best slot in the news business there is, the right-hand side of "The New York Times," and you`re here tonight. I think people are questioning this. I`m not a truther, but I think these questions are very healthy to ask. Anyway, Evan Kohlmann, Robert Grenier, thank you both, gentlemen. Coming up -- Jeb Bush loves his dad and thinks his brother was a great president, but for Jeb, being a Bush cuts both ways. The Bush names helps him. As for the Bush reputation, not so much. Can Jeb Bush divorce himself from the Bush political record? Plus, some top Democrats won`t commit to attending Benjamin Netanyahu`s politically charged speech next month to Congress, the one John Boehner arranged without telling the president. Meanwhile, we get word today that his holiness, Pope Francis, is also coming to address Congress. Is this Boehner asking for a do-over? And Olympic hero Bruce Jenner is about to become the highest-profile transgender person in the world. We`re going to talk about what gender`s - - Jenner`s decision says about tolerance and acceptance in the year 2015. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with these new questions about the Saudi involvement in 9/11. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Rand Paul is the latest Republican to come out in opposition to Loretta Lynch, President Obama`s pick for attorney general. Senator Paul said today in a statement that Lynch, quote, "has a track record of violating individual freedoms granted to us by our Constitution." Well, yesterday, Texas senator John Cornyn said he won`t support Lynch. And last week, David Vitter of Lousiana and Jeff Sessions of Alabama said they`d oppose her, as well. And we`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FMR. FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I know some in the media think conservatives don`t care about the cities, but they`re wrong. We believe that every American in every community has the right to pursue happiness. They have the right to rise. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was Jeb Bush, of course, yesterday in Detroit testing his campaign message for 2016. It`s called a "right to rise." It sounds a lot like what his brother, George W. Bush, offered 15 years ago. W. called it "compassionate conservativism." Anyway, let`s watch George. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Big government is not the answer, but the alternative to bureaucracy is not indifference. It is to put conservative values and conservative ideas into the thick of the fight for justice and opportunity. This is what I mean by compassionate conservatism. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, it`ll be hard for Jeb to run away from that family or the Bush family name, and the records of both his brother and father. And the former Florida governor talked about that yesterday. Interesting conundrum here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I love my dad. In fact, my dad is the greatest man alive. And if anybody disagrees, we`ll go outside unless you`re, like, 6-5 250 and much younger than me. Then we`ll negotiate. (LAUGHTER) BUSH: I`m still not going to change my mind for sure. And I love my brother, and I think he`s been a great president. It doesn`t bother me a bit to be proud of them and love them, but I now for a fact that if I`m going to be successful going beyond the consideration (ph), then I`m going to have to do it on my own. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, joining me right now, "The Washington Post`s" Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson, and Republican strategist Liz Mair. Let me start with you, since you`re the Republican... LIZ MAIR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Sure. MATTHEWS: ... and proud of it. I think -- it`s interesting because I think it works, but tell me how it works. You benefit from a fine family name, Bush, but you don`t have to defend the policies of your relatives, but somehow, you -- what is it that you`re benefiting from if it`s not the performance of those two family members? MAIR: I think... MATTHEWS: The performance. MAIR: ... experience of being in the public eye at that level and putting up with that level of scrutiny. I think a lot of the fund-raising infrastructure, and I think just the collective knowledge that is bred into the pool of Bush family advisers that you`re able to tap that a lot of these other guys can`t. But I do think you`re right. Jeb Bush is a very different political animal to his brother, and his brother is very different political animal to his dad, I think. There`s a tendency to do a lot of characterization of the Bushes as moderates. I think that`s very true when you look at George H.W. Bush. I think when you look at George W. Bush, you`re actually talking about somebody who I would characterize much more as a big government social conservative. And I think when you`re looking at Jeb Bush, you`re looking at somebody who actually I think is a bit more of a mainstream conservative, despite the fact that he`s being depicted as sort of this Republican in name only at the moment. MATTHEWS: OK. OK. You`re Joe out there or Jane out there, a regular person, not a fund raiser, not an insider, and you go out to the burbs, where the fight is going to be, the burbs, middle-class burbs. You`re going to say to somebody, vote for another Bush. But vote for Bush because you`re familiar with the name and they haven`t stolen any money, so give them another break, but don`t look back at what the father did or the brother did. How does that work? EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first you have to get over the hurdle of the name, right? MATTHEWS: It`s a hurdle. ROBINSON: You have got to get over the hurdle of, we`re going to have a third Bush. MATTHEWS: But isn`t that the reason he has got the bid? ROBINSON: OK. Well, we... (CROSSTALK) MAIR: It`s a reason he was in position to run for Florida governor. ROBINSON: Right. Exactly. We say we don`t have dynasties. We do. OK? We do. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Imagine you`re a cereal box. I have been thinking about this. Imagine you`re a cereal box. I love Kellogg`s. I eat too many Raisin Bran breakfasts, OK. Suppose I said I have got a new cereal coming out from Kellogg`s. Now, you may not have liked the last two you tried, but the next one is going to be really good, but it is a Kellogg`s, so buy a Kellogg`s. I mean, who`s going to do that? ROBINSON: Well, look. MATTHEWS: You`re going to say, I didn`t like the last two. Why would I like the next one? ROBINSON: If you could hark back to the first, right, to George H.W. Bush, he was frankly an underrated president at the time and his reputation has improved with the years. MATTHEWS: Yes, that`s true. ROBINSON: Right? MATTHEWS: He`s almost beloved. ROBINSON: If you can hark back to that without harking back to George W. Bush, whose reputation decidedly has not improved. (CROSSTALK) ROBINSON: It`s a hard thing to do. MATTHEWS: Will the tough reporter sitting there in a debate situation let him get away with that, will say, wait a minute, yes or no, was the Iraq war a smart move and a good move for this country, yes or no, not, is it better to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Do you still defend that and think that was the right thing, looking back, looking back on it? Will he say yes? MAIR: I don`t know what he will say. I think that there are a number of questions about that that are going to be very awkward when he`s pinned on aspects of his family`s record. MATTHEWS: Should your dad have raised taxes after saying no new taxes, read my lips? Should he have broken that promise? MAIR: Right. Which between your dad and your brother did a better job in terms of gathering allies together to go to war against fundamentally the same dude? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, you know the answer to that one. MAIR: Well, sure, but I think in terms of getting an answer from him, that`s going to be an awkward situation to deal with in a debate. (CROSSTALK) ROBINSON: The Iraq war question is really the tough one, I think. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: It`s tough for Hillary, too. MAIR: It`s tough. Yes. MATTHEWS: It`s real tough for Hillary. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: It`s tough for Biden. It`s tough for Kerry. They still haven`t explained why they went for the ridiculous arguments of W. and the neocons. ROBINSON: Right. Right. Right. MAIR: I think fundamentally one of the things that he is going to have to deal with, the fact that there are aspects of his father`s record and his brother`s record that people don`t like. The flip side of that is there are aspects of his father`s record and his brother`s record that actually he may want to appeal to, too. When we`re talking about Republican repeal to minority voters, particularly when we`re talking about Hispanics, maybe that`s an area where it`s good to be a Bush. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: John Sununu has got a new book coming out I have been looking at in galleys. And it makes the case for Bush Sr. as being a very aggressive, positive president, with a lot of things done. So we will see. ROBINSON: One difference on Iraq is that Hillary Clinton has said it was a mistake. And so will Jeb Bush say that? MATTHEWS: A mistake. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I always wonder about that word mistake. What does mistake mean? MAIR: She`s still going to be pressed. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Ted Cruz was saying -- we`re going to do it in the "Sideshow." Ted Cruz said he smoked some dope. He made a mistake. He thought it was a Marlboro? What do you mean by mistake? I went to the wrong house? ROBINSON: I shouldn`t have done it. I shouldn`t have done it. MATTHEWS: Oh, I see. It`s a broader notion of mistake. ROBINSON: I shouldn`t have done it. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I joined the Marines. That was a mistake joining the Marines. That was a mistake. I thought it -- I should have joined the Coast Guard. I don`t know. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, yesterday, Jeb Bush gave President Obama some credit -- this is fascinating -- for an improving economy, but also criticized the president for a slow recovery. I said it slow. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: It`s true enough that we have seen recent good gains and it`s welcome news for the economy, but it is very little and it has come very late. Six years after the recession ended, median incomes are down. Households are on average poor, and millions of people have given up looking for work altogether. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: But the recession Jeb was speaking about there was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. And it started when his brother, George W., was president. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Over the past few weeks, many Americans have felt anxiety about their finances and their future. I understand their worry and their frustration. We have seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, here`s a really good line. I don`t think if you heard it yet, Gene or Liz. At last week`s annual Alfalfa Club dinner -- that`s a meeting here, a dinner of big shots, business guys -- California Senator Dianne Feinstein joked about another Bush seeking the White House -- quote -- "Jeb Bush looks like he`s running for president, so now we know what the Bush family means by no child left behind." (LAUGHTER) MAIR: It was a good line. (LAUGHTER) ROBINSON: That`s a great line. (LAUGHTER) ROBINSON: Great line. MATTHEWS: So this is strange. The old man, the father, who has become increasingly beloved in his country, is late in life. We know that. ROBINSON: Yes. MATTHEWS: He will be out there raising the flag for his son. W. will as well. How does it all work together? The sort of reasonable centrist, pragmatist, what do you call them, realist policies of his father again the neocon-ish policies of the son, does he -- does Jeb do what he seemed like he`s going to do, saying, I`m going to triangulate, I`m going to be something else besides both of them? Is that what he`s going to do? ROBINSON: Well, I think he is somewhat different from both of them. And I think that`s what he has to be. Ultimately, he`s got to be -- carve out this image and this reality of himself as different from his brother, different from his father. If he doesn`t, I don`t think he goes anywhere. MATTHEWS: Liz, you`re in the business. Liz, will the word, the phrase reform conservative, will it work? MAIR: Hard to say, honestly, very hard to say. MATTHEWS: Does it sound like moderate? MAIR: I don`t think it sounds like moderate necessarily. My question that I have is that you get into some difficulty when you`re talking about reform conservatives and what they want to do with the tax code vs. people who really want to just flatten things out. And so that`s a real tension when you get into those economic policy debates with people who are very wonkish and care about that. But I agree with you that I think Jeb Bush is different to his father and to his brother. That`s what we were discussing last. And I think that the most important thing that any presidential candidate can do, and this includes Jeb, is be authentic, be who they actually are. At the end of the day, the voters may not like that, and they may go against you, but doing the inauthenticity thing and flip-flopping and trying to make yourself into something you`re not, they reject that every time. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I`m waiting to see who his foreign policy team is. If he hires John Bolton, I`m leaving. Anyway, thank you, Eugene Robinson. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Thank you, Liz Mair. MATTHEWS: Coming up -- I forget. John Bolton is running himself for president. Coming up, Ted Cruz, marijuana and why Seth Meyers says kids should just say no. Anyway, the "Sideshow" is coming up next. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MEYERS") SETH MEYERS, HOST, "LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MEYERS": A representative for Senator Ted Cruz said yesterday that Cruz tried marijuana as a teen, but hasn`t used it since. He has not used it since he tried it as a teen. So, you hear that, kids? Just trying it once can make you go crazy. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL and time now for the "Sideshow." That was of course "Late Night"`s Seth Meyers on Senator Ted Cruz`s admission this week that he smoked marijuana as a teenager, a decision that his spokesperson described as a mistake. What, did he think he was smoking something else, like a Marlboro? Anyway, next is the debate over measles vaccinations continues, the Centers for Disease Control is fighting recent outbreaks of the disease throughout the country. Here`s what Jimmy Fallon had to say about that last night. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JIMMY FALLON") JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JIMMY FALLON": The CDC just announced that they`re currently 102 measles cases in the U.S. Yes. Some say it`s because people aren`t vaccinating their children. You can tell things are getting bad, though. Today, Disneyland opened a new ride called It`s a Smallpox World. (LAUGHTER) FALLON: And even Hillary Clinton is weighing in on the measles outbreak. She -- check out what she tweeted out earlier this week. "The earth is round, the sky is blue, and vaccines work." (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) FALLON: She actually didn`t stop there. Look at what else she tweeted. "Fire is hot, ice is cold, and the Seahawks should have handed it off to Marshawn Lynch." (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) FALLON: They should have. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, it`s been a month since Senate Minority Leader now Harry Reid`s exercise accident, but he still bears the battle scars, of course, including a swollen right eye. There he is. As Reid describes it, he was working out at home using an exercise band that snapped, tossing him on to some furniture. Well, shortly after the incident, Reid, who used to be a boxer himself, joked about the source of the injury. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: As most people know, I fought for a couple years. After any one of those fights, I never looked like I do now. However, I didn`t get this black eye by sparring with Manny, by challenging Floyd Mayweather. I didn`t go bull riding. I wasn`t riding a motorcycle. I was exercising in my new home. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Reid, of course, was referring to Manny Pacquiao, the welterweight champion of the world. Well, yesterday, the 75-year-old lawmaker encountered Pacquiao in person on Capitol Hill, tweeting: "Explained my injury to Manny Pacquiao. He also told me he`s ready to fight Floyd Mayweather. Let`s make it happen." Up next, big news today. Pope Francis is addressing Congress, and the announcement comes after John Boehner got in a world of trouble for inviting Benjamin Netanyahu without ever telling the White House. That`s ahead with the roundtable. And you`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. John Kerry is in Ukraine, where he`s promised millions in aid to help victims of rising violence in the east, where troops are fighting pro- Russian rebels. Kerry also urged Russia to end its support for separatists in that region. Five children have been diagnosed with measles at a Chicago day care center. An outbreak that began at Disney parks in California has now spread to more than 100 people in at least 14 states. And struggling retailer RadioShack has filed for bankruptcy protection. It plans to sell up to 2,400 stores -- back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. There was big news from Capitol Hill today. Speaker John Boehner announced that Pope Francis has accepted an invitation to speak to the United States Congress this coming September. That`s an historic first for a pope, of course. Meanwhile, another congressional invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to anger many Democrats. That`s because the news blindsided the White House, including the president. It seems aimed at scuttling negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. And it comes just two weeks before Israeli elections, of course. That`s the Netanyahu invitation. Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer and the Israeli Knesset speaker were on Capitol Hill yesterday trying to calm Democrats. According to Politico -- quote -- "It didn`t work. If anything, Democrats finished the day more frustrated. Seven Jewish Democratic members of Congress lit into Dermer. The invitation, they said, was making these choose between Netanyahu and Obama, making support for Israel into a partisan issue they never wanted it to be and forcing them to consider a boycott of the speech." Meanwhile, Senator Dick Durbin called the invitation of Netanyahu a serious mistake by the speaker and by the prime minister. And here was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: We have great friendships in terms of country to country, leaders to leaders. It`s really something that we should be able to resolve. Maybe we have to even review the idea of joint sessions of Congress, because they should not be a political arena two weeks before an election. There are some people who just think it`s outrageous. Some staunch supporters of Israel have called me and said it`s outrageous -- and they are supporters of Netanyahu -- that our floor of the House would be used, exploited in that way for a political purpose in Israel and in the United States. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, nevertheless, Pelosi said she intended to go to the speech. For more, I`m joined right now by tonight`s roundtable. Michael Steele is the former chair of the Republican National Committee, of course, and an MSNBC political analyst. Amanda Terkel is senior political reporter for The Huffington Post. And Ken Vogel is chief investigative reporter for Politico. Michael, former seminarian, I have to ask you about the -- I think the nice news here is that some time in September, we`re all going to feel really good about ourselves. MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Oh, yes. MATTHEWS: I think that`s going to be a positive night for the country. STEELE: I think everyone is generally psyched for the pope to come to America, period, particularly this pope, who has endeared himself in a way that transcends what faith you are. But then to have him come and speak to the Congress, a joint session of Congress, is going to be profoundly important, because it will allow him an opportunity on American soil to connect some dots, if you will, Cuba and the United States and the role that he played there. MATTHEWS: So you expect substance? STEELE: I think there will be some substance. MATTHEWS: Yes. STEELE: I think, not a whole lot, because the pope doesn`t want to step on anything politically for the president and certainly not get into that so much, but I think he`ll have a chance to really lay out a very interesting conversation that a lot of Americans will appreciate. And war and peace issues related to that, and certainly what`s going on in the Middle East right now. So, I think the pope will have some profound things to say. MATTHEWS: Amanda, it seems to me there would be a lot of crowds along that center aisle when he comes in. TERKEL: Yes. MATTHEWS: You know how they always gang-attack the president when he comes in. They want all their pictures taken, both sides. I think a lot of members will want their pictures taken with this fellow. TERKEL: Both Pelosi and Boehner are Catholic. I think there will be some substance. I think also, domestically, you may hear the pope saying things that you hear a lot of candidates saying right now -- issues of poverty, income inequality, helping the poor is something this pope has made sort of a centerpiece. MATTHEWS: How does he stay off the hot ones? KEN VOGEL, POLITICO: I don`t think he does, talking about Cuba. MATTHEWS: Well, do you think he`s going to talk about life, he`s going to talk about abortion? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Is he going to talk about same sex? VOGEL: He talked about gay rights in a way that I see made some conservatives uncomfortable. They wonder -- MATTHEWS: I`m talking about the really hot buttons. Does he sort of do like to do with the state of the Union, he has to hit all the (INAUDIBLE) buttons? VOGEL: Whether he actually does or not, it`s sort of the backdrop to this. And there are political implications here. Catholics are key swing constituency. They`re socially conservative. Maybe they`re economically a little more liberal -- well, this pope is a little bit shifting that balance in a way that again I think makes some conservatives a little leery, some Democrats kind of happy. STEELE: I think on that point, the interesting thing is the following month is when the pope will have the Synod on the Family, and a lot of this visit is going to be centered around the family, his coming to America. As we just saw played out last year, when he threw that tell me what you think, cardinals, about, you know, divorce and the structure of the American -- of the family as a whole, you saw some very interesting dynamics. This pope likes to sort of toss out and sort of get a feel. I think you`re going to see some things tossed up to get a feel of where America is, and then he`ll come and address those issues, and I think -- MATTHEWS: I think he has to talk to people like the wife who`s in a terrible marriage and it`s over, you know, it just is over and she`s there alone. You have to talk to that person, who are victims of bad marriages. You have to talk to a lot of people who are gay, who are born gay, that`s how they feel, that`s who they are, and start talking to them as God`s people. He could do a lot of good there. Anyway, here`s John Boehner, the speaker, last week explaining why he invited the Israeli prime minister. Let`s see if it sounds like politics was involved at all. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I believe that the prime minister of Israel has a strong voice. He believes that the threat of the Iranians having a nuclear weapon is a very serious threat. The Israeli prime minister can also talk with some expertise about the growing threat of radical Islam. We`ve got a serious problem mountain world and the president just wants to act like it`s just going to disappear, so as a coequal branch of our government, I don`t have any problem at all in doing what I did to invite the prime minister to come to Congress and address those concerns. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: You know, one thing I think is not fair is to suggest the prime minister speaks for Israeli public opinion, pure and simple. You can go to Israel and argue about anything over there. It`s a very free country. You can be (INAUDIBLE), you can be (INAUDIBLE) now. You can be all across the board, Tzipi Livni. You have a right to speak. He`s going to come over and define Israeli foreign policy, define the U.S. interest and the Israel and say this is a fact, when in fact his Likud (ph) on the right, with a right bloc of people that are to the right of most Israelis. Your thoughts, Ken? VOGEL: Yes. MATTHEWS: He`s not speaking for the average Jewish people in Israel. He just isn`t. VOGEL: Well, I think there is sort of a lion`s share of population that is with him when it comes to Iran. However, that`s not what will decide this election. The election is by no means a slam dunk even if he - - MATTHEWS: Do you think average Israeli is a bombs away when it comes to Iran? VOGEL: I think the average Israeli is probably closer to him than is to Tzipi Livni. MATTHEWS: The bombing? I think he is. VOGEL: The bombing, you know, I`m not prepared to state (ph) to the polling on that. MATTHEWS: You think he`s for a two-state solution? Most Israelis are. Do you think he`s for a two-state solution, honestly? VOGEL: He does not seem to me. MATTHEWS: I agree with you on that. You agree with me. Go ahead? TERKEL: I mean, this is essentially a campaign stop for him. And that`s what I think that`s why some Democrats are trying to push, if you want him to come, that`s fine, but why don`t you delay it until after the Israeli election, so it doesn`t look as political. MATTHEWS: Who you do think timed it? Do we know it? Was it Dermer, his ambassador here, or is it him? Or -- TERKEL: Reports -- I don`t know who timed it, but reports say the idea originated with Ron Dermer. STEELE: Yes, with Dermer. You know, at the end of the day, the reality still remains he`s going to come -- MATTHEWS: Dermer, by the way, says that he`s a civil servant, and I take him at his word. So, he shouldn`t be arranging a political oriented meeting, right? TERKEL: I think that`s what made people so uncomfortable is that it seemed like behind the scenes, he was strategizing with Republicans. Only now, he`s reaching to Democrats. VOGEL: I think it helps Republicans. It helps John Boehner. It helps Republican re-seize (ph) the mantle. MATTHEWS: Mike Brooks (ph) is in heaven, the guy who does the Jewish outreach for the Republican National Committee after the Scalise case hanging out with neo-Nazi, I think it`s a change of topics. STEELE: You guys are glossing over the substance of what could come out of this visit, dealing with the concern that the Israelis and a lot of Americans particular in Congress have about what we`re doing with Iran, what the administration is failing to do with Iran. The administration wants room to negotiate with Iran. The Israelis are very uncomfortable with that. The global partnerships we have are saying you can`t trust these guys. So, at the end of the day, this is an opportunity to sort of put a stake in that particular heart when it comes to what the administration wants to do in Iran. So, there is, yes, the politics of it, but there is also a real substance to what the, you know, Congress and -- MATTHEWS: What`s the alternative to trying to negotiate an end to their perhaps move toward a nuclear weapon? What`s the alternative to trying to stop them before they get there? Is there some other policy that would keep them from having nuclear weapons than trying to talk them out of it through a combination of big -- (CROSSTALK) VOGEL: Not obviously -- there is the advocacy on the Israeli right for a nuclear -- for a military strike. MATTHEWS: Which you do every couple of years. You have to keep doing every couple of years, because you can tell, the minute we bomb them, or Israelis bomb them with our help, they`re going to go right back to rebuilding with 100 percent Iranian support for that. You`re never going to stop again. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So you have to stop them before they do it, I think. Anyway, thank you. We agree on the need to stop them. The roundtable is staying with us. Up next, this will blow your socks off. What is Bruce Jenner`s decision to say about tolerance and acceptance in this country in 2015? This is HARDBALL, a place for politics. MATTHEWS: President Obama is considering arming Ukraine with lethal weapons in its fight against pro-Russian separatists, and we`ll decide whether to go forward soon. Well, that`s news. That`s the word from Secretary of State John Kerry, who was in Kiev today. Kerry says our interest is not a proxy war with Russia, but using all of our options to change Russia`s behavior in eastern Ukraine. Kerry`s visit comes as the leaders every France and Germany push a new peace proposal to the leaders in both Ukraine and Russia. And we`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Everyone has their own idea of perfection. What would be perfection for you in the 10 events? BRUCE JENNER: Winning the Olympic Games, it`s that simple. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: When Bruce Jenner broke the Decathlon record at the Montreal Summer Olympics in 1976, he was held as the world`s greatest athlete. Overnight, Jenner became a national figure, attaining a celebrity status that many people did not believe. Now, 39 years later, Jenner is again at the forefront of the national conversation, with reports that he might transition into becoming a woman. And this comes as attitudes in this country on gender identity are changing dramatically, of course. Quote, "New York Times" columnist Nick Kristof wrote today that, quote, "considering the violence and discrimination that transgender people endure, no one would go through this exception for the most profound motivations, to be authentic to ones inner self. Jenner seems to be preparing for a bold publish mission involving something intensely personal in a way that should open up minds and hearts. So, in my book, Bruce Jenner is now a gold medalist again. Come on, Wheaties, it`s time to put Jenner back on the box." That`s Nick Kristof from "The Times" today. We`re back with the panel, Michael, Amanda and Ken. Amanda, what do you make of this in terms of our culture and the way we look at things as opposed to 40 some years ago. TERKEL: Well, I mean, I think transgender issues are getting a lot more attention, especially with shows like "Orange is the New Black". I think many people are a little bit weary. It`s important to note that Bruce Jenner has not confirmed that he is planning to transition. There`s been a lot of reports about it. Right, or at all. He has not really commented -- MATTHEWS: But the pictures that you see suggest it. TERKEL: So -- and his mother gave an interview saying she didn`t confirm it, but she is very proud of him. He`s being very courageous. So, I think people are weary. His family, reality show is not the most tasteful and classy affair. So, if he does decide to document his transition, is it going to be more like what we have seen from his family, or is it going to be an intimate portrayal of what it`s like emotionally and physically transition? MATTHEWS: Yes, you mentioned physically. He had his Adams apple shaved. There is differences in his face that make him more feminine. VOGEL: Grow his hair out. Yes, I mean, this is like the last frontier for gay rights. It is a subject that makes folks uncomfortable -- MATTHEWS: It`s also informative, and there is queue out there, people who are not quite sure, and I have to sympathize or empathize with the people who have a disconnect with the way they were born and the way they feel. I mean, it`s just a fact. These are people that didn`t think of being transgender, they have something in them. VOGEL: This is a sort of a challenge for public policy. We have legislation that protects or that seeks to protect employment, nondiscrimination, ENDA, there`s a bill. And even as recently as 2007 there was a big debate about having transgender protections in the bill was seen as a deal breaker. So, this is something that I think our society is still kind of gravitate away. MATTHEWS: Every HR department is looking at this not negatively. By the way, we have come a long way from these conditions being joke- worthy. It`s a big difference. Instead of joking and laughing at people, we go -- I`d like to know more what`s it feel like, what cause you do to this, it`s an opening that we haven`t had before. Last December, in fact, in Ohio, Lela Alcorn (ph) committed suicide after struggling with her own gender identity. The note she left behind described the concerns of many in the transgender community. Quote, "The only way I will rest in peace is if transgender people aren`t treated the way I was. They are treated like humans with valid feelings and human rights. My death needs to mean something." Well, I can`t say it better than that. Thank you, Michael Steele, Amanda Terkel, and Ken Vogel. And I`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with these questions about the Saudi involvement in 9/11. The facts sitting there in front of us are hard to deny. Bin Laden, a Saudi, was behind the attack. Fifteen of the terrorists aboard those planes were Saudi, 15 out of 19. Somehow these facts got conveniently erased by a Bush administration that: (a), wanted to keep good relations with the Saudi government, i.e., the Saudi royal family, and, (b), wanted desperately to attack Iraq and therefore just as earnestly wanted to direct voter anger toward it. There is always something murky about what happened on September 11, 2001. Why did that warning about al Qaeda to attack in the United States get by us? What did the administration know about the Saudi role in 9/11? Was there a policy by its government to close its eyes to what bin Laden outside Saudi Arabia, as long as they left the government there alone? And how much did the zealots brand of Islam preach in Saudi Arabia, led to the actions of its people, especially those 15 terrorists who struck us on the worst act of violence ever perpetrated in this country? Good questions. Who wouldn`t want them answered? Think about it. Who wouldn`t? And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020501cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 23 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 5, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 5, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Kate Rogers, James Peterson GUESTS: Bernie Sanders, John Bolton, Paul Douglas, Angela Rye, Dean Obeidallah SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7283 words HIGHLIGHT: Trade deficits hurt American jobs and the economy, making the TPP one of the most dangerous deals for middle class families. NASA`s latest mission, SMAP, plans to change the face of the globe helping scientist to understand the impact of radical weather on the environment. Twitter CEO Dick Costolo expresses the need to remove negativity and "trolling" from the popular social media site. President Obama gave a powerful message of tolerance and acceptance towards the peaceful Muslim community during a Prayer Breakfast. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN: Trade agreements set the rules for the global economy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trade balance of minus 46.6 billion... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trade deficits widen. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is definitely a bigger -- much bigger deficit that we are looking for. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s the law of the jungle. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we`ve set million job over three years. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Say for TPP. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There will be a giant sucking sound going south. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A picture of U.S. job loss resulting from our trades... UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This was precisely the statement, middle class manufacturing and technology job that made that American dream. RYAN: It`s the law of the jungle. (END VIDEO CLIP) ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We start this evening with a very important issue that absolutely no one is talking about, trade. Tonight, the Progressive Caucus, the Democrats are going to get together in Philadelphia for their retreat. Last week, it was the Democrats. This week, it`s the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And they`re going to be talking about this issue because these issues cuts right to the fabric of the middle class in this country and the future economic stability of a lot of Americans. That`s right, jobs. Now, you make get tired of hearing about the middle class. Every politician talks about it. We seem to focus a lot on it when it comes election time. The middle class is the largest voting block in this country. The middle class moves the goods and services for us to have a better economy. I have done this story numerous times and I`m going to sound the alarm again. We`re getting close. America is facing a massive trade deficit today while leaders are on the verge of approving a historic and a mammoth trade deal, that`s going to take us down the wrong road. The Trans-Pacific Partnership could literally trash our economy from millions of Americans. Here are the numbers. Our December 2014 trade deficits rose to its biggest level since 2012. The Commerce Department said today that the trade deficit jumps 17 percent to $46.6 billion. It`s the biggest percentages increase since July of 2009. Yes the global economy is here but you got to get into the devil on the details. Trade deficits are bad for jobs and they`re bad for our economy, fair trade is different deal. Now, according to the economic policy institute, weak Yen policies and trade deficits with Japan have cost this country, the United States, roughly 900,000 jobs just in the year 2013 alone. Now, our trade deficit is already sky-high with countries negotiating involved in the TPP, and there`s 12 of them. In 1997, our trade deficit with Japan and other countries involved with the TPP was $110 billion. In 2014, fast forward to, just last year, it jumped to $261 billion. You know what that equates to? American jobs and opportunities being shipped overseas. The TPP would only widen this gap. This is why many people in Washington are quiet about it. It`s no secret President Obama and most Republicans are on board with the TPP. It`s a big Wall Street deal. Earlier today, Congressman Paul Ryan had this to say about trade agreements. Listen to his philosophy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) WISCONSIN: When we complete a trade agreement we strengthen our ties with other countries. Our economy is stronger, our national security is stronger. It`s a lot easier to live in a neighborhood that`s friendly, that`s prosperous and free. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Strengthening ties with other counties. Have we had problems with Japan as of late? What else do we need to strengthen? This is about jobs. This is about wealthy Americans being able to invest in emerging markets cheap labor and that`s where the jobs are going to grow. They`re not going to grow here and we`re going to see a dwindling middle class and the middle class in this country that is not going to have the disposable income to float our boats any higher. Now, as we told you on the Ed Show time and time again, trade agreements kill jobs. The numbers are real. NAFTA alone cost this country roughly 700,000 jobs. Thankfully many Democrats in Congress are pushing back on the TPP in they`re meeting in Philadelphia. They`re the only folks that are going to be able to stop this. Overall, Americans don`t know enough about the dangers of this trade agreement. And no one in the media is covering this except for this show. Now, I`m not trying to sound grandiose about it but I don`t know how I could be an advocate for the middle class and ignore the TPP. On Wednesday, Media Matters released a report that I wasn`t even aware of, that the news coverage on this has been damn near non-existed. In cable news, CNN and Fox News mentioned the TPP only two times. Here on the Ed Show, we have done and discuss this trade agreement on 71 broadcast and I guess today is number 72. Now, we talked about the TPP because it directly affects middle class jobs. That`s what we want in this country. That`s what we want to strengthen. Jobs are going to be out sourced. You can count on it. The trade deficits going to go up, you can count on it. It`s a bad deal. Americans needs to be aware of this and you need to get in touch with your representative and say, hey wait a minute. This is a sovereignty issue, this is a currency issue, this is a job issue, why in the world would you sign on something that I know damn well that you haven`t read? Ask yourself the question, would you sign a legal document that it affected you personally without reading it? Do you know one attorney that would tell you to, hey, go ahead -- I know you haven`t read it but go head and sign it. Does it even make sense? Unfortunately it looks like the TPP will pass with very little or zero debate. Last month, U.S Trade Representative Michael Froman -- and I don`t know Mr. Froman, he is probably a good guy. He said that deal could be wrapped up in months. On Wednesday, the Australian Trade Minister said, an agreement could be reach in weeks. This trade deal will cover 40 -- listen to me, 40 percent of the total global output of goods and services and manufacturing service in this world. It will also lower tariffs on agriculture products farmers. Let me ask you this. You`re out in Middle America, how in the world can you not expect your representative not to read this trade agreement when it`s going to affect your commodities? It`s going to affect cars. It`s going to affect chemicals. It`s going to affect drugs. Your prices are going to go up. If this deal passes, there`s no doubt more jobs are going to be shipped overseas, especially jobs in manufacturing and also it`s going to bleed into the service sector. It won`t take long. This idea that we have to have another trade agreement makes absolutely no sense. We might export more -- yeah, we`re going to have more exports. OK, big deal. But when cheaper and similar products comeback into this country, it doesn`t cancel out (ph). So here is what we have, we have the wealthiest Americans who can invest in emerging markets, who can go find these cheap places of service and manufacturing, and technology for that matter. Where people around the people are going to work for a hell of a lot less than what they would work for in America, that`s what this is about. The other element to this is that, we stand a chance of giving up our sovereignty. There will be international laws that will undercut and supersede American law. Well, what do we have a Congress then? The Congress isn`t even going to be able to do anything about this. That`s not the way this was supposed to be. Kind of reminds me that commercial on T.V. with the lady stands up on sailboat (ph). No, that`s not the way this is supposed to work. Our Congress is supposed to pass the laws that we as American citizens both in business and in civilian life have to pay attention to. So, you want to know why President Obama has been so quiet on this, because he can`t sell it. And no one in the media is pressuring the White House. No one in the media thinks that this is a exciting enough story to cover. But I will tell you this right now. If this deal goes through with the mammoth deal that it is, it is going to hurt our economy. The same way that hurt our economy when we gave China favored nation trading status back in the late 1990s. Look at our trade deficits where are the jobs gone there. Our economy is not as good or as strong as it could be. And you can`t tell me that the Republicans are going to be able to create more jobs here in America if we do the TPP. This is on their watch. The conservatives are the ones that want this. The conservatives are the ones who were pushing Obama to get this done. It was Mitch McConnell, the day after the election who said, yeah we can find some trade agreements, we can find some common ground. It`s a Wall Street deal. It`s a sellout of American workers. You know, we should know something. That when we invested in American workers, the automobile industry, it turned around. Why do we have to have a trade agreement with Vietnam? Why do we have to have a trade agreement with other developing counties if it`s not going to be to our citizens` advantage? Are we going to get invaded by them? It makes no sense. Now, you should be outraged as a taxpaying American. That something this big and this impactful to our country stands the very strong possibility of getting through without people in Congress having access to read it, to debate it, to weigh in on it or to get your polls on it. It`s almost been like there`s been some media suppression on this. I think people run from it because they don`t understand it. And its pretty wanky (ph) and it`s detailed and I will admit on this show for the 72nd time, I`ve tried to present this in terms that the average Joe can understand that commonsense of that all. Look. If you want our workers in this country to have a lesser standard of living, then you want to go with the TPP. If you want to believe in American workers and emerging markets in the United States of America and strengthen our buying power and to raise the standard of living in this country so people can educate their kids, so people can have retirement and health care which of course the Republicans want to takeaway from everybody so hell, we going to pay for it. I mean, the purchasing power of Americans is going to be reduced. And what amazes me is that these right-wing agricultural guides in the middle of the country -- they`ll never vote for Democrat, they`ll never go to that. But you know what? It`s your guys, the Republicans who are jamming this down in your throat and it going to kill your commodities. And you sit there in a fog. TPP what`s that? You`re going to find out. Gets your cellphones out, I want to know what you think about this. Tonight`s question, "Is President Obama being honest about the effects the TPP will have on the middle class? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment in our blog at ed.msnbc.com. And ask yourself the critical question, why hasn`t the President of the United States going to sit down interview with somebody that wants to talk exclusively about trade? I don` think this President can sell it, because he knows this is boondoggle. And for the life of me I have no idea why he continues to push this. I don`t know -- it`s amazing to me. There is no way that you can be an advocate for the middle class and support to TPP. There is an absolute here. There is an absolute. And there was a track record of trade agreements that we have gotten into time and time again that have done nothing for the middle class in this country. There are a few people who were sounding the alarm. So I want all of you to pay attention what the Progressive Caucus is going to be talking about in Philadelphia because these are ones -- these are the lawmakers who have said, hold the phone. This isn`t the way we got a new business. We need to debate this. We need to vet this. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont joins us tonight. Senator, good to have you with us. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Great to be with you, Ed. SCHULTZ: Senator, what`s the latest on the currency manipulation in the TPP agreement from what you hear? SANDERS: Well, it`s hard to say but let me just say this Ed. I think everything that you`ve said is spot-on. The idea that we would go forward with a another law to trade agreement when all of the other trade agreements have failed the American working class is beyond comprehension. Since 2001, we have lost 60,000 factories in America, hug to buy products made in the United States. Millions of decent-paying jobs had gone. Why in God`s name would anyone vote for a trade agreement which causes American workers to compete against the people in Vietnam who have a minimum wage of $0.56 an hour? That is totally crazy. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SANDERS: Point number two and I`m glad you made it... SCHULTZ: Yes. Yeah. SANDERS: I`m glad you made it Ed, because a lot of people don`t make it. The media has been pathetic on this issue. This is an issue of huge consequence bad trade agreements are one of the reasons why the American middle class is disappearing and why wages like going down and why we`re losing jobs. You wouldn`t think there would be a national discussion in the media on this. You were one of the very few people who actually talks about this trade agreement. And thirdly, this idea, you know, it`s interesting to me, Ed, the proponents of this agreement including the President no longer even bother to talk about how it`s going to create jobs. They know that ain`t true. SCHULTZ: No. SANDERS: Now, you have other ideas, it`s going to bring the world closer together and prove our relations with Japan. That is nonsense. So, the other point you also made one is, the first part of this thing is fast-track, is giving the President the authority to negotiate to trade agreement. The truth of the matter is that I as a Senator, or any member of the Congress, we cannot even look at the agreement in terms of copying down provisions in terms of bringing experts in with us to look at this highly legal and complicated document. We`re not even allowed to do that. So as a starting point... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SANDERS: ... no member of Congress should think about voting for fast- track when you don`t even know what the hell is in the agreement. SCHULTZ: Senator, last week Democratic leader in the house Nancy Pelosi said this. She said, "The burden is on the White House to demonstrate that this is good for American paychecks." That tells me that she has not been sold by the White House that this is the right thing to do. That there needs to be some real clarification to middle-class Americans on exactly what this is going to do to them. Why hasn`t the White House sold this to the American people if it encompasses 40 percent of the global economy? SANDERS: You know why? Because I think the President is an honest guy and he knows he can`t sell it. I think all the President -- and you not even hearing the President talking about, you know, in the past, they we`re talking about all of how this is going to create all of these jobs -- people don`t even bother making those arguments that don`t -- the President is trying to make those arguments. I think the President`s point of view is, look, where we are right now, we are where we are and this in a sense the best that we can do. That`s about it. But I believed we need to thoroughly rethink our trade agreements. What we need to do is demand the corporate America, instead of investing in China start investing in the United States. They want us to buy their products. You see the ads every night on T.V. We have got to demand that they start producing those products here in the United States of America. I don`t think that`s radical America. I don`t think that`s what we have to do. SCHULZT: That`s not radical at all, Senator. Good to have you with us tonight Senator Sanders, I appreciate your time. Keep up the fight my friend. Stay with us folks. We`ll be right back here on the Ed Show with more. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight. NASA`s latest mission didn`t make headlines when it launched last week. But their new satellite could have a major impact on all of our lives. Here`s more on the SMAP mission. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And lift off. Delta II rocket with SMAP. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, SMAP. PETE WAYDO, SYSTEM INTEGRATION AND TEST LEAD, SMAP: SMAP is a acronym for Soil Moisture Active Passive. It`s a satellite that studies the earth`s moisture content. SCHULTZ: The SMAP mission is NASA`s latest tool to help us better understand our planet. GEOFFREY YODER, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROGRAMS, NASA: These new missions will help answers some of the critical challenges facing our planet`s climate change, sea lever rise, extreme weather. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it has a potential to touch everyone`s life. SCHULTZ: The satellite`s mission is to track to the water under the ground. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The satellite measures moisture levels in the top five centimeters of soil on the earth`s surface. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Employing a combination of active radar and passive radiometer measurements, SMAP covers a swat (ph) 1,000 kilometers wide. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every three days we`ll have a soil measure map of the entire earth. SCHULTZ: It measures the soil that is critical to agriculture across the globe. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Until SMAP, researches are only able to estimate global soil moisture with the use of computer models. SMAP`s near real-time measurements when able better predictions of trends in a changing climate. SCHULTZ: The SMAP data will help weather forecasters and climate scientist better predict trend. ENI NJOKU, SMAP SCIENCE TEAM MEMBERS: Soil moisture (inaudible) at the surface are important for initializing weather models that predicts future rain and temperature. SCHULTZ: It can better help us prepare for floods and drought conditions. KENT KELLOGG, SMAP PROJECT MANAGER: SMAP will allow us to track how the future water availability in different regions of the earth will change. SCHULTZ: The SMAP satellite will help scientist better understand how water and carbon circulate on earth. KELLOGG: Soil moisture plays a very active and vital role in the water cycle and we all depend on it. YODER: SMAP is another example of how NASA`s making a difference in peoples lives around the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I`m joined tonight by Dr. John Bolton. He`s an Associate Program Manager of Water Resources for NASA Applied Sciences Program, also with us tonight Paul Douglas Senior Meteorologist at Media Logic Group in Minneapolis. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. Dr. Bolton, you first, I mean, this is some cutting edge stuff. This is fascinating. How does this satellite measure the water from space? DR. JOHN BOLTON, NASA APPLIED SCIENCE PROGRAM: Well, what`s really cool about NASA`s Soil Moisture Active Passive mission is it combines both radar and radiometer measurements. And these are -- Ed if you think of like an optical camera, it similar to that that. It captures the ambient light. But here`s it measuring the microwave emission from the land surface, and it turns out that the microwave emission from surface is very highly correlated with the volume of water in the top one or two inches of soil. SCHUTLZ: So is this going to give us more information about what kind of weather pattern we may be looking at, whether it`s going to be more or less severe? BOLTON: Well, we hope so. In fact one of the -- the most challenging things for weather forecasting and really understanding the vast complex earth systems of the energy water cycle and carbon cycles is measuring an estimating the amount of moisture in the top surface because it`s -- that has a direct contribute to a changes in the local temperature and amount of humidity in the atmosphere. So for the first time, we`re going to have direct observation of regional soil moistures. So it really is an improvement, we expect -- once these data are added to weather forecasting models, then it can reduce their uncertainty and really drive those forecast towards reality. SCHULTZ: Paul Douglas, what do you think about this? Is this a game changer, I mean, you meteorologist got a new toy to play with here. PAUL DOUGLAS, SR. METEOROLOGIST, MEDIA LOGIC GROUP: New toys are always fun. But I agree with Dr. Bolton wholeheartedly, Ed. More data, better data is always a good thing. And if you put junk into the super computers, you get junk out. So if we can put high resolution data into our models especially with soil moisture, it should improve the day-to-day weather forecast. NASA has a constellation of remote sensing satellites. I think -- when people think NASA, they think the moon mission. They think Mars. They don`t understand that NASA is really doing some amazing things, keeping track of our own planet and what we`ve talked about many times on your show, Ed, the hydrological cycle is now on fast-forward as we heat things up even a few degrees, we`re getting more rapid evaporation. That makes it harder to keep soil moisture where you need it. And so farmers really agonize over that. It also means the rainfall much harder especially during the summer months, these intense rains. So knowing where drought is forming, which soils are more prone to flash flooding, all of these will pay real diffidence for American consumers in the years ahead. SCHULTZ: No doubt. Dr. Bolton, how long will it be until the satellite sends back data that can be depended upon? BOLTON: There`s a 90-day commissioning period for the satellite, so in just a couple of months what we expect to -- we start receiving the first data from the Soil Moisture Active Passive mission. SCHULTZ: So are you going to be able to predict with more accuracy in forecasting Dr. Bolton about where we are going to have dry areas in this country, what maybe the next three months is going to look like for the western portion of the United States and generically speaking things like that. BOLTON: Well in fact, before the launch of SMAP, a lot of the soil moisture estimates that are key part of this weather forecasting, climate forecasting systems and also the assessment of natural hazard like floods and droughts. They were based on a secondary or an estimate of soil and moisture that was model. And these models are driven by other observation of precipitation and things like that, so for the first time we have a direct observation. And we not only have a direct observation, we have direct observation every two to three days globally. So, being able to... SCHULTZ: Yeah. BOLTON: ... have a global picture. We really -- we hope that it will really improved the regional forecasting of these weather models, because this really one of the most challenging variables monitor accurately. So this is, Ed, an unprecedented accuracy and temporal scale and spatial scale. SCHULTZ: Paul, this is really going to affect the agricultural community and the commodities market isn`t? I mean information is paramount. I mean you`re going to able to tell an audience -- meteorologist are going to be able to tell an audience exactly how much soil moisture there is to the exact. And this is what the anticipation is. I mean, the expectation is -- I mean this is -- it`s mind-boggling. DOUGLAS: It is. It`s a huge step forward in my humble estimation. And there were be less hand waving on the part of the meteorologist when we have actual data. It`s not derived, it`s the real deal. And of course, farmers depend of soil moisture, nitrogen levels and a number of other factors when estimating yield. And it`s going to become increasingly difficult to maintain soil moisture as we get into this turbo-charged hydrological cycle. But one thing I can say with near total accuracy which is rare for a weather guy, Ed. It`s not oil, it`s not gas -- water is definitely going to be the most precious natural resource of the 21st century. Any tools that give us a better handle on water whether it`s in the air or on the ground and in the soil is a huge advance. SCHULTZ: Well, let hear it for NASA. What a great country. DOUGLAS: Yeah. SCHULTZ: Dr. John Bolton and Paul Douglas, great to have you with us tonight gentlemen. Thanks so much. BOLTON: Thanks Ed. SCHULTZ: Coming up, the CEO of Twitter talks about the big changes ahead for the social media platform. What has happened to Twitter? Plus, a message of tolerance in peace, we`ll talk to a friend of the Ed Show who attended the National Prayer Breakfast. Stay tuned, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I appreciate all your questions from our viewers in our Ask Ed Live segment. Our first question tonight is from Sharon, "Who`s your favorite politician?" Well, that`s easy Bernie Sanders, the man that led this broadcast tonight talking about the trade agreement that we should not be getting involved in. I think the world of Bernie because he is unspoiled. He has a very unvarnished opinion and he gives you the truth. And I wish we had more like him in Washington. There`s a lot that I -- a lot of leaders that I have respect for but he comes to mind first. Our next question is from Beth, "Why have you never run for office?" You want to know the truth? Because then I have to represent people I don`t like. And I think if you`re going to be a public servant you have to represent all of the people. You can`t just pick and choose. I mean, you --and then there are some views out there that I would have a hard time representing. But, you know, you can`t fight for everybody can you? Beside that I got red hair. That would give me all kinds of trouble. Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next. KATE ROGERS, CNBC MARKET WRAP: I`m Kate Rogers with you CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks rally today as oil price is stabilized. The Dow climbs 211 points, the S&P adds 21 and the NASDAQ is up 48. The numbers of American filling for first time jobless claims rose a smaller than expected -- 11,000 last weeks to 278,000. Meanwhile, a report from Outplacement Firms, Challenger, Gray & Christmas showed planned layoff near a two-year high in January. Both reports come one day before the government`s closely watched employment report. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight. Twitter had a tough first year as public company. However, it`s not the money that the Twitter CEO is admitting, we suck. OK. Earlier today, Twitter released its fourth quarter earnings report, pretty good. Twitter reported $479 million in revenue for the last three months of 2014 up 97 percent over year-over-year. Wow, solid number. But investors are more concerned about Twitter`s user growth. Last quarter, Twitter saw a user growth of just 20 percent year-over-year with a total of 288 million monthly active users. Those numbers won`t come as a big surprise to anyone who spent time on the social media platform. Twitter has evolved into something mean spirited and nasty. Believe me I`ve seen my share of it. You can`t be out in front of the public and not get it. Harassment has become an accepted part of the Twitter experience. Every single day, users face threats of physical violence, sexual abuse and stalking. Spreading lies and trashing people`s reputation is just another day at the office and an everyday occurrence. Twitter has been long criticized for its failure to come up with an effective policy to address the issue. The people spreading negativity have been emboldened by the lack of meaningful protection against this kind of abuse. The latest numbers make it clear. Those trolls on Twitter are driving users away. Now Twitter CEO Dick Costolo is responding, in an internal memo obtained by the Verge. Costolo wrote, "We such at dealing with abuse and trolls on the platform and we`ve sucked at it for years. We lose core user after core user by not addressing simple trolling issues that they face everyday. I take full responsibility for not being more aggressive on this front. It`s nobody else`s fault but mine, and it`s embarrassing. So now we`re going to fix it", he says. "And I`m going to take full responsibility for making sure that people working night and day on this have the resources. They need to address the issue". I can`t wait to see this one. Joining me know on a Rapid Response Panel Angela Rye Political Strategist, also with us tonight Dr. James Peterson, MSNBC Contributor and Director of Africana Studies at Lehigh University. Twitter -- great to have both of you with us. Twitter has... JAMES PETERSON, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: ... really evolved into character assassination, destroying people`s reputations, saying things that simply aren`t true and yet it`s got so many positive aspects to it. I mean, as I news junky. I mean I follow Twitter, I follow other news organization, you get a more solid information and you can track it down and... PETERSON: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... go research exactly what`s happening. How do they fix this, Angela? First of all, how damaging do you think it is? I mean the numbers don`t lie and how are they going to fix it? ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Well, you`re right, Ed, the numbers don`t lie. And the first step I think towards fixing this problem at Twitter is by first addressing the diversity numbers that they have. They`re not unique in Silicon Valley by any stretch with the numbers that they have. But when you talk about the fact that women are being abused, you have to look the fact that Twitter`s workforce is more than 70 percent male, Ed. When you look at the challenges that people face on the race side on Twitter, there are also folks that are always -- is being hit racist attacks. There only 3 percent of their staff there that are African American. At some point, Twitter and the rest of Silicon Valley is going to have to address the fact that these numbers are abysmal and they don`t work in a society where people have diverse religion, there are different genders, there are people of different ethnic background and experiences and age. And at some point, you have to say, we have to have people in this environment that know how to speak to the whole America because ordinary just won`t do. SCHULTZ: It`s become a vehicle of the nasty. Dr. Peterson, is that America? PETERSON: Yes. SCHULTZ: Is that really who we are? PETERSON: Well, one I think that`s a global phenomenon, Ed. I think that somehow Twitter has become the hideout they can them trolls. But somewhat Twitter`s become the hideout for some of the most misogynistic and some of the most racist language or rhetoric that we see. Mostly from coward who never really reveal themselves. But I think Angela is got a great point here which is, the company has gut to make show of force around issues of diversity, around issues of cultural confidence in-house and internally before they even can begin the sort of chastised the world about the ways in which people use Twitter. Twitter is my favorite social media platform... RYE: Yeah. PETERSON: ... by the way. One, just because of what you said, Ed, because you can get information quickly, there`s a lot of new sources. There`s a lot of scholars on there. But Angela is also right, there a lot of people of color and a lot of women on their more than other social media outlets. So Twitter has a responsibility to those core users who are diverse, in terms of gender and race to sort of providing environment... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PETERSON: ... that is respectable. But I have one fear though here, Ed. Because I think the trolls are already diminished the capacity of what Twitter can be. I think the trolls are already turned it into to platform where there`s too much hate and not enough information being exchange. SCHULTZ: Yes, I think I blocked more people that anybody in America. I mean, I seem negative... PETERSON: You`ve got a lot of trolls Ed. I thought (inaudible)... SCHULTZ: I mean I got to be the number one blocker on America. I mean, I see a negative comment. I don`t want to deal with it, I just get, OK see you I don`t want you to hear from me again. RYE: Yeah. SCHULTZ: But, you know, you can follow the news organizations and it is instant. Family members... PETERSON: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... can instantly follow, you know, where you`re going what you`re doing, what`s happening. I mean it has so much upside. But here is a negative. PETERSON: Exactly. SCHULTZ: Angela, according to the latest PEER (ph) research, young women experienced certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels including stalking and sexual harassment. How should Twitter address that? I mean, I know you mention that the company has got to do something when it comes to diversity but -- that I guess it`s the thought police, what do you do? How do you stop people from doing that? What`s the technology here? RYE: So, I know Twitter mentioned they were going to start getting rid of these folks left and right I think is almost the verbatim quote. But I think there also needs to be a process for this. I understand recently, they were a part of some initiative, so did the initiative come up with best practices, recommendations for, you know, ensuring that these types of folks are immediately shutdown. I know, Ed, every time I`m on with you or on another show here, I get people respond... SCHULTZ: They come after us. RYE: ... to new thing -- yeah, they come after you hard whether if you say something they... SCHULTZ: Yeah. RYE: don`t like then you`re a race baiter. Or, of they think you look cute television, they might ask you for your phone number. I don`t even want to deal with that Ed, I blocked them too to your point, maybe... SCHULTZ: Yeah. RYE: ... I`m number two. SCHULTZ: Well, you know what? I look at my iPhone -- go ahead. PETERSON: You know, it`s interesting because anyone who`s in the public has had to deal with, you know, these people who come at you from Twitter. But I think Twitter as organization can also be more proactive. So I don`t want... RYE: Yeah. PETERSON: ... from censor folks, certainly if it`s hate speech, get rid with them, don`t want to censoring anybody but in Twitter, you just mention their quarterly earning, use some of those resources to support the organization in this country that are working on behalf of women`s rights, that are working to diminish... RYE: Right. PETERSON: ... the capacity for people to sexually assault... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PATERSON: ... that are working to raise awareness around these issues around race and gender and sexuality. So they can put their money with their mouth is literally to be more proactive in terms of creating a better world, period. RYE: James, that`s a great a great point... SCHULTZ: Well, I mean, I look at -- yeah, go ahead. RYE: You know, Ed? Quickly, I was just going to say top to that point, by the way I`ve talked about this, other organization they were a part of. They can also issue the best practices report and then promote it on Twitter. There`s that mechanism for promoting a tweet, they can do that. SCHULTZ: Sure. You know, I was just saying, you know, I look at my iPhone and I just say, well there`s a lawsuit, there`s another lawsuit, there`s another lawsuit. I mean, there just so much... PETERSON: That`s right. SCHULTZ: ... so much miss information and damaging stuff that`s going on. It`s unfortunate that Twitter is being really beaten up and taken over by folks like that. Angela Rye, James Peterson, great to have both of you with us. Thank you so much. RYE: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: Next up. PETERSON: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: Pete Carroll, Richard Sherman and Snoop Dogg make the two-minute drill. Stay tune, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Here we go. Two-minute drill -- tonight`s lead story at a two- minute drill, Carroll`s confessions. Seattle Seahawks Head Coach Pete Carroll sat down for an exclusive interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show. Here is how the coach described the call. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATT LAUER, HOST, TODAY SHOW: You`ve heard the experts not just average Joe say, it was the worst call ever. PETE CARROLL, HEAD COACH, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS: It was the worst result of a call ever. The call would have been a great one if we catch it. That would have been just fine, you know, we wouldn`t even thought twice about it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And next, the Legion of Doom welcomes a bouncing baby boy. How about this? Seattle Seahawks defensive back Richard Sherman became a daddy today. Number 25 sees his son`s birth date significant. He twitted out, "My son sure does know how to make an entrance, 2/5/15. Is it a coincidence or is he just that clever? Either way I`m ecstatic." And finally, Drop it like it`s hot, rapper Snoop Dogg is dropping his long- time allegiance to USC football. His son Cordell Broadus has committed to play for the rival UCLA next season. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SNOOP DOGG, RAPPER: I`m going to back him up 1,000 percent so I`m going to throw my USC drawers away. I`m going UCLA 100,000 percent. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: You can change team, say you still like the Viking, tell them all about the Packers. Right-wingers are upset of who`s hanging out at the White House. We`ll have that story next. Stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Here at home and around the world and we`ll constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom, freedom of religion, the right to practice our faith, how we choose to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: President Obama`s message at this morning`s Prayer Breakfast -- Tolerance. ISIS released a new video showing a captured Jordanian pilot being burned alive on Tuesday. The President will not connect the terrorist group with the Islam faith. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: As people of faith, we are summoned to pushback against those who try to distort our religion, any religion for their own nihilistic ends. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The President met with 15 American Muslim leaders at the White House on Wednesday. They discussed anti-Muslim discrimination, policing and ways to counter violent extremism. The meeting was closed to the press. The names and the attendees were not released for privacy reasons, queue the right-wing outrage. Breitbart News is portraying the meeting as sneaky. No one can blame the administration for seeking privacy. Here`s what a member of our own Congress said not so long ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELE BACHMANN, (R) MINNESOTA: What we need to do is defeat Islamic jihad. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. BACHMANN: Sadly, our President has a wrong prescription. He even fails to acknowledge their motivations for bringing about jihad. Yes, Mr. President, it is about Islam. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: President Obama hosted the American Muslim leaders on Wednesday. One of those leaders joins us here tonight. Here to talk with us who met with President Obama is Dean Obeidallah, our frequent guest here on the Ed Show. He is a columnist for the Daily Beast. Dean, good to have you with us tonight. DEAN OBEIDALLAH, DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: How did this meeting come about in your thought and significance of it? OBEIDALLAH: It came about after pushing by Muslim-American organizations frankly for six years to meet with the President. He`s met with numerous minority communities just not with us. And the Muslim advocates really the organization, it`s like a Muslim-American Civil Rights organization really spearheaded this push for this. This was such an important meeting for us. You know, we feel truly alienated on some of respects marginalized by certain people in politics in the right. And the President bring us in to have this conversation which is really a listening conversation. He wanted to hear from various members of the community, from business leaders to me and the media, to people who are involved in Muslim-American organizations. What`s out there? What do we concerned about? And it was -- we were overjoyed and proud to be there. SCHULTZ: You know, in your column, you talked about the need for Democrats to speak out against hateful remarks directed at the Muslim community, what -- was this discussed and what was the President`s reaction? OBEIDALLAH: It was discussed and, you know, I asked President Obama as the leader of the Democratic Party, if possible to urge Democrats who can, you know, and save seats perhaps push back against some of the Republican anti- Muslim bigotry we see. If an elected Republican official made an anti-Semitic remark, a homophobic or racist remark, there`s no doubt Democrats would stand up and be vocal and stand united. When they make anti-Muslim comments we hear basically silence frankly and it`s troubling... SCHULTZ: Yeah. OBEIDALLAH: ... I meet Governor Bobby Jindal not -- I`m do not see him like local councilman, Governor Louisiana Bobby Jindal, we can go and continuing to say there`s Muslim no go zones of Europe which don`t exist. Fox News reported four times saying it`s not true. He said they`re going to -- Muslim-Americans, me my family are going to bringing to America impost sharia law, that`s irresponsible. It`s marginalizing, demonizing, and it could lead to violence. And I don`t see that giving a lot of thought. It`s something I`m very concerned about. SCHULTZ: Well, do you think the Muslim community would resort to violence? OBEIDALLAH: I don`t mean (inaudible). SCHULTZ: (Inaudible) and ask you what you mean by that. OBEIDALLAH: I mean that we could -- the hate crimes against Muslim- American of spiked. There`s been an Islamic Center -- Mississippi burned down. There were shots fired on Mosque in California a few months ago, acids thrown, a bottle of acid thrown in the Muslim school in middle Illinois area. Even in New York, we are here a little bashing. There was (inaudible), graffiti, anti-Muslim rhetoric written on the walls. We are getting to the point where I fear that some crazy person not a responsible, one of crazy person here is this rhetoric, it legitimizes hate and the next step is violence against our community... SCHULTZ: Yeah. OBEIDALLAH: ... and I don`t want to see that. SCHULTZ: You heard that sound bite from Michelle Bachmann and some people think that that is permeate throughout the Republican Party. In fact, the spokesman -- spokesperson for the Republican Congressman Aaron Schock just resigned over comments about Islam. Benjamin Cole said a mosque should be built on the White House grounds. He also linked African-Americans to zoo animals. What`s your reaction to this? OBEIDALLAH: I think when you see anti-Muslim bigotry, it`s not far from racism and it`s not far from homophobia. It`s the same sick perverted mindset. If you`re going to hate someone for their religion, you`re going to hate them for their race. You`re going to hate them for their sexual orientation. I see the same bigotry online, on Twitter, it comes after me that`s life. You know, today, we`re trying to stand shoulder to shoulder with interfaith leaders, the good people and hopefully President Obama will inspire some of the Democrats to stand up with us. SCHULTZ: OK. Dean Obeidallah, I appreciate your time. OBEIDALLAH: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: ... tonight. Thank you so much. OBEIDALLAH: Thanks. SCHULTZ: That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020501cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 24 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 5, 2015 Thursday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 5, 2015 BYLINE: Rev. Al Sharpton, Keir Simmons, Julianne Pepitone GUESTS: Midwin Charles, Mark Hannah, Zerlina Maxwell, Joe Madison; Dana Milbank; Steve Cozen SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6640 words HIGHLIGHT: A look at planing microchips in your body for medical purposes. A discussion of the "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit issue. "People" magazine reports Sarah Palin will participate in SNL`s 40th anniversary. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC ANCHOR, THE ED SHOW: That`s "the Ed Show." I`m Ed Schultz. "Politics Nation" with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Tonight`s lead, the GOP`s alternative health care plan revealed. Yes, America, the waiting is over. It`s been a half decade in the making, ever since the president signed his signature achievement, the affordable care act, Republicans have vowed to repeal it. And for four years, ten months and 13 days, we`ve waited for what they put in its place. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ll start tomorrow with the replacement. The difference is it will lower the cost. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We want to take a common- sense, step by step approach to replacing Obamacare. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After the first of the year, we will bring forth a bill that will be able to unite Republicans around specific health care issue it is. BOEHNER: There are members that introduced 126 different ideas about how to fix Obamacare, how to replace Obamacare. We`re working on this, having discussions amongst our members, with a lot of divergent views. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Ladies and gentlemen, tonight is the night. Today, a group of high-ranking Republicans introduced a plan, and it`s right behind this curtain. America, are you ready for this? Here it is, nine pages. And after all that time, here`s what they came up with. It weakens protections for patients with preexisting conditions. It slashes subsidies for middle-class families. It terminates mandatory maternity coverage. It eliminates Medicaid expansion. And how will they pay for this? The Times reports quote "the Republicans did not provide a formal estimate of the cost of their proposal or the number of people who would be covered." So no cost estimates, no coverage estimate, and a mission to rip coverage from millions. Speaker Boehner, what do you have to say about this today? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: Listen, there`s a lot of ideas out there. But the key is going to be to boil those concepts down to what a real replacement would look like. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: A lot of ideas, nine pages, really? Here`s the bottom line, The Affordable Care Act is working and saving lives and reducing cost. Yet despite facts, the GOP is still trying to repeal it with absolutely no plan to replace it. Joining me now are Dana Milbank and Joe Madison. Thank you both for being here tonight. JOE MADISON, HOST, MORNINGS WITH MADISON: Thank you. DANA MILBANK, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Hi, Reverend Sharpton. SHARPTON: Dana, what`s the deal? Is there finally a GOP alternative plan? Are they still playing the waiting game? MILBANK: Well, you know, if you boil down those nine pages, as John Boehner was suggesting, you`re left with two words, and that`s never mind. You know, I think you`re being very generous to the Republicans in calling this a plan at all. It`s not just that they didn`t provide a forecast of who would lose their coverage or what it would cost. They`re not writing it in the form of legislation, so it`s impossible for the congressional office or anything else. And there`s a reason for that and there is a reason they haven`t put forward these proposals for these several years because it`s always saying no to Obamacare. But it is never saying compared to what? And now you see, OK, so everybody`s going to pay more, the middle class are going to pay more, old folks are going to pay more, they are not going to have the same protection as before and millions of people are going to lose their health care coverage. So, you begin to see why they don`t want to do the source (ph). SHARPTON: So, Dana, this is not even really a plan, because you can`t evaluate it. You can`t -- (CROSSTALK) MILBANK: It is that him toward the inkling of the a plan. And that is what John Boehner said in the house. They just passed legislation this week that says we`re going to task our committees to come up with a plan. So, the House doesn`t even agreeing with what the others in the party are doing. SHARPTON: So, Joe, I mean, what does this mean? All of this bluster and rhetoric, where you come with nine pages, things being slashed, and no real plan that can be quantified? MADISON: It means that they have voted 57 times to repeat the afford -- SHARPTON: Sixty-seven times, I believe. MADISON: I think so, 57 times, and I think what the American people know is the old adage, if you keep doing something over and over and over again, you get the same results, that`s insanity. And the fact that there isn`t this groundswell of complaints. It`s working. People aren`t losing their jobs because of it. There`s no death penalty, all those things that they talked about would happen hasn`t happened. And there`s one other item that I think people ought to pay attention to. The employer is -- gets tax deduction for health care, and the employee has to pay taxes on their -- on their health care. I mean, this is -- so once again, stick it to the middle class, stick it to the poor, and protect the boss and the wealthy. SHARPTON: The trickle-down from the employer. MADISON: That`s right. SHARPTON: Dana, we can have different opinions, but I always say we can`t have different facts. So let`s do a little fact checking. The new proposal claims replacement is needed because of the harm the affordable care act is doing. Quote "the law hurt jobs." But look at this. In the decade before the affordable care act, the private sector lost 3.6 million jobs. Since it became law, it`s added 10.5 million jobs. How can they claim it`s a job killer and keep a straight face while they`re saying it, Dana? MILBANK: Well, it seems like in those nine pages, they used some of the talking points from 2010. And that`s been the problem now. And you know, I was covering the debate in the House this week. And a slight correction to Joe, it was the 56th time, but that`s just the house, not even counting the number of times they would repeal Obamacare. SHARPTON: Yes. With the repeal was and all, it comes around 67. That`s right. MILBANK: Yes. It`s way up there. But it`s getting harder and harder each time they were having trouble getting their member to come to the floor and do it because you can`t say it`s killing jobs. You can`t stay it`s destroyed the economy and health care in America, because health care inflation is low, more people are covered, and it`s showing none of the traumatic effects that had been predicted. So, you know, obviously, whether this proposal is nine pages or 900, it`s going nowhere, but they would just like to say they have an alternative, but in fact, when the rubber hits the road, it`s not there. SHARPTON: But Joe, the reality is you hear it and I hear it on our radio shows every day from people around the country, the success of the affordable care act. MADISON: That`s right. SHARPTON: 9.9 million people have enrolled in 2015, beating expectations. There was a 24 percent drop in uninsured rate last year, and projected costs to the government have been reduced by 20 percent, Joe. MADISON: And that`s exactly it. You`ve said it all. I mean, the facts are there. That`s exactly what is happening, and you`re absolutely right. And so, here you have in these nine pages, nobody says what`s going to happen to those, let`s just round it up, 10 million people. What is going to happen to them? And in addition to that, you now have Republican governors and governors in rich states that swore they weren`t going to deal with the Medicaid issue. Well, guess what? They changed their mind in places like Ohio, Michigan, and other states across the country. I mean, you know, and finally, even if they came up with something we know that the president is going to veto it, bottom line. SHARPTON: Now Dana, you know, not only on radio, we`ve spoken to people right here on this show, who benefited from the law and can`t believe anyone would want to repeal it. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID TEDROW, SAVE ACA: If it wasn`t for the affordable care act, why not have had the insurance that provided for my transplant. You know, where are the -- what`s happened to the moral compass in this country? You know, we need to be concerned about people and their lives. And that`s not happening. REGINA MORAN, CANCER SURVIVOR HELPED BY ACA: It saved my life. It allowed me to breathe and relax and enjoy being healthy and canner free. I`ve been able to plan my wedding and pursue my graduate degree. And without this incredible piece of legislation, I wouldn`t be able to do that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: This is what the law is about, Dana, not about politics. MILBANK: Well, and this is why the law is not going anywhere unless the Supreme Court decides to kill it on its own because they`re no longer fighting against some fictional demon, they actually have real flesh-and- blood examples of what`s happened. And that`s a lot harder to fight. SHARPTON: Joe Madison, Dana Milbank, thank you both for your time tonight. MADISON: Thank you, Reverend. MILBANK: Thanks, Reverend. SHARPTON: Coming up, stunning claims from the so-called 20th hijacker, reviving questions about a possibility Saudi link to 9/11. Is it time to declassify a key report on the attacks? Also, would you let your boss put a chip into your body? It`s not science fiction. It`s science fact, and it`s already happening at one company. Plus the coach of the Seahawks talks about the call that lost the super bowl. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you allowed yourself to have that one moment lying in bed, where the tears flowed? Where you`re smiling at me, but I mean it. Has there been that moment? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that happened at the 405 mark, you know. That hit. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: And controversy about the new "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit cover. Does it go too far? Conversation nation is ahead. SHARPTON: Did Saudi Arabia aid the 9/11 hijackers? Did they know about the attack before it happened? Explosive allegations from the so-called 20th hijackers in the attacks. That`s next. SHARPTON: New calls tonight to declassify a key report on 9/11 because of the explosive claims made about Saudi Arabia, by the so-called 20th hijacker of the attack. Zacarias Moussaoui testified from prison as part of a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia filed by 9/11 families. He claimed that members of the Saudi royal family gave a lot of money to Al-Qaeda in the late 1990s. He says he carried messages from Osama bin Laden to Saudi princes and clerics, and that he discussed a plan to shoot down air force one with a Saudi diplomat. He also claimed that these three Saudi princes were on a list of donors to Al-Qaeda, the former ambassador to the U.S., the head of Saudi intelligence and the wealthiest member of the Saudi family. The Saudi embassy rejects his claims saying quote "Moussaoui is a deranged criminal, whose own lawyers presented evidence that he was mentally incompetent. His words have no credibility." But now there`s new pressure to declassify part of a congressional report on 9/11, which the "New York Times" says implicates prominent Saudis in financing terror. Joining me now are Steve Cozen, the lead attorney representing the 9/11 victims in a suit against Saudi Arabia, and MSNBC contributor Steve Clemons from "the Atlantic." Thank you for both for being here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great to be with you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good evening, Reverend. SHARPTON: Steve Cozen, the families that you represent want this 9/11 record made public. What do they hope it will reveal? STEVE COZEN, ATTORNEY: Well, we represent not only the families, but the commercial interests as well for the billions of dollars of losses to businesses and property. I think that the -- that Secretary Lehman probably put it best in the affidavit that he filed in connection with our lawsuit. His view was that he had read the 28 pages, and he saw no reason from a national security standpoint or a policy standpoint why they shouldn`t be made available. Remember, when the 28 pages was first classified, the Saudi government itself said, why don`t you make it public? SHARPTON: So Steve Clemons, what is there -- what`s the reason not to make it public? STEVE CLEMONS, THE ATLANTIC: At that time the Bush admission argument against making those reductive pages public, they said there was a means and methods problem. We don`t know what that means. I imagine it means -- I speculate we may have penetrated, we may have turned people within the Saudi royal establishment. We may have human intelligence as opposed to digital intelligence that is embedded in that system and didn`t want to disclose who those people were that would have reflected on who is those people were. But I think that is one element. The second element which is more, we had a very cozy relationship in an odd way, you know. You have Prince Bandar, you know, I can`t attest to the veracity of Moussaoui`s claim, but people like Prince Bandar, who was our former ambassador, he most recently was head of Saudi intelligence inside Saudi Arabia. He was removed by the king. He used to give tutorials to President Bush on his plain, his campaign claim when President Bush was running for president. Prince Bandar gave general Colin Powell after he left the state department and his wife, two matching jaguars. So it was a cozy relationship. The day of 9/11, the only international -- the planes that were allowed to leave U.S. airspace were Saudi aircraft that had gathered various royals around the United States and put them on, they received special clearance in very unusual circumstances. SHARPTON: So give me the big picture, the bigger picture here is these are allies. They had personal connections to some big people in the administration. So, is that the reason that these documents that could potential compromise some people -- CLEMONS: I think it raises questions. There are two scenarios. In the 9/11 commission report, and I know many of the commissioners, I trust them. I think that they are above board. But those redacted pages, those 28 pages are too much to keep from the American public. The Saudi government itself has advocated releasing those pages, because it believes it shows a good story about its role. But the point is that it leaves a big question mark on these relationships. And I think that when you look at things like what Moussaoui is arguing, and we see in cases like ISIS instantly, Saudi money, private nongovernment money has helped build ISIS particularly in the early stages. SHARPTON: Steve Cozen, you know, Moussaoui claims he met with the officials of the Islamic affairs department of the Saudi embassy. He said they talked about finding a location to launch a missile at air force one. COZEN: Yes, they were intending, Reverend, to kill president Bill Clinton by using a stinger missile to take out air force one. I think in connection with what Steve was referring to, it`s important to understand that not only Secretary Lehman, who saw the 28 pages, thought that it gave at least a tie-in between the government of Saudi Arabia, official obligation to propagate Wahhabist (ph) extremist, jihadist beliefs, and their connection to the funding, provision of logistics and helping of the planning of 9/11. Keep in mind that somebody as reputable as Senator Graham, who has constantly been after these 28 pages, said in his affidavit that he was convinced that there was a direct link between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attack, and the government of Saudi Arabia, and that a Saudi government officials living in the United States, (INAUDIBLE), was acting at the direction of the Saudi government through the ministry of foreign affairs, and provided direct assistance to two of the hijackers in San Diego, Ahamsi (ph) and Almihdhar (ph). Ahamsi (ph) and Almihdhar (ph) were introduced to al-Awlaki. Remember we took him out with a drone in 2011 after he fled the United States. He was the intellectual leader of this whole program. Now, the question that a lot of people raise is why would the Saudis do this when in fact Osama bin Laden was their sworn enemy. SHARPTON: Steve Clemons, make sense of this for me. I mean, this is -- why is this so important and how do all these pieces -- ? CLEMONS: It is so important because those 28 pages will help make some sharper lines about who did what to whom. And we just don`t know. The fact is the line that is distinctive between a rich sheikh who hates the United States, who wants to fund terrorism, and the line between certain royals or the line between the government is a very blurry one, a very murky one. And that`s why disclosing these things is very important. We`ve seen in other cases in governments like Pakistan, exactly the same problem, the line between terrorists, the ISI in Pakistan and the government, is a very murky one. It`s different than United States. And that`s why I completely support basically declassifying this document, so we can see it. And I think we should give the Saudi government an opportunity to also see -- SHARPTON: Steve Cozen and Steve Clemons, I`ve got to go, but I lived in New York, live here now, but I was here during 9/11. I think that those documents ought to be released. We need to know everything that is possible to be known. COZEN: Reverend, just keep in mind that the civil justice system opens the door to this kind of a robust inquiry and shines the light on the evidence. The let the evidence come out. Let my families have their day in court. SHARPTON: I agree. Steve Clemons, Steve Cozen, thank you for your time. COZEN: Thank you, Reverend. CLEMONS: Thank you, Reverend. SHARPTON: Coming up would you let your company implant a microchip under your skin? It`s happening and it has a lot of people talking. What was he thinking? Seahawks coach Pete Carroll speaks out on the infamous super bowl calls. And "Sports Illustrated" reveals the cover of this year`s swimsuit issue. And the keyword is -- reveals. How far is too far? Conversation nation is ahead. SHARPTON: The folks over at FOX News have been in a frenzy lately over President Obama`s views on radical Islam. Pundits, there have questioned why the president doesn`t talk enough about Islamic terrorism, why is -- which is parts of -- he was expected to do at the national prayer breakfast this morning. So here`s how FOX covered it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Back with this FOX News alert. President Obama speaking at the national prayer breakfast right now in D.C., the annual events brings together leaders from the world of politics and religion. About 3600 people are in attendance at the Washington Hilton right now, including the dalai lama. The breakfast is currently streaming on FOXnews.com, so you can click over and watch that in more detail right now. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That was it. Twenty seconds and they were out. While other cable news network covered the prayer breakfast, the fair and balanced network was given a fair amount of airtime to a commercial for a travel Web site. Maybe they can use it to book their next vacation from reality, because back in the real world, President Obama was tackling the issue of religious extremism head-on. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith. Profess to stand up for Islam, but in fact are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism. No God condones terror. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: FOX News goes after President Obama for not talking about Islamic terror, but when he talks about it, they don`t air it. They report, you decide, but only sometimes. Nice try, but I have decided -- we "Got You." SHARPTON: It sounds like something out of a Sci-fi movie. Your boss implanting a microchip into your body. NBC News Keir Simmons reports on one company that`s making it reality. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We`re going to put a man inside a machine. KEIR SIMMONS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Okay. So, they`re not going to turn me into a robocall. But here in Sweden, this high-tech office blog, they`re going to inject the computer chip into my hand, and this is the guy who`s going to do it. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Are you nervous? SIMMONS: I am not. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You don`t have to be, it`s not can be that bad. SIMMONS: Really? Because that`s a big needle. (voice-over): Cecilia Oster Holm starts her day with this new technology, she swaps the keys for a chip in her hand that uses a radio signal to open doors. (on camera): You have a chip in your hand there? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: That`s right. It`s been inserted. SIMMONS: Right. So, how do you open it? Just like that. So, obviously what I really wanted to know is, is how much it hurts. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It does hurts a little bit, but it`s like a basic vaccination shot, so it`s not too bad. SIMMONS (voice-over): Her office -- connects big corporations like Microsoft with fast-growing companies. And for the first time in a workplace all 700 employees here have been given the chance to use the technology to become more efficient. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: If you hold the phone against my chip, you will get my contact details. SIMMONS (on camera): Look at that. That`s you. (voice-over): In the movies, from "Matrix" to "Minority Report," we`ve watched technology take over our lives. It even happens in "Annie." And now it`s coming true in real life. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: If you don`t need keys to access your building, if you don`t need credit cards or pin codes, things like that to do purchases, those are the things that would really simplify your life. SIMMONS: Life for me was about to get simpler. And you know what they say, no pain, no gain. (on camera): So the chip in here is quite small, right? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes, super small, it`s like a grain of rice. Deep breath. And exhale. SIMMONS: Ow, that hurt. (END VIDEOTAPE) SHARPTON: It might hurt, but that`s not the only concern. Yes, chips could be used for positive things like monitoring your health or tracking Alzheimer`s patients, but what about privacy and security? Could the chip in your body be hacked? And how soon until this is the norm? Joining me now is NBC News technology reporter Julianne Pepitone who`s done a lot of reporting on this kinds of implant, thank you for being here, Julianne. JULIANNE PEPITONE, NBC NEWS TECHNOLOGY REPORTER: Thank you, Al. SHARPTON: Julianne, this is one office block in Sweden, do you think we`ll see other companies following suit? PEPITONE: Well, this was just one somewhat extreme case. It does seem really futuristic, but there is actually a huge community that`s already doing this here in America as well. SHARPTON: In the United States. PEPITONE: In the United States. They call themselves biohackers or cyborgs. And they might inject a magnet into their fingertip. And then a contractor could use that to just put their hand on the wall and see where the studs are, or they might put it into a computer chip that like this Swedish company that you saw that you can open the door that way, you can use a photocopier, get rid of the photo I.D. that so many of us use in big corporations. SHARPTON: So, I want to show you a clip from a "Hunger Games" movie. I think this is why people are scared of chips. Look at this. Could these chips be used for tracking purposes? PEPITONE: That`s definitely the fear for critics of this kind of technology. And, you know, the same way that you would want to be careful about downloading an attachment from an e-mail, you want to be really careful about who you let implant a chip. SHARPTON: Yes. PEPITONE: But to be fair, I mean, it`s very far away from what the Swedish company is doing right now. That would be a long way down the road. And even the biohacking group in Sweden that was working with this epicenter company, they said that the reason that they want to get into this now is because they feel like everyone having chips will be a reality sometime down the road, and they want to explore this technology now before the evil corporations get ahold of it. SHARPTON: Now, there are some -- there`s still some issues with technology. I want to show you the last part of that "Today" show story. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SIMMONS: Now, I`m going to take this cyborg hand and place it up against the reader here. There`s a blue reader that is looking at the chip in my hand, and -- okay. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Is it working? SIMMONS: It`s a bit -- UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Slow? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Here, why don`t you get back in your flying car? SIMMONS: My hand is a bit swollen, so it may not work. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Is this ready for primetime, Julianne? PEPITONE: I think we can see no, it`s not. It didn`t quite work out for Keir. Kind of holding his hand awkwardly. That just shows this is such early days for this kind of technology. That`s why, you know, it`s making headlines and getting off a gee whiz reaction. I mean, the ideas that eventually very intuitive, that it`s -- you`re not doing this, being really awkward, that you`re just kind of waving your hand or maybe making a payment out of cafe or, you know, scanning something that you need to scan without it being a whole. SHARPTON: Wow! Julianne Pepitone, thank you for your time tonight. PEPITONE: Thank you. SHARPTON: Still ahead, controversy over the new covers of the "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit addition, and Seahawks coach talks about the infamous call that lost the Super Bowl. And buzz about Sarah Palin`s return to "Saturday Night Live." "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: Time for a "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, Midwin Charles, Mark Hannah, and Zerlina Maxwell. Thank you all for being here. MARK HANNAH, DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hey, Rev. Thanks for having us. ZERLINA MAXWELL, ESSENCE: Thanks for having us, Rev. SHARPTON: We started with the photo that`s raising eyebrows today. The "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit issue cover was released today. And let`s just say it`s revealing. We can`t even show you the full picture. Hannah Davis graces the cover. Some on social media think it went too far. Midwin, what do you think? MIDWIN CHARLES, ATTORNEY: You know, I understand what "Sports Illustrated" is about. I understand what it is that they do when they put out this issue. It is to portray women on the cover for the male gaze, for men to look at it. But the first thing I thought when I saw this picture is ooh, I shouldn`t be looking at this. It`s just too much, Rev. It`s just too much. And I understand this is what they do, but what they have done this time around is too much. SHARPTON: Mark, they`ve pushed the envelope on this covers before. It`s not like this is an entirely new thing for the magazine. HANNAH: No, it`s not Rev, it`s definitely a provocative cover, but "Sports Illustrated" has always been provocative. If you remember in the 1980s and 1990s, I certainly do. I was growing up in Catty, Ireland, and ladies like this grace the cover. They were equally risque back then, wearing certain types of bathing suits, you know, that might not even qualify as bathing suits or what t-shirts and, you know, thong bottoms. And so, you know, we are very outraged at this cover. Twitter will always going to be a twitter when it comes to issues like this. SHARPTON: Yes. HANNAH: But at the same time, we have to keep some perspective here. Is it sexist? Is it, you know, somehow degrading to women? I don`t think so. SHARPTON: But Zerlina, a lot of people are outraged, a lot of people think this went too far, there should be some standards. MAXWELL: Oh, I think you know, you showed past covers. And it reminds me a little bit of the Tyra Banks cover, although it goes a little further in just, it looks prepubescent, I think that was the -- (CROSSTALK) And Sports Illustrated, you know, the purpose of this issue is for men to buy and look at women in swimsuit, and so understanding fundamentally that`s what the issue is about, and then also being able to say, you know, male objectification of women, and toxic masculinity are directly linked to violent against women and women being objectified and sexism -- HANNAH: Yes. But Zerlina, I know, we were talking in the green room, I know Zerlina has sent pictures of Ryan Gosling shirtless to her friends with little means on the top of it. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: I don`t think this is quite comparable. CHARLES: Well, Rev, I think the issue here is, you know, whatever it is that "Sports Illustrated" is trying to do here, at the end of the day, when you look at the picture, this girl is one breath away from being completely nude. SHARPTON: Yes. And I think that`s the point. Well, now to a more scholarly debate, where will President Obama`s presidential library be? Four possible locations -- Chicago, on Honolulu, and New York City are in the running. Now, a source close to the First Lady says she`s in a New York State of Mind, the source telling "The Chicago Sun Times," "It`s Michelle`s choice where the library and museum will ultimately be located, and she has let her close friends know she wants it to be located in New York." Mark, can you see the library here in New York City? Would that be a good choice? HANNAH: You know, I think so. I`ve been to a number of presidential libraries to do research. And the President has a good sort of history here, having gone to Columbia University. SHARPTON: Yes. Even before he went to Chicago. HANNAH: Absolutely. And so, he has roots in the city that would make sense. I think there are a number of people that would like to do research for the first -- you know, the first black president our country has ever seen. It`s going to be a lot more accessible for people to travel to it and dig up archives here as well. I do think it`s interesting that he`s having Michelle make this decision. I don`t think that, you know, any president will really going to leave the decision of where presidential library is, up to another person, so that might be a little bit diplomatic. MAXWELL: I think it`s a great idea. I think Harlem is certainly ground zero for so many important moments in arts and culture for black people, and then you already have the Schomburg Center there in Harlem, and so, I think that, you know, putting another resource for people who are looking to do research academic or otherwise, I think it`s a great central location. SHARPTON: Midwin? CHARLES: Well, everything they said, but you know, but also -- HANNAH: Chicago is going to be upset. CHARLES: I know they are, I know they are. But listen, New York is also like many other cities, an epicenter of education. MAXWELL: Right. CHARLES: We have many universities here. MAXWELL: So I think it`s a great idea. And at the end of the day, I`m a native New Yorkers, everybody on twitter know, I`m always touting New York and Brooklyn and so on and so forth. So, I think it`s a wonderful -- SHARPTON: But let me say and again -- CHARLES: So I`m biased. SHARPTON: And this is only an unnamed source. We have no idea if this is right, but I don`t know why you went to Harlem. I mean, Brooklyn has -- he did stay in downtown Brooklyn. HANNAH: Absolutely. Absolutely. SHARPTON: I`m a Brooklyn guy. MAXWELL: All right. SHARPTON: We can facilitate this thing. What was he thinking? That`s what so many people are still asking about the Seahawks` coach decision to throw the ball at the end of the Super Bowl. And "TODAY SHOW," Matt Lauer talked to Pete Carroll. Listen to what he said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATT LAUER, NBC HOST, "TODAY SHOW": You`ve heard the experts, not just average Joes, say it was the worst call ever. PETE CARROLL, SEAHAWKS HEAD COACH: It was the worst result of a call ever. The call would have been a great one if we catch it. That would have been just fine and nobody would have thought twice about it. LAUER: This was properly planned, it just didn`t turn out well. CARROLL: It was that play at that time was to match up what happened, we knew we`re going to throw the ball one time in the sequel somewhere. And this -- all of a sudden they have a goal line group of defense on there that we could take advantage of if we threw it, and so we did. And it just didn`t turn out right. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But he did admit he cried about everything that happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAUER: Have you allowed yourself to have that one moment lying in bed where the tears flowed? Where you`re smiling at me, but I mean it. Has there been that moment? CARROLL: That happened at the 4:05 mark on, you know, that hit, you know. LAUER: On Tuesday morning? CARROLL: Yes. There was a break when I allowed all of the rush of it to hit. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Mark, what about the emotion here? What do you think? HANNAH: Yes. Matt Lauer, wow, what an interviewer. I mean, if you watch the whole 20 minutes, he is just tear jerking, he`s trying to get Pete Carroll -- that`s not easy for an NFL head coach to come out and admit he was crying over a call. It was pretty stubborn that Pete Carroll was saying, oh, you know, this was still maybe the right call, but a bad result of a right call. I mean, as a New England native, I`m perfectly happy he made that call. Perfectly happy to see this -- SHARPTON: Well, you`re happy with the results. Zerlina -- MAXWELL: But it goes the other way and everybody is calling him a genius. And so, I think sports -- everything is 20/20 in hindsight. And as the daughter of a high school basketball coach, he definitely cried. He definitely felt that very deeply. SHARPTON: The emotion, do you feel sorry for him, Midwin? CHARLES: Well, I think at the end of the day, listen, this guy is human. MAXWELL: Yes. CHARLES: You know, and I think that he made a bad call. Disclaimer, I know very little about football, but in watching that game, it was clear that that was probably not the right decision to make. So, I appreciate his candor, though and admitting that he`s cried. SHARPTON: I`m a Seahawks fans, I was rooting for the Seahawks. And I was very angry at Carroll Sunday night, and I`m still very angry. Everyone, stay with me, when we welcome back Sarah Palin to SNL. And Jimmy Fallon goes back to school a "saved by the bell" reunion for the ages. Next. SHARPTON: We`re back with the panel Midwin, Mark and Zerlina live from New York, it`s Sarah Palin! "People" magazine reports Palin will participate in the show`s 40th anniversary. Though she was frequently spoofed on the show, she was a good sport, appearing on the show just two weeks before the election in 2008. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I need to talk to you. You can`t let Tina go out there with that woman. She had goes against everything we stand for. I mean, good lord, Loren, they call her, what`s that name they call her, what do they call her again, Tina? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Caribou Barbie? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Caribou Barbie, thank you, Tina. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: So Mark, is this a good move for Palin? HANNAH: It doesn`t hurt if you`re a politician to show you have a sense of humor. And frankly right now, Sarah Palin has got nothing, you know, there`s nothing bad Sarah Palin could do to put her in worst political shape than she dug herself into after that horrendous speech. Everybody remembers that. So, sort of this stem-winder rambling speech. Yes, I know, I think honestly it`s not a bad move. SHARPTON: Well, Midwin, it is becoming an epic 40th anniversary. A big show. Huge comedians coming in. It`s not just a regular anniversary. CHARLES: Exactly. And I`m sure she`s be glad to just be a part of that. You know, I think at the end of the day, her being on the show is going to be hilarious and like he said, there isn`t anything at this point she can do that can hurt her. If anything, it`s going to help her. SHARPTON: Don`t SNL when they spoof, and I`ve been spoofed as much as anyone, doesn`t it humanize you though? MAXWELL: I think that showing you have a good sense of humor is very important. But I reject the notion that she`s a politician. Because she was a half-term governor and I think actually from that moment -- HANNAH: Her party was nominated for Vice President. MAXWELL: But right now she`s not a politician. I think that moment on SNL when she went on two weeks before the election was sort of the beginning of a persona that is separate from electoral politics. SHARPTON: Yes. Because you can be a cultural figure aside from the politics. HANNAH: She`s a part of the -- for sure. And frankly, anything that raises her visibility right now does help her influence within the conservative movement and the Republican Party. That makes her relevant. MAXWELL: This keep her relevant and this makes her part of this sort of this historic 48th anniversary special. SHARPTON: I think it`s going to be very interesting. I don`t know how she plays in, and she will probably be the only republican political figure that will be there. CHARLES: Yes. Air quotes. SHARPTON: What happens next, notwithstanding SNL? Zerlina? MAXWELL: Well, I mean, she`s just going to continue the circus sideshow. I`m sure, speaking, I mean, a lot of her speaking events recently have been completely incoherent and there`s been a lot of media coverage -- SHARPTON: Lately. MAXWELL: You know, but even more so, I mean, comparatively. Midwin, Mark and Zerlina, thanks for joining "Conversation Nation." MAXWELL: Thanks, Rev. HANNAH: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: When we come back, some moments of faith and humor at the National Prayer Breakfast. SHARPTON: We close tonight with some moments of faith and humor at the National Prayer Breakfast. President Obama was there, so was the Dalai Lama and NASCAR Legend Darrell Waltrip. Giving the President material for some opening jokes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: There aren`t that many occasions that brings his holiness under the same roof as NASCAR. This may be the first. But God works in mysterious ways. And so I want to thank Darrell for that wonderful presentation. Darrell knows that when you`re going 200 miles an hour, a little prayer cannot hurt. I suspect that more than once Darrell has had the same thought as many of us have had in our own lives -- Jesus, take the wheel. Although I hope that you kept your hands on the wheel when you were thinking that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The President then got serious, condemning violence in the name of religion, and talking about how faith can be used to unite us instead of dividing us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The Torah says love thy neighbor as yourself. In Islam there`s a hadith that states none of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself. The bible tells us to put on love which binds everything together in perfect harmony. Put on love. Whatever our beliefs, whatever our traditions, we must seek to be instruments of peace and bringing light where there is darkness in and sowing love where there is hatred. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Faith, can and should be an instrument of peace. Faith, whatever your Faith is, should intensify in your character and values that lead to a better and stronger and unified humanity, not a bitter, not a vetted, divisive and hateful kind of world. No matter what faith you believe in, if you dig deep into it, the core truths are remarkably very similar. So when people do despicable, and ugly and hateful things, they shouldn`t hide behind faith, because the President`s right -- no faith, no faith at its core is about that. All faith at its core is about life, is about blessings, is about peace, is about uniting with your creator, however you approach that. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 7, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020501cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 25 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 5, 2015 Thursday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 5, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes GUESTS: Ben Allen, Mary Currier, Lisa Graves, Wil Hylton, Poncho Nevarez SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8069 words HIGHLIGHT: Some in California want to change laws about vaccinations. The controversy surrounding Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker`s proposed budget. Sony executive Amy Pascal is stepping down in the wake of the hack. Prominent gun rights activist and open carry advocate Kory Watkins posted a video to his Facebook page that appeared to show him warning lawmakers in his home state of Texas that the penalty for treason is death. This week, the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters to four major retailers: GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens, demanding they halt the sales of certain store brand herbal supplements including echinacea, ginseng and St. Johns Wart after DNA testing found that roughly four out of five of the products did not contain any of the herbs on their labels. CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC ANCHOR: Tonight on ALL IN -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STATE SEN. RICHARD PAN (D), CALIFORNIA: We should not wait for more children to sicken or die before we act. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The measles outbreak continues. One hundred and forty-five cases over 14 states. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This cluster includes five children all under the age of one. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Tonight, the California lawmaker trying to end personal exemptions for measles vaccines. And a deep red state that is getting it right. Then, the new Republican front-runner runs head-on into his first 2016 scandal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have no doubt we can move this country forward. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The story of Scott Walker and abandoning the search for truth. The Texas lawmaker threatened by an open carry activist joins me live. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Going against the Constitution is treason. And, my friend, that is punishable by death. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And an ALL IN investigation of what appears to be modern day snake oil. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the overwhelming majority of cases, there was no trace of the product that was purportedly being sold. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. As lawmakers in three states consider enacting stricter laws on vaccination compliance, measles has hit a Chicago area daycare. Five babies, all under one year old from a suburban Chicago KinderCare have been exposed with measles. About 10 more infants could have been exposed to the virus. They are all, and this is important to stress, too young to have gotten the measles vaccine. County health officials say to expect more cases in the coming days. About 90 percent of people exposed to the virus who are not protected come down with measles. The source of the infection has not yet been identified and health officials so far are not connecting this cluster of cases in Illinois with the recent national outbreak that started at Disneyland, nor do they connect it yet to the one known adult case of measles in Cook County, Illinois. But health officials instructing students, faculty and staff at the daycare center that if they had not yet received the MMR vaccine to stay home for the next 21 days. Meanwhile, in the state at the epicenter of the recent outbreak of measles, California, where Disneyland was ground zero this past December, state lawmakers want to change the law governing exemptions to vaccination requirements. The new bill would abolish a vaccination exemption for a parent`s personal beliefs. It is an issue that has joined its co-sponsors with health officials. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STATE SEN. RICHARD PAN (D), CALIFORNIA: We should not wait for more children to sicken or die before we act. DR. DEAN BLUMBERG, UC DAVIS PEDIATRIC EXPERT: I will say that I really sympathize with parents during this age because they are exposed to a lot of confusing information. It can be very difficult to sort through it about what`s credible and what`s not credible. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The bill`s other co-sponsor will join me in just a moment. But as detailed by the "L.A. Times," quote, "currently 13,592 children have personal belief affidavits on file. Of those, 2,764 were identified as based on religious beliefs." Thus the overwhelming majority of exemptions in California as of now are based on nonreligious personal beliefs. And the new California bill would do away with that exemption. According to one of the bill`s sponsors, it would retain the religious belief exemption. One issue the recent national outbreak raises is just how many states across the country allow religious or personal exemptions. This map shows the breakdown. Forty-eight states, plus the District of Columbia, allow religious exemptions to vaccination requirements. All those golden colored state, 20 states are ones shaded darker, also allow an exemption based upon personal belief. Two states do not allow any non-medical exemptions at all. More on that in a moment. In the midst of the nation`s current measles outbreak, California is not the only state considering a change in its laws. A Washington state lawmaker has just introduced a bill that would disallow personal belief exemptions and a group of Vermont lawmakers considering pushing for an end to the philosophical exemption in their state, and another term for personal exemption. With the current measles outbreak topping 100 cases across 14 states, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is appealing to people`s common sense. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. TOM FRIEDEN, CDC DIRECTOR: Measles is highly infectious. It`s so infectious that if you have one person who`s just having the first symptoms of measles and they show up in an auditorium, every -- or 90 percent of the other kids in that auditorium who haven`t been vaccinated can get infected. That`s why it`s so important that kids gets vaccinated. And it`s important for parents to understand that vaccinate their child it`s not only about their child, it`s also about the neighbor with the baby, or the kid down the street who went through chemotherapy for cancer. This is about doing your part to protect not just your family but your community as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In California, which is so often the forefront of state-based initiatives, it will be interesting to see if the proposed tightening of non-medical exemptions can succeed. And here to talk about that, joining me now, California State Senator Ben Allen, the co-sponsor of that bill. Senator, first, how did it get to this point? Why is it the case that California seems to be the kind of both epicenter of the outbreak, of exemptions, and also the loosest kind of regulatory approach to this? STATE SEN. BEN ALLEN (D), CALIFORNIA: That`s a good question. We`re always the first in everything. And I think we`ve got a lot of people with, you know, free thinkers. We`ve got a lot of -- we`re also a state with a lot of people coming in and out. People leaving the state, coming into the state. We`ve got some major tourist centers. So there`s a lot of free flow in our state. And, you know, ultimately, we had -- we let our vaccination rates go just too low in certain areas of the state and that`s why we`re putting forward this legislation to solve that problem and get those vaccination rates back up to where they need to be to protect the public health. HAYES: OK. So, from affair, basically given what we`ve seen in terms of the outbreak that`s happening, given the specter of a disease that essentially had been eliminated coming running back, given the low vaccination rates in places like Santa Cruz and Los Angeles as well that are below the herd (ph) immunity threshold, this would seem to be a no-brainer. Is it a no-brainer politically? ALLEN: Well, I think we`re going to get a lot of support from across the political spectrum, lots of different types of folks. But, you know, there are certainly going to be some people out there who are going to be concerned. We`re -- but we`re making sure to, you know, allow for medical exemptions and religious exemptions. That sort of thing. But, yes, there will be some people opposed. I think they don`t believe some of the science. They haven`t been -- they haven`t kind of gotten up to speed with the fact that a lot of the studies about vaccines have -- that were showing that vaccines were a problem have been totally debunked. And I think the main thing here is that people really forget. They forget how dangerous a world it is out there. They forget the fact that, you know, half of Europe was wiped out during the bubonic plague. They forgot the fact that before the measles vaccine we had 100 people dying every single year of measles. And so we`ve gotten a little complacent, I think, because we`ve been so successful in immunizing people and in creating more cleanliness, in creating more safety for people. And they forget that there`s a lot of risk out there. and, you know, they`ve decide not to get vaccinated and as a result we now see this outbreak and we -- and public health officials tell us that there`s a danger of other outbreaks to come if we don`t get a handle on this matter. HAYES: Where is the organized resistance going to come to this bill, if there is any? You said some people won`t like it, and that`s true of any piece of legislation. But the question`s going to be, if there are people actually on the other side of this lobbying against it, if you have members of the state legislature lobbying against it, where do you anticipate that coming from? ALLEN: We haven`t heard anyone in the state legislature lobby against it yet. And the governor`s already making some very positive comments about it. We even have the Senate minority leader, the Republican leader in the Senate, make positive comments about the bill. So we`re feeling pretty good about where we are in the legislature. There will certainly be some people out there who will raise concerns in the broader public and I`m sure you`ve heard from some of them yourself. But I think, in the end of the day, this is going to be something that`s going to bring people together. People really do get concerned about this public -- this kind of public health risk that we currently have and I`m feeling confident about this. HAYES: Well, let me ask you this. Why is it legislatively salient whether my objection has to do with God or not? I mean it seems to me that you start to enter into somewhat dicey philosophical territory in which, if you have an objection based on a set of beliefs that are grounded in some sense of a supreme being, that is OK, if you have a philosophical objection grounded in some set of beliefs that are entirely secular, that is not. What`s the principled distinction between the two? ALLEN: That`s a great question. And, of course, you know, to some extent it`s grounded in the history of the United States and the First Amendment, that sort of thing. We actually don`t have a religious exemption on the books in California. It was created by the governor as part of a signing message a couple of years ago when he signed a bill that tightened up the vaccine requirements at the time. So it`s an interesting -- it`s an interesting issue. We`re going to be talking with the governor, we`re going to be talking with other legislative leaders and trying to define how exactly that religious exemption will look. So it`s a great question. Stay tuned. It`s something we`re working on right now. HAYES: California State Senator Ben Allen, thank you very much. ALLEN: Thank you. Thanks so much. HAYES: When it comes to health, there are all kinds of rankings that show Mississippi is one of the worst performers, and California, where the state senator is from, is one of the best performers in the nation. Look at these statistics from Kiser (ph) Family Foundation. Cancer deaths, California, number 46, Mississippi number three in cancer deaths, after Kentucky and West Virginia. Adult obesity, California number 47, Mississippi the number two state in adult obesity. The percent of adults who smote, California, way down at number 51. In a list that includes 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico and Guam, Mississippi number five. One of the smokingest states in the union. You get the picture. All right, but let`s bring back that national measles exemption map. Mississippi is one of only two states, along with West Virginia, that does not allow any non-medical exemption. So it should come as no surprise, Mississippi has not had a single case of measles in more than 20 years. Joining me now on the phone is Dr. Mary Currier, she`s a Mississippi state health officer at the Mississippi State Department of Health. Dr. Currier, how is it the case that you have this statutory environment that allows no exceptions? Why is that? DR. MARY CURRIER, MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (via telephone): Well, we do have a really good, strong public health law. And in the 1970s, in 1979, religious exemptions were declared unconstitutional. So we don`t have religious exemptions. And like 30 other -- well, 29 other states, we don`t have philosophical exemptions. So we do have medical exemptions, though. So children who shouldn`t be vaccinated, aren`t. HAYES: So there are two states, West Virginia and Mississippi, that essentially don`t have exemptions. Your vaccination rate is, I think, the highest in the country. You haven`t had a case in 20 years. It`s higher even than West Virginia, which has the name legal architecture. How have you done it? CURRIER: We have a really good system where physicians have to submit a form to the schools when a child is entering school. Remember, this is a school entry law. And when they provide that form, it shows what vaccines the child has had and whether or not they`re complete for school entry. The school has to submit the fact of the form to the health department. So they report on that two times in the beginning of the school year, one at the very beginning and one a month later to show that all their kids are either complete or they have a medical exemption. HAYES: What is your perspective on this given Mississippi`s record on this being so stellar as you watch this play out in other states? Do you have advice for states like California or Washington or Vermont that are considering restricting the exemptions they`ve been offering? CURRIER: Well, I think it`s a good idea. I think parents who don`t want to vaccinate their children are trying to do the right thing for their children, by they just don`t understand the science of it. I know they want to do the right thing. But, in fact, if you make a decision not to vaccinate your child, you`re affecting the people around that child. So I think not having philosophical exemptions is the right thing. HAYES: Do you think there are political reasons that there has been resistance to this? And if you would anticipate there might be political resistance to the government sort of being heavy handed, you might expect to find them in the state of Mississippi where they apparently don`t exist? CURRIER: Well, no, we have people who object to the law the way it is. We certainly have folks who object to it. And we are trying very hard to make sure everybody has the facts so that they understand why we have the law that we have. HAYES: Dr. Mary Currier, thank you very much. CURRIER: Absolutely. HAYES: 2016 presidential hopeful Governor Scott Walker may have just handed his opponents their first campaign ad. Plus, Harvard University has about 2,400 faculty members, all of whom were banned this week from doing one thing. And I`ll tell you what it is, next. HAYES: Times are changing in America`s oldest Ivy League school. In new rules published this week, just 379 years after Harvard University was established, the school`s officially banned it`s professors from having sex with under graduate students. You may be thinking, what took so long? Well, after years of discouraging the relationships, the new policy explicitly bans professors from having, quote, "a romantic or sexual relationship with any undergraduate student." A history professor who chaired the panel that wrote the new policy said, quote, "undergraduates come to college to learn from us. We`re not here to have sexual or romantic relationships with them." I guess that`s largely true. This seems pretty sensible, and yet a surprising number of colleges don`t ban the relationships. For example, my good old alma matter, Brown University, processors are only, quote, "advised against having an amorous relationship with a student" who is in a class the professor teachers. The rest apparently are fair game. But both Yale University and the University of Connecticut have banned student/professor sex in recent years and Harvard did stop short of banning all student/faculty relationships, leaving the door open for relationships between faculty and graduate students if the faculty member does not supervise that student. No word yet on what happens if the new rules are broken. HAYES: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, likely 2016 candidate, is having the first big moment of the (INAUDIBLE) presidential race. He`s had a couple weeks of glowing coverage following a strong appearance in Iowa. He`s now ahead in the polls both in Iowa and New Hampshire, home to the crucial first two nominating contests. But as Walker`s been establishing his national bona fides, he`s found himself embroiled in a political scandal at home over Wisconsin`s beloved public university system and whether the governor is opposed to, and I am quoting here, the search for truth. On Tuesday, Governor Walker unveiled his budget proposal for next fiscal year. And buried in the text of the proposal were a few revisions to the mission statement of the University of Wisconsin system. Now, among the changes, the proposal adds the phrase "to meet the state`s workforce needs" and it strikes, deletes, takes out the somewhat loftier aim, "to extend knowledge and its application beyond the boundaries of its campuses." And in a move that`s got a lot of people questions just what exactly the governor believes in, Walker`s proposal would delete the following line, "basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth." The proposed revisions were immediately seen as an assault on what`s known as the Wisconsin idea. A century old tradition prizing service in the state as a fundamental goal of the state`s fantastic university system. Now, responding to the changes, the president of the University of Wisconsin said in a statement, quote, "the Wisconsin idea is embedded in our DNA. It is so much more than words on a page. It is the reason the UW system exists. It defines us and forever will distinguish us as a great public university. Wisconsin must not abandon this core principal and value." So, so amid the mounting outrage, Governor Walker told a reporter from "The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel" yesterday that university officials had in fact seen the changes and they failed to raise concerns. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: That was language that they went through, looked at, and somehow overlooked. So for us we have no problem putting that in. Our focus is on creating an authority that gives them full flexibility, not on changing the mission. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you surprised by the response from the UW system president, by the chancellor? WALKER: Well, I think a surprise in the sense that they saw the language and didn`t point that out then. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: By the end of the day, however, Walker had fully backed off the proposed revisions, dismissing them as a simple drafting error. Quote, "the Wisconsin idea will continue to thrive. The final version of the budget will fix the drafting error. The mission statement will include the Wisconsin idea." But then the plot thickens. Today, "The Journal Sentinel" unearthed documents showing that staff in Walker`s budget office had actually been the ones requesting these specific line by line changes to the language of the mission statement. This was not an accidental drafting error. And as a result, Walker was forced to change his story yet again, this time chalking the whole thing up to miscommunication. He explained today in a written statement, "late on Wednesday my chief of staff spoke again with UW System staff and found that they had raised a concern with the state budget office about the specific language. Unfortunately, when my office told the budget staff to keep it simple, they took that to mean that we only wanted workforce readiness language in the mission when we really wanted the language added to the existing mission statement." You got that? OK. Sounds totally reasonable, I guess. Walker reiterated he won`t move ahead with the changes and reaffirmed his commitment to the Wisconsin idea. But there`s another provision in his budget which tells a very different story about that commitment. A $300 million cut to the University of Wisconsin system amounting to 13 percent of its entire budget. Joining me now, Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy based in Wisconsin. Lisa, so how did this whole thing get blown up into an issue? LISA GRAVES, CENTER FOR MEDIA & DEMOCRACY: Well, we actually broke the story on our site prwatch.org earlier this week. We were shocked to find this language in the budget. When Walker started claiming that he -- that it was not intentional, that it was a drafting error, it was a bit of a shock as well because it was quite intentionally a strike-out. It wasn`t about drafting language or adding language, it was about striking out the idea that a public university is supposed to be engaged in the search for the truth. I am an alum of the University of Wisconsin at Lacrosse and I, along with thousands of alums and professors and others, were shocked and appalled at Walker`s disregard for the search for truth and disregard for this fundamental commitment that has made Wisconsin`s public university system one of the crown jewel of the state and one of the crown jewels of public universities in the country. HAYES: Yes. So here`s what -- here`s what`s strange about this, I think, from a perspective outside Wisconsin. I mean the Wisconsin system, I`d spent some -- I`ve spent some time in Wisconsin. The UW system`s amazing. And it`s not just Madison. I mean it`s (INAUDIBLE) or it`s Lacrosse or Milwaukee. I mean all throughout the state there`s these campuses. It`s an incredible system. It`s probably, next to California, with California, one of the best in the whole country. Why is he -- why has Scott Walker decide the next battle he is going to wage is going to be against the UV system? GRAVES: It`s really extraordinary because you`d think that with his presidential aspirations, he would be talking about his game plan to be in favor of education, in favor of expanding opportunities for Americans. This cut, this $300 million, comes on top of other cuts. This is, you know, nearly 13 percent of the university`s budget. It`s devastating. Its impact will be felt by students across the state. And ultimately it weakens our state. It weakens our economy. It`s just the wrong move in the wrong direction. And it comes in the face of Walker`s previous tax cuts, which basically benefitted some of the biggest corporations and individuals in the state to the disadvantage of ordinary people, including students in the state. And so I think he signals time and time again that he`s got the wrong priorities. His priorities reflect the priorities of the billionaires that he`s beloved by. But, in fact, this latest move and this bumbling by Walker is more the Walker snow job. HAYES: Yes, but -- GRAVES: And in Wisconsin, we know a snow job when we see one. HAYES: Well, yes, although, here`s the thing, right, Walker`s won three elections in four years. He has framed this, I think, in a kind of fascinating way politically, where he`s basically saying, $300 million cut but capping tuition for the next two years, right? So the kind of -- the most politically difficult thing for him, which was that it would lead to tuition hikes, he can sort of skate away from, and the squeeze gets made up by these pointy-headed intellectual professors who are layabouts anyway and don`t want to do any work and they`re the ones he`s going after. And that strikes me as, even if a massive misrepresentation of the truth, perhaps there is some audience for that politically in the state. GRAVES: Well, I think it shows his manipulative nature. I mean the two years is definitely in -- with a view I`m sure of the 2016 race -- HAYES: Right. GRAVES: To try to prevent there from being any rebellion against hiking the student tuition even further. You know, so many students in this country are saddled with enormous debt and Walker`s changes will only add another generation of students to the increasing debt that students face coming out of school. You know, Walker has played this game before. He had quite a bit of a bait and switch campaign going on. His brown bag lunch campaign, which swept him into office, mentioned nothing about his attack on the unions. He gave a speech about the university budget earlier this week and didn`t mention this major change to its mission. You know, this is part of his modus operandi and I think that while he may have some superficial appeals to some people, the reality is, he has barely a majority of the voters supporting him in Wisconsin. He didn`t grow his majority at all because of his practices. HAYES: Yes. GRAVES: And his practices are so divisive. HAYES: Well, and there`s also something -- there`s something sort of ingenious about this from a sort of political standpoint. It seems to me that one of his M.O.s in office has been to sort of use policy as a mechanism by which to reduce the political power of people that would oppose him, progressives, the left. I mean, go after the unions, right, which is a huge pillar of progressive power in the state of Wisconsin. And another big particular of progressive power in the state, frankly, is the university system. I mean particularly in terms of the city of Madison, Wisconsin, particularly in terms of student voting, particularly in terms of the kinds of values that are thrown off by that system, the kinds of folks that tend to move through it. I mean it does seem to me like he is going after folks and going after the sources of power of progressives in Wisconsin and he started with the unions and now he`s going to the university system. GRAVES: Well, that`s exactly right and he also backed voter restrictions that make it harder for Americans to vote, make it harder for Wisconsinites to vote, and in particular made it harder for university students to vote. The bill that went through Wisconsin was designed to require your address beyond your student I.D. and there be an expiration date. The idea that students in Wisconsin are traveling to their hometown and voting in their college town to double vote is absurd. There`s no record of that type of fraud. But that`s just the type of maneuver that Walker pushed -- HAYES: Yes. GRAVES: As part of his (INAUDIBLE) game plan to make it harder for Americans to vote, and really what in many ways is part of this sort of Koch-backed (ph) effort to push and entrench this sort of right-wing majority or super majority in some states. HAYES: All right, Lisa Graves, thank you. Could what you say in a personal e-mail or text message get you fired from your job? Plus, why are Texas lawmakers wearing "I`m Poncho" stickers? I`m going to talk to State Representative Poncho Nevarez, next. HAYES: A big shakeup today at Sony Pictures with the news that one of the longest serving Hollywood`s studio chiefs is stepping down. Amy Pascal is resigning as co-chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment and chair of Sony`s Motion Picture Group. She`ll leave her current positions in May but will remain at the company with a producing deal. Now, this comes on the heels of a devastating cyberattack on Sony by a group of hackers over the film The Interview, a comedy that centers around an assassination plot against North Korean dictator Kim Jong un. The U.S. government later said North Korea had ordered the attack on Sony and its employees, an embarrassing fire storm that put the company`s dealings in the public eye, including thousands of personal e-mails from Pascal`s indox. Among the more damaging emails leaked, an exchange between Pascal and producer Scott Rudin in which the two joked whether the first African- American president enjoyed films like Django Unchained like 12 Years a Slave. Pascal spoke to the website Deadline Hollywood after the scandal broke saying the online attack was devastating to all involved, everyone at this company has been violated and nobody here deserved this, she explained. Now powerful executives get jobs and lose jobs all of the time and it`s never exactly a tragedy. But there is something more than a little disturbing about the idea that a person`s career can be derailed by a hacker. And not because it means for Amy Pascal in particular, but for what it means for everyone living in this creepy digital frontier. I mean, it`s one thing when people lose their jobs for posting something offensive on Facebook -- we`re going to have a story about that later. Facebook is a largely public forum. Amy Pascal`s e-mails, as offensive as they were, were supposedly private. But that`s the point, nothing is private. We have entered a world where text messages, emails, intimate communications that you believe are private are, in fact, no private; everything you say in your digital, which increasingly for people my age and and younger is everything you say, is recorded and accessible by someone: the government or hackers or someone that just wants to do you in. The Amy Pascal story is just the latest sign we are entering a world where all communication is vulnerable, nothing is private, no one is safe from potential exposure and that gives me the chills. HAYES: Prominent gun rights activist and open carry advocate Kory Watkins posted a video to his Facebook page that appeared to show him warning lawmakers in his home state of Texas that the penalty for treason is death. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KORY WATKINS, GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE: I don`t know if they forgot what their duty is, but it`s to protect the constitution. And let me remind you, going against the constitution is treason and, my friend, that is punishable by death. That`s how serious this is. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now the video quickly got a lot of attention and Watkins removed it from his Facebook page, then posted a comment yesterday morning explaining he took it down because he thought, quote, "there were those that would intentionally misinterpret my words," and, "my intent was to show that our founders took treason very seriously. Our elected officials had taken an oath to defend the constitution. Dereliction of that oath is an equally serious matter. I was certainly not threatening anyone." OK, fine, but, this is not the first time Kory Watkins has been in the headlines. Just last month on the first day of the Texas legislative session, Watkins posted video showing members of his gun rights group in the office of state representative Poncho Nevarez doing their version of lobbying for a bill that would allow Texans to openly carry handguns without a license. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WATKINS: We need a yes vote from you. You don`t want to vote yes, we`re going to start shopping for somebody that will. PONCHO NEVAREZ, TEXAS STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I don`t want to vote yes. WATKINS: All right, thanks for your time. NEVAREZ: Go shop for him. You all have a great day. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As far as I`m concerned you`re a tyrant to the constitution for the United States of America. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You won`t be here very long, bro. NEVAREZ: I won`t be. I won`t be. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We the people are coming to take Texas back. NEVAREZ: You need to leave. I`m asking you to leave my office. WATKINS: I`m asking you to leave my state, because you don`t take your oath seriously. NEVAREZ: You need to leave my office now. WATKINS: Read the constitution. NEVAREZ: You need to leave my office. You need to leave my office. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get your foot out of the door. WATKINS: What are you going to do? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Read the constitution. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A day after that happened, members of the Texas House passed a rule to make it easier for its members to get panic buttons in their offices. And later, the Texas Department of public safety assigned to security detail to keep representative Nevarez safe. And joing me now is Texas State Representative Poncho Nevarez. Representative, what was that scene like? What was going through your head during that encounter? NEVAREZ: Well, you know it`s -- a lot of things were going through my head at the time. You know, the office was full, my family was there -- my wife, my children. We were about to go down to the House floor to get sworn in. And every emotion that you could have goes through your head is you`re fearing for the safety of those around you, you`re not really sure what is going on. You know, one of the things a lot of people -- that may be lost on people is those folks come into your office armed. It`s legal to carry a concealed handgun into the state capital. So my intent was simply to diffuse the situation. And you know, we did the best we could under the circumstances. But you know, you go from anger to embarrassment to just flat out frustration. You kind of cycle through every emotion that you could think of in that moment. HAYES: Let me just stop you there for a second. It is legal to carry a concealed gun into the Texas state capital? NEVAREZ: Yes, sir. HAYES: So presumably some of those people just are packing while they`re in your office telling you that you, quote, "won`t be here for long." NEVAREZ: I mean, I`m sure they were. I would doubt that they would not. I`m sure some of them or most of them are concealed handgun licensed to carry that weapon in the state capital. HAYES: Now you`re -- OK, so you`re someone who is, as I understand, a gun owner, if I`m not mistaken, has a shooting range on your property, if I`m not wrong about that? NEVAREZ: That`s correct. HAYES: OK. What is your feeling about this group and the way they have kind of conducted themselves and the way they have kind of pressed their issue in the state of Texas? NEVAREZ: I mean, it should give anybody pause regarding this issue. I mean, this is a very serious issue and you have some people here that obviously they`re not taking it serious. You saw the video yourself. Any reasonable person can conclude that he is making a threat. And based on the gentleman`s behavior before -- you know, a week ago our lieutenant governor made some comments about the fact that this type of legislation wouldn`t be a priority and they descended on the capital and made similar threats to the lieutenant governor and he made an about face on the issue. Well, I can tell you that threats and that type of behavior shouldn`t be tolerated. It won`t be tolerated by me. And it shouldn`t be part of the debate on any type of legislation, especially legislation as serious as this legislation. HAYES: I want to play Kory Watkins defending sort of defending what he is doing, his undertaking, his means of lobbying. Take a listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WATKINS: Maybe a foot in the door got a friendly reminder, a Rosa Parks reminder, a peaceful reminder, we`re not playing around. I don`t think they want to mess with us too much longer. They better start giving us our rights, or this peaceful noncooperation stuff is going to be gamed up. We`re going to step it up a notch. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: How do you understand something like that? NEVAREZ: I mean, anyone that understands the English language can understand that to be a threat. And for him to even consider or put himself in the same league as Rosa Parks is obscene. And I mean it`s just ridiculous. And so I think any member of the House, any member of any legislative body should not have to be pressured this way into deciding an issue. And you know, the funny thing is, you know, this is one bill that they`re talking about, which I would call unfettered open carry -- you know, anybody can carry, all can come, that type of deal. There`s about four other bills that have been filed by different representatives that would make open carry look and feel very similar to our concealed handgun bill -- or the law that is in place now. And that is something that myself as a gun owner would have been inclined to consider. But now I have to weigh the factor that I have been threatened and should might vote now hinge on the fact that these yoyos -- for lack of a better word -- have threatened me? And the answer to that is, it takes precedence to the actual issue itself. HAYES: Texas State Representative Poncho Nevarez. Thank you very much, really appreciate it. Congressman Aaron Schock, talking about him this week, he has been in the news. First it was for decorating his office like Downton Abbey. He should I note say he`s never seen the show. Now it`s for something far more serious that has led to a member of his staff resigning today. Plus, you will never in a million years guess what an investigation into a world of highly lucrative nutritional supplements found. That`s ahead. HAYES: It has not been a good week for Benjamin Cole, communications director for Republican Congressman Aaron Schock. First came a, quote, "crisis in the office" -- his words, not mine -- after a Washington Post style reporter discovered his boss`s Downton Abbey inspired digs. Now it appears Benjamin Cole wrote things on Facebook before he went to work for the congressman that a future senior adviser for policy and communications probably shouldn`t write -- actually no one should probably write. In 2010, Buzzfeed reports Cole wrote they, quote, "should build a mosque on the White House grounds." Went on to say, "I just think it would be nice for the president to have his own house of worship." Ha ha. Think Progress reports on a 2013 post on Cole`s Facebook page attached to a video allegedly showing a black woman arguing with someone off screen that reads, quote, "so apparently the closing of the National Zoo has forced the animals to conduct their mating rituals on my street #gentrifytoday." Today Congressman Schock told the Peoria Journal Star, quote, "I am extremely disappointed by the inexcusable and offensive online comments made by a member of my staff. I would expect any member of my team." Benjami cole has now resigned. And I`ve got to say, good riddance. HAYES: More than 150 million Americans take dietary supplements, according to a 2013 study. And if you`re one of them watching right now, I have got some bad though possibly not completely unexpected news, the type of news that reminds you why the phrase snake oil salesman has had such an enduring run in American culture. This week, the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters to four major retailers: GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens, demanding they halt the sales of certain store brand herbal supplements including echinacea, ginseng and St. Johns Wart after DNA testing found that roughly four out of five of the products did not contain any of the herbs on their labels. None whatsoever. The worst offender was Walmart where just 4 percent of tested store brand herbal supplements were found to contain DNA from plants listed on the label. So what was actually in these pills according to the investigation? Basically a lot of cheap filler, some of which could cause dangerous allergic reactions. A popular store brand of ginseng pills at Walgreens promoted for physical endurance and vitality contained only powdered garlic and rice. While at Walmart, authorities found that Ginkgo Biloba promoted as a memory enhancer contained powdered radish, house plants and wheat. While there are some questions being raised about the testing process used by the attorney generals office, the findings do reflect the longstanding warnings from experts concerning dietary supplements, which are subject to loose regulation. Walgreens has already agreed to remove the store brand supplements from its shelves nationwide. GNC is temporarily pulling them from its New York stores. Senate Democrats are calling on the Food and Drug Administration to do a national investigation. You may be wondering how all of this is possible, how alleged supplements could apparently be sold to the American people chock full of nothing, filler? And it has a lot to do with a law authored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Passed in 1994, it exempts supplements from the FDA`s approval process for prescription drugs. Now, Senator Hatch`s home state of Utah has been described as the Silicon Valley of the dietary supplement industry. And Hatch has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the industry and quashed efforts to tighten oversight. Now, some of you out there might be think, hey, I don`t take these things. I have got nothing to worry about. OK, fine. But I bet a lot of you eat chicken. And here is the thing, the news there amazingly might be worse. When we come back, I will speak to author of a blockbuster story that reveals just how much salmonella -- that is gross b-roll by the way -- how much salmonella can be found in the 8.5 billion chickens we slaughter each year for food and how little the government does to address the problem. It`s enough to make those alleged ginko biloba pills made of house plants sound absolutely delicious. HAYES: Every year about 48 million Americans get food poisoning, that`s roughly about one out of every six people. 128,000 of those people have to be hospitalized. That`s a lot. About 3,000 every year will die. Now, we were looking at those numbers. I have to say that seems like the sort of thing we should be able to do something about in America in 2015. But there are huge obstacles to improving our food safety. Here to tell us about them, New Yorker contributor Wil Hylton who wrote an absolutely stunning piece in the magazine about why are food, especially chickens, so often makes us sick. All right, well, this is my understanding of American trajectory of American food safety. There is a period before , Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle. Then Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle. It was about how disgusting and gross all the meat in America was. And then Teddy Roosevelt passed a bunch of stuff, then we got the FDA. Now we inspect things. Everything is fine. Why is that not true? WIL HYLTON, NEW YORKER: Were that it were so. I mean, the truth is that when it comes to food safety, the federal regulatory system is neither. It is not especially regulatory and it`s not much of a system. It`s this tangled network of overlapping agencies with mixed mandates and vanishingly slender authority in a lot of cases. And so it is true that over the course of the last century we`ve put together a lot of regulatory structure, but what they tend to do now in many cases is either get in each other`s way or miss the things that fall between them. HAYES: So, you have got a great example in the piece that stuck with me about sausage and sausage casing -- apologies to those who were eating dinner while watching the show, that sausage and sausage casing might find themselves where the casing is under one regulatory agency, and sausage insides are under another? HYLTON: That`s right. And these are the two major ones -- the FDA and the meat inspection agency, which is called FSIS. And it`s revealing, I think, that the FDA is under health and human services and FSIS are under the USDA. So already from the outset your two most important agencies are under different cabinet level secretaries. But, yes, the one FDA regulates the skin of a link sausage and FSIS regulates the meat inside. And there`s a number of just mindblowing examples like that. HAYES: Yeah, so there`s also the performance standard idea, right? There`s an idea -- I think, I guess what I thought before I read the article is that, you know, there are some inspectors out there, they`re looking at, they`re spot checking some amount of the food that is going through the system. If they find bad stuff there is some kind of audit, and if there is, say, salmonella it all gets pulled. That`s no how it works. How does it actually work? HYLTON: So, that`s how they would like it to work. But unfortuantely in a 1999 lawsuit, the FSIS discovered that much to their surprise when they lost the lawsuit, that they were not allowed to shut a plant down if it exceeded the standards for contamination levels. And so ever since they have been forced to use all these sort of work around methods to try to find other ways to put pressure on a company when it`s succeeding the contamination limits and whether or not that is working is, you know... HAYES: Let me stop you right there. I investigate -- my job is I`m an investigator at FSIS, and my job is to go and investigate a place where they are, say, processing chicken, right? HYLTON: Well, so, with FSIS, unlike FDA, there are inspectors on the line at every open plant. This is very different from the FDA in another revealing way, because at FDA, a producer under their purview might go years without seeing an inspector. If you making meat and poultry and you come under the purview of FSIS, you have inspectors there, but if they are to discover that for example, with broiler chickens, the limit is 7.5 percent contamination of salmonella. So, that sounds very specific right? If there was more than that you would think they could do something about it because they set this standard. Well, apparently no. If the contamination level is 30 percent or something like that, there is very little they can do. HAYES: I mean, I just have this image of an inspector in like this like salmonella cesspool plant at the end of the line like in horror getting these 30 percent readings and turning around just being like "you guys. Guys." Like is that basically, like, if they can`t shut them down, what can they do? HYLTON: Well, one things they do that would be funny if it wasn`t so upsetting is that they`ve started to post the results of their testing on their website in the hopes that this will embarrass producers who are delivering bad results. So, you know, whether or not that works I`ll leave to your imagination. HAYES: So is the system -- is the system broken as an accident, or is it broken by design? And what I mean by broken by design is obviously there are very big powerful interests that don`t want -- they want the minimal amount of regulation possible that also would like it not to be the case that these moments of food poisoning can be traced back to them in any kind of way, and also don`t want to suffer huge recalls which are extremely expensive. HYLTON: Right. So, I mean, I think it is safe to say that most people who are producing food in America, the industry, don`t want to have sick customers. But I think it is also equally fair to say that they`re not especially enthusiastic about taking the discombobulated mess of a regulatory structure we have now and streamlining it into this very efficient enforcement agency that will suddenly clamp down every time something starts to exceed a contamination limit. So, there is a great deal of lobbying. Senator Louis Slaughter does an awful lot of monitoring of it. And her office can give you the numbers. But there`s a tremendous amount of lobbying that`s done to prevent the consolidation and streamlining of the food safety apparatus. HAYES: Yeah, just a few more examples -- I love this -- fish are under the FDA, except cat fish, which falls under FSIS; frozen cheese pizza regulated by the FDA, but frozen pizza with slices of pepperoni monitored by FSIS; bagel dogs are FDA, corndogs FSIS. There are solutions, however. I mean, this is not an unsolved problem. You talk about Denmark, you talk about other places that have very successfully created regimes that dramatically reduce food born illness. HYLTON: Yeah, in Denmark and in several other European countries, they have gotten the incidents of salmonella, for example, down to about 1 percent or 2 percent. And here we`re looking at -- you know, even our standard for ground chicken is about half, so about 46 percent or 49 percent of ground chicken and ground turkey can test positive without even reaching the limits, let alone if it gets higher and nobody can do anything about it. So we`re not even coming close to the examples set by some other countries. HAYES: 44.6 percent of ground chicken can test positive for salmonella and meet the performance standards that the regulators themselves say is okay? HYLTON: Yeah. And for chicken parts the performance standard, get this, there isn`t one, so 100 percent can test positive for salmonella without running afoul of any federal limit. HAYES: Well, that`s disgusting. Wil Hylton, that was a fantastic bit of reporting. Gross, but very important. That is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020501cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 26 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 5, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 5, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: Rekha Basu, Adam Schiff SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 7614 words HIGHLIGHT: A look at local and state politics in Oregon. Discussion of Loretta Lynch`s nomination to Attorney General. "The Guardian" newspaper reporting today that while previous governors of New Jersey have participated in a program to sign congratulatory cards to new mothers, Chris Christie and his administration have opted not to take part. Chris Christie and Rand Paul talk about vaccinations. There is news today that congressional leaders have been told by the White House to expect that in the next few days, the White House is going to send over draft language for Congress to debate on and vote on about authorizing the war against ISIS. Interview with U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff of California. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Yes. Dinner theater, there you are. Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. There is a lot going on in the news today. We have a very big show coming up. We`re talking about the latest news on ISIS. A couple important policy things happening around that. Yet another day of Rand Paul craziness on vaccines. I thought it wouldn`t happen, but it did. We`re also working on an important update and a surprising update that we covered a few days ago about Afghanistan. There is a lot coming up but we have to start tonight in Oregon. Honestly, usually, that is the state motto of Oregon. You can Google it later. Usually when we talk about Oregon on this show, it is about the craziness of Oregon politics, specifically Oregon Republican politics. Oregon is the state where the Republican Party state chairman, you might remember, he collects people`s pee by mail. He sends out mailers, asking you to please mail him some of your pee. That is his day job in addition to running the state Republican Party. Oregon Republican Party chairman Art Robinson once came on this show and we had a terrible fight about his writings that HIV doesn`t cause AIDS and his writings that it would be a good idea, a really helpful idea, to sprinkle backyards and public places all over America with just a little bit of radioactivity, just a spritz. That would be good for everybody. And I also tried to figure out what he needed all the pee for. This just wasn`t a good conversation. But he is now the state chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon. And he is a frequent Republican Party nominee for Congress in the state of Oregon. Oregon Republicans` last nominee for Senate, at first glance, looked like a refreshing change from the Art Robinson Oregon Republican craziness. She just seemed like an uncrazy choice. She was a well spoken, very conservative doctor who basically chose to run for Senate on a 100 percent anti-ObamaCare platform. That was the basis of her candidacy. And it made some sense in Oregon particularly because of this. Because Oregon completely botched their state ObamaCare exchange rollout. That would have been bad enough had they not also run the hippy-dippiest, most embarrassing, over-the-top "Portlandia" folk music TV ads for that health exchange which did not work. So in running an anti-ObamaCare campaign, their Senate candidate, Monica Webby seemed like an uncrazy candidate doing an uncrazy campaign, doing an uncrazy thing. That was before the local press got hold of all of the police incident reports about her and the stalking allegations and the please-get-this- crazy-woman-out-of-my-house 9-1-1 calls. That was also before it emerged that she plagiarized almost all of her online campaign materials. That was before her dramatic maybe even melodramatic refusals to talk to the press. And when she lost, having just run this 100 percent anti-ObamaCare campaign, the very first thing she did after she lost that campaign is that she applied for a new job with the state. She applied for the job of running ObamaCare in the state of Oregon. Yes. Oregon is nuts. And Oregon politics in the last few years -- and Oregon has been nationally newsworthy nuts, particularly on the Republican side. Even covering major donors to Republican politics in Oregon means having to cover guys like this. It also means having to cover guys like this, you`ll want to cover your ears. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When I sound the buzzer and say disconnect it will disconnect all of the causes of that habit and perhaps you will end up losing weight. Disconnect. Disconnect. Disconnect. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Feel the pounds just dropping off? That is Oregon. That is Oregon Republican politics. At least it has been over the past few years. But it turns out Oregon has more to offer than just an amazing sauce blend of Republican mail-me-your-pee party chairmen and disconnect, disconnect major donors and people calling the cops on their Senate candidate. Now in Oregon, this particular variety of politics is getting to be more slightly bipartisan and it is maybe better than ever. This is the largest newspaper in the state, "The Oregonian." This is the new editorial in that paper that is calling on the state`s governor to resign. Now if you have not been paying attention to what is going on in that state, and come on, hey, who has? This kind of dramatic call for the governor`s immediate resignation seems like a surprise. He was just reelected. John Kitzhaber is the longest serving governor in the state`s history. Just a month ago he was sworn for an unprecedented fourth term as the state`s governor. But readers of "The Oregonian" and other dogged Oregon local press have been watching unfurl this slow-motion long-form political disaster in which revelation upon revelation upon revelation keeps piling up and they`re all about the governor and his girlfriend. The latest revelation reported this week by "The Oregonian" is that the governor appears to have had his top advisors find his girlfriend paid jobs, jobs with companies and interest groups who want to influence the state`s policies on energy while at the same time the governor also had his girlfriend working as an advisor to him on state energy issues. It`s one thing to bring your girlfriend to work as an adviser or anything. It is another thing to try to arrange for people with interests before the state to pay her while she is advising you on their interests. So that is just the latest of what has been more than a year now of stories like this. This comes after the earlier revelations that the governor`s girlfriend also once got married to a guy she didn`t know for money. Don`t worry, though. Wasn`t anything too weird. It was just part of an immigration scam. The cost of marrying her for the immigration scam was apparently $5,000. There was also the news that she was also once co-owner of an illegal pot farm. That was all before she was the governor`s girlfriend. Since she has been the governor`s girlfriend, though, there has been an array of nice stories like these ones, about how she used state workers, including state troopers, to care for her pets. Other than that, though, nothing to see here. Actually, no; scratch that, because Oregon, in terms of, is the most fascinating place in the country today. This day, February 5th, Oregon is the most interesting place in the country. I mean, Governor Kitzhaber`s girlfriend trouble and the question of whether or not he will resign over his longstanding girlfriend troubles right after being sworn in for a fourth term, that girlfriend trouble thing is not the only thing looming over the state of Oregon right now. Looming silently and occasionally swooping down and terrifying the state and sometimes drawing a little blood, no, that is not the only thing doing that, there is also this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) again, a fourth jogger has been attacked by an owl in the Salem Park. So beware if you`re walking in bushes past your park. This latest attack was near the soapbox derby track on Monday. And our cameras even captured the owl believed to be the culprit here. The owl swoops down from its perch and will scratch its victims. In the latest incident, Brad Hilliard was jogging early in the morning when he says that owl literally stole the hat right off his head. BRAD HILLIARD, OWL VICTIM: As I spun around, trying to see what was behind me, and nothing was there. And I started kind of looking around and then it kind of hit me, wait a minute, my hat`s actually gone. MADDOW (voice-over): Yes. He only lost his hat; he was the lucky one. In the capital city of Salem, Oregon, not one, not two, not three but as of today, four joggers so far have been attacked by a giant owl all in the last month. The first attack was against this guy, this surgeon, who seems awesome. I just have to tell you because Oregon is the most amazing place in the country, I have to tell you a little backstory on the surgeon, who was the first owl victim, he really does seem very cool. He`s a general surgeon in Salem. This is him in the woods where he was attacked, this is him specifically at the start of the trail that led to where he was attacked. "The Statesman Journal" newspaper, in their reporting on him being attacked by an owl, they helpfully note that he had started running in those woods as a way of intensifying his workout in time for football season -- as in NFL football season. Not because he is in the NFL, but because he, this awesome doctor, is a huge Green Bay Packers fan, and during football season, every Sunday, he likes to wear his Green Bay Packers suit. And so he has been intensifying his workouts so he can continue to fit inside the adorable suit to cheer on his beloved Green Bay Packers every Sunday. And that is why he was in the woods at 5:00 in the morning when this happened. I`m just going to -- I can`t improve on this. I`m just going to give you the dramatic account as it appeared in "The Statesman Journal" because this cannot be improved upon. OK. Here we go. "Dr. Jaecks was jogging near the baseball field at about 5:15 am. Suddenly in the morning darkness his stocking cap was pulled from his head and almost simultaneously he felt something puncture his scalp. "The doctor thought he was dying. `It was like a huge electric shock ran through my body but also like I got hit in the head with a 2"x4" all at the same time, or maybe a strike of lightning.` "The doctor immediately began to run faster, trying to escape his assailant, running in circles and screaming. He began to think that he was having a stroke or an aneurysm. "He took off in the direction of Mission Street in the hopes of being seen by someone, not knowing exactly what had happened in the park. But on his sprint towards safety, the attacker struck again. This time he didn`t have a hat on." Right? Stolen already. And he "felt the blunt force. He looked up and saw a large winged animal." It`s an owl. He thought it was a bat at first, but it`s an owl. And it keeps attacking people in Oregon`s capital city. He was first. Now have been four victims. Nobody`s dead. But now they are putting up "attack owl" warning signs all over that part of the capital city of Oregon. Please use caution. We have gone to the trouble of making this. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: -- attack owl warning sign, which I think is more visually gripping for the threat at hand here because their warning signs frankly looked a little sedate, given what has been happening at that park. So, Salem, Oregon -- or if this is happening in your town, if you would like the digital file for these signs, which I think get the point across a little more bluntly, we will post them for you @maddowblog.com. They`re yours, free of charge. If you live in the great state of Oregon, this is the sort of thing that`s in your newspapers right know. You flip (INAUDIBLE) page, what`s going on with the governor`s girlfriend today? Second page, ooh, a fourth owl attack in the state capital. But that is not all. Because you should also meet these guys. CJ and Charlie. If there is any justice in the world, I really hope that we can get them on this show sometime soon. I should also just mention as an aside if you`re not familiar with all of the intricacies of modern gay culture in our country, you may not immediately recognize from this picture that CJ and Charlie are bears. And I say this with the utmost respect; bears are everybody`s favorite happy gay subculture. Basically if you`re a bear, you`re a big hairy guy who likes being a big hairy guy. There are definitely varieties of bears, but that`s the basic recipe. And it is a recipe for happiness, I`m telling you. CJ Phillips and Charlie rainwater live in Oregon. They are self-described bears and specifically self-described high-tech bears. They both work in the microprocessor design industry. I think they`re both engineers. But they`re also the single most amazing thing you need to know about Oregon today on a day when Oregon already has a lot to offer in that category because CJ and Charlie -- high-tech bears -- these guys are also the owners, the proud owners of jebbushforpresident.com. They have been since 2008. They say they have plans to turn jebbushforpresident.com into a place why everyone can go online to learn about gay rights. So this is their start at that so far, you type in jebbushforpresident.com. And you`ll see. They say it is a work in process. They say they are starting to promote positive dialogue to drive positive change. Work in progress that you can click through, the one link there to their Squarespace page, which is let`s talk about it. We`re all in this together. They`ve got a space for discussions, including a short explanation from them on why they`re proud to own jebbushforpresident.com and why jebbushforpresident.com is an appropriate place to talk about gay rights, given Jeb Bush`s record on the subject. I think the real message here, though, at the website that was the most obvious thing to click through, which is to who are these guys who are doing this? You click through to learn more about that, and they explain it. They put it out there. Who are these guys? They are CJ and Charlie, together since 1996. Engineers, doggy dads, madly in love. And you can learn all about it at jebbushforpresident.com. I didn`t wake up in the morning thinking this would be the top of the show. There is a lot going on in the world today and we will get to a lot of it on the show. But Oregon, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for being you. Thank you for what you have contributed to the news cycle today, you are unparalled. MADDOW: Perhaps trying to change the subject from all his loose vaccine talk recently, Senator Rand Paul today said that he will vote against President Obama`s nominee for attorney general, Loretta Lynch. Senator John Cornyn of Texas also said today that he will vote against Loretta Lynch. The junior senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, also says that he will vote against Loretta Lynch for attorney general. And as interesting as each of these senators would like that to be, I think it is fair to say that nobody much cares that they have announced their opposition, because Loretta Lynch has enough support from enough Republican senators who aren`t running for president or who aren`t from Texas that she will sail through her confirmation vote when and if the Senate decides to hold that vote. She will be replacing one of the longest serving attorneys general in the history of the United States when she replaces Eric Holder. Only three former attorneys general have served longer in that job than he has. But today the former U.S. attorney general who served in the job for the shortest time ever, the man who served as attorney general in the George W. Bush administration for exactly one day, that guy is in the news today in a sort of awesome way. And that story will come up tonight at the end of the show, on tonight`s "Best New Thing in the World." Stay with us. MADDOW: If you are going to have a baby, and you can choose to have that baby anywhere in the world, might I suggest Finland, in the tiny European nation of Finland, when you are about to have a baby, you get a box that looks like this one from the government. Usually the box doesn`t have an adorable little cat on top of it like this one does; it looks more like this. Every expectant mother in Finland is eligible to get a box like this from the government. All you have to do is ask and they`ll send you one. And inside the box is a tiny little infant sized snowsuit, a warm winter hat, little baby mittens, a little sleeping bag, a little sheet set, socks, cloth diapers, a little baby towel, a bunch of gender neutral outfits -- congratulations, you`re having a baby in Finland. Good luck. Courtesy of the Finnish government. The Finns have been doing this for nearly a century. They have been doing it since the 1930s, every expectant mother in that country regardless of income level, is eligible to get this essentially baby starter kit if they want one. It arrives in a box. The box itself can even be used as the baby`s first makeshift crib if need be. It has all the essentials and then some. The idea is that no matter what your lot in life or what your socioeconomic status is, every baby deserves a good start in life and this might help. In this country we don`t do that. Here, when you have a baby, you sometimes get sent home from the hospital with some diapers, maybe some baby wipes. You usually get to keep the little hat and blanket combo that it seems like every single baby gets wrapped in once they`re delivered. But that`s pretty much about it in most places. We really don`t do it like the Finns do it, at least not on a national level. No starter kits from the federal government. But in most states what does arrive in the mail shortly after you have your child is a little greeting card that looks like this. Peek-a-boo. This is a Hallmark greeting card, and it is often sent to new parents by the governor of the state in which the kid was born. Most states do this. Here is the one that got sent around for instance in Arizona. "Bet you`re as proud as you can be of that new little branch on your family tree." And as you can see the car is signed by then-governor Jan Brewer and her husband, John. And right above their signature, it sort of lays out the purpose of the card beyond just the congratulations. So they say, "Congratulations on the birth of your baby. One of your most important roles as a parent is to make sure your baby is immunized. Keeping your little one healthy means starting immunizations by 2 months of age. Immunizations protect your baby against many serious childhood diseases and we know how important your baby`s health is to you." So this is a "don`t forget to get your vaccines" card. And it comes with a little chart, a handy little immunization schedule, where you can record when and where your baby got its hepatitis B vaccine, polio vaccine, measles-mumps-and-rubella vaccine and so on. This card is produced, as I said by Hallmark. They produce it in conjunction with the CDC and Hallmark then partners with the governors of states all across the country, a majority of states, to send out these "don`t forget to get your vaccines" cards to brand new parents in their states. Hallmark partners with a ton of governors across the country to do this, but not the governor of the State of New Jersey, Chris Christie. "The Guardian" newspaper reporting today that while previous governors of New Jersey have participated in this program, Chris Christie and his administration have opted not to take part. A spokesman for the governor telling "The Guardian" that he was, quote, "not familiar with the program" and then he stopped responding to any further questions. This is such a weird thing to be part of our presidential politics right now but it really is. Chris Christie voicing skepticism about vaccines earlier this week has turned to now to these still as yet unanswered questions about why he doesn`t take part in this popular and cute vaccine awareness program in his state, which a majority of other governors do. At this point, the only good news for Chris Christie on this subject this week is that maybe he looks slightly less extreme than his fellow presidential hopeful, Kentucky senator Rand Paul. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. MADDOW (voice-over): Rand Paul made those remarks on Monday but this has not been going better for him over the course of the week since then. It almost feels like Rand Paul and his presidential hopes are getting a little derailed by this issue, at least right now. There has been editorializing against him in "The Washington Post" and in "The Wall Street Journal" and on conservative websites like redstate and the "Washington Free Beacon." This was the front page of the "Lexington Herald-Leader" in his home state of Kentucky yesterday, "Rand Paul plagues himself over vaccinations, potential presidential candidacy in damage control." This was the editorial in the Louisville "Courier-Journal" today. This is the largest paper in his home state, saying that he`s blown it ,that he has, quote, "dumped gasoline on the fire of incendiary speculation." Now Senator Paul is not yet hiding from the press on this subject like Chris Christie has been since his vaccine remarks on Monday. Senator Paul went FOX News last night with my friend, Greta Van Susteren, and tried to defend himself on the vaccine issue by saying that everybody has just been deliberately misrepresenting his beliefs. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: I got annoyed that people are trying to depict me as someone who didn`t think vaccines were a good idea. The interesting debate that sort of people missed on this is that all the political people they talk to, I`m not sure I`m any different than the president or anybody else on the position. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: You`re going to roll President Obama into this? He now says that he has the same beliefs as President Obama on vaccines. For the record, President Obama has never said vaccines cause profound mental disorders. President Obama has also never said that vaccines were the first step toward martial law. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: The first sort of thing you see with martial law is mandates -- and they`re talking about making it mandatory -- I worry because the last flu vaccine we had in the 1970s, more people died from the vaccine than died from the swine flu. I think you have to use your brain, but I think every individual should be allowed to make that choice. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: And when everybody makes their own choice, based in part on information from would-be national leaders who tell them that vaccines cause profound mental disorders, then what you get, Senator, is declining rates of vaccination in this country and then you get shocking new outbreaks of measles, including the five potential new cases found in babies in Chicago just today. So Rand Paul is in a ditch and continuing to dig on this one. The more he talks about it, the worse it gets. Chris Christie is being uncharacteristically quiet about everything ever since he stepped in it on the vaccine issue earlier this week. But you know, these guys are so advanced in their planning to run for president stages that they don`t really say or do anything without meaning to anymore, right? I mean, Chris Christie vetoes anti-pig crate legislation in New Jersey because obviously he thinks that`s going to play well in Iowa. Right? There remains this question here. Do these guys see this issue as something that might be nationally harmful at the moment, but that might offer them some sort of short-term political opportunity that`s not easy to see from the reality-based community? Both Rand Paul and Chris Christie, yes, they are getting excoriated for this in the national press, but they`re also pushing back at the liberal media and yelling at reporters, which they know plays very well on the Right. They both have a long history of being a little ughy when it comes to the vaccine issue. Rand Paul and his martial law comments, Chris Christie in 2009, not just meeting with anti-vaccine groups but putting up this letter, saying he would stand with them as parents who believe that the measles vaccine causes autism, he would stand with them. Even something as simple and easy as the Hallmark card that reminds you to vaccinate your kids, Chris Christie doesn`t do that -- most other governors do -- with no explanation as to why. In the national press, in mainstream politics, what happened to Rand Paul and Chris Christie this week on the vaccine issue is being treated like, mmm, misstatement, flub, inappropriate choice of words on an unfortunate topic that has been very embarrassing for these two men. But you know what? They both have a track record to back up their hints this week that the antivaccination conspiracy theorists might have a point. Thi didn`t come out of nowhere for either of them. There is no national consistency, there is no mainstream national constituency for playing with that kind of fire, for playing with vaccine conspiracy theories. But does this play in a shorter term game for them? Does this play with a certain part of the conservative electorate that these guys are trying to woo in order to be president? Is this not a mistake on either of their parts? Is this, for instance, an early weird play to try to win a state like Iowa? Joining us now is Rekha Basu. She`s an editorial page columnist with the "The Des Moines Register." Ms. Basu, thank you very much for being with us. REKHA BASU, "THE DES MOINES REGISTER": Thank you so much for having me, it`s great to be here. MADDOW: So nationally Chris Christie and Rand Paul, it is seemed that they have both stepped on it with their comments on vaccinations. Is that how it is playing in Iowa or is it more nuanced in Iowa? BASU: I think it is a little bit nuanced in Iowa. We`re trying to stay measles free here, and with no thanks to these two. But I think that there is also a segment of the Republican Party that loves to think about government as the big, bad enemy who is trying to micromanage the way people live their lives, trying to have control over kids in school and what they do, and whether they have to have a -- be subjected to the core curriculum and whether they have to be vaccinated. There has been an interesting tension within the Republican Party here in Iowa, which is between two factions of it, the conservative Christian wing and then the more Libertarian wing. I think that they`re making a calculation that this is an issue that is likely to play with both wings. On the one hand you have the government off our backs kind of element, and on the other hand it plays well with religious factions that believe in homeschooling and who think they should have the right to dictate what goes on with their children free from government intervention. So I think they`re making a very calculated move. I found it very interesting, and I don`t think anyone else has really picked up on this, but the way that Rand Paul talked about the issue, I thought it was very telling. The first thing he said, as you might remember, is states don`t own the children, parents own their children. Now parents don`t own their children and actually as I said in my column, from slavery to child sexual abuse, the notion of owning another human being has never amounted to anything good. But this idea again of private property, children as private property that you should be able to do with them what you choose is I think -- is I think nuanced and is a subtle way of signaling to parents that, yes, government off your back, they should not be intervening; you should be able to make whatever choices, however stupid and reckless they may be. MADDOW: The other thing I saw happening here, which I wondered might resonate in Iowa, particularly among the Iowa conservatives, sort of trenches of the Republican Party that you`re talking about here, is the way that both of these men this week have faced national, pretty blistering criticism in the media for what they have said, but they also have both taken some swats back at the media. Rand Paul saying, "I wonder how the liberal media is going to mischaracterize me on this." Chris Christie avoiding all comments to the media the next day, except to say to a reporter with a real sneer, "What part of no questions don`t you understand?" I wonder if there is sort of a welcoming your scorn as a badge of honor thing that these guys might able to play to their advantage in terms of the national media being so outraged by what they said. BASU: Absolutely right, because in Iowa also, which is a state that is very politically divided, there is a lot of currency in trashing the liberal media. I hear from those folks every single day. So, yes, absolutely. I mean, with a wink and a nod, they are signaling to fellow Republicans and conservatives in Iowa that "we are with you" and, you know, it`s the big bad media that`s trying to tell us what to do and how to -- but, you know, on the other hand, I mean -- they`re backtracking, they`re trying to walk back their statements. They`re really trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, sort of signaling that yes, this should be a parental choice issue. And then on the other hand, saying later, that, you know, they absolutely, in Chris Christie`s case especially that he absolutely believes children should be vaccinated. You can`t really have it both ways. But in the way, they`re -- you know, you have to have some empathy for them, because they`re a tough spot here. It takes two different things to win the Iowa caucuses and then win the general election. And right now, they`re thinking about winning the primary and the nomination. So, in Iowa, the party tends to be more conservative than the Republican Party is nationally. So, they are trying so send out all of these cues to Iowa Republicans that will make them palatable here. But then, they`re going to have to walk back a significant amount of it if any of them win the nomination to be palatable to a general electorate. MADDOW: And that dynamic that makes -- BASU: So, they always -- MADDOW: That dynamic is the thing that makes Republican politics so spectacularly entertaining every four years, is to see the about-face they have to go through from Iowa Republicans to the rest of the country. Fascinating stuff. Rekha Basu -- BASU: Exactly right. MADDOW: -- columnist for "The Des Moines Register" -- thank you very much for your time tonight. I hope you come back and talk to us more. I think Iowa is playing really large already. We`d love to have you back again. Thank you. BASU: I would love to. Thanks so much. MADDOW: Thanks. Appreciate it. All right. We`ve got lots more ahead on this very, very busy news night. Please stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DEL. JOE MORRISSEY (D), VIRGINIA: I found out that I swept all three precincts in Charles City County, and I found out about 60 seconds after I walked into the jail. I hadn`t put my suit into the locker that`s assigned to me. So, I found out and I had my cell handed out before that. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Getting elected to public office while you`re in jail? Mostly seems like a drag, right? I mean, you swept all three precincts but you were in your cell when you found out about it. It turns out, though, there is one big upside to being incarcerated and being an elected state lawmaker at the same time -- a big upside. And that story is head. Stay with us. MADDOW: No, the king of Jordan did not personally bomb ISIS today. The Kingdom of Jordan actually had to put out a statement today clarifying that no, the king himself did not get into a fighter jet and drop bombs on ISIS positions. Even though the he-man rumor mill about the king today said otherwise, said that he personally was flying those jets. Yes, Jordan`s Facebook page posted this photo of the king in army fatigues. Yes, he is a trained Cobra attack helicopter pilot. Yes, he is a hands-on enough king, that he drove himself home from the airport when he flew back to Jordan yesterday, in response to ISIS killing a Jordanian pilot. But no, this was not him personally doing this. Jordan had to formally dispel that rumor in a written statement today because of the upsurge of patriotic fervor in Jordan about the king. It`s been driven by the revulsion with what ISIS did to that Jordanian pilot. Jordan and Bahrain and United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have all participated to some degree in airstrikes against ISIS targets over the last few months. Those countries, though, usually don`t say when they`re doing it or how many airstrikes they have been apart of. Jordan today broke that silence and gave away that sort of plausibility deniability all these countries have had about how much these countries really are attacking ISIS, and Jordan today announced very proudly, that it was 20 Jordanian F-16 today who attacked ISIS targets in Syria. No, the king wasn`t flying one of them, but it was 20 Jordanian jets and then they released videos showing those airstrikes against ISIS targets. Nobody knows how much more Jordan is now willing and able to do against ISIS that they haven`t been doing before today. But this show of force today was basically a military roar from that country as they are enraged by the torture and murder of their air force pilot at the hands of ISIS. In the wake of that ISIS video showing the death of the pilot that was released yesterday, it was reported yesterday in "The New York Times" that one of the Arab partners in this coalition against ISIS, United Arab Emirates, they have not participated in air strikes at all since that Jordanian pilot crashed and was captured inside of Syria on Christmas Eve. The UAE reportedly told the United States that they didn`t think there were adequate search and rescue assets in place to protect and rescue pilots if a pilot did crash during these anti-ISIS airstrikes. That was reported yesterday. The U.S. military pushed back against that concern, after "The New York Times" published this report. But today, look at this -- today, defense officials say the U.S. military has now moved to address those concerns. The U.S. has now moved search and rescue crews closer to the action. They have moved search and rescue crews into northern Iraq, which is what was requested by UAE. Quote, "The action is intended to shorten response times for search and rescue teams." If, God forbid, another pilot from any country goes down over ISIS- controlled territory, will this change, the shift in the search and rescue assets? Will it make it more likely that the pilot could be rescued instead of captured by ISIS? If so, sixth months after pilots started flying these sorties against ISIS, why did it take until today to do it? Why did it take until today to move the search and rescue crews closer to the battlefield? Maybe there is a good reason it didn`t happen until today, but I`d love to hear it. Maybe we will find out if and when Washington debates what we`re doing against ISIS, whether it`s working, and whether it can be done better. Now, I can report that that might finally happen. There is news today that congressional leaders have been told by the White House to expect that in the next few days, the White House is going to send over draft language for Congress to debate on and vote on about authorizing this war that we are already now six months into, finally. Joining us now is a member of Congress who has been pushing as hard as anyone for Congress to take an authorization vote on this war, Congressman Adam Schiff of California is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thank you so much for your time tonight. REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Good to be with you. MADDOW: So, you have been one of a few persistent voices in Congress saying Congress needs to vote to authorize this war against ISIS. Do you now feel like it`s finally going to happen? SCHIFF: I do, and it`s obviously been a very long time and coming. We`re almost six months into this war. Before the elections, I think the administration and members were content to going into elections without having to have a potentially difficult debate and vote on this. And then, after the elections, there was a desire to put it off even more. But we kicked that can as far down the road as we possibly can and I`m grateful now that the administration is deeply engaged with Congress and I hope we will have a draft and a vote fairly soon. MADDOW: So, you, of course, have written your own language for how you would propose that Congress could authorize this war. I mean, should Congress be writing this language yourself? Should it be coming from the White House? It seems like there was a very esoteric and abstract debate about that for a long time. Now, it does seem like there will be language coming from the White House. SCHIFF: Well, we did have a long debate over that, and, frankly, the Congress itself, whether we`re usually the institution that drafts it or the administration does, it`s the Congress`s interest in it that is most at stake. If the administration continues to rely on these two old authorizations, it doesn`t in any way eviscerate the administration`s power to make war, but it does mean that the congressional check and balance is seriously diminished. So, whether it should have come from one quarter or the other, we have the most at stake here, and I think we should have done more proactively to make this happen. But ultimately, it is happening now, and it`s going to be a tough call because there are a number of very important issues to be hammered out. MADDOW: We had a minor miracle on this show this week when a Republican, a serving conservative Republican senator agreed to come on this show. It was Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia. And we`re talking about the veteran suicide prevention legislation that has passed and the president is expected to sign soon. But I asked him if he thought there was any other thing, any other area of policy where there might be a true bipartisan vote, or at least a nonpartisan vote where people`s party affiliation didn`t predict how they were going to come down on the issue, and the one thing that he singled was an authorization for the use of military force. He proposed to me as a conservative Republican senator, that he thinks this vote is going to be unpredictable and not driven by party politics. Do you agree with him on that? SCHIFF: I agree with him in part. I mean, there won`t -- this bill won`t break down along complete party lines. But there are some substantial differences between the parties on this. By and large, most of the conservative Republicans want to give the president a very broad authorization without limits in time, place, or manner. And I think many Democrats feel very differently. We also support an authorization, but want it narrowly tailored so that we don`t get another massive ground occupation of Syria or Iraq, so that there are time limits on this. And I think importantly, that there is at least a time limit set on the old authorization, the 2001 authorization, because if we should pass something new that is ISIL-only focused, and even if that sunsets, if we don`t sunset the old one, then when the new one expires the future president can really say, I`m going to rely on the old one just the way President Obama did. So, to have any real limitation in terms of time, we not only have to sunset the new one, but we have to at least sunset the old one. MADDOW: Right. And without that authorization that`s specific in terms of time, then, an authorization passed in 2001 becomes a permanent authorization for a war whenever a president feels like it, with no way in for Congress at all. Boy, is this a debate that needs to happen. Congressman Adam Schiff of California, you`ve done more than anybody else to make this happen. Thanks very much for your time tonight, and congratulations on making it this far. SCHIFF: Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. All right. Coming up next, a brief but powerful story about the upside to winning an elected office while you are in jail. Plus, we`ve got the best new thing in the world. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Hello, Igor. TRYCIA MCKINNEY: So, we are, it`s a day early, but we`re looking at swag to give to give away tomorrow on the Friday night news dump. MADDOW: OK. MCKINNEY: So let`s just start here. Do you remember back in the day, way before the Sochi Olympics, there was this big push by women ski jumpers to get added to the games? MADDOW: They were excluded because they were worried that like women jiggle too much when they ski-jump -- MCKINNEY: Their lady part. MADDOW: Their lady parts could be hurt. MCKINNEY: So, anyway, these are just some brochures I just found, and stickers and things. There`s some in Russian and -- MADDOW: Them making the case we should be allowed to. We are ready to fly. MCKINNEY: The time is now. MADDOW: I would be willing to part with one of the Russian language ones. MCKINNEY: And the sticker maybe? We got extra. MADDOW: That`s conceivable. Get it? MCKINNEY: This I just broke, I think. But this I don`t know why we have it, but it`s a knuckle ring, but one of the rings just broke up. MADDOW: The knuckle ring that says big daddy. MCKINNEY: Big daddy and a chain. I have no idea. MADDOW: Honestly, where was this in the office? MCKINNEY: It was in a bag in a drawer. It`s been there for years, I think. I don`t know. MADDOW: It`s not somebody`s? MCKINNEY: I don`t think so. MADDOW: It`s yours now. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: You ain`t to big daddy, you ain`t nobody. OK, all right. MCKINNEY: So that`s a possibility. Then I thought maybe -- MADDOW: How many do we have? We have 12? MCKINNEY: Yes, but I don`t think we`ll send all 12. It`s a lot of postage. MADDOW: It`s also a big burden for the person who receives them. MCKINNEY: We could send one. MADDOW: I don`t know. I`m very torn. What would you want? MCKINNEY: I think I would want the football. MADDOW: Yes, me too. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Let`s give the person a choice between the big daddy, four knuckle ring and chain, or the football. MCKINNEY: OK. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The Commonwealth of Virginia likes to think of itself as a good government kind of state -- a clean, no corruption state that`s getting harder to say with a straight face, as the state`s last governor is now headed to federal prison. The former first lady of the state is awaiting sentencing. And just this past month, this guy was re-elected to the Virginia state legislature, from jail. Democratic State Rep Joseph Morrissey is in jail on a number of charges related to him having sex with a minor. He`s 57 years old by the way. But Virginia voters re-elected him anyway, while he`s in jail. Now, though, his unique housing arrangement has become sort of a dog that`s eating its own tail, because yesterday, he cast a vote as a state rep, on whether or not people in jail in Virginia should be able to get obscene materials while they are in jail. He is in jail, which gives him some unique insight, no? Representative Morrissey voted against a ban on obscene materials, which may not have made him very popular with the rest of his friends who voted the other way, but it did probably make him popular with his friends at home -- his friends at home with him where he lives, in jail. Just the latest installment in the ongoing saga on how the word "politician" became a name you call someone if you`re trying to make that person punch you. MADDOW: Best new thing in the world today. Here we go. 2000 -- year 2000, a man named Bobby Chen bought this property in Baltimore, a row house about three blocks north of Johns Hopkins Hospital. He purchased it for $900. It`s such a deal for a house. Eight years later, though, there was -- let`s call it an accident. The headline from "The Baltimore Sun", "Demolition overdone." The city was demolishing the house next to Bobby Chen`s house, but in the process, they took out his house, as well. Whoops. This empty lot is where Bobby Chen`s house used to be. He sued Baltimore, wouldn`t you? But his lawsuit was dismissed not on the basis of its legal merits, but because he missed the filing deadline. Bobby Chen, though, did not give up. He decided to petition the United States Supreme Court to hear his case. He did it by himself without a lawyer. He did a lot of it by hand, as in handwritten a 61-page document, listed like his monthly salary, his monthly expenses. He argued that the Supreme Court should exempt him from the $300 fee you pay to file a suit at the Supreme Court because he showed he didn`t have $300 to spend. Thousands of people petition the Supreme Court every year, thousands, lots with legions of lawyers and lots of money to spend on those lawyers, and the vast majority of those people don`t get their cases heard. But in November, the Supreme Court announced that they were going to hear Bobby Chen`s handwritten case. So, come on down, Bobby Chen, make your case in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Best new thing in the world, right? Bobby Chen, Bobby - Mr. Chen, has anybody -- they could not find him. He didn`t provide a phone number on his petition. The e-mail address he listed stopped working. The Supreme Court sent someone to the address he had provided but nobody there had seen him in months. Oh, and his other house got knocked down. So, despite having his case selected by the Supreme Court, with a petition he filed and wrote out himself, his case was again dismissed for missing the deadline because nobody could find him in time to meet the deadline -- until now. Mr. Chen has not only reemerged but he has done so with an exclamation point. His petition for rehearing is being taken up by three high power lawyers, including Paul Clement, who is a very conservative guy, famous guy, once served as U.S. attorney general for one day. He`s considered to be the foremost Supreme Court litigator in the country and he`s now Bobby Chen`s lawyer. Bobby Chen has been found. I still don`t know where he was. There`s something about a slip and fall accident in California. But his case is getting heard and he`s got the biggest big shot lawyer in the world to help him. Bobby Chen, best comeback ever, best thing in the world. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020501cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 27 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 5, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 5, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Patrick Murphy GUESTS: Zainab Salbi, Asra Nomani, Jerry Coyne, Harold Shinitzky, Jordan Schultz, Dr. Justin Frank, Adrian Karatnycky SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7448 words HIGHLIGHT: Today, President Obama commented on the Islamic State at the National Prayer Breakfast, the place where presidents go to pander to leaders of organized religions once a year. President Obama, who is the most gifted writer and speaker in the history of the American presidency, today delivered the worst speech of his presidency. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Two days after Jordan`s King Abdullah promised a, quote, "earth-shaking" response for the killing of a Jordanian pilot by the Islamic State, as many as 20 Jordanian F-16s launched airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria. In a statement today, King Abdullah said that the global Muslim community is the primary target of the war waged by terrorists in the Middle East, adding that, quote, "My region is on the front lines." As "The New York Times" reports, Muslims all over the world are condemning the Islamic State`s execution of that Jordanian pilot. In Syria, the government denounced the group, but so did al Qaeda fighters who opposed both the government and the Islamic State. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian government, for once, agreed on something, the barbarity of the militant group for the way it murdered the Jordanian. And in Cairo, the head of the 1,000-year-old al Azhar Institute was so angry that he called for the Islamic State extremists to be killed or crucified or their hands and legs cut off. Today, President Obama commented on the Islamic State at the National Prayer Breakfast, the place where presidents go to pander to leaders of organized religions once a year. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAM J. CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT: I agree with those who have said that, in my first statement after I testified, I was not contrite enough. I don`t think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned. It is important to me that everybody who has been hurt know that the sorrow I feel is genuine. GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: At this hour, we have troops that are assembling in the Middle East. There`s oppressive regimes that seek terrible weapons. We face an ongoing threat of terror. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: If you ever want to search for the worst speeches given by a modern president, begin with the National Prayer Breakfast, the first of which was attended by President Eisenhower in 1953. President Obama, who is the most gifted writer and speaker in the history of the American presidency, today delivered the worst speech of his presidency. It was full of hollow pandering from start to finish, as politician speeches to religious groups always are, and he insists that the Islamic State is not Islamic. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith. Profess to stand up for Islam, but are in fact betraying it. We see ISIS, a brutal, vicious death cult, that in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism, terrorizing religious minorities, like the Yazidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions. The humanity has been grappling with this question throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. There`s wisdom in our Founders writing in those documents that helped found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility. No God condones terror. No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker, or fewer in number. So, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion, any religion for their own nihilistic ends. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now is Zainab Salbi, founder of Women for Women International, Jerry Coyne, professor at the University of Chicago, author of "Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible", and Asra Nomani, author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman`s Struggle for the Soul of Islam." I just wanted to get your reaction to what you heard the president say today. ZAINAB SALBI, WOMEN FOR WOMEN INTL.: I wouldn`t call it the worst speech at all. I would call it a measured one, a thoughtful one, and someone that knows what Islam is going through, an identity crisis, an historical moment of implosion within itself. And all religion has gone through this, and it is now Islam`s turn. There is a lot of work to do be done. But I would call it a wise speech, as a matter of fact. O`DONNELL: Asra, what was your reaction to it? ASRA NOMANI, JOURNALIST: It really breaks my heart to hear the words that President Obama said today. You know, with all due respect, I think that it`s President Obama that needs to get off the high horse and he needs to put his feet and plant them firmly on the ground and acknowledge that there is a very serious interpretation of Islam in the world that is wreaking havoc on all of us, and we have to take it on and be honest about what the problem is in our world today. O`DONNELL: Professor Coyne, your reaction? JERRY COYNE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: I agree with the last speaker. Obama is slowly coming around to the realization that it isn`t just terrorism involved here, but it`s motivated by religion. He continues to say that faith does not justify the massacre of innocents, when, in fact, the Bible says exactly that in the Old Testament, and the Islamic faith, at least this particular Sunni sect says that. When he finally admits that this is a religiously motivated horror, then I`ll approve of what he says. O`DONNELL: I would like to let you listen to something he said at the United Nations in September, where he was not speaking to religious leaders. He said he struck a very different tone about this. Let`s listen to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: First, the terrorist group known as ISIL must be degraded and ultimately destroyed. Second, it is time for the world, especially in Muslim communities, to explicitly, forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like al Qaeda and ISIL. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Zainab, no line like that in today`s speech. That there`s a responsibility for a Muslim community to reject this kind of, we`ll call it new theology reversion to old theology, whatever we want to call it, he was suggesting today that, well, this kind of thing happens in all religions. SALBI: Well, I think, as a Muslim, I think what Islam is going through is an identity crisis indeed. A lot of people are confused about their religion within their religion. When you -- I just came from the Middle East last night, and as a matter of fact, when people say the common thing is, what is the religion, the one that we grew up with 40 years ago or the one they are telling us it is right now? So, there is a crisis within the religion, I think it`s imploding within itself. And I do think it has become more conservative and more violent than it has ever been in the last decades, at least. So there is a crisis in here. Is it a predestined crisis? Is that the new religion? No, it`s not. It`s a point of history we have to be outspoken about as Muslims, have dialogue about. That is not happening yet. So, I think there is an issue, but I don`t think Islam is a violent religion, nor do I think that any religion is violent religion. At the core of religion is about doing goodness and how we interpret it -- COYNE: Well -- SALBI: -- is something that we all can think about. O`DONNELL: What the president alluded to today is the fact that some religions have gone through violent phases. Catholicism was the most murderous force on the face of the earth for hundreds of years. SALBI: Yes. O`DONNELL: But that`s hundreds of years ago. That`s 800 years ago. And so, for the president to make a comparison to the Islamic State, he has to reach back 100 years in Catholicism and then tell Catholics and Christians today, don`t get on your high horse. And, Asra, in the process, the president seems to be saying that he knows what real Islam is, he knows that there is such a thing as real Islam, and that he can tell you -- I`ll ask Asra to respond to this, professor, we`ll come to you after that, that he can tell you what it is, and that is a frequent mistake that people who have not been very highly educated in religion make, thinking that there is an identifiable, real version of any religion. NOMANI: Well, that`s why I think that it`s actually an act of sitting on the high horse, when you try to pretend what we see in the world today isn`t real. O`DONNELL: Right. NOMANI: We`re just standing in a hall of mirrors. If I have bags under my eyes, it`s because I`ve spent the last 48 hours dissecting every second of the sad video that documented the murder of the Jordanian pilot. I will tell you how that video begins. It begin with (SPEAKING ARABIC) which means "in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful." It then went to a clear and very obvious declaration that this was from the Islamic State. It was not some fancy acronym like ISIL or ISIS and all of this. It was clearly the Islamic State. And then, the video proceed to talk about the Crusades, which we had mentioned at the prayer breakfast today, to bring up every grievance against Israel, the Jews, and every other possible infraction that anybody has ever done against Muslims, so that we become a culture of wound collectors, and that is how we then act out with only violence. And then, it proceeded to talk about Koranic verses, from (SPEAKING ARABIC) which tells the believers to have courage to fight and to take courage in their fight. And then it proceeded to tell us that there is a Hadith, saying of the Prophet Muhammad and a fatwa that says we should participate in these just wars, even if they are against our own fellow Muslims. And so, to pretend that this isn`t a reality of Islam in the world today, and that there is a true Islam that is the reality of our world is to me just a dance that we`re playing to our peril. O`DONNELL: Professor Coyne, within every religion, there are arguments about what the proper tenants of a religion should be. Most Catholics, as you know, in the United States of America support abortion rights and support that as an individual choice made by women, whether they`d be Catholic or not. The pope says that is absolutely wrong, and that teaching is rejected worldwide by Catholics and it`s accepted worldwide by Catholics and there are many other arguments within Catholicism. You used to be ex-communicated if you got divorced in Catholicism. Now, Catholicism finds ways of fixing that for people. Religions move, they change, they have different sects, different dynamics. I would love to hear the president describe what true Judaism is. Is it orthodox Judaism or is it one of those temples where they have a female rabbi? This is just an amazing mistake that the president`s speechwriters and the president could make today, the notion that this president or anyone can specifically tell us what is real Islam or the real version of any other religion. We`re going to have a disagreement with two followers of Islam right here on this show about what is real Islam. COYNE: Yes, absolutely. And you`re absolutely right with this. There is no true version of Islam that you can put your finger on. If you want to be legalistic about it, you can say -- well, it`s -- the true religions is what is in the Scripture. And in that case, Christianity, even though you have to reach back to find it committing things like the Inquisition, even Christianity has an Old Testament that explicitly sanctions and approves of terrorism, of terrorism of innocents, of adultery, of rape, of genocide. How do Christians write that out as not being true Christianity when it`s in the Old Testament in black and white? The problem is -- SALBI: Can I just say -- COYNE: Now, let me finish here. The problem with saying that there is a true faith, and that true Islam has been hijacked by ISIS is not true. What`s happened with Christianity is it`s become tamer over the centuries because it was hijacked by the secular enlightenment values that have gotten rid of those horrible statements in the Old Testament. That`s what needs to happen with Islam. It needs to be hijacked by enlightenment values. In fact, ISIS has not hijacked Islam at all. O`DONNELL: OK. Hold it there, Professor. Zainab, what we can say about certain religions at certain times is, there`s a dominant version of it. There`s a dominant version of Catholicism, especially in certain countries where most people, 60 percent, 70 percent think the following should behave a certain way. And that`s what the struggle is now is different versions are trying to dominate others within Islam. SALBI: It is true, but I would not legitimize ISIS` point of view. And this is not because I`m a liberal Muslim coming here. O`DONNELL: No one here is saying that ISIS is the real Islam. SALBI: OK, good. O`DONNELL: But once you say it`s not the real Islam, you are then implying that you can identify there is a real one. SALBI: There is no way we can all tell what is the real Islam. It`s all about our interpretation. COYNE: Absolutely. O`DONNELL: Then, we all agree. SALBI: But there are waves that happen in history about religious revolution, and Islam is right now going through a crisis. I cannot legitimize ISIS, just because they quoted the Koran or the Hadith or whatever before the horrible execution, that does not make them real Muslims or does not make them Muslims actually. What they have done is -- (CROSSTALK) COYNE: Well, I disagree. O`DONNELL: We`re out of time. What it certainly doesn`t do is prove that they`re not Muslim, OK? And the president is somehow trying to twist it to that degree. SALBI: No, the president is actually trying to open a way to involve the religion and to have a discussion within the religion, because if we think of it as doomed, we cannot have a resolution of the discussion. And what is need the most right now is a liberal value that talks about religion within Islam. O`DONNELL: And that is where you and Asra agree. You`re both working toward within Islam. I wish I have more time for this tonight. Thank you all very much for joining me tonight. Zainab Salbi, Asra Nomani and Professor Coyne, thank you all. COYNE: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Coming up, what a Pentagon analysis of the mind of Vladimir Putin said about what might be behind his extreme control. And what happened when Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll faced his team -- he had to do it, he had to face his team -- after making what might be the worst play called in the history of the Super Bowl. We`ll have more of Matt Lauer`s interview with coach Carroll and that reaction, coming up. O`DONNELL: In tonight`s episode of Republicans doing the right thing, Republican senators have killed Senator Ted Cruz`s plan to block the confirmation of President Obama`s attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch. Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake said, "The president ought to get his people as long as there`s no disqualifying substance there, and I don`t think there is with here." Coming up, the man charged with murdering the real American sniper, Chris Kyle. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you be surprised if I told you the Navy has credited you with over 160 kills? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mm. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you ever think that you might have seen things or done some things over there that you wish you hadn`t? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, that`s not me, no. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s not you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was just protecting my guys. They were trying to kill our soldiers, and I`m willing to meet my Creator and answer for every shot that I took. The thing that haunts me are all the guys that I couldn`t save. You know, I`m willing and able to be there, but I`m not. I`m here, I quit. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you can walk down any hall in this hospital. We got plenty of soldiers that need saving. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh-huh. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Want to take a walk? (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: One of the soldiers, who the real American sniper Chris Kyle tried to save, is now facing trial for the murder of Chris Kyle and Chris Kyle`s friend Chad Littlefield at a shooting range in Texas. Jury selection started today in Texas where 800 potential jurors have been called in the trial of 27-year-old Eddie Ray Routh, a former marine whose lawyers are arguing is now not guilty by reason of insanity. Potential jurors are filling out questionnaires this week with opening arguments planned for Wednesday. Defense attorneys have asked for the trial to be moved and postponed, arguing it will be impossible to find an impartial jury in the small Texas community. Chris Kyle`s book has sold 1.6 million copies and the movie "American Sniper" is the most watched movie of the year in America so far. Joining me now is MSNBC contributor and the first Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress, Patrick Murphy. He`s also a former military and federal lawyer. Patrick, you`re a former prosecutor. Take us through what you think the dimensions of this trial are. PATRICK MURPHY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Sure. Well, first thing as you mentioned, Lawrence, you`re seeing this trial happen right now where you have 800 citizens from Texas, in Erath County, which is a rural county, about 40,000 people. They`re going to take these 800 and bring them down to about 12 jurors and two alternates. And that`s going to be until next week. So, Monday and Tuesday, they`re going to whittle those down to about 200 and have what`s called voir dire, and ask these individuals, you know, can they give an independent judgment, do they have any preconceived notions. They argue -- attorneys on both sides will argue, the defense will certain hi think that their client is not going to have a fair trial, because some of them, a lot of them will have seen that movie "American Sniper" or read that book that sold 1.6 million copies. O`DONNELL: And that, Patrick, that won`t necessarily be disqualifying. They indicated today -- MURPHY: Exactly. O`DONNELL: -- they will all be asked that, but that won`t in and of itself be disqualifying. They will be asked, can you put that aside, the movie, the book, and look at this evidence fairly. MURPHY: Right. And they will also be asked their stances on the mental insanity defense, can they -- will they keep an open mind towards that. That`s what the defense attorneys will really get at because that`s really the crux of their case and hoping that -- we all know Eddie Ray is going to go away, Lawrence, for a long time. It`s question of, is he going to go away for the rest of his life to prison or really to a mental institution? O`DONNELL: Patrick, let`s listen to what his wife said about this. Why she doesn`t think this is PTSD. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TAYA KYLE: It was a double homicide, and the people I know with PTSD are good people, and they live a good life. I feel like whatever you were before you went into war is what you`re going to be on the other side, with one -- with a major twist. You`re going to have moodiness, you`re going to have sleepless nights, you`re going to have a hard time, you`re going to suffer. But, yes, I don`t buy it, and I don`t think it`s appropriate, and I think it`s a very lame excuse for horrible behavior. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Patrick, your reaction, a lame excuse? MURPHY: There`s no doubt, Lawrence, we`ve had 2.6 million Americans that served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many like Chris Kyle served multiple deployments. Like Eddie Ray, he had two. He had Iraq and then Haiti. About 40 percent will come back with some type of post-traumatic stress disorder or TBI, traumatic brain injury, and some people are just broken when they come back. As you know, Lawrence, there`s veterans that do great things when they come back, but there`s others that struggle so much. And I think this is a case from my reading of it, Eddie Ray in this case, clearly had PTSD, and it will be interesting to see how this trial plays out, whether he was mentally insane and that caused the murder of Chris Kyle. O`DONNELL: Patrick, does the prosecution thus far, have they offered any other motivation for these murders? MURPHY: No. I think they`re really going -- first, they`re going to go, they`ve put several motions, Lawrence, that they`re not going to be able to get a fair trial because of the pretrial publicity. The judge has shut does arguments down. They`ll probably make one more after the jury is there. But the crux of their argument is that he was mentally insane. So, we`ll see how that plays out. O`DONNELL: Patrick Murphy, thanks for joining us tonight. MURPHY: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Coming up, the latest case for increasing the inheritance tax. Rich kids on a plane. Paris Hilton`s brother is facing 20 years in jail for what he did on a plane. And still ahead, coach Pete Carroll tells Matt Lauer what happened when he faced the Seattle Seahawks players after sending into their huddle the worst call ever in a Super Bowl. O`DONNELL: We have a new poster boy for higher inheritance taxes. Conrad Hilton III, Paris Hilton`s younger brother and Hilton Hotel heiress, surrendered this week to FBI agents, an was charged with assaulting and intimidating flight attendance and interfering with flight crew members. The FBI says the 20-year-old went berserk onboard a 10-hour British Airways flight from London to Los Angeles in July. Court documents say he tried to smoke pot in the bathroom, tried to fight crew members and paced up and down the aisle yelling. The flight crew says Conrad Hilton told them, quote, "I could get you all fired in five minutes. I know your boss. My father will pay this out. He has done it before. Dad paid $300,000 last time. And I will F-ing own anyone on this flight; they are F-ing peasants." The pilot authorized a team of five flight attendants to subdue Hilton with restraints, so they could land the plane. When he woke up, Hilton screamed again, "I am going to f-ing kill you." (END VIDEO CLIP) If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison. Up next, Matt Lauer`s exclusive interview with Seattle Seahawks` coach, Pete Carroll. How is he sleeping at night. MATT LAUER, NBC HOST: You`ve heard the experts, not just average Joes, say, it was the worst call ever. PETE CARROLL, COACH, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS: It was the worst result of a call ever. The call would have been a great one if he catch it. It would have been just fine and nobody would have thought twice about it. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: In the "Spotlight" tonight, the worst result of a call ever. That was Seattle Seahawks coach, Pete Carroll, reflecting on the -- (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) -- play call that cost his team the Super Bowl. Carroll spoke exclusively to Matt -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- Lauer about the fallout from the game, and what the Seahawk players had to say about the loss. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAUER: Tell me a little bit about what it`s been like to be Pete Carroll over these last three days. CARROLL: Well, it`s been a -- it`s been a whirlwind. There`s a lot going on. I feel responsible for a lot of people right now, certainly from the family to the organization of players and the coaches and all that. But it extends well beyond that, you know, as you go out into our community and the area that follows. And there`s a lot of people that really care a lot about what we`re doing. And our game hit them really hard. And I -- LAUER: You`re answering a little bit like Pete Carroll, the football coach. And then, let me try it again, what`s it been like to be Pete Carroll, the human being, over these past three days. CARROLL: I`d started off with having to get right, about getting my mind right so that I could take on what I was going to have to do. And that was face everybody and give them some perspective so that we can move ahead. LAUER: Taking out the fact that it ended badly for you, you still feel you made exactly the right call? CARROLL: Well, no, this is the way I look at it. I made the call that comes out of the process, of the preparation and the practice. I think that we`re going to do exactly the right thing, or we won`t call the play. We won`t go with the concept. We won`t ask -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- our guys to execute it, so that I`d never make a call thinking it`s going to go bad. LAUER: So, this was properly planned. It just didn`t turn out well. CARROLL: We knew we`re going to throw the ball one time in the sequence somewhere, and so we did. And it just didn`t turn out right. LAUER: You can`t relive history. You can never win that Super Bowl again. That one`s gone. So, let`s talk about turning the corner and turning the page. (END VIDEO CLIP) You said something on the radio that caught my attention. You said -- and I`m paraphrasing here, coach -- you said, "My whole life has equipped me -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- to deal with this moment." Can you explain that to me. CARROLL: I`m a really optimistic, positive person that thinks that the next thing that`s going to come up is going to be a good thing. And it doesn`t really matter what situation I`m in. That`s just kind of the way that I`m wired. LAUER: Have you been able to sleep over the last three nights. CARROLL: Yes, I`m sleeping up some. You know, I`m doing OK. LAUER: Some. (LAUGHTER) CARROLL: I wake up and I can`t stop thinking about it, you know. But it`s the -- sleep part works because we`re so worn out after the six months of the season. You know, you can`t help but fall asleep but it`s the waking up, it`s getting back to sleep is the problem. LAUER: Have you allowed yourself to have that one moment lying in bed where the tears flowed, where -- you`re smiling at me but I mean it. Has there been that moment. CARROLL: Yes, that happened at that 4:05 mark on the -- you know, that -- LAUER: On Tuesday morning? CARROLL: Yes. That`s when I -- there was a break where I allowed -- you know, allowed of the rush of it to hit. LAUER: Were you alone at that point or with your family. CARROLL: I was just lying in bed with -- you know, just awake in the middle of the night, you know, 4:05 a.m., you know. And that`s what happened, you know. And that was my opportunity to go ahead and visit it. LAUER: So, you don`t think you`re the kind of guy who`s going to be, five years down the road, still thinking what could, should have been. CARROLL: No. Let me tell you this one. These don`t go away. These occurrences, they don`t leave. These occurrences have stayed with me over the years in a manner that they fuel me, you know. The one at S.C., after -- you know, third national championship opportunity, you know, 19 seconds left, fourth and seventh, those just don`t go away. I really don`t even want to lose those, you know. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) I don`t want to wash them out and ignore them. I just want them to be in a place that they`re going to help me be right. LAUER: If you allowed yourself -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- to listen to the noise out there, and what`s on television and Sports Radio, you could get down pretty quickly. CARROLL: But I don`t think so. I don`t think that`s the case. f LAUER: Tell me what. CARROLL: Because I know where it`s coming from. And I know that they`re doing the best they can to figure it out. They`re not going to affect the way I think. LAUER: You had team meeting yesterday, right. CARROLL: Yes. LAUER: You had all the players together and the coaches. What do you call it on Mondays? CARROLL: It`s Tell the Truth Monday. LAUER: Tell the Truth Monday. So, you stood up in front of that group of players -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- who had to still be in shock and a bit heartbroken. What was the truth you told them. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARROLL: I wanted to make sure that they went through the whole process of what happened -- LAUER: Went back to the play again, every fault. CARROLL: -- rethink everything and reminded them of how we had prepared and how we had -- how we had done things. So, they realized that whether or not you want -- even the players want to agree with the way we did it, know that this is the way we have practiced and prepared ourselves to execute in this moment. LAUER: Did they all agree. Did anyone stand up and raised their hand and say, "Coach," -- CARROLL: They could have, but they didn`t. Nobody did. I don`t think, at this point, everybody is on the same page about that sequence necessarily. But that`s OK. LAUER: You said on the radio, "We`re going to make this right." How do you make it right. CARROLL: By getting to the truth, by getting in there, talking about it, facing it up, everybody has cleared their minds. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) It`s when you finally gather and you`re read to take that next step, we`re going to go -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- places that we`re going to be extraordinary. LAUER: So, there`s a story of redemption that you`ve already begun to write? CARROLL: It`s well underway. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: How do you think Coach Carroll is handling it. We will ask a sports shrink next, how he thinks the coach is handling it. And, also, if you`re in Seattle, you might need some help from this shrink. It`s next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARROLL: These don`t go away. These occurrences, they don`t leave. These occurrences have stayed with me over the years, in a manner that they fuel me. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now from Seattle is Huffington Post Correspondent Jordan Schultz. And, from Florida, sports psychologist, Harold Shinitzky. He is the author of the new book, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "Take Control of Your Anxiety." Doctor, how do you think -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- the coach is handling it. HAROLD SHINITZKY, SPORTS PSYCHOLOGIST: I am so impressed at his honesty, his ability to take responsibility. Obviously, there`s been an offensive coordinator who helped call the play. But, the reality is, like he said, it`s a process. You never have the perfect play. Things have to be executed. And in that situation, down in distance, they came up with a play which, if I`m not mistaken, Lawrence, you realize, one yard away from the end zone, 66 times it`s been passed, -- O`DONNELL: Yes. (LAUGHTER) SHINITZKY: -- zero interceptions. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Right. SHINITZKY: So, they were looking at that in a reality. And, unfortunately, the rub play didn`t work where the defensive pack didn`t get shoved back, but actually made a beeline. So, we should be celebrating the defense that actually looked at the way the -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- play was set up. And that was a remarkable defense. O`DONNELL: George Schultz, we invited you back tonight because we`re worried about you. And we have -- (LAUGHTER) -- a shrink here to help you. JORDAN SCHULTZ, HUFFINGTON POST CORRESPONDENT: You should be. O`DONNELL: Yes. You know, as a Seattle native and, you know, watching this happen to your team out there -- you know, we`re going to give you Dr. Shinitzky`s number, too, so you can have a private consultation with him because -- SCHULTZ: Please. I need a personal line and a couple of e-mails. O`DONNELL: How are you and the rest of Seattle processing Coach Carroll`s reaction to all this. You watched this Matt Lauer interview, you hear him talking about what he was thinking. You also hear him talking about how he`s handling it. It`s bothering his sleep. He had some -- he spilled some tears about it. I`m sure he`s not the only one in Seattle who lost sleep and some tears about it. SCHULTZ: Yes, no question about it, Lawrence. And I`m so happy to be back on. because Seattle really is the quietest I`ve ever seen it. (LAUGHTER) I grew up here for 20 years. I don`t remember a time -- O`DONNELL: And no one wants to talk about this up there, right, like it`s just -- SCHULTZ: No one. It`s like a -- it`s like a morgue in here. Nobody understands what happened. And I think that -- the one thing is with Pete Carroll, people would like to see him say, "Hey, we made a mistake." Now, there is a sense that the call went wrong. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) But playing the result is maybe what is bothering some Seattleite, some Seahawk fans that, you know, would actually like to see the coach say, "We made a mistake. It was the wrong play call." Obviously, if the call works, we`re celebrating it. But I still am not convinced that even if the play resulted in a touchdown, it was the right call. O`DONNELL: And, doctor, the -- what I was so impressed by, psychologically, in what he was just saying to Matt, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- was, "Yes, this thing is never going to go away." And I think we all understand that part of it. But what moves him forward is being an optimist, that belief that he has that optimists have -- I don`t know where they get it -- but this belief that the next thing is going to be good, the next thing is going to be better. SHINITZKY: That`s a great attitude to have -- if you believe in yourself and the process, you`re able to look positively, optimistically live and learn. We always talk about it with our athletes and coaches, that you have to develop a short-term memory. So, you live and learn. You cannot dwell on the past because you can`t change it. And so, being able to take the situation, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- realize there are no guarantees. All you can ever do is increase your probability of success, doing your best. O`DONNELL: Yes. And, Jordan, sports is filled with stuff that doesn`t work. (END VIDEO CLIP) You know, most basketball players, you know, most of their shots frequently miss. Certainly, most baseball players, most swings of the bat, they miss. They just plain miss. And they can`t, on the next pitch, be standing there, thinking about, you know, the pitch that they just swung at and missed. I mean -- SCHULTZ: Sure. O`DONNELL: -- this coach is in a much bigger version of that, especially since he doesn`t get another game next week. He`s got to live with this one, you know, -- SCHULTZ: Yes. O`DONNELL: -- for quite a while. It`s a different rhythm now when it happens literally in the final minute of the final game of the year. SCHULTZ: Exactly, Lawrence. And it was obviously the highest-rated game ever. You throw in all the pressure. And, really, now, you have the whole off-season to lead 53 men through a situation where they had never been through and really hope they never would have to experience. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) I think, the one thing though about Pete Carroll, the success that he`s had at the college level and, now, at the NFL level, is he`s a leader and the players love playing for him. He`s obviously not the most well-liked guy across the NFL in terms of head coaches, but he`s the guy that the players all swear by because he lets them be them. And, I think, in that situation, he trusted Russell Wilson. And I listened to the mic`d-up version of the game and Russell Wilson kept saying, "Trust me, trust me." So, there is a connection there. And, I think, Pete Carroll, if anybody is apt to be able to overcome this and get a group of guys together moving forward, it would be him. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: All right. Now, let`s listen to his response to Matt Lauer`s big question, might be the biggest question of all -- "Would you do it again." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAUER: Take the outcome out of it because nothing you can do but that you`d make the same call if the situation were the same today. (LAUGHTER) CARROLL: We can change the rhythm of those calls. One of the calls was going to be a pass, you know, to stop the clock. A timeout would stop one, an incomplete pass. The game is over if you win, if you score. So, that happened to be that one. Going back again, I might do it differently. I`m not going to tell my opponents which way I`m going to do it. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Doctor, we`ve seen coaches who, under that kind of stress, end up with cardiac problems, end up with all, so they internalize it. SHINITZKY: Yes. O`DONNELL: What I`m hearing from him is he seems to be processing this about as healthfully as you can. SHINITZKY: Absolutely. He has the capacity to be able to look at the situation, realize based on going over film, getting all the scouting reports, what they could do in this moment to increase the probability of success. And, in his mind, this decision was a realistic and positive one. It didn`t work out. But just because they lost in the Super Bowl -- as they say, you know, second place isn`t first loser, you know, the ability to be able to harness this for the next year. O`DONNELL: Now, Jordan, Coach Carroll has, I think, pulled out of this remarkably well. We`re still worried about you. And I am -- (LAUGHTER) -- going to send you the full -- the full Matt Lauer interview because I want you to memorize the coach`s responses to this, OK, -- SCHULTZ: I have. O`DONNELL: -- so you can internalize them because it`ll help you, I think, get through tomorrow and the time it will take to get another Super Bowl win in Seattle. SCHULTZ: Thank you. I appreciate it, Lawrence. I will point to the fact that Pete Carroll said, "If we score, it`s over." My question to that would be -- exactly, so run the ball and don`t worry about the clock. But that is a conversation I`ll probably be having the rest of my life with myself. O`DONNELL: Jordan Schultz and Dr. Harold Shinitzky, thank you both very much for joining me tonight. SCHULTZ: Thank you. SHINITZKY: Thanks, thanks. O`DONNELL: We`ll be right back. At age 88, Harper Lee, the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird," is publishing her second novel entitled "Go Set a Watchman." Today, Harper Lee`s attorney said that Harper Lee is delighted by the enthusiastic public response to the publication of her second book. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) "She is alive and kicking and happy as hell with the reactions of `Watchman.`" Gregory Peck won an Oscar for his portrayal of Atticus Finch in the film version of "To Kill a Mockingbird," which Harper Lee co-wrote with Horton Foote. Gregory Peck`s daughter, Cecilia, met Harper Lee on the set of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and visited with Harper Lee recently in Alabama. CECILIA PECK, DAUGHTER OF GREGORY PECK: Been friends with Harper since I was born or since I was two. When I went to college, she would, you know, always call me up and ask me what courses I was taking. You know, I wanted to study 20th Century American Literature and she would say, "You`ve got to study the classics." And I would say, "But," you know, "why, I`m interested in Faulkner and Eudora Welty." And she`d say, "You can`t understand them if you haven`t read Trollope and Chalsa (ph), child." So, you know, she was always part of my life. You know, Harper is such a strong name for a girl. And when we found out we were having a boy, we had a discussion about whether Harper would be a good name for a boy. But we did give it to our son, Harper. I`m so glad he`s carrying that name. We took him and his sister, Ondin (ph), to Monroeville for spring break last year. My husband, Daniel, and I took a drive through the south with the children, and we spent two days with Harper in Monroeville and, you know, had the best time. She`s so -- she`s just the most interesting person. She`s just like an encyclopedia about Alabama and the history of the south, and interested in politics and sports and fishing and loves to laugh. You know, she`s such a private person. She`s like a private national treasure. And I`m blessed enough to get to have this relationship with her. Everybody always wondered, "Is there another book?" And Harper didn`t welcome all of the attention that came along with "To Kill a Mockingbird," and it made her become very private for her whole life. But I just think that she has decided that the world wants to know what became of Scout. And I`m -- you know, I feel so lucky that we`re getting another book from one of our greatest American writers. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Coming up, an army of shrinks at the Pentagon have been trying to figure out Vladimir Putin. "USA Today" has revealed a 2008 Pentagon think tank report, which -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- theorizes that Russian President Vladimir Putin has Asperger`s syndrome, an autistic disorder, which affects all of his decisions. The report states that -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- researchers, of course, cannot prove their theory without scanning Putin`s brain. The Pentagon said yesterday that the research never reached the Secretary of Defense. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) The report also notes Putin`s primary form of compensation is extreme control, which is reflected in his decision style and how he governs. Joining me now is Adrian Karatnycky, a Russian and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- and Dr. Justin Frank, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center. Dr. Frank, of course, the CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world have tried to do psychological profiles of especially their opponents around the world. What do you make of this one. DR. JUSTIN FRANK, CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER: Well, this is not at all at the same level as what the CIA did. The CIA hired psychiatrists and psychoanalysts, who have done extensive research into these people, not just watching them on videotape and dealing with their own fantasies about what different body movements mean. I was sort of surprised, really, that the Pentagon -- that D.O.D. would pay this kind of money. The CIA is doing a really important job. It`s not always accurate but they have made an effort. And that`s why I wrote my two books because I felt it was important to do that in this -- in our country, and do an analysis of Obama and Bush, both of which I`ve done that were very serious, which -- you know, it`s a very difficult situation when it`s important to know the psychology of who our leaders are. But this thing about Putin seems sort of silly in a way, especially because Asperger`s people are not interested in being -- riding around on a horse bareback-- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- or are interested in doing all of the shenanigans that he does, stealing a Super Bowl ring from -- (LAUGHTER) -- the owner of the Patriots and then saying, "I could kill someone with this ring." You know, I mean, those are -- he`s a guy who`s not an Asperger`s guy. O`DONNELL: Adrian Karatnycky, can you explain him stealing Super Bowl rings. (LAUGHTER) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ADRIAN KARATNYCKY, SENIOR FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: No, I can`t. I think -- ownership. I think he has -- likely feels he`s entitled. I think, you know, the power he`s been granted -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- I think he views the Russian inheritance as kind of an imperial and grand terms of all these -- Stalin is a big model for him -- a powerful, ruthless leader, Peter the Great, I mean, he does have a sort of a sense of -- O`DONNELL: So, you would -- you would look more toward the historic social psychology of Russia -- FRANK: I would look more -- well, more towards a narrower period. I mean, I think that what Putin is is more KGB than Asperger`s. And I think that what there is going on in Russia is that there is a cult of toughness among males, very articulated. He`s trying to play to those tropes with these various scenes of activity. You`re supposed to be kind of cold, hard-hitting. You know, Charles Bronson is alive and well. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) "Death Wish" is alive and well in Russian movies right now. It is sort of the major trope by which Russian young men are growing up, and it`s to be tough. And I think their society is sort of been preparing -- Putin has been preparing them for this more aggressive type of -- type of behavior. And I would see that as a more important -- the cultural trends that are occurring in Russia, than this psychological -- tinkering with the psychology. O`DONNELL: How does that sound, Dr. Frank -- more cultural than anything else. FRANK: Well, it`s -- I mean, first of all, the people who are tinkering with the psychology are really tinkerers. (END VIDEO CLIP) Secondly, the cultural stuff is very interesting. But it doesn`t really address this particular person, which I had assumed was the point of the Pentagon report, that they were trying to address him. It`s very easy to generalize about Russian culture and talk about this and that. But this is a particular person who, I agree, that he`s been -- he was a spy and a KGB person, and there are people who have Asperger`s who are drawn to the world of espionage. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) This is the 50th anniversary of "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold," a publication of that book by John le Carre. Very important. And you can see a lot of character studies on the different people who are -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- cold-blooded, the way Putin seems to be at times. But I don`t know what else to say. O`DONNELL: All right, we could leave it there, Justin Frank, because we`ve run out of time. Dr. Justin Frank and Adrian Karatnycky, thank you both very much for joining me tonight. Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 6, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020501cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 28 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 6, 2015 Friday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST ISIS Claims Female U.S. Hostage Killed in Jordanian Air Strike; GOP 2016 Pander Bears on the Loose BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Keir Simmons, Kasie Hunt, Steve Kornacki GUESTS: Marie Harf, Michael Weiss, Rory Kennedy SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8194 words HIGHLIGHT: ISIS dubiously claims that the female American aid worker they`ve been holding hostage since August 2013, Kayla Mueller, was killed in a Jordanian air strike. This week alone, GOP 2016 hopefuls Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Rand Paul took turns proving there`s no pander they won`t pursue to win favor with the hard right. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Dying for humanity. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. "Let Me Start" tonight with news that the last known American captive of ISIS, 26-year-old humanitarian worker Kayla Mueller -- today, ISIS said she was killed in an air strike, buried in the rubble of a building. The United States has not confirmed that claim at all. Mueller is from Arizona. There she is. She was taken hostage by ISIS in August of 2013. Until today, her name had been kept quiet at the request of her family. The news comes the same week ISIS released a video showing a captured Jordanian pilot being burned to death while trapped in a cage. For more, I`m joined right now by NBC`s Keir Simmons, who`s in Amman, Jordan. Keir, thank you so much for joining us. I -- personally, I got to tell you up front that however she died, if she died, she died as a victim of her captors. They captured her. They put her in a spot where she was killed. I don`t care what cover-up story they`ve got. But what evidence do we have now, hard, right now about what happened to this wonderful person? KEIR SIMMONS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Chris, you`re right. And really, what ISIS are trying to do, whatever the truth is, in making this announcement is they`re trying to really kind of shift the blame onto the Jordanians, onto the U.S., onto the coalition. But let`s just be absolutely clear. It was ISIS that captured her and held her hostage, if the facts of all of this are true, and the facts are not easy to be sure about. I mean, the Jordanians, Chris, are describing this as part of ISIS media propaganda, criminal campaign. And they are saying here that they can`t be sure that she has, indeed, been killed or how she has been killed (INAUDIBLE) In ISIS, you are talking about a group that beheads innocent hostages, as you point out, that killed the Jordanian pilot by burning him to death. They say, How can you believe anything a group like this says? Particularly when an announcement like this, by them at this point, when the Jordanian public seem to be swinging behind the Jordanian government (INAUDIBLE) how can you, they say, that believe group, when it seems so convenient for them to make this announcement now? MATTHEWS: It`s more than convenient. I think it makes sense, their motive, if they`re lying completely, to blame whatever they did to this young woman, they can blame on the Jordanians and try to cause division at home in Jordan, anything to try to take it -- to exploit the horror of their own killing. They put this person in a situation where they`re going to be bombed, and then they blame it on their enemy to hope to cause confusion in the ranks on the other side. It`s just as I think you put it so well. Do we know how many more -- what is the next prospect fro them to grab another victim? Do we know if they have any potential to reach into, for example, Turkey and grab a tourist or a missionary or a business person? What`s their reach like? SIMMONS: Well, they do have a reach, Chris. I mean, with any organization like this, be it a criminal organization or a terrorist organization, what we know is that there are layers. So there are the hard core, violent hard core, if you like, and then beyond that, there are people who either explicitly or tacitly support that group. Now, I was in Turkey just recently on the Syrian border, and we knew that there were ISIS supporters along that area, and if (ph) known, too, for example, in Lebanon. That will be the case here in Jordan, too, which is a -- by far a majority Sunni Muslim country and has a long history, Jordan, by the way, of tackling and confronting Sunni extremism, jihadism. So yes, they have a long reach. You really hope that what you described there doesn`t happen, but once again, you see ISIS attempting to use an innocent hostage in order to further its own propaganda aims. And I will say one thing, though, Chris. I mean, in a sense, it also suggests that ISIS is under pressure, that they are having to resort to more and more extreme propaganda, if you like, more and more extreme actions because these air strikes, by some accounts, do appear to be having some effect, albeit ISIS still holds Raqqa, still holds Mosul in Iraq. MATTHEWS: OK, thanks so much, Keir Simmons, for that report, in Amman, Jordan. For now, I`m joined right now by Marie Harf, who`s deputy spokesperson for the State Department. Marie, this young woman -- I have to show the picture again. I mean, this gets to everyone`s hearts in this country, a young person, really not having seen much of the world yet, except what she is seeing is on her road to help people, whether it`s in Israel or in the Palestinian territories or in India or back in Arizona working with HIV victims. I mean, all she`s done, it seems, since she got out of college, is do good. That`s it. No politics, no personal aggrandizement. She didn`t go out to get famous or anything. Just -- we never heard of her until this horror. MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT DEPUTY SPOKESWOMAN: Well, and I want to be clear we have nothing at this point on our end, in the U.S. government, in the intelligence community, to corroborate these reports today. We`re looking into it. We`re looking into whether we even thought some of these targets the Jordanians hit where hostages had ever been held. So there`s a lot of unknowns tonight. So I want to be very careful before we get ahead of the story. But you`re right. The people ISIL`s targeted we`ve seen -- Journalists, aid workers, people from around the world who just wanted to help the Syrian people, burning alive a fellow Muslim. And I think that`s why you`ve seen on the Jordanian side such resolve in their response, on our side, on everyone else`s side. And I really think they are trying to use this for propaganda value, and that`s why the rest of the Muslim world and the rest of the world has stood up and said, This does not represent us and this cannot stand. MATTHEWS: Yes, I think if we hadn`t been through the idiocy of Iraq, we`d be going to war with them right now on the ground. Anyway, that`s my view, we`re so angry about this. But shortly before her capture, Kayla told a local newspaper, "For as long as I live, I will not let this suffering be normal. I will not let this be something we just accept. It`s important to stop and realize what we have, why we have it and how privileged we are, and from that place start caring and get a lot done." So she was committed here. Let me ask you about -- do they have -- I raised this with Keir Simmons, who`s a reporter, a correspondent, with you or (ph) at the State Department. Do we have any knowledge of their reach? Same question. Can they keep doing this? Can they keep plucking Americans or Westerners or targets of any kind out of missionary stations or churches or anywhere, or business groups in Turkey, on the border? Can they grab more people? HARF: Well, certainly, the most dangerous places, as we`ve said from the State Department, is Syria and Iraq. And these are places we want journalists to be able to cover. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: We have people there, don`t we? Aren`t there all kinds of people there? HARF: In Iraq, certainly. We don`t have a diplomatic presence in Syria anymore. But we want aid workers to get in there because they need the aid. And we want journalists to get in there because these stories need to be told. So we have very serious travel warning in place because there is a very serious threat in Syria, along the border with Turkey and in Iraq, and people are at risk if they go there, unfortunately, to tell the stories that these people need told to the world. But it is very dangerous, very dangerous. MATTHEWS: Tell me about the passions. I mean, you work at the State Department. It`s about world diplomacy. It`s about public diplomacy. What is the right American attitude that you guys -- Richard Stengel and other people over there, which you do -- what do you want the American people to feel? Because I feel like I`d like to zap ISIS from the planet. I don`t want them on the same planet with me sometimes. And yet I understand the politics, that we`re not in the mood in this country to launch another ground war, to go in there with 200,000 people, the bugles blowing, and some popular general leading the way. It doesn`t seem like anybody wants to do that. Even John McCain, the superhawk, won`t do that. So what is the appropriate emotional response that you`d like to see Americans have? HARF: I think you can do both. I think you can say we are going to directly take this fight to ISIL. We`ve done that. American bombs are falling on ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq, and with our partners. But we`re doing it in a strategic and a smart way. I think all of our hearts break when Americans overseas are held, when they`re taken hostage, but we know that we need to lead. I mean, you look today, the national security strategy we just released -- I know it doesn`t get a lot of headlines, but it talks about American leading from the position of strength and strategic patience and strategic goals that we have here. And it`s not about shooting from the hip. You`re exactly right. It`s not about sending combat troops in. It`s about where are our interests at stake, how can we best go after them, and sometimes it`s about taking direct military action, and we`ve done that in Syria and in Iraq now. MATTHEWS: Well, you`ve said it well. Thanks so much, Marie Harf of the State Department. Thanks for joining us. Michael Weiss is an editor of "The Interpreter" and author of the new book, "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror." So Michael, what`s going on in their heads over there, to do these horrible things like pouring gasoline on a guy, a soldier, a soldier, a serving soldier of his country doing his duty, to pour -- oh, I don`t want to think about this too much. But there it is. And now taking whatever happened to this young woman now, who is totally innocent -- I mean, not even a warrior. They don`t seem have anything but hate going for them. MICHAEL WEISS, "FOREIGN POLICY" COLUMNIST: Right. You have to understand, Chris, you know, we in the West think of ISIS as a sort of ragtag bunch of peasant terrorists, 14-year-old boys from Tunisia going off to do jihad. This is a complete misapprehension. The people in the upper echelons of this organization, almost to a man, have experience in the regime of Saddam Hussein. They were Mukhabarat officers, meaning special security services. They were Iraqi military. They were Iraqi military intelligence. What this tells us -- what this tells me, anyway -- is these are guys who were trained by the Soviets, including the KGB, at all forms of warfare -- conventional warfare, guerrilla warfare, and indeed, information warfare. Now, the video -- the awful, gruesome immolation of the Jordanian pilot -- that`s actually a 22-minute-long video. Most people are focused on the horrifying denouement of him going up in flames, but the first two thirds of that video is an extraordinarily adroit and sophisticated propaganda piece directed against the state of Jordan. They are showing Jordanian airplanes dropping bombs counterposed with images of dead Muslim babies. And they`re basically saying -- and this goes to the kind of heart of their jihadi ideology -- Jordan is an apostate, illegitimate regime. This is not the true Islam. The true Islam is embodied by ISIS, and these are Muslims killing other Muslims. Now, you and I watch this and think, I mean, this is just terrible, awful propaganda, and again, it ends in the death and horrifying murder of this young man. But to jihadists, this is quite, intoxicating. And you know, ISIS`s relationship with Jordan goes back decades. Abu Moussab al Zarqawi, the founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq, he was Jordanian. The guys brought into Iraq from Afghanistan, he training them up in an Afghan training camp funded by al Qaeda. A lot of the guys he brought with him were fellow Jordanians. You know, the Jordanians let this guy out of prison in 1994 as part of a general amnesty coinciding with King Abdullah`s ascension to the throne. They know this group extraordinarily well. That`s why they have people from AQI in their prisons that they`ve just hanged in retaliation for this. So ISIS preying upon that vulnerability. They`re preying up on that sort of inherent weakness, I think, in the coalition. A lot of the Arab countries that are on board or that have been up to this point feel this is not the right strategy. You can`t... MATTHEWS: OK, you haven`t gotten to the point of why do they butcher people? Why do they burn them alive? Why do they behead Japanese? What have the Japanese ever done to them? I mean, what has that woman ever done to them? You haven`t gotten to the point of their willingness to let ideology, whatever it is, supersede any morality or any humanity. So what is it justifies their behavior in a way that`s almost beyond religion? Anything we do, as evil as it is objectively... WEISS: Right. MATTHEWS: ... is good because it furthers the causes of what? So it`s not about the smart politics vis-a-vis the Jordanians and the Hashemite kingdom. What is it in their souls that says anything goes? What is it? WEISS: To their mind, and what they`re trying to sell to the world and to their recruits is that these people are all complicit. They belong to crusader or Jewish conspiracy regimes. If they`re from Japan, fine. Japan is giving money and helping out with the coalition in some manner. If they`re a Western or American journalist, well, you come from, you know, this great infidel nation, and you`re paying taxes which goes to a war machine and all that. It`s propaganda. Look, I mean, the brutality -- I have to -- I have to emphasize this. This -- you know, the imaginative (ph) brutality of ISIS -- this is actually nothing new in the Middle East, Chris. I mean, Bashar al Assad`s regime has done this. They`ve set people alight. They`ve done even worse. Saddam Hussein used to throw dissidents into bags with feral cats as a form of torture. The difference with ISIS is they advertise it. The publicity is the thing. And actually, I hate to say it, they are counting on the West to do their bidding for them. I always say ISIS is -- sort of wants to be the Western news editor. That`s their kind of kind of function in propaganda. So we`re -- we`re sitting here, talking about this awesome, you know -- I should say horrifying brutality. Again, this is going to lead to recruitment. They are going to swell the ranks of their... MATTHEWS: Yes. OK. WEISS: ... organization because of what they`ve just done. MATTHEWS: Well, none of what you said is good news, but it`s what you say and you know what you`re talking about. Thank you very much, Michael Weiss. Coming up, meet the 2016 pander bears. This week, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and even Bobby Jindal all took their turns pandering to the far right, performing like dancing bears at the right-wing circus. And for Christie, a bad week just got worse, with his administration facing a new criminal investigation. Plus, when President Obama denounced ISIS and all who kill in the name of religious, he also said Christians have used religion to justify evil, like during the Crusades and slavery. And those comments made at yesterday`s National Prayer Breakfast triggered a holy war, if will you from, the hard right. Lots of expected reaction to that. And the presidency in black and white. How has President Obama done when he`s had to confront the tricky issues of race in his own country? It`s been front-page news lately. We`re going to see how he`s handled it. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with this sad rush to placate the enemies of science. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: The New Hampshire primary, as we said this week, is just about a year away, and a new Granite State poll from WMUR and the University of New Hampshire shows Jeb Bush now on top. The former Florida governor gets 16 percent of the vote, 5 in front of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. Chris Christie, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee are all tied in third with nine apiece. And we`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. The 2016 Republican pander bears are on the loose. This week alone, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie and Rand Paul took turns proving there`s no pander they won`t pursue to win favor with the hard right. Bobby Jindal made opposition to Common Cause a litmus test for being a true conservative. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: This Common Core fight, we are going to sometimes have people that we agree with on other issues fight us on this. And the Common Core fight`s a great example that if we`re really sincere and authentic and if we`re true conservatives in terms of what that means, we have to be for empowering individuals, especially parents when it comes to raising their children. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Never mind that in 2012, not a million years ago, Jindal himself praised his state`s adoption of Common Core standards, which he said would, quote, "raise expectations for every child." Complete pander there. Then there`s Rand Paul. He made vaccines sound like a risky bet in a CNBC interview. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I`m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they`re a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn`t own your children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: That`s a pretty clear statement of cause and effect, don`t you think? But Rand Paul tried to clean up his statements after this. Quote, "I did not say vaccines cause disorders, just that they were temporarily (sic) related. I did not allege causation. I support vaccines. I received them myself and I had all my children vaccinated." Well, then there`s the great, big pander from Chris Christie, which came in answer to a question from our own Kasie Hunt. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KASIE HUNT, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Do you think Americans should vaccinate their kids? Is the measles vaccine safe? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: All I can say is that I -- we vaccinate ours. So you know, that`s the -- the best expression I can give you of my opinion. You know, it`s much more important, I think, if you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. And that`s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things, as well. So that`s the balance that the government has to decide. It depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is and all the rest. And so I didn`t say I`m leaving (ph) people the option. What I`m saying is that we have to have that balance in considering parental concerns because no parent -- no parent cares about anything more than they care about protecting their own child`s health. (END VIDEOTAPE) measure of choice in things as well. So, that`s the balance that the government has to decide. It depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest. And so I didn`t say I`m leaving people the option. What I`m saying is that you have to have that balance in considering parental concerns, because no parent -- no parent cares about anything more than they care about protecting their own child`s health. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: OK. Just to be clear, in that one sentence, he went around the bend there. He said he didn`t believe -- he believed in a measure of choice for parents whether to vaccinate their kids, but he also said he didn`t believe in options. Figure that one out. If anybody can figure out that, they`re really interesting to listen to mentally. Anyway, that`s one pander one there. Joining me right now is an expert on this, Steve Kornacki, host of "UP," and MSNBC political reporter Kasie Hunt. I want to start with Kasie because you really started this sort of week of pandering. You asked him I thought a pretty direct question: What do you think of requiring vaccinations for things like measles? And he seemed to give two answers. One, I want parents to have the option, but I don`t believe in having an option for the parents. I didn`t get it. KASIE HUNT, NBC CORRESPONDENT: In some ways, he was trying to have it both ways. I would also point out though that this is something that Christie has actually dealt with as governor for a long time. New Jersey has had over the years some strict rules about mandatory vaccinations. And so there`s been for a long time this community of parents that are concerned. And Christie dealt with them a lot when he was running for governor. And what he did as kind of gave his stock answer on this, which is to say on the one hand, they`re good for my kids, but the government shouldn`t be mandating them. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: But then he said no options. HUNT: But I think it`s -- look, I think it shows you the difference in context, right, and how hard it is, even when you`re the governor of a very large state who stood on this national stage in many ways, to go from that stage to being potentially on a presidential one. That`s what he set himself up as. MATTHEWS: What you`re really saying is, it`s one thing to govern New Jersey and understand a state that has a pretty clear East Coast mentality and is for vaccinations generally, with some exceptions, to go out into crazy country where it`s become an ideological issue, an ideological issue. Let me go to Steve. This is to a lot of people like fluoride in the water was back in my day, where fluoridation meant the communists are manipulating our minds through the water or they`re forcing us to accept sort of socialization of the water we drink. The ideological factor is what makes this hot, just like Common Core, which we will get to. Everything now in the Republican Party you have to measure between established scientific thinking and then you have to go all the way over to the other end, the one idiot and say, well, how about those who don`t like established scientific thinking and you have got to square that circle every single time. As Kasie just said, you have got to meet all these concerns in one answer, which is what you heard right there from the dancing bear himself. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, yes. I mean, if you`re Chris Christie and you`re interested in running for president and being president, you have to worry, you`re saying, about the Republican base. And whatever the fixation happens to be of your party`s base, you have to be really responsive to that. I think with Christie, though, what is interesting and it`s particularly true because there`s so much built-in suspicion among the Republican base when it comes to him. He has less sort of a margin for error to begin with as he communicates to them. But it`s so interesting to me watching Chris Christie for years and listening to him right now. More than most politicians, I think, Chris Christie is really selective and really knows how to turn it on and off when it comes to seeing gray. He has all of these moments where you can think of them, where it`s like get the hell often the beach, or where he stands up for a Muslim judge in New Jersey, where there`s black and there`s white and there`s absolutely no in between. He really makes a name for himself by coming down and taking firm stands, and that`s where he gets this reputation for straight talk and for telling like it is and all that stuff. And it`s so interesting to contrast that with what you just heard there, where suddenly when it comes to, like, well, the general electorate is over here and the Republican electorate or parts of the Republican electorate are over here. And so he tries to put himself somewhere in the middle. I think where he gets himself into trouble is, that`s particularly jarring for him, because people are so accustomed to the so-called straight-talking, plain-talking Chris Christie. MATTHEWS: This is how Hillary Clinton got in trouble when she was doing in the Drexel debate last time around and she had to keep Eliot Spitzer happy with his giving driver`s licenses to people not here legally and the Hispanic community happy and also keeping the general electorate happy that didn`t like any of that stuff going on. She got caught in that. This is called, anyway, getting in the middle. Anyway, Jeb Bush back in December this past year said Republican candidates had to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the general, which would basically involve not pandering. Let`s listen to Jeb. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I kind of know how a Republican can win, whether it`s me or somebody else, and it has to be much more uplifting, much more positive, much more willing to, you know, to be practical now in Washington world, lose the primary to win the general, without violating your principles. It`s not an easy task, to be honest with you. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Nor is it to any of these candidates, Kasie. They tell you, I`m going into the valley of death. I`m going to take a loss in Iowa, maybe a loss in New Hampshire, maybe a loss in South Carolina, but eventually I will reach the reasonable middle-of-the-road Republicans and win this thing. That`s a heck of a gamble. HUNT: It`s a really nice thought to be able to do this, to sort of set out. And I think you heard his speech in Detroit. He did try to do it. He talked all about the right to rise. He cast -- he didn`t offer really any policies that are necessarily different than what other conservatives have offered over time, but the way he talked about it was different. I just -- it`s going to be an interesting test when the rubber hits the road whether or not that`s going to stand up in the face of attacks from all of these other Republicans day after day after day. Can he be joyful? I think anyone who`s ever run a presidential campaign will say that it is unusually anything but joyful. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Kasie Hunt. Thank you, Steve Kornacki. Brilliant, as always, you two. You can watch, by the way, Steve tomorrow morning at "UP." Get up early on Saturday morning here on MSNBC, with special guest Alex Trebek. Up next, the Academy Award-nominated documentary the "Last Days in Vietnam." Filmmaker Rory Kennedy joins us next, and she`s nominated for best picture, best doc. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. By March of 1973, American ground troops had finally left South Vietnam. For this country, the war was over, yet hostilities resumed just two years later when the North Vietnamese launched an all-out invasion of the South. The documentary "Last Days in Vietnam" by award-winning filmmaker Rory Kennedy is about those final weeks before the fall of Saigon and it`s just been nominated for an Academy Award. The film tells the courageous story of the American personnel who against direct orders from the White House decided to save as many of their South Vietnamese allies as they could. And here`s a clip from the trailer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LAST DAYS IN VIETNAM") UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The final battle of Saigon has begun. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That morning, there must have been at least 10,000 people ringing the embassy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a sea of people wanting to get out. They looked up at the helicopters leaving, and I could see their eyes, desperate eyes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are no words to describe what a ship looks like that holds 200 and it has got 2,000 on it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have no more helicopters. That`s it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As it took off, I could see the group right where we had left them. It was just so serious and deep a betrayal. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who goes? And who gets left behind? (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Joining me right now is Rory Kennedy, director of the Academy Award-nominated film "Last Days in Vietnam." Rory, congratulations for the nomination. I guess the heart of this is something we didn`t know about, which is that these American guys and women decided to break rules and say, look, we`re going to defend our allies, we`re going to try to get them out of here. RORY KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, "LAST DAYS IN VIETNAM": Well, that was the part of the story that really excited me, and because I do think it`s revelatory for many people watching it. I think you know, Vietnam, when we think about Vietnam, it was a very dark moment in our nation`s history, you know, and certainly true for South Vietnam. And I think to know that there were heroes during this time, both South Vietnamese and Americans who risked their lives, who did everything they could to save as many Vietnamese as possible, is a story that we just don`t know. And there are real heroes that come out of this moment, who just did the most exceptional things. MATTHEWS: What was the fate of the people that didn`t get on the helicopters? KENNEDY: Well, you know, of course, I think that the desperation that you saw in those images was based on a fear that the South Vietnamese had about what would happen to them. And, indeed, many of them were tortured. They were killed. Many of them spent years in reeducation camps, which was basically hard labor. So, you know, there was real struggle for those who were left behind. There`s a man in our film, Dan Pham (ph), who worked with the Americans. He was promised that we would get him out if there was a need. He wasn`t able to get out during those last days, and he ended up spending 13 years in a reeducation camp. And I think, you know, stories like that are enormously valuable, and I think they`re important for us to remember as a nation when we have these wars, when we engage in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what is our responsibility to the people who are left behind, who are our allies, who worked with us? We leave. We left Vietnam, but then the Dan Phams (ph) of the world spend 13 years reeducation camps. MATTHEWS: Well said. I keep thinking about the interpreters over there, so many thousands of interpreters in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq who are sitting in a very bad situation when we leave it. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Yes, go ahead. KENNEDY: They`re begging to come to our country and they worked so closely with us, and, you know, they gave everything to us. And I think that we do have a responsibility to our allies and to our friends. MATTHEWS: Well, facing the possibility of death at the hands of the North Vietnamese, the citizens fleeing from South Vietnam were so desperate that they often took great risk to escape. Here`s a clip from the film showing the last flight out of Da Nang, as the communists took over the city. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "LAST DAYS IN VIETNAM") UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our plane is surrounded here. I don`t know how the hell we`re going to get out. We`re racing down the runway, leaving behind hundreds and thousands of people. About a dozen of them running along, grabbing at the air stair. We`re pulling them on as fast as we can. There`s a sea of humanity jamming on. Impossible to stop the crowd. We`re pulling away. We`re leaving them behind. We`re pulling up with the -- people are falling off the air stairs. The plane is taking off. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was every man for himself. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: So, what`s the lesson? I guess that`s too big a question, but it`s about loyalty to allies, I guess. KENNEDY: Well, that`s part of -- that`s part of the lesson. I think, you know, part of the lesson for me is, these stories of the men who are on the ground, who did the right thing, and it`s in this face and this wave of history that is moving against them and heading in such a terrible direction, where we`re abandoning our allies, and where people are going to be left to be tortured and killed. And in the face of that, the people on the ground did the right thing. And I think there`s such an inspiration and such a great message there about trying to be the best that we can be. You know, imagine if -- you know, we look at these disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we want to see them as disasters, and difficult situations, if we as a country said, let`s be the best that we can be in these instances, let`s do the best that we can, give in where we are in time and place right now. MATTHEWS: So well said. KENNEDY: And I think that`s -- I think that`s a valuable lesson. And these folks, you know, can remind us of what our potential is, really. MATTHEWS: Rory, I think we`re going to hear a lot from you in years to come. Rory Kennedy, a great person, thanks so much for this great -- good luck in the Oscars. KENNEDY: Thanks. MATTHEWS: They`re not as important as the story, but good luck. KENNEDY: That`s true. Thanks, Chris. MATTHEWS: Up next, the far-right freak-out over President Obama`s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier to try and advance peace talks to end the violence in Ukraine. Meanwhile, in Brussels, Vice President Biden says Ukraine is fighting for its survival, as Russia continues to escalate the conflict in the country`s east. And health insurer Anthem is warning consumers about phishing scams targeting customers after a recent hacking. The personal information of about 80 million people was compromised -- back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, conservatives out there are red hot, outraged, you might say, over President Obama and remarks he made just yesterday at the thing called the National Prayer Breakfast. The president denounced violent extremism in his remarks and also challenged Americans to reflect on Christianity`s own history with violence. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge, or worse, sometimes used as a weapon. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism. And humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow, all too often was justified in the name of Christ. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, it didn`t take long for those on the hard right to pounce on the president slamming him for drawing a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islamic terrorists. Former Pennsylvania Republican Senator and 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum, of course, said today`s remarks by the president were inappropriate and his choice of venue was insulting to every person of faith at a time when Christians are being crucified, beheaded and persecuted across the Middle East. And former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore said, quote, "The president`s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I`ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime. He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share." For more I`m joined by tonight`s roundtable: Clarence Page is a columnist for "The Chicago Tribune", April Ryan is a White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks and author of the brave new book, "The Presidency in Black and White". We`re going to talk about that in just a minute. And David Corn is an MSNBC political analyst and Washington bureau chief of "Mother Jones". I want to give April a lot of time in a minute. But I`m going to start with you. David, I thought it was extraordinary the president reached back 1,000 years to the Crusades and talked about the evil the of the Crusades, which were beyond anything ISIS has ever done, thousands and thousands killed in Hungary, killed in Turkey. I mean, nobody can believe. We didn`t learn this from watching Disney movies. DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right. MATTHEWS: The amount of people killed by the Crusades had nothing to do with restoring the holy lands. CORN: Well, yes, but it wasn`t just the Crusades. He also talked about slavery and even more recently, Jim Crow, all justified by some, not by all, on the basis of Christianity and belief in God, that, you know, the Bible says that Abel has mark of Cain, and that stuff, and they use Christianity to justify these things. I think his only point here is that before you start saying that radical Islam is something different and using it t it -- realize that every major religion has had its time period where it`s been distorted and used by a certain set of small extremists to violent ends. MATTHEWS: OK. CORN: And it all comes after a week or two of this new conservative talking point that the president won`t call them radical Islamists, that he says they`re terrorists, jihadist, extremists, and the right wants to call them Islamist, they want to tie religion to the terror. MATTHEWS: But the Crusades in all fairness weren`t launched by a bunch of outriders. They were lead by Urban II, but by the largest -- the Christian church of 11th century. CLARENCE PAGE, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Details, Chris. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You say it`s horrible but they were definitely religious. PAGE: The argument is that religion is used to justify great violence, long the order of that, which we`ve seen with ISIS. That was the point, and he also mentioned the Spanish Inquisition. I mean, he bought in old manner -- MATTHEWS: But it was clearly a Christian act. It wasn`t by outriders? PAGE: It was only within our lifetime, Chris, that the Southern Baptist Convention apologized for arguing in favor of slavery, justifying it with the Bible for several hundred years. MATTHEWS: So, it is moral equivalency. CORN: No, no, it`s not -- (CROSSTALK) PAGE: What do you mean moral equivalence? MATTHEWS: All religions are bad. PAGE: Not bad. Let`s try not to be so polarizing. Let`s try to use some nuance because the fact is, religion is used to justify evil quite often. And it shouldn`t be, and that was Obama`s point. But the main thing, Obama is in his last two years in office. He is saying what he really thinks now. He`s obviously tired of people trying to demonize Islam as if they`re terrible and all Christians are wonderful. MATTHEWS: I am with him. Anyway you guys, see how I did a bear- baiting with the chair? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think April`s great to husband her time here. Rush Limbaugh also joined the chorus of those who accused President Obama of insulting Christians and downplaying militant Islam. But Limbaugh took it even further, saying Obama has a problem with our country. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I think this national prayer breakfast kind of dots the I, crosses the T on all this. We have a guy, a man who really has a problem with this country, has a problem with this nation`s founding. He has a deep-seated problem with this nation`s existence. He doesn`t like the fact that we`re a super power, thinks it`s not been honestly earned. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, I thought that the walrus was smart here to avoid the religious issue. Did you notice? I call him the walrus, underwater. He talks about (INAUDIBLE). You know, he didn`t talk about religion because he knows that would be too hypocritical. (CROSSTALK) PAGE: Talk about holier than thou. APRIL RYAN, AMERICAN URBAN RADIO NETWORKS: But let me say this, the Republicans are trying to find their way now. It`s all about 2016. And I think they are trying to pounce on anything they can and the White House knows patriotism, race and religion, one of the hot buttons that set them off. For Rush Limbaugh, for Bing Carson, who likes to jump on statements at any time to make himself relevant for the moment, that`s all that this is about. CORN: Can I disagree with my good friend a second? RYAN: Thank you. CORN: I agree -- I mean, I agree with that point, but I don`t think it`s just about 2016. I think we`ve talked about this numerous times. There`s been a campaign from the very beginning to depict Barack Obama as the other. Someone who`s not really American, he doesn`t believe in American -- RYAN: As Rush Limbaugh said, he doesn`t care about this country, and the founding. What does that mean? (CROSSTALK) CORN: That he`s a secret Muslim, wasn`t born here plays into this. It`s at the core of Obama -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK, if you`re in the party, the Republican Party, and you`re getting smaller number compared to other people, Democrats. Minorities, OK, what do you got to do? You go to outspend them? You get all the rules changed and you`re going to spend them, right? CORN: Yes. And they -- MATTHEWS: You got to do that. What else you have to do? Make sure they don`t get to vote? What else to do? Make sure they don`t. And there, claim god. Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. We`re up next. MATTHEWS: Well, the January jobs report was out today and show as major boost in job growth -- 257,000 jobs were added in January, and the unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7, but that`s because more people were looking to reenter the workforce. All good news. Today`s report follows two strong months of job gains, making a three-month stretch the biggest boom in labor market growth in 17 years. Things are looking up. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: We`re back with the roundtable, April, Clarence and David. You know, April is author of the, that`s April her, not April the month, a new book, "The Presidency in Black and White." She`s talking about Obama and other presidents she`s covered. In it, she looks at the last three presidents of the United States and how they dealt with the issue of race. Well, this week the subject was in the news again, thanks to a leaked excerpts of a new book by former Obama advisor David Axelrod. One anecdote in particular about the concession call that Mitt Romney made to President Obama on election night in `12. It has gotten a lot of attention. According to "The Daily News", Obama was, quote, "unsmiling during the call and slightly irritated when it was over. The president Hung up and said Romney admitted he was surprised at his own loss. Quote, `You really did a great job getting the vote out of places like Cleveland and Milwaukee, in other wards, black people`, Obama said, paraphrasing Romney. That`s what he thinks this was all about." Anyway, for the record, Mitt Romney`s body man disputed Axelrod`s characterization, but wouldn`t he? OK, let`s go right now. April, the president has a thin skin about winning with the black charge -- oh, he`s just won with the black majority. He got out the vote in the big city. That`s why he won. America didn`t choose him. RYAN: America did choose him. It was a large part of America that chose him. Yes, African-Americans, women, as well as LBGT, and other people, and whites as well. Yes, he got a large majority of African- Americans in the 90 percentile range. But you had to remember, this president had to navigate the waters successfully the first term. He did not ever want to amplify the issue of race because that is already there. Politics and race will always follow him. But for that issue to be chided by Mitt Romney to talk to him about that, how dare he? This president was very tactful in how to navigate the waters on race. And for him to feel like Mitt Romney, the man who was the white male president, to talk to him about race, how dare you? That`s the president, that is the president. MATTHEWS: I was thinking, Clarence, the first debate, when I thought Mitt Romney looked down on him as a man, like I`m better than you, I`m whatever white, I`m rich Mormon, I`m a business guy, I`m Ivy League, I`m prep school, in every way, I`m superior to you. And it really bugged me because it worked. It seems to intimidate Obama like with, OK, with that kind of cock-sure arrogance, you`re going to get away with a debate win this time and I`m coming back. PAGE: I thought it was just the opposite. I thought Obama was overconfident in that first debate. And afterwards, when he looked at the tape Axelrod showed him, they said, I was pretty bad, wasn`t I? (CROSSTALK) PAGE: Not just you, but a lot of people were jumping up and down like crazy people, but part of that is Romney, too, though. One of his deficits is he can`t help but look arrogant sometimes. MATTHEWS: Yes, but it worked that night. PAGE: And blah, blah, blah. MATTHEWS: Anyway, to call the guy up and say, you won because you brought the black areas in, he`s exactly what Cronkite said to Kennedy, that night he won the Wisconsin primary, sure he won because of Catholic areas. Can they win through the roof? He said, now we`ve got to West Virginia. You have taken away my victory. Go ahead. CORN: Well, it is condescending, and after the election there was a conference call with Mitt Romney and some funders and they got reported at the time, in which he essentially said Obama won because he promised things to certain voters. MATTHEWS: Yes. CORN: Again, the 47 percent, the black -- MATTHEWS: He bought the black vote. CORN: He bought the black vote, and the Latino vote and everything else. And again, it`s like he sort of did this unfairly, and he`s really not -- it goes back to what we`re talking about the previous segment, he is not a true American, he`s not a true American leader, he doesn`t bring the country together. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: We can`t do everything on the show. But your book can do everything (ph). This weekend, if someone went to Amazon or go to a bookstore. RYAN: Barnes and Nobles, any bookstore, Amazon.com -- MATTHEWS: What does it say? Let`s try it. What does it say to the general public? RYAN: What does it say to the general public? It`s is a personal and political stories that takes the veil off of the White House. It takes the mystery off. We`re talking about Mitt Romney. There is a story in here about how Mitt Romney brought together black reporters in Frankenmuth, Michigan, and I was one of the reporters, and I asked him a question about black unemployment rate, and you know what he said? I don`t understand. I was not speaking a foreign language or Ebonics, I was speaking clearly, and he didn`t understand. MATTHEWS: Understand what, a question about what`s the story on black unemployment? RYAN: Yes, how is he going to bring it down? So, it was very interesting. We`ve got a lot of stories. CORN: There is a great Bill Clinton story. RYAN: Great Bill Clinton -- CORN: The whole issue about whether they -- MATTHEWS: Does your book say anything good about W.? RYAN: Yes, it does. MATTHEWS: PEPFAR, right? RYAN: PEPFAR, Africa, yes. He was the president known to have done the most for Africa. But he did get an F for Katrina, because people were disenfranchised and they died. MATTHEWS: He should have showed up with water bottles and stood there handing them out. CORN: Yes. MATTHEWS: It would have helped, like LBJ would have done. In fact, LBJ did do it once. Anyway, thank you, Clarence Page. Good luck, April Ryan. The name of the book again? RYAN: "The Presidency in Black and White." MATTHEWS: OK, I really like to help you with books. Clarence, what`s the name of your most recent -- PAGE: "Culture Warrior." MATTHEWS: "Culture Warrior", warrior, "Culture Warrior", get yourself a book. We`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a sad rush to placate the enemies of science. Chris Christie gives a merry-go-round answer to Kasie Hunt`s question about whether states should require vaccinations for school children. There he goes round and round trying to tag all the bases and make sure he doesn`t look like he`s too modern, too moderate, or even too educated. Can`t do that. Bobby Jindal, who once praised his state`s adoption of Common Core education standards now talks about empowering parents to fight them. Rand Paul meanwhile just said that vaccinations cause mental problems and then says he never said. Well, he did. Everyone sees this scared, desperate politicians trying to avoid controversy. You see them struggle to protect themselves from what`s become the mortal sin of current politics, showing any evidence of personal conviction. You see, the game here is not say what you think and make a case for it. It`s not to show you have spine. No, the game here, being demonstrated so well by a trio of tap dancers, is to display your jelly like ability to speak without conviction, to think only enough to navigate your way around the truth, to take pride not near fidelity to principle, but in your agility, your ability to stroll right up to the presidency by following a safe and therefore well-tried path of others before you. How can you add hire politicians who lack the basic human instinct to say what they believe? That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 7, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020601cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 29 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 6, 2015 Friday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 5, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Courtney Reagan, James Peterson GUESTS: John Garamendi, Lori Wallach, Scott Paul, Zerlina Maxwell, Raul Grijalva SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7108 words HIGHLIGHT: The Jordanian government disputes claims by ISIS that retaliation airstrikes killed a 26-year-old American hostage. L.A. Clippers Point Guard Chris Paul received a technical foul during Thursday night`s game, using the post-game presser to criticize the female referee for her call. Democrats refuse to let their position as the Congressional minority stop them from setting an extremely progressive agenda for the next 2 years. Strong employment numbers prove nearly four years of straight economic growth, yet the TPP could threaten to send good Americans jobs overseas. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ISIS is saying that an American female hostage has been killed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight, President Obama is asking Congress to get in gate. PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We see ISIL, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: Go out there and make the case to the American people for why we have to fight this fight. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The unemployment rate is 5.7 percent. SCHULTZ: America is back. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean this has been unbelievable, the trajectory here. SCHULTZ: The only thing standing in the way is another bad trade deal. CHRIS PAUL, CLIPPPERS, NBA PLAYER: We try to get the ball out fast every time down the court and when we did that she said, "Uh-uh", and I said, "Why uh-uh?" SCHULTZ: And an NBA superstar is in hot water because of what he said about a female official. PAUL: When she gave me tech, that`s ridiculous. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching. We start this evening with international news and breaking news. ISIS claims a 26-year-old American hostage was killed as a result of an airstrike today. NBC News has not verified the report. The terrorist group claims the hostage is a humanitarian worker named Kayla Mueller. She was taken hostage by ISIS in 2013 while leaving a Doctors Without Borders Hospital. Through Twitter, ISIS claim Mueller died in a building hit during a Jordanian airstike. Military Intelligence of the State Department have not confirmed the message. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN: I cannot confirm those reports in any way. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know... HARF: Obviously people are looking into them but I cannot confirm them. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Jordan has outright disputed the report. A Jordanian official tells NBC News, "ISIS is being illogical and they are lying." Jordan has taken a lead on airstrike since ISIS killed a pilot in their air force on Tuesday by burning him alive. National Security Advisor Susan Rice says this will not change U.S. Policy on hostages. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: It is our strong view in our experience that when you make concessions and pay ransom, you`re only generating greater incentive for additional acts of hostage taking. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: President Obama will formally ask Congress to authorize the use of military force against ISIS. The United States has conducted airstrikes against ISIS since August but the law requires Congressional approval for a prolonged operations and that is the question tonight. What`s the definition of prolonged operations? When does the President have to get approval and where will the Republicans be in all of this? Will they say boots on the ground or no help? Joining me tonight is Congressman John Garamendi. He is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. First of all, I`d like to get your reaction to the unconfirmed report that an American hostage has been killed in a Jordanian airstrike. What`s your response to that, sir? REP. JOHN GARAMENDI. (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, I think you just heard from others that it`s not at all confirmed. It would be tragic if we`re to happen. And these are obviously a very, very dangerous situation there both for -- because of this ongoing fighting war really in some very serious. And at the same time, hostages are just simply being executed, murderously so by these -- by ISIL. So it`s extremely dangerous. Hopefully, not true. Hopefully, we`ll be able to get that hostage back but it`s a very, very dangerous situation in the area and it really cause for us to get on with this authorization to use military force. SCHULTZ: Well, that is really the key at the hour. First of all, Congressman, do you think we`re at war and what is the definition of war if we`re, you know, using military intelligence, we`re using military hardware and we`ve had a bombing campaign against ISIS since August? Isn`t this a war against ISIS? And I want you to -- please answer that but also how big a fight is this going to be for authorization for the President to continue these operations? GARAMENDI: Well, we`re most certainly are at war. If you are on the receiving end up a bomb, you know you`re at war, if you`re delivering it, you`re also at war and we`re clearly at war here. The use of the 2001 and the 2003 authorization to use military force are simply outdated. So we do need a new authorization to use military force. I`ve been saying this since the very beginning of this, since last summer, the constitutions` very clear, only Congress can authorize war and this is most definitely war. The President recognizes that. He is going to put forward a new authorization to use force. Actually, we`ve introduced one on the House side Adam Schiff of California, the Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has a new authorization to use force and it has some very important elements in it. First of all, it has a three-year limitation. We need that. We just cannot have perpetual authorizations that allow the administration after administration to do whatever they think they might need to do. Come to Congress, make your argument. Tell us what it`s going to cause. Tell us the general outliner, how you`re going to pursue it. My particular position, no boots on the ground. I don`t want to go back to another Iraq situation or even Afghanistan situation. Certainly, the use of air power, limited use of Special Forces, all of those things will be necessary but at most importance -- is that the surrounding countries... SCHULTZ: So... GARAMENDI: ... get engaged in this. It is their war much more so than it is ours. SCHULTZ: Well, there`s no doubt that Jordanians are now engaged in a big, big way. I want to get your response to that but let`s go back to exactly what this authorization would mean? Will there be a fight in Congress that would limit the President`s ability to put boots on the ground? GARAMENDI: I hope so. I`ll be part of that fight. I don`t want the President to go put mechanized forces, infantry brigades on the ground in that area. We`ve done that before. Those boots on the ground of that kind are going to -- in my view, have to come from Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, other countries that are at risk from this ISIL... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: ... program. Now, it will be a fight in Congress, there is no doubt. Senator John McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has made it clear. He wants to put boots back on the ground in that area. I disagree. SCHULTZ: Well, do you think that the Republicans would hold-off on authorization unless everything was left on the table at the discrimination of the Commander-in-Chief? I mean, do you really think the Republicans are going to help this President out in this situation when the military action would be confined and very well-defined about what we could and could not do and what many people are calling a war? GARAMENDI: Well, I think you`re going to see this play itself out. I`m not sure about the Senate but I do know in the House that there are significant number of members of the House on the Republican side that want to have a limited authorization to use military force, something along the lines that I`ve already described. Whether that is... SCHULTZ: Yeah, but... GARAMENDI: ... a majority or a minority, we don`t know yet. A lot will depend upon the specific language in the authorization. SCHULTZ: Where do you think the Democratic caucus is on this, John? Do you think that the Democrats don`t want boots on the ground at any cost? GARAMENDI: Well again, it`s the definition of boots on the ground. I think a few talked about infantry brigades, armored brigades, heavy artillery, those kinds of things that would be the normal things you would expect the U.S. Army to do, boots on the ground. I think that would be significant opposition. Probably, a very significant majority of the Democratic and I think a significant minority of the Republicans. We`ve been down that path before. We`ll see. SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: The Senate, I couldn`t tell you where the Senate is on this. I do know that there are deep concerns about going deep into war once again in Iraq and now in Syria. SCHULTZ: Congressman, what about the Jordanian airstrikes and their resolve to get revenge and their engagement now, is this a game changer of sorts? GARAMENDI: I think it is. I think it`s a very important thing. They did do airstrikes previously in Iraq and I don`t believe they were doing them in Syria. But this clearly is an escalation on their part frankly, I welcome that. I think they are also taking very significant steps with the United States` assistance in securing their boarder. They don`t want ISIL creeping into the Jordanian area. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is doing that. So, very significant ways, these countries are beginning to gear up for the protection of their own interest. Whether that means they`re going send military units on the ground into the area remains to be seen, but clearly the airstrikes are welcome but that`s not universal. I think the UAE is backing away for a while as our couple of other gulf countries but they may reengage here... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: ... in the near term. Clearly, Iraq government is reorganizing itself. The United States is playing a major role in getting that army backup on its feet. SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: Not yet there but making progress. SCHULTZ: Congressman, I want to turn your attention to the uncertainty in dealing with Ukraine. French and German leaders met with Vladimir Putin today and it`s not really clear how much progress if any was made on the peace talks. And the Ukrainians are asking for military hardware. They want United States assistance, United States arsenals at their disposal. Are your for that? Should we be arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russians? GARAMENDI: I think there are some things we need to do before we go into that. That really puts us in a proxy war with Ukraine in a big way. Not that we`re not there already, we are but in a very limited way. But this is big time and this is a major, major upgrade of that proxy war. So we ought to be careful. I would recommend that we do what Senator Sam Nunn recommended in a meeting that we have with him. Retired to be sure, but also an expert on Russia and that is that, we ought to think a diplomatic step here first. We ought to make a clear to Putin that this is something that will not be tolerated by Europe, by NATO and that an escalation is in the offing if Russia continues to do what it is doing and that is sending heavy arms and military into Eastern Ukraine. So we ought to be very clear... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: ... that this not going to be tolerated, that there is the potential for escalation. But we ought to make that a diplomatic step before we move forward and really do make a very serious proxy war on the boarder of Russia, which Russia looks at... SCHULTZ: Well. GARAMENDI: ... in a far different way that we might imagined. SCHULTZ: And finally Congressman, but haven`t we done that? We have told Putin repeatedly to basically stop arming these people. The Ukrainians are getting slaughtered, they want to fight back. They don`t have the hardware to do it and they`re asking United States to, you know, do a deal on arsenal so they can defend themselves. Sanctions have not gotten Putin to back off. What diplomatic effort would be made that would turn Putin around, you think? GARAMENDI: Well there`s one that you just mentioned, that`s taking place now or just finish and that is Germany and others from Europe sitting down with Putin and making it clear that this is getting -- this is going to get really serious. And that not just the United States but I fully expect the European countries to participate in making those weapons available. I do know that in -- Lithuania, in that area, we are upgrading our presents. Those are NATO countries. We`re going to upgrade our military presence in those countries. We`re already doing it in Poland. We can see a significant upgrade of the American military presence on those Eastern European countries that do board Russia. So this is a... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: ... this is a very serious situation and we need to be careful... SCHULTZ: OK. GARAMENDI: ... we need to be very firm and we need to take every opportunity to make it clear as Germany and -- her ally, our allies are doing in that conversation with Putin. There needs... SCHULTZ: All right. GARAMENDI: ... to be me more that. And we need to be very, very clear that we are headed towards arming and providing certainly defensive and maybe offensive weapons to Ukraine. SCHULTZ: OK. Congressman John Garamendi on the House Armed Services Committee, good to have you with us tonight... GARAMENDI: Thank you. SCHULTZ: ... on the Ed Show. I appreciate your time. Thank you, you bet. Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Do you think we the United States should arm Ukraine forces?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment at our blog at ed.msnbc.com. You could also follow us on Twitter @WeGotEd. We`ll bring you the results of this poll later on in the program. Coming up, a rolling recovery, the jobs report has promising numbers. Is it historic? But the TPP could put the brakes on economic growth. We`ll have the details. Plus, tough talk on the hardwood, as people calling foul on NBA star Chris Paul, Rapid Respond Panel weighs in on that. Stay with us, you`re walking the Ed Show on MSNBC. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Good to have you back with us folks, thanks for watching tonight. I actually think that I should probably change my clothes right now and put on a cheer leading outfit. This is pretty promotional, I admit. But, you know what? I put things in prospective as to where we were, and where we are and where I think we`re going. There is great news today on the American economy. But first, I want to put things in prospective by rolling back, rolling back to this very day February 6th, 2009, six years ago. I want you to know this was the story employers cut 598,000 jobs from U.S. payrolls in January of 2009. That job report came out this day 2009, February 6th. The unemployment rate was at 7.6 percent. It was the worst jobs report in 34 years. Now think about that. You an NFL fan? If I told you there is no way your team is going to win the Super Bowl on the next 34 years what would you think? Well, that`s not good. It was the worst job report in 34 years, that where this country was. There was no money out there into the entrepreneurial world, or any -- financiers out there that we`re going to save the American automobile industry. American jobs were hemorrhaging at a record phase. We lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 alone. When President Obama walked into the Oval Office in January 2009, he inherited an economic disaster. Fast- forward to today, and it`s a completely different story. Earlier today, the Labor Department says, we added 257,000 jobs in the month of January. The unemployment rate rose slightly to 5.7 percent because more people are looking for jobs. Job creation was stronger in previous months than originally reported. For instance the government is raising estimates of new jobs in November and December of last year by a combined of 147,000 jobs. The November number is up to 423,000 jobs. It`s the strongest month of the private sector growth since 1997. Now, over a million jobs have been created over the past three months alone. Today`s report, I think is fabulous. It marks 59 straight months of private sector job growth. Over 11 million jobs have been created since early 2010. And here`s the really good news. Worker`s wages are on the rise. Average hourly earning rose $0.12 to $24.75 an hour. It`s up 0.5 percent from December. And earlier today, President Obama addressed the good economic news in Indianapolis. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We`ve come a long way these past six years since we suffered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. In 2014, our economy created more than 3.1 million jobs, and that`s the best year of job growth since the 1990s. America is poised for another good year. Indianapolis is poised for another good year, as long as Washington works to keep this progress going. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So let`s be fair to the story. When do we start calling this recovery historic? Because there`s no other time in American history that we have seen a recovery like this, we`re living it. Do we have a long way to go? Yes, we do. Do we have wage disparities? No question about it. Are trade agreements on the horizon that are damaging -- potentially damaging? There`s no doubt about it. But where we were and where we are, and what our potential, is rather amazing. For Republicans, it`s just not good enough. Now listen on this sound bite. You got 59 months of private sector job growth, you got numbers going through the roof, it was the worst January six years ago in 34 years. This is what Boehner said just last month January 15. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: The American people are still asking a question, where are the jobs? Jobs and economy are still the number one issue in the country. And I just don`t understand why every proposal that comes out of administration is just going to kill thousands and thousands of more American jobs. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I mean he -- he`s either in denial or stupid or both. The numbers are the numbers. They are in denial. Americans who don`t think this is recovery is -- or they are getting hoodwinked. I mean the bottom line is, this is a serious stuff. And we can do so much more, if the Republicans would help out. There`s no doubt the economy is on the upswing. Unfortunately, progress could be at risk because of a bad trade deal that we talked about quite a bit on this program, the TPP. Here are some more numbers. Our trade deficit rose to its biggest levels since 2012. The Commerce Department said Thursday the trade deficit jumps 17 percent to $46.6 billion. It`s the biggest percentage increase since July 2009. New information out on the Korea free trade agreement proves trade deals don`t work. Now, since KORUS, and that`s what its known as, was passed in 2011. We`ve seen a major increase in our trade deficit with Korea. The 2014 trade deficit with Korea is expected to tap $25 billion. It`s a 65 percent increase over the trade deficit in 2011 before KORUS was passed. Now, an estimated 60,000 jobs have been lost because of this trade deal. Now, the TPP is far greater than any trade deal we`ve done. The TPP is reportedly being modeled after the Korea agreement. But it`s a microcosm of the big deal on the horizon whether it`s NAFTA, KORUS or giving China preferred nation trading status. Trade deals have killed the middle class in this country. There is no reason that we should be putting our economic recovery in jeopardy and progress at the risk of a bad trade deal. And this trade deal is mammoth compared to what we`ve done in the past. This is some serious dice being rolled. For more, let me bring in Lori Wallach who is a Director of Public Citizen`s Global Trade Watch, and also with us tonight Scott Paul, President of Alliance for American Manufacturing, great to have both of you with us tonight. Lori, you first. This is good news for the American economy today. Would the TPP put this at risk and who would feel the pinch first? LORI WALLACH, PUBLIC CITIZEN`S GLOBAL TRADE WATCH: Well, this is what`s so heartbreaking. Here is this great news and then, in the face of that there`s a push for a trade agreements that we know would make it easier for big corporations to offshore jobs and throw Americans in competition with workers in Vietnam who would push down our wages in competition with their $0.50 an hour wages. And it`s not that we`re speculating because as you`ve said, we now have this empirical data from the government that shows that since the Korea agreement which is literally the tax they put down for the TPP, it`s the U.S. template. Since that agreement just three years -- actually if you look at the data for goods, not just in manufacture goods but all goods, the increase from before the agreement until after in the trade deficit is 81 percent. It`s actually equates to 74,000 more lost jobs. And that is... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WALLACH: ... a predictor but works because Korea`s wages are closer to ours. What would happen for working families is as this happened in the past, good jobs would be sent offshore and wages will go down. And in the face of these improvements that`s especially gruesome. SCHULTZ: Scott, where does the currency manipulation become involved here? Where is the currency issue come into play in the TPP? SCOTT PAUL, ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING: That is a big deal. And ultimately it`s about jobs. We had about a $70 billion trade deficit with Japan. Let me just highlight an example of that. Japan shipped 1.5 million cars to the United States. We shipped exactly 20,000 cars to Japan from our big three. It`s a huge imbalance and it`s aided by currency manipulation which is the Japanese government intervening to lower the value of its currency. It makes its good cheaper and it`s devalued its currency by almost 50 percent over the last 2.5 years. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has looked the other way. They have said we want to do this... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAUL: ... diplomatically and Japan pursued this policy. And I`m afraid that if we do a free trade deal that includes Japan and we don`t address currency, it`s going to wreck something very good that the Obama administration did which was save the auto industry which has made an outsize contribution to our economic recovery. We can do a trade deal in Asia but it has to be the right deal. It has to deal with currency and it has to make sure that we have market access in Japan... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAUL: ... otherwise, as Lori said, this will be another Korea agreement or a NAFTA and it will be entirely unsatisfying and it will rollback a lot of the progress that we`ve been able to make. SCHULTZ: Lori, there are reports that a deal has been struck, negotiated so to speak, to address the copyright issues and the patent issues that are out there. What about that? WALLACH: Well, here is the thing folks should keep in mind because before you get -- what Scott said, what you said is exactly right. If this TPP goes into effect, the way it`s been negotiated without the currency cheating rules, with the investment rules that promote offshoring, this would be very damaging. But, this is where every American can make the difference. This can only happen if Congress is willing to give away their constitutional trade authority and basically give a blank check for the President to sign and enter into agreement before Congress approves it. That`s called fast-track authority. Nixon cooked it up... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WALLACH: ... it`s been rarely used but it`s been use for the worst of the agreements like NAFTA, the Korea agreement. That is not delegated. So this gets back to this whole business if they cut a deal of negotiations. So the U.S. negotiators, sadly for those copyright issues, they have such big implications for internet freedom. And for the patent issues that have to do with how expensive our medicines will be. Those issues are issues the other countries are looking at and they`re thinking, are the U.S. negotiators really telling us something that can get through Congress? Well, Congress which has been... SCHULTZ: OK. WALLACH ... so clear that there have to be currency rules approved this. And so, there isn`t yet a final deal. And they`re waiting for Congress to giveaway their authority before they make a deal. So everyone can make a difference if... SCHULTZ: All right. WALLACH : ... there is no giveaway of the authority. SCHULTZ: Well, this is what the Democrats are talking about at the Progressive Caucus that`s taking place in Philadelphia. A lot of them are against it. We`ll see if they can get their constituents to put pressure on Congress to stop this. There is no debate in the House of Congress right now. This is been done in secrecy, elected officials have not read it. And it really is amazing. And there is a school of thought amongst some Democrats, well other presidents have had fast-track, we ought to give it to this President. That`s just doesn`t cut it with me. Scott Paul, Lori Wallach, great to have both of you with us tonight. I appreciate your time on this very important story. Coming up, controversy on the courts, an NBA star is getting called out for his criticism on the female ref. Rapid Response Panel`s response ahead. And later, House Democrats talks strategy in Philadelphia. Congressman Raul Grijalva updates us on the progressive plans. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I appreciate all your questions in our Ask Ed Live segment. Our first question comes from good old Fred. Fred wants to know, "Do you think Republicans are jealous of President Obama and his success?" SCHULTZ: Yes and beyond, big time. They wish they had their mitts on this economy, believe me. They don`t have their mitts on the numbers. Our next question is from Lenora. She wants to know, "Do you like ice fishing?" You know what Lenora? I don`t. My boys are crazy about it. I got brother-in-laws who are absolutely nuts about it but it just don`t do it for me maybe because I didn`t grew up with it. No, I`m not a big ice fisherman. I mean, I go out there and I have a cocktail with them but I`m not going to be out there for four or five hours sitting in there, you know, that`s not me. Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next. COURTNEY REAGAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Courtney Reagan with your CNBC market wrap. The Stocks close up for the week but lower on the day. The Dow falls 60 points, the S&P sheds 7 and the NASDAQ down 20. Well the big story, the January employment report showed the economy added 257,000 jobs last month. It`s more than expected. The unemployment rate ticks higher though to 5.7 percent. And shares of Intuit the maker of TurboTax finish down more than 4 percent after the company halted the filing of all state tax returns on worries of rent (ph) fraud. That`s it from CNBC. We`re first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight. On Thursday night, the Los Angeles Clippers racked up five Ts, technical fouls during their loss to the Cleveland Cavaliers. Now this isn`t unusual for the team that leads the NBA with 58 technical fouls of the season. In fact the Clippers have got a real history of losing their cool on the court. Now the NBA Referees Association is calling foul on Clippers star point guard Chris Paul for what he said off the court. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: I think they just made it look worst. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. PAUL: You know what I mean. But I think we have to show better composure but at the same time someone were ridiculous like the tech that I`ve got right there, it was ridiculous. I don`t care what nobody say, I don`t care what she say, she -- that`s terrible. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. PAUL: There`s no way that can be a tech. We try to get the ball out fast every time down the court. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. PAUL: And when we did that, she said, "Uh-uh", and I said, "Why uh-uh?" and she gave me a tech. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. PAUL: That`s ridiculous. If that`s the case then this might not be for her. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: This might not be for her. Paul was called for a technical foul on the third quarter after an interaction with referee Lauren Holtkamp. Holtkamp is just one of two full-time female NBA referees. She is the third in the league`s history. The NBA is the only major American sports league to have female refs. It`s possible Chris Paul was referring to Holtkamp`s rookie status. Holtkamp is a former Division II player. She has worked her way up to the NBA after six years of WNBA league experience. Holtkamp has refereed college games and worked to WNBA and the FIBA ranks. She is not exactly what I would call a rookie. She`s got experienced. Union representatives to the NBA Referee Association isn`t buying that excuse that came out to defend Holtkamp. The group twitted, "After review, the call made by Ms. Holtkamp are fully justified. We deplore the unprofessional comments made by Chris Paul." They followed up with the hashtag, "She belongs." Joining me tonight on Rapid Response Panel, James Peterson, MSNBC Contributor and Director of Africana Studies at Lehigh University, and also with us tonight, Political Analyst Zerlina Maxwell, great to have you with us. ZERLINA MAXWELL, POLITICAL ANALYST: Thanks, Ed. DR. JAMES PETERSON, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: This might not be for her. Zerlina, what do you make of that? How offensive is that? What does that mean? MAXWELL: Yeah. That`s pretty offensive and I, you know, no one here is saying that Chris Paul is sexist. I don`t know him and I don`t know if he intended that remark to be sexist. But I think that this may not be for her portion of his comment were especially uncomfortable to listen to because like you said there`s only been three women refereeing in the NBA in all of history and certainly there have been terrible male referees -- my entire life including Joey Crawford, Scott Foster. So I don`t understand why pinpointing her particularly and then saying it might not be for her that was very gender. And also in the context of that game, the Clippers were, like you said, they got five technical fouls and lead the league. Matt Barnes was kicked out prior to this and she had recently giving the entire team technicals. And so what referees do often is try -- they take control back of the game. And I think that`s why she called a tech so quickly on Chris Paul in that contact. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Dr. Peterson, why would an NBA player go down this road? I mean, you got to know the environment. There`s going to be all kinds of heat coming on this. I mean, are female referees treated differently in the league? PETERSON: You better believe they are. You better believe they have a hard row to hoe, they`re breaking down barriers. I think you should commend the NBA for having women referees, they`re the only sport as the mentioned at the top, they`re the only professional sports league that does so. But this is really complicated to me because to be honest with you, I don`t think that their tech was a good call. But the problem is that as the ref was struggling to get control of the game. Actually Ken Mauer, the male referee, made a -- I think a really bad call, technical call on Matt Barnes. And we have the Clipper losing by 20 plus points in the third quarter in the run up to the All Star, you know, for the NBA seasons this is where things started to get more tense and where every games starts to matter, right? And so the stakes are a little bit higher, you have Kim Mauer was kind of the league referee make really bad call against Matt Barnes. And that sort exacerbated the situation where the refs have the sort of get control of the game. And unfortunately, I think -- Lauren Holtkamp who seems to be a solid ref. I don`t think that was the best call she could have made that particular point in time. But Chris Paul went over the line and saying she doesn`t belong. He doesn`t have the right to say that. And the reality is... SCHULTZ: Well. PETERSON: ... maybe his not aware of the struggle for women to get equal pay, equal access. It`s a struggle that someone from the Clippers organization considering the history that they`re coming out of should be sensitive too. MAXWELL: Yeah. SCHULTZ: Well, you say it`s complicated. It is, because Paul is the head of the Player`s Association. PETERSON: Yep, yeah. SCHULTZ: I mean, he speaks with some level of authority. I mean, Zerlina, does that make a mistake -- does that make a difference or are we just being too sensitive on this. MAXWELL: No I do -- I do think it makes a difference. I think that, you know, as someone who has a leadership position among the players. I think that he has to set an example. And I think that, you know, the bottom-line here is he is a professional athlete meaning that it is his job to be professional at all time in the context of his job. And so, you can`t say anything negative to criticize referees across the board. PETERSON: That`s the rule. MAXWELL: Did happen all of the time. I just think that in this particular case. It is really sensitive because you have so few women getting access to these positions that I think that you need to treat them with respect as... SCHULTZ: Yeah, well... MAXWELL: ... the equal position, even if you disagree with her calls. SCHULTZ: This isn`t the last game she`s going to ref. MAXWELL: Right. SCHULTZ: She got a long season ahead and a long career. I mean, this in some respects undermined your credibility doesn`t it Doctor? PETERSON: Well, what I hope is that the call that she made and the way that the union has come out in support of her helps to buttress, in what she has to do going forward here. Again, it`s not easy to be a woman refereeing in the NBA. Zerlina is right that Chris Paul has a different stature in the NBA not only because he is a superstar with a huge contract, but because he represents players. Let`s be clear here. Players do, especially players of Chris Paul stature, they have right to speak back to refs. But it`s got to be done in a right environment. So they have to be respectful but also has to be in environment not where the refs are trying to get control of a game that`s slipping out of control because the team is losing by so many point. And so, Chris Paul is got to be sharp enough to understand the full terrain. And he really probably should give himself a little bit of a quite kind of time out at the end of the game just considering how heated he was and upset and how frustrated the coach and everybody was in terms of the result of that particular game. SCHULTZ: This might not be for her. PETERSON: Yeah. MAXWELL: Yes I didn`t like it. SCHULTZ: That`s a cheap shot. MAXWELL: Right. SCHULTZ: There is no doubt about that. James Peterson, Zerlina Maxwell always great to have you with us. Thanks so much. MAXWELL: Thanks. PETERSON: Thanks Ed. SCHULTZ: Coming up in the two minute drill, Tiger and cheetah`s and rookies. Oh my. Stay tuned. SCHULTZ: All right. Here we go in a two-minute drill. First up, Tiger Woods, (inaudible) golfer (ph) Tiger Woods dropped out of the Farmers Insurance Open after only playing 11 holes. This is the third time he`s withdrawing to the best nine tournaments. He`s blaming on that back injury again. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TIGER WOODS, GOLFER: It`s frustrating that it started shutting down like that. You know, I was ready to go. I had a good warm-up session the first time around. Then we stood out here and I got cold, and everything started deactivating again. And it`s frustrating that I just can`t stay activated. That`s just kind of the way it is. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: There`s nothing worst than a bad back believe me. This time he dropout just six days after Tiger Woods posted his worst score of his professional career which unfolded last Friday. Next, the fast and furious. NFL hopefuls at the Scouting Combine put the pedal to the metal and display their speed while vying for an NFL contract. This year, they`re also competing for a sport car. Adidas is giving a Porsche 911 with a cheetah on it, to the fastest runner of the 40-yard dash at this year 2015 Combine. Finally, big man on campus, I mean big man. He`s 6-foot-7, 410-pounds. He`s only a teenager, who has barely played any football in his life. He`s got a scholarship to play at BYU. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRONCO MENDENHALL, BYU FOOTBALL HEAD COACH: I`ve known him a total of 15 minutes. So his evaluation was based on Coach Kaufusi seeing him play a pick up game of basketball in Tonga two years ago. And he just saw a giant body that light on his feet that could change direction and loved working out on training. SCHULTZ: The young man is from the South Pacific Island of Tonga. BYU hopes he can play defensive tackle. At 6-foot-7, 410-pounds, that would be the perfect spot for him. There`s more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, when Republicans took control of Congress they promised that they would cut through the gridlock and get things done in Washington. Well so far, all they`ve managed to do is attack Social Security continued to push for the Keystone XL Pipeline using faulty facts and figures, and of course a vote for the 67th time to repeal Obamacare, so much for progress. Now, Democrats are working on setting their agenda for the next couple of years. A group of 30 liberal House Democrats are meeting in Philadelphia to develop strategies to push progressive ideas. This comes on the heels of last week`s meeting of House Democrats where President Obama told them to keep fighting. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We need to stand up and go on offensive and not be defensive about what we believe in. That`s why we`re Democrats. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Americans are vocal about what they want of the 114th Congress to focus on. The Progressive Change Institute asked Americans through polling for their big ideas, the top ideas include expanding social security, reversing Citizens United and implementing a fairer tax system. How are they going to get all of that done? Joining me tonight Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, who attended this weeks retreat. Congressman, always good to have you with us. Those are -- that polling by the Progressive Institute, are the liberal Democrats, the Progressive Caucus paying attention to this? REP. RAUL GRIJALVA, (D) ARIZONA: Well absolutely. I think, you know, when Progressive Caucus and it should be noted 100 organization allied with the caucus to -- at inside-outside game in terms of these organizations that represent millions of people are part of this conference. It`s a dialog about a strategy, because progressive principles and values are actually what the American people want. And the institute`s poll plus addition polls that have occurred in the last six or seven months, and certainly after the election validated the point that we have had a blueprint for economic recovery, and for jobs, and for ending wage disparity, and income inequality. SCHULTZ: Yeah. GRIJALVA: We have a blueprint to deal with all of these major issues that need investment in this country. And we`re meeting to talk about that, but more importantly to say that we stand with the little guy. That we`re on their side... SCHULTZ: Well... GRIJALVA: ... we`re on side -- of corporate America or Wall Street. SCHULTZ: Stand with the little guys is what it`s all about, there`s no doubt. Now, you were quoted as saying that the group that met last week, the group that`s meeting this week would be edgier than the group that met last week. What do you mean by that? I mean, is -- are these -- the Progressive Caucus going to have to really carry this tune? GRIJALVA: Well I think that the Progressive Caucus, its members, and we have 30 wonderful members that are going to be -- are here and will be here, much leadership, my co-chair, Keith Ellison and -- the point that I made by that is that we, for five or six years, have been talking about a different economic blueprint for this country, one that responds to real Americans and their needs, to their insecurities. We had a dismal election simply, because we had no economic message. They didn`t feel we were on their side. And so, today we talked about a unified approach and strategy to stop fast- track and the trade agreement. We talked about a unified strategy on an economic agenda. Chris Van Hollen, the head of our budget process where all the Democrats in the House of Representative was there, and talked about the ideas progressive have bought to the table that will be incorporated in that budget. We`re going to develop our own budget as well. Nancy Pelosi, our leader came and spoke. Richard Trumka from AFL-CIO came and spoke. Susan Simon (ph) spoke. And we have more speakers to come. So my point being that this is not an isolated issue. And when I said we are edgier, is I think a reflection of the fact. We`ve been saying this, sometimes being dismissed. And suddenly the American people are saying the same thing we`ve been saying for five years. You know, our brand... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GRIJALVA: ... is good and our message is very good. SCHULTZ: Well Congressman, realistically what can you get done with as dogmatic as the Republicans have been in the House? I mean, they don`t seem to be willing to work with anybody on the Democratic side, it`s they`re way or the highway. GRIJALVA: Well, I think the Republicans and you see them talking out of both sides of their mouth, even McConnell and Boehner are not talking about middle class, wage stagnation, we need to help the middle class, working people have needs that we haven`t been addressed. We`ve been saying that Democrats as a whole, the Progressive Caucus specifically through years. So they`re speaking out of both of their mouth. The real agenda for recovery, the real agenda for bringing back an economy that helps everyone and not just 1 percent or 2 percent of the population is the blueprint that were going to be presenting as a budget for Progressive Caucus. And I`m confident the Democratic Caucus will do as well. And that budget will say, you have a choice. And we`re going to reach a point... SCHULTZ: OK. GRIJALVA: ... where Republican leadership area going to have to deal with that contrast. SCHULTZ: Congressman Raul Grijalva, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. Thanks for being here... GRIJALVA: And thank you for the invitation. SCHULTZ: ... on the Ed Show. I am... GRIJALVA: I appreciate it. SCHULTZ: You bet. You bet. This weekend, I will be down in the Gulf of Mexico doing a story on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill after the fact. Where`s the restitution? What`s happening to the environment? People have lost businesses and they are wondering, what is their future? It`s the untold story. We`ll have a three-part series next week here on the Ed Show, starting on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (ph), the real story of the gulf. That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 7, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020601cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 30 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 6, 2015 Friday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST Politics Nation for February 6, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Kier Simmons GUESTS: Hardin Lang, Michael Sheehan, Jonathan Capehart, Jared Bernstein, Eric Guster, Seema Iyer, Alyona Minkovski, Liz Plank, Shira Center, Reggie Love SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6700 words HIGHLIGHT: Kayla Mueller was the American hostage who ISIS claims that has been killed while Jordanian airstrike. Today, jurors toured Hernandez home where the defense was ordered to remove religious images and sports memorabilia. From the days that he was with the Patriots, prosecutors say these were added after the crime. The President`s personal aide is a witness to history in the making. And for five years Reggie Love had the privilege of being one of the closest people to the president. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Thanks to you for tuning in. We start with breaking news. An ISIS claiming an American hostage was killed in Syria. They`re saying she died in a Jordanian airstrike, buried underneath the rubble of a building. But the U.S. has not been able to confirm any of this information. There is zero proof. A Jordanian official calling it quote "illogical and highly skeptical." Earlier today the hostage`s family released her name and these photos of her. Kayla Mueller is a 26-year-old aid worker from Arizona. She dedicates her life to others. ISIS kidnapped her in 2013 while she worked at a doctors without borders hospital in Syria. One senior defense official telling NBC News the entire intelligence community is working to gather the facts. U.N. ambassador Susan Rice says the U.S. is obviously concerned. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUSAN RICE, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: We do not at the present have any evidence to corroborate ISIL`s claims but obviously will keep reviewing the information at hand. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now is Michael Sheehan, and -- joining me now is Keir Simmons. Let`s go now to NBC News foreign correspondent Keir Simmons in Amman, Jordan. Keir, a Jordanian official called this a PR stunt. And another called it illogical. We know they are masters of propaganda. What are you hearing? KIER SIMMONS, NBC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Reporter: That`s right. Al, in fact, they call it criminal propaganda and they are saying, the basic thing they are saying, they don`t know whether this ISIS claim is true or not. After all, we are talking about Raqqa, a stronghold of ISIS in Syria. Really difficult to authenticate it. But what the Jordanians are saying is why would you trust a group that beheads innocent people on camera, that execute a Jordanian pilot by setting him on fire alive? Why would you trust them when to claim that she had been killed, it seems, very convenient for them to be able to claim that with no one able to say whether it`s true or not. SHARPTON: Now, this comes after a Jordanian pilot was burned to death by is, as you mentioned. SIMMONS: Right. SHARPTON: The Jordanian sing said they will fight until they run out of fuel and bullets. How does that play into this situation? SIMMONS: That`s absolutely right. King Abdullah saying they will go after ISIS wherever they are, and it is an incredible turn of events before the news tonight. Because what we saw today before that was thousands of Jordanians on the streets supporting this offensive against ISIS, and that was just a few days since the father of that pilot had questioned why Jordan was involved in this fight, saying it isn`t this country`s fight to have. So what happened with the pilot appears to have swung public opinion here in Jordan, at least for the time being, and in a really important way and changed the dynamics. Again, though, ISIS with this announcement appears to be trying to shift public opinion once again, both in this region and perhaps even in the U.S. SHARPTON: Well, great reporting. Thank you so much, Keir Simmons. Thank you for your reporting this evening. SIMMONS: You bet. SHARPTON: Joining me now are Michael Sheehan, former head of special operations at the Pentagon, and Hardin Lang, an ISIS expert from the center of American progress. Thank you both for being here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good to be here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My pleasure. SHARPTON: Michael, there`s no proof either way here. How do we verify this? I mean what can they do? MICHAEL SHEEHAN, COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Well, it`s going to be difficult for us to verify it. But the history of ISIS normally when they verify someone`s dead they`ll show the body or the killing. And I think this -- I`m very skeptical in this case that they`ve actually, that this bombing run killed this woman. She may be already dead as was the case with the Jordanian pilot. They were negotiating when he was already dead or perhaps still holding her. But I`m very, very skeptical, this very convenient claim that this Jordanian bombing raid killed this very innocent young aid work. SHARPTON: Why so skeptical, Michael? Why? SHEEHAN: Very skeptical. SHARPTON: Why? SHEEHAN: Because it`s just convenient. They`re trying to blame the Jordanians for killing of this young woman they had kidnapped over a year and a half, who was an innocent aid worker, trying to shift the blame to this Jordanian bombing and it`s just -- it`s just not working. That type of propaganda just not working. And even if they did kill her by this bombing raid, they`re still responsible for holding her hostage, an innocent aid worker. So I`m just got not buying it. SHARPTON: Hardin, what intelligence did we have about the hostage? HARDIN LANG, CENTER OF AMERICAN PROGRESS: We have been pretty thin so far in terms of what kind of information is out there in the open source. The type of intelligence we`ve got about the hostage. So I think at this stage it`s probably better not to speculate on what kind of Intel we did or did not have, but only to note that the U.S. and Jordan would have been sharing whatever they did have up to the minute before, during, after the bombing raid. So I don`t think that`s the issue there. But I would like to underscore what Mike just said. I mean, to me, this feels very much like a Hail Marry on the part of ISIS to try to create a bit of tension between the U.S. and Jordan after the major misstep of burning the Jordanian pilot alive and the kind of impact does hurt on their credibility on the streets of Jordan. So my sense here is they`re stumbling. SHARPTON: Will other nations become defiant like King Abdullah has in Jordan in your opinion, Hardin? LANG: What they`ve done in Jordan no doubt will reverberate beyond the borders of Jordan. This pushes back very against the narrative that ISIS putting out there, that they`re sort of fighting on the behalf of Sunni, and burning a Jordanian Sunni Arab pilot to death isn`t playing well anywhere in the region. SHARPTON: What do you think, Michael? Will other nations become defiant like King Abdullah has? SHEEHAN: Well, unfortunately, we have seen a few kind of back away a little bit worrying that they may get some of their pilots captured. But I can tell you this, Reverend Al. The U.S. air force is going to continue bombing, and bombing the crap out of ISIS. And this, although, they cannot win with an air campaign as everyone has spoken. ISIS will suffer. If they try to master troops, we will be bomb them. IF they try to conduct training areas, we will bomb them. If they have safe areas, we bomb them. If they communicate, we`ll hear them and bomb them. No, we can`t defeat them with an air campaign, but we can really damage them and make them pay. SHARPTON: Let me ask you this, Hardin. How badly are these bombings hurting ISIS? LANG: Well, we`ve seen a pretty big impact on the Iraqi side of the border. Michael`s right again here that when this bombing has maximum impact. When it`s paired with partners on the ground. So what we began to see is a bit of rollback on the Iraqi side where we are working with the Kurdish Peshmerga. And there was some Iraqis security forces which is slowly being stood back up after the summer`s offensive. So the combination of air and land in Iraq there has made a big difference. On the Syrian side of the border, air power alone really -- I mean, it`s disruptive and it keeps them off balance. But it`s not changing the strategic or tactical momentum. SHARPTON: Michael, you mentioned about Kayla, the hostage here that allegedly has been killed according to ISIS. She started working for aid group in the border of Turkey and Syria in 2012. In August of 2013, she was taken captive in Syria, leaving a doctors without borders hospital and May 2014 was the first time her family was contacted to prove Kayla was alive. What kind of intelligence did we have about her before today? SHEEHAN: Well, at one point it seems now we`re hearing reporting we did think we knew where he location was, Reverend Al, and a special operations forces launched an attack to try to rescue her. But it appears we arrived a little late and she`d been moved to another location. It`s very difficult to find someone like this. They`re probably moving her from place to place. And right now, we`re not even sure she`s alive. Although at the time we launched that attack a while back, we did have evidence she was alive. Hopefully she still is alive and we`ll be able to bring her to safety but it`s going to be very difficult. SHARPTON: Hardin, the information that is unfolding, we have U.N. ambassador Susan Rice discuss the U.S. plan ton handling is today. Listen? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICE: To degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, we`ve assembled a broad coalition that is confronting this scourge from all angles, from training Iraqi security forces and supporting the moderate Syrian opposition to encourage in political reforms in Iraq that foster greater inclusion. With the world united in condemnation of its horrific executions, ISIL should know their barbarism only fortifies the world`s collective resolve. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Where is this fight going, Hardin? I mean, are we getting closer to troops on the ground? LANG: I hope we`re not. I think the sense is here, and I think it pretty much cuts against the DNA of this administration to look at putting troops into a combat role here. Obviously, that doesn`t apply to special operators. Because we are going to hear a lot about what they`re doing or not doing. But the senses here, I mean in Iraq, again, we`re beginning to make some progress. I think the national security adviser made a really good point, though, about needing to keep pace, having the politics keep pace with what we`re doing on the ground militarily. The Sunni outreach in Iraq needs to continue beyond just a bit of appointment of the new secretary of defense over there in Sunni. SHARPTON: Michael Sheehan and Hardin Lang, thank you both for your time this evening. SHEEHAN: Thank you. LANG: Thank you. SHARPTON: Straight ahead, President Obama on the road touting a big day for jobs and the economy. Plus, jurors in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial tour his home, and hear a bizarre joke in court today. Please, stay with us. SHARPTON: Republicans say President Obama is a job killer. But the facts say he`s overseen the best run of job growth in American history. Who do the American people trust on this? That`s next. SHARPTON: Now to developing economic news, and the immense pressure on Republicans to finally abandon some tired talking points. Today a strong new jobs report extending the historic record of success under President Obama. We`ve now had 59 straight months of private sector job growth. The longest streak on record. 2014 was the best year for job growth in 15 years. The last three months have been the best run in 17 years, and the country has added over 200,000 jobs in each of the last 12 months. The best run in 20 years. It`s great news for American families, and bad news for Republicans stuck on false talking points about how the president`s policies are supposedly destroying jobs. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- and all of these job-killing regulations that have become prolific in this administration. REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: The Dodd-Frank bill is the jobs and housing destruction act. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The stimulus has only made our economy worse. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Why would you want to increase the cost energy and kill more American jobs? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Job-killing and expensive rules through the environmental protection agency. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Obamacare which has become such a job killer in our economy. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: They`ve been repeating these claims for year, and it`s time to retire them once and for all. Today President Obama was in Indiana where he talked about the country`s recovery from the devastating Bush recession, and the need to move forward. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The reason we`ve gotten out of this recession over the last six years, is in part, I`m going to brag a little bit. We made some good decisions. We have made the decision to save the auto industry. We made the decision to stabilize the financial system. We made a bunch of decisions to do infrastructure spending. America is poised for another good year. Indianapolis is poised for another good year, as long as Washington works to keep this progress going. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now are Jared Bernstein and Jonathan Capehart. Thank you both for being here. JARED BERNSTEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Rev. JONATHAN CAPEHART, OPINION WRITER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thank, Rev. SHARPTON: Jared, on this specific idea the president is pushing right now that can continue and expand this economic progress. BERNSTEIN: Right. Well, I was listening to your introduction, I was reminded of that old movie where has someone said, paraphrasing, that word "job killer" I don`t think it means what you think it means. Right? The president is recognizing that in part because of policies that he has his fingerprints all over. The Federal Reserve has been helpful, of course, that we`ve achieved a steady GDP growth and that economic recovery has reliably and clearly reached the job market. Over the past three months, we created over 300,000 jobs. You go back a year, that same metric would be 200,000. So not only we are creating jobs, we are doing so at a faster pace. If you look at the recent policy agenda that the president is talking about in his budget, whether it is infrastructure, whether it is help with child care, second earned deduction, expanding the earned income credit, these are ideas that are designed to help more of that growth reach more people. And that`s a critical piece of this that he would like to work on. It is very important as he suggested that Congress not screw up the momentum we have, but I also would like to see them aspire to do more on this reconnection front. SHARPTON: Well, and it`s been done basically create jobs in the private sector, not the public sector. If the Congress would pass public sector legislation in terms of infrastructure or something, we would see even more jobs and in areas that still have double-digit unemployment, like African- Americans and the like? BERNSTEIN: Yes, certainly. And I think that`s, again, you`re thinking about it the same way the president is and I am, which is, we definitely have a recovery that`s reaching the job market. I think that`s unquestionable at this point. So now we have to start looking at outstanding problems. Things that still need work. The inequality story. The fact that certain groups still face high unemployment rates. Wages aren`t growing quickly. Those kind of things. SHARPTON: Jonathan, what`s harder for the GOP? To concede the president was right on the economy or keep straight face while attack the economic record he has? CAPEHART: It`s harder for them to concede. Look, no matter how good the news is, there are certain folks in the Republican caucus who are so irrational, that they can`t conceivably give the president any kind of credit for what he`s been able to accomplish, and the good jobs numbers that came out today. You know, I recall when President Bush was president, every time there was a good jobs report, every time there was a good piece of economic news, it was proof that president`s policies were working. Well, if that`s the case under President George W. Bush, then it certainly should be the case under President Obama, especially since when we came into office the economic hell he inherited and had to stave off to save the national economy, but the global economy at the same -- also. And now here we are six years later having the best economic recovery we`ve had in a very long time, great jobs numbers. Gas prices are still -- they`re inching back up, but still low. Unemployment ticked back up. But Jared can correct me, it could be that more people are getting into the job markets looking for jobs and they`ll find them. SHARPTON: Well, also in addition to that, Jared, one of the headlines from today`s jobs report that I struck -- struck my eye was the average hourly wages are up a half a cent -- a half of a percent, rather. It`s the biggest monthly gain for hourly wages in six years. How do we keep wages going that way? BERNSTEIN: Well, I think the answer that that question is that we stay on this accelerated track in terms of improved job growth. People coming back into the labor market and finding more work. Now, if you look year over year, which is the way I like to measure these wage trends, wages are up 2.2 percent. That`s kind of around where they`ve been. But as Jonathan mentioned, inflation now and because of this energy price spike, it`s the (INAUDIBLE) inflation has been growing at less than one percent. So we now have achieved real hourly wage growth. In order for this recovery to reach some of the folks we talking about before, who had really, it really hasn`t reached enough yet, we have to remain steady at the helm. Congress can`t get into -- I mean, this fiscal cliff or debt default deals or highway trust fund screw-ups. We`ve got to keep tightening the job market because we`re not at full employment yet but moving in that direction. SHARPTON: But Jonathan, isn`t that part of the real story that with all of the obstruction, the president has been able to deliver every month over and over and over again to where now he`s set a record, and he`s done this facing a head wind not a back wind that is pushing it along? CAPEHART: Right. It speaks to the president`s skill. I remember for the last six years we`ve been talking about, or at least here in the Washington bubble, all of this talk about how the president is hapless. How the president can`t seem to work with Congress. How the president isn`t getting anything done. How the president is being thwarted in every direction to do anything about the economy. Why won`t he focus on jobs? Why won`t he focus on the financial health of the American people? Well, we`re now seeing that once again we have a president who is a long- ball player and doesn`t get distracted by the cacophony of the everyday news cycle. He is focused on achieving the goal and the goal is being achieved. SHARPTON: Jared Bernstein and Jonathan Capehart, thank you for your time. Have a good weekend. BERNSTEIN: You too, Rev. CAPEHART: Thanks, Rev. You, too. SHARPTON: Still ahead a bizarre joke in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. The judge was -- not amused. Also, our special interview with the president`s former body man, Reggie Love. But first -- what do Rand Paul, Pete Carroll and Left Shaw have in common? They are coming up in Rev. Al`s report card, next. ANNOUNCER: It`s time now for Reserved Al`s weekly report card. SHARPTON: Let`s get to it. It was a huge controversy in the midst of a measles outbreak, Senator Rand Paul questioned vaccines. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I`ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I`m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they`re a good thing. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Then came the damage control, saying he`s not sure if he`s different from the president on vaccines, and tweeting a picture getting a booster shot. Senator Paul gets a double F for flip-flop for his double- talk on vaccines. Next up, super bowl grades. I struggled how degrades Seahawks coach Pete Carroll thought would be a WCE, for worst call ever, but then this happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you allowed yourself to have that one moment lying in bed where the tears flowed, where you`re smiling at me, but I mean it. Has there been that moment? PETER CARROLL, SEAHAWKS HEAD COACH: That happened at that 4:05 mark. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tuesday morning? CARROLL: Yes. That`s what I do as a break where I allowed, you know, allowed all of the rush of it to hit. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, he should have run the ball. But he gets an A for admirable for speaking up and admitting he cried. But the highest grade of the week, it goes to this guy. Katy Perry`s dancing left shark. He may not have had the moves right at the super bowl, but he sure danced into our hearts. The left shark gets an A-plus for a great performance. Thanks to all of my students tonight. Class dismissed. ANNOUNCER: That`s tonight`s edition of Reverend Al`s weekly report card. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST, "POLITICS NATION": Time for the "Justice Files." Joining me now our legal analyst Eric Guster and Seema Iyer. Thank you both for being here. SEEMA IYER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thanks, Rev. ERIC GUSTER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thanks for having us. SHARPTON: We start with the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. The former football star had plead not guilty in the death of Odin Lloyd who was dating the sister of his fiancee. Today, jurors toured Hernandez home where the defense was ordered to remove religious images and sports memorabilia. From the days that he was with the Patriots, prosecutors say these were added after the crime. And what they claim was an attempt to sway the jury. Seem, would jurors really view Hernandez better because they see football jerseys or religious images? I mean, does that sort of thing work? IYER: Rev, wouldn`t you? Seeing him at the football hero that he was. Seeing pictures of Jesus and Mary just appropriately placed. That`s going to give him more of an heir of likability and of course it`s going to sway the jurors. The jurors need to see Aaron Hernandez as someone`s son, as someone`s teammate, as someone that they can fall in love with. GUSTER: Yes. And someone who wouldn`t hurt anyone. And that`s why a lot of defendants, you see them carry bibles into the courtroom trying to influence the jury and judge. IYER: Well, that`s because the defense tells them to. GUSTER: No, absolutely not. SHARPTON: Well, let me ask you this, Eric. This week we also saw the judge warn the victim`s mother not to cry on the witness stand while looking at photos of her dead son. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: To retain control of your emotions and not to cry while you`re looking at any photo that may be shown to you. Do you understand that? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes, ma`am. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, telling a grieving mother, Eric, that she can`t show emotion on the stand. Is that a reasonable request? GUSTER: It`s a tough request. Because what the judge is trying to do is make sure that any emotional reference does not influence the jury. Because sometimes people get very emotional which this is an emotional case. Her son is -- SHARPTON: You`re looking at pictures of your son. GUSTER: Yes. And it`s a very emotional case. And that`s why the judge is trying to make sure that Aaron Hernandez gets a fair trial and doesn`t have any room for appeal. IYER: However, Eric and I were fighting about this in the make-up room because that infringes upon testimony, that is the judge telling a witness how to testify. Crying on the stand, Rev, is equivalent a certain type of testimony. For instance, in the transcript, if a witness can`t enunciate their words, the reporter would say, sobbing or crying and -- GUSTER: But judge would tell them to eliminate any emotional reference. IYER: Oh, come on! And it works? GUSTER: Yes. You cannot allow emotion to taint your verdict. SHARPTON: Now I see what all that screaming I was hearing in the makeup room. Let me ask you something else, Seema. Yesterday while examining a witness Hernandez`s lawyer actually made a joke in court about the deflate- gate football scandal. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: One of the things you receive specialized training in is tire deflation, tire deflation devices. Right? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: A certain kind of tire deflation device, yes. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Okay. Did you ever receive training in football deflation devices? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPON: I mean, the judge later reprimanded the lawyer and he apologized but what was he thinking? IYER: No, Rev. I think it`s completely appropriate to bring some levity even in the most serious cases. I cannot stand judges whose don`t let me make jokes. Rev, you know I like to make jokes, you know, I`m very funny and you know I like to do my shtick in front of the jury. GUSTER: But Rev, as a defense lawyer, you`re dealing with the murder trial, you`re trying to lighten the mood as much as you can because it`s so somber. You have a mother crying and -- SHARPTON: So that`s part of an attorney`s strategy? GUSTER: Absolutely. It`s a very serious case. Everyone knows that, but you want to lighten the mood as much as can you, because the matter is so serious about a man being killed and you want the jury to have a lighter sense of what`s going on, and to pay attention to the testimony, not all the emotion. SHARPTON: All right. Let me switch gears here. The 15 minutes of fame for a left shark may be coming to a close. At least if Katy Perry`s lawyers have anything to say about it. Left shark rose to instant internet fame during the Super Bowl half time show for being out of sync and at times creating his own choreography during the Katy Perry performance. Now someone, not the guy inside the shark suit, has made a 3D printable left shark figurine, and Katy`s lawyers are not happy. They sent a letter to the sculptor demanding he cease and desist, claiming they own the rights to left shark. Now the sculptor has launch ad GoFundMe page to raise legal funds to fight the case. Seema, can Katy Perry really claim the copyright to left shark? IYER: No. She cannot. And this is bullying. And there`s no other way to say it. The man who`s making these 3D objects, he doesn`t know, or maybe doesn`t have the money to hire a lawyer to tell them that he`s not violating any copyright infringement laws? SHARPTON: You agree, Eric? GUSTER: I totally agree. This is a big law firm trying to pick on the little guy. Shame on them for doing that. And they should be sanctioned for that because they didn`t have a copyright to this. So, how can you tell someone to cease and desist if you don`t have the copyright to this left shark? IYER: Because it`s not part of the artist`s work. Right? The work is actually the -- GUSTER: The music and the -- IYER: The music and the show that she put on. But it`s like a costume. A costume is not able to be copyrighted. SHARPTON: And certainly what the shark did, left shark did they didn`t even know they were going to do. That wasn`t choreographed. IYER: Right. They`re not copyrightable either. GUSTER: Yes, they didn`t know. It became famous by mistake and now they`re trying to, Katy Perry and her folks trying to take advantage of it. IYER: I think she`s jealous. GUSTER: Left shark and Missy Elliot. IYER: Yes. SHARPTON: All right. I`m going to have to leave it there. Eric Guster and Seema Iyer, thank you both for your time and have a good weekend. IYER: Thanks, Rev. GUSTER: Thank you. SHARPTON: Be sure to watch Seema on "The Docket" on shift by MSNBC. Coming up, Mike Huckabee`s footloose past. How he turned his old opposition to dancing into a new attack on the president. And the so-called chief of stuff. Reggie Love was by the President`s side for five years. Tonight he tells all from the President`s trash talk to a Jay-Z encounter at the White House. Stay with us. SHARPTON: Time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining us tonight, HuffPost Live host Alyona Minkovski. Senior editor of Mic.com Liz Plank and political editor for "Roll Call" Shira Center. Thank you all for being here tonight. ALYONA MINKOVSKI, HUFFPOST LIVE HOST: Thanks, Rev. LIZ PLANK, MIC.COM SENIOR EDITOR: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: First up, Mike Huckabee is getting a lot of 2016 attention, and BuzzFeed dug up this blast from the past in high school. Huckabee wrote in a newspaper column, quote, "I strongly recommend that Christian teens stay away from dancing." No dancing? Where do I know that from? ("FOOTLOOSE" PLAYING) So people thought it was a little corny, but not really a story. But Huckabee responded by saying, other candidates use drugs as teenagers, and he couldn`t resist throwing this in. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: I mean I just had to say, is this really controversial? I`d much rather defend this than I had to say, yes, I used to regularly be part of the choom gang. Just bizarre. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The choom gang is what President Obama and his friends called themselves in high school when they smoked marijuana. Shira, is this how Republicans get traction? They go after the President? SHIRA CENTER, POLITICAL EDITOR "ROLL CALL": I do think that is generally how republicans running in the primary for president are getting traction these days. But it`s pretty clear Mike Huckabee is not angling for any kind of youth vote here or really any vote under the age of 65. He is solely trying to compete for the old white votes, Christian vote in the south and if that`s his m.o., you know, that`s what he`ll going to do. More power to him. SHARPTON: Shira? PLANK: Well, I think what this shows is that Mike Huckabee is, I mean, profoundly uncool, and you know, to your point, he`s not going to be reaching the youth vote. He`s not going to be reaching millennials. But millennials are profoundly important to the future of the Republican Party. They`re going to be an important demographic to reach for the 2016 race. So this is not only not reaching -- I think even donors who are looking at him talking about Beyonce or bacon or dance parties, he`s going to have to talk about issue, policies. What is he going to be doing in 2016 if he`s running other than banning everything that`s like cool? SHARPTON: And this is after the Beyonce fiasco as well, Alyona? MINKOVSKI: That`s right. I think Mike Huckabee has a little bit of foot and mouth disease, not only this flat shame Beyonce but as Liz pointed out there, he compared gay marriage to cussing, and then said that it was like making Jews serve up bacon-wrapped shrimp. So, clearly he`s just trying to deflect at this point, right? Because he`s just getting a bad wrap or things that he said in the past. But I personally don`t think what we need to focus on, things that people wrote or said or thought or believed in high school so much. We all go through phases, we all change our minds. Mike Huckabee`s beliefs and his beliefs that are anti-woman and anti- reproductive health and anti-LGBT community are what`s much more damaging today. SHARPTON: I agree with that. Now to Harvard University. Banning professors for having sexual or romantic relationships with undergraduates. Several of the schools including Yale and the University of Connecticut are doing the same. Liz, it`s 2015. Why are we only seeing this ban now? PLANK: Look, I think a lot of people thought that this ban already existed. SHARPTON: Yes. PLANK: I`m very glad that it`s being implemented. Directly and officially. But as a person who has spent time in academia I can tell you -- I mean, I don`t know a single woman who hasn`t been or experienced some form of sexual harassment. Some form of, these romantic relationships are not always consensual and there`s a lot of power dynamics happening, right? When you`re under and working under a supervisor it`s very difficult for you to maybe refuse these advances that make you uncomfortable. And actually, seven out of ten women who have worked in academia have experienced some form of it. And it`s often coming from supervisors. It`s often coming from people who are in position of power. So we really need to address this power dynamic, especially with undergraduate students. SHARPTON: Let me go to you, Alyona. MINKOVSKI: I disagree more just that a ban is the right way to go about things. It`s kind of like putting an band-aid on an issue or just trying to sweep it under the rug. If the problem is sexual harassments and the way that you have people trying to exploit their power and use it over younger people, or those that are, you know, they are professor or two, then you should actually address the culture. You should talk about that instead of just banning it. Not to mention, you know, who knows what might happen on college campuses? These are also people who are adults. Not everybody who`s an undergraduate is 17 or 18 years old and they should be able to make their own choices about consensual relationships. SHARPTON: But that bringing the question Shira, does it have to be a policy? CENTER: Well, does it have to be a policy? I think it probably should be written down, at least for the university`s own protection, right? That this is not something they condone or that should be in any cases committed. But look, if I remember correctly in undergraduate years, you know, professors are one case but I think the ban also addresses relationships between teaching assistants and graduate assistants with students and those people really work much more closely with students on the whole. And I think that protection is probably more important in the end. SHARPTON: Yes, but I think the point is that it`s only now a policy and we`ve seen so much down through the years. All right. Let me leave it there, Alyona and Liz and Shira. Thank you for joining "Conversation Nation" tonight. Have a great weekend. MINKOVSKI: You, too Rev. PLANK: Thank you. CENTER: Thanks. SHARPTON: We`ll be right back with President Obama`s former body man, Reggie Love. SHARPTON: For years Reggie Love was President Obama`s body man. Perhaps the only person in history whose basketball skills were mocked in the Rose Garden. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: I play with Reggie now, and when he`s on my team, I say to Reggie, was playing coach said, "don`t shoot." And when he`s on my team I say to Reggie, "don`t shoot." So things haven`t changed that much. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I talked to Reggie about his years at the President`s side, next. SHARPTON: They call him the body man, the person closest to the President. The President`s personal aide is a witness to history in the making. And for five years Reggie Love had the privilege of being one of the closest people to the president. Every single day. From Senator Obama`s 2008 campaign to his first years in the White House. The self-described chief of stuff said he was the President`s deejay, travel agent, messenger, punching bag, alarm clock, vending machine and his surrogate son. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: There are times where I`m not so calm. Reggie Love knows. My wife knows. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You`re actually kind of like your assistant, your right- hand man? OBAMA: He is the guy who makes sure I`m in the right place at the right time. He hands me stuff right before I need it because otherwise I lose it. Yes. He is all-around great guy. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: New memoir titled "Power Forward: My Presidential Education." He`s giving us a glimpse and to what it`s like to be one of the few to serve a president so closely. Joining me now is Reggie Love. Reggie, thank you for being here. REGGIE LOVE, AUTHOR, "POWER FORWARD": Reverend Sharpton, thank you for having me and thank you for that very generous introduction. I really appreciate that. SHARPTON: Well, you`ve had quite an amazing journey. When you became his body man there was no training for the job. How did you keep up with the President in those early days? LOVE: You know, I`ve got to tell you, it was pretty tough, but it was also inspiring to see a guy who`s more than half my age, you know, work as tirelessly and as on as few hours of sleep as he did, but you know, I write in the book, I definitely made a lot of mistakes. I tried not to make the same mistakes twice, and he -- he was -- and he was good with me as I was sort of going through those learning curves. He would always say that you know, in 2007, we were -- we were building the plane, while it was speeding down the runway. Ready for takeoff. SHARPTON: Wow. Now, you and the President form a bond over basketball. How did that start? LOVE: I remember the first time, you know, I got an e-mail from the senator, and it was about four months into the campaign, and it was -- it was late at night. I look at it, and it`s -- it`s Tony Parker`s stat line. And I -- you know, I have a huge grin and I kind of write back quickly, you know, that`s pretty good, but I insert Chris Paul Staten line which was a little bit better that night. It was the first interaction I was really kind of, you know, not related to sort of the daily grind of the campaign. And you know, he`s an avid basketball player. So we also played a little ball. SHARPTON: When you play, do you let the President win? LOVE: No, man. You cannot -- I mean, the guy, he talks so much trash. SHARPTON: Yes. LOVE: I mean, if he does win, or when he does win, it is -- it`s a long week. You`ve got -- you`re itching to get back out there to try to, to get another game in. SHARPTON: Wow. You know, I obviously have seen you on many occasions, and in my visits to the President on my civil rights work. Did you ever -- I`d see you in a lot of these things that were historic. Did you ever pinch yourself to say, am I really here? Am I really a part of this? LOVE: I mean, every day. You know, I remember one day, you know -- I got to meet, like, great people all the time. Like yourself, Reverend Jesse Jackson. You know, I met Kofi Annan walking into the west wing. I really was just -- an endless amount of amazing experiences that were able to shape me and to grow me and to be totally honest, it`s quite humbling to see all of these great men and all of the things that they`ve been able to achieve and all the value that they`ve been able to create for their communities. You know, it made me and continues to make me want to stay engaged and active in the political process. SHARPTON: Wow. LOVE: And you know, and to figure out how to, you know, to continue to create value for as many people as possible. SHARPTON: Reggie, let`s do some rapid fire questions. LOVE: Okay. SHARPTON: Best working at the White House? LOVE: Air Force One. SHARPTON: Best food at the White House. LOVE: The 44 burger and the waffle fries. SHARPTON: Ah. Coolest place you went with the President? LOVE: Oh, man. Such a -- the pyramids in Cairo. SHARPTON: Favorite celebrity you met. LOVE: Now, that`s a no-brainer. That`s Jay-Z. SHARPTON: Finally, the biggest lesson you learned from working with President Obama? LOVE: That`s a hard one. I learned a lot of them, but I think the thing that I will always take away from him is his ability to empathize with other people. You know, I told -- I told the story about how he had given -- he`d written an anonymous check a couple of times to people who are just like down on their luck that he`d met throughout the campaign and never made a story of it. You know, and there were points in times where it wasn`t even sure if he was going to be the nominee let alone president and you know, even at that early stage in the game, you know, he was really focused on how he could you know, make things a little better for people who have it a little worse off than he did. SHARPTON: Wow. Reggie Love, thank you for your time this evening. Again the book is called "Power Forward: My Presidential Education." LOVE: Well, thank you for having me. You`re a good man. And I appreciate all of your hard work and service, man. SHARPTON: Thank you, Reggie. Thank you so much. LOVE: All right. Take care. SHARPTON: And I appreciate the humble as well as even spread of Reggie Love. It reminds me of the President himself and a lot of his team. Not getting too hot. Not getting too cold. Good days don`t make them too intoxicated with glory and bad days does not make them too depressed. If you have people like Reggie Love by your side, that can keep their head, they can grow. Take someone under your wing. Help them grow like Reggie Love did under the President. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. Have a good weekend. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 8, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020601cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 31 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 6, 2015 Friday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST All In for February 6, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes GUESTS: Robert Reich, Josh Barro, Anthea Butler, Bob Ingle, Andrew Jarecki SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8117 words HIGHLIGHT: Barack Obama presidency as our economy has slowly but surely recovered from the financial crisis, there`s been a common refrain on the right anybody out the quality and kinds of jobs being created. Tonight, both U.S and Jordanian officials are advising caution against claims made by ISIS, that an American hostage, a 26-year-old woman has been killed in Syria following a coalition airstike. Examining the debate over closing Guantanamo Bay prison. Latest on the Bridgegate investigation. Interview with director Andrew Jarecki. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HARDBALL HOST: ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts right now. CHRIS HAYES, ALL IN HOST: Tonight on ALL IN. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If this, one of these reports that literally you can not find bad news in. HAYES: Actual good news to report as the beast mode economy kicks in to another gear. BARACK OBAMA, 44TH AND CURRENT PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICAL: And now, you`re welcome. HAYES: Tonight, the changing political landscape for Republicans as they search for a dark side in the Obama economy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So the headline is unemployment rate takes up to 5.7. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow. HAYES: Then, first it was vaccines, now we area actually debating the crusades. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re basically saying the Catholic Church was the al- Qaeda of its day. HAYES: Brand new investigation that could finally dome Chris Christie 2016 hopes and it is the new HBO series everyone will be talking about. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What could you do with it? If he`s not -- the key is with them. HAYES: Tonight, my exclusive interview with the director of The Jinx. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where is he (inaudible)? What did you do with it? HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: All right, good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. We`ve got some huge economic news today, it`s being describe as a black buster jobs report that latest in what now appears to be the strongest run of good economic news in over a decade. Labor Department announced this morning American employers added 257,000 jobs in January. All the estimates for November and December were raised up, significantly, by a combined 147,000, bringing the total number of jobs created in 2014 to 3.1 million. That is the strongest annual job growth since 1999. And it`s why you`re almost seeing almost ex-static headlines about today`s report. It`s raining jobs. The best economy in 15 years, the job report crushes it. And while unemployment tickled up or ticked up very slightly, turns out that`s actually good news too. According to the Labor Department, the unemployment rate grew a 10th of a point to 5.7 percent, mainly because people who had given up on looking for work decided to give another shot into labor force. So let`s put all these in context. What does it mean for President Obama`s record on job creation and his legacy as President during the economic recovery? Now, look at this chart compiled by Steve Benen at MaddowBlog, of job totaled in the 5th and 6th years of presidency, President Obama is approaching Clinton territory, which is of course a big deal. At a town hall today in Indiana, he took what is arguably a pretty well deserved victory lap. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: All told, over the past 59 months, the private sector has added about 11.8, so that`s, you know, almost 12 million new jobs, and that`s the longest streak of private sector job growth in our history. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Barack Obama presidency as our economy has slowly but surely recovered from the financial crisis, there`s been a common refrain on the right anybody out the quality and kinds of jobs being created. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ROGER WICKER (R), MISSISSIPPI: The Obama economy is a part-time economy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A part-time economy under President Obama. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The truth about this economy is that it`s essentially a part-time economy... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A part-time working economy rather than having real jobs. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is really underscoring a part-time economy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Work rapidly converting to a part-time economy. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: But this chart in 538, completely disproves that claim, the jobs added during this recovery have been overwhelmingly fulltime jobs. And while where are concerns at the labor force participation rate, the share of working either (inaudible) side or working or actively looking for work remains low. As you see here, the rate on employment among (inaudible) workers is now rising steadily, but still hast bounce back to prerecession levels. Probably the biggest problem with the recovery, the biggest by far I would say, is how uneven it`s been. With the majority, in fact, by some measures, all of the economic gains going to the wealthiest Americans while middle class incomes from being stagnant or declined. Today though, there are signs that too may finally be starting to turn around. In 2014, average weekly earnings grew almost 2.3 percent, well above the 0.8 percent inflation rate, which means real gains. They`re still below where they should be, but the trend continue through January with the best wage growth in six years, an encouraging sign that we`re headed in the right direction. I talked with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and ask him for his take on today`s job report. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT REICH, FRM. SECRETARY OF LABOR: Well I would like to think that something really good is happening, Chris. Obviously we are in the upturn of an economic cycle. I can`t say it`s very much about the structural changes in the economy, but clearly we are creating more jobs over the past year, 3.2 million new jobs. That`s as good as we have seen since the Clinton Administration. If I do say so myself. HAYES: And the other thing I think about that that`s key to recognize here, there`s also strong (inaudible) with me that this could have been happening back in 2011, had you not had this turn towards austerity partly brought on by a Tea Party Congress and the White House kind of seeding to their demands? REICH: Yes. As long as the obsession was deficit reduction, it was very difficult to create new jobs because there was not enough demand in the economy. The other thing that`s notable here is that Republicans were saying for years before the Affordable Care Act got implemented, "Oh, it`s going to be a jobs killer." Well then the Affordable Care Act came along, got implemented, and what we`ve seen is even more a new jobs. HAYES: Yeah, and every single part of the attack on the Obama economy, which is predictions about jobs being killed, predictions about regulatory burden, you know, strangling domestic energy production when we have, you know, oil at all time low prices. I mean, if you have this record, if Mitt Romney had this record right now, if had run in one, could you imagine the victory laps that would be -- they would be doing about what the Mitt Romney turnaround of the economy. REICH: Well I don`t even want to imagine it. But, you know, the fact of the matter is that had Mitt Romney been elected president, there would be still austerity economic, even more deficit reduction, even more tax cuts on the rich, even more of a burden on the middle class. And at the same time, there would be probably no Affordable Care Act. So you probably wouldn`t not get this much job creation. But having said all of that, let me -- and I don`t want to rain on the parade, but let me just say that the jobs that are being created are not all that great. In fact, the jobs that are being created attained to pay less than the jobs we lost in the great recession. HAYES: We are though, and let`s just talk about this. Because this is the key part, right? We had this recovery that wasn`t helping average people, right? We`ve seen -- we`re stagnating wages, stagnating personal income, we`re starting maybe to see some upper lift in wages, we`re starting to see job creations and some sectors that really need it, things like construction, we`re starting to see. And the question is, can you get to a place like what we had in the late 90s where the economic boom really is doing quite a bit at the bottom of the wage scale and creating jobs that can really sustain the kind of pillars in the middle class life? REICH: And that`s the big question, can we get back to the late 1990s? And that was the only time over the past 30 years where inequality started to actually decline because people at the bottom were in such demand, unemployment got so low, jobs were in so scares that or people to feel the jobs were so scares, that employers try to pay more to people in the bottom 20 percent. Now, are we going to get there? It`s possible, but there are lot of headwinds, economist love to talk about headwinds, because there`s a lot of headwinds that are going to slow the economy down. For example, the dollar is very high, relative on their currencies. It`s hard to export. A lot of the rest of the world is slowing down. Europe is very close to recession. Gas tag -- Gas prices are good, but that`s likely to be temporary. When things pick up again, our gas prices are likely to go up. So we don`t really know how solid this recovery is, as certainly in terms of wages. HAYES: Yeah, this is really the biggest question. It`s the biggest question, it`s kind of how to define American politics, in the prudential politics. And what`s huge part of what the Obama Legacy is over the next few years is, do you see this kind of growth? Can America be a kind of island of robust growth amidst a whole world full of economic disaster, possibly catastrophe, possibly, you know, crisis across the world? That is the big open question. REICH: That`s a big open question. And let me go back to the Clinton years for a second, because even though the economy was very, very good, the best economy we`ve seen in the latter Clinton years, still the long- terms structural... HAYES: Yup. REICH: ... problems of widening and equality and slow down of middle class growth and stagnant wages, really were not over economy. HAYES: That`s right. REICH: That was a business phenomenon, not a structural phenomenon. HAYES: That is exactly right. The people of the top have too much power and they continue to have too much power. Until that`s solved, nothing else get solved. Robert Reich, thank you very much. REICH: Thanks Chris. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now since the moment he took office, Republicans have been criticizing President Obama for his economic record. Right of the back, they oppose a stimulus plan. They accused him of punting on the countries debt and deficit woes and they blame him for the slow economic recovery. Now the economy appears to be back on its feet, they`ve been attacking him, somewhat remarkably from the left, over inequality wage stagnation. Just this week during an economic address in Detroit, likely 2016 candidate Jeb Bush, sounded a distinctly populous tone. Today, (inaudible), as the evidence of a strong recovery became pretty instrumentable, there were apparently only three accepted responses to the news. One is Bennett, is Fox`s headline about those jobless numbers we told you about, no mention there what it actually says about the rise, even though labor force participation rate. Two, (inaudible), Senator Dan Coats, who`s home state of Indiana played host to the President`s victory lap, tweeted earlier, "As President Obama visits Indiana today, long-term unemployment (inaudible) high at 31.5 percent." In fact as New York Times contributor Justine Wolfers pointed out, the actual number is 1.8 percent, slightly different. Senator Coats later revised he`s tweet to reflect that 31.5 percent is the share of the unemployed, not of the entire workforce who are long-term unemployed. And then there`s a third response, which is to just ignore it. Joining me now, Josh Barro, Domestic Correspondent for the Upshot, New York Times and MSNBC contributor. This is striking to me, the relative emphasis in the world of conservative, media, particularly between foreign affairs and the economy as the economy has gotten better. JOSH BARRO, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah. Well, I mean, does it surprise you? It makes a fair amount of sense, Republicans have made a lot of hay (ph) over the last six years, over the fact that the economy was not very good. It was talking to the point that served them very well because it was true. As the economy is improved, what`s left for them to say about, you know, great job, you know, things look really good. I mean, they could say someone accurately, well a lot of this is driven by falling gas prices which is a non-policy phenomenon, that President... HAYES: Or it is where we are in the business cycle. BARRO: Right. And that`s actually -- I think the form the President her is over sold for that reason, which is... HAYES: Right. BARRO: ... when you come out of a recession, you are suppose to have really fast job growth. This was suppose to happen in 2010, 2011. If you look back at 1983, 1984, coming out of 1982 recession, we were typically creating 400,000 jobs a month, even though the population was smaller than it is now. When you have -- when you`re on a recession of all these people who are out of work, you have excess capacity in the economy, you are suppose to be able to have fast growth. So it`s great that we`re getting it now, it could be even faster, it would have been better if it happen five years ago. HAYES: 100 percent, great, right? BARRO: So, you know, yes. Enjoy this, but, you know, bragging too much about is a little much. HAYES: Yes, but I also do think that there`s kind of a asymmetry in politics sometimes which is that if it`s bad, it`s the President`s fault the economy is bad. And then if it`s good, I mean, in both cases often it`s not attributed to the President, right? BARRO: Right. HAYES: Which you get it on the downside, you might as well take it on the upside, politically, right? BARRO: Sure. I mean, I... HAYES: The fact of the matter is, President to legacies often just get written by the accident of where a president happen to be on the business cycle. BARRO: Absolutely, yeah. I mean, if I were President, I would take as much credit as possible for falling gas prices. And I think, you know, this happened to Bill Clinton, he sort of wrote this... HAYES: Right. BARRO: ... exactly the right time. He was -- He -- You had these inherited recession. HAYES: Right. BARRO: And then we came out of it with good growth and then with really strong growth in 98, 99, driven in large (inaudible) and asset bubble. HAYES: That then bust rate. BARRO: That only started busting right as he was about to leave office. So people have these wonderful memories of the Clinton administration and the strong Clinton economy, even though it was partly built on a mirage. And George Bush gets a lot of blame for that, even though that wasn`t his fault that that bubble had gotten blown before he was elected president. HAYES: There is also the case that there are sort of prove -- there are for predictive claims made about the effects of the certainly policy choices, like for instance, the deficit or debt as a drag on growth, or Obamacare is a drag on growth, or Obamacare pushing people in the part-time work, those are theoretical predictions made by politicians as kind of ideological attacks on the President that are not being shown false, empirically. BARRA: Well, I wouldn`t quite say that, because a lot of those, the effects they were going to have in late market were always very small. When we were talking about the effects of... HAYES: That`s fair enough. BARRO: ... Obamacare pushing people into part-time work. There`s, you know, there`s a real phenomenon there when you charge employers... HAYES: Yup. BARRO: ... the ample time employees but not part-time employees, it cost the for part-time employees. But the likely at the margins -- yeah, the likely effect is on the order of one in every 1,500 workers, it was a really small effect. And even if that effect is really going on right now, and I think that effect is very small, it can be swamped by other things, such as falling gas prices leading to the creation of a lot of jobs and making the Obamacare effect look like just a tiny bit of noise in the system. You see this with a lot of stuff, Republicans now, one talking point I`ve been hearing is at the end of extended unemployment benefits has driven the job growth of 2014, the taking away unemployment benefits made people more energized to look for work... HAYES: Right. BARRO: ... and created a lot of jobs. There`s an economic working paper out there that says that`s a fair amount of play on the right. Again, unemployment benefits do have really... HAYES: Right. BARRO: ... incentive benefit -- incentive effects. HAYES: Because right now they`re... BARRO: Some (inaudible) swamped by a lot of other stuff that`s happening. HAYES: Right, exactly. Yeah. Josh Barro, always a pleasure. Thank you. BARRO: Thank you. HAYES: All right, why? Why? You might be asking yourself, are the crusades suddenly on the news. I will explain ahead. HAYES: Tonight, both U.S and Jordanian officials are advising caution against claims made by ISIS, that an American hostage, a 26-year-old woman has been killed in Syria following a coalition airstike. Kayla Mueller, a humanitarian aid volunteer from Arizona was taken hostage by ISIS in August of 2013, near the Syrian city of Aleppo. She is believed to be the last American hostage held captive by the group. And today, ISIS claimed that Mueller was killed in the city of Raqqa, buried in the rabble of a building hit by Jordanian aircraft. Jordan has deployed its air force to strike ISIS targets in an effort to avenge the death of a Jordanian pilot burned alive by ISIS fighters. But as NBC reports the Pentagon says there were no U.S. or Jordanian combat missions near that city. Gun camera video released by the Defense Department, shows the raids take place 140 miles away. U.S. Special Forces attempt to rescue captives held by ISIS in July, but Mueller and her fellow American hostages had been moved. The other Americans held with here, James Foley, Steven Sotloff and Abdul- Rahman Kassig were all beheaded. Mueller has never been shown by ISIS in front of a camera, and her family has previously asked news organization not to identify her by name, that is until today. Mueller is and was or is by all account a remarkable human being, committed to helping victims of Syria`s civil war, as she explained in this video posted two years before she was taken hostage. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAYLA MUELLER, ISIS HOSTAGE: I am in solidarity with the Syrian people. I reject the brutality and the killings that the Syrian authorities are committing against the Syrian people. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: She was a friend to the Syrian people. She put her life on the line to aid them. Tonight, Mueller`s family and the rest of the world await news of her fate. HAYES: There is an annual even in Washington dating back in 1953 called the National Prayers Breakfast, sponsored by a politically connected and secretive ministry called the Fellowship. It attracts political religions and cultural leads from around the world. Including this year, the Dalai Lama and former NASCAR Darell Walltrip. Every President since Dwight Eisenhower has attended the breakfast. Yesterday, President Obama took the podium and delivered remarks, I though were pretty unremarkable and uncontroversial. Overall, the speech was a call for the faithful to be humble before god and rejects the certainty of violent extremism. There was one passage that sent the conservative outrage machine into overdrive. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In response to that passage, potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal release statements to crying the President`s comments. And former Virginia GOP Governor, Jim Gilmore call the President`s remarks, in not joking here, "The most offensive I`ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime." At Drudge Report, right-wing bloggers and commentators outside a field day, but no one got more mileage out of the comments than the talking heads over at Fox News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the President, 48 hours after we saw that Jordanian men burned alive, for some reason though it was important to remind the world about the evils that Christians committed 1,000 years ago. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, it`s inexplicable to me. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He wanted to bring Christianity into fight. And I want... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Christians are evil too. Who launched the crusades? The Catholic Church. So he`s basically saying the Catholic Church was the al-Qaeda of it`s day. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said, "You know what? Yeah, ISIS is bad. But you know what? Christians were just as bad as ISIS was a couple of centuries ago." He`s making excuses it seems for ISIS`s behavior. He`s seem to be saying, "We started it." (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In fact, the President was not doing any of that, you know, calling Christianity evil or defending ISIS, which he called a brutal vicious death cult, which seems about right. He`s message, if you actually listen to the full speech, it`s pretty clear. Religion has tremendous value, it has too often, over the years, across many phases been used to justify terrible acts. And not faith is immune from that tendency. And yes, that includes what happen in the crusades, as discussed in this 2012 History Channel Documentary. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE LOADES, HISTORIAN: (inaudible) deceived this idea, it`s not a sin if you kill non-Christians, if you kill non-believers in our faith. And so he made this deal that if you go and fight in the holy land, you will be forgiven all your past sins. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, you wouldn`t know this if you just listen to (inaudible) in Fox News. The President`s speech was not focused on the hordes of Christianity. Here`s what he said, immediately after, the next, the very next sentence after that passage that got conservatives (inaudible) about. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Michelle and I returned from India, an incredible, beautiful country, full of this magnificent diversity, but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now Anthea Butler, she`s Professor of Religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania. All right, so I don`t think I wan to litigate the wisdom of the crusades in a short cable news segment. I`m seeing some contrarian hot cakes online today about how great the crusades were, so let`s just put those aside. But the general principle that during -- keep in mind, the President said, during the crusades and inquisition people did horrible things in the name of their faith. That is 100 percent true historical claim, right? ANTHEA BUTLER, RELIGIOUS STUDIES PROF. UNIV. OF PA: Absolutely. I mean, Chris, this is just history, it`s always mind bugling to me that the people who were saying these things would make an F in any high school or university classroom, because this is what people are thought. You`ve know that the crusades get started because Christian started to go take back the Holy Land, and everybody is fighting each other, or the inquisition where you do terrible things to people because you want them to say things about the catholic faith he want or taking over the Americans by conquistadores, drowning at a Baptist, you name it. Christians have done lots of terrible things in the name of religion. HAYES: It does, so -- I mean, the other thing I would say here is you don`t have to go back to the crusades, I mean, in the war in Bosnia -- Herzegovina, I mean, people did horrible things to each other because they were on the wrong side of ethnoreligious divide. In Northern Ireland, people murdered each other very recently because they`re (inaudible) on a linguistic and religious divide. This is not an uncommon think in the history of human beings on the planet, religiously motivated violence. BUTLER: No it is not. And I think it`s really disingenuous and -- yeah, I`m sorry, just rather lame for them to claim that this is the worst thing ever that a president has ever said. Is the one -- a true thing, it is just history. But when you are as invested as some on the right are about rewriting the history of America, rewriting Christian history, you run into people who are going to have these really horrible ideas that are changing what has happen in lots of religious traditions. And I think in this particular case, you can`t privilege Christianity over Islam, because all of these religions have violence within them. And the violence happens either because people believe in (inaudible) that`s telling them, maybe we should do this or they are using religion for political and their social needs. HAYES: And it comes down to this insistence right now, this drum beat about in having to name the enemy as Islamic terrorism, Islamic fanaticisms, that the specialness and distinctness of Islam, the President`s point seemed to be that throughout history, different religious in different time, in different propensities that are, you know, played to. BUTLER: Yeah, exactly. And I think one of the things that people are missing here is that, if you play into ISIS`s hand or Diach, like some of us call it, it`s basically what you want that they want you to do... HAYES: That`s right. BUTLER: ... they want you to declare a holy war, they want you to come after them. Because it`s going to make them martyrs, you know, we just make more martyrs and then this thing continues at infinitum. HAYES: Yeah. BUTLER: So I really think that, you know, the rhetoric needs to be retched down. HAYES: It takes two sides to make a proper crusade. Anthea Butler... BUTLER: Absolutely. HAYES: ... thanks you very much. BUTLER: Thank you. HAYES: The Senator who said Guantanamo detainees could "Root in Hell," ahead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TOM COTTON, (R) ARKANSAS: In my opinion, the only problem with Guantanamo Bay is there are too many empty beds and cells there right now. We should be sending more terrorist there for further interrogation, to keep this country safe. As far as I`m concern, every last one of them can root in hell. But as long as they don`t do that and they can root in Guantanamo Bay. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Senator Tom Cotton, Republican for Arkansas, a newly minted member of the Senate Armed Services Committee laid out his case against closing Guantanamo Bay yesterday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COTTON: Now, let`s look at the propaganda value, how many detainees are at Guantanamo Bay on September 11th, 2001? BRIAN MCKEON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY: Zero. COTTON: How many were there in October 2000 when al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole? MCKEON: Zero. COTTON: Or that 1998, when they bomb their embassies? MCKEON: The facility was not open before 2002, Senator. COTTON: 1993, in the first World Trade Center bombing? MCKEON: The same answer. COTTON: 1979 when Iran took over our embassy? 1983 when Hezbollah bombed our embassy and marine barracks in Lebanon? The answer is zero. MCKEON: Correct. COTTON: Islamic terrorists don`t need an excuse to attack the United States. They don`t attack us for what they do, they attack us for who we are. It is not a security decision, it is a political decision based on a promise that the president made on his campaign. To say that it is security decision based on propaganda value that our enemies get from it is a pretext to justify a political decision. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now Senator Cotton is by all accounts pretty smart guy, definitely well credentialed -- a Harvard law graduate, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran. His arguments seemed to lack fundamental logic. First, the idea that terrorists were being recruited before Guantanamo Bay, therefore it`s a pretext to say Guantanamo should be shut down because its existence recruits more terrorists, it`s a bit like saying that drivers were crashing cars without being drunk and therefore it`s a pretext to say drunk driving should be stopped because it causes more crashes. It doesn`t make sense. Second, his contention there are too many empty beds in Guantanamo right now, of the 122 inmates still there, 54 have been cleared for release but are still stuck in prison. These are, among them, people who very likely have never done anything wrong, who were misidentified or sold to captors who we`ve imprisoned for over a decade. People, Cotton says, we should keep locked away to spare us the risk that someone in the future might turn against us. And I would note that that, itself, is a logic of eternal internment. And it is offensive at its roots to our constitution and our founders` very conception of liberty. And finally, Senator Cotton`s his final point that when it comes to terrorists every last one of them can rot in hell, but as long as they don`t they can rot in Guantanamo Bay, well, a lot of them have tried to get out of Guantanamo Bay by killing themselves so that they can rot somewhere other than this planet. As a lawyer of one of the Guatanamo detainees pointed out today, his client is subjected to solitary confinement, daily tube feeding through his nose, and violent cell extractions all without ever having been charged with a crime. So for his client, Senator Cotton, Guantanamo is hell. HAYES: Remember when people said that Bridgegate was over, old news, settled in the past -- not so fast. It`s not simply the U.S. attorney`s office has yet to wrap up its Bridgegate investigation, which could lead to indictments of former Christie staffers, it`s that once a federal investigation is up and running other possible issues can get uncovered. So today we learned new subpoenas have reportedly been issued looking into the travel records of former Port Authority Chairman David Samson, the man appointed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who has had close ties with the governor since chairing Christie`s transition team when he was elected governor in 2009. Here are the new key points of the new inquiry, according to the (inaudible) Record, from September 6, 2012 to April 1, United Airlines operated a flight that went from Newark Liberty Airport to Columbia Metropolitan Airport in South Carolina. The nonstop flight was available for 19 months. Now, that alone obviously would be innocuous. Here is the problem, the airport in South Carolina was, according to the record, quote, about 50 miles from a home where Samson often spent weekends with his wife, and United halted the nonstop route on April 1 of last year just three days after Samson resigned under a cloud. OK, fine, interesting circumstantial details -- flight from Newark to South Carolina, exists, then it gets stopped when Samson resigns, could be a coincidence. It gets worse. According to the record, quote, "Samson referred to the twice a week route with a flight leaving Newark on Thursday evenings and another returning on Monday mornings as the chairman`s flight," one story said. "Federation aviation records show that during the 19 months United offered the non-stop service, the 50-seat planes that flew the route were, on average, only about half full." The spokeswoman for Samson would not comment to the publication, nor would the office of U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman which is reportedly issuing the subpoenas, nor would Christie`s office comment. However United Airlines told the Record, quote, "United has received subpeonas for information and is cooperating. United has no further comment." During David Samson`s tenure as chairman of the Port Authority, United Airlines was, of course, in regular negotiations with both the Port Authority and the Christie administration over a variety of issues such as whether to extend United Airlines service to Atlantic City. While United Airlines began flights to and from Atlantic City in April last year, it pulled out last December just eight monts later. Joining me now syndicated political columnist from Gannett Newspaper, Bob Ingle, author of "Chris Christie: The Inside Story of his Rise to Power." The big thing here is that you`ve got a U.S. attorney looking at Samson, and we have said all along for over a year Samson is the key to all of this. Do you agree? BOB INGLE, GANNETT NEWSPAPERS: I do. There is a theory about that what is going on here is Samson is about 75 years old and he`s had a long and distinguished career. He was, in fact, attorney general of New Jersey at one time. The theory is that if they get enough and they can scare him, he may tell them what they want to know about certain other political types. HAYES: well, who do you mean by that? INGLE: Well, we all know we`re talking about Chris Christie. HAYES: Right. I mean, the idea... INGLE: And maybe other people. HAYES: Samson knows a lot of stuff. INGLE: He does. HAYES: And we now have concern -- I mean, the reporting is pretty clear, right? I mean, we`re a year -- you know, 13 months out from the sort of initial brouhaha over this -- the time for traffic in Fort Lee. There`s a lot of reports. I mean, we know there is an active investigation happening in U.S. attorney`s office in Newark. This is further evidence of that. We know they`ve got a bunch of people that they`ve been looking at, talking to, interviewing. I mean, at some point you`ve got to imagine some shoe is going to drop, right? INGLE: Well, I would think so and that is one of the questions people keep asking. Well, when is the U.S. attorney, Fishman going to do anything? Well, he`s known for taking his time and dotting his Is and crossing his Ts. He doesn`t seem to be in a particular hurry. I think he wants to get it right. HAYES: This has been a week from hell for Chris Christie. He starts out he is in England, he`s doing this sort of foreign policy trip. He starts out with the vaccination thing, which blows up in his face. He`s got to walk that back. He has got a new criminal investigation that was reported yesterday having to do with the possibility of quashing investigations and subpoenas for politically connected people, that`s just an investigation that`s been confirmed. And then you`ve got this news today. What has this week been like for Christie`s chances as a Republican presidential candidate? INGLE: I had a column in Gannett papers today and online that`s saying if he can take back three days, it would probably be these three days, and then this United thing came up and I think I should have said if he could take back this week. What is happening, I think, is that the people who had this image of Christie as this guy who is above all of the corruption, this guy who is a regular sort of fellow, who`d eat a cheesesteak on the boardwalk, is not really who they thought he was, that he is more or less politics as usual. And I think, that is hurting him with his fan base. HAYES: Bob Ingle, thank you very much. INGLE: You bet. HAYES: All right, are you, dear viewer, looking for the next version of the podcast Serial, a new six part series is set to premiere Sunday night on HBO. It`s a true crime tale with twists and turns and I`ve seen a few episodes, it`s amazing. I want to talk to the director ahead. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AKON, RAPPER: Hey, check it out, Kurdistan, how are you doing, man? This is your boy Akon. And, yes, I`m so excited to be there to visit that 8,000- year-old city to perform live at the Hariri Stadium in March. So make sure you`re all be there, man. I`m telling you, you will not regret it, let`s go. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Hello, Irbil. Hip hop star Akon says he will hold an anti-ISIS charity concert in the largest city in Iraqi Kurdistan next month. As Newsweek reports, proceeds from the concern will support families of Kurdistan`s unofficial military, the Peshmerga, who are currently fighting quite successfully I might add against Islamic state militants. This is a very cool thing to do, a noble gesture. But, I would say, consider yourself warned, Kurdistan. As The Washington Post notes, Akon has been involved in a series of international incidents. He`s been banned from entering Sri Lanka after offending Buddhists with a video showed a risque poll party with a Buddha statue in the background, caused a major uproar after he was accused of simulating sex on stage with a teenaged girl in Trinidad and Tobago. So that guy is putting on a concert for the Peshmerga. But here`s the thing, should any ISIS fighter think they could just show up Akon`s charity event and taunt him, this is pretty much what they can expect. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AKON: Now we can start the show. You all with me? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFEID MALE: One thing was very telling that Bob said, he said all of my life I`ve had more money than I could spend and it didn`t make me happy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She talked on the telephone with her husband, then she vanished and no one has seen Kathleen Durst since. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Durst was wanted for murder in Texas, was a suspect for murders in Los Angeles and Westchester County New York. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He belongs to one of the richest families in New York City. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Might be a little eccentric. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think Bob is very smart. I mean, he`s managed to get away with three murders. (BEGIN VIDOE CLIP) HAYES: Robert Durst, or Bob, is the scion to one of New York City`s most prominent real estate families. The Durst Organization built the Bank of America tower, the Conde Nast building and most recently the Freedom Tower, possibly the most famous skyscraper in the country. But Robert has always been an outsider in the family. He`s also been connected to three murder disappearances over the last 30 years. The first in 1982 when his wife Cathy went missing. She is now presumed dead -- Durst who is a prime suspect at the time was never charged. Then, almost two decades later, Susan Berman, who police wanted to question about Cathy`s disappearance turned up dead in Los Angeles, a gunshot to the back of the head. Once again, Durst was a suspect and never charged. A year later, a fisherman in Texas found Durst`s neighbor Morris Black`s torso floating in the Galveston Bay. Durst was charced with murdering and dismembering the 71-year-old. He cops to the dismembering, but not the murder. Durst said that he killed Black in self-defense and then panicked, chopped up his body and dumped it into the bay. After skipping bail, he was arrested in Pennsylvania for shoplifting a sandwich with $500 in his pocket. In 2003, he was acquitted of Black`s murder after the jury bought his self- defense story. Robert Durst has never spoken public about any of any of that until now. A fantastic new HBO documentary miniseries titled Jinx: the Life and Deaths of Robert Durst premieres this Sunday 8:00 p.m. with Robert Durst speaking out for the first time. And I can say that after watching the first two episodes, it is going to be a huge hit. The series aims through interviews with Durst himself, friends and families to answer one huge question: is Robert Durst a murderer or the most unlucky man alive? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was having a late afternoon dinner party for my family, and Cathy really wasn`t invited, but when Cathy called me that morning and said I need to get out of here, I`m not going to tell my best friend no. Everybody was getting along and everybody was enjoying, you know, it was just a nice evening. And I can remember very clearly the telephone calls and Bobby insisting that Cathy come home. And Cathy being visibly shaken after the phone calls, she went out and she warmed up her Mercedes. She came back in and she said I`m leaving now. So we stood on the front porch and she said to me, Gilberta, promise me if something happens you`ll check it out. I`m afraid of Bobby. And I just said, Cathy, of course, you can count on me. It didn`t even register that she was telling me that for some dreadful reason, I just didn`t get it. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: All right, next, my interview with the series director Andrew Jarecki who sat down with Robert Durst for more than 20 hours. Stick around. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANDREW JARECKI, DIREDCTOR: If you had him sitting here, what would you say to him? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did you do with her? Because the key is with him. Where is she? What did you do with her? JARECKI: I didn`t meet him right away. I heard about him, that he was courting her and she was very swept off of her feet is the way I like to describe it. You know, he just came on like Prince Charming and she was basically Cinderella. ROBERT DURST: She thought I was good looking in my a little way, cute or whatever it was. And she was very outgoing and social, and got along with people real good. It was perfect. Because I don`t get along with people, most people don`t get along with me. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: All right, this weekend, a new weekly documentary series "Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst," debuts on HBO, examines the life of a man born into one of the most powerful real estate families in the country, later connected to three murder disappearances. I sat down with director Andrew Jarecki. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: So, first of all, I`ve watched the first two episodes, they`re phenomenal. And they`re riveting. So congratulations, it`s really -- it feels new, it feels like some of new genre. JARECKI: It`s a new -- it feels that way to me, too., HAYES: Yeah, like, something that moves out past the border of true crime into something else. JARECKI: Yeah, and even the format of it, you know, we started making this thing -- we made this other movie first. It was a narrative feature, then Bob Durst reached out to me, so I thought well, now I`m making an interview. I don`t know what it`s going to become. HAYES: Right, so let`s go through that story, right? Because -- so this is a crazy story that -- of the Durst brothers and Bob Durst and this family and who he is. You start by making a feature fictional film based on his story. Tell me about how that came about, why you chose to do that, what that was like. JARECKI: Well, about ten years ago, I thought the subject of Bob Durst would be interesting. He is a very unusual character because he`s enormously complicated. He started out in this in this very luxurious life. He was a young man born into tremendous wealth, was sort of the sign of this giant real estate family in New York. And somehow 70 years later, we find him in a $300 a rooming house in Galveston, Texas, disguiasd as a mute woman with his neighbor lying dead on the floor. This was a trajectory that really fascinated me. And I thought how do yuo start here and end up there. So, we started to write a film about him and concentrating a lot on his relationship with a wife, this beautiful girl named Cathy McCormick, who he married, who was really she was from a very different world. She was from a modest family, Irish Catholic background in Long Island. They were together for about ten years and then she disappeared. So 1982, this big mystery arises. And I grew up in West Chester, a couple towns away from Scarsdale where Bob grew up and it always interested me that this young man had gone through such a strange series of events in his life. And then 20 years later, the West Chester County district attorney takes another look at that case, for the first time considering the possibility that Bob might have killed his wife. And when she starts looking into it, they discover this witness that nobody had ever spoken to. And they said we have got to talk to that witness. They go to find that witness, she is found murdered. So 20 years after the initial disappearance of the wife, there is a new person who is murdered. And then that case goes to sleep for awhile. A then about a year later a body washes up on the shore in Galveston Texas, and they trace this dismembered body back to the same person Robert Durst. So he... HAYES: Robert Durst, who we just say, is found in a car, connected to the address that was found washed up with the body, with a bow saw in the back seat of the car. JARECKI: That`s right, he had a bow saw in the car with him. HAYES: And the police have just found a dismembered body, that is not open/shut but that is pretty bad. JARECKI: I mean, there`s a sort of sense of entitlement that Bob has, you know, so that he has this disarming level of honesty. And ultimately, he will say to you, well, that was the bow saw that I used to dismember my neighbor. He is very frank about the things that he is frank about. You know, people concern themselves with things that he says that maybe turn out not to be true, but he is disarmingly honest about a lot of things that you or I would never consider to be things that we would give away if we could imagine being in his situation. HAYES: Right. So you make this -- the `82 disappearance of his wife, which is huge -- it`s the cover of tabloids -- it`s a huge story. You make this film, fictional film. He reaches out to you. This is a guy who is estranged from his family, his brother is in the New York Times just a week ago saying -- or two weeks ago saying he is worried that Bob is going to try to kill him. He is a guy that`s been connected or associated with three disappearances and two murders. So what -- how do you understand this relationship? JARECKI: Well, the story -- I mean, we had made this narrative film. Ryan Gosling was playing a character based on Robert Durst and Kirsten Dunst, his wife. And we felt it would be important to reach out to the real Bob Durst. He`s out there. He`s a living person, we thought it would be respectful to ask him if he wanted to weigh in in any way. And so we reached out to his very clever Texas lawyer Dick DeGarin (ph) and we said we`re making this film would he be interested. And he said, you know, Bob is a very private guys. He is probably not going to want to participate. And so they decline politely. But then a week before the movie came out in movie theaters, I get a phone call out of the blue from Bob Durst saying I`ve heard good things about the movie I`d like to see it. I arrange for him to see the movie. He calls me three or four minutes after the movie finishes and he says, I want you to know I liked the movie very much. I cried three times. And I think we should talk. You know more about Bob Durst than anybody. HAYES: And you then enter into a relationship that, I don`t know what`s the best -- like Errol Morris (ph) and Donald Rumsfeld? Or, I mean... You are a documentarian, but you`re -- this is in some ways an authorized biography. I mean what is this? JARECKI: Well, I think it was very clear that it was not going to be Bob`s story, t was not going to be an evening -- it wasn`t dinner theater with Bob Durst, you know, it was going to be unique in that Bob Durst was going to talk to us for the first time ever. But at the same time he knows the kind of deep dive that we do, you know, the things that we worked on in Capturing the Friedmans or other things. We are sort of obsessional about our research. So, if you wanted to do a kind of puff piece about yourself, you are not going to call me, you would call somebody else. So I knew that he was prepared for us to do the kind of work that we were going to do. So, in the end he is a voice, but there are all the voices in this story. HAYES: Is -- what is your takeaway from this story? I mean... JARECKI: Well, you know, there are so many angles to it, because I -- you know, still this morning I got an e-mail from Bob Durst because he read something that his brother planted in the New York Post and he wanted to respond to it. and he is very funny and very clever. You know, he wrote me a note saying well obviously Doug -- DD -- he calls his brother Doug Durst who is the chairman of this giant organization, you know, and this is not like some local real estate family, these guys built the Bank of America tower, and the Conde Nast building and they just built the Freedom Tower on the World Trade Center site, which you have a picture of on your New York skyline behind you. You know, this is a unique situation where you have a family like this exposed in this way, and Bob says -- he says well my brother said this and he said this -- this is ridiculous. And he says, by the way, it looks like Doug Durst is not going to be very excited about the series. You should probably call up HBO and tell them that, you know, maybe they should give him a refund on his HBO monthly fee. He has a tremendous sense of humor about it. And he recognizes that he`s seen as a kind of burlesque figure. And this may be the chance that he has to really tell a story that`s a much, much deeper story. HAYES: Well, thank you. And congratulations. It`s really, really fascinating. JARECKI: Thanks. I appreciate your watching it. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: All right, that is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 9, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020601cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 32 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 6, 2015 Friday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 6, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Nick Tuths, Steve Benen, Richard Engel, Andrea Mitchell, Pete Williams GUESTS: Monica Malbrough SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7579 words HIGHLIGHT: Republican-controlled Congress shows inability to pass laws. They`ve failed so far to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The only law they`ve passed so far is the one about opening Keystone pipeline. Next, ISIS claims that an American woman they`d held hostage was killed in a Jordanian airstrike. But is it true? Next, 6 Americans are charged with providing support to ISIS. The American military command in Afghanistan has changed its mind, re-declassifying what has been classified information. Latest on the federal investigation into Chris Christie`s administration. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Thanks to your home for joining us this hour. Happy Friday, and I should also say happy birthday, sort of. Today marks exactly one month since the Republicans took complete control of Congress. And what a month it has been. First things first, because this is the modern Republican Party which the beltway keeps telling us is totally over divisive social issues. The very first thing that the Republican Congress moved on after they got control in Washington, was abortion. They introduced five or six different abortion bans or abortion restrictions right off the bat at the start of the new Congress. Then they decided that the ones they were going to run with, would be a federal nationwide 20-week ban on abortion. They ran it through a committee, they put it on a schedule. It was going to go to the floor of the house for a vote, and then they yanked it. They pulled their own bill. Then the next one was a border bill. The Republican`s own border security bill. Remember securing the border was all they wanted to talk about in the campaign for the last election. So, they had their border security bill. They ran it through committee. Scheduled a vote on the House floor, ready to go on their own border security bill, and then just like the abortion bill, they yanked that one too. Now this was not the Republicans getting, you know, outmaneuvered, right? This was not the Democrats figuring out how to block the Republicans plans. This was just the Republicans doing this to themselves. This was the Republicans on their own not being able to get it together to pass their own legislation with only their own votes. They could not do it. There is also this manufactured crisis at the Department of Homeland Security. They started this new Congress one month ago today, knowing that homeland security is due to run out of money at the end of February. It`s only funded till the end of this month. And they knew that was the case, but so far the Republicans, even though they are in complete control of Congress, they have not been able to pass a bill, to keep homeland security funded. And right now apparently there is no plan for doing that. There is nothing in the works in the Republican-controlled Congress to avoid a shutdown of the whole giant homeland security department in just a couple of weeks. Now, to be fair, in this month that the Republicans have been in charge, they did manage to pass a bill to force the construction of the Keystone pipeline. They passed it as gas prices dropped below $2.00 a gallon. As new poll numbers came out showing that even Republican voters want political action to combat climate change, and they passed the bill at the end of a three-week period, in which there were no fewer than five significant pipeline explosions and ruptures in our country, including one rupture of a North Dakota pipeline that was less than a year old. And that rupture caused the largest spill of its kind in state history. And then right after that, OK, everybody ready to vote on Keystone? It seems like a good - even before they took that vote, President Obama announced he would veto the bill, so, they did pass that one. It`s going nowhere. If you really want to talk futility, though, the Republican Congress did also get up on its hind legs and by some counts, for the 56th time, they got up on their hind legs and they voted to repeal Obamacare again. 56 times. Here`s what that looked like. Can you smell the excitement? As "The Washington Post" summed up for much of the debate on repealing Obamacare for the 56th time, for much of a debate, afternoon, no more than a dozen seats were occupied on the repeal it side of the house. More than once the Republican Party had nobody available to speak on their side at they geared up to do it one more time. It`s like it is not even exciting any more, but they did do it for the 56TH time. It has been one month, exactly since Republicans took full control of Congress. It has not been auspicious first month. You know, but hope springs eternal. They`re the only Congress we`ve got, and we all do really need to have some hope here that Congress is up to the task of doing stuff that only Congress can do. Not only because the Homeland Security Department is about to shut down, but because this Congress is finally going have to do some real work and make a real decision on the very serious matter of ISIS. NBC News is reporting tonight the foreign relations committee in the senate, the foreign affairs committee in the House, they`re expecting draft language for authorizing the use of military force against ISIS. They`re expecting that draft language to arrive on the White House as soon as next week, foreign relations and foreign affairs will be the lead committees for dealing with this in Congress, but it is expected that there is also going to be hearings and debate on this matter in the armed services committees and in the intelligence committees. And again, that may all start next week. It is a little awkward because the war effort is already sixth months old. We are already sixth months into it. There has already been over 2,000 airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Congress has never weighed in on any of it, but they are about to have to. And from the structural perspective of our Constitution and our divided system of government, that is great news. Congress is supposed to make those decisions. From our position as contemporary humans, looking at this particular ridiculous Congress and all it can`t do, it is a little scary to imagine a decision like this in their hands. But the founders left this way. That work, that debate, that decision making will start in Washington next week. They are going to have to get real serious real fast. Today, meanwhile, CENTCOM confirms further airstrikes against ISIS targets, both in Iraq and Syria. Now, the U.S. only ever announces that it is U.S. and coalition fighters carrying out those strikes, but the nation of Jordan for a second day today, probably let it be known, their planes are involved in these strikes as well. Jordan continues to be absolutely enflamed in its response to ISIS killing that Jordanian air force pilot in the propaganda video that ISIS released this week. The airstrikes, though, I`m not sure this is getting a lot of attention, but I think it ought to, particularly as we are heading into this debate in Congress next week. The airstrikes are not the only military part of this campaign. They`re not the only fighting that`s going on. Richard Engel, NBC`s own, is in northern Iraq right now, and he`s with the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters out there who are fighting ISIS. You know, that the Kurds have a sort of semiautonomous region in northern Iraq. Their fighters are called the Peshmerga fighters. And Richard with them, filed this amazing report today about the Peshmerga fighters out there taking and holding, with some difficulty, but holding, the main road between Iraq and Syria and that part of this ISIS threatened territory. And the strategic importance here, and in addition how amazing it is just to see it. The strategic importance here is that if these Kurdish fighters, in northern Iraq, if they can continue to hold that position, if they can continue to control that road, it is possible that ISIS could be split in half between these two countries. Between Iraq and Syria, again, instead of how it has been for months now, which is them controlling territory in both countries in a way that erases the border. Watch, Richard. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) RICHARD ENGEL, MSNBC ANCHOR: We joined Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq. America`s closest allies in this war and travelled to their newest frontline position just outside of Mosul, captured two weeks ago. Captain Akram (ph) explained why he and his man fought so hard to take and hold this ground. This position is strategic because from here we control the road from Syria, he said. Now we cut it off. Cutting the road means the Kurds have severed ISIS`s main supply line between Iraq and Syria, and ISIS wants it back. So, there was just an incoming round in this area, luckily it overshot this position. You could see where the soldiers there, the Kurdish fighters are looking at this moment. There comes at another round. So, let`s find a more secure area. The Kurds fire back to keep back ISIS. Sometimes mortar attacks followed by ambushes. The Kurds took this base and have already lost three men holding it. They will lose many more, they say, unless they get a lot more help from Washington and soon. (END VIDEOTAPE) MADDOW: That was Richard Engel reporting from northern Iraq today with these Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighters. And all of the ground level reporting from Iraq and Syria today about the airstrikes and about the kind of fighting that Richard is witnessing firsthand. All of that fighting, at least for us in this country today, is dominated by the upsetting and at times confusing news today about this young American woman who has been in ISIS custody. And honestly, I will skip to the end here. We do not know her fate at this hour, but her family has given news organizations their blessing to release her name and her photo so we can now tell you without worrying that her family believes it will jeopardize her safety. That she is 26-years old Kayla Mueller. She`s from Prescott, Arizona. She graduated from Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, she`d done humanitarian work in a number of places overseas, including some dangerous places. But in 2012 she traveled to the Turkish/Syrian border, and apparently linked up with the number of international aid groups trying to help Syrians, particularly trying to help Syrian kids who had been displaced by the fighting in their country. On august 4th, 2013, so not last year, but the year before, her family says she was kidnapped by ISIS in the Syrian city of Aleppo after she left a hospital operated there by Doctors without Borders. We reported earlier this week that some anonymous U.S. government sources told reporters that as recently as two weeks ago, there had been some specific information about her that led the U.S. to believe that Kayla Mueller was still alive in Syria. None of that has ever been confirmed on the record by a named source, but she has been held by ISIS for a very long time. The U.S. government has known that even though you have probably not heard her name reported in the press before today. She was reportedly one of the Americans who the Special Operations troops were trying to rescue when they dropped into Syria. They dropped into Raqqa in Syria, specifically, in that really high risk helicopter born rescue attempt last July. That was an effort to find all the American hostages known to be held by ISIS at that time. Kayla Mueller and James Foley and Stephen Sotloff and Peter Kassig. Now, that raid last summer, that special-ops raid inside Syria, it was not a fiasco. As far as what we`ve been told, none of those special operators were killed or were seriously wounded in that effort. There was apparently one minor injury. They did get in and safely get out of that most dangerous place on earth where they believed those hostages were being held. But the place that they went where they thought the hostages would be, the hostages were not there. After that raid, three of the four Americans known to be held by ISIS, the three men, James Foley and Stephen Sotloff and then Peter Kassig, were all killed by ISIS, and they were all killed in those brutal, brutal murders that ISIS then turned into execution propaganda videos. But all of this time it has been interesting that ISIS, and they`ve reportedly held Kayla Mueller since August of 2013, but they have never chosen to parade her on camera in one of these propaganda videos. And nobody knows exactly why that was. I will tell you there is speculation as crazy as it sounds, that in the internal logic of their theologically inflected crazy barbarity, it`s been supposed that they had some strategic reason we can`t understand about why they didn`t want to film themselves killing a woman in the same way they killed all those men. Maybe, it sort of seems unlikely, given the way they`ve treated women everywhere they`ve had the opportunity to. But for whatever reason, they have never paraded Kayla Mueller on camera and as far as we know, they have never filmed any sort of execution video of her. But then today, the day after Jordan proudly claimed responsibility for sending dozens of its F-16s on airstrike raids against ISIS targets in Syria, today ISIS announced that actually Jordan killed her. Announced that it was definitely Jordanian warplanes, it wasn`t ISIS that killed her. It wasn`t ISIS that killed her after kidnapping her and holding her the hostage for a year and a half. No, no, no. It`s somebody`s else`s fault that they say she is now dead. And it may be true. It may be true that she`s dead, it may be true that she was killed in that airstrike, in those airstrikes, but there are reasons to be skeptical. And the news coverage today hasn`t been skeptical, I think it ought to be given the facts that we know. I mean, the first one is the most obvious. It is a little too tidy, right? It`s a little too perfect for them as an explanation, particularly if they didn`t want to be seen as responsible for killing her because she is a woman. All right, so that is convenient to be able to blame it on somebody else. Why simultaneously trying to deflate the patriotic fervor in Jordan right now. The sort of national scream of outrage in that country for retaliation against ISIS. Obviously, they`re trying to deflate that by blaming this blameless hostage`s death on Jordan`s airstrikes. It is worst reason to be skeptical is that it is way too convenient. The second reason to be skeptical is that they provided no evidence whatsoever that she was killed by those airstrikes or by any other means. The only thing ISIS publicized was this photo of a damaged building in Raqqa, or they say at least it`s in Raqqa, and that`s why they say, she was being held. And that`s where they say, that she was killed in a Jordanian airstrike, but there is no images that prove any of that at all. And then there is the third point. The location. The location in which they say that she was killed. These are the airstrike videos that were released by the Pentagon today. You see, they come with an open - this is the opening slate. The screen slate. Jordanian airstrike. They said a Jordanian airstrike. So, according to the Pentagon, these are tapes of Jordanian F- 16 dropping bombs on ISIS targets in Syria. Interesting, of course, that they`re naming Jordan as the country carrying these out since they previously have not been naming coalition countries, but there are also specifically labeling these airstrikes as hitting targets near al-Hasakah. And forgive my pronunciation. Hasakah. Al-Hasakah, which is an ISIS- controlled area of Syria. But it`s nowhere near Raqqa, and Raqqa is where ISIS today said that those terrible Jordanian airstrikes resulted in the death of this American hostage. So, it`s been reported everywhere today that American aid worker Kayla Mueller had been killed in Syria while being held by ISIS militants. And that may be true. It also may not be true. Even the claim is obviously of grave concern. It is of more concern than even knowing that she`s been held all this time, and it must be a very, very heroing (ph) time for her family and for everyone who knows and loves her. But anybody that is taking ISIS`s word on what happened here, and say, oh, yeah, this is Jordanian airstrikes that killed her. Anybody who`s taken ISIS explanation of what happened here as truth, as the descriptive journalistic truth of what happened here, is both ignoring some very good reasons to be skeptical about their claims, and frankly, doing ISIS propaganda work for them. Like repeating what ISIS says uncritically? It is like posting an ISIS propaganda video online and full for everybody to enjoy. Thank you, you have just done ISIS`s work for them. If ISIS has earned nothing - nothing else, it is the right to be known as liars. Joining us now is NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell. She`s also the host of "Andrea Mitchell Reports" here on MSNBC. Andrea, it`s great to see you, thanks for being here. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: You too, Rachel. MADDOW: So, you reported tonight on nightly news that it was a shaky claim at best when ISIS said today that she was killed by Jordanian bombs in Raqqa today. Why is it a shaky claim? MITCHELL: For many of the reasons that you`ve just sited. I`m so glad, Rachel, that you are as appropriately skeptical, as you were in your description of what this is all about. First of all it is too convenient. Right after the rallying of Jordanian, the public, the military, in a previously divided country about the wisdom of these coalition airstrikes including the father of the dead pilot. Now you`ve got a country completely united, a region united. You`ve got the other Arab leaders. They`re all, you know, so repulsed by the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot that ISIS had gone too far, and it perhaps was a turning point. We don`t know. But there really was a coming together, and now 24 hours later, they say it was a Jordanian pilot that killed the American hostage. Far too convenient. Plus the location. They showed us a picture, we don`t know if that is in Raqqa, but they showed us the rubble. They claimed it was Raqqa. And the Jordanian and U.S.-led coalition did not hit, if we are to believe, the CENTCOM, the Pentagon and the coalition leaders, they didn`t hit any targets there, they were 140 miles away. So, that doesn`t make sense. Plus, we have not seen any proof, and in the past, they have come up with evidence, visual evidence that is then fairly rapidly confirmed by the experts, by the intelligence officials and then acknowledged by Jordan, by the, you know, the White House. That has not happened in this case. So there is reason to hope. Now, the fact that they are liars, the fact that the Jordanian pilot was dead for weeks before they even started negotiating for his release in a prisoner swap, and then intelligence established that, that also leads one to believe that something horrible could have happened to her and they did not acknowledge her death. But one hopes and the family hopes, and we just have to hope and pray that she is still alive and that the lack of evidence bears that out. I just want to say, you know, I have covered a lot of stories as you know. I go back a long way. This got to me. I felt that I knew her somehow in reading about her, in absorbing the information about her, and in keeping it secret at the request of the family, agreed to by the government that the best hope was to not make this too big of a deal. To not feed into the propaganda machine. And so, we tried to keep it as quiet as possible until this announcement today. And she is like all of your young idealistic, passionate, hopeful assistants, young producers, associate producers, interns, the college women here in our news room today. They were devastated by this and I found myself reacting and channeling their aspirations and inspiration that a young woman who would go to this border, and then join doctors without borders as a volunteer, who previously had been in India, in Israel, in Palestine, had come back to Flagstaff working in an HIV/AIDS clinic, then gone back to the region. She is the best of America and so ewe just we hope she is alive. MADDOW: And especially because she was held for so long. To have held - to have held - I mean to your point, to have held the story, but also to have seen her family having to hold on to this hope for so long. Knowing what she has been through, and knowing what - what not just unusual, but just terrifying circumstances she has been in. It`s been so - for so long. I do feel like the only responsible thing we can do now is admit what we don`t know. MITCHELL: Exactly. MADDOW: And to hope for the best. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, chief foreign affairs correspondent, thank you so much, Andrea. MITCHELL: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: Andrea Mitchell, of course, hosts Andrea Mitchell Reports weekdays` noon here on MSNBC. All right, we do actually have some breaking news next, we`re just getting into the news room. I have not even fully digested it yet. But I`ve just been handed some of this. It is news about the fight against ISIS. It`s breaking tonight, actually, from the Justice Department and we have got that breaking news ahead, stay with us. MADDOW: So we have breaking news to tell you about tonight. It is just now coming, and it`s just crossing, we`ve just wrangled NBC justice correspondent Pete Williams to phone in with the live report to explain this. This is news that is breaking from the Justice Department tonight, it concerns ISIS. We`re getting Pete now, we`ll be back with him in just a second, please stay with us. MADDOW: So, as promised there is some breaking news to report tonight. The Justice Department is now reporting, that they have charged six individuals, six individuals living in the United States with providing material support to the ISIS terrorist group. Five of those individuals apparently have been arrested, and a sixth is believed to be at large and overseas. Again, this news is just breaking within the last hour. Joining us now, to help us understand what`s going on here is NBC News chief justice correspondent Pete Williams. Pete, thanks for joining us, what is going on with this story? PETE WILLIAMS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well the Justice Department says a St. Louis man named Abdullah Ramo Pazara went to Syria in 2013, and they say in the months that followed five - rather, six people in the U.S. we are sending him support, sending him cash by Western Union and PayPal, and also sending him clothes, firearms, accessories, military boots, camouflage, gloves, all kinds of other things that would help him. The people that have been charged here, three of them are from the St. Louis area. A husband and wife that are 40 and 35. One is from Utica, New York, one is from suburban Chicago. And the other is from Rockford, Illinois. So, they are in essence charged with indirectly supporting ISIS by supporting this man who the government says went to Syria in 2013 and they say they believe that he was killed last year at some point. MADDOW: Is he named as one of the people who they are charging, even if they believe that he has been killed? WILLIAMS: No, and for that reason they`re not charging him. They say they believe Pazara is dead, and of course, therefore he can`t be charged. Of the six that were charged, as you point out, they say that five were arrested in the United States. The sixth, and they don`t tell us which it is, is still overseas. They don`t want to give that person a heads up, that they`re on to that person. They`re trying to get that other country to make the arrest. MADDOW: I see. So that was my confusion, so the person who received this material support from the United States, at least according to the complaint is believed to have been killed, but one of the people who is alleged to have sent that material support is no longer in the United States, and is being sought abroad? WILLIAMS: That`s right. Now, they do say that one of these six people, the person who lived in Utica, New York tried to go to Syria, but did not succeed. So we don`t know who the other person is, and we don`t at this point know what country that other person is in. MADDOW: One last quick question for you. Do we know that, or is the allegation that these six people were working together or that they form any sort of - I know I hate to use the word "sell," but that sort of what I mean. That they were any sort of group in this country, or they - are they grouped together in this charge by happenstance because they all have different sort of connections to this dead ISIS fighter? WILLIAMS: It is not clear how they came to know each other. What the government says Pazara communicated by social media, by Facebook, by other social media. Sometimes by phone and used coded language. But it is not clear from this relatively bare bones indictment that was just been unveiled tonight whether they all were in essence in cahoots with him before he left the country . MADDOW: Right. WILLIAMS: Or whether he formed some alliances with him after he got there. But in any event, the government says they sent this material to him through the postal service to Turkey, and then intermediaries took it from Turkey into Syria and gave it to him. MADDOW: NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams. Pete, thank you for joining us on short notice, I really appreciate your help with this. WILLIAMS: You bet. MADDOW: Thank you. Again, that breaking news from Pete Williams is that an indictment has just been unsealed tonight. Just in a last hour. Six people being charged with material support for ISIS fighters. Specifically one ISIS fighter who had become an actualized citizen in the United States, went to Syria, was fighting with ISIS, was killed there, but six people are being charged with having him sent him stuff to help him fight from this country. Five of the six people are said tonight to be under arrest. One is being sought. Authorities tonight are saying that he is not in the United States, but they are not saying where he is. A dramatic story just breaking tonight. We`ll be right back. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Debunktion Junction, what`s my function? All right. The first one tonight is an important one. Now, you have probably seen this story in the last 24 or 48 hours. There`s been a bunch of media reports in the last day or so, saying that federal investigators have launched a new federal criminal investigation into Governor Chris Christie and his administration. No, not the bridge thing where the Christie administration may have closed down lanes on a bridge to purposely gridlock one New Jersey town as political retribution. No, not the bridge thing, this is a different thing. And no, not the Hoboken thing, where local officials said the Christie administration might have stiffed the city on Super Storm Sandy recovery money as political retribution against their city. No, not the Hoboken thing, this is a different thing. Also, it`s not the Jersey City thing where local officials said the Christie administration stiffed that city on economic development efforts as political retributions. And no, it`s the Bridgegate thing, it`s not the Hoboken thing, it`s the Jersey City thing, it`s a different thing. It is also not the travel thing, and the RGA thing where Governor Christie has reportedly taken lots of gifts and free travel and donations from people with business before the state. No, it`s not that thing either. This is a different thing. No, it`s not even the other brand new thing where Governor Christie`s mentor and his top appointee to an agency called the Port Authority has been asked to explain basically whether he got United Airlines to do him the favor of creating a brand new flight route between Newark Airport and his vacation home for the duration of the time that he was chairman of the Port Authority and the United Airlines had lots of business before the Port Authority. United reportedly canceled that route which was called the chairman`s flight. They reportedly cancelled that three days after said chairman had to resign from the port authority last spring. I know it is a little hard to keep track of all of the investigations and allegations that follow New Jersey Governor Christi Christie around like a herd of stray dogs following a tanker truck full of quibble that has sprung a leak. I know it is hard to keep track sometimes of what is following him around. But the Chris Christie story we`re actually talking about here is one that you might remember from way back, that`s about the cat police. It is a case that originated in rural Hunterdon County, New Jersey. It involves a local sheriff`s department, fake credentials, and a branch of the SPCA -- I kid you not -- that outfitted itself as a paramilitary organization. The story is nuts nine ways to Sunday. If you want to get back into the details, including the cat police, we have reposted our segment on this story at Maddow Blog tonight in case you want to watch it again, it`s great. But, basically, for all of the crazy details of this Hunterdon County case, the allegations of wrongdoing concerning Governor Chris Christie and his administration boil down to a former assistant prosecutor in New Jersey who says he was fired basically for prosecuting people that the Christie administration didn`t want prosecuted. The way the prosecutor tells it, he says the Christie administration quashed his investigation, quashed his indictment against some Christie administration allies. Again, like I said, it`s a juicy story. And the local prosecutor who got fired in this case, Ben Barlyn, he has been pursuing this case for a very long time. But these new reports this week are sort of shocking. There`s been all these headlines this week saying that federal investigators have now launched a formal federal criminal investigation into this Hunterdon County scandal, these allegations by prosecutor Ben Barlyn against Governor Christie and his administration. So, you might have seen those headlines this week. Is it true? Have federal prosecutors launched a federal investigation into Governor Christie and his administration concerning this Hunterdon case? You have seen the headlines about it this week. Is it true or is that false? (BUZZER) MADDOW: False. Or at least we don`t know. Here is the thing: Ben Barlyn, this local prosecutor, who says he was fired for all the wrong reasons. He has been spoken to by federal investigators. He has been asked interviewed by federal investigators asking about his allegations against Governor Chris Christie. That does not necessarily mean there is some new formal federal criminal investigation into the Christie administration. The headlines on the story this week had been very juicy but they have been overblown. We spoke to the former prosecutor Ben Barlyn today and he says, yes, he did speak to federal prosecutors this week. He also says he has no idea whether a federal criminal investigation has actually been launched into his allegations. We also reached out to the U.S. attorney`s office in New Jersey today. They would neither confirm nor deny whether their investigators actually did speak with Ben Barlyn, but they told us that reports characterizing an investigator speaking with Ben Barlyn, characterizing those conversations as their office having launched an investigation into Governor Christie, those reports are, and I quote, "a tremendous leap forward. We talk to people all of the time. It doesn`t mean we`re investigating anybody." Quote, "Any characterization that we are investigating the governor about this is just not true." And that`s the horse`s mouth. So, there is a federal criminal investigation of Chris Christie in New Jersey about bridgegate, right? As far as we can tell, not necessarily this whole other unrelated scandal. There might, in fact, be a federal investigation of that other story, the cat police story, right, at some point. But if there is yet, nobody knows about it, the prosecutor isn`t saying. So, although a bunch of reporting, national news organizations jumped the gun on this one -- (BUZZER) MADDOW: -- don`t believe the hype. There`s more, though. Stay with us. MADDOW: Debunktion Junction continues. All right. Another one might have heard about today that screened out for Debunktion Junction, here it is -- is it true or false that Elvis has left the Republican Party? Is that true or is that false? (BELL) MADDOW: What, that was like the saddest, tiniest little bell I have ever heard in my entire life. Come on. Bring it. (BELL) MADDOW: Slightly better. Can`t get any bigger than that? (BELL) MADDOW: Fix the bell. So, yes, it`s true and it`s glorious. This is former State Senator Tim Johnson who served two terms as a Republican in the Mississippi State Senate. He is a legitimate and pretty well known politician in the state of Mississippi. He noted this week that he had served Mississippi as an elected Republican official for five different terms in three different offices. Senator Tim Johnson, look, is also pretty known in Mississippi politics because of this. That`s him in the white suit with the red scarf. He is an Elvis impersonator. He`s actually a pretty good Elvis impersonator. He performs as Elvis all over Mississippi and has had some pretty good success performing as Elvis all across the country. Well, now, this particular Elvis, Republican State Senator Tim Johnson, has decided to make a big, big change. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FORMER STATE SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D), MISSISSIPPI: Today, ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement. I am announcing today that I am switching to the Mississippi Democratic Party. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) And I also want to announce that I am running to be the next lieutenant governor in the great state of Mississippi. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Mississippi is a very Republican state. So much so that the Democratic Party is sometimes recently had a hard time even fielding candidates for statewide races. But the Democratic Party of Mississippi just got a former two-term state senator and a very well known Elvis to join their team. He gave this heartfelt speech today saying he was switching in part because of Obamacare. Because Mississippi Republicans won`t expand Medicaid in the state, Medicaid in the state, and that`s going to close a lot of Mississippi hospitals, including he says the one that his mother is in right now in his hometown and he just says he cannot abide it. And so, Elvis has left the building. And he is seeking to come back in through the other door. Obamacare of all things is minting new Democrats in the great state of Mississippi. That is a true story. All right. Last one, finally, true or false -- I love this one -- a Republican congressman has changed the bill number on his federal legislation in order to avoid the devil, altering a piece of federal congressional legislation because of Satan, Satan, Satan. Is that true or is that false? (BELL) MADDOW: True. Joe Barton, congressman from Texas, filed a bill this week. It was assigned the number 666, House Bill 666. Instead of keeping the number, the congressman had it changed. It`s now an innocuous bill number 702. He did not want his crude oil imports bill marred with the number 666, because you can never be too on guard against the mark of the beast in the House of Representatives. (BELL) MADDOW: Too true. Too true. MADDOW: Still ahead tonight: we`ve got an important and I think a surprising update on a story we covered a few days ago, that the government has now done a 180 on. We covered this story. We`re very worried about what the government seems to have done. It now seems that the government has completely reversed course on that story. It`s an interesting one and that`s next. Stay with us. MADDOW: This is such a strange story. All right. You remember the incredible melting Afghan police training center that we spent a half million dollars for? It melts when it rains. And then, there`s a fleet of airplanes that we bought for Afghanistan for $486 million and then ended up shredding into scrap for 6 cents a pound. Two examples of the kind of nonsense and waste exposed by the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. A few days ago, you may remember that we reported on a sudden and unexplained decision by the U.S. military to start classifying to newly make secret a whole bunch of stuff about what we`re doing in Afghanistan that didn`t used to be classified before. All of a sudden, everything related to our support for the Afghan forces, everything from how many Afghan soldiers there are, to how much the U.S. spends on food to them, food for them. All of these things which have been publicly available for the past six years were now secret, which is a problem if you want to know how the U.S. mission is going in Afghanistan if everything that might tell you that is now a secret. So, that was last week. Our report on that was Thursday. Now, look the American military command in Afghanistan has changed its mind. That information that had been unclassified and was then classified is now going to be re-declassified, at least we think so. The inspector general tells us that that office is still trying to figure out exactly what has been un-un-unclassified. But the military was at least embarrassed enough by what they did last week that they`re reversing some of it. We will stay on it to get to the bottom of it. Stay with us. MADDOW: So, it turns out the great thing about weeks is that they end. We are ending this one, splat, with a Friday night news dump. Producer Nick Tuths is here, richly tanned, and fresh from his honeymoon. Congratulations, Mr. Newlywed. NICK TUTHS, TRMS PRODUCER: Thank you very much, Rachel. MADDOW: It seems like you`re wearing it well. TUTHS: I`m doing the best I can, you know? MADDOW: If you`re not a good husband, we will all be furious with you. TUTHS: I know. MADDOW: One thing about our family, we will set up on you like locusts, we like her for so much. TUTHS: I respect you for it. MADDOW: All right. Who`s playing -- after that threat -- who`s playing on the Friday night news dump? TUTHS: We have Monica Malbrough from Atlanta, Georgia. MADDOW: Hi, Monica. TUTHS: She`s getting a PhD in political science. MADDOW: OK. TUTHS: She`s done field work for her dissertation in Mozambique and she is obsessed with maps. MADDOW: Monica, it`s very nice to meet you. Thank you for coming on the show. MONICA MALBROUGH, ATLANTA, GA: Thank you. MADDOW: PhD on political science is not useful for anything, take it from me. MALBROUGH: I know. I`ve been in it for a long time. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Were you doing political science dissertation, research in Mozambique on their political system? MALBROUGH: Yes, I do Sub-Saharan African politics, so I was there doing my field work. So -- MADDOW: Very good. MALBROUGH: One day, I`ll finish my dissertation. MADDOW: Can I ask you, like how far along you think you are in dissertation? MALBROUGH: I know that you probably have had that question in the past. I`m on my theory chapter, so I`m getting into the data side. It`s a work in progress. MADDOW: My secret about the theory chapter, they don`t really read it. They want to know you did a theory chapter, but they`re going to read the Mozambique stuff way more than they`re going to red the like -- MALBROUGH: That`s really good advice, because I`ve been pulling my hair out for weeks over my theory chapter. So -- MADDOW: I mean, worry about it, but if you want something, if there is a place to cheat, that`s it. OK. MALBROUGH: OK. MADDOW: This is a way it goes. I`m going to ask you three questions. If you get two or more of the three questions, you will win -- Nick, what is Monica`s prize? TUTHS: A Rachel Maddow drink shaker. MADDOW: Teeny, teeny, tiny cocktail shaker. And if you get all three right, and so, you need extra credit, or if you only get one right and you need a consolation prize, or if it just feels like that kind of night, we also might send you something random that we found in our office. Tonight, we`re doing something a little different. We`re actually going to offer you a choice of junk from the office, because I couldn`t narrow it down. Nick, what are Monica`s random office junk choices? TUTHS: So, the random office junk is this NFL football, from our deflate- gate, bathroom escapade, or we have something very special, we have this chain, and this big daddy four knuckle ring. MADDOW: OK, these are of no value. TUTHS: They`re of no value. We had not known where this was, but somebody on the staff remembered. This was actually worn by Kent Jones in an old segment. He looks great. MADDOW: We dressed him up. (CROSSTALK) MALBROUGH: I`m from Atlanta, so that speaks to me. MADDOW: OK. All right. So, that`s what you`re going for then. All right. We also need to bring in the disembodied voice of Steve Benen, lord of Maddow blog. He was also the guy who determines whether or not you got the right answer. Hi, Steve. STEVE BENEN, MADDOW BLOG: Good evening to both of you. MADDOW: Hello. All right, Monica. Ready for your first question? MALBROUGH: Yes, ma`am. MADDOW: From Monday`s show -- on Monday`s show, we talked about a trip that then presidential candidate Mitt Romney made to England in 2012. It was a trip that did not go well. On this trip, one of the things that didn`t go well is he addressed the head of the Labour Party, Ed Milliband, by the wrong name. What did he call him? Did he call him, (a), Mr. Labor, (b), Mr. Party, (c), Mr. Leader, or (d), Mr. Bean? (LAUGHTER) MALBROUGH: I love Mr. Bean, but I know it`s (c), Mr. Leader. MADDOW: Steve, did Monica get that right? BENEN: The question is not easy, but let`s check the Monday`s show. MADDOW: OK. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: He repeatedly described him in that appearance as "Mr. Leader", which sounds like a nice sort of complimentary thing. That is not a term that is used in Britain. (END VIDEO CLIP) BENEN: You know, I wish he had said Mr. Bean, too. But the correct answer is (c), Mr. Leader, and Monica is correct. MADDOW: Ed Milliband was mad enough without calling him Mr. Bean. OK. You have to get two right to win at least the shaker prize. On Wednesday`s show, we talked about one of our coalition partners, one of the U.S. coalition partners in the air strikes against ISIS, reportedly refusing to fly coming missions in Syria after ISIS captured that Jordanian fighter pilot back on New Year`s Eve. That coalition member reportedly demanded that more military assets get positioned closer to the action in case more pilots needed to get rescued. The question for you is, which country reportedly decided not to put pilots in harm`s way until more got done in terms of search and rescue report? Was that (a), Kuwait, (b), Saudi Arabia, (c), Bahrain, or (d), the United Arab Emirates? MALBROUGH: It`s (d), the United Arab Emirates. MADDOW: Steve, is she right about that? BENEN: Let`s check Wednesday`s show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: We also learned that the United Arab Emirates suspended its participation in air strikes against ISIS. They suspended that key part of their involvement in the U.S.-led coalition in December. (END VIDEO CLIP) BENEN: Yes, that`s right. Correct answer is (d). And Monica is correct again. MADDOW: Well done. And the super surprising like coda to that story was that the day after we learned over those complaints, the U.S. announced that they did, in fact, move search and rescue -- more search and rescue assets closer to where UAE wanted them. Anyway, I digress. Are ready for your last question? MALBROUGH: I`m ready. MADDOW: This is from Thursday`s show. We introduced America, we talked about C.J. and Charlie. They`re bears. They`re two Oregon high tech bears, two guys who have owned the Web site jebbushforpresident.com since 2008. So, the question is, what do CJ and Charlie plan to do with the URL jebbushforpresident.com? Do they plan to (a), sell it to Jeb Bush for a million dollars, (b), post content about gay rights on the Web site, (c), make it redirect to Rand Paul`s campaign Web site, because they`re Rand Paul supporters, or (d), do they plan to use it to post pictures of their dog, which is named Jeb Bush? MALBROUGH: I wish it was all like C, D and A. But I know it`s B. MADDOW: Steve? BENEN: That`s correct. Our high teach bears, they plan to post content about gay rights and Monica is correct once again. MADDOW: Excellent. Can I also tell you, I know I`m diverging from the script here. We got a letter from CJ and Charlie after we did the segment. Do you remember at the beginning I said if there`s any justice in the world they`ll be on the show? MALBROUGH: Yes. MADDOW: Listen to what they said, as to the question of appearing on the show, let me answer with an old Southern saying, has a cat got climbing gear? Which means, yes, we would love to. So, we`re going to have them on the show at some point. MALBROUGH: We love our bears in Atlanta, by the way. MADDOW: Everybody loves bears. They`re the universal lunch. All right. Nick, did Monica win the prize or prizes? TUTHS: She did. She got all three right. She got the shaker and I don`t know, you get all three right. You get to choose? MADDOW: Monica, you want to the football or you want the big daddy? MALBROUGH: You know, I feel like you guys were attached to that bag of balls and I live in Atlanta, so I will rock that chain and the ring. MADDOW: All right. We will send you that cheap chain and the four knuckle big daddy ring. Monica, thank you so much for playing. It was great to have you here. MALBROUGH: Thank you. MADDOW: Thank you. That was really fun. All right. If you want to be like Monica, even though you no longer have the opportunity to be the big daddy, please send us an e-mail at Rachel@MSNBC.com, tell us who you are, where you`re from, why you want to play the Friday night news dump. There is cheap stuff in our office with your name on it. But right now, you have to go to a place where you`re known by a number. Go to prison. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 8, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020601cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 33 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 7, 2015 Saturday SHOW: UP with STEVE KORNACKI 8:00 AM EST UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI for February 07, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Keir Simmons, Alex Seitz-Wald, Kristen Welker, Lawrence O`Donnell, Josh Barro, Steve Clemons GUESTS: Marc Ginsberg, Barry McCaffrey, Brian Thompson, Josh DuBois, Sam Stein, Jessica Taylor, Jonathan Martin, Perry Bacon, Jr., Alexandra Alter, Wayne Flynt, Bernie Sanders SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 15515 words HIGHLIGHT: Jordanian fighter jets taking off in the last few hours to launch a second straight day of airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria. They come with ISIS claiming that yesterday`s strikes killed a young American woman who was being held hostage by the group. The hostage has now been identified as 26-year-old aid worker Kayla Mueller, she`s from Prescott, Arizona. U.S. officials say they are looking into the report. They say they have no confirmation that Mueller was actually killed in the attack. These are all allegations that Samson has denied but now this new development, Bergen record in New Jersey reporting that federal prosecutors have subpoenaed the Port Authority for records related to Samson`s travel as well as his relationship with United Airlines, that is the largest carrier at Newark Liberty International Airport. The new this is week that Harper Collins is going to be publishing a second novel by "To Kill A Mockingbird" author Harper Lee is being greeted with plenty of enthusiasm. Already the book is number one on Amazon`s best seller list. ISIS is claiming an American woman held hostage by the group was killed in one of those Jordanian airstrikes, and she`s been now identified as the last known American captive of ISIS. The Obama administration is weighing on sending arms to the Ukrainian government to fend off separatists that are believed to be backed by Vladimir Putin`s Russian government. In his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, the president condemned ISIS but also compared their acts to the Crusades of over 900 years ago. Interview with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Josh Barro is the champion of "Up Against the Clock" tournament of champions. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: More airstrikes against ISIS. All right. Good morning. Thanks for getting UP with us. Another Saturday morning. And a big morning we have today of news and politics. A lot ahead in the next two hours including, will democrats back a challenger to Hillary? We`ll going to get a real big clue on that this morning. And also, some danger for Chris Christie. Signs this morning that new revelations are hitting him where it hurts with his party`s big dollar donors. And also, does 88-year-old Harper Lee really want her recently discovered manuscript published? A friend of the reclusive author is going to be here, she`ll join us and tell us what she thinks of that and a whole lot more still to come on the show today. But we begin this morning with this. Jordanian fighter jets taking off in the last few hours to launch a second straight day of airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria. They come with ISIS claiming that yesterday`s strikes killed a young American woman who was being held hostage by the group. The hostage has now been identified as 26-year-old aid worker Kayla Mueller, she`s from Prescott, Arizona. U.S. officials say they are looking into the report. They say they have no confirmation that Mueller was actually killed in the attack. And also, Jordanian officials saying they are highly skeptical of the claim. Her parents released a statement meanwhile saying they hold out hope that their daughter is still alive. Jordan taking the lead in this coalition airstrikes after ISIS released a video showing a Jordanian hostage being burned alive in a cage. That was released earlier this week. NBC`s Keir Simmons was at that Jordanian Air Force base this morning and he joins us now from Amman. Keir, thanks for joining us. So, a lot of headlines here. Obviously, talking about intensifying air strikes. The air strikes have been going on for a long time now. For months now. This sort of bombardment campaign. Has it produced to this point meaningful results? KEIR SIMMONS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Steve, good morning. A very windy air force base, we are still here. And they are convinced here that they are having real results. These air strikes. The F-16, you can see behind me here, it`s not one of those planes that was involved in today`s campaign. You can see still the 500 pound MK-82 munitions attached to its wing. But many F-16s like this took off from this base today. We watched them go two and a half hours later. We watched them come back. And as far as we could tell in almost every case they had delivered that deadly payload against ISIS. That has to be having an effect. We are hearing reports. Even despite the fact that it is extremely difficult to get clear facts from the areas the ISIS controlled. We are hearing reports that many ISIS fighters have been killed. They in particular the Jordanians are targeting ISIS weapons depots, storage facilities. All of the apparatus. They will help ISIS continue to hold that territory. That said, an air campaign like this can only be so effective in the end. There has to be a move on the ground. We know that the Iraqis are thinking at some point about moving on Mosul, that city in Iraq that ISIS stormed into when they stormed across Iraq last year. We know they are planning, preparing for that possibility. At some point, that will need to happen. But clearly the air rides are an enormous part of a depleting ISIS`s strength. KORNACKI: All right. Keir Simmons live for us in a very windy Amman, Jordan this morning. Thanks for taking the time, Keir. We really appreciate that. And here to talk a lot more about this. We have two experts with us, Marc Ginsberg, who is a former U.S. ambassador to Morocco. And a White House Middle East advisor and retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey joins us from Seattle this morning. And so, General, let me start with you. And just merely picking up on what you heard Keir Simmons saying there a minute ago. His reporting that these air strikes -- now months now of air strikes have been having a real effect on ISIS. When you look at this campaign to degrade and destroy ISIS, where do you think it stands right now? GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, I think to some extent we are making progress. Surely, the stupidest thing ISIS did was to mass around this city of Kobani. It presented terrific targets. The U.S. Air Force and naval power made a huge impact on them. And I think of course the Jordanians armed forces or first rate, they have a very good intelligence service. And they`re going to make contributions. At the end of the day we should not forget that this is primarily a U.S. air campaign. We have these space assets, reconnaissance, the command and control. The air-to-air refueling, that sort of thing, to make it all work. But I think the Jordanians are mad. And they`re going to definitely try and thump them a good lick in the coming month or so. KORNACKI: Yes. Ambassador, the Jordanian`s obviously, this is sort of a wound to their national character to have something like this happen. I have heard interpretations out there that the idea that ISIS would burn alive someone who is a Muslim has the effect of could have the effect of turning a lot of the Muslim world against ISIS. At the same time I am assuming at some level there is logic to ISIS doing this in their minds in terms of they think this actually helps them. How do you interpret that? MARC GINSBERG, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO MOROCCO: Well, actually as we saw Steve after the emulation of the pilot, in the city of Raqqa, what happened is that ISIS put on broad display the fact that they had committed this. And there were people cheering. And this is part of the problem. The longer that ISIS controls territory, the more that they are able to brainwash the Sunnis who they have under their control. And it`s important for us to understand that the air campaign alone as my friend Barry McCaffrey said, is going to do a significant amount of damage but it is not going to ultimately destroy the will of the people who are eventually have to be destroyed. Taking the city of Mosul would be the key. And that`s still months away at this point. KORNACKI: So, in the Middle East and the Muslim world over there, when ISIS does something like this, there is such loud condemnation from around the world. But this does actually helps them in terms of recruitment over there, in terms of their standing over there, in the Muslim world. GINSBERG: I hate to say it. But the romantic adventure aspects of people being attracted to ISIS. When I go on social media and I see what they are able to do by turning this on its head, we think it is revolting but still attract incoherence. And as long as they are able -- look what`s happening in Libya, look what`s happening in Yemen. Look what`s happening around the region. Where they are still able to attract recruits. It is a question really in the end. Are we going to be able to show the people who are actually in the Muslim world the terrible atrocities that they are committing? The real problem here is that people like us think this is horrible. But the Arab world people are not seen really what`s happening. They may have seen the pilot being murdered. They may hear about the beheadings but they are not being revolted enough by what ISIS is doing to the people they`ve captured. KORNACKI: General, I`m curious about also what the sort of the game plan here is, for lack of a better term for ISIS. Because when they do something like burning a pilot alive like this, is the goal here to cause revulsion in Jordan or in other countries like Jordan so that there is a movement in this country to stay out, to not participate in the campaign against ISIS. Is that what ISIS is looking for here? Or is ISIS trying to draw countries like Jordan into this more because they think that elevates them in some way? MCCAFFREY: Well, you know, I think it`s very easy to over -- over talk this issue. At the end of the day, this is like Shia, Sunni, Kurdish struggle, internal religious overtones, cruelty. Ambassador Ginsberg knows all about this region. You know, at the end of the day the Sunnis are probably more afraid of the Shiite militia backed Iraqi government and the Assad Alawite Shiite factions and they are of ISIS. So we`ve got some problems here. I actually think we are probably doing okay. You know, 30,000 fighters. We`re pounding them from the air. There are other operations going on. Our concerns ought to be both in Western Europe and the United States is the homeland security aspects. They are -- and foreign fighters are going to go back to France, and the UK and elsewhere, several dozen U.S. They will be a threat. But this is a job for customs and border patrol. And the FBI and the marshal service and the National Security Agency so we can protect the American people. KORNACKI: Do you think at some point in this campaign, there`s going to be a role for a bigger American ground force presence? MCCAFFREY: No. I think domestic politics would rule it out and be a bad idea, anyway. You know, we just can`t put -- I listened to somebody talking about 100,000 ground troops. And they are trying to root out ISIS. This is nonsense. Now, retaking Mosul by the way which is I think as Ambassador Ginsberg says, this is a huge deal to the Iraqis. They can`t get back the second largest city in the country, they`re in trouble. And I`m not convinced that the Iraqi army can glue that country back together again. Twenty five percent of them took off like wild hares, abandoning, you know M1-tanks and Blackhawk helicopters. Though, I have been arguing to send direct aid to Jordan, a front line state directly to the Kurds. We need to arm the people that we think are capable, that needed to defend themselves. KORNACKI: Ambassador, I want to ask you too just about this young woman. Again, we are not actually sure right now what her fate is. We know what ISIS is saying about her. But in general the U.S. government is been saying in response to these beheadings that we`ve seen and to this ISIS atrocities that it`s going to revisit and re-examine its policy towards how it deals with hostage situations like this. Obviously, the policy right now is, they never pay a ransom. They`re saying, that`s not going to change. They`re never going to pay a ransom. We do know in a situation, ISIS has produced proof that they have her, has made a demand for money. Short of changing that policy, is there the U.S., is there something different the U.S. can be doing to deal with hostage situations like this? GINSBERG: No, you know, as you know, Steve, the United States tried to launch an unfortunately ineffective rescue mission on the other two American hostages who were held and were ultimately beheaded. And the fact of the matter is that ISIS is going to continue to try as they have done in North Africa and then they tried to do in Libya just a few days ago. And that still hasn`t come out. What they didn`t want to kill, American that was killed in the -- they were actually trying to capture Americans. Okay? They want to be able to capture Americans. They want to be able to make this even more of a personal fight with the United States. And they want the United States to overreact. Now, the fact of the matter is that, the National Security Adviser Rice gave a speech at Brookings. It was a disturbing deer in the headlight speech. Because it didn`t lay out sufficiently what the United States policy should be with respect to hostages, with respect to ISIS. Sufficiently to give the type of assurance to the American people that we at least have a strategy. That`s what we need right now. And Barry McCaffrey is right. We are not going to put boots on the ground. That`s going to be up for the Arabs. We have to contain this fight. And what we need is an administration policy that`s going to explain to the American people exactly how our role is going to evolve. KORNACKI: Okay. My thanks to Ambassador Marc Ginsberg -- MCCAFFREY: Yes. I might add if I could. KORNACKI: Quickly, general. Go ahead. Yes. MCCAFFREY: A quick thought. That`s the problem with trading five major terrorists for Sergeant Bergdahl. It was a terrible precedent to set. And regardless of the fact he has also had left his post in combat and abandoned his unit, I mean, the thought that we would hand over high value insurgents to these people set a terrible precedent. Ambassador Ginsberg is right. The danger is now in Lebanon and Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab world people are going to try and snatch Americans. KORNACKI: Okay. Retired U.S. General Barry McCaffrey joining us early from Seattle. I appreciate that. Ambassador Marc Ginsberg, thank you as well. We also want to bring you up to speed on the six people now charged in the U.S. on allegations that they helped to support ISIS. Federal indictments were unsealed just last night. The six were charged with conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists overseas. They are accuse of funneling money, funneling guns and military equipment to ISIS fighters in the Middle East. Five of them are in custody here in the U.S. The sixth is still at large overseas. Still ahead on this packed news morning here on UP, we are going to dive into the bizarre mystery behind a sequel to an iconic American novel. But first, what the Feds are looking at now in their investigation of Chris Christie. That is next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I have every faith and trust and confidence in David`s integrity. As do people on both sides of the aisle in this state over the course of the last 40 years and he`s been involved on and off in public life. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That`s New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on March 28 of last year talking about one of his very close allies, David Samson. He`s just announcing Samson`s resignation from the Port Authority. That was a position that Christie has appointed him to. Now, Samson resigned back then under a cloud of scandal at the Port Authority. Amid federal state investigations into the George Washington Bridge lane closures. Also, other allegations about Samson mixing his public services with his private business interests. These are all allegations that Samson has denied but now this new development, Bergen record in New Jersey reporting that federal prosecutors have subpoenaed the Port Authority for records related to Samson`s travel as well as his relationship with United Airlines, that is the largest carrier at Newark Liberty International Airport. And the operations of that airport are overseen by the Port Authority. And at issue here is what looks like an incredible perk. A direct flight route from Newark, New Jersey to Columbia, South Carolina. Which is about 50 miles from Samson`s vacation home, it`s a route that United created just after Samson became the Port Authority chairman and that United ended just after he stepped down. And Sampson, according to the newspaper referred to this as, quote, "the chairman`s flight." United Airlines says, its cooperating with federal authorities has no further comment. There was also a report this week that federal prosecutor spent hour interviewing a former county prosecutor Bennett Barlyn is his name. He appeared on the show and he accused the Christie administration of killing a political corruption investigation that was getting to close to a Christie ally. Also pushing him out as a prosecutor. But the U.S. attorney`s office says, given a forceful statement that was released on "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" last night calling the reported characterization of their interview with Barlyn as a quote, "tremendous leap forward." We talked to people all the time it doesn`t mean we are investigating anybody. And there is of course, on top of all this, there is still the matter of Bridgegate itself with New York WNBC reporting that at least six federal indictments could come any day now. So, how serious is the new stuff that we learned this week? How is it affecting Christie as he tries to launch a presidential campaign? The headline in today`s Wall Street Journal. Probe spooks some Chris Christie backers. To discuss all of this, we have with us WNBC`s veteran New Jersey reporter Brian Thompson. He`s been on the story since day one. And our panel joining us today. We have got Josh Barro, he`s the host of MSNBC`s Shift show "Three Cents." Also a correspondent for the Upshot at "The New York Times." MSNBC contributor Sam Stein, he`s a politics editor and White House correspondent for "The Huffington Post." And Jessica Taylor, she`s the campaign editor at The Hill. So, Brian Thompson. We can talk about the looming Bridgegate indictments. But let`s just start on this David Samson -- BRIAN THOMPSON, WNBC REPORTER: The chairman`s flight. KORNACKI: I mean, it`s incredible. It looks, maybe there is an explanation. THOMPSON: Steve, I know you researched a lot but I bet you haven`t researched this. Do you know what the slogan for the Chamber of Commerce in Aiken, South Carolina is? KORNACKI: Welcome, David Samson? (LAUGHTER) THOMPSON: It`s not bad. If you`re lucky enough to live in Aiken, you are lucky enough. What more can you ask for? KORNACKI: Besides a direct flight. THOMPSON: You know, let me go back to what the governor said. You showed that little clip of the governor. But what you didn`t show was when I asked him directly about Samson`s reputation at that news conference, he said he`s not a hands-on guy. He`s a big picture guy basically as I`m paraphrasing. Well, our information even before that news conference was that indeed David Samson was a hands-on guy. And that`s why everybody was so curious about his being mentioned in the e-mails over Bridgegate as somebody who would do retaliation. Now, there is no evidence that he did ever retaliate against anybody. I have to say that, make that very clear. But Wildstein and others could talk about that. KORNACKI: Well, it seems like this is telling us. It all started with the closers on this bridge in September 2013. Now, here we are in February 2015. Federal prosecutors clearly looking very closely at David Samson in turning up all sorts of other stuff. It suggests to me there sort of been a broadening of the scope of this thing. THOMPSON: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think they have uncovered stuff. The question we have now is, if you`re looking at indictments that were going to come down as early as January or early into February does this put a delay in the whole process. Because the subpoenas are only about a month old, I think according to Sean Berverg`s (ph) article in The Record. And you know, or they are just, you know, almost every news conference that you had from the U.S. attorney you asked, what about so and so. The investigation is continuing. So, do they put this in the investigation is continuing category or do they try to wrap it all in one big package? And I know going into this, they wanted to do everything in one big package. Hoboken, the charges that you unveiled involving Mayor Zimmer. The Bridgegate situation. Even possibly the ethics charges against Samson that predate United Airlines. All of this, our understanding was, they wanted to do in a one big news conference indictment package whether there was going to be an indictment or not. KORNACKI: Right. THOMPSON: And now, the question is, do we have to wait for United Airlines situation to come in or is that going to be the investigation continues answer. KORNACKI: So, okay, now all of this comes to, as Chris Christie is moving pretty aggressively to launch the presidential campaign. He was out in Iowa a couple of weeks ago, he sees an opening here. Mitt Romney is out of it. He wants to oppose Jeb Bush, be one of the leading camp against him. Jessica, you have a report. This is a headline on The Hill I think today. This is in the wake of Christie`s UK trip. Christie stumbles out of the gate. We said there is that Wall Street Journal story that says, basically republican donors are looking at the sort of things Brian is talking about right now and basically saying, look, we have 11 other options out there. We 15 other options out there. We are going to stay away from Chris Christie -- question marks. JESSICA TAYLOR, THE HILL: I mean, if Chris Christie wanted to steal the spotlight right after Mitt Romney left, I mean, he`s completely almost fallen on his face after this. You just don`t have the investigations. But you have, with his vaccine comments, you have the report in The New York Times where he took all of these lavish flights and with his relationship with king of Jordan and everything. And so, I think it just all bundled into one he`s had a very bad week. And I think that as you said, I mean, he had a good performance in Iowa. He did what he needed to essentially. Iowa has never going to be his good state. But New Hampshire is where he was supposed to be. I mean, he`s polling fourth, fifth in some polling there. And I mean, the people who have I think benefitted the most now, we thought that it would probably be Jeb and Christie. I think it`s been Jeb and Scott Walker now. And like you said, they have so many other options. He has to find a way I think to sort of return to that. Chris Christie was. What I was struck by this week was that, what made Chris Christie appeal to so many people, of course that he was sort of this straight-talking politician. He would get up in your face and stuff too. We saw a very cold, calculated politician with that vaccine answer. KORNACKI: Right. TAYLOR: You know, this was so politically calculated that he didn`t want to offend someone. KORNACKI: That wasn`t the guy who yelled "Get the hell off the beach". TAYLOR: No, it wasn`t. It wasn`t at all. But I mean, get the hell off the beach guy is the guy that got him in trouble with Bridgegate and stuff too. So, he`s caught in this. And I think that, you know, who really is Chris Christie? I think that`s sort of what we have to find out. But as more stuff leaks out about these investigations, it just -- SAM STEIN, "THE HUFFINGTON POST": He had dabbled a little bit in sort of that anti-vaccine movement, or area whatever you want to call it during his 2009 campaign. So, that wasn`t necessarily what surprised me so much as him not taking questions in London. It was the day after this whole vaccine thing blew up. Casey Hunt, other reporters who are in London started to asked him about basic foreign policy questions, stuff that if you are abroad you should be able to answer. And certainly if you have the reputation for being blunt and taking on all comers, you should answer those questions. And he clammed up and he said, no question. And if your hope persona is this outgoing guy who will, you know, is fearless -- KORNACKI: Ask the governor anything. STEIN: Yes. Ask them anything. To do that really was shocking to. Especially because you`re oversees. KORNACKI: We have to wrap up a quick final thought, Brian. THOMPSON: All right. I have one person said to me it was the worst week in the history of any politician last week for Chris Christie. You know, that may be going a little far. KORNACKI: I think Nixon had a worse one at one point. But it may have been the worst week in Chris Christie`s career, at least during the presidential hopes. My thanks to WNBC`s Brian Thompson. Still ahead, panel sticking with us. The next block, also the grassroots gathering to find a liberal challenger to Hillary Clinton. Senator Bernie Sanders are going to be here to say, he`s going to be that guy maybe. We`ll also catch up on the many headlines making news this morning. Sarah Palin returning to one of the most infamous nights in her political career. Stay with us. That`s next. KORNACKI: All right. The panel is back. This is our "Catching Up" segment. A lot going on this morning. We`ll going to take a look at some other headlines that are making news this morning, making news this weekend with. People talking about all over the country right now. Here`s one. We talk so much about Hillary Clinton on the democratic side. We talked about all the republican -- how about Joe Biden? How about the Vice President of the United States? He`s making little news here. Joe Biden says he`s going to skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s speech to Congress saying he`s actually going to be out of the country, what a coincidence, when Netanyahu addresses Congress. Also Biden, let`s see her taking the lead when it comes to Ukraine over in Europe attending German Chancellor Angela Merkel`s speech today in Munich about diplomatic efforts in Ukraine. And also, on top of all this the Des Moines register reporting that Joe Biden will be in Iowa next week giving a speech at Drake University, I think is the Drake bulldogs, and doing a round table on college affordability. So, Joe Biden wants you thinking he`s looking at this race, he`s interested this running. JOSH BARRO, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Kind of adorable how Joe Biden thinks he`s running for president. KORNACKI: It`s so mean. BARRO: Where is Hillary in the polls now? Seventy percent like this. KORNACKI: She was 58 points ahead in the last time I checked. BARRO: Yes. There is just no, there`s no Joe Biden constituency in this primary. Anybody who would have been -- I mean, and Joe Biden has run for president twice before and lost. Anybody who would have been in that campus probably in the Hillary camp. STEIN: Usually sitting vice president -- but the last two sitting vice presidents we basically assume will never run for the higher office. Joe Biden probably still has some politics left but I`m with Josh, there is not a constituency here. KORNACKI: Yes. Like Cheney never seemed interested in running. He`s like, look, well, I`m going to be the guy behind the scene. I think Biden though thought for all these years. There was going to be a chance. TAYLOR: Yes. Joe Biden should be V.P. for life. I mean, he is -- KORNACKI: Put him on the ticket with Hillary in 2016, you know? TAYLOR: VP for life. KORNACKI: The New York Delaware connection, the Daily News telling us that Sarah Palin will be returning to "Saturday Night Live" for their 40th anniversary special that coming up on February 15th. You remember her appearance in 2008. You probably remember a lot more Tina Fey. But it`s in this building. Sarah Palin is going to be here in this building a few weeks. STEIN: Things come full circle. And I think it`s sort of a nice capstone for her trajectory which is from politics to entertainment. She`ll now going to finalize it as an entertainer. But not much more to say to it. BARRO: Yes. KORNACKI: So, we`ll move on to the next one. How about this -- New York? I do writing for that site. Sometimes they have Michelle and Malia Obama visiting New York College. They were spotted yesterday at NYU in Columbia. Also the Chicago Sun Times reporting that Michelle Obama is going to get a pick where her husband`s post presidential library is. And she favors New York City. Columbia University putting in a bid right now. Obama went to Columbia undergrad. I guess if their daughter is going to be here. Maybe they would want to have the library here. But, you know, this is not one of this -- they have Columbia, they have University of Chicago. Give it to the University of Chicago, be a populous. Give it to the public school. Don`t give it to the Ivy League. They have everything else. I`m sorry. BARRO: Yes. It`s no problem. STEIN: I agree with you. You know, Columbia, such an ivory tower. KORNACKI: Where did you go? STEIN: I went to Columbia Journalism School. KORNACKI: University of Hawaii, I don`t know. Look, it`s remarkable how there`s been a lot of political consternation in Chicago about the plans to put it at the University of Chicago. They want to use some public parkland for it. TAYLOR: Yes. KORNACKI: People are upset about taking a public park and using it for this purpose. So, you know, it would seem like Chicago ought to have the inside track. But it reminds me sometimes of this Olympic bids. Where it`s like the city is supposed to really want with it and then you have all these people are like, well, maybe we don`t really want that space. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) TAYLOR: You know, I`m trying to take it over. Trying to shepherd it through. So, I think it would be an embarrassment for Chicago if it doesn`t end up there. STEIN: He`s so much more closely associated with Chicago than New York. Right? I mean, it would be really weird I think -- TAYLOR: Yes. KORNACKI: Yes. The Clintons were never associated with New York. And now they`re like a first couple -- BARRO: The library is still in Little Rock. TAYLOR: Yes. KORNACKI: That`s true. That`s true. One more I want to get too. Sam Stein, I actually got this because you put this on twitter yesterday. And this is the craziest story that I have seen this week. This is from the Bleacher Report. Check this out. The high school basketball game made history. The final score. This is not soccer. This is not hockey. This is basketball and that`s not 20. That`s two-nothing. What is that, Cobb County against Brookwood. Basically, the moral of the story is get a shot clock. The teams went into like their prevent offense. STEIN: Well, what happen was, these two teams got, there is no shot clock. Quickly, you can just hold the ball. And these coaches were total jerks. And so, someone scored within 15 seconds and then they just decided to play four corners and never shoot so that they could hold the ball until the end of each half. And it ended up being two-nothing. And people in the stands were going like, play the game. And it just ended up at two-nothing. KORNACKI: And they got quarter after quarter. STEIN: The neither coach wanted to blink. They are like, nope. I`m not going to do it, I`m not going to get out of my game plan. And you ended up with a two-nothing game. KORNACKI: I`m going to see the actual box score from that game. I think two shots, there`s no fouls. TAYLOR: If I were playing basketball, that would be the score. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: All right. Well, thanks to the panel. We`ll see the three of you later in the show. Of course, they are all here also for the UP against the clock championship. Still ahead on the show your kids could one day be reading the sequel to this American classic in their English classes. We`ll going to talk to a close friend of Harper Lee, the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird" about her new book, whether she actually wants it published. And next, we`re going live to Pennsylvania. Because if there`s going to be a challenge to Hillary Clinton to the democratic nomination, it`s going to start there today. That`s next. KORNACKI: All signs point to Hillary Clinton running for president. Every poll says she`s way out ahead when it comes to the democratic race. But if she`s going to get a challenge for her party`s nomination next year. It`s probably going to come from a man who just a few minutes from now is going to be speaking to a convention of party activists in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The event is the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit, it`s going on right now. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is going to be addressing the crowd later this morning and MSNBC`s Alex Seitz-Wald is live at that summit. He joins us from just outside of it right now. Alex, thanks for taking a minute this morning. So, Bernie Sanders talking there this morning and we should say, he`s going to be on the show next hour as well. The appetite of the people you talked to there, the activists who were there. How many of them are really looking for somebody besides Hillary Clinton to be their candidate next year? ALEX SEITZ-WALD, MSNBC POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think people are definitely looking for an alternative to Hillary Clinton who I should say was invited to speak here. She`s not speaking here. Bernie Sanders is speaking instead. And they want Bernie Sanders, they want Elizabeth Warren. Definitely someone from that wing of the party. They say that they like Hillary Clinton but she`s not progressive on a whole host of issues. And I have heard a lot about fracking. In Pennsylvania, a big issue. I heard a lot about labor issues. And they want somebody else to be a true progressive voice in the party. Although they realize it`s going to be a tough road against Hillary Clinton. KORNACKI: And so, Bernie Sanders, we`ll ask him again but his stock answer on this, is you know, I`m thinking about it. I might do it a few months. By the way, if he does, that he`s going to have to actually register as a democrat. Something that`s not the case right now. But when he ultimately comes to the end of this, do you think he`s going to go ahead and run? SEITZ-WALD: I think he`s looking at it very seriously. He doesn`t want to run and be a spoiler. He doesn`t want to be another Dennis Kucinich. But if it looks like there is serious support that he could run a serious campaign, I think he goes for it. KORNACKI: All right. And that Hillary Clinton turning down the invitation, something tells me that`s going to be a theme for the next few months. But I`ll put it out right now. Hillary Clinton, come on the show any time. You`re invited. Anyway, my thanks to Alex Seitz-Wald and Bernie Sanders as I said, going to be our guest live from that summit. That`s in the next hour of UP. And still ahead, I`m going to be joined by two of America`s top political reporters and ask them about the death of the democratic field. Plus -- the question of who might emerge to challenge Jeb Bush. We also have a big celebrity making a special surprise appearance on today`s show. And here`s a hint. It`s Alex Trebek. You`re not going to want to miss it. So, stay with us. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: My guess is that for many people they look at the political process and they say, yes, my family is hurting. I`m working longer hours for lower wages. My job went to China. My kid can`t afford to go to college. I can`t afford health insurance. What are those people in Washington doing to protect my interests? Not much. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was Senator Bernie Sanders laying out his populist agenda on the Senate floor last month. Sanders as we just said speaking at a convention of democratic activist in Pennsylvania this morning. Maybe one of the first steps in a presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton. He`s going to join us live from that convention next hour. So, how much traction could Bernie Sanders get in a race with the former secretary of state. For that, we want to turn now to Jonathan Martin, national political correspondent from "The New York Times." And Perry Bacon, Jr., senior political reporter for NBC News. Perry, you have been following the democrats particularly closely. So, let`s say Bernie Sanders gets in this race. Let`s also say, becomes a democrat as I like to point out. He still has to do that. So, be becomes the democrat. He runs against Hillary Clinton. The polls say she`s 50, 60 points ahead. Where can he really go with that campaign? What happens then? PERRY BACON, JR., NBC NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: I don`t know if he can go far. You had a remarkable thing happen this week where the White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri is leaving that job to work for the Clinton campaign. I mean, Clinton is almost like an incumbent running for re-election almost. I mean, she`s so strong in the party right now. JONATHAN MARTIN, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes. She is basically the closest thing we have ever had to an incumbent who is not an incumbent in American politics. And it doesn`t leave very much space. But this is the Democratic Party. This is not going to be a 100 percent election. There are going to be folks in their party who could be looking for an alternative. And I think Bernie Sanders what happened to -- he`s always been a very robust left wing of that party, especially on economic issues. Places like Iowa and New Hampshire. Steve, as you know, have got about 20 percent of the electorate in the Democratic Party that are real progressives. And I think there`s going to be an opening for Bernie there. The question is, how many debates does she give him? And also how much money does she spent not just, his message for going after her. That`s what I`m curious about. How much of this is about Bernie talking about his progressive agenda and how much of it is him going after her on the -- KORNACKI: Yes. I`m reminded a little bit of Ron Paul and the republican side. Ron Paul had the same speech he`d been giving for 30 years. And he just started giving it at a debates and campaign events but it didn`t really changed. Is that what Bernie Sanders does or does he tailor it to like, and she failed on this and she failed on that. That`s an interesting question. We want to get to some other stuff on this front. The GOP nomination. Senator Marco Rubio weighing in on the hottest political story of the week. That`s what he had to say about vaccines. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: There is absolutely no medical science or data whatsoever that links that vaccinations to the onset of autism or anything of that nature. So, absolutely, all children in America should be vaccinated. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So, an interesting twist there. Rubio separating himself a bit from Rand Paul, from Chris Christie. They got in hot water for what they said this week. Rubio is actually sounding a bit like Jeb Bush there who the next day said, quote, "Parents have a responsibility to make sure their children are protected. Over and out." So, the question is in a crowded presidential primary, can Rubio beat out fellow Floridian Jeb Bush who is already staking his claim with the GOP establishment or even Perry Bacon, the question to me is, is there even room for a Marco Rubio candidacy with Jeb Bush, the fellow Floridian, a lot of the same donors, that sort of thing, maybe trying to play the same role here. The more of the moderate voice of reason kind of thing. Is there even room for Marco Rubio to get in this race? BACON: You know, Steve, I think there is. I think Jeb Bush getting in the race is a problem for Marco Rubio. They have a lot of the same views on immigration, they have a lot of the same donors. That said, there is room in this race. There is the Ted Cruz and the Mike Huckabee, the faction of the right. There is Jeb Bush who is the moderate candidate, they`re getting most of the moderate support. But I think there is room in the middle. You`ve seen the polls. And you talk to people in the party too. There is some desire for people who are in the quote-unquote, "establishment" who don`t want a second, third Bush term. Who are not that excited about Jeb Bush. And I think you have Scott Walker and Rubio, and Christie and net block (ph) and I think there is room for one or two of them to run a real campaign and maybe win. Not three of them probably. So, I think one of those people is going to struggle. I`m not sure where Marco Rubio goes right now. Walker has all the buzz. But there is room in that category for the middle of the two polls of the party. MARTIN: Yes. I think if you look at the polling and it`s so early but the polling is really soft right now. And it`s split among a lot of different candidates. So, I think Rubio has got an opportunity, he has time on his side, look, it doesn`t have to figure out if he`s going to run for re- election for the Senate or for president until into calendar year 2016. It`s only February, 2015 now. He has got months and months to look at this. Look, he won`t say this out loud. I think his approach is, yes, Jeb Bush can raise some money. But is there actually an opening for Jeb Bush among actual voters in the primary? And if there`s not, we`re going to know that here at some point during the course of 2015. And if there`s not he`s going to have an opportunity. KORNACKI: To me, that`s one of the biggest stories right now of this Jeb Bush rollout. It`s look like they`re going to do fine when it comes to the -- MARTIN: Financially, sure. KORNACKI: But when I look at those polls, I mean, he`s struggling to get. He`s had nine percent in Iowa. They say it`s just name recognition at this point. Well, if your name is Bush and you only have nine percent right now, that says a lot about what your name means to republicans. And it`s not good. MARTIN: The first Jeb Bush trip to Iowa is going to be so fascinating to watch. That first town hall there, in New Hampshire, in South Carolina. But you know, he`s going to have a lot of the money guys in the party. But where are the actual voters? Is there an appetite in the Obama era? A much more conservative party for another Bush. It`s an open question. KORNACKI: Yes. Very interesting. My thanks to Johnathan Martin of "The New York Times." Perry Bacon, Jr. from NBC News, I appreciate you both taking a few minutes. And still ahead, those prayer breakfast comments. We`ll going to discuss President Obama`s faith-based controversy with his former faith-based adviser. And next, "To Kill A Mockingbird" is getting a sequel. But is the author really on board with it? We`ll going to talk live with one of Harper Lee`s friends, that`s right after this. KORNACKI: The new this is week that Harper Collins is going to be publishing a second novel by "To Kill A Mockingbird" author Harper Lee is being greeted with plenty of enthusiasm. Already the book is number one on Amazon`s best seller list. But also there`s plenty of skepticism too. Did Harper Lee really give her consent after more than half a century of spurning opportunities to publish a second book? The Harper Lee who has been for decades afraid that her second effort would never match expectations doesn`t seem to mesh with the one who appeared to say this week in a statement that she was, quote, "Happy as hell about the looming publication." What was a recently discovered manuscript of the follow up to "To Kill A Mockingbird" and it`s called "Go Set A Watchman." Court documents filed by her lawyers described the 88-year-old Lee who is in a nursing home near her hometown in Alabama as having trouble both seeing and hearing. One friend telling "Vanity Fair" in 2013 that she is profoundly deaf, 95 percent blind and has a very poor memory. Joining me now to talk about this is Alexandra Alter, she`s a publishing reporter for "The New York Times." And Wayne Flynt is a retired history professor and a lifelong friend of Harper Lee from her hometown of Monroeville, Alabama. And he joins us from Montgomery. So, Wayne, let me start with you. First of all, have you spoken with Harper Lee this week? And do you believe that this is something she wants to happen? If she wants this book out there. WAYNE FLYNT, FRIEND OF HARPER LEE: Steve, ironically actually I was down in Monroeville with my wife Monday before the story broke on Tuesday. So I really do think she`s in control of her cognitive ability. I think she`s quite capable of telling people that she wants this published. So I have no reason to think what she`s been quoted as saying is true. KORNACKI: So, you were with her on Monday, is that right? Is that what I heard? FLYNT: That`s correct. KORNACKI: And did she mention it? FLYNT: We go once a month. And we had a conversation where for instance she was talking about her grandfather and said he was in the 15th Alabama regiment in Gettysburg. And I said, in Gettysburg, I said, was he wounded? She said, no. You know, Oates and his regimental history, that`s Colonel Oates who was later governor of Alabama and author of the "History of the 15th Regiment" and I said, they were killed or wounded because they ran fast. KORNACKI: So she`s -- sounds like she`s still with it. But I`m curious if you saw her on Monday, did she mention that, hey, on Tuesday the whole world is going to be talking about this new book? Did she mention it all? FLYNT: No, she didn`t. That`s partly because with I preempted the conversation by walking into the room. She hugged me, she hugged her, my wife. And she -- I immediately put in front of her the fact that "USA Today" had her book at 49th 55 years after it was published. And so I said, look, Nell, you`re 49th on the best seller list and this is 55 years after your book was published. And she looked at it. And she said, I can`t believe that. And I said, I will take it down to your magnifier in your room and you can see. And so, from that point, oh, we were talking about "To Kill A Mockingbird." We were talking about her father. Then they brought in lunch and we had lunch with her. So, we were there an hour and a half. And she was reminiscing about her father and about "To Kill A Mockingbird." And I blame myself. Because I didn`t really give her a chance to talk about much of anything other than "To Kill A Mockingbird" and her dad. KORNACKI: So, Alexandra, I`m curious. I mean, you have reported on this this week obviously and the skepticism that`s around this. What do we know about how this came out? Because for 50 years there were few authors who can sort of publish a book at the snap of a finger. She would be one of them. If she said to any publisher, hey, I have something here. There would be a race to publish it. So, that`s why there`s so much people think this is ad after 50 years. Suddenly now, she`s ready to do this. What do we know about how this came about? ALEXANDRA ALTER, THE NEWS YORK TIMES: So, according to the statement that was put out by her publisher which came through her lawyer. Harper Lee said, you know, she wrote this novel first before, "To Kill A Mockingbird." She submitted it to her publisher at the time. And they told her that re- write it from young scout perspective. And that`s how he got "To Kill A Mockingbird." So, and there is actually evidence in her letter, with her later agent that she did submit this book for publication. So, at one point, she did want to publish it. And then last fall apparently her lawyer Tanya Carter who is a family friend and goes back with him discovered it among her sister, I believe it was her sister`s papers. She said it was in a secure location with other papers attached to the original manuscript of "To Kill A Mockingbird." So, that was something that Harper Lee knew about. She thought it was lost. Apparently, according to her statement and with thrilled and it was found again, had a few reservations about having it published. Had people read it and, you know, confirm and though it was worth publishing. So, that`s what we hear from her lawyer and her publisher. KORNACKI: This is going to be at publishing events go. This is huge. ALTER: This is massive. I mean, they are planning a two million first printing which is huge. I mean, it`s been probably the literary discovery of the century. People have been yearning for another book from her for more than half a century. So, it`s pretty big news. The questions that remain, you know, are basically how involved was she in the decision to published and nobody really know except for her lawyer and her literary agent Andrew Nurnberg. You know, she`s excited. But because she`s such a private person, doesn`t give interviews and she is, you know, increasingly isolated these days. No one has -- boxes her right of course. KORNACKI: Yes. And Wayne, very quickly. Wayne, are you excited to have this book out there? FLYNT: One of the great literary events as Alexandra said. Because we`ll get to see the way in which this was transformed from a book that was rejected into the "To Kill A Mockingbird" a year later. And then we get to compare the voices to the voice of the two authors and we`ll also be able to put to rest forever the Truman Capote wrote "To Kill A Mockingbird" because he was in Italy during this period with his partner Jack Dunphy. KORNACKI: Yes. There is something about these great books that are rejected by all of these publishers. And then, you know, a confederacy of dunces is my favorite one. And I think by 25 publishers said no to that and now it`s a classic. FLYNT: Correct. Correct. KORNACKI: Anyway, my thanks Alexandra Alter of "The New York Times." Wayne Flynt, lifelong friend of Harper Lee. Number one on the bestseller list already. Hasn`t able been published. Anyway, another full hour of news and politics still to come. So, stay with us. KORNACKI: Stepping up as a super power. (MUSIC) KORNACKI: All right. Thanks for staying with us this Saturday morning. Another full hour of news, politics, and a little trivia as well this morning. A couple special guest appearances you`re going to want to stick around for, because the "Up Against the Clock" tournament of champions is going to be crowned at the end of this hour. Also, a special surprise appearance by Alex Trebek. He`s going to be here, too. Plus, if there is a liberal challenger to Hillary Clinton, it`s likely to emerge this morning from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Senator Bernie Sanders joins us to help explain. We`re also going to take a closer look at President Obama`s comparison of the crusades to ISIS. Lawrence O`Donnell will be here to help talk about that. We begin with hour with the foreign policy crises -- and that`s plural -- facing the Obama administration this morning, including that new round of air strikes against ISIS. Jordanian fighter jets this morning launching a second straight day of attacks on ISIS targets in Syria. Military officials confirming just now that separately, U.S. and coalition military forces have conducted 15 air strikes in Iraq. Yesterday, of course, ISIS claiming an American woman held hostage by the group was killed in one of those airstrikes. She`s been now identified as the last known American captive of ISIS. Twenty-six-year-old humanitarian aid worker Kayla Mueller. She`s from Prescott, Arizona. Video released by the Pentagon shows the raids took place 140 miles away. Jordan-led airstrikes on ISIS this week after the terrorist organization released a video showing a Jordanian pilot that had been taken hostage being burned alive in a cage. Let`s get the latest on all of this now from the White House. NBC`s Kristen Welker is standing by there. And, Kristen, Kayla`s parents have released a statement saying that they hold out hope that she`s alive. So, have administration officials given any indication about anything they`ve learned about that question that she could be still alive? KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS: They haven`t, Steve. They are being very tight- lipped. Just this morning, U.S. officials telling me they are not able to confirm that claims by ISIS that Kayla Mueller was killed yesterday. In a statement, NSA spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said, quote, "We are obviously deeply concerned by these reports. We have not at this time seen any evidence that corroborates ISIS` claims." Now, officials are telling me that there were streams of intelligence which showed that Kayla Mueller was still alive just a few weeks ago. So, right now, the intelligence community is going to be going back to those same streams of intelligence, trying to determine what happened to her. Now, I am told that additional resources are being directed toward this effort. This is a top priority here of the Obama administration. Now, of course, this comes as the White House is readying a request, Steve, that it will send to Congress in the coming days asking for a new authorization to use military forces against ISIS. There are still some key sticking points. Though, the final language being hammered out -- things like length of time for U.S. engagement, scope -- and this is a big sticking point -- whether the language should prohibit the use of ground forces. Of course, we have all heard President Obama say multiple times that he`s adamant he`s not going to send U.S. ground troops into a combat role. Some Democrats want that language in writing but many Republicans disagree. And even some top administration officials have argued that such language could tie the president`s hands if they are needed in a different capacity, for example. The president expected to send that request as early as next week. But final authorization could take months -- Steve. KORNACKI: All right. My thanks to NBC`s Kristen Welker, live at the White House. Appreciate that. And, of course, that`s not the only foreign policy crisis that the White House is dealing with this weekend. Fighting in eastern Ukraine continues to escalate. Some are now calling this the worst war in Europe since the Balkans. John Kerry and Joe Biden this morning are in Europe. They are working on a last ditch diplomatic push. The administration is weighing sending arms to the Ukrainian government to fend off separatists that are believed to be backed by Vladimir Putin`s Russian government. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We`re not seeking a conflict with Russia. No one is. But we cannot close our eyes to tanks crossing the border from Russia, coming in to Ukraine. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Amid all the foreign policy challenges the U.S. is facing at the moment, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, fighting in the Ukraine, nuclear talks with Iran -- amid all these threats, "The Washington Post`s" David Ignatius, argues that it is time for the United States to think and to act like a super power again. He says the U.S., quote, "shouldn`t rush to make concessions to weaker nations. It shouldn`t be shy about helping friends or making adversaries pay for the reckless behavior as in dealing with Russia`s aggression in Ukraine. Fortune blesses strong nations but only when they act with resolve. Squandering America`s real advantage to gain short term diplomatic success would be a big mistake. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Steve Clemons. He`s the Washington editor at large for "The Atlantic", and MSNBC`s own Lawrence O`Donnell, host of "THE LAST WORD" in a rare Saturday morning appearance. Lawrence, thanks for joining us. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, THE LAST WORD: Well, this involves getting up at an ungodly hour for a weekend. KORNACKI: Tell me about it. Every morning, every weekend morning. So, let me start with you, Lawrence. On the column we quoted from, got a lot of attention. People looking at that and saying what he`s really arguing there is that the United States, 10 years after Iraq has been haunted by the experience of Iraq, by the experience of intervention, that it`s almost too timid in the world now and that we need to shake ourselves. What do you make of that argument? O`DONNELL: What I make of it is every advisory issued from op-ed columns like this in the 21st century -- they`ve got a batting average worst than the worst hitter in basketball, you know? It`s -- there could be some wisdom in that and it could be completely wrong. And we are -- in every one of these ventures of the 21st century, in uncharted territory. We don`t have a previous experience in that region with Russia or with the Soviet Union, its predecessor that could -- that use it is guideline and say, oh, here`s why this will work. So whatever steps you`re taking have to be taken with the humility that they can backfire on you. You know, we took steps like this in the past that helped create Osama bin Laden. So, you know, I approach these things with great humility. I can`t write that column. I can`t tell you what we should do in the situation in Ukraine. I think it has incredible complexities. It`s why on my program, I invite Steve Clemons on to talk about this. I let him make any recommendation he wants without argument from me, because I do not know what to do. And I wish -- I wish at this point in the 21st century we could run columns in newspapers that say, I have thought about these things all my life. I don`t know what to do here. KORNACKI: You know, that would be so different, it might actually get some clicks. Maybe you should write it and see what happens. Steve Clemons, OK, the man with the answers. O`DONNELL: I`m going to take notes now when Steve gives his answer. KORNACKI: Let me put it this way. The argument that Ignatius makes more specifically is he talks a lot about oil prices, about declining oil prices, and how oil prices have been linked so much to the global power that Putting and Russia have enjoyed, to Iran perhaps having leverage on nuclear talks in the United States. And he`s basically saying because oil prices have fall and are falling so dramatically, Putin`s in a weak place. The hard liners in Iran are in a weak place right now. And so, therefore, it gives the United States a position of strength in dealing with them. What do you make of that specific argument? STEVE CLEMONS, THE ATLANTIC: I think David Ignatius is a great thinker, but wrong on this. I think that one of the things I give the administration credit for in the national security strategy that it released is it had the guts to say the word strategic patience which means strategic restraint. Sometimes, it`s the choice, the hard choice to make when the temperature is high and hot on other things. And when it comes to dealing with Putin and Russia when it looks like it was a basket case, well, it`s a basket case in the 1990s. I interviewed Richard Haas recently and asked him, when you were at the State Department, did anybody think about what Russia would look like when it became strong and felt like it was rich and powerful again, might be -- you know, resorting back to muscle memory of trying to pick up the buffer zone. Why didn`t we give Russia an opportunity eventually to have a track into NATO, so we wouldn`t have this them versus us dynamic that we`re in today. And so, I would remind David Ignatius that we had opportunity when Russia was weak and we made very bad policy. And our problem today with Russia was rooted back in the decision where the United States was high in the saddle. Russia was a mess. And we didn`t think ahead 10, 15 years that when Russia grows back into form, it may in fact begin acting, you know, with muscles again in international affairs. So, we tend to get it wrong when we`re powerful and Russia is weak. We need to think more strategically, less reactively and more long term. David usually does that. I`m a great fan of his. But this article that he has was wrongheaded in my view. O`DONNELL: You know, can I just make one point about the article? And these kinds of articles in general, when I read them, what strikes me about them is how many notes of agreement actually David Ignatius has with the administration and sort -- in that article, while also suggesting alternatives that they take. And these op-ed columns are written by people who are home alone, basically. That`s sort of an op-ed column is, my thinking, right? And when I read them, I think, you know what, if David was in the White House meeting last week, he probably in that discussion -- and I don`t mean just him, I mean, many other such columnists on many other subjects including domestics, he probably would have found himself agreeing with the group decision of what to do given all of these things. KORNACKI: You know, Steve, though, the broader question here, too, the idea of have we gone, have we stopped acting like a super power. That seems to be the thesis here after the experience in Iraq. And what I think of is, how we seem to -- rear view mirror logic seems to prevail so much. After Vietnam, for years, we wouldn`t touch anything on that scale because we don`t want another Vietnam. Then, we have the First Gulf War in 1991, and suddenly, we can take out Saddam, we can have a regime change in Iraq. Everybody votes for the war in Iraq. That goes haywire. And now, we`ve gone sort of back in the other direction. Is there something to be said for maybe we`re always overreacting, did we overreact too much to the experience in Iraq? CLEMONS: I think we did. I mean, I think that one of the interesting challenges of being a super power in the world -- and let`s be honest. It`s often a matter of mystique and the invasion of Iraq, the sense that the United States extended its military too far, that it couldn`t fight two battles in the world at the same time. That we became an economic mess internally shattered the mystique of American power in the world and other nations began to doubt our resolve in either challenging threats or even our allies began to doubt whether we would be there like we would have been years ago for them in times of crisis. And so, it`s not just a matter, as David argues, a posture of just asserting yourself. It has a lot to do with the combined assets and sort of the stock price, if you will. Does the world look ahead in 20 years from now, see the United States and its power on the rise and capacity? Because power is not just a function of throwing a military bombing raid here and there. Power is a function of getting other people to do what you want without using power. That`s the mistake at some degree of what David saying. When Barack Obama came in, he inherited both one of the worst economic messes in the United States, and also, an extraordinary military miss. Our stock of power was very low. And one of the reasons that I intend to be more supportive of what Barack Obama has been trying to do with Iran and other things, is he`s trying to show the United States has the ability to make a strategic list to be able to impact the things that matter and not get distracted by things that are lower level. KORNACKI: All right. Steve Clemons of "The Atlantic", thanks for joining us this morning. Lawrence O`Donnell, you`re staying in put. You`re going to join us on the other side of this break. We also want to bring you up to speed on the six people charged in the U.S. on allegations that they helped support ISIS. The federal indictments were unsealed last night, and six were charged with conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists overseas. They were accused of funneling money, guns and military equipment to ISIS fighters in the Middle East. Five of them are in custody now in the United States. And the sixth is at large overseas. Still ahead, a very special surprise guest appearance in our "Up Against the Clock" tournament of champions finals. Who is it? Here`s a hint: it`s Alex Trebek. And up next, why is Lawrence O`Donnell less than impressed with Obama`s prayer breakfast address? Stay with us. We`re tackling that, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We see faith driving us to do right. We also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge, or worse, sometimes used as a weapon. We see ISIS, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism, terrorizing religious minorities like the Yazidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war and claiming a mantle of religious authority for such actions. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was President Obama speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday morning. His remarks coming before ISIS claimed the death of 26-year-old American captive Kayla Mueller. In his speech, the president condemned ISIS but also compared their acts to the Crusades of over 900 years ago. And those remarks drew harsh criticism from the right and from some on the left. Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, accusing Obama of trying to deflect guilt from Muslim mad men. Bill Maher, a critic of all religion, but especially these days, Islam, weighing in on the show last night to say that the president missed the point. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL MAHER, TV HOST: I made this point myself a billion (EXPLETIVE DELETED) times, that if I was living in the 16th century, it would be Christianity who I would be going after because they were the ones who were the most violent and the most intolerant. But we`re not living in the 16th century. The problem with Obama making this statement is that he doesn`t make the follow up statement that I always do. We did it then. They are doing it now. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And here to talk about all this is Josh Dubois. He`s a former executive director of the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. And Lawrence O`Donnell, host of MSNBC`s "THE LAST WORD", back with us on set. Josh, let me start with you. The criticism the speech is starting to take right now, the idea that, hey, yes, Christianity did horrible things. You know, horrible atrocities during the crusades and there are horrible things being committed in the name of Islam today. But the president is sort of glossing over the fact that there`s about 800 years separating these things. What do you make of that? JOSH DUBOIS, FORMER DIR., W.H. FAITH OUTREACH: Well, Chris, I think we`re also glossing over something else, which is the president talked about the Crusades, but then he also talked about Jim Crow and slavery. And you know what? Less than 60 years ago in this country and certainly over the last hundred years African-Americans were hung up from trees and their necks were with snapped, black men were charred and people who claimed to be Christians stood in front of their burned bodies. This was not ancient history. People have been doing terrible things in the name of the religion, not the religion itself, and that`s the point that President Obama was making, was, let`s not blame an entire faith for the evil that people do in the name of the faith. And I think that`s a really important distinction, and it really isn`t ancient history. He was connecting the crusades to things that happened, you know, less than a hundred years ago. KORNACKI: Lawrence, what do you make of this? O`DONNELL: Well, first of all, there`s an article in "New York Times" today about the backlash over the speech, which turns out to be worldwide. China is objecting to his references to the Dalai Lama. I personally am glad that he pissed off China with references to the Dalai Lama and honoring the Dalai Lama. India is mad because India was dragged into the discussion of ISIS. And what we are talking here about scale. We`re talking about scale. Yes. The only comparable event in terms of religious war that you can come up with is 800 years ago. And it is the Crusades, that is correct. It is comparable event. And it is important that it was 800 years ago and what is important about it is that Catholicism, which was running the Crusades and Christianity more broadly, grew out of that, and that`s what we`re looking for in terms of what`s happening with the Islamic State, is how will the use of the religion in this way be something that eventually people in the region, tens of thousands of them who were involved in this moved beyond that? How do they move beyond that? And there is -- it`s worth studying how that happened in the crusades and, oh, by the way, it`s very grim because it took centuries to grow out of that. As far as the Jim Crow stuff is concerned, we are with talking about scale. We are talking about numbers and we`re talking about religion. The reason people were killed by the Ku Klux Klan was the color of their skin, not their religion. The Ku Klux Klan hated Jews and hated Catholics, and did not lynch Jews and Catholics. They lynched black people. They assassinated only black people. And to include that in a reference to an army, an active army that`s out there in the tens of thousands and has worldwide reach, that can assassinate cartoonists in Paris. You know, the Ku Klux Klan never assassinated a cartoonist in New York. We are talking about a scale that makes these comparisons irrelevant. DUBOIS: Lawrence, with all due respect -- yes, let`s talk about scale. The brutality of the Atlantic slave trade all the way through reconstruction and Jim Crow which extended into the middle of the 20th century killed at least 16 million African-American Americans. ISIS is brutal. They`re horrible. The president condemned them as a death cult. But all of, you know, the Islamic terrorists that -- (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: I don`t mean to interrupt. But I think the distinction that is being made by critic of this speech is that horrible as this slave trade was, it was being done in the name of Christianity, as much as it`s being done in the name of profit. DUBOIS: Unfortunately, that`s an absolutely historical inaccuracy. People were directly using their faith to justify the subjugation and annihilation of black Africans in this country. That`s just -- it`s just simply not true. That is how people justified it. We should not condemn Christianity for that justification, because it wasn`t Jesus. It was evil that men did in the name of Jesus. In the same way, we should not condemn Muslim Americans and Muslims around the globe for the evil being perpetrated in the name of Islam. O`DONNELL: No does. No one does condemn Islam. DUBOIS: Yes, they do. O`DONNELL: Well, look, just -- it`s not in this program now, OK? So, there are people saying they would like the president to declare a war on Islam. That`s crazy. But what the president is involved in and what the United States military is involved in is a war against the Islamic State. They are doing that. And so -- and I agree with you. He did make a reference to slavery, which on the basis of scale is gigantic. And I -- and yes, people were always citing religious justification for what they were doing. That was always a part of it. But this is a unique kind of threat we have not seen. DUBOIS: But that`s the thing -- it`s not unique, though. People are doing evil thing this is the name of religion, and that`s terrible, but we should not condemn the religion itself. And let me just, in fact, people are conflating these things. You and I may not. And Steve may not, because we know Muslim Americans and we thought a lot about these issues. But there were a lot of folks for whom the only association that they have with Islam is the Islamic State. And so, the president is saying we need to decouple that. (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: That doesn`t mean we have to be silent about the connective tissue that these people are bringing to what they are doing from religion to what they are doing. The president is arguing in that speech that this is a perversion of the religion. And that is a good line of argument. Let me just read to you in the corrective article today in "The New York Times" that the White House has out there about what the president meant to say. And whenever you`re in a situation with a speech where you have to do an article about what the president meant to say, that means it didn`t work. So, the spokesman says, I think what the president was trying to say, over the course of human history, there are times when extremists pervert their own religion to justify violence. Joshua, if that was the line he used word for word, there would be no controversy. None. DUBOIS: Here`s why there is a corrective article in "The New York Times" with, again, with due respect, Lawrence, the reason is immediately when the president uttered this very basic historical analogy, folks with a vested interest in showing that he is somehow scolding America, lost their minds. O`DONNEL: That`s not true. That`s not true. DUBOIS: I`m not talking about you. O`DONNELL: I have never heard -- DUBOIS: Not you. O`DONNELL: An Obama speech I have -- in fact -- DUBOIS: What I`m saying is Jim Gilmore and Bill Donahue. (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: I`m not in the business of attacking what President Obama says. DUBOIS: I agree with you. KORNACKI: Final thought here, Joshua, in honor of Lawrence O`Donnell I will give you the last word. But you got to keep this one short. DUBOIS: Sure. I`m saying is that when Jim Gilmore and Bill Donahue and folks on the hard right -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: Those are crazy people. DUBOIS: I know, but that`s what got written up and that`s what`s being responded to now. So, unfortunately, we cannot have thoughtful conversation about race or religion -- O`DONNELL: Bill Donahue is here. He`s a complete fraud. He represents no one. KORNACKI: Joshua Dubois in Chicago, MSNBC`s Lawrence O`Donnell here in New York, that was an interesting conversation. I appreciate it both of you, and I wish we could continue it. And, by the way, Lawrence O`Donnell, if you don`t already know this, you can catch him on weeknights, 10:00 p.m. Eastern, "THE LAST WORD" here on MSNBC. And still ahead, in about 30 minutes from uh now, one of these three contestants will be able to brag that he or she is the new "Up Against the Clock" national champion. The championship game, the final game, it is coming up. And also just minutes from now, Bernie Sanders will speak at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit, but he`s going to speak to us first. We will ask the potential presidential candidate what he`s going to talking about to those Democrats today when he joins us live, next. KORNACKI: And just minutes from now, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will be taking the stage at the Progressive Summit in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And like Hillary Clinton, Sanders who is actually an independent still, has said that he`s thinking of running for president. And politico recently called him perhaps the Democratic Party`s best vessel to channel populist outrage and to push Clinton to the left in the Democratic primary. We`re fortunate enough to have Bernie Sanders with us just before he goes into that room to talk to the crowd. Senator Sanders, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. So, you are walking into a room full of Democrats who are starting to think about 2016. What is it you`re going to tell them this morning? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Well, what I`m going to tell them is at a time when we have more income and wealth and equality since 1929, the middle class is continuing its 40-year decline. And we need a bold progressive agenda to stand up to the billionaire class. We need to create millions of decent paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. We need a national health care program which guarantees health care to all of our people. KORNACKI: The agenda you just laid out when you look at Hillary Clinton, do you think she`s in a line with that agenda? SANDERS: Well, I think the proper person to ask that question to is Hillary Clinton. I know what I stand for and I have been fighting for working families for my entire political life. And what I think right now is we need a mobilization at the grassroots level of people who are prepared to take on the Koch brothers, who are prepared to take on Wall Street. And to try to get the United States government, I know it`s a radical idea, to start working for working people rather than just the top 1 percent. Look, where we are right now -- this is quite unbelievable -- is since the Wall Street crash, 99 percent of new income generated goes to the top 1 percent, at the same time as we have the highest level of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. That`s pretty crazy. I think we need a political revolution in this country. We need to get people once again actively involved in the political process and take on the people who have the real power in America. KORNACKI: Well, you say the question is better directed at Hillary Clinton. I would tend to agree. But as you know, she was invited to speak today at the event where you are. She declined that invitation. She`s not been saying much, frankly, for the last few months in terms of accepting invitations to appear on television shows for interviews, interview requests from print reporters, speeches to groups like the one with you`re at today. Is Hillary Clinton taking this for granted? SANDERS: Look, again, you`ll have to speak to Hillary Clinton. I don`t know that she`s going to run. I`m assuming that she will run. I have not made a decision if I`m going to run. But if I do run and if Hillary Clinton does run, trust me, there will be a real clash of ideas. I happen to like and respect Hillary Clinton. But I suspect on issues like massive investments in infrastructure, on real tax reform, on a need to deal in a very bold way with the planetary crisis of climate change, on the transpacific partnership, I suspect we`ll have some real differences. KORNACKI: And I do want to ask you just looking ahead to the next two years between now and when this election finally finishes up, we are in a situation with the Democratic president, Republican control in the Senate now, Republican control in the House -- you talk about laying out your agenda here. Do you think there is a prospect for progress on the agenda you have laid out in the next two years? SANDERS: This is what I think. I think if some of us are successful in mobilizing the American people and in a sense giving the Republicans an offer they can`t refuse, yes, we can be successful. Let me give you an example. Right now, the Republicans are preparing to cut disability benefits and/or Social Security in general. That`s a widely unpopular idea. If we can mobilize the American people to say, you know what, we`re not going to cut Social Security, we are going to expand Social Security. Yes, I think we can win the battle. You know, in the last election, in four states, people voted to raise the minimum wage. If we can mobilize workers all over this country to say $7.25 federal minimum wage is the starvation wage, we need to move toward $15 an hour, you know what? We may not get everything we want, I think we can push the Republicans to raise the minimum wage a lot higher than it is right now. KORNACKI: All right. And very quickly, no decision yet on whether you`re actually going to run for president. But have you decided, if you do run, whether it would be as a Democrat? SANDERS: Well, it`s going to take a lot of thought and talking to a whole lot of people. KORNACKI: All right. Bernie Sanders, independent senator still from Vermont -- thanks for joining us. Appreciate that. SANDERS: Thank you very much. KORNACKI: And everything from here on out this morning on the show is going to have to be phrased in the form of a question, because Alex Trebek, another special guest, they are ahead, as the "Up Against the Clock" tournament of champions reaches the peak. The championship game, that is straight ahead. Stay with us. KORNACKI: Sam Stein, Jessica Taylor, Josh Barro, what do they all have in common? Each one of them survived the regular season. Each one of them survived the first round of the tournament. And all of them are going to compete head to head to head in the "Up Against the Clock" tournament of champions final. We are minutes away. And the winner is going to get a special prize from this mascot. This is Sandy, the Seagull. The Brooklyn Cyclones single-A mascot. Sandy is going to have a prize, one of them is throwing out the first pitch in the Cyclones game. Sandy, welcome. Players, get ready. The tournament of champions final is next. ANNOUNCER: Live from Studio 3A in Rockefeller Center, USA, it`s time for the tournament of champions finals of "Up Against the Clock". His grandfather is a famous music composer and he`s hoping to orchestrate the biggest victory of his trivia career. Say hello to Sam Stein. She may be an only child but she has no trouble putting up a fight. Please welcome Jessica Taylor. In his qualifying round, he answered correctly that Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel, California. But we`ve got just one question for him. Do you feel lucky? Well, do you? It`s Josh Barro. And now, the host of "Up Against the Clock," Steve Kornacki. KORNACKI: Thank you, Jim Cutler. Thank you, studio audience. Thank you, contestants. Thank you to everybody tuning in at home for a very, very special edition of "Up against the clock." The moment you have been waiting for all year has arrived. These three contestants -- Sam, Jessica and Josh, they have survived the gauntlet that`s the regular season and the tournament. They are here today to play for glory, to play for honor, and to play for an incredible prize, which we will tell you about a little about later on. But the quick refresher here. You have all been watching all year. You`ve been playing. You know the rules. This is three rounds of play. The questions get harder as we go along. A hundred points, 200 points, 300 points. Because this is the championship game. We have expanded the rounds. They are super sized in 105 seconds now instead of 100 seconds. Remember, the most important thing, contestants, you can ring in at any time but you will be penalized for incorrect answers. So, keep that in mind. Studio audience, I say welcome to you and also please no outbursts. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) KORNACKI: With that, you see the cheering sections for our players here today. We are going to put a hundred seconds on the clock. I have the first round questions here. The championship game begins with this. It was reported this week that New York City will likely be the site of the 2016 presidential campaign headquarters of Hillary Clinton -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Sam? STEIN: Brooklyn or Queens. KORNACKI: Incorrect. I`ll complete the question. Who is the wife of this former president? (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Bill Clinton. KORNACKI: Is correct for 100 points. A little twist there. A hundred tossup: A confirmation hearing was held Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee for this Obama nominee -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Ashton Carter. KORNACKI: Ash Carter for secretary of defense. Josh ties the game. Hundred point toss up. The United States is pressing for its new embassy to be opened by April in this -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Cuba. KORNACKI: Incorrect. I`ll complete the question, in this Cuban capital city. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Havana. KORNACKI: Havana, Josh in the lead. A hundred-point toss up: according to David Axelrod`s forthcoming book in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said he wished he could buy, quote, "a boat load -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Apple iPhone. KORNACKI: Apple stock, that`s correct. Jessica, hundred points. Hundred point toss up: California Governor Jerry Brown this week indicated his support for eliminating virtually all measles vaccine exemptions after a recent deadly outbreak that started at this -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Disneyland. KORNACKI: Correct. Stop the clock, very exciting for you. The measles outbreak started at Disneyland. That`s not why they`re cheering, though. They are cheering because you have triggered our video bonus question. Very simple. This is a risk free proposition for you. We have a famous quote to be read by a famous person. If you can identify who said it, we will give you an extra hundred points. So, for the quote of note, I will ask you to direct your attention to our video monitor. And get ready for this -- Mr. Alex Trebek. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALEX TREBEK: Hello. I`m Alex Trebek with this week`s "Up Against the Clock" quote of note. This French general and statesman once remarked that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians. Who was it? I remind you, this is the tournament of champions, so answer carefully and good luck. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right, Josh. BARRO: Charles de Gaulle. KORNACKI: That`s correct. Listen to Alex Trebek there. Hundred extra points for Josh. We set the clock in motion. On Thursday, a blood clot hospitalized Rick Snyder who is governor of what state? (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Michigan. KORNACKI: Of Michigan, 100 points. Hundred point tossup: in an effort to prepare for what would be his second presidential campaign, this possible candidate announced on Thursday that he has recruited more than 80 major -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Sam? STEIN: Uhh, ooh, Rick Perry. KORNACKI: Is correct, at the wire. Hundred point toss: "The New York Times" reported this week that Chris Christie took an all expenses paid trip to Jordan in 2012 and socialized with Bono -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Sam? STEIN: King Abdullah. KORNACKI: Incorrect. Bono, the iconic singer for what -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: U2. KORNACKI: From U2 is correct. Ends the round. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: At the wire, he has the early lead with 600 points. Jessica behind with a hundred. Sam in negative territory. But this is the 200-point round. You can make up a lot of ground. The questions are twice as hard, twice as valuable. Let`s put a hundred seconds on the clock. And we begin with this. The construction of the Keystone pipeline could increase greenhouse gas emissions according to a report this week from this federal agency. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: State Department? KORNACKI: Incorrect. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: The EPA. KORNACKI: The EPA, 200 for Josh. Two-hundred point tossup: filing for bankruptcy this week was the electronics retailer -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: RadioShack. KORNACKI: Incorrect. I`ll complete the question: was the chain RadioShack whose first store opened more than 90 years ago -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Sam? STEIN: 1921 in Boston. KORNACKI: In Boston, 200 points for Sam. Two hundred-point tossup: the online nickname Dread Pirate Roberts used by Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the online black market Silk Road who was found guilty of drug trafficking this week was taken from this 1987 romantic comedy film. STEIN: Oh -- KORNACKI: Time. It was "The Princess Bride." Inconceivable. Two-hundred point tossup: calling it a reversion to the peace work of the 19th century. The sharing economy was denounced this week by this former labor secretary. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Robert Reich. KORNACKI: Robert Reich is correct. Stop the clock. Very exciting news for you, Josh. Not only do you get 200 points for successfully answering that question, but you, sir, have triggered our use it or lose it bonus question. Very simple here. For 200 points, you can use the bonus question. It is related to the one with you answered or choose not to answer it, you will lose the 200 points if you get. You get 200 extra if you get it right. Josh, I have the question. Will you use the question or lose it? BARRO: I will use it. KORNACKI: He will use it. Here it is. In 2002, Robert Reich ran for governor of Massachusetts, finishing in second place in the Democratic primary to this woman who went on to lose the general election to Mitt Romney. BARRO: Shannon O`Brien. KORNACKI: Shannon O`Brien is correct, 200 points for Josh. Big lead. Two hundred-point tossup: after a series of revelations about his fiancee the largest newspaper in Oregon this week demanded -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Sam? STEIN: John Kitzhaber. KORNACKI: The resignation of Governor Kitzhaber, 200 points. Two hundred-point toss up: a plan to ban some political contributions by public opinion unions was proposed this week by this new governor of Illinois. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Bruce Rauner. KORNACKI: Bruce Rauner, 200 points. Two hundred-point tossup: alleging that their constitutional right to representation is being violated. A group of voters in New York this week filed suit demanding that a special election be called to replace -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Michael Grimm. KORNACKI: Incorrect. I`ll complete the question, to replace former Congressman Michael Grimm in an election to be called by this governor -- Sam. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Sam? STEIN: Andrew Cuomo. KORNACKI: Andrew Cuomo is correct. Two hundred-point tossup. Saying smoking marijuana was a youthful decision he now -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Sam? STEIN: Ted Cruz. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Incorrect. That he now regrets. A spokesman for Ted Cruz admitted use to this publication. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: "The Daily Mail". KORNACKI: "The Daily Mail", 200 points for Jessica. It brings us to the end of the second round. Sam moving in second place. Josh, pretty far ahead right now at 1,400. But -- STEIN: Answer some questions wrong. KORNACKI: The round of champions, 300 point questions. These are the hardest we have, the most valuable, miracles happen in the third round. We have seen it before. Will we see it again? Let`s dim the lights for dramatic effect. Put a hundred seconds on the clock. Ladies and gentlemen, let`s crown a champion. It will begin with this: a major cyberattack this week compromised the personal data of tens of millions of customers of -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Anthem. KORNACKI: Incorrect. I`ll complete it -- of the insurance giant Anthem which until last December went by this name. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Sam? STEIN: Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. KORNACKI: Incorrect. Josh, you want to take a guess? BARRO: No. KORNACKI: It`s WellPoint. Three-point tossup: at Thursday`s National Prayer Breakfast, the keynote address was given by this legendary former race driver and NASCAR hall of famer. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Darrell Waltrip. KORNACKI: Waltrip, 300 points for Jessica. Three hundred-point tossup: most of the cast of the `90s teen sitcom "Saved by the Bell" was reunited on "The Tonight Show" with Jimmy Fallon this week, including this actor who played the principal Richard Belding. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Richard Haskins. KORNACKI: Incorrect. (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Dennis Haskins. KORNACKI: Dennis Haskins. Three hundred-point tossup: that is showing that marijuana can be helpful for certain medical issues should quote drive policy making, this Obama administration official -- (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Vivek Murthy. KORNACKI: Correct, the surgeon general said that, 300 points. Three hundred-point tossup: despite a year that resulted in more than $4 billion worth of recalls, 48,000 union workers found out this week that they will receive bonuses higher than usual from this auto giant. (BUZZER) STEIN: GM. KORNACKI: GM, 300 points for Sam. Three hundred point tossup, saying as long as it retains the child`s dignity, Pope Francis approved this week of what parental discipline? (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Spanking. KORNACKI: Of spanking, 300 points for Josh. Three hundred-point tossup: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced this week that he will not sign a budget this year unless it contains a full slate of ethics reforms in response to the corruption arrest of Sheldon Silver, who held what office? (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Josh? BARRO: Speaker of the assembly. KORNACKI: Speaker of the assembly, 300 points for Josh. Three hundred-point tossup. A nominee for best spoken word album at tomorrow night`s Grammy Awards is the audio book for a call to action written by what former U.S. president? (BUZZER) KORNACKI: Jessica? TAYLOR: Bush. KORNACKI: Time. Sam or Josh? Sam? STEIN: Will say Bush. KORNACKI: Incorrect. Josh, do you want to take a guess? BARRO: No. KORNACKI: Doesn`t matter. Jimmy Carter is the answer. Josh Barro is the champion, 2,300 points. Congratulations! Josh, an incredible accomplishment as our champion, you have a very, very special prize package, which we`re going to tell you about right now. No, we`re not. We`re bringing out Sandy the Seagull. The price package is simple. You, sir, are going to throw out the first pitch at a Brooklyn Cyclones game. Sandy the Seagull is here to present it. Congratulations. BARRO: I`m mostly excited. Nobody has ever given me a big thick check before. KORNACKI: You have to bring that to the gate to get in. Bring three of your friends with you. We`re paying for the subway ride. Jessica, Sam, thank you very much. KORNACKI: All right. We are back. We have cleared the unruly studio audience. The official presentation to Josh Barro there, from Sandy the Seagull, the official mascot of the Brooklyn Cyclones. We want to thank the Brooklyn Cyclones for generously offering this, Josh. Sometime this summer, you will be throwing out the first pitch. Are you ready to do this? Can you reach the plate? BARRO: Oh, I`m not ready. My brother has been making so much fun of me for this, saying I won`t get it over the plate. KORNACKI: You`ve got three months to do it. BARRO: Yes. KORNACKI: Jessica, Sam, so many memories from this season. Sam, One of the high scorers in regular season. Jessica, you upset the defending champion in the first round. I`m sorry you guys came up short. But -- STEIN: Me too. TAYLOR: There`s always next year. KORNACKI: There`s always next year. That`s right. That`s what the Cyclones I guess say. But, anyway, Sandy, again, the mascot here, we loved having you be part of the show. Also, I do want to give a big thank you to Alex Trebek, how cool was it to have Alex Trebek be part of the show today. So, I love that. STEIN: Historic. KORNACKI: Anyway, congratulations again to Josh. And thank you, everybody, for watching this, this season. A lot of fun with "Up Against the Clock". And remember, you can always play online. We have an online version. Anyway, join us tomorrow Sunday morning 8:00 a.m. Guess who`s going to be on the show tomorrow? How about this? Senator Al Franken is going to talk about something he`s very passionate about. Maybe, maybe, I`ll ask him something about that "SNL" reunion coming up. And maybe he`ll say something interesting about it. Why do I say that? Because we interviewed him and he did. Anyway, up next, you`re going to want to watch. Stick around for this, Melissa Harris-Perry. She`s here. She`s next. Have a great weekend. We`ll see you tomorrow. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 9, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020701cb.450 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 34 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 7, 2015 Saturday SHOW: MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 10:00 AM EST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY for February 07, 2015 BYLINE: Melissa Harris-Perry, Josh Barro, Irin Carmon GUESTS: Simran Noor, Jelani Cobb, Cristina Beltran, Anthony Foxx, Lenny Alcivar, Daniel Garisto, Salamishah Tillet, Cathy Young, Lily Goodman, Sybrina Fulton SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 14847 words HIGHLIGHT: Columbia University senior Emma Sulkowicz had accused a fellow student of raping her in her dorm room of August of 2012, but the man accused of the attack has denied the charges. Interview with Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin`s mother.Panel discusses how transportation reflects social and economic problems in America. Next, they discuss coming elections and possible Republican candidates Rand Paul and Scott Walker. MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC ANCHOR: This morning, my question. Will a 14 year old change the world and, plus, the class of 2016 GOP style and for Sybrina Fulton, the struggle continues. But first, the long, long walk to work. Good morning. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. As unlikely as it may feel while you are comfortably settled in front of the TV watching your MHP, America, you spend a lot of your time on the go. According to the Department of Transportation, Americans take 1.1 billion trips every day. That`s about four for each person in the U.S. And about 15 percent of those trips, about 165 million of them, are taken for a daily commute. Now, for many of us that weekday journey from home to work and back again has become so much a part of our day-to-day lives that we don`t really appreciate the simple convenience of getting from point A to point B until that daily ritual is disrupted. Especially when that disruption is caused by catastrophe. As it was Tuesday night when a New York Metro North commuter train crashed into an SUV killing six people and injuring 15 others. The vehicle, which was stopped on the tracks at a crossing, exploded on impact and set the front of the train on fire. Commuter trains traveling through the site of the crash resumed running again on Thursday with authorities warning commuters to expect delays in service. It was the same warning given on Tuesday to commuters in Boston where all lines on the T, the city`s subway system experienced severe delays not because of a tragic accident, but because of well, winter. The recent blistering cold and record snowfall in Boston have harmed the system`s infrastructure and prompted the head of the T to get really real with Boston commuters when she said this this week. Quite candidly, if you don`t wind up having to use the service, that`s probably a plus. I`m just going to be candid. I`ve never said that in my life but I don`t want to wind up misleading anyone. Now, while those commuters in Boston and New York have been dealing with public transit delays, most of you likely just kept on cruising since the vast majority of Americans, 91 percent according to the DOT, still use a personal vehicle to commute to work. But if you are one of those daily drivers, well, this week`s transportation news may have been a bit distressing for you too because it appears that our recent happy days of refilling from the seemingly endless fountain of cheap gas may soon be coming to an end. A new AAA report released Monday predicted that gas prices which had reached five year lows, it will be rising again throughout the month of February. Meanwhile, even some walk to work commuters had reason to complain when after a flash freeze swept in behind wintry weather in the New York Tri- State area, many Walkers found themselves going through leaps and bounds to avoid being ankle deep in those dark puddles of freezing slush. But whatever struggles you faced on your home to job journey this week, it`s likely you were shamed out of complaining by the one transportation story that had us all questioning our excuses for ever being late to work. On Sunday, the Detroit free press profiled Detroit resident James Robertson, the tenacious man who has a 23-mile commute each way to his job at a factory and often walks 21 of those miles in round trips every day. Robertson has made the same journey five days a week Monday through Friday for the last decade since his old car stopped running and amazingly even through his grueling daily commute, he`s never missed a day of work. Robertson`s dedication and tenacity is impressive really by any standard. His story was so inspiring that readers donated more than $300,000 to a collection started to help buy him - started to help him buy a car. Not that he`ll need it now because the Detroit area dealership is giving him a brand new Ford for free. But as much as his story is the testament of the triumph of one man`s spirit, it`s also an indictment of the systemic inadequacies of the transportation infrastructure that has failed many of the people who need it most. Robertson`s commute from work to home takes four hours due in large part to the walk he has to make through a community where there is no fixed route bus service and it is illustrative of one of the ways, in which cuts to public services like transportation are often most acutely felt by low-income workers like James. According to a Brookings Institute analysis of data from Census Bureau data, hundreds of thousands of zero vehicle households live out of transit`s reach particularly in the south and in the suburbs. And those with transit access still cannot reach majority of jobs in metro areas within 90 minutes. So there`s plenty to celebrate in yesterday`s announcement that unemployment rate is at 5.7 percent and that the economy has added 257,000 jobs. Those would be workers clinging to the bottom wrung of the income ladder. They are not going to be able to share in the return of those jobs if they have no way to get to work. Joining me now, Jelani Cobb, associate professor of Africana studies at the University of Connecticut and contributor to the NewYorker.com. Cristina Beltran, associate professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and author of "The Trouble with Unity." Simran Noor, who is director of policy and strategy at the Center for Social Inclusion and Josh Barro who just won a big game show on "UP" and then also an MSNBC contributor, a national correspondent for "The New York Times." And host of "Three Cents" on shift by MSNBC. So I want to start with you. Because this is your work. What is it about the James Robertson story that tells us something about where we stand on the issue of transportation in this country? SIMRAN NOOR, CENTER FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION: Absolutely. Thank you, Melissa. You know, James Robertson - James Robertson`s struggle, his walk to work, is a direct result of policy. So the suburban county where James` job is located has opted out of the regional transit system making it impossible for people like James to get to work. And this is not just a pattern we are seeing in the Detroit metro region where the Center for Social Inclusion works. We see this across the country. And I think what`s most important is understanding who bears the brunt of these policy decisions and most - more likely that, more often than not, it`s people of color and low income people. HARRIS-PERRY: It also seems to me that on the one hand you have the option for this man. I mean it is unbelievable that he`s walking. But he also is able bodied and relatively young and able to walk. And I guess part of what I was thinking is so what if he is a person who is not able bodied or what if he is a person who is elderly or what if he`s a person who is a woman who is pregnant in her final trimester. Like, you know, there`s a part of the story that distresses me because it`s a sort of no barrier can stand in your way story and I`m thinking no, no, some barriers can stand in your way. CRISTINA BELTRAN, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Right. Right. It`s sort of this ongoing story that if you can be this exceptional person you know, you can inspire us with your ability. And so Robertson is this incredibly inspiring person but there`s a way in which, you know, the fundamental issues of infrastructure are so key here. And it is interesting. Because we - I often think it`s funny when you are driving on the highway and they say like, your tax dollars at work. They only do that when they`re doing construction, when you`re like annoyed and crabby. (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: Right. (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: But what they should do is have that running when things are working. Like this is what it means that our infrastructure is our collective ability to say what we care about as a - right. That we care about clean water and good roads and the ability to get from here to there and those kinds of things are something we have to value as a public. And so that last phrase, as a public. Josh, this seems to me, I guess I find myself surprised that here in 2015, five years after really the Republican takeover in 2010 when people like OK, we know they are not going to be able - common ground, but here`s one that I bet will be common ground. Infrastructure. Right? Because it`s the one public asset. Everybody recognizes that individuals can`t build roads, right? And, no, still five years later it`s still not a consensus item. JOSH BARRO, MSNBC: Yeah, well, it`s because at the federal level the conversation has been so dominated by the deficit and how we need to not borrow more money and even the Democrats when they talk about infrastructure, they are always talking about here`s how we collect more taxes in order to pay for infrastructure. Nobody is talking about the idea that infrastructure is something that`s appropriate to borrow for, to invest in. And because . HARRIS-PERRY: And it is revenue generating over time. BARRO: Right. And so the political environment has not been conducive to spending any money on infrastructure even though - people think infrastructure is a good thing. But transit also is not just about infrastructure spending. There are a lot of ongoing operating costs, especially with bus service, which is going to be the dominant form of transit in the Detroit area for the foreseeable future. And that`s something that squeezed in local budgets. And you have these suburban counties where most households do have cars, as the budgets have been squeezed and they ask people to make their priorities, they thing about do we cut from education, do we cut from policing, do we cut from transit? Transit has weak political support because for most people in these places, transit is not the way to get to work and not a priority. HARRIS-PERRY: So, it`s interesting. Just then when you made the point about suburbs, I mean this was part of what was fascinating to me. From "The Atlantic," January 7TH, 2015, suburbs and the new American poverty. There is fully 88 percent of Atlanta`s poor live in suburbs and that between 2000 and 2011, Atlanta suburban population grew by 159 percent. I mean the suburbs are increasingly a space of poverty. COBB: That`s exactly -- this is a forefront of this issue. We know like you are kind of transportation has been tied to these issues around civil rights for a really long time. But when you see even a decade ago, the NAACP and LDF were involved in cases in Baltimore, Atlanta, around this because what happens is suburbanization of poverty, if you have people on the outskirts of the city and you can pretty much ignore them in ways that you can`t when they`re actually inside the city and Atlanta is illustrative of this because just two years ago there was a bond measure. A one cent tax that people wanted to float and this money was going to be used for transportation cost. Overwhelmingly this was going to be funneled into highways, not into public transportation, so they were saying, people were going to be paying the sales tax, overwhelmingly poor people, subsidizing transportation for the middle class people who are living further and further outside that city. HARRIS-PERRY: But you - you know, so that strikes me. It`s like - I mean it`s an actual difficulty. An actual challenge. Right. So, there`s an ideology question, but then it`s also - it`s so important. Roads don`t have a good natural constituency in the way that, for example, education does. Now, not that there haven`t been plenty of good strong, conservative cuts to education but at least people can say how dare you cut, you know, books and teachers in a classroom for children. It is so much harder to get people worked up about bridges until they start collapsing and catching on fire and that sort of thing. NOOR: Absolutely, there is - we need a broad coalition of folks and we need people to understand that roads -- they`re an invisible cost. We don`t often think about infrastructure that is supporting us getting to school or getting to work each day or getting to a doctor when we`re sick. And that`s what transit and both transit and roads do. And this is - we have to invest to make sure that this infrastructure, this infrastructure is sound. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I wonder if there`s a political story to be told about how - I mean because it - You can make a kind of moral, ethical, even policy based argument. I`m also wondering if there`s a political argument. We`ll talk a little bit more about that. But also, I want to go way back in history and bring up some of the points, Jelani, that you were touching on. Still to come this morning, Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin, and part of my interview with Eric Holder, the attorney general of the United States. COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: The public transit inequities illustrated by the story of James Robertson`s long walk to work is only the most recent example of the long history transportation has in a struggle for social justice. In her book "Right to Ride," which we examine as early as this struggle of African Americans to resist, segregated public condenses, historian Blair Kelley writes, "Efforts to defeat segregation took place not only in the public`s fear of ideas and arguments in the press, the courts and the legislatures, but also in the physical struggle for seats on trains and street cars." That struggle was dealt its most crushing blow in 1896 when the Supreme Court considering the case of a creole of color, jailed for sitting in the whites only train car, legalized the segregation and institutionalized the standard of separate but equal in its Plessy v. Ferguson decision. But the Supreme Court also delivered a pivotal victory in 1956 when following a year-long campaign in which African-American citizens of Montgomery, Alabama, boycotted segregated buses, the court decided in their favor and ordered the buses to integrate. Even today the geographical divisions that concentrates poverty and segregation in American cities can be traced to decades old transportation policy. President Dwight Eisenhower`s 1956 legislation creating the interstate highway system, was one of the country`s greatest public work`s projects, but it also enabled white flight to the suburbs and eviscerated long established residential communities in the inner city. So, just, you know, I wanted to tell that history, Jelani, in part to remind us that it may be a public good, but it`s always been a political battle about who .. COBB: Oh, it always has. It always has. And you can go back even earlier than that, which is, you know, the 1883 overturning of the Civil Rights Act, which was the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which was a specifically about an instance, in which a black woman and a white man were riding a train and they were ejected for being in the company of a person of another race and that case went to the Supreme Court and led to the overturn- overturning of the first major Civil Rights Act at the civil war. And so it`s there. It`s Ida B. Wells, you know, who . HARRIS-PERRY: Bracing herself on the back of that train car. COBB: And then filing a lawsuit about this. And so, as long as there`s been transportation, and we think about this fundamental element of mobility which is what slavery was really rooted on. People cannot move. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. COBB: The ability to move freely has been inextricably linked to people`s civil rights and freedom. HARRIS-PERRY: And so, there was this other moment then that emerges and it was sort of within five years of the Hurricane Katrina disaster where we saw the issue of mobility actually trapping people in the city and yet Bobby Jindal in 2009 as the Governor of Louisiana actually turns down federal funds for a light rail system largely because there`s a politics behind it. Because taking that money was taking Obama`s money. And so, it just keeps feeling to me like, come on, we have got to get to a place where we can talk about a kind of overarching public good around transportation. BARRO: Yeah, and I think the politics of this varies by constituency. I think, for example, Los Angeles has made a lot of progress on this in the last couple of decades. There`s increase in public support for - they actually passed a local initiative creating a local sales tax to fund transit improvements. Partly they convince people who drive that if other people get on transit, there will be less traffic and you`ll be faster driving. But they`ve also built, you know, expanded the light rail through the city in a way that`s serving a socioeconomically diverse population there and so they`ve convinced people that this is something that is worth making the public investment in. But then you also need to draw the line so that people feel like they are getting something in return for the thing they`re paying for. We have these politics here in New York where local transit agencies, actually, a state agency, when they close the subway a few weeks ago, people get mad at the mayor, the mayor has nothing to do with this. There is no control over the subways. All the governor. And so, because it`s a state agency and because it serves the city and the suburbs, transit policy here is made with really a lot of an eye for people living way up in the Hudson Valley who are paying for the system, but really, the needs of it need to be designed around New York City where most of the usage is. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. OK. So, this also strikes me as connected back to this story. Because upstate New York, downstate Illinois, the - actually, also are demographically different both in terms of ethnic and racial identity, in terms of class and in terms of partisanship. And I guess, so then part of what I wonder what happened, so, yes, we are talking about even the ability to drive the cars on the roadways, we`re really talking about public transit. Has public transit become a racialized discourse? I mean obviously, it was even in this moment. When I keep thinking about like -- if you go to Birmingham now, there are not a lot of white folks clamoring to get on the bus. Like it - you know, it`s where we are historically feels to me demonstrative of the way it`s been racialized. NOOR: Absolutely. And I would say, what enabled Los Angeles to make those incredible strides was the ability to pursue private action, right, against discrimination in transportation. And in 2001, we saw another Supreme Court case, Alexandra v. Sandoval, which took away the ability for the right to private action for the ability to sue for discrimination within transportation, which we know, you know, takes away a big lever for a city like Los Angeles to continue to have the connectivity to connect particularly black and Latino folks that are the most disconnected. BELTRAN: And it`s not on the ground there fascinating, right. Because I mean one of the things is the way that suburban sprawl we are talking about earlier has shaped things. So, in places like Los Angeles and New Mexico, where there are really still weak infrastructures, you have the fight of the undocumented to get driver`s licenses. Right? And so, it`s interesting. That on the one hand, the fight for transportation sort of exceeds and goes beyond, it`s both public and private, people want access to public transportation, particularly if they lack status, you know, legal status, but at the same time in some places in this country, it`s been so deeply privatized that without a car you literally can`t live in those places and that`s not a constituency that`s necessarily able to voice its needs as directly. HARRIS-PERRY: But it also just feels to me, like no, we just need earmarks back? I mean like - what`s really - there was a way that you got - I mean people hate the bridges to nowhere, but damn, at least we were building a bridge. I mean like isn`t part of the problem that we`ve gone to a sort of version where there isn`t an incentive for people to build these kinds of public works projects. BARRO: I don`t - I don`t think that`s the leading issue here. I think it would be great if there was more of a federal commitment toward infrastructure. But I really think that`s a bigger issue for roads. With transit, really, the operating cost are such a big thing and you need ongoing appropriations at the local level to be able to pay bus drivers and those sorts of things and frankly, often you need more efficient decision making by the agencies running these things. There are some that make better - for example, here in New York, we still have two-man crews running all of our subway cars, which almost every other system around the world is using one person operation. That means that, you know, we can`t afford as much service as we otherwise would because we have a higher labor cost per train. So, if agencies were better about running that - spending that money and at the same time, if there was more political support for spending more money, then we could have more operations. HARRIS-PERRY: And yet, you just do point out right there by saying all those words that government does make jobs. They make bus driver jobs. (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: The Department of Transportation says our airports are going to be under water in 30 years. But don`t worry. They`ve got a plan and that`s next. COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: This week the federal government predicted the future of American transportation and it`s a terrifying place. Beyond traffic, a new report from the Department of Transportation cautions against the dangers of failing to invest in transportation infrastructure by painting a bleak picture of the transit of tomorrow. In DOT`s dystopian vision of America in 2045, airports are already teetering perilously close to sea level and could be consumed by rising waters. Nebraska will rival Los Angeles as a hell scape of hour`s long traffic jams and commuter trains having failed to increase capacity to a combinated (ph) growing population are too full to stop for passengers trying to get to work. But all is not lost because among the report`s proposals to avert this cataclysmic transportation nightmare is an equally futuristic solution. Robot cars. No, really. Well, sort of. OK, here to give us some hope for how we can avoid the dystopian future is the head of the department that brought us the report, the United States Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. So nice to have you, Secretary Fox. SECRETARY ANTHONY FOXX, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Hi, Melissa, great to join you. HARRIS-PERRY: So, we really - in "The Atlantic" have been reading through this report and we are all a little bit terrified about our lives 30 years from now especially since many of us are commuting long distances. What message were you hoping to send about U.S. transportation infrastructure? FOXX: Well, we`re headed for a very, very clogged up future if we don`t take better care of the system we have, if we don`t build new capacity where we need it and if we don`t make smarter choices about how to increase throughput using technology and better design. All of these things are things we can do, but over the last six years Congress has passed 32 short- term measures which has limited the ability of local and state governments to plan and that is setting us up for failure going forward. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Secretary Foxx, part of what`s interesting to me about your own kind of political trajectory is that you come out of Charlotte, out of North Carolina, which was one of these kind of growing, booming southern cities that, you know, was showing us kind of what a new economy could look like. And infrastructure challenges were part of it. We`ve been talking a lot about sort of individual access. But I`m interested in kind of an argument about economic development and how important transportation is to that big question. FOXX: One of the things that transportation has done since the beginning of time, is it hasn`t just increased throughput, it`s also improved the places that it connects and we see in many cases across the country including my hometown of Charlotte where transportation improves quality of life by attracting new development, densely dispersed housing, economic development in terms of jobs and those kinds of points of access are really critical and Melissa, on the topic you`ve been talking about today, I think one of the big challenges we have in transportation is getting from one project at a time that does these types of things to getting into a system that increases opportunity for people at the margins. HARRIS-PERRY: So, at this point about increasing opportunity for people at the margins, if you hold for me just one second, Secretary, I want to bring in one of my other guests. So, Simran, I`m wondering, you know, given that this is the work that you`re doing, trying to increase opportunity for folks at the margins and here you have a secretary, a cabinet member, is there a conversation the two of you would like to have here? NOOR: Absolutely. I think - I really appreciated this report because it comprehensively lays out what we need to do. I think what we need to do right now, is have better planning. To Josh`s point, and to Secretary Foxx`s point, we need comprehensive planning, we need to ensure that when we are putting new bus lines in, for example, that we are looking, what`s around that. Right now agencies don`t have -- they`re not using mapping and the data that they need to make better decisions about investment. And I think that`s a key thing we can do right now to begin to connect people. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Secretary Foxx, is that something that can come from a level like yours, from a federal level or is it simply about creating incentives at the local level? I mean it must be tough to be the head of a federal department where really most of this work is happening at a very hyper local level. FOXX: Yes, it`s going to take a lot of coordination. Most of our transit systems are locally based. Our highway system is mostly state controlled. Our rail system is mostly privately owned and so you have this sort of Rosak (ph) chart of control over how our transportation system is built. But at the same point, I think, the point is absolutely right. That planning is really important. And really having planning processes is that meaningfully take into account public input is also a critical part of the planning process. HARRIS-PERRY: So, the president has actually put forth a budget proposal here and in his budget proposal explicitly mentions that need to connect workers. But in his proposal, you know, 7.4 billion for TSA. 15.6 for the FAA. 41 billion for highways. 10.9 billion for transit. Is there any optimism given the stalemate in Washington about the ability to move forward on the kind of planning that you and Simran have been talking about, but also, actually, on these kind of budget proposals? FOXX: Well, I`m a congenital optimist, but I also recognize that whether you`re in a so-called red state or blue state, red city, blue city, red district, blue district, across this country our infrastructure is falling apart. And folks in Congress on both sides of the aisle are hearing this back from their chambers of commerce, from their communities, from their stake holders, from their governors, from their city council people, and I happen to believe there`s enough pressure building on the ground that something will get done. The question is whether that something is going to be big enough, smart enough, and capable enough to move us forward. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Secretary Anthony Foxx in Washington D.C. I`m a North Carolinian these days. If you ever want to take a camera, we`ll go take a ride around the Charlotte metro area and look at how transportation is working. I would love to do that for the show. FOXX: I`ll take you up on that. Absolutely. HARRIS-PERRY: Great. For those who want to dive in deep and comment on the department`s report, let`s put it up on the screen there. That`s dot.gov/beyondtraffic. Don`t get too scared, but it is a little scary. My thanks here also to Simran Noor, right here in New York and the rest of my panel is going to be back later in the hour. But coming up later on the program, Sybrina Fulton joins us to tell us what she`s doing next to honor the memory of her son, Trayvon Martin, and the 14-year-old model determined to change the entire world. COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney General Eric Holder will soon step down and that day just can`t come soon enough for some members of Congress like Senator John Cornyn who apparently has just one requirement of Mr. Holder`s successor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R) TEXAS: The attorney general has been openly contemptuous of the oversight responsibilities of the co-equal branch of government, he`s stonewalled legitimate investigations by the Congress. How do we know you`re not going to perform your duties of office as attorney general the way Eric Holder has performed his duties? How are you going to be different? Let me just stipulate you`re not Eric Holder, are you? LORETTA LYNCH, ATTY. GEN. NOMINEE: No, I`m not sir. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: I sat down with Attorney General Holder yesterday and he had something he wants to say to the senator from Texas. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER: Let me just say to Senator John Cornyn, I am Eric Holder and I`m proud of that. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: For much, much more of my interview with the attorney general, turn into tomorrow`s show at 10:00 a.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC, but up next, the class of 2016. COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: So, both of you keeping kind of home - remember the official number right now is zero. Officially, anyway, that`s how many people are running for president in 2016. Unofficially it`s more like a zillion (ph). My ordinarily - technical count any way. And with all of these officially non-candidates speaking at officially non-campaign events, you knew what had to happen sooner or later would be the first great debate of the non- campaign. Would it be economic policy? Would it be military engagements overseas? Would it be common core in education? No, it was vaccines. It`s me, and I`m not sure I saw that one coming. After New Jersey Governor Chris Christie sparked controversy during his trip to London by saying that parents should be allowed to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, he and his office had to spend the rest of the week backtracking and qualifying his statements. That one instance sent the beltway press into a frenzy to try and figure out where the other GOP presidential contenders stood on the issue. And regardless of their respective positions, almost everyone in the crowd of GOP yield had to endure days` worth of media coverage on the issue. But at least one potential candidate managed to avoid all of that. While everyone else was talking about things like measles and herd immunity, this GOP contender was rising above the fray to distinguish himself as a potential front runner. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker surprised a lot of people this week when polls out of both Iowa and New Hampshire found he was the top choice among Republicans in the two states that hold the very first presidential nominating contest. Voila, the imaginary field has a front runner. A front runner enjoying a slew of non-measles related headlines speculating that he might be the next great hope for the Republican Party. But just as Scott Walker was having his political moment, we got a glance into Scott Walker`s governing philosophy. Because this week the governor released his budget for the state of Wisconsin and as we said before on this show a budget is, in fact, also a moral document, a statement of a politician`s values and priorities. Governor Walker`s latest budget cuts deep into education, expands school voucher programs and proposes drug testing for food stamp recipients. With his recent polling success, should we view Scott Walker`s budget as a glimpse into what the 2016 Republican agenda might be like? Joining me at the table, Republican strategist Lenny Alcivar. So, Lenny, is Walker now the frontrunner? LENNY ALCIVAR, REPUBICAN STRATEGIST: No. There are no front runners in February of `15. This is the largest, widest field in my entire lifetime. I think more interesting than who the front runner is now for your viewers is everybody in Washington on the Republican strategist side is looking at the number of candidates who are running and looking at how that number of candidates is changing the way we`re going to run elections in 2016. With this many number of candidates, the notion that Iowa, the notion that New Hampshire will be determinative in electing the next nominee, no more. Game changer. HARRIS-PERRY: I`m going to go even further than that. Because you did something interesting right there in the primaries. And Josh, I`m going to go farther than that and say what the Republicans have right now is what the Democrats wish they had, which is a wide open field because what happened last time that we had a serious contest was we had a 50-state primary and we got people registered to vote and right now if there`s going to be a coronation on the Democratic side and the Republicans are going to fight it out, even if it`s about measles, right? It`s going to fight it out. Isn`t that ultimately really good for kind of the Republican base building going into the generals? BARRO: It depends on the nature of the primary campaign. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, OK. BARRO: You know, I think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton managed to have a long, almost respectful contest. HARRIS-PERRY: And there were a few moments. BARRO: There were a few moments, but I mean she ended up being secretary of state. Really, it wasn`t - so, whereas if you have a primary where people completely tear each other apart and you end up with a damaged nominee out of it and you end up with much of the party angry that they didn`t get their choice, and may be not motivated to vote in November, then I think the competitive primary can be bad. So, I think, you know, given the option, I would take the coronation, especially, if I thought the candidate that I was going to get was pretty good and most Democrats seem pretty happy with Hillary Clinton as a candidate. But yeah, you could, it is possible that you could have a competitive primary that invigorates Republicans and generates energy and gets people registered to vote. That`s not my guess about the most likely outcome of this .. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Cristina, I`m wondering, if it`s also that I`m giving too much credit. Because look, so Scott Walker coming to the fourth, for me, it`s fascinating. Because I want to talk about Scott Walker`s proposals. I want to talk about what that kind of Republican gubernatorial sort of leadership looks like. I want to talk about whether or not that`s what we really want to have going on in the country. But instead we are having like a media fuelled frenzy about vaccinations. And that strikes me just as a reminder. Let`s go back and listen to Michele Bachmann talking about HPV vaccinations the last time there was a GOP primary. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELE BACHMANN: There`s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine. There are very dangerous consequences. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: We just - I don`t want to talk about this. BELTRAN: Oh, crazy. Hi, crazy. (LAUGHTER) BELTRAN: No, I mean for all of the problems, I think, and this is - people have talked about this since the Gary Hart campaign, is that our media has now so focused on scandal and spectacle when it comes to looking at candidates. So if you are - you know, sort of focus then on who is a crazy, so you have Michele Bachmann. You know, you get the people who are kind of - is really crazy and really, you know. And so, but I think the issue of that kind of logic when you focus on scandal and spectacle, is that somebody like Scott Walker, who`s a hard right candidate - potentially as a candidate, a hard right governor, right? Somebody who`s extremely conservative, because he`s not, you know, sort of - he has a sort of general genial technocratic vibe. We don`t look at his actual policies. And so, the debate really starts to center around, oh, you know, he seems like a very rationale, like a moderate. Like he becomes a moderate because he`s not performing this kind of spectacle and he`s not like horribly corrupt as far as we know, so we`re not actually talking about the content of their policies. So, it`s really important to do that. HARRIS-PERRY: But I like language like spectacle and scandal better than crazy. Because we are still, which is also multi time reelected congresswoman, right? So this - maybe she`s crazy like a fox in that sense. BELTRAN: Yeah. HARRIS-PERRY: But this point about spectacle and scandal versus substance, actually, so Perry is trying to do exactly that right now. So, let`s listen to Rick Perry, who, of course, was the one that Bachmann was responding to there. He sort of - that campaign had died on the HPV vaccine. But here he is making a different kind of claim. Let`s listen to Perry this year. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FMR. GOV. RICK PERRY (R) TEXAS: We look at 2016, we got to remember we`re not electing a critic in chief. We are electing a commander in chief. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So here he is trying to distinguish himself. I don`t know whether he can do it, but certainly, Walker was sort of doing it this week. It`s like no, actually governing - that`s what I`m doing. I`m not doing this thing down here. ALCIVAR: Yeah, listen. The great thing about this primary process is that you`re going to have a much stronger group than you had in 2012, thank God. (LAUGHTER) ALCIVAR: You`re also going to have a very, very diverse series of views. You have conservatives who are kind of mainstream thinkers who are running governments, whether or not you agree with them. You have got people like Marco Rubio who demonstrate a fresh, new face. And then you have people like Jeb Bush. Maybe Chris Christie. The real question for everybody in 2016 will be can the Republican Party put up a nominee who will be forward thinking on the economy, on inequity of opportunity with regard to our economics and can do so who understands the uber society and can do so in a positive, fresh, new way that discards the old way of running campaigns. That`s my hope for 2016. I think we`ll get there. HARRIS-PERRY: And the guy who people thought was the answer to that was Senator Paul. So, we`re going to talk about him when we come back. Because then he did some stuff this week, so I want to ask you whether or not that still fits into Lenny`s category of that person being that kind of person because he made news this week on the nomination of Loretta Lynch. COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: This week, a likely presidential contender, Senator Rand Paul, announced that he`s opposing the nomination of Loretta Lynch for attorney general. Now, I know what you`re thinking. A Republican senator opposed to the president`s nominee, that`s not exactly news, Melissa. I mean Senator Paul, however, is considered to be one of the more right wing potential candidates of the Republican nomination and there are several other senators who also plan to oppose Lynch`s nomination. But Senator Paul has been doing something interesting that makes this latest move particularly puzzling because Senator Paul has been positioning himself as the candidate to repair the party`s relationship with African-American voters. Over the past few years, Mr. Paul has made consistent efforts to try to court African-American voters and it has not really been all about pandering. You see, through his positions on drug sentencing laws and criminal justice reform, the senator from Kentucky has managed to create some potential space for real reforms supported by African-American communities in these areas. Yet by opposing the first African-American woman for attorney general, Senator Paul may be marginalizing himself, at least, in the optics among the black voters whose support he seems to so badly want and even maybe to help curry favor with those early state Republican primary voters. So do you buy that? Like, you know, I don`t know. Maybe this is consistent. But it did feel a little bit like he`s then the one that said let`s diversify the party and like going after Loretta Lynch seems like the long way. COBB: I mean it does. I mean he also thinks there`s this idea that he can replicate the modest success he`s had among black Kentucky voters nationally, like somehow there`s a recipe for this. But I don`t think that you can necessarily balance off the kind of counter interest within the party itself. So you can`t - and even with his own kind of internal contradictions, you can`t on the one hand say that I`m interested in broadening the base and reaching out to African-Americans and then say because of my libertarian tendencies, I`m opposed to the Civil Rights Act, which is something else that Rand Paul has said. So, I`ve never kind of thought that this idea was as well developed as people seemed to think it is. HARRIS-PERRY: I also wonder watching Mr. Paul about another key constituency, which is particularly for Republicans, white women voters because although there`s a gender gap, white women have actually been majority support for Republican candidates and this happened with Mr. Paul this week. Let`s take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL: The whole purpose of doing this is to bring money home. There`s . (CROSSTALK) PAUL: Let me finish that - hey, let me finish that. Hey . UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m sorry. Go ahead. I`m sorry. PAUL: Calm down a bit here, Kelly. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: No shushing. No . BELTRAN: That`s never a good move. HARRIS-PERRY: That`s bad. BELTRAN: Not a good move. Rand Paul is fascinating. And I think what`s interesting about him, too, is that a lot of I think his moves are not simply strategic, but they really are ideological. HARRIS-PERRY: He`s trying . BELTRAN: He`s trying very hard not to let it all show up because it`s going to get complicated for the voters to make sense of him. But if you really believe as a conservative libertarian that government is what thwarts men`s liberty, right? If you believe that then there are some really interesting things you`re going to think about the violence of government. And that`s going to lead you just, you know, be somebody in support of, you know, against draconian drug law and against forfeiture. It`s going to lead you to some really interesting politics. And I think one of the things that`s really interesting is that he`s one of the only candidates who will say that the government can do real violence to its people. COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: And that`s fascinating for African-Americans and people of color . (CROSSTALK) Um: But they are all continuing to be a part of an argument. HARRIS-PERRY: There`s a space of kind of libertarianism that is a connecting point. What we don`t know is whether or not, those issues are the issues that rise to the fore for the relevance of voting in communities of color. But I guess, you know, I guess my bigger concern is this, if Rand Paul comes off looking crazy to you hear or marginalized in some ways, then do the issues that he also cares about like diversifying the party, running it in a new way, ending the draconian drug laws, do they also become marginalized because they are associated with a package that`s now fringy in some way. ALCIVAR: I don`t think so. I don`t think so. Listen, the conversation, the energetic conversation that we`re having here at this table about Rand Paul, the party is having that conversation. Ultimately Rand Paul is good for the Republican Party. It`s also fair to say that Rand Paul had an awful week. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. (LAUGHTER) ALCIVAR: And I say that not just because of the way that he came across with regard to vaccines or the way that he seemed to relish in opposing Loretta Lynch, I think his bigger issue is trying to marry policy with style. He`s trying to become the first Twitter candidate. He`s kind of overreaching a little bit. HARRIS-PERRY: In fact, in fact, he put them altogether. He tweeted out a picture of himself getting a vaccine, right? So he kind of like - he pushed - he pushed - and mocking the general media. Like what are they going to say about this now? ALCIVAR: Yes, so listen, the frank reality is just putting on my strategies head on. I can understand opposing Loretta Lynch on policy. If you`re a conservative, you`re looking at your colleagues like Rubio, excuse me, Ted Cruz and others, you have got a primary, you don`t want to get out righted. So, I can understand that if you think that the president`s views or policies were unconstitutional. That`s not necessarily a view that I share. My bigger problem with him is whether or not he will become somebody who can marry policy with consistent tone to actually do what he`s trying to do. This week if he continues to have weeks like that, we saw someone who will have a very tough road. HARRIS-PERRY: Lenny, I always appreciate you hanging out with us. I love this idea of consistency of tone and a policy discourse. Obviously, we`re just getting started on 2016. So, we`ll be back to talk more about it. Jelani is going to hang around with me a little bit more. I want to say thank you to Cristina Beltran and to Lenny Alcivar. Also, to Josh Barro, again, who got himself a pitch to throw after his . BARRO: Yes. I have to practice. HARRIS-PERRY: After his big win. Apparently, Jelani and Josh are going to go practice throwing now. It`s going to be great. Don`t miss Josh`s show, "Three Cents" on Shift by MSNBC. It`s Friday`s at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. And coming up next, a high profile sexual assault case is getting even more complicated. Also, three years after the death of Trayvon Martin, his mother joins me live to talk about her mission now. There`s more of MHP show at the top of the hour. HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. Several months ago, we introduced you to Columbia University senior Emma Sulkowicz. She had accused a fellow student of raping her in her dorm room of August of 2012. When the university eventually cleared him of the charges, she was outraged. Emma vowed to carry the mattress from her bed around with her everywhere she went to protest Columbia`s refusal to expel her alleged attacker. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EMMA SULKOWICZ, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SENIOR: I know who raped me. I have no doubt in my mind. So, it`s my piece. I`m going to carry it until he`s gone. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: The visual arts major, as a visual arts major, this protest is also doubling as her senior thesis art project. And Emma`s compelling story made headlines across the country. She helped shine a spotlight on the issue of how schools handle sexual assault cases, and was even invited to attend the State of the Union by New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. And what`s happened to the man accused of the attack? Paul Nungesser`s name became public record when Emma filed a police report on May of 2014. Now, the school paper, "The Columbia Daily Spectator", then published an article revealing his name, explaining, "We feel that to hide or redact his name at this point would be doing a disservice to students on campus and to the truth of this story." The paper`s editors went on to say, "We understand this decision carries significant consequences, reputational and otherwise for Nungesser, and we do not treat this matter lightly." Paul has always denied the charges. He told "The New York Times" in December that former friends now cross the street to avoid him. Campus flyers proclaim him a rapist, warning students to steer clear. Now, this week, he`s again declaring his innocence in a very public way. He released to "The Daily Beast" Facebook messages he says he and Emma exchanged during the weeks surrounding the alleged assault. Paul says the tone and content of these messages prove that nothing that happened between them on the night of August 27th changed their relationship. From August 29th, Paul invites Emma to a party, and as you can see she appears to respond with an enthusiastic yes. On October 4th, after Paul sends Emma a birthday greeting, Emma responds, "I love you, Paul. Where are you?" Emma did confirm to "The Daily Beast" that these messages were from her and explained that her initial instincts were to reach out to Paul, someone she had seen as a close friend and try to understand what had happened. She concluded by saying, "I want other survivors to know that if you reach out to your attacker after you were assaulted, it shouldn`t discredit your story." Let`s be clear. The messages do not prove or disprove whether a crime was committed, nor do they give us any insight into what happened on the night in August of 2012. But they do offer another perspective on the story. One that`s different from what was widely reported in media. In response, to "The Daily Beast" story, a former opinion editor at Columbia`s student paper had this to say, "Campus media`s goal to promote discussion about sexual assault and to support survivors became conflated with a fear of rigorous reporting. Personally, I felt that if I covered the existence of a different perspective -- say, that due process should be respected -- not only would I have been excoriated, but many would have said that I was harming survivors and the fight against sexual assault." That gets to the heart of the challenge that is inherent when you report on rape. Journalists want and need to deliver accurate reporting on this emotionally charged issue. But how do you do that when the story so often comes down to different sides of a story that occurred when no witnesses were present. And how do you make sure a single story doesn`t distort the full story of sexual assault in America? Joining me now, Jelani Cobb, associate professor of Africa Studies at the University of Connecticut and contributor to NewYorker.com, MSNBC national reporter Irin Carmon, University of Pennsylvania associate professor Salamishah Tillet, and Daniel Garisto, who is a Columbia University student and columnist and former opinion editor of the "Columbia Daily Spectator". So, your university is at the heart of this story now. DANIEL GARISTO, STUDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Yes. HARRIS-PERRY: So, what does it mean as a student paper to be covering issues of sexual assault on campus? What are journalistic ethics you`re trying to use? GARISTO: Well, I mean, the first thing I would say is that, from the opinion side, we have an opinion news divide, just as we do in professional organizations. So, I was not involved with the decision to publish Paul Nungesser`s name. I would say that the major difference is just sort of the scale of reporting you`re talking about, because Columbia as a university only has 30,000 people involved in it and the undergraduate schools together are combined have 8,000 to 10,000, so you had many people at the newspaper itself who knew either Paul or Emma. So, it becomes -- HARRIS-PERRY: It`s kind of a micro -- GARISTO: It`s a microcosm. So, it becomes very difficult to sort of distance yourself from this story objectively as a student journalist. I think that lends itself to -- you know, it goes beyond just student journalist. It goes beyond people sharing the article on Facebook. Do you feel comfortable commenting on that? It`s because it`s a microcosm, everything becomes intensely personal and it becomes very difficult to be objective. HARRIS-PERRY: But I want to push on this a little bit, because, Salamishah, I think the language of objectivity can mask the need to be also smart and competent in talking about the realities of power, the likelihood -- like to be objective does not mean that you begin each new story as though there is no context, as though there is no previous information, right? And so, the idea that, oh, we just get two sides also misses all of the ways in which every one of these interactions is happening in the context where there is also pre-existing meaningful information. SALAMISHAH TILLET, ASSOC. PROF., UPENN: I guess, I think there`s two points. One, just to add to the microcosm conversation, it`s actually, the reason why so many rape survivors feel uncomfortable coming forward because everyone knows oftentimes the perpetrator of the assault. So, it makes it difficult for women who have been sexually assaulted, and men who have been sexually assaulted, to seek redress. So, I think the microcosm may make it difficult for journalist, so it makes it really, really difficult for victims of sexual assault. The second thing I think is and I come from both as a survivor and advocate and as a literary critic, so objectivity is something that always brings up a kind of suspicion on my part because it`s just not real. But I understand that journalists -- HARRIS-PERRY: There`s always be a point of view. TILLET: We`re all shaped by our experiences and we bring interpretation to whatever we see or read or write about. So, but -- knowing that journalists strive for a sense of objectivity and under a certain mandate to be fair and objective in their reporting, my concern, though, is that most journalists, college journalists or even mainstream media journalists aren`t trained in what advocates would think would be something that looks like objectivity and looks like neutrality. Most of us are conditioned to be victim blaming or bias against rape victims. And so, we have to do work to become, quote-unquote, "objective" and neutral. I just don`t see that training happening, and so I just wonder, then, what`s the result? HARRIS-PERRY: So, let me come back to you on this. Obviously, all of this is happening in the context of the "Rolling Stone" story, University of Virginia, and the sense that reporting -- not so much in the sense of his side and her side, but reporting in the sense of can you fact-check certain things simply did not occur there. But I want to go back to what the student wrote that campus media`s goal to promote discussion about sexual assault. And so, I guess part of what I want to ask them, particularly on the opinion side, is there a campus media goal to promote discussion about sexual assault, and if there is, right, which seems to be a perfectly reasonable goal -- does that then create a circumstance where not so much again the he said/she said framework, but rather a framework of sort of investigative reporting on these questions. GARISTO: Sure. I think that, first of all, when you have a problem like sexual assault that no one is going to deny exists at Columbia, it is the student journalists` responsibility to cover it extensively. But, second of all, I think there`s a legitimate claim to be socially pro-active. And, you know, in terms of the general issue of sexual assault -- obviously, that does not mean necessarily taking one person`s side of the story. But it does mean, you know, going forward and being thorough and really being critical of policies and telling stories. And particularly from the opinion side of view, it means reaching out and being sensitive and the fact-checking is very difficult. You know, I worked with Emma and her parents on the op-ed and, you know, we reached out to the university. We reached out to Paul. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. GARISTO: But, you know, you get no comment. HARRIS-PERRY: Irin, is there any way to acknowledge that sexual assault, particularly when it is outside of this perfect victim who is clearly a virgin walking down the street at night and attacked by somebody they don`t know, right, that in almost every other case of sexual assault, it is complicated in ways that make reporting on it complicated. Can we talk about it as complicated without becoming victim blamers, right? Is there a way to do the complicated work? IRIN CARMON, MSNBC NATIONAL REPORTER: Well, I think the complexity is very difficult to represent without a lot of work and a lot of thoughtfulness, and my main hesitation and my uneasiness about a lot of reporting around sexual assault is that the natural human desire to have a story to connect to, to have a face to connect to is at odds with talking about really complicated policies. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. CARMON: We put victims -- there are real victims here. We put victims through the wringer. We scrutinize absolutely everything they do in service of objectivity. Yes, we have to be skeptical. Yes, we have a check all facts. Ultimately, though, some of these facts are going to be unknowable. What we choose to put in, what we choose to take out really biases the reader. And so, I think what we`re doing is creating a climate where if you`re ever going to talk about your sexual assault, you`re going to be scrutinized as if you committed a crime, which is what rape law reform was trying to prevent. The other thing is if we are talking about due process, I just think it`s really important to note here that this person was found not responsible, right? In his view, the system worked. But what happens afterwards is that communities have ways of responding to things that have to do with their norms and values. And so, you know, if your question is about due process, well, he had a lawyer and she didn`t. She has serious procedural critiques about what happened. So, regardless, of what you think happened -- one, let`s focus on the law process and two, and let`s focus on the issues that are raised by that process and not focus on what did the victim do or not do. And let`s focus on the fact that what a community does afterwards is not the same as that process and that the community can sanction and stigmatize people based on its own values. You may not like it. But that`s the community`s right. HARRIS-PERRY: Well, yes, I also want to point out that that notion that something that is legal is inherently good, and something that is illegal is inherently bad is -- I mean -- CARMON: Courts are imperfect. HARRIS-PERRY: I know. I`m letting you in, Jelani. I promise. But I got to say goodbye to Daniel Garisto. Thank you so much for joining us, for bringing us that perspective. GARISTO: Yes, no problem. HARRIS-PERRY: The rest of the panel is sticking around. I`m going to let Jelani back in. But also stay right there, because when we come back, I`m going to be joined by the writer who interviewed the accused Columbia student. HARRIS-PERRY: We`ve been trying to talk about how media covers story of sexual assault and specifically the case of a Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz. But this week, the media focus on that case was just as much on her fellow Columbia student, the one who Emma says allegedly raped her. That man Paul Nungesser, entered the media spotlight himself through a lengthy piece in an online publication, "The Daily Beast". He shared Facebook messages between himself and Emma with the writer of "The Daily Beast" piece, in an article proclaiming that he faced a harsh trial by media. The writer behind that "Daily Beast" story is Cathy Young, who joins us now. So, Cathy, how did you come to report on this story? CATHY YOUNG, CONTRIBUTOR, THE DAILY BEAST: Right. Well, I have been interested actually in the story for a while. I`m interested in the topic of campus sexual assault. I think -- you know, I think sexual assault is a very serious issue. I don`t think anyone is questioning that. I do think there has been in recent years a kind of rush to judgment, and a kind of tendency to say that accusation equals guilt, at times to downplay due process in campus assault cases, and I have written on that topic before. And this in case, I have been following this. I actually when I first read the account of the case on "The New York Times," it looked to me like this was a genuine miscarriage of justice. They mentioned that there were three accusations against this guy. When I started reading up on it, it started looking a little more murky to me. And eventually -- just to make a long story short, the parents of this young man sent me an e-mail after reading one of my other stories, asking if I was interested. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I hear you. I hear you. And I hear about the ways in which a story can become murky. I guess what`s distressing to me is that things you present in the article that make the story murky. So, for example, you present Facebook messages that Paul made public between him and Emma and that you characterize as flirty and chatty. So, I just want to show some of the exchanges so people know what we`re talking about here. There`s one Facebook message where she says, "LOL, yes. I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and things because we really haven`t had Paul and Emma chill." Another one that says now let`s take a look -- I`m sorry. What I want to do is point out that Emma then responded to this and says, "I haven`t faced him since he assaulted me. I didn`t want to talk with him about what happened. I try to say this in a friendly tone so he doesn`t get scared. I don`t want him to avoid the conversation." So, I think there are a lot of things that can make a story murky. I don`t think, right, that characterizing it as flirty and chatty conversations between an alleged victim and her assailant are things that make a story about sexual assault murky. YOUNG: Well, I will tell you that if any prosecutor withheld messages like these from the defense in a rape case, they would be disbarred, because this would be in any criminal case, this would be considered extremely provident. HARRIS-PERRY: OK. YOUNG: This would be extremely relevant to guilt or innocence. HARRIS-PERRY: I`m not even claiming that`s not -- I`m not even claiming that`s not true as a legal matter. I`m asking about something different. So, when we look, for example, at the reality of Janay Rice and Ray Rice, we know for certain that Ray Rice hit his fiancee -- YOUNG: Oh, of course. HARRIS-PERRY: -- and we know she sat next to him in a friendly and flirty matter and married him. So, the idea that someone who is victimized by someone who they have an ongoing relationship with wouldn`t continue to have that ongoing relationship is not evidence -- (CROSSTALK) YOUNG: Well, it`s a little different when -- first of all, when you`re in a marriage because I think -- HARRIS-PERRY: They weren`t in a marriage at that point. YOUNG: They were engaged. (CROSSTALK) CARMON: But Emma and Paul were in a social group together where they would have to continue seeing each other and continue to manage the relationship and/or face issues within her existing social circle. I don`t understand why it`s weird she would want to maintain polite relations, especially -- YOUNG: This goes a little beyond polite. The sound of this goes beyond polite -- CARMON: What`s the appropriate behavior for a rape victim after -- YOUNG: Well, first of all -- OK, I`m not saying that there is -- CARMON: I`m asking what you suspect it would be. Not what you think it would be. YOUNG: Well, it seems to me that we`re not talking about simply -- there are different degrees of sexual assault. There`s a situation where maybe someone doesn`t stop when the person says no. This is one thing. (CROSSTALK) YOUNG: So, she`s alleging that he not only raped her but strangled her with an -- I mean, she says -- HARRIS-PERRY: Let me suggest -- I want to pause for a minute. I`m going to pause for something because something got said on my air that I just want to address. That is the idea that there are different degrees of sexual assault and that one of the lesser versions might be that you`re engaged in consensual sexual activity and it goes to a thing, and you don`t consent to that, and that`s somehow a different kind -- I want to be really -- I can`t describe how much I want to be careful in responding to that. I understand that your point is there is complexity in a moment when there`s initial consent but consent has to be given throughout the process. So, I actually don`t see it as -- my willingness to have vaginal sex with you is not the same as willingness to have anal sex with you. YOUNG: I totally agree. That was my point. Let me finish my point. What I was saying is that in this case, she`s alleging not simply that something nonconsensual happened, but there was also extreme violence. I mean, the behavior that she`s describing -- HARRIS-PERRY: Something nonconsensual happening to you sexually to you is extreme violence. YOUNG: She`s describing not simply nonconsensual behavior. She`s describing being hit on the face. HARRIS-PERRY: Like Janay Rice was before she sat next to her husband. But I`m just saying people -- (CROSSTALK) YOUNG: You know what? If this had been a different kind of contact where there was evidence, for instance, that, you know, he apologized and said, I got carried away the other night, you know, there are in most domestically violent relationships, there`s a cycle of violence followed by a show of repentance. I mean, I`m certainly not saying it`s normal -- (CROSSTALK) YOUNG: In this case, we`re talking also about allegations of extreme physical violence. CARMON: Of which he was cleared. (CROSSTALK) CARMON: I don`t understand what you`re asking for here. Emma created an art piece from her perspective. She`s telling the story from her perspective. She`s critiquing the Columbia institutions. YOUNG: OK. CARMON: What are you asking her to do? Are you asking her to stop telling her story? YOUNG: I`m asking people to realize that there is a different side to the story. I`m kind of -- I`m flabbergasted because you say he was clear of this, but then you`re also saying we should take it as a fact that this happened. HARRIS-PERRY: I think we have to take it as a fact that she -- (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you, Cathy Young. We`ll continue this conversation. When we come back, a law enforcement officer helping to reopen years old sexual assault cases, an MSNBC original report. HARRIS-PERRY: Most sexual assaults are never reported to law enforcement. In fact, in 2013, just 35 percent of rape and sexual assault are reported, a lower rate than any other type of violent crimes. Some survivors say they didn`t go to the police because they didn`t believe that the police could or would do anything to help them. Sometimes those fears are valid. According to an investigation by the New Orleans inspector general, five NYPD officers in the Special Victims Unit routinely failed for years to investigate allegations of assault. The report released in November says the officers failed to write investigative reports for 86 percent of sexual assault and child abuse cases they were assigned from 2011 to `13. But now, the NOPD is trying to make sure that justice delayed is not entirely justice denied. One particular office is tasked with overseeing the investigations that should have been done in the first place. MSNBC national reporter Irin Carmon traveled to New Orleans to learn more. Here`s an MSNBC original report. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) COMMANDER PAUL NOEL, NOPD: You cold calling somebody and you`re basically saying, how are you doing? My name is Paul Noel. I`m assigned to investigate your sexual assault. CARMON (voice-over): Paul Noel has one of the toughest jobs in the New Orleans Police Department. He runs a newly formed task force that`s reinvestigating hundreds of sexual assault cases that were improperly dismissed or simply ignored. NOEL: We don`t want them victimized again by the police investigator not conducting their interview properly or sometimes misinterpreting certain things that happen. CARMON: Last year, the city`s independent monitor found something strange. The number reports of forcible rape in New Orleans were 43 percent lower than in cities with comparable crime rates. A closer look found that NOPD misclassified 46 percent of the offenses to anything but forcible rape. ERIN DUPUIS, CO-FOUNDER, VOICES FOR THE SILENCED: The more we heard from victims, the more people came forward to us and said these things are happening to me. CARMON: In the wake of the investigation, Erin Dupuis co-founded a victims advocacy group. DUPUIS: You were at a bar, how dare you be a woman out drinking at a bar, right? So, they were getting blamed by these SVU officers, they get explicitly being blamed in some regards for what happened to them and then subtly being blamed as well by some of the other officers during the interview process, where the officers say things like -- well, you were allegedly raped. CARMON: Evidence show that five special victims detectives had not been investigating rape reports at all or at least had left no proof that they had. In three years, only 14 percent of the cases these five detectives were assigned to had any documented investigative efforts at all. Those officers have been reassigned while under investigation. They could face criminal charges. Some city leaders say that`s not enough. LATOYA CANTRELL, NEW ORLEANS CITY COUNCIL: Have any heads rolled due to this? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m sorry? CANTRELL: Has anyone been terminated due to this? Have any heads rolled due to this? Because, otherwise, we`re transferring that problem. I have a serious problem with that. CARMON: Tania Tetlow is an expert in violence against women. She`s working with the NOPD to retrain officers on how to deal with victims of sexual assault. (on camera): What are some of the barriers victims face in reporting rape? PROF. TANIA TELOW, TULANE UNIVERSITY: It`s a real leap of faith to make sure that the police don`t blame them and don`t focus on somehow discrediting them. NOEL: Drug users can be sexually assaulted. Prostitutes can be sexually assaulted. College students that are underage drinking can absolutely be sexually assaulted. CARMON (voice-over): The barriers these reinvestigations are facing aren`t just logistical. They`re emotional and psychological. SGT. DET. FRANCIS JARROTT, NOPD SPECIAL VICTIMS TASK FORCE: Given the nature of the investigation, many of them are upset about having to go over the same information they had gone over maybe two or three years ago. CARMON (on camera): One of the things mentioned to me by the advocates is it`s a good sign when rape reporting goes up. But the police want reports of crimes to go down. So, how do you reconcile that? NOEL: I know we always talk about reducing crime and I`m not saying we want sexual assaults to occur but we want the public and we want victims of sexual assault to feel confidence in us, if they if they are sexual assaulted, they can come forward, they can work with us, and we will get their investigation right. (END VIDEOTAPE) HARRIS-PERRY: Irin, are the people of New Orleans from the investigative reporting that you`ve been doing, are they feeling confident that NOPD is going to address appropriately sexual assault questions? CARMON: Well there are mixed feelings in the community and with community members I spoke to. On one hand, Paul Noel, the commander who has been placed in charge, has the confidence of all of the advocates that I talked to, which is pretty rare given the long history of mistrust. I mean, as you know, NOPD is under a federal consent decree. There`s a long document of history of the department failing to address concerns of victims of sexual assault, in addition to other groups, including people of color. So, I think they feel like if somebody is going to be on this job, they`re happy that it`s Paul Noel. But, you know, there is a mountain of work ahead of them. In many -- coming back to these cases after several years is going to be really hard to get evidence. They are trying to pull DNA. There`s -- people are furious that there is a rape kit backlog in New Orleans. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. CARMON: So, there`s a lot of work to be done here. HARRIS-PERRY: I kept thinking about this case, Salamishah, in connection with the piece that you`ve written, the op-ed you have written about how -- when we don`t stop individuals and take seriously the issue of domestic violence, we often find that those people become perpetrators of these other kind of gun violence for example in communities. I kept thinking, huh, when you look at the murder rate in this city of New Orleans and when you look at how violent crime is kind of a deep problem that is long been - - needing to be addressed in that city and this happening, I wonder if they`re more connected than we might otherwise think. TILLET: Yes. I mean, I think for the purposes of op-ed, Pamela and I focused specifically on domestic violence because it was easier to make the case for the (INAUDIBLE), but I really do think first indicator is violence against women, right? So, not just domestic violence but sexual assault, and we can see this in a number of national cases, particularly mass shooting in Arizona, in Santa Barbara, and then maybe most obviously with the alleged -- with George Zimmerman and the fact that his cousin said that he sexually assaulted her for six years before even the first act of domestic violence that he may have committed. So, I think, you know, we can expand this to thinking about sexual violence and domestic violence, but actually violence in the home or violence against women being a primary indicator of a city or a community and nation that`s going to be rift with forms -- other forms of violence. HARRIS-PERRY: And I`m also just thinking, and policing failures around those also being indicative potentially of policing failures in a broader sense. TILLET: The other thing we didn`t include in our op-ed is an issue around police families actually having higher levels of violence particularly with domestic violence. Four times more likely than other American families. So, we`re just seeing this pattern. It`s unchecked and overlooked for a number of reasons. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, we`re going to do good news next, because when we come back, I`ve got a 14-year-old model. It`s a tough subject. It`s human trafficking. But you wait until you see this young woman who is taking this on, head-on. HARRIS-PERRY: New York`s fashion week kicks off next week and while many models will be worried about walking that walk, holding that pose and doing those quick changes, there`s one young model with something all together different on her mind. Human trafficking is a multibillion dollar industry with more than 20 million victims around the world. A common misconception is that trafficking happens elsewhere, but not here in the U.S. According to FBI statistics, there were more than 2,500 incidents of human trafficking in the U.S. between 2008 and 2010. Eighty-two percent of those cases were classified as sex trafficking. In response, the Department of Homeland Security has launched a blue campaign aimed at clearing up misconceptions and bringing attention to trafficking. Traffickers use force or fraud to trick their victims into a kind of modern day slavery, and they often prey on those who are most vulnerable, including children. One way children are lured into trafficking is through the modeling industry. Underage models sometimes go to castings and photo shoots without guardians where they encounter fake agents and photographers with ulterior motives. Only one state requires permits as a way of regulating and protecting child models. New York passed a bill in 2013, adding models under the age of 18 to the child performer and labor law. One of those advocates who helped get the New York passed is joining me now. Lily Goodman became aware of trafficking when she modeled for the Blue Campaign. So, Lily, tell me about your work on this. LILY GOODMAN, HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACTIVIST: Hi. Well, I sort of -- they asked me to do the Blue Campaign in 2013, and on set, there were representatives from Homeland Security telling us that there`s human trafficking in America. I just thought, you know, the movie "Taken" in foreign countries, and I didn`t know it was in America especially in my home state, Virginia. In Northern Virginia, there`s a lot of brothels and it`s huge. And so, after hearing that and after hearing that it`s big in the modeling industry how girls are lured into human trafficking through the modeling industry. I`ve been modeling since I was two. So, that was -- you know, I just felt like I needed to help because that`s what I`ve been doing and it`s been my country and -- HARRIS-PERRY: So, you know, it`s funny, Jelani, I just want to pull you back in here. We haven`t had a chance to hear from you in a minute. But, you know, honestly, when I was first learning about this and about the Blue Campaign and about the ways in which young people are lured through modeling, this will sound silly, but the movie "Fame" from our generation, right, this moment when Coco goes and she thinks she`s pursuing an acting career and, in fact, it turns out it`s a sexual assault and a kind of trafficking moment. I thought, you know, so if you`re a parent or even a young person and, you`re, like, OK, I want to have big dreams, how do we allow people to have big dreams or big dreams, but not be in these kind of circumstances? JELANI COBB, ASSOCIATE PROF., UCONN: Even -- just to put it out there and be specific -- but R. Kelly`s situation. People who are attracted to the possibility of being in entertainment and the kind of predatory behavior that we see associated with him. So, I think these things are very real. And having lived in Atlanta for 11 years, let me say it`s very pervasive and so people have talked about the strip club culture tied in with hip-hop culture in Atlanta, but given the way the laws were written in Georgia, they were actually more stringent prohibitions against adult prostitution than there were for juvenile prostitution at that point in time. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Lily, how does a family find a reputable agency? Obviously, you`re working to help get the law changed so that agencies can`t have young people walking the cat walk. But, you know, doing other kinds of modeling, but not doing that under 18. But if you`re a parent living in Virginia, how do you find a reputable agency? GOODMAN: I mean, you have to be careful. You know, there aren`t really regulations for agencies and I think those need to be put into place. And, you know, you just have to be careful. You have to look for signs, and there isn`t really a way to find a reputable agency. I mean, you know the big ones. Those are all known. If somebody comes with a small agency, you don`t know. HARRIS-PERRY: You have to be careful in that sense. One last thing. What`s the number one most important thing this law does? GOODMAN: I think it just protects models having them have to have a chaperone and that`s very important, because many models come from different countries and, you know, they might not have their parents with them. It`s really important that they have to have a chaperone. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you. I appreciate it. And enjoy fashion week. Thank you to Jelani Cobb, to Irin Carmon, to Salamishah Tillet and to Lilly Goodman. Still to come, some big news from my interview with Attorney General Eric Holder, especially for our foot soldier of the week, Sybrina Fulton. HARRIS-PERRY: On this day in 1926, the historian Dr. Carter J. Woodson founded a way to recognize the contributions of black Americans to the United States. As the son of parents who were born into slavery and the second black man to earn a PhD from Harvard, Woodson knew that much of the story of black accomplishments was going untold. To bring those stories forward and to have the experience of black people seen as integral to the American experience, he created Negro History Month -- excuse me, Negro History Week, initially. Woodson chose the second week of February because it included the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, which were already celebrated in many African-American communities. But instead of focusing on a few great individuals, Woodson wanted a celebration of a great people. He believed that African-Americans had to understand their history in order to contest the obstacles they faced in the present. Negro History Week was a tribute to past generations and a call to action for generations that would follow. Woodson proclaimed, "If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile tradition. It becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the word and it stands in danger of being exterminated." The creation of Negro History Week came as Black America was at a crossroads. The Harlem renaissance was happening in New York and great migration of more than 6 million African-Americans from the field of the rural South to factories of northern cities was under way. Also in effect, the Jim Crow laws of the South keeping scores locked out of the voting process and locked into poverty. As the push for civil rights grew, so did the observance and significance of Negro History Week. Until in 1976, the federal government officially recognized what we now know today as black history month. Over the years, it`s been the target of commercialization and skeptics who question its necessity but at its heart, it remains what Woodson intended, a time to reflect and recharge. Nearly 90 years after that first celebration. Black America is once again at a crossroads. While challenges to voting rights and economic equality remain, there are now more African-Americans in Congress than ever and the highest office in the land is held by a black man. President Obama`s proclamation of National African-American History Month he declared, "Like countless quiet heroes who worked and bled far from the public eye, we know that with enough effort, empathy and perseverance, people who love their country can change it." President Obama`s call to action and his own place in history a testament to the legacy of Carter G. Woodson, who first made clear that Black History is American History, on this day, February 7th, 1926. HARRIS-PERRY: One week from today in Miami Gardens, Florida, activists, community members and family will once again walk under the banner "I am Trayvon". It will be the annual day of remembrance peace walk. As posted on the Trayvon Martin Foundation Web site, the gathering is a testament to the right that all people should be able to walk freely without being pursued, chased, profiled or shot and killed on their streets. Helping to lead the way next week, Trayvon`s mother, Sybrina Fulton, who lost her son nearly three years ago. Since violence took her child from the world, Fulton has been transformed from a private citizen to a leader within a movement that claims as simple mantra, "Black Lives Matter". That`s Michael Brown`s and Eric Garner`s, and her son Trayvon Martin`s. Their lives matter. In a letter to the family of Michael Brown, Sabrina Fulton wrote, "If they refuse to hear us, we will make them feel us. Some will mistake that last statement as being negatively provocative. But feeling us means feeling our pain; imagining our plight as parents of slain children. We will no longer be ignored." No longer ignored indeed. I`m so pleased to welcome back to the program our foot soldier of the week, Sybrina Fulton, live from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Ms. Fulton, I was so moved by your letter to the family of Michael Brown. Why do you think so many people have trouble feeling the losses of black parents when our children are taken? SYBRINA FULTON, TRAYVON MARTIN`S MOM: Because it hasn`t happened to them. I just don`t understand them not feeling the loss because I`m sure they have had people in their lives that have been taken away from them and it`s just multiplied when it`s a child because we all know the law of order that says our children are supposed to bury us, not us bury our children. And so, it`s extra painful when we have to bury our children. HARRIS-PERRY: It has been nearly three years since the loss of your son. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder about the fact that it`s been three years since Trayvon was killed. One year since the end of George Zimmerman`s trial. We still don`t know if there are going to be any civil rights charges. I`d like to play you a portion of the conversation and to get your response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: My hope is that before I leave we will resolve the matter involving Trayvon Martin. That is one of the things I want to get done before I leave. HARRIS-PERRY: Do you want to make some news right now? Is there a report that`s coming? HOLDER: I will say, there`s a report that`s coming. But I think we have to wait until it`s actually done. I`ve had a chance to review it. But my hope is to get it done by the time I leave. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, Ms. Fulton, we`re probably in the 30-day countdown before this attorney general leaves. Are you aware that there may be some action on this in the next month? FULTON: Well, we`ve been waiting over a year to hear something. We`ve been in contact with the department of justice. But we haven`t heard either way. So, we`re looking forward to some type of closure. HARRIS-PERRY: Talk to me a little bit, while you`ve been waiting on that closure from the Justice Department, you have nonetheless moved forward particularly with the Trayvon Martin foundation. What is it that the foundation will be doing in the coming week? FULTON: On next weekend, which is the Trayvon Martin remembrance weekend, we have what we call is our peace walk and our peace talk, that`s to let the community know, especially our young people, to let them know they have a right to walk in peace without being followed, chased, pursued or gunned down. At the end of the peace walk, we have what we call a peace talk, where we have different motivational speakers, different community leaders to come out. It`s entertaining but it`s entertaining with a purpose. We have law enforcement to come out because we want to help bridge the gap between our young people and law enforcement. So, that`s just an event that this will be our third annual. And then on Sunday, which is February 15th, we will have our remembrance center. And all the information is on the Web site if anybody is interested in attending or just interested in sponsorship or just donating to the cause. They can always go on our website, which is trayvonmartinfoundation.org. HARRIS-PERRY: You`ve said many times you refuse to accept the idea that Trayvon died in vain. Do you feel at this point now almost three years since you lost your son that something is beginning to change? FULTON: I absolutely am hopeful that things will change. We didn`t get into this situation overnight. And I don`t believe we`re going to get out of it overnight. So, I know it`s going to take time. But it`s not going to take 50 years. So, you know, we`re doing our best. Everybody had to do their part. I`m trying to do my part. And I just reach out and encourage everybody to try to do something, do something to try to make a positive change in this country. HARRIS-PERRY: You, in fact, do so much. I`ve said it many times. I just find your steadfast refusal to be anything other than -- continuing to be a loving mother to your son, even though your son is not with us anymore, that you continue to be what a good mother would be. But I have to ask you this about you personally. It`s been almost three years. Has it gotten any easier? FULTON: No, I can`t say that it has. Trayvon just had a birthday on Thursday, February 5th. And I told myself that it`s going to be a good day. But it started off as a rainy day here in Miami. And it started off me trying to get out of the car and I still had my seat belt on. It started off me just getting aggravated with so many things. And then I end up at, you know, the middle of the day, I had to go back to bed because I was just so sad by just thinking about his 20th birthday and what he should have been here doing. And he should have been surrounded by family and I just think about those things often. And so, it just got to me on his birthday. HARRIS-PERRY: You know, I really appreciate and thank you for reminding us again, if they don`t hear us, at least maybe they can feel us, to remind us that, of course, this is a real child and that your feelings remain difficult. We are all here and you remain in our thoughts, in our prayers. Thank you, to Sybrina Fulton, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. FULTON: Thank you so much for having me. HARRIS-PERRY: That`s our show for today. I want to say thanks to you at home for watching. Please come back tomorrow morning, 10:00 a.m. Eastern. On the program tomorrow, my extensive and wide-ranging interview with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. You are going to have to find out what happens when I talk to the attorney general about the fact that here on the show in Nerdland, we call him "The Duck". Now, it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT". Hi, Alex. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 9, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020701cb.451 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 35 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 8, 2015 Sunday SHOW: UP with STEVE KORNACKI 8:00 AM EST UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI for February 8, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Ayman Mohyeldin, Jack Jacobs, Toure, Kasie Hunt GUESTS: Fawaz Gerges, David Avella, Kate Zurniki, Karen Tumulty, Keith Carson, Howard Dean, David Frum, John Feinstein SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 15225 words HIGHLIGHT: Severe flooding out west and a big snow storm back east. Democrats appear to be lining up to avoid Benjamin Netenyahu`s speech to Congress. Rick Santorum opening up today about his daughter`s disability in a new and very revealing article. Chris Christie must be glad this week is finally, finally over and hoping that next week goes a little differently; Rick Santorum talking about the struggle he went through after his severely disabled youngest child was born; The Associated Press reporting that legendary University of North Carolina basketball Coach Dean Smith has died at the age of 83; Another winter storm that could dump a foot of snow or more on parts of that battered region that`s been hit so hard the past few years; The Affordable Care Act was supposedly settled as a matter of law by the Supreme Court back in 2012, but the court is soon going to hear another challenge to Obamacare, one that does have the potential to severely cripple Barack Obama`s biggest achievement as president; Maybe it`s because he was a long-time writer and a star on Saturday Night Live that Al Franken has proven himself to be all business as a United States senator. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Holding out hope for Kayla Mueller. Hey, good Sunday morning to you. Thanks for getting up with us. We have a lot of news, a lot of politics, a lot we want to over the next two hours on this Sunday morning in February, including the severe flooding out west and the big snow storm back east. It`s about to wallop New England once again. They got about 4 feet of snow in the ground. They are already and it`s going to get worse. Also, the Democrats who appear to be lining up to avoid Benjamin Netenyahu`s speech to Congress in the big controversy that`s erupted over that. And Rick Santorum opening up today about his daughter`s disability in a new and very revealing article. Also, why Chris Christie must be glad this week is finally over, and also, our very special guest this morning, Senator Al Franken from Minnesota. But we begin today with the latest on American ISIS hostage Kayla Mueller. Until ISIS claimed on Friday that Mueller was killed on a Jordanian air strike -- that`s a claim by the way that U.S. officials say they have no confirmation of right now. Before all that, though the American public did not know much about Kayla Mueller, or even the fact that she was being held. Los Angeles Times revealing new details overnight, in a year and a half, the Mueller family spent holding the painful secret of their daughter`s capture all in the hopes of helping to secure her release. The efforts to contain that secret were extraordinary, all contained in this new report. The family saying in a statement on a Friday, her father sold his business to focus solely on his missing daughter. A spokesperson for the Mueller family is set to say more later today. We`re also getting to know a lot more about Kayla herself. A young woman who spent years doing aid work around the world. Three months before she was taken hostage, Mueller told a local Kiwanis club about her work assisting Syrian refugees in Turkey, quoting from that speech, "For as long as I live, I will not let this suffering be normal. I will not let this be something we just accept." Here on the set to discuss the ISIS threat is MSNBC military analyst Col. Jack Jacobs, NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin, and Fawaz Gerges, he`s the chairman of Contemporary Middle East Studies, a department at the London School of Economics. Thank you all for joining us this morning. So, Ayman, let me just start with you, reporting on this region and knowing what you know about ISIS and the region as a whole, the claim here that she`s been killed whether it was through the air strikes or something else, versus the hope that she`s still alive. How much hope is there that she is still alive? AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think we`d certainly want to try to keep as much hope as alive as possible. I think the U.S. certainly from some of the comments that have come out in the past, not only in the 72 hours since this incident began to surface, but also just generally over the past several months seem to have a pretty good idea where she was. They had some accounts that perhaps she was being treated better than other hostages. So, there was some indication that there is intelligence that, you know, roughly where she was and her conditions. In the past couple of days when this began to accelerate, when there was the report that ISIS came out, it didn`t get a lot of traction online. And I think that`s an important thing. We haven`t seen any evidence of this. I think that would have been something ISIS may have tried to do as well to try to capitalize on some propaganda value of an air strike like this that may have accidentally killed her. And that hasn`t surfaced. And the U.S. has so far dampened the claims. I think the U.S. have good signal intelligence. They would have probably picked up a little bit of chatter, they would have picked up some noise within various groups within ISIS that in fact she had been killed. KORNACKI: Could -- I mean practically speaking, just the way ISIS sort of operates, could they -- these claims that she`s dead, they`ve said that she`s dead. If she were actually still alive, is that something they could clause (ph) with and come back and say and negotiate over or anything? MOHYELDIN: That`s -- it`s really hard to know that, you know. It`s hard to know who within ISIS has that kind of decision making capability. What we do know is that ISIS does not shy away from using their hostages for both propaganda value and trying to extort some kind of concession from whoever their dealing with. They tried to do it with Jordan, they`ve done it with -- they tried to do it with the Japanese hostages. They`ve tried to do it in the past. It would be no different. I believe it would be no different with this particularly American hostage, if in fact they had access to her in a way that they could benefit from it. KORNACKI: And Colonel, so what -- from a military standpoint, form a intelligence standpoint, what is going on right now? CO. JACK JACOBS, MSNBC MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Ayman was right about the signals intelligence. We work very hard to intercept phone messages, radio messages and all of that. We have overhead capability with satellites and spy planes and all that. Very good. But what we don`t have is human intelligence, we don`t have people on the ground in order to verify things. So, we`re in a position where we have to believe everything that is told to us or at least make believe that we believe that everything is told to us until we get some, say, some human intelligence on the ground and get some real information. KORNACKI: And to that point, just very quickly, Jordanians also have pretty good intelligence on the ground. They definitely have been. MOHYELDIN: And they`re saying, absolutely, this is. KORNACKI: Yeah. And they`ve added -- and then another thing to Jordan`s credit, you know, they actually came out very quickly one the Jordanian pilot was killed and said, "We believe he was killed back on January 3rd." And they had demanded a proof of life video when these negotiations we`re taking place in exchange for the pilot and the prisoner in Jordan`s custody. The fact that Jordan now has also come out expressing doubt about the ISIS claim, I think also substantiates the fact that these. JACOBS: Well, that`s what ISIS does, you know. Time and time again, they`ll kill hostages and ours is not the only one. KORNACKI: Yeah. JACOBS: They`ll kill hostages well in advance of the. KORNACKI: So, Fawaz, let me ask you about that because there`s been some additional talk and additional speculation in this case because the hostage is a woman. And the idea that maybe ISIS killing a woman would be a, you know, more of a violation of Islamic law. It would be more problematic maybe from -- in terms of the recruitment P.R. standpoint and all of that. Is there -- there`s been some speculation here that maybe they did kill her and they`re latching on to the air strikes and sort of to give them cover for doing something that could get them in a lot of P.R. troubles. Do you think it could be anything to that? FAWAZ GERGES, PROFESSOR, LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE: Maybe. But Steve, we are no longer surprised what can ISIS do and does not do. I mean they have done everything really that does not exist in the book. In terms of slaughtering in the name of religion, twisted interpretations of their faith (ph), burning the Jordanian pilot who is a very (inaudible), he was a very (inaudible) Sunni Muslim, beheadings. But I think the question of woman -- Kayla is a very special case. You`re absolutely correct. I think ISIS knows or some of the leaders within ISIS know that they cannot display a video of Kayla in the same way they do when it comes to man. Islam not only prohibits the killing of woman and children and elderly, even though that ISIS has violated all the principles and values of Islamic doctrine, but this would a be a very special case. My take on it, I hope I`m right that Kayla is not dead. ISIS has not provided any evidence that somehow she was -- she had been killed by the Jordanian air strikes. The American seem to believe that the air strikes, they`ve not really target where she is. So hopefully, this is more of a P.R. stunt, and they`re trying to basically respond to the intensifying Jordanian air strikes in the last fews days. MOHYELDIN: And to that point, really quickly, I mean, Professor Gerges is absolutely right. But ISIS has killed women. I mean, you know, we`ve heard them talking -- President Obama addressed this talking about how they rape women, (inaudible) women. They`ve killed women within ISIS-controlled territory for what they may think as. KORNACKI: But something they publicize. MOHYELDIN: Exactly. Exactly. KORNACKI: . in the same way that. MOHYELDIN: Yeah. So that`s. GERGES: That`s what I`m saying. MOHYELDIN: And that`s the point I think that -- exactly. That`s the point the professor is making and some are holding on to that it won`t cross that way. KORNACKI: So one thing in terms of the bigger picture here with ISIS and then any strategy to defeat them. I want to put this up. This was an article that was in Slate in this week, that characterized ISIS as fundamentally suicidal and basically saying that all of its actions are ultimately going to be self-destructive. They say in the case of Jordan and the video of the pilot burning to death, in Jordan, the video has changed everything in its local culture in that country. ISIS remains a threat but the King`s domestic problem is gone. He no longer has to persuade his people that ISIS is their mortal enemy. The video took care of that. So basically, Fawaz, saying that you know, Jordan is now united in the fight against ISIS in a way that it wasn`t before. But I`m just curious, do you accept -- do you believe that basic framework that ISIS is fundamentally suicidal and that with time, they will self-destruct? GERGES: You know, Steve, I know that ISIS -- and particularly in the United States, is portrayed as invincible, as undefeatable, standing tall in the face of multiple coalition partners. ISIS is very fragile. ISIS is defeatable, ISIS is committing collective suicide. ISIS now is pitted against the Muslim public mainstream. ISIS has really now triggered a kind of widespread feeling among Arab and Muslim, public opinion, clerics, theorists, middle class, that basically it presents a threat to the state system and the social fabric of the region. It has alienated, Steve, radical jihadists of Al Quaeda type. Across the board, we don`t have the time to talk about it. In this particular sense, ISIS is defeatable, but not just militarily, even if we defeat militarily in the next few months or years, the strategy itself, the strategy is to really dismantle the ideology. You have to really take the ideology apart from the bottom up by really trying to convince local public opinion in Iraq and Syrian and other places that ISIS is a threat, not only to the state system, but even to the Sunni community itself. The killing, the burning of the Jordanian pilot could really, I think, represents a tipping point in terms of convincing, reinforcing Muslim public opinion hostile and negative view of what the ISIS threat is. JACOBS: Yeah. It is a tipping point that Muslim countries have to take advantage of it. Ultimately, militarily, you`ll have to have people on the ground, meaning the coalition of Arab forces to take advantage of the advances you get as a result of the air strikes, and take advantage of the political situation when less Arab countries get on the ground and hold the terrain. KORNACKI: Does it take -- so in the case of Jordan, you have -- it`s a Jordanian pilot and it changes, as we just showed. It changes the culture or the political culture of the country. Now, everybody wants, you know, sort of revenge on ISIS. We`ve talked about like the UAE or Turkey, does it take -- does it take it happening to one of their own to get them engaged like that? JACOBS: Well, it might. I mean, you -- as a result of the pilot being emulated, murdered through emulation, you have UAE who had originally decided that they weren`t going to bomb anymore, they weren`t going to participate anymore, they`re back in the game. So I think it does take something really, really personal, up close and personal -- sorry about that cliche, to get them all motivated. But there`s going to be some leadership in the region to say, "OK, enough is enough. We`re now going to take advantage of this opening, and we`re going to, not only get rid if these guys, but we`re going to be able to, militarily and politically hold the terrain so that they don`t come back." KORNACKI: All right. My thanks to Fawas Gerges with the London School of Economics, MSNBC military analyst, Col. Jack Jacobs, NBC`s Ayman Mohyeldin. Appreciate you all being here this morning. Also, a note this morning about Brian Williams, the NBC Nightly News anchor is stepping away temporarily from the broadcast. In a statement, Williams says, it has become apparent, "that I am presently too much a part of the news." This comes after questions about his version of events while covering the Iraq war invasion in 2003. Lester Holt will be filling for Williams. And still ahead this morning, a new winter storm threatening to dump even more snow on New England. We`re going to have the latest from the weather channel reporter who`s on the ground in Boston, maybe on the snow that`s on the ground in Boston. We`ll talk to him in just a little bit. Next, the RSVP list for Benjamin Netenyahu`s speech to Congress next month is getting a little bit shorter, maybe a lot shorter. Stay with us for that. KORNACKI: Dominoes continue to fall the wrong way for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s planned speech to Congress next month. Vice President Joe Biden announcing on Friday that he will not be attending that event. Netanyahu`s speech is expected to question the Obama Administration`s effort to negotiate a deal with Iran on its nuclear program. President Obama has already said that he will not be meeting with Netanyahu while he`s in town for that speech. And ever since the announcement, there`s been a steady stream of Democrats announcing their plans to skip the speech. James Clyburn, Raul Grijalva among those saying they won`t be able to make it. In Israel, also a growing number of politicians now calling for Netanyahu to cancel his visit in the interest of preserving the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Also worth noting, it`s election season in Israel. Netanyahu`s fate as prime minister is going to be decided there on March 17th, that just two weeks after the planned address. There are questions now about whether Netanyahu will actually go through with the speech. There are also signs that he maybe be preparing to blame House Speaker John Boehner, who made the invitation to Netanyahu without consulting with the White House first. The Israeli deputy foreign minister telling Israeli radio this week that "It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides." So, is his speech actually going to happen? Should the speech happen? Here to talk about it this morning is our panel. We have Elahe Izadi from the Washington Post, David Avella, he`s the Chairman of GOPAC, and my former co-host on "The Cycle", MSNBC`s Toure, all joining us this morning. Appreciate everybody. So, Elahe, let me start with you just -- in terms of where this stands right now, in terms of congressional politics, John Boehner issued the invitation, even Nancy Pelosi, who`s not said she`s skipping but she`s been very critical of the invitation was extended in the first place, is this speech actually going to happen? ELAHE IZADI, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, all signs point to yes right now. Speaker Boehner has reiterated that he -- the invitation still stands, it`s going to happen. And there`s this question of how this is going to play back in Israel. If Netanyahu received his acceptance of this invitation, is that going to make him look weak and they have all their own internal politics to deal with and you flagged the fact that his deputy foreign minister infer that perhaps they were misled which really raises the question of whether this is hurting him back in Israel. But, you know, if he were to take back his acceptance of this invitation, would that make him look weak on this national stage. So, I think it`s looking like it`s heading that way and it seems like Democrats are trying to downplay it. Congressional leaderships said there weren`t -- there`s no organized boycott or anything. KORNACKI: Right. We`ve had some -- you`re right. I think it was John Lewis said. IZADI: Yes. KORNACKI: . he won`t be there, then it got reported as well, he`s boycotting the speech. And then he said, "Well, no, I`m not boycotting it, but I won`t be there." IZADI: Yes. KORNACKI: I`m not sure what that distinction. IZADI: Yes. Yes. KORNACKI: . actually means either. But it terms of this -- so the will it happen, there`s also the should it happen question. What do you guys think of that? TOURE, MSNBC CO-HOST "THE CYCLE": Well, my initial reaction is how dare a world leader come here and tell us how to run our country as (inaudible) we do, nobody else gets to do that. But, you know, I would think that Netanyahu would not want to come here and be upon within this ongoing congressional legislative battle between these and ours, right? I mean he`s sort of being used to embarrass Obama another way. You know, part of some of the obstructionist tactics that we talked about back when you were with us, you know. And I was thinking he would want to be above that, that he wants to have an impact on American politics and foreign policy, there would be a way of doing that without being used to embarrass Obama. KORNACKI: Was he -- I guess it raises the question because we know that Netanyahu-Obama relationship is -- I mean, I`ll say not good, it`s poisonous, right? And Netanyahu certainly didn`t expect Obama to get re- elected in 2012. Is this a case maybe of Netanyahu casting his lot with Boehner, casting his lot with congressional Republicans, and really sort of making a stand on domestic politics in United States? DAVID AVELLA, CHAIRMAN, GOPAC: There are two people who will not in two years be upset that they won`t be working together anymore and that is President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. The issue here, though, really isn`t this one speech. The issue is what actions are the U.S. going to take when -- as it relates to Iran and its nuclear program. And the challenge really is for congressional Democrats who want to take sanctions further. So the Senator Menendez`s, the Senator Schumer`s, they want action taken. And so at some point, they`re going to break with their president and say "We`re going to push this with Congressional Republicans." Congressional Republicans are very clear where they want to go. They want more sanctions. And so, the pressure really is between the president and his. KORNACKI: But this -- and that`s where it starts to get interesting. We can put this up. This is from the New York Times, I think last week. Because this debate over the Netanyahu speech has exchanged the politics in Congress over this issue of sanctions where you had the Democrat you`re talking about who were willing to sign up with this Republican push, they backed off and in response, you see it there, "For months, the issue of imposing sanctions on Iran split Democrats from the president. They fear this pasture was emboldening the government in Tehran to further develop its program. But Mr. Netanyahu`s planned speech, a provocation of the president that many Democrats found distasteful and undiplomatic, has helped to shift the political dynamic." So like, Menendez now why he`s saying he`s going to wait till after March 24th, that`s the deadline the Obama Administration has set for its, sort of, negotiations or attempted negotiations with Iran, so that sort of changed a little bit. IZADI: Definitely. And the fact that Senator Menendez and 10 democratic colleagues who are supportive of sanctions have pinned (ph) this letter to the administration saying we`re going to wait until March 24th, means the administration has that time. They shouldn`t expect those Democrats to go back on that and they are the most supporters of sanctions. If you recall last year, around this time, or maybe a few months before, these are Democrats who were calling vocally for a sanctions vote and it wasn`t until the administration lobbied and Harry Reid didn`t put the sanctions vote on the floor for a vote that they backed off basically. So, I think they have time, but the clock is ticking. March 24th is around the corner KORNACKI: Yeah. I mean, it gives you about six weeks to get a deal with Iran, good luck with that. IZADI: Well, you know. AVELLA: That`s plenty, that`s plenty. IZADI: Yeah. KORNACKI: But there is a point also that -- we talked about this a little bit in the show yesterday, that David Ignatius in the Washington Post was basically saying, "He thinks now the United States internationally is in a better in a sort of a stronger position than it has been in a few years." And he was saying, basically, "Don`t just take any deal with Iran. You know, you can really holdout now for the right deal." TOURE: Right. I mean, absolutely. You know, look, we need to have Iran be in control in terms of what they`re doing nuclear-wise. And if we can force them to do the right thing, then that`ll be better for all of us. The thing that we were wondering, for the show, is this actually helping Netanyahu and Israel and we`re not clear. I mean, if it helps him 1 percent and that`s all that he need and that`s all he want. But I don`t know, you know don`t know that. I mean, do you have any sense of whether it`s actually helping Netanyahu and Israel? AVELLA: What Israelis want is a prime minister that will communicate a message that everyday they`re under threat of annihilation from a number of neighbors who would rather see them gone than be around. And right now, he is the best messenger. Whenever I think about Israel, I always think -- two years ago, I went to Israel and had to visit. And saw a (inaudible) Chin Abarahams (ph) who everyday lives on the Gaza Strip. Every day is in fear that a missile will come down and drop and blow up the school that her son and those children go to. And they`ve had those experiences over the last couple years. Israel needs the best messenger out there saying, "We`re under attack everyday." KORNACKI: But I guess, he`s maybe forcing them into a position that -- where they have to say, "Look, we need the United States. And do we want to have a prime minister here who has this antagonistic relationship with the president?" AVELLA: You know, it`s a -- I think Josh, the press secretary at White House gets sent out to make the most ridiculous arguments, that he had to come out and say, "Well, we don`t want to interfere with the elections." This coming from a president, who when he was a candidate, went all around the world before the election to show his gravitas. And so, somehow, this -- President Obama can go around when he`s up for an election and campaign and communicate a message, but other world leaders can`t do the same. TOURE: You know, one thing I think about too, though, is that the United States` position in the Middle East is somewhat compromised with the Arab Nations because we are seen us being there for Israel all the time in every possible way. And I wonder if we could be a better friend to Israel if we would somehow able, and this is not politically possible, if we`re able to pullback a little bit and be seen as an honest broker. Therefore, all the countries, right, rather than just Israel`s best friend. AVELLA: But this administration had Netanyahu come out just a few years ago and say, "OK. I`m for now a statehood." I`m now for a thing that he was never for before, that he took great grief from right his right plank, from the conservative members in Israel because they`re like we`ve never been for that. And now, you know, the White House has told you, you have to be for it and now all of a sudden you`re for it. So, the case to be made, Netanyahu has tried to follow President Obama`s lead. KORNACKI: Well, and then it adds the other piece. And this then gets into like the real nitty-gritty of Israeli politics which I found is great for ratings on Television. But it is -- you know, in this parliamentary system where, you know, you become prime minister by patching together this coalition. And the coalition that Netanyahu had to put together is the far right parties in Israel. So that, you know, politically, that`s just going to inhibit you anyway. We will see what`s happening with that speech, again, a few weeks away on that. Let see that actually happens. Still ahead though on this busy new morning, a truly brutal week for Chris Christie. Is he now in danger of being written off by his own party? And next, a new very high profile effort to try to somehow convince Elizabeth Warren to run for president from some of the biggest names in Hollywood. Stay with us. KORNACKI: So, all right. There is a lot going on this morning, a lot in the news this morning. We`re going to get caught up some of the other headlines people are talking about. Bringing back today`s panel, so. What do we have here? Let start with this. This is from The Hill, The Hill newspaper in Washington saying that more than 90 celebrities say they are ready for Warren. Susan Sarandon, Olivia Wilde, Mark Ruffalo, Edward Norton, Avengers director Joss Whedon, all them signing an open letter to Elizabeth Warren saying, "We`re ready to show you that you have the support needed to enter this presidential race." Also we had Mark Ruffalo, I guess has been saying this for awhile, he told our Perry Bacon over the summer that I would love to see Hilary adopt Elizabeth Warren`s politics honestly. So they are ready for Elizabeth Warren, I don`t think Elizabeth Warren ready for them but. TOURE: You know, this always works when Hollywood tells -- what should do, what could happen -- I mean, you know, it reinforces the idea that Elizabeth Warren is this very cool candidate but is this actually going to get her to run, I don`t think so. IZADI: And it also reinforces the notion that Hilary Clinton might have a problem on her hands if she`s not inspiring this kind of enthusiasm, maybe not among Hollywood, but certainly among the Democratic base. So if you`re seen as the era-parent, that`s not really helpful for you this far out in the election. AVELLA: You know, my column this week talked about this very topic, and Elizabeth Warren is only a -- not a candidate until she is a candidate. And if you ask the majority of Democratic activist who they really want to be their nominee, it`s Elizabeth Warren. KORNACKI: Yeah. There is still a -- the activist say that they can take a poll and she`s 58 point behind or something, so, there it is. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Speaking of Hillary Clinton, we also have this from "The New York Times," saying the economic plan is a quandary for Hillary Clinton`s campaign. She has not been doing much publicly the last few months but privately she`s been receiving advice from 200 policy experts on how to address the anger in this country about income equality without over vilifying the wealthy. And also Dan Balz today in "The Washington Post," a good political reporter, reporting that Clinton is building a different kind of campaign for 2016, trying to build off the mistakes of 2008, promising a different result this time. Well, she starts off in a different place than she did in 2008. But this economic quandary she`s in, it`s interesting. It`s all playing out behind the scenes. We don`t know what message she`ll run on yet. That`s all being decided now. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and I looks like she`s not going to go with a more centrist approach that characterized her husband`s administration, but rather a more populist approach. And that again ties back into the Elizabeth Warren enthusiasm question -- KORNACKI: But it sounds like they`re nervous about being too far to the Left and seen as too hostile to the wealthy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It personifies Hillary Clinton`s problem, she`s a terrible candidate. There`s one thing that a candidate has do in a campaign, decide the message. There were articles this week that they were delaying in part because they haven`t figure out what the message is. That comes from one person. Elizabeth Warren doesn`t have that problem. Bernie Sanders, like him or not, doesn`t have that problem. They know what they`re for. TOURE, "THE CYCLE": I think it`s easy for Elizabeth Warren, who is a fantastic campaigner, to say that because she`s not actually in the fish bowl, the mistakes that Hillary made in 2008 when she was up against one of the great campaigns of all time, is not something that we`ll see, I think, in 2016. This is one of Hillary`s biggest challenges, to your point. A Democratic Party that is very upset about income inequality and rightly so. They`re angry at the rich. Rightly so. These policies, this economy, this way of being did not come about all on its own. Rich people helped create this situation. So they`re right to be angry at the rich. Can Hillary articulate that as a rich person, as a Wall Street Democrat? (CROSSTALK) TOURE: I don`t think so. KORNACKI: -- clearly is thinking beyond the Democratic primaries, who`s thinking of the general election. Want to get to a few more -- this is from Gizmodo. This is my favorite story of the morning. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: This is an app that tells you the probability of your plane crashing. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Come on. KORNACKI: I`m terrified of air travel. So it`s called Am I Going Down? My answer to this yes, is generally, yes, if you get on an airplane. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You think the answer is 100 percent. KORNACKI: Here`s my problem with this. So here`s (INAUDIBLE) using it that says they`re going to get on, and it says their odds are 1 in 0.54 million. They type in their flight specifications, 1 in 0.54 million. Oh, there, I feel better. OK. So you do that once. Now you get on the plane the next time, this time it`s 1 in 2.3 million. Well, I`m not going to feel safer because -- (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Things just got a lot worse for me. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s like those clocks where you type in all your information and it tells you when you`re going to die. Why do you want to know that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever use one of those? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely not. I`m living every day like it`s my last. TOURE: Does the app also tell you when you`re driving in your car to the airport your odds of getting in a fatal crash? They would be far lower, far higher than it is the plane is far safer than driving to the airport. (CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A far more helpful app for me would be the chance that my luggage is going to arrive in time. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Don`t lower yourself into a false sense of security. The worst thing that I can imagine is, this is the fear of flying, this is what it is. I can imagine being in the plane, I can imagine something going wrong. I can imagine it starts to go down. What is my one thought, I could have stayed home. (CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You say that every day any way. KORNACKI: And I`m still here, Toure. It`s a miracle. Next hour, more headlines, a lot more to get to with them. Still ahead today, Senator Al Franken, he will be on the show to talk about an issue he is deeply passionate about. Also I will ask him about next week`s big 40th anniversary for "Saturday Night Live." Will he be there? Next, George W. Bush ran his first campaign on the idea of compassionate conservativism. We will find out what brand of conservativism his brother just unveiled. That is right after this. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH, FORMER GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA: The recovery has been everywhere but in the family paychecks. The American dream has become a mirage for far too many. So, I`m getting involved in politics again because that`s where the work has to begin. The opportunity gap is the defining issue of our time. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That`s Jeb Bush on Wednesday this week making the case that not enough people have shared in the economic growth of the past six years. The speech in Detroit gave us the first real look at what a Jeb Bush presidential campaign would look like, including at least some willingness to break with his party`s base. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: Immigration`s not a problem. The immigrant experience that our country makes us unique and special and different and it is part of our extraordinary success over time. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Separating himself from the base on immigration is consistent with Bush`s stated strategy of running a campaign that`s mindful of the general election, not just the Republican primary. There`s also a question of how voters will react to the possibility of a third Bush occupying the Oval Office. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I love my dad. In fact, my dad is the greatest man alive. And if anybody disagrees, we`ll go outside, unless you are like 6`5" and 250 and much younger than me, then we`ll negotiate. (LAUGHTER) BUSH: I still will not change my mind for sure. And I love my brother. And I think he`s been a great president. It doesn`t bother me a bit to be proud of them and love them. But I know for a fact if I`m going to be successful going beyond the consideration, I have to do it on my own. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Here to discuss what we learned from Jeb Bush`s first big speech as essentially a presidential candidate, we have "The Washington Post`s" Robert Costa, who is in Des Moines this weekend covering all things 2016. And Marc Cupito, Florida political reporter for Politico. So, Robert, let me start with you. If you could put in context for us the message that Jeb Bush -- I almost called him George W. -- the message that Jeb Bush delivered this week in that speech. Where does that put him in today`s Republican Party? ROBERT COSTA, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Governor Bush, he is the son and brother of former presidents. But where he really fits in the Republican ideological spectrum is a Jack Kemp Republican. He gave a speech at The Kemp Foundation dinner in 2013 that I think really captures this idea that he`s talking about, right to rise, talking about poverty, engaging with minority communities. It`s not W; it`s not 41, who Jeb (INAUDIBLE) to is that Kemp message of uplift, of joyous politics. KORNACKI: So, Marc, where do you think the party`s appetite is for what Robert`s describing and for what Jeb Bush said this week? Because I`ve been struck looking at the polling early on, and I know we always say it`s very early, but the thing to me is when it`s very early, name recognition counts for a lot. The name Bush is polling in single digits in a lot of these polls that I`m seeing. So where do you think the Republican Party is as it relates to the message that Bush is offering? MARC CAPUTO, POLITICO: If I could answer that question accurately, I could tell you the winning lottery ticket numbers. If you look at 2012 and 2008, the way the Republican primary electorate reacted, it seemed like everyone got a shot. So Bush will have his time in the sun, probably Marco Rubio will as well. The idea that Bush is a reform conservative because that`s what he`s running on, well, yes, it might hearken back to Jack Kemp. It also hearkens back to Jeb Bush, certainly Jeb Bush of 1998. At the time he ran a campaign that was premised on reforming schools and especially looking at minority communities, and doing well and improving minority performance in schools and lifting kids out of poverty in that way. I`m not saying I endorse the idea just for some of your listeners out there, but just understand that that`s been Jeb`s consistent message for quite some time. KORNACKI: I wonder though, Robert, has there been any change here in terms of strategically, whether this is Bush or the other Republicans? It was striking to me, the economic message he was delivering, was not necessarily one we`ve been hearing from Republicans the last few years. But the last few years he`s been focused on look how high unemployment is, look how horrible this recovery has been, look how bad the economy is. Now we`ve had a few months of pretty good economic news, really the best economic news we`ve had in the Obama presidency, and the Bush message was more about, well, it`s not that bad, but it could be a lot better. Has there been a shift here on how Republicans are talking about economic questions? COSTA: I think there has been a shift, Steve. And I`m out here in Iowa, and I have sat down with a lot of Jeb Bush allies. They make the argument that the Republican Party is changing. Yes, in 2008 and 2012, the Iowa Republican caucuses, they went to a favorite of the evangelical Right. But Jeb Bush, he thinks because the party is more attuned to the issue of economic inequality, he could make a play for a state even like Iowa, he`s hired David Koch (ph) on an Iowa-based consulted, could be the likely campaign manager for him. And I think that really is indicative of how Bush sees this race. He thinks, yes, the party was pulled Right in previous cycles, but he can make it pull it back to the center. KORNACKI: Yes, I`m really interested in that because I think his line was a few months ago when he started with this, Marc, his line was you have to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the general election. I certainly see the point with how Mitt Romney, especially on comments with immigration really hurt himself in the primary in 2012. At the same time I wonder does Bush need to make some kind of a gesture here, to the core base of the Republican Party that really tells them, look, I may stray a little bit, but in my heart I`m one of you. Does he need to do something dramatic on that front? CAPUTO: He might. I think it`s important to note that Jeb`s comment about being willing to lose the primary to win the general is more him telegraphic, saying I am who I am, right, the Popeye thing. That is I`m going to run as you take me and as I have always been. I will not wind up pandering, swinging Left and Right too much. That was one of the big problems that Mitt Romney did have in 2012. So for Jeb, when he goes out there and talks about immigration, he`s not shying away from it because he believes in it. The idea that Jeb may not play well among evangelical voters, I`d encourage everyone, not because I work at Politico, but also because it was a great story. Michael Cruz (ph) wrote a really wonderful piece about Terri Schiavo, the case of the brain-damaged woman who was taken off life support. And Jeb as governor went out of his way to insert the government into that matter and tried to keep the woman alive. It was a huge right-to-life issue, at least in the anti-abortion community. So if I am in the Bush campaign, I will basically mail that Politico article to every possible evangelical voter out there to remind them, look, Jeb Bush is pretty solid on what they call pro-life issues. So maybe he has some heresies to -- that is, for conservatives, and that is immigration, but even among evangelical voters some polling suggests it`s not that strong. Then there`s the Common Core matter, which I`m not sure a lot of people are as well informed on as Jeb would like them to be. Now his struggle will be explaining that. And as they say in politics, when you`re explaining you`re losing. And the polling right now shows he`s not doing so well in places like Iowa. KORNACKI: Yes. And just an added challenge, you look at the volume of Republican candidates out there, a lot of alternatives for people, if they say I`m not 100 percent satisfied, there`s a lot of other candidates they could look at. Anyway, my thanks to Robert Costa of "The Washington Post" and Mark Caputo from Politico, appreciate both of you joining us this morning. Also we have an update for you this morning on the TransAsia Airways crash in Taiwan, whose dramatic final moments of descent were captured by motorists on their dashcams as they clipped the taxi, the bridge that taxi was on before it crashed in a river on Wednesday. Taiwanese officials now say that 40 bodies have been recovered, which means the number of people still missing is down to three; 15 survivors in all were rescued from the plane. Still ahead in the show today, she may be the favorite, but Hillary Clinton still faces some major roadblocks on her way to the White House. We will look at some of those challenges. Next, snow fell in the Northeast while you were sleeping, and now it`s heading towards New England. We`ll go live to Boston where people certainly have had enough snow already. But more is coming down. Details ahead. KORNACKI: We`ll get back to politics in a moment. First a story we seem to be covering every weekend lately. A major winter snowstorm. New England braces for its third storm in as many weeks. This one could bring as many as 20 inches of snow to Boston and Eastern and Central Massachusetts. That`s where we find The Weather Channel`s Mike Seidel live in Boston. He joins us -- well, half of him joins us, we can only see half of you in that snowbank. But tell us, what can we expect out there today? MIKE SEIDEL, THE WEATHER CHANNEL. Good morning, Steve. This is what is left from the previous two storms. They`ve had nearly four feet in two weeks. We`ve had another four inches overnight. The beginning of what`s going to be a long duration event. As I climb up to my mountain here on the corner of -- whoa, Dartmouth and Boylston Street in Copley Square. This gives you an idea what we`re facing all around town. They are still trucking the snow out to the snow farm where they melt it. We have another 12-18 inches of snow coming down between now and Tuesday morning. It`s a long duration event. We will not have the kind of wind we had with previous storms, gusting 50- 60. There will be some blowing and drifting, 5 to 8 inches tonight, 5 to 8 inches on Monday, more snow for Tuesday, early Tuesday morning then it ends for a couple of days. At the airports already today, 48 flights have been canceled in and out of Logan; tomorrow ahead of the storm tomorrow, 60-plus flights have been canceled on Monday. These numbers will go up. Even though there`s not going to be any snow or little if any wintry weather right in New York City, there will be issues at the airport there. So Steve, get ready to plow and dig out Boston once again. Heads up, Northeast, coldest weather of the season coming up later this week. It will be bone-chilling cold by Friday and Saturday. KORNACKI: Well, you are full of good news today, Mike. I`m watching this, so I got to say, you are standing right now, basically, at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. SEIDEL: There we go. KORNACKI: In two months they will be having a race there. SEIDEL: Yes, coming up on April 20th. I predict by April 20th, well, most of this snow will have melted. Let`s hope so. KORNACKI: The runners are hoping for that. Anyway, Mike Seidel in Boston, thanks for that. Appreciate it. Still ahead, Al Franken is the only senator that we know of that can draw a map of the United States freehand. Have you ever seen him do that trick? This morning we`re drawing him into a conversation about an issue he`s really passionate about. And next, Hillary Clinton is farther ahead in the Democratic field than anybody has ever been at this point in the race, but she still faces some big hurdles as she tries to reclaim the White House for her family. We`ll take a look at those hurdles on the big board -- that is next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the shadow of the old state capital, where Lincoln once called on a house divided to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still live, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was eight years ago this week, Barack Obama announcing his candidacy for president. Hillary Clinton had been the overwhelming Democratic favorite up until Barack Obama emerged in 2008. And then Barack Obama, you know the rest, he defeated her, huge upset. And now here we are, eight years later, Hillary Clinton coming into 2016, clearly interested in running, overwhelming favorite. So we thought we would look at it and say how different is it right now? How well positioned is she this time versus 2008? So the easiest answer, I think you already know this one, is when you look at the Democratic side, she is much better positioned than she was heading into 2008. At this point eight years ago if you`d been polling Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, there wouldn`t have been 40 points separating them, as there is with Hillary and Joe Biden. We wouldn`t have had talk about Hillary Clinton running uncontested. So Hillary Clinton in much, much better shape as it comes to the Democratic nomination. You know that. What about the general election? How is she against the possible Republican candidates? Take a look at this. These are the overall averages of national polls. She`s 9 points up on Bush, about 9 on Chris Christie, about 10 points up on Rand Paul. These are the most commonly polled Republicans. Obviously a good position to be in there. Look at the swing states, some of the key swing states, new data this week, take a look. In Pennsylvania, not even close. Almost 20 points over Rand Paul. Double digits over everybody. Look in Ohio. Always comes down to Ohio. Clinton comfortably ahead of the three most likely, at least three of the biggest names on the Republican side -- I don`t know about most likely. Florida, again you see pretty much the same thing, with one exception, again, not surprising, but Jeb Bush, his home state, the two-term governor, he runs very close to her there. The others do not. So that`s the good news for Hillary Clinton. The question though is how durable is this? We`re still about a year and a half away from the actual election. How durable are leads like this at this point in the cycle? We thought we would look back quickly at the last three times. You come to the end of a two-term presidency. Where do those races stand now? Where did they end up? Here`s the first one. Back in 1988, at this point, the top Democrat, Gary Hart. Remember him? He was running double digits ahead of George H. W. Bush. Two things happened. One, scandal knocked Gary Hart out of the race. Two, George H.W. Bush really recovered over the next year and a half by Election Day `88, he won by eight points. So that was not a very durable advantage for the Democrats there. In this point in 1999, George W. Bush was double digits ahead of the two- term vice president, Al Gore. Now George W. Bush ended up winning of course, but that was a very close election. In fact, Gore came back to win the popular vote, lose the electoral college. So again, there was a lot of movement in that year and a half. And then of course in 2008, you had the two most commonly cold Republicans at this point in the cycle matched up against Barack Obama, you saw an even race against McCain. He ended up beating McCain fairly comfortably; Giuliani, remember, we all thought, wow, this guy could be president. Something that didn`t quite work out. But he was beating Obama at this point. So it does show you there is still plenty of room for movement here despite the clear early advantage for Hillary Clinton. Anyway, still ahead in the show today, what does "SNL" veteran and current U.S. Senator Al Franken think of comedian John Oliver? We talk to him about that in the next hour. But first, how Chris Christie`s week went from bad to worse to now we`re questioning whether he can stay in this Republican race for too long. Stay with us. We`ll talk about it next. KORNACKI: Thanks for staying with us on what is a very busy Sunday morning. Lots still to get to in the hour including why Chris Christie must be glad this week is finally, finally over and hoping that next week goes a little differently. Also, Rick Santorum is opening up about his daughter`s disability in a new and very revealing article this morning. Also, former Vermont governor and former presidential candidate Howard Dean is gonna join us to talk about the future of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, and Senator Al Franken, he`s gonna be on the show to share his thoughts on a very important and passionate issue for him. But as we mentioned, we begin this hour first, with Chris Christie. His visit to England this week was supposed to be a big image boosting trip abroad, but it started with a big thud. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KASIE HUNT, MSNBC POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Governor, this company makes vaccines. There`s a debate going on right now in the United States, the measles outbreak that`s been caused in part by people not vaccinating their kids. Do you think Americans should vaccinate their kids? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: All I can say is we vaccinate ours. You know, that`s the best opinion explanation can give you in my opinion. It`s much more important when you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. That`s what we do. I also understand parents need to have a measure of choice in things as well. So that`s the balance that the government has to decide. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Now, that set off a firestorm of controversy with even many republicans blasting Christie over his vaccine comments. That was just the start of what is turning perhaps the most trying week of Christie`s national political career. The next day after that, the New York Times documented in detail Christie`s taste for expensive travel while others pay the bill including a private jet paid for by Sheldon Adelson, and $30,000 in luxury hotel rooms paid for by the King of Jordan. Then came the new that`s feds subpoenaed flight records about a special route created by United Airlines for a top Christie appointee, allegedly allowing him to travel to and from his vacation home nonstop. And that was followed by a report that the feds interviewed an ex-county prosecutor who claims that he was fired by the Christie administration for prosecuting a political ally of the governor`s. Now at the end of this week, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that republican donors are starting to fret over the many what if`s, now hanging over Christie, making it much tougher potentially, for him to raise critical campaign cash as he tries to run for president. Politico describes this seven day stretch as, "Chris Christie`s week long train wreck." Joining me now to assess the damage is MSNBC political correspondent, Kasie Hunt, GOP strategist David Avella back on set with, New York Times reporter and Kate Zurniki who co-authored the piece on Christie`s luxury travel tastes. Kate, let`s go back to your article and as we say, there was so much this week. So there are two issues here in terms of your reporting. One is conflicts or potential conflicts that are raised by the travel and the sort of gifts he`s taking and then also just the appearance of this so take us through what you`ve found. KATE ZURNIKI, NEW YORK TIMES: The first thing, for instance, the Sheldon Adelson flight, the casino magnet, who was opposing an internet gambling bill that Christie was facing at that moment. So it`s a gift, the flight was a gift to Chris Christie, so that again creates the appearance of impropriety. Then you have the King of Jordan paying for a weekend in Jordan. Again, $30,000 in hotel rooms. He`s flown on the plane of Woody Johnson, the owner of the jets, again, has a lot of business before New Jersey. Again, it`s the appearance. Chris Christie when he was U.S. attorney was dinged by the justice department for spending too much on hotel rooms. You would think that all these years later you would sort of get the message that this looks bad and try to curb that. KORNACKI: Kasie Hunt, the conflict issue aside, just the appearance for a Governor and for a politician whose image is so dependent on being the regular guy, the no-frills guy, it seems that stories like this, obviously, no politician wants a story like this, but it seems to me, but it`s particularly damaging to somebody with Christies image. HUNT: Well, that`s the rub Steve. You know, this is somebody who`s theoretically walking the Jersey boardwalk, has this sort of swagger, is kind of like he`s selling himself as you said, as an every-man. And this sort of contradicts that. I also had one well-placed republican source that suggests that this is something that`s gonna set him up to be in a difficult position if he were to run against Hillary Rodham-Clinton, for example. Republicans feel like they have a lot of arguments against her that involve her lifestyle. Her comment that she hasn`t driven since the 1990s. The fact that she and her husband are often jetting off to Davos, and sort of living a life at this point that other Americans don`t live. And whoever the republican nominee is gonna want to use that avenue of argument, and if Christie is setting himself up as this person who essentially enjoys all the finer things in life and maybe all the way to the tune of a conflict of interest, that doesn`t serve him very well even in a general election. KORNACKI: Yeah, I could see that debate right now. Christie says, Hillary, you said you were dead broke. Hillary says you took free hotel from the King of Jordan. So, David, how do republicans think about this? Because as we said earlier, there are so many options for republicans looking at this presidential race right now, do they look at stories like this about Chris Christie and say he`s not worth the trouble? AVELLA: Every person who tries to step on the national stage has a few days where it`s not the message they want to get out. The reaction we need to see is how does he move on from here? I mean, let`s keep in mind, Bill Clinton was alleged by multiple women to be a sexual harasser and he became president of the United States. In my view, the worst thing Chris Christie has done so far as a life-long redskin fan is hug Jerry Jones. KORNACKI: There is a federal investigation around the Christie administration at this point. Some would say it`s a little bit more serious than that. But Katie, I think that is sort of the question here. We talk about the other investigations that are swirling. This issue we raised about the county prosecutor, nobody is quite sure how serious that one is, but there was the other issue this week of David Sampson, the former port authority chairman appointed by Chris Christie. United Airlines created this special route from Newark down to South Carolina where his vacation home is. He apparently called it, the Chairman`s flight. It signals to me a couple of things, but one is that this federal investigation is expanding from where it started. ZURNIKI: I think that`s definitely true. There have been a number of points where we have been able to say that. I think the prosecutor -- you have to take that with a grain of salt. The U.S. attorney`s office will talk to a lot of people. I don`t take the fact that they talked to him. They sent him a letter in June saying we don`t think you have anything there but we`re happy to talk to you and now they`re talking to him in February or January. So I don`t think that`s necessarily a sign that this investigation into the original bridge gate scandal (inaudible) expanding to including that. But certainly, the port authority, the Sampson route definitely indicates that there`s a lot going on there. AVELLA: When you`re explaining, you`re losing. Governor Christie has to get the narrative back to where he wants it to be. The longer he has to explain these allegations that have come up, and these inquiries that have come up, he`s not talking about the message he wants to talk about. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Well, he is at the mercy of these forces that are just more powerful than him at this point like a federal prosecutor, for instance. Kasie, it`s tough to reclaim if you`re in Christie`s camp. Its tough to grab control of the narrative in a situation like this, but what are you hearing from people around Chris Christie about how you can conduct a presidential campaign, how you can win over all these big donors, how you can get people to say I will stand with you, and not with Jeb Bush? Not with all these other people, how do they sell that in a climate where there`s so much uncertainty around him? HUNT: Well, I think they`ve watched how the bridge gate scandal has unfolded, how so many people were saying that he was going to basically be dead in the water after that, and that the reality is at this point he still isn`t. That doesn`t mean that they don`t acknowledge privately that these are some their issues. But one thing I would say, you were talking about how to drive your own message. That`s really something that was missing from his trip abroad. They sold that trip as here is Governor Christie standing on a stage, that`s bigger than the one he has at home in New Jersey. It was a chance for him to sort of maybe outline some of his views for the world. When it got down to it, he didn`t actually have a message that he was trying to push while over there. Yes, obviously, vaccines sidelined the trip a bit. He got a little bit derailed there. But that doesn`t mean he wouldn`t have been able to pull it back into a place where they wanted to go. He could talk about security policy, he can talk about Ukraine. I mean there are so many issues going on in the world today that are related to relationship with Great Britain and they just didn`t seem to push any of that. I tried to ask him a question about NATO, just asking what that relationship should be. He didn`t want to answer it. Another reporter asked him about ISIS, obviously, we had some terrible news lately, with the most recent deaths of those hostages. That`s when he snapped what do you understand about no questions? Assuming that, yes, he got pushed off a narrative, my question was what was the narrative that he was originally trying to push that he got pushed off of? They didn`t seem to have one. KORNACKI: You know, that`s so interesting because in my observation of Christie. This is a guy who believes very much in his ability, the power of his personality, maybe to walk into a room without a plan, as Kasie is saying there, just to hold court with the press, to hold court even with a hostile crowd and to win them over with his charm, to win them over with sort of the power of his personality. In a lot of ways, that`s the story of his career. He`s done that an awful lot and he`s gotten very far with it. I wonder now maybe he`s stepping into new waters where you have to have a lot more planning, a lot more preparation and a lot more infrastructure around you then he`s used to. ZURNIKI: I think that`s definitely the case. I think his administration, there`s a theme or undercurrent there, they believe he can get out of anything. He has gotten out of a lot of things. He has been able to explain a lot, I just think that now these things are coming closer together. And so it`s just harder to sort of keep up with it all. KORNACKI: Can he win the nomination still then? AVELLA: Could still win the nomination. Anything could happen, right? He`s going to have to get the message to where he wants. I will say this, republican candidates need to quit going to London, whether it`s Mitt Romney getting off a message, or Governor Christie getting off a message, they need to quit going to London. KORNACKI: Kasie, no more trips to London for you, I guess. HUNT: Scott Walker is going next week. KORNACKI: All right, so much for that. Thanks David Avella, Kasie Hunt, Katie Zurniki from the New York Times. We want to bring you up to date on one of the big developing stories overnight. You may have heard about this Olympian and TV reality personality Bruce Jenner was behind the wheel in a deadly car accident yesterday afternoon in California. Jenner was driving the Pacific Coast Highway, in Malibu when according to eyewitness, his SUV rear-ended a car in front of him, sent it into oncoming traffic. Police say it does not appear the paparazzi were the cause of the wreck, but they do note the cause is under investigation. Jenner of course has been in the spotlight lately as reports swirl that he`s transitioning to a female. Still ahead, we`re gonna return to politics including finding out what Senator Al Franken thinks about another Saturday Night Live alum who wants to run for office. And next, the must-read article of the morning. Its author joins us, and tells us how Rick Santorum is going where he`s never gone before. Stay with us for that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICK SANTORUM: I decided that the best thing I could do was to treat her differently, to not love her like I did, because it wouldn`t hurt as much if I lost her. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That`s Rick Santorum talking about the struggle he went through after his severely disabled youngest child was born. He made those remarks at a forum sponsored by an Iowa Christian group back in 2011, it was about six weeks in fact before the Iowa caucuses, that`s as Iowa conservatives were looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney who they could rally around instead. Santorum of course, did go on and win the Iowa caucuses over Romney in an upset in 2012. That was a huge moment for Rick Santorum, not really because he was running for president at the time, but because his daughter, Bella, was someone he`d never really talked about in public before. Starting then, that all began to change. Three and a half years later, Rick Santorum, his wife, his oldest daughter have now collaborated on a new book about that little girl who is now six years old and who was born with an 18th chromosome in every cell of her body. The doctors say is incompatible with life, the Santorums tell the Washington Post in article out this morning, it`s intended as a guide for other families like them, the kind of handbook they wish they had after Bella was born. The book released on Tuesday. However, unconventional its topic may be, it coincides with candidate book release season. That`s the period of time every four years when would-be presidential contenders embark on book tours that more often than not take them to early primary or key swing states. Washington Post national political correspondent, Karen Tumulty shares the byline on this morning`s Santorum story and she joins us now. So, Karen, I mean I encourage everyone to go and read this. This is really a fascinating article and I can`t do it justice in summarizing here. But maybe you can just tell us first of all about his 6-year-old daughter Bella, and specifically what her condition is and what she is suffering from. KAREN TUMULTY, WASHINGTON POST: Well, it is an extra 18th chromosome in every single cell of her body. It`s called Trisomy 18, it`s a condition that doctors describe as incompatible with life. Half of the children born with this condition don`t survive more than a few hours. More than 90 percent of them die within the first year. So -- when Rick Santorum talked about that in Iowa, his inability to love this child the way he did his other six, it was -- the room there was silent, but one place that did not go over well was back in his home in Virginia, where his wife was absolutely furious with him because, first of all, that they had agreed not to talk about this. Second of all, that he had done it, in what she had regarded as a really hurtful way. As they write this book, they write it in their two different voices. You really do see inside the marriage, inside the family life. As of last week, when we interviewed the Santorums, Rick Santorum had not been able to bring himself even yet to read all of Karen Santorum`s chapters. That`s sort of how open it is. As a campaign season book, this is a very unconventional book. I must say. KORNACKI: Yeah, it`s very fascinating. We played the clip at the start of the segment from November of 2011. So that`s the first time he talked publicly. We saw this as observers of politics, and we thought, well, crudely, purely from a political perspective if you`re trying to go after sort of the culturally conservative vote and talking about a personal story that affirms your commitment against abortion, a politically effective moment, but we`re seeing that moment, it caused a real trouble in his marriage. TUMULTY: It did because basically, the Santorums who are deeply devout Catholics saw this as God`s will. But they had two very, very different views of what god`s will was. Karen Santorum thought that God had put a challenge in front of them. It was their job to overcome that challenge, to do everything they could. And Rick Santorum thought, you know, it was too make their peace with how ever this turned out. So, from the outset, there`s a really remarkable scene where they have ordered a crib, as they are building the crib, Rick Santorum tells his oldest daughter, by the way, be sure to save the box because Bella may, we don`t know how long we will have her and we may need to take this back to the store. He does not portray himself here as, you know, the hero of the tale. Also, you know, this, again, to this day, this child is in a very fragile state. You know, the odds remain very, very much against them. KORNACKI: Wow. Just quickly, do they have any concern as we say this is the typical candidate book release season, do they have any concern that this would -- people will think they`re trying to capitalize politically on their situation? TUMULTY: Well, I can certainly -- I can tell you their strategists are sensitive to this. And again, he actually did a more kind of conventional campaign kind of book. My 10-point plan, my view for America last year, I really do -- as cynical as we get, I think this is a very different kind of book, and a very raw book. KORNACKI: Yeah, I know. It`s certainly from your reporting, that`s exactly what it sounds like. My thanks to Karen Tumulty from the Washington Post, I appreciate the time this morning. TUMULTY: Thanks, Steve. KORNACKI: All right. Still ahead, Senator Al Franken will join us to discuss the issues he is fighting for on Capitol Hill, the 2016 elections and his words and wisdom for other comedians thinking of running for office. And next, another major winter storm heading to New England. We`re gonna go live to Maine. How much more snow are they gonna get up there? Details on the other side of the break. KORNACKI: Some sad, breaking news. We are just learning about this morning. The Associated Press reporting that legendary University of North Carolina basketball Coach Dean Smith has died at the age of 83. He was the UNC coach from 1961 to 1997. When he retired in 1997, he did so as the all-time winningest coach in NCAA men`s basketball history, surpassing Adolph Rupp in his final season. He has since been passed as the winningest coach his old rival Mike Krzyzewski at Duke. Smith won two national championships in those 36 years, in 1982 when his team was led by a freshman named Michael Jordan. The famous four corners offense against Georgetown. In 1993, that was the Chris Webber game. Chris Webber of Michigan called a time out his team didn`t have, giving Dean Smith, helping give Dean Smith his second national championship at North Carolina. Also, countless ACC championships, a number of final four appearances. Dean Smith had also should be noted was instrumental in integrating the game of basketball in North Carolina and in the south. Dean Smith was 83 years old. Shifting gears, we want to get up to speed on that snow that`s begun to fall in parts of New England. Another winter storm that could dump a foot of snow or more on parts of that battered region that`s been hit so hard the past few years. Weather Channel`s Keith Carson joins us live from Portland, Maine. Keith, I don`t see snow there, but I guess you`re expecting a lot. KEITH CARSON, WEATHER CHANNEL: Yeah, you know, Steve, it did snow actually from midnight through the early part of this morning. The deal with this system is that its very persistent, so had one wave of come through, we have another one this afternoon, this evening, and the strongest will come in as we head into tomorrow morning. You know, the problem in Portland is also the same problem as down into Boston as well which is just where do we put the snow? These cities are good at removing snow, the plow trucks are going already. The problem is, in an urban environment, believe it or not, Portland is a relatively compact city, even though its population is not huge. There`s nowhere to put all of this snow. They`re trying to get dump trucks, haul it out of the city, and you can see the sand truck there behind me, starting to get on and is moving as well. I think the story with the storm isn`t that it`s going to be a blizzard, but they`re gonna pick up another foot of snow over the next day and a half, two days, that`s gonna add to the problem that we already have down here. I was talking to somebody down the street, they were in their office the other day and they heard this crashing sounds coming down the street. They looked out the window and it was a truck taking off every side view mirror on its way down the street because it had become that much more narrow to the amount of snow on the side. The other story with this system, Steve, is that it is very, very cold even for Maine standards. Its 11 right now, and that`s actually probably gonna be the high temperature for the day. Temperatures dropping through the rest of the day into the evening. KORNACKI: All right, Keith Carson and by the way, wearing the LL Bean jacket, you`re in Maine I think that`s required by state law or something. Anyways, thanks for the update from up there. Up next, are the 90s really back? I`m gonna ask my panel. Also, the Obamacare the Supreme Court maybe weighing in on that soon again. Could its fate once again be in the balance? We will talk about that with former Governor Howard Dean and that is straight ahead. KORNACKI: The Affordable Care Act was supposedly settled as a matter of law by the Supreme Court back in 2012, but the court is soon going to hear another challenge to Obamacare, one that does have the potential to severely cripple Barack Obama`s biggest achievement as president. More for that matter are republicans letting up on their push to repeal it. This past week three republican lawmakers released ideas for replacing the law, trying to address criticism that the party`s repeal and replace message has been heavy on repeal for the last five years, but very short on replace. Senators Orrin Hatch and Richard Burr and Congressman Fred Upton introduced the plan that would include some of the protections already in placed under the Affordable Care Act. For instance, you couldn`t be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, but there are some other parts of the plan that might catch you off guard. If you get insurance through your work, then the value of that insurance exceeds a certain level, you would have to pay federal income taxes on that sum. Now keep in mind, all of this plan is not in legislative form right now. It is basically still just a bunch of ideas, a framework if you will, and it comes almost five full years after the Affordable Care Act was first passed. So what is the future for Obamacare, could the Supreme Court -- would the Supreme Court actually deal with a fatal blow this year? And will republicans ever build enough support to gut it themselves or will they eventually give up the fight? Joining me now is former Governor and doctor, Howard Dean, also former chairman of the democratic national committee, and David Frum who is a speechwriter for President George W. Bush, now a senior editor with the Atlantic. So, Howard Dean, I`ll ask but this republican alternative. For years, we have been hearing repeal and replace. Now, they say OK, here is the replace. What do you make of it? HOWARD DEAN, VERMONT FORMER GOVERNOR: Well, the first thing -- the first test is always for me is this bill universal, does everybody have healthcare? Obamacare actually doesn`t do that. This does it worse. The key insurance reforms in Obamacare sound like a little bit like Upton and his crew are proposing that is community rating and guaranteed issue. We need to see the fine print. This is not enough. This can`t be taken seriously, but it is a step forward for any republican to propose anything to do seriously to deal with healthcare. KORNACKI: So, David, when you look at this plan what does it address, what does it provide, and what does it do that Obamacare doesn`t? What are the key differences? DAVID FRUM, THE ATLANTIC: Well, what the plan does, it takes as its priority maximizing individual choice by removing the mandate. For many republicans, that is the (inaudible). I think that`s the wrong test, the wrong thing for republicans to focus on it. It seems to me the reforms the republicans should be searching for, one greater cost control, to free up more money for other things. I would to see it go to defense rather than be spent on healthcare. And second, to make sure the financing mechanism is less crushingly distributive. KORNACKI: Do you see working within the existing framework of the Affordable Care Act? FRUM: I am not here representative of most republicans, but I have been advocating since 2009 that republicans should do this. The Romneycare bits are good. The Obamacare bits are more troublesome. It`s not going to be repealed. It is not going to be repealed and it is not going to be struck down by the Supreme Court. It`s a fact, but it is cloggy (ph), it doesn`t work. And it`s financed in ways that won`t work and that are very suppressive of business initiative. So fix the financing mechanism, give states more leeway and focus on cost control, but stop a fight that is only allowing the problems in the system to get worse while you fight these battles that will never be won. KORNACKI: Two questions to Howard Dean. First of all, do you agree with the idea that the Supreme Court will not strike this down? Because they have taken the case, they are going to have another ruling on this, do you agree? DEAN: Yeah, the fact they have taken the case, the four justices who voted against it last time are willing to take the case. I don`t know, this is a tough one for John Roberts because this is a different question than before. KORNACKI: He has taken a lot of heat. DEAN: I actually agree with David, if they were -- if the Supreme Court were to be taken seriously, which I can`t always take them, they would vote this down. Why? Because this is really amounted to essentially a clerical error, and the will of congress is clear that they did, in fact, intend the subsidies to be for the national. FRUM: Supreme courts just don`t strike down big social welfare spending programs. They didn`t strike down social security in the 1930s. They are not going to strike down this. It`s too scary. It`s too much like acting like a super legislature. So for the same reasons of institutional self- preservation that motivated John Roberts on the last case, I can`t see it. I`m saying it on television, watch me be completely wrong, but I don`t think I am. DEAN: Let me make one point that is really critical though, which neither side has been willing to do, what`s driving the health care expenditures in this country and has for 50 years is the fact we use a fee for service medical system. You keep paying me to do as much as I can whether you need it or not. That`s never going to work. We are smart, consumer-wise. This is where I agree with David. Romneycare was not a terrible model because it was market based. Because the market forces are about buying insurance. If market forces get to buying healthcare, they fail. KORNACKI: You are both talking about ways to improve or change the law again within the existing framework. So, David, I guess the question to you is you`ve been saying this for a few years. Republicans for the 58th or 59th time, whatever it was this weekend, another repeal vote, is there a point where you can see coming in the near future where republicans stopped doing this and start thinking like your model? FRUM: There is a mighty python sketch about a man who goes for hitting on the head lessons. And eventually, look -- eventually parties change, and I think that`s going to happen here. I was hoping we could learn faster. We are choosing to learn slower. This is a fact, and it`s a fact. And one of the things I regret is a lot of concessions that could have been had for the asking in 2009 are now going to be achieved through blood, sweat and tears, especially changing the way the things are financed. It`s financed with an invisible tax on young people through the insurance mechanism and with an explicit tax on savers, investors, and high income people. With explicit tax, it is totally inadequate. This system should be financed in ways that everybody pays in to create incentives to create price control, not price control but by price restraint, which is the most important thing. KORNACKI: I think back to Medicare 50 years ago, LBJ was obsessed with getting by getting bipartisan support for this one, it went through. I think this is why, because of the long term. You can put the debate aside maybe a little bit more easily if you have the bipartisan support. Of course, politics are much different now than they were 50 years ago. (CROSSTALK) DEAN: And Lyndon Johnson is a much better arm twister than Barack Obama. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Thanks to Vermont Governor, former presidential candidate Howard Dean and David Frum with the Atlantic. I appreciate that. Still ahead, he`s been a comedian, a radio host and now United States senator. You know what we`re talking about. Al Franken, he`s going to join us. We will talk about all of that and more. And also, more on the passing, we`re just learning about this morning of former North Carolina basketball coach, Dean Smith. Sports writer John Feinstein joins me on his legacy, that`s next. KORNACKI: The University of North Carolina now confirming that their legendary basketball coach Dean Smith has passed away at the age of 83. Sports columnist John Feinstein of the Washington Post joins us now by telephone. He has written extensively about college basketball. As an undergraduate, he got to watch the great Dean Smith in action, as a student at rival Duke University. So, John, thanks for joining us. We talked a few minutes ago about obviously in terms of wins and losses, Final Fours, ACC championships, the legacy very clear when it comes to Dean Smith, but also a legacy here when it comes to integration, when it comes to issues of race, this is a guy who became coach back in about 1961. The south was very different, America was very different. And he had a forward thinking attitude and approaches. JOHN FEINSTEIN, SPORTS WRITER: you`re right about that. I always said the least significant about Dean Smith with 879 wins. He was actually involved in desegregating restaurants in Chapel Hill before he became head coach at North Carolina. When he was an assistant coach, he walked into a segregated restaurant with a black member of his church and basically dared management not to serve them. Obviously in Chapel Hill, anybody who worked at North Carolina was a significant person. And the management chose to serve him and his friend. And that was the beginning of desegregation in Chapel Hill. I think the most significant thing about that might be that he never wanted to talk about that. He didn`t think that was something you should brag about. In fact, his very close friend, John Thompson, former Georgetown coach, told me once that Dean had never once brought it up to him and he would have been surprised if he had. Because that wasn`t who Dean Smith was. KORNACKI: As a coach, again, when you look at 36 years and every year his team is winning 25, 30 games, contending for national championships, a pipeline in many cases to the NBA, how did he build a program that elite that consistently? FEINSTEIN: Well, there were two things about him. He had extraordinary relationships with his players. You are going to hear an unbelievable outpouring in the next few days from players who were stars, went to the NBA as you said, to players who were walk-ons, totally insignificant in terms of wins and losses because he was so intensely loyal to every one of them. He was a great communicator with the kids he coached. Beyond that, he was an innovator. A lot of things we see in college basketball today in terms of the way teams run offense, run defense, little things like players giving tired signs to the bench to come out, were all Dean Smith innovations. One of the most significant ones that has nothing to do with wins and losses was when he started the concept of senior day, which is now a big deal, every school brings in parents, sisters, cousins, aunts to honor seniors on the last day they play a home game. That was never done until Dean Smith started it at North Carolina. KORNACKI: You talk about how humble and modest he is. I do wonder though, when he passed -- when he got the record, his last year as a coach for most wins ever, 879, he has since been passed by several others, when he got that record, the man he supplanted was Adolf Rupp. And Adolf Rupp`s legacy on racial issues pretty well documented. FEINSTEIN: Right. KORNACKI: He wouldn`t recruit and play black players for basically all of his career. Did that mean something special for Dean Smith that it was Adolf Rupp that he was passing in the record books. FEINSTEIN: I think it did in ways he wouldn`t admit. He never wanted to talk much about the record. He didn`t want it to be a big deal. The day he broke the record in an NCAA tournament game at Winston-Salem he was stunned by the number of ex-players who had flown in to be there that day. Terry Hollins, the Virginia coach, one of his biggest rivals was running the venue for the NCAA that day. He left instructions with the security people that any ex-North Carolina player who was there was to be allowed into the normally off-limits area, so they could see their old coach and celebrate with him. I think that meant more to Dean Smith than the actual number of passing Adolph Rupp. KORNACKI: All right, John Feinstein, written a lot about basketball and written a lot about the ACC, from the Washington Post joining us. I appreciate that, John. Thanks for the time. FEINSTEIN: My pleasure. KORNACKI: Up next, Al Franken may not be the only Saturday Night Live alum on Capitol Hill, at least if another has his way. Details right after this. KORNACKI: Maybe it`s because he was a long-time writer and a star on Saturday Night Live that Al Franken has proven himself to be all business as a United States senator. Recently, Minnesota democrat has taken on Uber for its privacy practices, called for all-steel used in the keystone pipeline to be made in America and he commended the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Tom Wheeler for preserving open internet rules, commonly known as Net Neutrality. I should also add that Comcast, our parent company here, has a vested interest in that debate over Net Neutrality. In an interview that we taped on Friday, Senator Franken joined me to talk about why he feels Net Neutrality is so important. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right, Senator Al Franken joins us now from Washington. Senator, thanks for taking a few minutes. I`ll start with the hardest question, I guess. Net Neutrality, what does that mean? AL FRANKEN, MINNESOTA SENATOR: That means treating all content on the internet neutrally. What that means is all content, whether it`s that of a huge conglomerate or a blogger will get to the user of the content, the consumer, at the same speed, so I`ll give you a good example of why this is necessary for innovation. Before YouTube, there was a thing called Google video. And it wasn`t very good. And the guys who created YouTube or three guys who did it over a pizzeria in San Mateo, California, and because their product was carried over the internet at the same speed as Google video, people got to sample it. They preferred it. And a few years later, they sold YouTube to Google for $1.6 billion. Because of Net Neutrality, we have all this amazing info investigation on the internet, in commercials sphere, and in free speech and what we saw the other day, FCC chair Wheeler announcement about preserving Net Neutrality through Title 2, enormous victory for everyone other than the ISPs, internet service providers. KORNACKI: Let`s look at that from the other side. You have mentioned the internet service providers, and sort of (inaudible) bones of contentions here is the idea could they charge a content provider more and to give that content provider some speedier ability to. (CROSSTALK) FRANKEN: Faster relative to slower. KORNACKI: Right. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: The argument that I think they could make is hey, look, we have invested a considerable amount of money, a lot of resources in basically building the infrastructure, that made the internet what it is. That has made the internet something that is so attractive to all these content providers, why shouldn`t we be able to charge a little more to some of these bigger content providers and then take that money and invest in further innovation, in further growth of that infrastructure that we have created. FRANKEN: Because all the growth that we`ve had on the internet has happened under Net Neutrality. We`ve seen this tremendous growth and innovation under Net Neutrality. What this would do is simply consumers would pay more, the ISPs would just get more profit. You can only build so many Comcast towers in Philadelphia. They`re doing fine. They`re doing fine. You know, this was not just lefties. This was a coalition of businesses. For example, let me just -- Ford, Visa, U.P.S., and Bank of America formed this group to protect Net Neutrality, and this is their argument. Every retailer with an online catalogue, everybody manufacturer with online product specifications, every insurance company with online claims processing, every bank offering online accounting management, every company with a website, every business in America interacting with customers is dependent upon an open internet. We are preserving the open internet under which we have seen this tremendous growth of the internet, this tremendous GDP value. You know, McKenzie did a report a few years ago saying about a quarter of new GDP growth is about the internet. All of that has happened under Net Neutrality and we`re going to preserve that. KORNACKI: You mentioned a minute ago the news this week on this front is the chairman of the Federal Chairman Communication basically saying now that he would seek to have the internet service basically reclassified as utility and that they could then regulate, so, obviously, a big victory for your side there. I`m curious about the process over the last year that got us to this moment. Because it seems to me that a key moment, of all people, John Oliver, the comedian on his HBO show, who sort of shined the light on the issue of Net Neutrality and I think there was something like 4 million calls, 4 million e-mails, letters, correspondences with the FCC. It seemed to create real momentum on this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN OLIVER, COMEDIAN: We need you to get out there, and for once in your lives focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: I`m curious for somebody who cares about this issue, it`s not gotten a lot of attention, how big a difference do you what John Oliver made on this? FRANKEN: I think it what John Oliver did was very helpful. It caught a lot of attention to the issue. Ironically, I think what did this is Wheeler early last year saying he was considering pay prioritization, in other words, a fast lane/slow lane. That really was what prompted these 4 million comments to the FCC, more than twice as many comments on any issue in the history of the FCC, and I think Wheeler himself after putting it out there, something antithetical to Net Neutrality, which is pay prioritization, fast lane/slow lane -- after putting it out there, saw the light and came down where he came down. That`s a great victory for everybody. KORNACKI: I do want to ask you on another broader question about politics here. I know you want a few months ago in terms of your party in the 2016 presidential race, that you`re ready for Hillary, a lot of talk now on the republican side, obviously, a very wide-open race, but Jeb Bush clearly interested in running, gives the possibility of a Bush-Clinton match up in the general elections. Two, sort of dynasties almost in the American political politics. I`m just curious what you think of a Bush-Clinton match up would look like to the country in 2016. FRANKEN: I think the republican party will take care of itself. I have known Hillary for about 20 years. I think that at this time in American history, she is the most qualified person to be the president. I hope she runs. KORNACKI: And one other thing, I couldn`t resist asking you this, because I just saw this in the news this week, but Gary Kroeger, I think a name you know, another SNL alum, who apparently will be running for congress in Iowa and he told the National Journal this week that, "Al Franken is the template on how it`s done, making that move from the entertainment world to politics." He said he wants to get your advice. What advice would you give him? FRANKEN: Well, that you`re running for a job that is a very different job from being a comedian, but a lot of young people ask how do you become a senator? I say do comedy for 40 years, and then run for the senate. So far that has worked every time. KORNACKI: He also said he wants to talk to you at the SNL reunion. FRANKEN: Yes. KORNACKI: Are you going to be there? FRANKEN: I`m going to be there. I`ll talk to him about it then. You know, a lot of people ask me, you know, is being in the senate as much fun as Saturday Night Live? And of course, it isn`t as much fun, but it`s the best job I`ve ever had, because you get to do things. It`s incredibly satisfying job, and I`m very glad I did this. KORNACKI: All right. Senator Al Franken, democrat of Minnesota, thanks for the time. We appreciate it. FRANKEN: You bet, Steve. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right. An SNL reunion is a week away. I know I will be tuning in for that. I want to thank this morning`s panel. I didn`t get to do so earlier because of the breaking news, but I thank all of them for joining us. Up next, MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, with her interview with the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is a must-see, so make sure you stick around for that. That`s coming up next. Have a great Sunday. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020801cb.450 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 36 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 8, 2015 Sunday SHOW: MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 10:00 AM EST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY for February 8, 2015 BYLINE: Melissa Harris-Perry, Ayman Mohyeldin, Kristen Welker, Zachary Roth, Toure GUESTS: Hillary Mann Leverett, Clarence Lausanne, Nina Khrushcheva, Betsy Hodges, Michael Skolnik, Jessica Disu, Jaeki Cho SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 14393 words HIGHLIGHT: Foreign policy leaders remain skeptical of ISIS claims, that an American woman held hostage in Syria was killed in a Jordanian air strike; President Obama condemned the atrocities committed by ISIS; Fighting still rages between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatists; Vice President Joe Biden is the latest in a growing list of democrats who plan to skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s address to a joint meeting of congress next month; Local media was quick to point out the underlying story line here, recent tension between the mayor and the police department. This past November, 36.3 percent of eligible Americans voted in the 2014 midterm elections. It was the lowest voter turnout since the 1942 federal election, but according to the sentencing project, approximately 5.85 million voting age Americans were not permitted to vote, because they were previously convicted of felonies. The nomination for tonight`s Grammys has sparked as much debate about race and music as the Oscar nominations did about race and film, except with the Grammys, that conversation is about who got left out, and who was included. First there is the best rap nomination of Iggy Azalea that has put her in the position to claim a historic first for a solo female rapper. MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST: This morning my question, is Iggy Azalea a hip-hop artist? Plus, the mayor at the center of pointer-gate, comes to nerd land, and my one on one with Attorney General Eric Holder. First, responding to the horrors of ISIS. Good morning, I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. Foreign policy leaders remain skeptical of ISIS claims, that an American woman held hostage in Syria was killed in a Jordanian air strike. Friday, the terror group said 26 years old aid worker Kayla Mueller was buried in the rubble of a building hit by a Jordanian aircraft. Mueller, who had been working for two aid groups, helping Syrian refugees, was kidnapped in 2013. Her identity had been kept private for over a year while negotiations worked behind the scenes to have her released. U.S. officials say they have no information to confirm the ISIS claim. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUSAN RICE, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: We do not at the present have any evidence to corroborate ISIL`s claims. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Without video or any other proof, Mueller`s parents are not giving up hope. Carl and Marsha Mueller released a statement that reads in part, "The news leaves us concerned. Yet, we are still hopeful up that Kayla is still alive." Mueller is the last remaining American known to be held hostage by ISIS. Just three days before ISIS said she was killed, this happened. Tuesday, ISIS released a video of a Jordanian fighter pilot being burned alive inside a cage. The video prompted a swift response. Jordan executed two of its prisoners who had been convicted of terrorism. By Thursday, Jordan had launched an extensive air attack on targets in Syria and Iraq. The same air campaign that ISIS claims killed Kayla Mueller, but a Jordanian government spokesman said, "ISIS is being illogical and they`re lying." While ISIS claims that Mueller was killed in the Syrian City of Raqa, the U.S. military says no American or Jordanian air strikes happened anywhere near there. Just last week, another hostage ordeal unfolded when ISIS said it executed two Japanese hostages. ISIS says it killed the two men, one of whom was a journalist who traveled to Syria to plead for the release of the other hostage after Japan refused to pay $200 million in random. It is the same amount Japan`s prime minister had pledged in nonmilitary aid to countries involved in the fight against ISIS. The country`s immediate reaction of horror and grief quickly turned to outrage when Japan`s prime minister learned of the hostages` death. He vowed to "make the terrorists pay the price." It was a bold statement from a pacifist country prompting some to question whether these beheadings could be a watershed moment for Japan and the debate over how to confront terrorism. Joining me now Ayman Mohyeldin, who is NBC News` foreign correspondent, Hillary Mann Leverett, who will be joining Georgetown University of a visiting scholar, and author of Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept The Islamic Republic Of Iran. Nina Khrushcheva who is associate professor of international affairs at the Milano School. And Clarence Lausanne, professor at the school of international service at American University. Ayman, I`m wondering if the response that we are seeing, both from Japan and from Jordan are precisely what they provocation vises is meant to do. AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC NEWS: Well, there`s no doubt that particularly in the case of Jordan, after one of its pilots was killed, the king came under pressure and there were a lot of questions as to whether or not Jordan was going to back down or was going to double down, if you will in the wake of this tragedy. It seems that by all measures, Jordan is doubling down on the coalition air strikes. The government has come back and said they will not be deterred, they are repeating very clearly their message that this is a fight against them. It is a mortal at threat to Jordan and to Jordanians. I think if there was any doubt within the kingdom about the resolve of the king in the past I`d say 72 hours, that has been made clear that the country is still very much committed to these coalition air strikes. HARRIS-PERRY: Well, I guess part of what I`m wondering, we have seen now months -- years really, but certainly in recent months of the horrors coming out of ISIS, particularly because with the use of video and social media, we have literally seen it, why this moment, why this killing provoking this kind of response? HILLARY MANN-LEVERETT, AUTHOR: Well, the strategy that the Islamic state has had has been very clear, instrumental and extraordinarily effective. Keep in mind when they first took Mosul back in June, they had about 6,000 foot soldiers. Today, they have over 50,000. The support for ISIS or the Islamic State, though at this point Jordanians want revenge, is still very deep. It`s not every Jordanian but it`s deep. There are over 2,000 Jordanians that are fighting with the Islamic state so there strategy is two. One it is to show would be attackers, that if they attack them, they`re going to be weak because their response is gonna be meaningless and you get them to overreach. So with the United States, to be seen as the cool inhumane, bomber murder, and for Jordan, too, to overreach, to show its population, that this king, for all that he says, he`s just an American lackey taking orders from the United States. So in the short it were there will be Jordanian support for the king, but in the long term, as we saw after the 2005 bombings in Jordan, that`s a very short-term proposition. The concern in Jordan for American policy -- American foreign policy, what it does in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine is a tool that the Islamic State uses for surge recruitment very effectively. HARRIS-PERRY: So this idea that recruitment has grown, and I think for me, you know clearly, Clarence in Japan this leader had already begun to talk about removing some of the aspects of the kind of pacifist tradition that is connected in their current constitution. That said, the idea that these are horrible killings, but they`re also relatively individuated, and yet they are having an enormous effect on global foreign strategy. CLARENCE LAUSANNE, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: The strategy of ISIS, as Hillary pointed out, is to provoke. It`s working dramatically. They`re bringing in countries that historically have been somewhat on the sidelines. Japan is really a case in point. Last year even before the kidnapping, before these murders, President Abe had already talked about reinterpreting article 9. Article 9 the part of the Japanese constitution that says basically it will not go to war. War is outlawed, it can`t participate, and while it`s difficult to change that... HARRIS-PERRY: I want to apologize for just one second because even as we were sort of kind of engaging in this moment, the Japan case and the idea that it`s instantiated in their current modern constitution, it`s not entirely about sort of Japan having made this choice. It`s a post World War II imposed sort of position, at least initially. LAUSANNE: Right, the U.S. basically wrote that constitution, but the Japanese people have embraced it, now you have got several generations that see as their ethos, that they`re a peaceful countries that they don`t engage in war. As Abe last year teased the population, there was lots of resistance. I lived in Japan last year, spent a lot of time with human rights organizations and peace groups, and they were extremely upset that even this kind of interpretation that Abe was putting out to the public was taking the countries in a wrong direction. Abe now sees with these two killings, that this is an opportunity to reintroduce that discussion and to move towards even changing the constitution, which is a difficult process. HARRIS-PERRY: So part of what I am interpreting here and I might have this totally wrong, so I want you to correct me if I am, there`s a kind of masculinist, epic of foreign policy work here. If I publicly harm the people who you are meant to be protecting, then I can provoke this particular response, right? And not your soldiers, but you know an aid worker, a journalist, right? These folks who are vulnerable, therefore you have to end up with air strikes and with changing your constitutions, engage in this type of military process and I wonder, are we allowing, and I mean we in the broadest sense, allowing ISIS to draw us down a path that based on almost a kind of evil position rather than a real national interest position? NINA KHRUSHCHEVA, MILANO SCHOOL ASSOCIATE DEAN: I actually think that you are absolutely correct. It does because these people, as they claimed numerous times, they`re not afraid of death. So for them, the fact that they`re being bombed is really not such a big deal or so their propaganda says. A lot of people do subscribe to that propaganda formula. For them, it`s even a greater message that the west or western countries aligned with the west can only respond in one way. They can bomb but we can take of their aid workers, of their journalists. We actually broaden the scope of people who we consider enemies, because once they serve the American interests, the western interests and work for that system, and then everybody is an enemy, and go fight with that kind of propaganda. That is very, very difficult. MANN-LEVERETT: There was no Islamic state before we invaded Iraq, before we destroyed the political order there and completely up-turned the order in the Middle East. The precursor to the Islamic state was al-Qaeda in Iraq, which did not exist in contrast to Vice President Chaney`s claims, did not exist in Iraq. That was created as a response to the U.S. invasion. And what we minimize in looking at the Islamic state, because we hate their tactics, is that they have emerged as the strongest, most formidable soon organizations to protect Sunnis and resist the west and other governments that align with Iran. HARRIS-PERRY: So right where you`ve taken us to is where I wanna go after the break, which is to ask this question about American culpability or at least the ways in which we are engaged in this in a historic space to the president got into some trouble in talking about some of this earlier in the week. One other story, I wanna tell our audience about, Brian Williams is stepping away temporarily from NBC Nightly News. In a statement, Williams says it has become apparent, "I am presently too much a part of the news, surrounding questions about his version of events while covering the Iraq war invasion in 2003." Lester Holdt will fill in for Williams. Coming up, an invitation from the speaker and its impact on potential nukes deal. Plus, the president has some real talk on religion. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENT: We see faith driving us to do right, but we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge, or worse, sometimes used as a weapon. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Thursday, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, President Obama condemned the atrocities committed by ISIS. He spoke of reconciling realities, the good done by faith communities versus the terror and sectarian violence. Then the president said something that is rarely publicly acknowledged by elected leaders in this country. He pointed out that Islam has no monopoly on using religion to justify horror and violence. It is an unflattering historical reality for many world faith traditions, including Christianity. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the crusades and inquisitions, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So people had all kinds of patently a historical emotion in relationship to that, but honestly it did feel connected in some ways to the point you were making about our foreign policy, that as we kind of look at a world if we always are just standing back as we`re the good guys and everybody else is the bad guys, we might end up in worse situations. LEVERETT: Yes and everybody has their critique of what he said, which is incredibly important that he did it, that he provoked such a debate. But to me it`s almost the opposite. The White Christians of the time were not the oppressed of their era, particularly White Christians here in terms of slavery, or White Christians in terms of South Africa, how they justify the partite. Whereas here what the Islamic state is trying to represent, as much as we hate it, and the people that are drawn to it are people who are in fact the oppressed and people who are marginalized or they people who have had their entire families wiped out. HARRIS-PERRY: I hear you. I only want to push back just a little bit. Bill Moyer draws our attention to the experienced, the lynching of Jessie Washington in Texas in 1916, and he writes about the fiery cage and the lynching tree, the way in which right in our own country, a black man was burned to death while people watched. I get that these people are not oppressed you but post-confederates often understood themselves as stated factors who lost the civil war, who had a government imposed upon them and who were then taking it out on these folks. I feel like is there something valuable about pausing and actually engaging our history as we move forward in our foreign policy? LAUSANNE: I think there certainly is. During slavery and post-slavery, you have these atrocities that were ongoing. And you had very little response from the federal government. One of the problems I think with Obama raising this issue is also facing to this discourse that`s out there that Obama`s not actually a Christian, that Obama`s actually is too aligned with folks outside of the U.S., he`s got a Muslim father, so it makes it difficult to inject what is a really needed discussion where you put on the table we have to have empathy, we have to put ourselves in the positions of people who are in marginalized around the world and how that drives people to extremism, then that gets exploited by groups like ISIS. HARRIS-PERRY: At the same time that we denounce atrocities, so the part of it to me is on the one hand saying this is this horror but the very fact that you have a massive recruitment effort that is working suggests to me, OK, yes it`s a horror, but clearly other people are not seeing it as a horror. For me, this is a bit of a tricky one, I just want to show again that image of the Jessie Washington lynching. Again, this is 1916, but part of what`s important to me, if you can take your eyes from the charred body, which is horrifying but to see the faces of the people there who are watching it. To me, this is the piece that connects back to the ISIS moment that people are watching it, and they`re not experiencing horror in that moment. KHRUSHCHEVA: They`re not experiencing horror, because for them these are the enemies being prosecuted, and as Hillary pointed out, that was done to them. In the 2000s, the same thing was done to them. So these civilians were killed. They had people who were doctors who were killed, so their basically paying the same western bill that they felt that was given to them by the west, so of course psychologically, they are not, but the larger problem is it`s wonderful that that line sparked debate or that conversation is now a conversation is that Barack Obama was trying to provide context. I think what`s very dangerous is that contextually nothing is being understood. Suddenly we`re talking about him, as you said, not being a Christian, but we have to remember that every conversation that talks about us versus them mentality, religious or not, it always sparks violence. I think that`s what he was bringing to everybody`s attention, but we`re so polarized that we`re unwilling to see that, and all we see is that he`s against Christianity or he is supporting the ISIS. He`s not. He`s just saying that anything that incites violence, religious our not, is a problem. HARRIS-PERRY: And yet, he is a president who... KHRUSHCHEVA: He is not a history teacher. HARRIS-PERRY: No, I was going to say he is a President who is engaged in violence around I mean because he`s a president not because he`s one could argue he`s particularly violent or not but he`s a president, and so he stands as the representative of American foreign policy which is what you pointed our Hillary is deeply problematic. So for people around the world who see us as aggressors, and so, Ayman, part of what I`m wondering then is how a moment like that is received. For journalists, as we sort of put that moment out and there and then there`s an internal debate within the U.S. and these other nations, is it received as he`s trying to contextualize it, or is it received as he`s weak? MOHYELDIN: I think those words are probably gonna be lost on a lot of people in the Middle East. What is gonna resonate loudly are American drones that are being carried out on a daily basis. That`s a message geared toward an American audience, understandably so, but at the end of the day, I think the point a lot of us are trying to make here is that you cannot remove American foreign policy from the long history of problems that have led to this point. Does that mean the United States is single handedly responsible? Absolutely not, but you can`t convince a person in Yemen whose had his entire family killed in a U.S. drone strike that contextualizing the president`s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast is going make them somehow more understanding and more appreciative of what the president is trying to do. Herein lays really a fundamental problem that has plagued the United States for many years. The difference between the values it tries to espouse and the actions it carries out. These things are not lost on ordinary people in the Middle East. They do not need to be scholars, they do not to be intellectuals to understand this very basic premise that the actions of incidents continue to create ripple effects that we are feeling decade after decade as a result of it. HARRIS-PERRY: Stick with us, much more. Up next, there is news this morning on the escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Secretary of State John Kerry weighs in when we come back. Plus, my one on one interview with Attorney General Eric Holder. HARRIS-PERRY: Fighting still rages between Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatists. Ukraine`s president Petro Poroshenko advocated for a ceasefire today in a phone call with Russian president Vladimir Putin and other world leaders. The leaders plan to meet in Wednesday in Minsk to discuss further, even while a cessation of hostilities, Poroshenko`s still requesting weapons from the west. More than 5,000 have been killed since fighting began in April more that 220 civilians have been killed in just the last three weeks. The U.S. has been sending Ukraine body armor and other supplies. But now officials are debating whether to help arm Ukraine with lethal weapons. Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden spoke at the Munich Security Conference, but he did not address weapons deliveries. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VICE PRESIDENT: So we will continue to provide Ukraine with security assistance, not to encourage war, but to allow Ukraine to defend itself. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: And in the most recent news, it is the Secretary of State John Kerry who sat down with an exclusive interview with Chuck Todd to discuss this continuing issue. He said this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHUCK TODD, MSNBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: How soon will the suns by providing more security assistance, heavier artillery, to Ukraine? JOHN KERRY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECRETARY OF STATE: I have no doubt that additional assistance of economic kind and others, other kind will be going to Ukraine, and we do so understanding that there is no military solution. The solution is a political diplomatic one, but President Putin has got to make the decision to take an off-ramp, and we have to make it clear to him that we are absolutely committed to the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine, no matter what. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Nina. KHRUSHCHEVA: OK. Well, I`m glad they are going to be committed to make it absolutely clear to President Putin that they are committed, as if they haven`t done it in a year. How is it going to happen? It certainly will not happen to by supplying lethal arms to Ukraine. I don`t know if we`re planning to talk about but that`s why the French and Germans are shuttling between Moscow and Kiev and their home countries and talking to John Kerry, precisely because this is really not a winning scenario, this is the worst- case scenario they can have. Start a war in Europe. HARRIS-PERRY: And the Germans are all in though, in the provision of weapons to Ukraine and supporting that and saying well, we`re going to have to do what we have to do here in the provisioning. KHRUSHCHEVA: Well, they say they`re going to do what they have to do, but Angela Markel just said there is no even an indication that if Ukraine has better weapons it`s actually going to win war over Putin because his weapons are still going be better. I think that`s why diplomacy is the most important route that they can take, but I really wish that John Kerry, after a year of talking to his Russian counterparts and around the world, really have stronger language in a sense, more refined language, how it is exactly they`re going to make it clear to Vladimir Putin. HARRIS-PERRY: Also I guess my other question is, why would Putin take the off-ramp? Just to step back, put myself in that situation, I`m Vladimir Putin, what is my incentive structure to get out? LEVERETT: The only thing we know that actually works with Putin, and I think you know we are at large with other countries is if you rebuild the relationship, if talk to them, take their interests seriously, you look at a serious way to go about having a neutral Ukraine. It`s gonna sound completely counter-intuitive. To say security assistance to Ukraine, no, it`s war assistance. What would be real security assistance is if we could rebuild the relationship with Russia, have a much more secure architecture in Europe that included Russia, that actually would help Ukraine and that would help. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: But is Putin interested in that? LAUSANNE: The thing is for a number of years Putin has felt disrespected. The U.S. and the EUs role is really part of what`s created this mess. In 2013, the European Union with the backing of the U.S. put this proposal before the former president, which was to woo Ukraine away. Ukraine is the last apple on the tree from the old Soviet Union. Virtually, every single war saw pact country is a neighbor of NATO. So Russia has been feeling this. They did this without even consulting Russia. Russia presented a counter-offer, which the president backed off, and that`s what led to the demonstrations in the streets. And since that point, then you`ve had, within Ukraine, which has already been divided between the a western part of Ukraine, which is very nationalistic and eastern part of Ukraine, which always has historically been pro-Russian, all of that gets set in motion by the machinations coming from the EU. HARRIS-PERRY: And then on the question of disrespect, just as we clear that our government has apparently been watching television and diagnosing Vladimir Putin. KHRUSHCHEVA: That`s why when you ask what does he want? We`ve been talking about sanctions on this program and many others. They do work to a degree. For example, that John Kerry, that Russia has received from credit agency really bit very, very hard. Now, there`s all the swift codes, bank codes is going to be even harder. One of the reasons that Putin is willing to sit down is because, you know, we saw that many, many times. HARRIS-PERRY: The economic squeeze. KHRUSHCHEVA: Exactly. He always looks for an opportunity to look good. So for him now it`s an opportunity. He`s going to save Europe from war. He`s going to somehow alleviate a bit of a crisis. HARRIS-PERRY: And keep his last apple. KHRUSHCHEVA: Right, he`s going to bring everybody into that conversation. HARRIS-PERRY: Sorry. I`m going to let you back as soon as come back because coming up the reason why the Israeli prime minister speaks to congress when that happens or if it happens, many members will not be there to listen and later the mayor of the center of pointer-gate, I`ll let everybody back in when we come back. HARRIS-PERRY: Vice President Joe Biden is the latest in a growing list of democrats who plan to skip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s address to a joint meeting of congress next month. House speaker John Boehner`s decision to invite the prime minister without informing the Obama administration angered the White House, which called the move a breach in protocol. The speech scheduled for March 3rd is a mere three weeks before the deadline on negotiations for a nuclear deal with Iran. Joining me now from Washington, NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker, what is the reaction in Washington right to what`s happening on this? KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well Melissa, this is becoming a real political firestorm. That list of democrats who say they`re not going to attend the speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu is growing on the list. It includes Congressman John Lewis, G.K Butterfield, Congressman James Clyburn, Congressman Raul Grijalva. Now, it is anticipated that Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to criticize those negotiations with Iran to try to get a nuclear deal done in the White House, and some democrats say that their concern that his remarks could undermine attempts to get that deal done. They also empathize what you just pointed out, the fact that the White House sees this as a breach in protocol. Administration officials continue to fume about this. President Obama has said he`s not going to meet with the Prime Minister Netanyahu, citing the fact that the Israeli elections are just a few weeks away as you have pointed out, Vice President Biden now saying he`s not going to attend the prime minister`s speech. There are broader concerns here as though well, Melissa, how will it impact the United States` relationship with Israel, of course a key ally in that region. And how does it impact President Obama`s relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, a relationship that is already seen as being strained. There are some rumblings, some speculation that the prime minister might back out at the last minute because he is seeing this and sees this as potentially politically toxic as well. Melissa. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to NBC`s Kristen Welker in Washington, D.C. bringing us the latest on that story this morning. So Ayman I wanna come to you on this, this is a political mess on the inside of both nations. Clearly there`s a partisan divide, opening up here in the U.S. but this is also for folks who are not aware, this prime minister is running for reelection, and, you know, this is in part a question of the politics of the visuals and his powerful relationship with the U.S. as well. MOHYELDIN: Yeah, I mean, there are so many occurrences happening here that are happening at the same time. One of the most important though that should not be lost, is the big difference between Israel and the United States when it comes to the Iran question. I`m sure you can speak more to that, but this is now a major difference between these two countries for the most part has been locked shoulder to shoulder on many issues, traditionally in the Middle East. On this issue, we now see a wide schism (ph), and we see it manifesting itself in these ugly politics where you have an Israeli prime minister being invited to come here, speak to congress, violating the protocols of what`s been the norm and more importantly, and the backlash it`s created within the political leadership of the democratic party and others, that I think is going to exacerbate itself for some time. HARRIS-PERRY: Hillary, how important is this? LEVERETT: It is really important. I mean one of the things that are critical is that it shows how close we are to peace with Iran, which would be as revolutionary and beneficial to the United States as when we recognize normalized relations with China in the 1970s. Because President Obama has shown the courage, taking the page from my book, going to Tehran, showing the courage, gone forward and actually got us close to a deal, that courage has gotten key people in congress, and here it`s not been mentioned very much, but especially in the congressional black caucus. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: When we listed the people who weren`t going, that was CBC. LEVERETT: They started it. They had the courage to come out first when nobody would back the president, they came out and backed the president and said, what`s going on here is the president is doing something right and we need to defend him against a clear, blatant partisan attack. The Israelis fed right, they thought they can manipulate congress, and they went right to the republicans and they tried to make it a partisan game. I think they`re really gonna suffer when this goes down. We`re looking at fundamental change in the Middle East. U.S. policy cannot sustain itself the way it is, and if President Obama can see this through, he will have a legacy of peace and stability that will be quite remarkable. LAUSANNE: Yeah, I would agree with all of that. The other point I would raise republicans should also boycott this speech. This really sets a dangerous precedent. Can you imagine... HARRIS-PERRY: For the house speaker to invite a foreign president. LAUSANNE: Can you imagine the Labor Party in England inviting the president to come over and give a speech against Cameron? You can`t imagine that at all. So this is really a break in not just a fraction, this is really a break in protocol so we probably can shield... HARRIS-PERRY: Is it a challenge to the notion that the president of the United States is in fact the head of the U.S. LAUSANNE: Absolutely. The republicans seem to have forgotten this is actually the president of the United States` area of expertise. For Netanyahu, who is already getting much backlash, not only in Israel but among Jewish groups here in the United States as well, it`s creating an issue in which it actually harms Israel`s `foreign policy. MOHYELDIN: To say very briefly, I think asking a world leader to come lobby in congress on behalf of a policy is very bad optics for the United States in terms of its standing in the global affairs. HARRIS-PERRY: It exposes -- this is supposed to be -- partisanship is always supposed to stop at the water`s edge, this is the moment when. Sometimes to bad effect we rally around the flag, but typically that`s what we do. MOHYELDIN: And the Speaker of the House Boehner has made it clear he was inviting the prime minister to come and address because he has a certain degree of expertise on radical Islam, and the threat they were on posing to global security and that`s certainly his role (inaudible), there`s nothing wrong with that, but to do it in a public joint address to the congress is not the same. I mean, King Abdullah of Jordan was just here on Capitol Hill a few days ago, he was speaking to members of congress and senior members of the senate about the challenges his country faces. He was not asked to come and address the joint session of congress in an open speech. So there is an optics here that I think should not be lost. There`s a reason he was invited to come and address congress in a public forum as opposed to just brief congress on his intelligence. HARRIS-PERRY: Is there like a real serious 2016 domestic politics going on here, the notion there`s been a long historic relationship between American Jewish communities and the Democratic Party that may get fractured and ruptured in a moment like this? I would hate to think that. I would hate to think that part of what`s going on is just an attempt to shift that big democratic parted coalition, but it feels hard not to think that is part of what`s going on. LEVERETT: I think it`s even a bigger picture for 2015 for democrats, and that`s that we saw, I think, a very important, very smart move by President Obama, by the Democratic Party that frankly, I haven`t seen in six years, which was to lead the agenda, to take charge, to actually lead. They came out hitting in after the loss in the mid term election. As of January 20th, with the inaugural speech, what they have done in immigration, a whole range of things, it`s become part and parcel. Let the president lead on foreign policy, let him succeed, and then the chips will fall where they may in 2016, and I think the democrats are now quite confident, as they haven`t been in a few years, that this will come to fruition on a range of issues for Obama and help surge the democrats to victory in 2016. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Ayman Mohyeldin, and to Hillary Mann Leverett, also to Clarence Lausanne and to Nina Khrushcheva. Still to come this morning is my extensive interview with the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. But first, a trip down the memory lane of pointer-gate. HARRIS-PERRY: Do you remember these dangerous criminals from 2014? OK. Let me rephrase. Do you recall the time of mayor of Minneapolis posed with a community organizer during a get out the vote drive, and was then accused of throwing gang signs? That`s right. I`m talking about pointer-gate. The racially tinged politically motivated completely made-up scandal that Twitter loved to hate. Here`s the quick recap. During the lead up, to the November elections, Mayor Betsy Hodges joined a get out the vote drive, organized by the community group neighborhoods organizing for change. During an awkward moment seen here she posed for a photo, with the groups` employee, Navel Gordon, who does have a (inaudible) serving probation. Local news station, KSTP grew attention to the photo. With one person interviewed for the story, saying the mayor was, "legitimizing gang activity by flashing a known gang sign." The police union chief added the fuel to the fire. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is something that could incite gang violence in the city, and for as critical as she can be with the cops, is she going to support gangs in the city or cops? (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Local media was quick to point out the underlying story line here, recent tension between the mayor and the police department. You see in an open letter posted on her website, the mayor talked about her plans for improving the department, saying in part, some officers abuse the trust that is afforded to them and take advantage of their roles to do harm rather than prevent it. In the meantime, Twitter had a heyday with pointer- gate, posting photos of both local community groups, and famous faces, all throwing those alleged gang signs. We spoke with Navel Gordon on this program and asked him what he was doing in that photograph. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NAVEL GORDON: I was blessed to be in the mayor`s presence. I was pointing at the mayor, I was offered to take her out and canvass and so our neighborhood organized the change do work. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Just pointing. That seems to be the general consensus and the point of Mayor Hodges herself. She said she was just pointing. That in fact she points a lot. But we never had a chance to talk to her ourselves until now. Mayor Betsy Hodges joins me live from Minneapolis, next. HARRIS-PERRY: Betsy Hodges has now been the mayor of Minneapolis for a little more than a year. While the pointer-gate firestorm brought her national attention, she`s focused on substantive local issues affecting the daily lives of her constituents. Mayor Hodges joins me now from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mayor Hodges, it`s so nice to have you here. You know, few issues have captured the attention of the American public more than recent months than the issues of community relations with police. Can you talk to me how are you working to addressing that issue in your city? BETSY HODGES, MINNEAPOLIS MAYOR: Well, you know, Minneapolis, like every other city in this country has been grappling with these issues. What we have in our city, though, is a chief and a mayor, both who are committed to strong community policing, doing what`s need to make sure that the community and police department are working together on behalf of public safety. You know, we invited -- the chief invited the department of justice in to do a review. They have recommended an early intervention system. For example, to make sure that issues get caught before they become problems, and the community and the union and I and the chief are all working together to make something like that real, and we`ll be implementing body cameras as well. HARRIS-PERRY: So you know Minneapolis, like others is a place where we can look at numbers, and see for example, African-Americans in Minneapolis are 11.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, 8.9 times more likely to be arrested for disorderly conduct, but then you also said in this recent open letter that you want to make sure that the criteria we use to hire new officers and form community service officers cadet and police recruit classes reflects the community`s deeply held values around public safety and respect among others. Talk to me how that works, what does that look like on the ground? HODGES: Well, one of the best perhaps we have in Minneapolis, to make sure we`re continuing to hire officers who represent the community is our community service officer program. We pay for folks to go through schools so they`re prepared to train to be police officers, and we give them a job at the same time. That`s the best ladder into the police department we have for minority communities, for low-income folks, and we`re having a lot of success there, especially at a time when we`re hiring a lot given all the retirements that are happening. HARRIS-PERRY: I think also, for folks who don`t know Minneapolis, who don`t know your city, they may not know that it`s an increasingly diverse city, and that the non-white population in Minneapolis has really grown over the past decade. Your letter is a stunning document from a mayor, and that you said very clearly, my vision for Minneapolis is of a city where every harmful gap in outcomes that worse for people of color than for white people is eliminated, every one of them. That is a very bold vision. What actions do you propose to move toward that goal? HODGES: Well, I mean, Minneapolis does have some of the largest gaps between white people and people of color in the country on pretty much any measure that you care to name. So if you come into my office, you will see three questions on my whiteboard that don`t get erased. One of them is about how to continue to run the city well. One is how does it move the dial on growth? And the other is how does it move the dial on equity. Everything I do gets filtered through those questions. And growth and equity in the city of Minneapolis are incredibly intertwined, that if we are leaving genius on the table, if we are not training all of our kids for the jobs of the future, then we are going to hold ourselves back as a city and our brightest future. Because you`re right, you know, we`re going to be a majority minority before folks know it. We need to make sure that everybody can contribute to our growth and prosperity, everybody can benefit from it. So I`m looking at our earliest children, I have a cradle to K said the recommendations that`s out in the community for feedback, about how we want to work to make sure that earliest gap of brain development between the ages of 0 and 3, how we close that for, you know, for children of color, and white children. Anything from that to we just got a Bloomberg innovation grant, so that we can -- Bloomberg philanthropy Innovation Grant, so that we can examine in the city, are we providing our services equitably across the entire city? And then, anything from that to my brother`s keeper - I was an early adopter of the president`s program, My Brother`s Keeper, to really pull together folks in the community to talk about how we are serving boys and young men of color, and making sure they get the best possible outcome so they can contribute as well. HARRIS-PERRY: Mayor Betsy Hodges, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, it was a real pleasure to finally get to talk with you. You probably can`t see me through the camera lens, but I`m pointing at you. HODGES: Well, thank you very much. Thanks for having me on. It`s great to be here. HARRIS-PERRY: Absolutely. Before we go to break, we want to note the passing of a legendary college basketball coach. Dean Smith, who coached the University of North Carolina basketball team for 36 years, died last night. During his tenure from 1961 to 1997, Smith led the Tar Heels to 2 national titles, and 11 appearances in the Final Four. Smith also helped to diversify the UNC basketball team. In 1967, he became one of the first southern college coaches to offer a scholarship to a black player. Smith went on to coach several hall of fame players, including Michael Jordan. Dean Smith was 83. Coming up next, my one on one interview with Attorney General Eric Holder. There`s a lot more (inaudible) at the top of that however. HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harry-Perry. In the last week of January, U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch responded to several days of questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite some grumblings by a few republican senators, Lynch is expected to be confirmed within weeks. If she assumes office, she will make history as the first African-American woman to lead the Department of Justice. Making history has been a definitive aspect of the tenure of her predecessor, current Attorney General Eric Holder. He`s the first African-American to hold this post. After just more than six years in office, he`s among the longest serving attorneys general in American history. He`s enjoyed unusual reform with the president he serves and navigated a remarkably unpleasant relationship with Congress nearing the end of Justice Department leadership. Attorney General Holder sat down with me for a wide ranging Nerdland style interview. And I asked him whether the journey has been consequential and whether it was all worked it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It will be for history to decide whether it`s consequential. It was certainly worth it. The effort was certainly worth it. I`m proud of the work that we have done in the United States Department of Justice. And very grateful for the sacrifices that the men and women in the department made. You know, in 2011, we celebrated the 50th anniversary Robert Kennedy`s swearing-in as attorney general, perhaps my most famous predecessor. And I would argue perhaps the greatest attorney general we`ve ever known. That`s often times of the golden age for the Justice Department, civil rights -- variety of issues that they go with. Well, I think modestly 50 years from now people will look back at this Justice Department and say, that was at the Golden Age that they dealt with a whole range of national security issues, civil rights issues. They pushed when it came to LBGT, equality, they held people accountable when it came to financial things, we kept the nation safe in a way that was consistent with our values, rejected the notion of torture, and I think people will look back at this Department of Justice and say, you know, they did a pretty good job. HARRIS-PERRY: You once said that your worst day in office was the day that you had to walk through the bloodied aftermath of Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown. Children were slaughtered in their classrooms, and we have not made any meaningful progress on changing the access to guns in this country. Are we a nation of cowards when it comes to guns? HOLDER: Well, I will say this. It was the worst day I had as attorney general. It is I think the single failure that I point to in my time as attorney general that I was not able to, along with other members of the administration, convince Congress to really follow the will of the American people, which is to enact meaningful, reasonable gun safety measures the gun lobby simply won. You know? And I don`t think we are a nation of cowards, but I think that members of Congress need to have a little more backbone and stand up to what is a distinct minority, even within, for instance the NRA and do the kinds of reasonable things that the American people simply want to have happen. That`s a truth. HARRIS-PERRY: When Ferguson happened, the position that should have been filled by the President`s nominee Debo Adegbile was not filled. It`s a civil rights division. And he was blocked by the U.S. Senate, someone who many of us think was highly qualified for the position. HOLDER: I will say that, you know, Debo`s unsuccessful nomination fight is something that bothered me then and bothers me now. He is a great lawyer, who should be serving as the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division. Now, we have Bonita Gupta who will step in to that position, he`s going to do a great job, but I think he was treated extremely and fairly, he did what a lawyer is supposed to do, you know, take on tough cases that are unpopular. And he did so extremely honorably. The fact that he got penalized for doing that sets, I think I`m a very bad precedent. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Debo had a pretty uncomfortable experience with the U.S. Congress. That is something you are -- HOLDER: Welcome to my world, okay? (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: Do you hate them all or just some of them? HOLDER: I don`t hate any of them. But the reality is that, I understand where some of them are coming from, and I think people have to understand is that there are a good number of people up there who really is interested in making, you know, progress. And in spite of the fact that I`ve had an interesting relationship with many members of Congress, the reality is we have also achieved a great deal, you know? HARRIS-PERRY: One of the most fascinating parts of watching you in the Obama administration has been the relationship that you have with President Obama, which as far as I can tell tracks most closely with the Kennedy brothers. Not that you and President Obama are brothers other than in some interesting way, but I wonder if that proximity, that closeness, that deep respect made it harder or easier for you to do your job as Attorney General. HOLDER: There`s no question that we are close personally. And those who have said that because we are close personally that has led to a politicization of the Justice Department, let me just say, that`s just fundamentally wrong. He is at base a really good lawyer, who understands the need for an independent Justice Department. And I`m sure there are going to be things that we will talk about that we have not talked about once I leave office, once he lived office. I`m sure I`ve done certain things. He`s wondered, what the heck was Eric doing that for? But he has never voiced that to me. So -- HARRIS-PERRY: Do you say the things about race that the President wants to say and can`t? HOLDER: No, I speak as an individual, as an Attorney General whose dealing with an specific set of issues. And I think that -- that`s been a very unfair criticism of him, you know, this notion that somehow rather I`m saying things that he can`t say or that he won`t say. He has said more things I think in a positive way about civil rights than perhaps any other president of the United States. HARRIS-PERRY: Have there been moments in this administration when you`ve had substantive disagreement with the President? Not just basketball. The things that you actually disagreed with him on? And when you did that, did you work it out as attorney general and president? HOLDER: Well, you know these are not things to be worked out. I have areas of responsibility that are mine. This attorney general of the United States. I have to make decisions, and when I make those decisions, they are mine to make. And as president, he simply has to except when it comes to matters of national security. I mean, he obviously has the last call. But when it comes to law enforcement matters, those are decisions that an independent attorney general has to make. When I made the decision not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA, I went over to tell him that, you know, almost as a courtesy. He independently had said he had done his own research. He`s a constitutional lawyer and thought that the decision that we made was in fact the correct one. HARRIS-PERRY: Are you still optimistic about the possibility of perfecting the union? HOLDER: Yes. I am. I think that`s the beauty of this country. You know, we move in fits and starts. Sometimes we take one steps forward, then a couple of steps back, but we are always focused on progress and making things better. Sometimes it takes, you know, a little too long, but I mean, how can I be anything but optimistic? HARRIS-PERRY: It`s been a rough six years. HOLDER: Yes. But, you know, I`m 64-years-old. And I grew up at a time when my late sister-in-law in 1963 had to have federal troops to enroll in her State University. And now her brother-in-law since as the Attorney General of the United States, serving in the administration of the first African-American president. You know, things are difficult. Things are hard, but they are way easier than they were in `63 when Vivian had to deal with George Wallace and then go back beyond that. When I think about the things that my parents had to deal with, my father, you know, while in uniform, while in uniform and serving this country in World War II was told that he couldn`t eat in certain places in Oklahoma, couldn`t do certain things when he was at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina and then go beyond that, to think about what African-Americans have had to deal with through slavery, through segregation. We have made remarkable progress. We`re not at the place, you know, where we need to be. Simply saying that we made progress because it`s not enough. You know? Progress is simply an indication of how you are doing. There are goals that I think we ultimately have to meet, but I`m optimistic that over time my kids are going to live in an America that`s more just and more equal than the one that I am in now. HARRIS-PERRY: Sixty four is still quite young. So, what is next for Eric Holder? Where do you go next? HOLDER: Well, we certainly going to take a little bit of rest. These are stressful jobs. And I want to take a little bit time off, but I`m committed to the work. And I`m not sure exactly what form that will take. I talked about the possibility of getting together some kind of justice and reconciliation effort, to kind to follow on what I`ve been doing, going around the country trying to reconcile law enforcement and the communities that they serve and killing the issues of voting rights. So, you know, something along those lines. I think that`s what`s going to animate me in my remaining years. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: There`s much more from my interview with Attorney General Holder to come. We talked voting rights, the Supreme Court, Ferguson and exactly what he thinks about his Nerdland nickname "the duck." But first, an MSNBC original report on why millions of Americans cannot vote. HARRIS-PERRY: If there`s been one issue that is at the forefront of Attorney General Eric Holder`s agenda during his time in office, it is to vote. Perhaps not true for passage of the 1965 voting rights acts itself has voting in America faced more legislative restrictions than in the past several years. This past November, 36.3 percent of eligible Americans voted in the 2014 midterm elections. It was the lowest voter turnout since the 1942 federal election, but according to the sentencing project, approximately 5.85 million voting age Americans were not permitted to vote, because they were previously convicted of felonies. In fact, in 12 states a fully served sentence does not guarantee that a person with a felony will have their voting rights restored. Iowa is one of those states. MSNBC national reporter Zach Roth spoke with an Iowa woman at the center of an ACLU lawsuit, these extremists store the voting rights, a thousands of Iowans convicted a felonies, here is that MSNBC original report. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ZACHARY ROTH, MSNBC NATIONAL REPORTER (voice-over): In 2013, Kelli Griffin, a state at-home mom from Montrose, Iowa went to vote in a local election. Griffin had been through some hard times. A survivor of domestic abuse she told us, she suffered from drug addiction, and in 2008, she was convicted of a drug-related crime and given five years` probation. But now she was turning her life around. And voting was a rite of passage. KELLI GRIFFIN, IOWA RESIDENT: I felt, god, I mean it was -- it`s one of the steps to being back into society, to fulfilling that I am just like everybody else. I mean, I have overcome a lot. ROTH: She even took her kids to the polls to teach them about the democratic process. GRIFFIN: They were running around the building where we were voting, it was very chaotic, but it was still important. ROTH: But not long afterwards, Griffin got a phone call from an agent with Iowa`s division of criminal investigation. He was parked outside her house, and he said he wanted to verify the signature on her voter registration form. GRIFFIN: I was worked that I had done something wrong. And I was scared that I didn`t know what was going to happen next. ROTH (on camera): And what did happen next? GRIFFIN: I was arrested. ROTH (voice-over): Griffin had been charged with illegal voting, part of an aggressive campaign by Iowa`s then secretary of state, republican Matt Shultz, to raise concern about fraud as he pushed for a voter ID law. Shultz, who didn`t return our call for comment, wasted no time in blasting a press release touting the charges against Griffin and eight other former felons accused of voting illegally. GRIFFIN: I don`t know why someone would want to spent some $200,000 to stop someone from voting, especially the small number that they went after. ROTH: When Griffin began her probation in 2008, she was told by her lawyer that once she completed it, her right to vote would be restored. That was accurate at the time, but in 2011, republican Governor Terry Bran stat took office and quickly changed the rules, requiring former felons to go through a lengthy application process to regain the franchise. GRIFFIN: I thought that someone in the Department of Corrections should have made that clear that I was not allowed to vote. ROTH: Griffin testified that she wasn`t aware of the rule change. And last year a jury acquitted her. GRIFFIN: I was happy that I wasn`t going to leave my children. I didn`t know how not how I would handle that, but how my children would handle not having a mother. ROTH: Griffin would get to stay with her kids, but she was still disenfranchised. Now she`s the plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU that aims to restore her voting rights as well as thousands of other Iowans convicted of felonies. It`s part of an emerging movement to challenge felons disenfranchise with laws which bar nearly six million Americans from casting a ballot. In Florida, around seven percent of the adult population and nearly one in four African-Americans are denied a voice because of past mistakes. Rita Bettis is a lawyer with the ACLU`s Iowa chapter. RITA BETTIS, LEGAL DIRECTOR, ACLU OF IOWA: I do think that it`s inherently striking to folks when they first learn about this. Everyone assumes that when you completed your sentence, you paid your debt to society, you`ve rebuilt your life, that you should be able to have a say in who`s on your kids` school board. That makes sense to people. So I think felony disenfranchisement doesn`t make sense to people, and so we are starting to see pushback which is really encouraging. GRIFFIN: Why shouldn`t we be able to vote for who`s on our school board, or who is the President of the United States or who is our governor? I believe that we have as much right as anybody else. (END VIDEOTAPE) HARRIS-PERRY: MSNBC`s Zach Roth joins me now. So, she almost went to jail for voting? ROTH: That`s right. It`s pretty hard to believe. And, you know, one thing that shows is, remember, this was part of a push for a strict voter I.D. law in Iowa. So, this is part of an effort by republicans to gin up fear about illegal voting and voter fraud and all those kinds of things. Then the other issue is the confusion issue. When you have this system where the law is going to change, depending on who is on office, you will going to have people who think they can vote when they`re not allowed to vote as in Kelli`s situation. You`ll also going to have people who think they can`t vote when actually they can vote, so that`s going to lead to a reduction of people who come out and vote. And that`s part of the problem too. HARRIS-PERRY: Even if you don`t have felon disenfranchisement in your state, impart just because people know that it exists some places they may not even try to register to vote even if in fact they could. ROTH: That`s right. And there`s also this bigger issue that, you know, this really raises pretty fundamental questions about our democracy. First of all, just because of the scale of the issue, as we said in nearly six million Americans who can`t vote because of this, and within specific demographic groups. You know, you have one in four African-Americans in Florida. But the other issue is, just on principle, you know, we talk a lot about voter I.D. laws, those laws are as bad as they are, as discriminatory as they are, they are essentially procedural. Everybody in theory has to get an I.D. and show it, with this felon, with this enfranchising laws, that`s a whole class of people that you`re saying because of something that they`ve done that they now can`t change, they have put themselves beyond the bounds of our democratic process. And that`s a pretty fundamental issue with our democracy. HARRIS-PERRY: Absolutely. And we know, given the size of that scope, you say one in four in Florida is going to actually impact election outcomes. Zach Roth, thank you for doing that reporting and reminding us, keeping this issue of the vote on the table for all of us. Up next, more of my interviewer with Attorney General Eric Holder, starting with the ongoing assault on voting rights that we`ve seen during his tenure. HARRIS-PERRY: In my interview this week with outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, I asked him to weigh in on policing in America, his visit to Ferguson and whether he thinks the right to vote in this country is in danger. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HOLDER: I think it is under threat. The attempt by various states for, I think really specious grounds to have people to get i.D.s, to put restrictions in the way of people exercising of most basic of rights is something that we have to be in cognizant of. It`s something that we have fought against as long as I have been attorney general, it something worries me, a great deal. This is the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act. And the notion that we are still having these kinds of discussions, having these kinds of battles 50 years after Lyndon Johnson signed that, you know, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement is extremely worrisome to me. HARRIS-PERRY: The Supreme Court has been busy dismantling a lot of the accomplishments of the civil rights movement, the legislative accomplishments. And man, there`s something about watching that happen during the presidency of the first African-American president, during the leadership of the Department of Justice by the first African-American attorney general. In the end, when you walk away, as you`re preparing to walk away, did you shore it up? Or do you feel like it`s actually weakened after these six years? HOLDER: I certainly think there are new challenges that we have to face as a result of some -- I think wrongly decided, frankly, wrongly decided Supreme Court decisions, especially if you look at what the Supreme Court did to the voting rights act, essentially gutted it, but by gutting one section of the voting rights act, we regrouped and said, okay, we`ll use section two to try to bring cases. And we have been very aggressive in bringing civil rights cases. You know, what we have to deal with in the 21st Century is what people had to deal with in the 20th Century. And we`re in a far better position now, both economically, strategically, politically to deal with these issues than we were back then. So, yes, they have certainly been hits that the civil rights movement has taken, but nothing that I think can ultimately be overcome. HARRIS-PERRY: As bad as the relationship is with Congress, it`s nothing compared to the relationship that many communities of color have with police departments. Is that fixable? HOLDER: Yes, I think it is. I was in Oakland over the last few days as part of -- the last stop I made on a tour, a building community trust tour, to try to work in ways which we can bring together people in law enforcement and the communities that they serve. Those relationships have certainly been frayed in a number of places, but I am really confident, optimistic that those relationships can be made better. I was in Oakland yesterday, and in San Francisco yesterday, and then talked to young people who said, you know, we want to work with the police, we want to know who they are, we want them to know who we are, and I think that`s really been one of the values of this tour, bringing people together from law enforcement from the communities, faith leaders to talk to one another. It`s hard to demonize somebody who you know. And there has been a barrier for whatever reason that has existed, I think that we can lower, we bring people together. I`m really confident over time, things that are long in the making, there are historical issues that we have to deal with, but I think we can make things better. HARRIS-PERRY: So, there are these historical issues, but there`s also a contemporary one that -- militarization of the police, we all saw post- Ferguson, or in the context of Ferguson, there were actual barriers where there was riot gear and armored vehicles, and tear gas. Does that need to change in America`s streets? HOLDER: Yes. There`s no question about that. I mean, the appearance of military vehicles on American streets to deal with a civil disturbance was, from my perspective very troubling. You know, you can use an armored police vehicle in New York City if you`re dealing with a hostage crisis that perhaps is terrorism related. On the other hand to deal with a street issue that we saw in Ferguson, the appearance of that military equipment I think exacerbated the problem. HARRIS-PERRY: That August, when the streets first exploded after the killing of Michael Brown and the response of the Ferguson police, you were with the President, you were together in the vineyard. And can you take us into the conversations that you were all having at that moment about how to respond? On the one hand being so powerful, and yet being so powerless in that moment? HOLDER: Yes. It was an interesting conversation that went on over a few days. I sat with the President at the place where he was staying. We tried to determine how is it that we might have a positive impact, lessen the street unrest that was going on. And we -- we started to lock on the possibility of me going out there. And we understood that this was a high- risk thing. If the Attorney General of the United States had gone out there, and if things had not changed or if things had gotten worse, that would have been seen as not only as a personal failure on my part, but a failure by the Obama administration, but the President ultimately decided that it was worst the risk, that he thought I had a certain credibility, the administration had a certainly credibility, and if we did it right that we could have a positive impact. And I think that that was actually what was borne out. You know, all things were not cured, but I think we put a certain damper on some of the frustrations that people felt. But there are ongoing issues. I`m not going to ever forget the day that I spent there interacting with the citizens of Ferguson and the consistency and the concerns that they expressed and their real desire for change, and for a desire to be treated simply as American citizens. And that has really stayed with me. So, my hope is that on my watch, I`ll get to announce what the Justice Department intends to do. HARRIS-PERRY: We know we call you the duck in Nerdland because -- HOLDER: The duck? HARRIS-PERRY: The duck. So in Nerdland we say you have a very sort of placid and even way of presenting, but you are just working for justice underneath. Would you quack for us? HOLDER: I`m not sure I`m going to do that, but I like the analogy. HARRIS-PERRY: You do like the analogy. Good. HOLDER: Yes. Because I`d like to think that, you know, I was born and raised in New York City in the `50s and the `60s, and for an African- American guy, the thing was to be cool, you know? You`ve got to be cool, you know, things don`t bother you. So, on the surface I like to think that`s the way I appear to be, but you`re absolutely right, those duck feet are moving as fast as they can underneath, and things are going as fast as they can behind the scenes, and I may have been cool in Congressional Hearings on the outside, but I was pissed off a lot of the times, too, you know? And there was a question of trying to rein in those feelings and make sure that on the outside, I was cool. HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney General Eric Holder, it`s been a real pleasure. Thank you for joining us. HOLDER: Thanks for having me. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: I want to let everyone know that you`ll be able to see even more of my interview with Attorney General Holder tomorrow on the website for "Essence" magazine, Essence.com. Don`t miss what the Attorney General has to say about the women who have influenced him, the struggle to end domestic violence and what it meant to lose his mother. Now for us, that`s the time of the show when we turn to a little bit of popular culture. The Grammys are happening tonight. I thought we would ask one far from simple question -- who owns hip-hop? That`s next. HARRIS-PERRY: Okay. If you`re looking for a drinking game to play along with tonight`s Grammy Award, you will have plenty of reason to recycle the same one from last year. You remember how it goes. You take a shot anytime during the show when you see someone on social media mention these three words, white cultural appropriation. It was the phrased that launched a thousand, think this is after last year`s Grammy`s when hip-hop duel Macklemore and Ryan Lewis walked away with the works of the best rap album. For their joint effort "The Heist." And beat out albums from Kanye West, Jay-Z, Drake and Kendrick Lamar whose artistic -- and hip-hop authenticity had many feeling that they were more deserving of the owner including Macklemore himself. After the awards, he posted to Instagram this text that he had originally sent to Kendrick Lamar about the sub of Lamar`s critically acclaimed album "Good Kid Maad City." "You got robbed. I wanted you to win. You should have. It`s weird and sucks that I robbed you." Now there`s not likely to be any such conciliatory texts sent to any of the other nominees this year if this year is a great white hope of hip-hops wins the category. Because Iggy Azalea, who is poised tonight to be the first solo female artist to win for best rap album will happily accept whatever the Grammys will give her. And she told the Billboard, "I don`t care if I get a Grammy for best album our work, a Grammy is a Grammy, baby. No but he says, what`s your Grammy for? No, this Grammy doesn`t count. Any Grammy is equally good. I`ll take any Grammy for anything. And the Grammy you`ve got, send it my way, I will not complain." But for some music fans, there is plenty to complain about in the Grammys this year, particularly in this moment, when activists have been articulating the clear mantra that black lives matter. Rewarding an artist whose performance of hip-hop is itself a performance of blackness has left many questioning whether the Grammys recognize how much black artists matter to hip-hop. There`s more of that with my table, when we come back. HARRIS-PERRY: The nomination for tonight`s Grammys has sparked as much debate about race and music as the Oscar nominations did about race and film, except with the Grammys, that conversation is about who got left out, and who was included. First there is the best rap nomination of Iggy Azalea that has put her in the position to claim a historic first for a solo female rapper. That has eluded past nominees like Missy Elliott, even Nicki Minaj. He`ll won but for her work as part of the Fugees no as a solo artist. Then there are two of the Grammys biggest prizes for best new artist and record of the year. Both categories in which Iggy Azalea is nominated. Andin both categories, all of the nominees are white. And it`s a first for the best new artist since nominees of color were last excluded from the category in 1995. Joining me now is Michael Skolnik, editor-and-chief of GlobalGrind.com and political director for Russell Simmons. Jessica Disu, also known as humanitarian rap artist FM Supreme. Toure cohost of MSNBC`s "THE CYCLE" and Jaeki Cho, who is writer and co-producer of the hip-hop documentary "Bad Rap." Toure, who owns hip-hop my friend? TOURE, MSNBC CO-HOST "THE CYCLE": Well, when I started thinking about the question, I started thinking about the multinational corporations and their shareholders and that sort of thing. But of course she meant it in a cultural statistics -- HARRIS-PERRY: I mean all of that, sure. TOURE: I mean, look, I think about hip-hop. It`s going back to the `70s in Le Bronx and it was a multiracial coalition, even before they were really rappers, it was white, black and brown, mostly black and brown, but there were also white people there at the beginning making some significant innovations. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. We were talking about Ramone today. We were like, there`s no -- the hip-hop is never all black, I mean -- TOURE: Right. HARRIS-PERRY: -- without Ramone and I mean, there`s no right -- culture that emerges about that. TOURE: So I don`t want to say like, you know, well, only black and brown people can be part of this. Right? And black and brown people remain dominant in this space creatively, aesthetic and culturally if not economically. Right? So the question is fraught, all questions though on MHP are all complex and fraught, and thank God for that. But I mean, you know, I go back to Questlove talked about it. Can Bob wanted world domination right? That was clearly a part of a DNA from the beginning. Now, it achieved that, right? At least aesthetically and somewhat economically. In doing that, did you not think that we would sweep up some folks and some white people would say, hey, I want to be a part of that, I want to play in that sandbox. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. Right. So, I mean, in a certain way there is one might see Iggy Azalea as the fulfillment of hip-hop, right? As the global reality in which this Australian kid connects with this music. But I guess part of what I want to know then, it`s part of why I really wanted you at my table, Jessica, is what is at stake here, I mean, part of it is about the music, but it seems like hip-hop is always been about more than just the music. JESSICA DISU, FM SUPREME: Absolutely. Hip-hop is a culture. Hip-hop is the way of life. You know? It transcends cultural barriers. Like I`ve been blessed to travel all across the world and have seen hip-hop, great Graffiti, Breakdance, the MC and DJ and Knowledge. All over the map. So, I just think that Iggy as earlier, I look at her as a vanilla ice of this generation. And so, you have vanilla ice and you had Eminem. Right? And so they`re very different. Eminem is a great MC. I don`t think Iggy is as talented as she is, as Nicki Minaj and Azealia Banks, but do I think that it`s time for her to be nominated for best rap album. It just really shows, you know, how the Grammys -- I mean, does the Grammys even appreciate the contributions of black artists -- (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) TOURE: Can I ask her the question, as an MC, because you said, Nicki is over here, Nicki is over there as an MC, do you think that Iggy technically the flow and relationship to beat, don`t you think -- I mean, she`s good within that. She`s not terrible, and what she says is nothing, and I think Nicki also has flow, and technical and you know, some metaphor problems, but I mean, don`t you think she`s just technically as an MC good even though what she`s saying is completely vanilla and nothing? DISU: No, I think as MC, I think it is wacked, I think that her lyrics are corny personally. TOURE: Yes. Her lyrics are corny but the flow -- DISU: The flow -- I hear different female here -- sometimes when I`m listening to her, it sounds like I`m hearing Da Brat. When I hear her emulate another culture -- TOURE: Right. But just -- JAEKI CHO, "BAD RAP": Sorry to cut you guys off, but I mean, just technicality wise as a rapper, you don`t agree that she`s actually talented rapper. DISU: I mean, I think she`s decent. CHO: According to the -- you`re saying, is she has influences from different female artists. DISU: Absolutely. CHO: That came about these year, I mean, isn`t that the same case with a lot of the young artists now? Like from Kendrick, obviously, you`ll going to hear influences from Minaj or from Tupac. DISU: But here`s your sound bite -- MICHAEL SKOLNIK, GLOBALGRIND.COM: Sure. But the issue here is authenticity. Right? So, you can look at Eminem as a white rapper, and Iggy as white, you know, female rappers, you know, and came with his own struggle, and he was talking honestly and truthfully and so black and the drake cosigned him. HARRIS-PERRY: But do we know what the Australian struggle is? Because I`m really not trying to be funny. Part of what happens when we go into this kind of narrow black/white divide, and we define her as a white girl, okay. And there`s a way that her physical package provides that for us? TOURE: Sure about you. HARRIS-PERRY: But there`s also something about the international conflict. Your very point, you go everywhere, you hear it, right? I guess part of what I don`t know whether or not we know is, what it means for her as an immigrant. SKOLNIK: But Iggy has never portrayed that. Right? Iggy has never said, I want to be an American pop star. And she`s become that. And I think the issue of hip-hop at its core, right? Yes we have the fat boys. Yes, we have Will Smith and we have party rap, as real, you know, underground heartfelt hip-hop, but I think now with Iggy is a representation of what hip-hop is today, so your kids and my kids and your kids will say, Iggy was hip-hop? HARRIS-PERRY: All right. But let me ask you a quick question. Is it now the case that to win a Grammy or even be nominated for one, is it an indication of a lack of authenticity? I guess part of what I`m wondering, does the Grammy become the anti-hip-hop award? Please, God, let me never win one. Right? (LAUGHTER) CHO: I mean, the Grammys right before the taping, a story has mentioned that Grammy was never really historically a barrier of authenticating what hip-hop is. I mean, these guys gave -- I`m not sure if Colio ever won an award, I mean, no shot to Colio. I mean, for being nominated. HARRIS-PERRY: People thought when Jazzy Jeff and Will Smith won, although like Jeff, I mean, if I got the chance to hear Jeff now, I would go in a second. Right? CHO: Totally. But I`m just saying that Grammys was never really the barrier or the barometer of what real hip-hop is. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. You know, I mean, the whole voting process of what they go through is basically like you`re at a ballot, and then you basically don`t know these artists, and you`re voting -- CHO: And the kids say Iggy likes this -- HARRIS-PERRY: So to think about what might be a better barometer of authenticity, you know, we were looking at Rick Rubin on Genius doing these annotations, right? And I mean, if you look at Rick Rubin, you know, that`s what Rick Rubin look like. But there he is on Genius, and he can tell the story about 99 problems, and about 20 Jay write "The Verse." And about 20 minutes and sitting back, and I mean, it`s an amazing story. You can`t write Rick Rubin out of the history of hip-hop, and look at him. SKOLNIK: But that`s Toure`s point, right? The Beastie Boys, right? The Beastie Boys, I mean, he was the fourth member of the Beastie Boys. And the Beastie Boys, you know, they call him DJ Rick Rubin, right? He was the DJ of the Beastie Boys. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) TOURE: L.L. Cool J. HARRIS-PERRY: I noticed, some of you are saying no women`s names because that`s the other piece. DISU: Right. Absolutely. HARRIS-PERRY: So, like, in this story, we`re saying where is light and Latifah? DISU: Right. Absolutely. I think too is interesting because we`re having a conversation about women in hip-hop right now, and I`m the only woman in hip-hop at the table. Right? So, I think that, and I say that, because Iggy, I think that it`s Nicki Minaj, Iggy Azalea, Azealia Banks, they`re not the only three females. There`s still many that do not write the -- who did not have a platform. Whose platform, you know, they haven`t been able to speak to a larger audience. I don`t think that Iggy hasn`t worked hard to get to where she is. Because if you`re going to succeed at anything, you did take the level of a work ethic, you have to work hard. But at the same time her lyrics are culturally insensitive. To say you`re a runaway slave master is not cool. HARRIS-PERRY: Stay with me. More on this and more on the question of the men who are at the sides of the women in hip-hop. More on all of this when we get back. HARRIS-PERRY: If only hip-hop continues to be contested territory, there`s no doubt that women have long ago stake their claim. But before some of the (INAUDIBLE) female on the seize could take their rightful place in the spotlight, it took a cool sign from one of their male counterparts to make us recognized their talent. Camp, there was Biggie. Eve had DMX. Jermaine Dupri brought us Da Brat. And of course, Nicki Minaj is the first lady of Lil` Wayne`s money team. And then there is the introduction of Iggy Azalea, for whom CI deserves all the credit, or blame. And he has had to both support and defend her as he did when he weighed in with these comments in response to rapper Azealia Banks and his scathing twitter criticism of his artist. If you spend half of your day getting money and the other half of your day counting money, ain`t got no time in your day to worry about nobody else. That`s about the cleanest response we could find to put on TV. So there is a weird thing that starts happening. So, on the one hand, I don`t want to police the racial authenticity boundaries of hip- hop. On the other hand when I see the black man capping for the white woman in a way that is often quite vialed back towards the black woman artists who is taking this claim, it does give me a little like, oh, I just have a little emotion about that. Because, I mean, there`s a lot of problematic gender politics. But then you add the sort of race piece and it becomes uncomfortable. SKOLNIK: Yes. I don`t think that we should have, you know, white people, I hope, right, are included in the conversation hip-hop and have been some great rappers. I thought, you know, Iggy, when she first came out, I think she`s talented. I think she can rhyme. I think she`s put her hand terribly wrong. But I think this idea, it`s, you know, Eminem came to the game and said, look, I`m a student. I love this culture. I love the greats. You know, Iggy came to the culture like, I don`t care about Q-tip. What do you mean you don`t care about Q-tip? How could you dissed one of the greatest MCs? If you will be part of this culture, if it`s wasn`t by you. HARRIS-PERRY: Okay. All right. I hear you and I totally get that, but I wonder if that`s also gender. Because part of what you have to do to be the female mc is the full, ain`t nobody better than me, ain`t nobody came before me. There is no history, I am all. Right? TOURE: I`m not sure that Lauren and Missy played that game. I don`t feel like Latifah quite played that game. HARRIS-PERRY: She was foundational. She was like, no one was before me -- TOURE: She was foundational for females, but not foundation within hip- hop. There was a period -- we call her a pioneer now but there was a period of time before her that she was able to build on in terms of the jungle brothers and the rest of the native tongues. But it might have to do with her not being from America. It might have to do with her being young, which we quite often align with being dumb. DISU: I think that, you know, she`s not being from -- I think she`s benefitting from white privilege and white supremacy. And I think that if she acknowledged her privilege. Like, yes, you may have worked hard. And maybe, you know, she may not feel like Tia (ph) has made her, but you`re benefitting from a system that`s built off racism, off classism, off sexism. TOURE: Absolutely. DISU: So, you`re benefitting from these as this blond, white woman. Acknowledges your privilege. TOURE: We are just noting that Macklemore and Eminem noted their privilege and we appreciate it for that. She doesn`t even notice her privilege, and we are rightly offended by that. CHO: Absolutely. TOURE: And we`re trying to locate where is that come from? Perhaps that comes from her being young and not really understanding the game. Perhaps that comes from her being from somewhere else. HARRIS-PERRY: I don`t know if you can do hip-hop bad by being young. Hip- hop is usual. TOURE: No, I mean, just being young, you quite often say dumb things. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, I see. CHO: Like there`s a lot of black artists out there that obviously probably doesn`t know who Q-tip is, right? That are probably making a fortune right now. And by this, by no means I`m giving extra credit to Iggy who were trying to defend her. There`s no doubt that she basically doesn`t know history. Like, how can you be authenticated? How can you be real? How can be accepted by the culture as a whole if you don`t know your -- SKOLNIK: But I would also put hip-hop -- as well, they put on the cover of "XXL," TI, King of the South, co-signed her. But it was just not her. He can`t just say, right? Hip-hop is also crown turf as the white savior to white kids -- HARRIS-PERRY: OK. All right. I think this is so important. I mean, in a certain way, whatever you`re saying, around this like you need -- like well, of course this is where hip-hop is. Like even just the change in who constituted an idealization of a female body within hip-hop shifts so dramatically over the course of its time but to end in this moment with Iggy Azalea feels like, well, yep, that`s where we were going. TOURE: Yes, yes, pretty much. I mean, when the audience turned from primarily black and brown, right? In the early `90s to primarily white suburban boys, the music changed. Right? We went from nationalistic Afrocentric to people talking more about drugs. That`s what they wanted. That`s what they understood. So, yes. And when we start bringing in all the girls, you know, who want to listen along, yes, eventually you`re going to get Iggy Azalea. DISU: I think it`s important to also, to establish the difference between hip-hop, culture hip-hop and corporate rap. Iggy Azalea is a product of the corporate rap. So, that`s something completely. So, I think that -- (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) SKOLNIK: She`s like a pop star. DISU: She can be nominated for best rap album, it`s arguable that she`s an MC, she`s a hip-hop artist and make pop music. I doubt that but because of Iggy Azaleas privilege, you can nominate for best rap album or best pop song or what have you. HARRIS-PERRY: You just said something though that that was interesting to me. This idea of, you know, okay if this is where corporate rap is, that`s not where hip-hop is. And there`s a part of me that thinks, why police the boundaries? Why worry about who owns hip-hop? Because won`t we just make something new? Isn`t that what black and brown communities in the U.S. who are living on -- don`t we just make something new? We make the blues, we make jazz, we make hip-hop. And then we get make something new. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) Oh, yes. We made rock and roll. Right. Right. We make it and then it goes. Right. We make out. So won`t we just make something new like, all right, if you all taking that, we`re not going to do this -- or is this something about hip-hop -- DISU: Hip-hop is not only a culture, it`s a way of life, but it`s a spiritual thing. Like I speak to see young people back home in Chicago, in the community, my kindergarteners who I work with, they`re rapping, they`re freestyling. It something that comes from your soul when you, I mean -- TOURE: Absolutely worth keeping, without a doubt. But we`re speaking generationally because hip-hop is who we are. Our parents would be like, we`re still jazz to this day. Right? Our grandparents would be like, it`s all about gospel. So, perhaps part of our generation will be like, well, you know, there`s this new thing, mom. HARRIS-PERRY: Parker 13. She loves Iggy Azalea. (LAUGHTER) Thank you to Michael Skolnik and to Jessica Disu, and to Toure and Jaeki Cho I`m trying. I hope you will all come back and talk more hip-hop and culture with me. That`s our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. Coming up next, "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT." THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 9, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020801cb.451 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 37 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 9, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 9, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Morgan Brennan, Steve Clemons, Jack Jacobs GUESTS: Reese Halter, Tiernan Sittenfeld, Mike Papantonio, Mike Rogers, Derrick Pitts SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7419 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama stressed the importance of focusing the media`s attention on climate change in light of record snow falls and the hottest year on record. Same-sex marriage begins in Alabama after the U.S. Supreme Court removes a stay imposed by radical Chief Justice Roy Moore. Tensions mount in Ukraine prompting German Chancellor Angela Merkel to meet with President Obama to discuss solutions for the region. DSCOVR: NASA`s latest space launch to track solar storms. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It`s not a sexy story. SCHULTZ: Tonight, President Obama sounds off on the biggest issue of our time. OBAMA: Climate change is one that is happening at such a broad scale. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: Clearly, we`ve had changes in our climate. OBAMA: I`ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying, they`re not scientist. BOEHNER: Let the scientists debate the sources in their opinion of that change. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`ve heard of off the charts. SCHULTZ: Later, Al Gore`s dream takes flight. AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Because satellite was in the storage for decade and a half. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s where the Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite mission better known as DSCOVR comes in. GORE: You are use to DSCOVR being down here. It`s probably -- it`s very exciting for me. SCHULTZ: Plus, an Alabama judge speaks out against equality. CHIEF JUSTICE ROY MOORE, ALABAMA SUPREME COURT: When people finally can create rights, there`s no end to the power of good God (ph)... (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching. We start this evening with some brutally honest remarks coming from President Obama on climate change. In an interview with Vox, that would V- O-X, President Obama said the media overstates the risk of terrorism compared to climate change. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEW YGLESIAS, EXECUTIVE EDITOR AT VOX: Do you think the media sometimes overstates this sort of level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos, as opposed to... OBAMA: Yeah. YGLESIAS: ... a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease? OBAMA: Absolutely. And, you know, I don`t blame the media for that. You know, what`s the famous saying about the local newscast, right? If it bleeds, it leads, right? You show crime stories and you show fires because that`s what folks watch. It`s all been about ratings. And the climate change is one that is happening at such a broad scale and at such a complex system that it`s a hard story for -- I think the media to tell on a day-to-day basis. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: President Obama thinks that media clings to stories like terrorist attacks because it`s easier to cover and it rates. Climate change is more complex, it`s long-term and difficult for the press to get excited about it and cover it. We`ve tried to do it on this program cover climate change. We think it`s important extensively to the point where we have exhausted coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline. And we also think extreme weather events around the country are very important and we think it`s all connected to climate change. At this hour, New England is being slammed by its third major snowstorm in three weeks. The storm is expected to dump two feet of snow in parts of the region. Sound normal to you? It could bring the snow totals in some areas up to 80 inches and we still got a lot of winter left. That means digging out of 6.5 feet of snow. Over the past three weeks, snow plows in Massachusetts have moved enough snow to filled Gillette Stadium 90 times. Well the Mayor of Boston, Marty Walsh says it`s a record setting winter. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MAYOR MARTY WALSH, (D) BOSTON: These storms that we`re getting is unprecedented. We`ve never seen this type of snow here in the city of Boston in any other time in the history of our city. And this discussion that could be more snow at the end of the week. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Severe weather like this that we`re seeing in New England is really becoming part for the course. There`s little doubt among scientists severe weather and climate change are clearly connected. A new study from Georisk research shows world natural catastrophes have been steadily increasing. In 1980, there were roughly 400 catastrophes. In 2014 it was close to 1,000, easy math to do. Some of these events are happening right here. For instance, other extremes. California is experiencing its worst drought in over 1,200 years. San Francisco just saw its first January without rain, not a drop of rain for 165 years. Last summer, we saw record wildfires in the state of Washington, parts of Lake Erie turned into a toxic algae bloom during the warming temperatures. And of course in January, NOAA announced 2014 was the warmest record on global records. I mean, you go one, two, three, four, five, it`s one after another. These are record breaking times when it comes to severe weather. Meanwhile, Republicans, what did they do? They deny science and they say that man is not the problems when it comes to climate change. It`s rather startling. Last month, Senator Brian Schatz attached an amendment to Keystone XL Bill saying, "Human activity significantly contributes to climate change". 49 Republicans voted against the amendment including the new chairman of the environment and public works committee. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JIM INHOFE, (R) OKLAHOMA: Climate has always changed and always will. There`s archeological evidence of that, there`s biblical evidence of that, there`s historic evidence of that. It will always change. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful they can change climate, man can`t change climate. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Clearly, science means nothing to Senator Inhofe. A few days later, Senate Republicans approved the Keystone XL pipeline. It`s just the latest step in their radical agenda to let oil companies run amok, do whatever they want. Some Republicans want to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency. They don`t know why they just say they don`t like regulations as if they don`t anything good at all. They want to drill now off the East Coast and the President is wrong on this to allow it to happen and they wanted to drill in National Parks. As we`ve documented on this show, there is no such thing as safe oil drilling or pipelines. I was down on the gulf this weekend covering the aftermath of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. Almost five years later and the gulf is still a mess. If science denying Republicans had their way, all our oceans and public lands would be at risk. They want to drill everywhere. Next week on the Ed Show we`re going to bring you a five part series on the gulf. We`ll tell you about the destroyed lives and businesses, the environmental impact, the health issues that people are dealing with. And just what is BP doing when it comes to financial restitution. Our series starts next Monday, "The Gulf Today Five Years after the Spill". And tonight, let me introduce to you to what is known down in the gulf as a tarball. This is oil. This was oil that was released from the oil spill five years ago. And then they put the chemical Corexit on it and of course the mass comes together, it drops to the bottom of the gulf and this tarball was picked up in recent days by a shrimp boat in the gulf. Now, this is what`s happening. This isn`t being reported anywhere. The bottom line is the gulf is still a major story. Did you know that $20 billion that they committed for restitution for all the people who`re hurt on the gulf. No, only $4 billion has been paid off. Do you know that there`s a tremendous amount of litigation that taking place right now and lives have been destroyed, careers have been lost and there`s a tremendous amount of strive in the gulf right now. But if you see the commercials and you listen to the PR hacks (ph) out there, you think, oh, hell the gulf is on the roll. It is not. We will bring you the story next week here on the Ed Show. Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Do you think Republicans will ever admit humans cause climate change? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can leave a comment on our blog at ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring the results later on in the show. For more on our discussion tonight, let me bring in Dr. Reese Halter Conservation Biologist at MUSE school, also Tiernan Sittenfeld is with us tonight, she is a League of Conservation Voters and also, Mike Papantonio, Ring of Fire Radio host and America`s attorney. Gentlemen -- ladies and gentlemen, great to have to have you with us tonight. It`s good to be back in New York. And Mike, you did some work with us this weekend down in the gulf. It was absolutely amazing in what we saw. If I may focus back first of all to climate. Dr. Halter, are you off your rocker because there are some people in the Congress that are in total denial and say that people like you are nothing but an extremist when you talk about all the extremes that we`re seeing right now. In fact, they`ve been around for a long time. What`s your response to the way the Republicans are talking about climate change? DR. REESE HALTER, CONSERVATION BIOLOGIST: Yeah. Well, good evening, Ed. You know, all I want to say is, let`s take a look at nature. Nature shows those that are looking and those that have trained for 30 plus years what`s going down. Let`s go back to 2010, Ed. In California, which by the way supplies $44.7 billion per annum of agriculture to our nation, we are the number one producer. And 50 percent of everything on your dinner plate comes from our state. Now, the honeybees produce 27.5 million pounds of honey in 2010. That honey winds up in your favorite cereals, in your bread, in your beverages, in your sausage. In 2013, three years into our deep drought 10.9 million pounds of honey was produced. A 61 percent drop. 2014 the numbers are in, my friends tell me those numbers are lower. Look, the trees in these droughts and the plants aren`t producing flowers. They`re not producing flowers the bees can`t go in for their nectar but worse that means that our food supply is in jeopardy. SCHULTZ: All right. HALTER: I`ll say it again. We`ve got to future-proof our nation now. SITTENFELD: Tiernan, what`s your response to the President`s comments that the media and climate change just don`t seem to mix very well, that we`re ambulance chasing. I mean that`s by paraphrasing it, that`s basically what the President says if it bleeds it leads, well I can tell you that gulf is bleeding and I`m going to tell that story next week. But the President is saying the climate change doesn`t get the coverage it deserves. What`s your response to that? TIERNAN SITTENFELD, LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION AND VOTERS: I think historically, climate change has not gotten the attention that it deserves but I think actually ED, thanks to people like you there is more and more appropriate attention to the incredible calamity of climate change that`s clearly happening more quickly and more severely than scientist had predicted. Whether it`s the algae bloom in Toledo, Ohio that prevented 500,000 people from drinking their own water, that droughts, the forest fires that you have talked about. So whether has not been enough attention to the problems, I think that we are seeing that start to change and I hope that more and more people will follow your lead. Because the thing that`s encouraging is that there are so many solutions at our disposal whether it`s doubling down on energy efficiency, on clean renewable energy like wind and solar, on cutting carbon pollution and yes, keeping the dirtiest fuels on the ground like Tar Sands oil in the ground for good. SCHULTZ: Mike, the President says climate change coverage doesn`t rate? What your response to that? MIKE PAPANTONIO, RING OF FIRE RADIO: Well, a large number of mediales (ph) have made a potentially catastrophic climate change story into snooze, in snowier moment for a couple of reasons. First the American public is now officially reading and comprehending around on middle school levels so it make it easy for Fox to come in with a 10-second sound bites, and simply take the story and make it into a disaster. Second, Americans are experiencing this. They`re not experiencing this dust bowl neighborhood like we see in Texas and California. They can`t see oceans creeping up to their front door. They see winter storm chaos and they don`t understand that they`re already experiencing climate change. They don`t get that because at the same time, they`re seeing these worst storms take place. They`re listening to Fox quality soft more comments about how snow storms prove that there is no global warming so it`s difficult to explain the science behind that in a 10-seconds sound bite. Also there`s this overwhelming amount of corporate and billionaire money being pumped into think tanks lobbying fraudulent Astroturf groups to convince us not to worry that it`s all a big hoax. SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: The ship really isn`t sinking. Ignore all the water that`s on the deck. And so its complex and you can`t really blame the media entirely. It`s a tough story to tell in 10 seconds. And when you have competitors like these think tanks in Fox News destroying the effort to tell the story, it becomes very difficult. SCHULTZ: Well the denial by elected officials is utterly amazing. Now, Reese, you do think that there`s any doubt that climate change and severe weather patterns are connected? HALTER: Well, there is no doubt, Ed. And as a matter of fact -- if we went down to Miami and you ask the mayor, they`ve got a very big problem. They`re below sea level and my colleague two weeks ago at Harvard released a paper showing that sea level is actually rising 25 percent faster than we previously thought. Again, for every problem there are at least three solutions. Now, we mortals on Main Street that can translate into jobs... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HALTER: ... into future-proofing and it`s going to happen, Ed. SCHULTZ: Tiernan, is the media from your standpoint would they -- if they did a better job and focused more and I think that`s basically what the President was asking the media to do, that it would eliminate these deniers, that it would turn some heads, that maybe their attitude would be different. SITTENFELD: Absolutely. Although there`s been progress clearly that media needs to focused a lot more on climate science, on asking members of Congress and people running for president, do they deny the basic science of climate change, are they going to side with polluting industries or are they going to stand up for future generations and really try to protect the planet? And I think, again, we had started to see some change but more and more we need to see calling... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SITTENFELD: ... out of the more than a hundred climate change deniers in Congress. That is simply outrageous. There was a little bit of progress with the amendment that Senator Schatz offered. There were actually five Republicans in the Senate who acknowledge that climate change is happening and that humans are significantly contributing to it but that does beg the question. Well, if you think its happening then what is the solution? What are the actions that we should take? Should we be cutting carbon pollution from coal burning power plants and absolutely the answered yes... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SITTENFELD: ... and overwhelmingly in support of it. SCHULTZ: Well, I think that the media did spend more time on it, that there would be some attitudes changing and I think you can use BP as an example Mike Papantanio, they`ve told a lot of people that things are OK in the gulf. Don`t worry about it. PAPANTONIO: Yeah. BP is spending millions of dollars a month to convince the rest of the country that there is no problem here and look the other way. And they`re using the science denial. It`s destroyed the ecosystem down here on the coast. Anybody who`s knowledgeable, who will the face the facts knows that. But the real ugly part of the story Ed is that there`s not enough pressure on BP. Somebody has got to step on their neck... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: ... and make sure that they do what they`re supposed to do. When you were down here, when MSNBC was covering this story, all of a sudden people are saying, they`re grateful for the idea that the media is again paying attention to a story that has not going away. There are still dolphins coming up on the shore and just (inaudible)... SCHULTZ: We`ll show you pictures of Cat Island that you won`t believe. Remember, Cat Island five years ago? You got to see it today. It`s all coming up next week. Dr. Reese Halter, Tiernan Sittenfeld and also Mike Papantonio, great to have you with us tonight. Thank you so much. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen. I appreciate you`re sharing your comments with us on Twitter, follow us on Ed Show, and like us on Facebook. We appreciate that. Coming up, Alabama slammer, a conservative judge tries to slam the door on equal rights for the same sex couples. Plus, President Obama talks about Russian aggression and what it means for international intervention in Ukraine. Keep it here. We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MOORE: Nobody`s delivers you (ph), don`t you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. MOORE: The Supreme Court? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. MOORE: Nobody delivers you to come before God and say we`re entitled to violate every rule you`ve made. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. This morning Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore learned the Supreme Court delivers the final word. Alabama probate judges begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite Moore`s last minute attempts to stop them. Federal judge struck down. Alabama`s ban on same-sex marriages last month calling it unconstitutional. The judge put her ruling on-hold until today in order to give the Supreme Court time to intervene. Late Sunday night, Moore issued a letter ordering local officials to deny marriage licenses to gay couples. Moore said those who violate his order would face a reprimand by Governor Robert Bentley. It`s a desperate and dramatic 11th-hour move. Many were reprimanded -- reminded should I say of a moments on 51 years ago. In June of 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the state house door in the University of Alabama. He tried to block two black students from registering for classes. Wallace didn`t have the authority to stop integration. Wallace will be remembered for standing up against equality. Roy Moore is now trying to block the courthouse door. It`s unclear how much weight Moore`s order will actually carry. This morning, the Supreme Court announced that it would not intervene to stop marriage equality rulings from going into affect in Alabama. Alabama now joins 36 states around the country in the district of Colombia in allowing same-sex marriage. Joining me tonight on this issue is Mike Rogers of rawstory.com. Mike, good to have you with us tonight. I guess we`re going to back to the 1950s or 1960s here. But as you see it, first of all, what`s your reaction to this and what authority does Moore actually have here as you see it? MIKE ROGERS, RAWSTORY.COM: Well, I think he hit the nail on the head these guys want to drag us back to the 1960s. What Moore did was basically tell the judges in his state that they could not follow, that they have to not marry and issue licenses for lesbian and gay couples and same-sex couples. But the governor who kind of wants to write defenses said he will not prosecute any judges who go ahead and issued married licenses. So people in the state are getting married and I think that`s really what the most important thing is that hundreds of couples are able to walk down the aisle and, you know, nothing horrible is happening all over the state. SCHULTZ: So, what if a judge does deny to issue the license? What are gay couples could do? ROGERS: There is one case that we`ve heard of where judge has refused to open the office and a same-sex couple that went they`re decided to file a case that would put, that would hold their judging contempt. So, those that don`t want to do or avoiding it at this point -- and as I`ve said he wouldn`t even open this morning... SCHULTZ: Yeah. ROGERS: ... to issue those licenses. SCHULTZ: At least, 8 of the states 67 counties were told are still blocking same-sex marriage licenses, so what is next in this fight? ROGERS: Well, you know, it`s unbelievable. There are four cases right down before the Supreme Court that they have accepted as a group from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. So, that`s really -- what everybody is expecting is that we`ll hear those cases in a (inaudible) finally and we hope the court will once and for all say marriage equality for same-sex couples is required across America and then it`s a constitutional right. So, as I said earlier, these are kind of sideshows. You have Roy Moore who thinks he is going to stop the courts of history. He`s already been tossed out once from his position on that court because of his refusal is to follow the Supreme Court and now he`s trying to do it again. You know, basically, pandering to his electorate at this point. SCHULTZ: Well, how much confidence do you have that the Alabama Governor, Governor Bentley is not going to take action? You know, that he`s not going to do anything against elected officials who fail to follow Alabama state law? ROGERS: Well, he put out this statement today that said he wouldn`t. Of course, sometimes these guys get so much political pressure that they have to sway based on what they know -- against what they know is right. So it really remains to be seen over the long haul what he`ll do, particularly in places where this judge for example has refused to open the office in order to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couple. SCHULTZ: Yeah. ROGERS: And it will be interesting to see if he steps up and fulfills his responsibility under the court. Somebody needs to educate Roy Moore apparently, again, that the federal courts who precede the state courts in this country... SCHULTZ: Do you think that there is a parallel between George Wallace back in the day when he was trying to stop the inauguration of the University of Alabama and what`s happening right now? ROGERS: I do. I mean, here we have government officials who are refusing to cooperate and put forth the things that they`re supposed to for their electorate. I also don`t want to diminish, you know, a lot of the violence that was going on in the 1960s that we`re not seeing as much of that and those kinds of things but we`re still seeing some of it. So there are some similarities seriously. Hopefully, again, this will be seeing as a sideshow in just a couple of months when it comes to marriage equality in across America. SCHULTZ: And finally, do you think gay couples in Alabama will just not get married? Do you think this will curb the unions of gay couples? ROGERS: You know, we`ve seen time and time again throughout history what people will do to secure their equal rights. And I think that they will not sit back if there`s a courtroom or a probate judge who will sit back and not let them get married. We`ll hear people go into other counties. People -- all people want is the right to equality and the same protections for their spouses and for their kids and that`s all anybody is seeking. And as we`ve see it, it`s really heading that way and these guys are, you know, nano (ph) thoughts when it comes to this business. SCHULTZ: No doubt. Mike Rogers, great to have you with us tonight. Rawstory.com, one of my favorite websites... ROGERS: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: ... no doubt, great work. Coming up, tough talk on Russia. We`ll talk about the latest round of international negotiations. Will Putin back down at all? And later, a legacy of racial equality from one of the greatest of college sports. Next, your questions Ask Ed Live coming up here on the Ed Show. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I appreciate all your questions in our Ask Ed Live segment. Our first question tonight comes from Thomas. He wants to know, what will happen to the millions of gallons of oil that they just found at the bottom of the gulf? Well, this is a story that unfolded last week. What`s going to happen? Good question. That`s the $64 question. Number one, are they just going to let it sit there? Is anybody going to even attempt to clean it up? And who`s the overriding authority on trying to get somebody to clean it up? Do you think it`s good to have millions of gallons of oil still sitting at the bottom of the Gulf? Oh, there is no damage at all, is there? I think the Obama administration needs to engage. And it think one of the things the President could focus on and his administration the next two years is to relocate that boot that they were going to put on the neck of BP and make sure some folks down there are made whole and the environmental clean up starting with this gets back on the roll. Stick around Rapid Response Panel is next. MORGAN BRENNAN, CNBC MARKET WRAP: I`m Morgan Brennan with your CNBC Market Wrap. The three major indexes fell today. The Dow lost 95 points, the S&P almost 9 and the NASDAQ shed 18 points. McDonald`s share slid more than 1 percent today on news that sales fell 1.8 percent last month. All sales rose slightly in the U.S. they fell about 12.5 percent in the Asia Pacific, in Middle East and Africa. And a new Citigroup report says over supply of oil could drive crisis down to $20 a barrel this year. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Good to have you back with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. Ukraine`s violence may demand a policy split between Germany and the United States. German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited the President in Washington today. The two leaders spoke about the crisis in the Ukraine. President Obama will consider arming Ukrainian forces against pro-Russian separatist. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: If in fact diplomacy fails, what I`ve asked my team to do is to look at all options. What other means can we put in place to change Mr. Putin`s calculus? And the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that`s being examined. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The President says a military solution is unlikely but is possible. Germany is keeping weapons out of the conversation. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANGELA MERKEL, GERMANY CHANCELLOR: I`ve always said I don`t see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put all our efforts in brining about a diplomatic solution. No matter what we decide the alliance between the United States and Europe will continue to stand, will continue to be solid even though on certain issues we may not always agree. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Germany remains on accord with United States on sanctions imposed on Russia. The sanctions remains on Vladimir Putin`s mind for sure. The Russian President traveled to Egypt today to strengthen ties and possibly drop the United States dollar from bilateral trade deals. Peace talks with France, Germany, Russia and the Ukraine will resume on Wednesday. Joining me tonight on a Rapid Response Panel, Steve Clemons who`s an MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-large for the Atlantic, and also with us tonight Colonel Jack Jacobs, a Medal of Honor recipient and MSNBC military analyst. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. I almost feel like we`re watching a real life "Blacklist" unfold here. I mean, this is -- Steve, why do I feel like we`re on the verge to getting into it with the Russians? STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, because everything we hear and see is directed that way. We`ve got, you know, British pilots out there intervening Russian bombers over Eastern Europe. We`ve got threats in the international finance system to rip Russia out of the SWIFT code system which will have staggering consequences. We see a Russia that is economies imploding with both sanctions we`ve been impose and cheap oil. And we see an increasing escalation in Ukraine, at East Ukraine itself, of Russian troops and of Russian armaments. And people saying hey, we need to do something. So the temperature is very hot and we`re tilting into something and I am very concerned about it because... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: ... right now the tilt is towards action and that`s what Angela Merkel`s trying to throw a flag up and say, hey wait. SCHULTZ: Colonel is Vladimir Putin going to annex Ukraine? COL. JACK JACOBS, MILITARY ANALYST: I think so. Well, not all of it. What he wants is to the strip that contains what most of the Russians which includes, unfortunately for Ukraine, the area on the banks of the Black Sea which will landlocked Ukraine. So that`s really what he really is. SCHULTZ: Putin is not going to back down, is he? JACOBS: I don`t think so. You know, we`ve squeeze them economically, he`s not backing down. Oil is at $40 or less level that go lower a barrel. That`s where most of their money is made. He`s not backing down. You just heard Merkel say to President of the United States, you guys are on your own if you`re talking about doing anything about it. SCHULTZ: What kind of assistance would we give them? JACOBS: Well, it`s not going to be machine guns and small arms and automatic weapon. It`s going to be relatively serious stuff but none of it can be of American manufactures. So it`s going to be things like counter- battery radar for example... SCHULTZ: Missiles? JACOBS: Anti- tank missiles, multiple rocket launchers systems and perhaps most important from the standpoint of Ukrainians shoulder fired surface to air missiles, SA-7 types that will protect. SCHULTZ: Would it make a difference in this conflict? JACOBS: It might if there are enough of them. And if the Ukrainians can get their act together and can have enough people at the decisive places in time, but it`s really dangerous to Ukrainians. They`re always in danger of having substantial units of their army surrounded and decimated, that`s really, really, dangerous. SCHULTZ: Steve Clemons, how much of a political fight is this going to be here in America. I mean there are going to be some folks who say we can`t allow Putin to continue with this aggression. The President is talking about more options. It`s almost like we`re a little slow to the punch here. CLEMONS: No. It`s going to be another one of these moments where presidential contenders coming in 2016 want to paint Barack Obama as weak, diffident, you know, wobbling. When in fact, I think the President through most of the Ukraine craze crisis has been very smart. At the beginning, he said we need the Ukraine to define itself as both European and next to Russia that we can`t have one swing versus the other. He`s been very judicious about not going to far because that, you know, we`re feeling this is Ukraine, a silo into itself. But if we basically escalate, if we throw arms into this, we need to begin thinking at that moment... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONTS: ... what are the other areas that this could explode into, what are the unintended consequences and that`s a huge deal. And people like Henry Kissenger and others who`ve been warning, do you really want to have slippery slope into a new Cold War? There`s a lot strategic amnesia in Washington about what that really means. I could be a huge deal. SCHULTZ: So do you think Steve that, Vladimir Putin can be negotiated with that... CLEMONS: I do. SCHULTZ: ... we can move him in the correct direction to back off the slaughter and that`s exactly what it is right now. CLEMONS: Look, there`s a lot of demonization of Vladimir Putin and he deserves most of it, but not all of it. In his view, he`s a strategic calculator who is basically making the west now pay a price and also to demonstrate, you know, in kind of, you know, a run of, you know, bears and bulls in a market. He is sort of testing our resolve for an area that is 300 miles from Moscow and, you know, figure out how far it is from Washington D.C. It is a geographically stressed area. It doesn`t mean he should be appeased at all but it does raise the fundamental question of whether or not from a strategic perspective, we`re willing to sit down with this man and have a first principle`s talk about what he is trying to... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: ... achieve in the world because I look at this as negotiations and what we`re trying to achieve in the world. And that discussion, a strategic discussion at the highest levels has not occurred. SCHULTZ: Colonel, do we have a strategy in dealing with this? JACOBS: No, not at all. That`s why we`re talking about giving large scale defensive weapons and airplanes. SCHULTZ: We really don`t know what to do, do we? JACOBS: No, we don`t have a plan, and I think Steve is absolutely right. I don`t know whether or not you can negotiate with this guy but negotiation is absolutely essentially because they`re going to have to be some trades made because I can`t see no matter what we`re going to give the Ukrainians they`re actually going to be able to beat back to Russians. SCHULTZ: How -- and let`s go down the road of military -- American military hardware. What would Putin`s reaction be? JACOBS: Well, I think he would redouble his efforts to take overall of Ukraine and then, what we`re doing is if we`re talking about raising the ante there he will too and then what are we going to say when we`ve decided, we`re not sending 250,000 Americans to go fight in Ukraine, we`re not sending -- we`re not going to be there for a decade to make sure Ukrainians can defend themselves against Russia. I think we understand that, but talk is cheap and if we think that we`re going to be able to do it with anything other than a serious conversation at the highest levels, I think we`re sadly mistaken because we`re not interested in going all in. SCHULTZ: Yeah. And finally, Steve Clemons, price of oil has a lot to do with this. If his economy is going well, we may not be where we are? CLEMONS: Well, let me just invert that around. There were times and we decided that Russia would never have a place in NATO. When Russia was on basket case it was coming apart and we thought we`re high on the saddle and Russia is inconsequential. When Russia began to get some muscle, began to sort of -- begin getting capable and powerful in the world and Putin positioned himself to be the Ronald Reagan of Moscow, its morning in Moscow. They then -- that was a, you know, a Russia on the move and so I think it`s a big mistake... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: ... to think that when a nation is experiencing, you know, an economic implosion that it`s easier to deal with. It`s actually much, much more dangerous, much more a paranoid, collapsing, complicated Russia is going to be much more dug in with what`s its doing. So we need to be careful with that analogy. It`s when it`s weak that we need to create a contour back to some sort of global deal. SCHULTZ: All right, Steve Clemons, Colonel Jack Jacobs. Gentlemen, thanks so much for the conversation. Coming up, one of Al Gore`s biggest dreams becomes reality. Stick around for Trender. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And at the two-minute drill tonight, the hard court legend. The sports world says goodbye to Dean Smith. The former Tar Heels coach died peacefully in his home in North Carolina over the weekend. Smith was an innovator on and off the court. He pushed for desegregation and transform University of North Carolina basketball team in one of the greatest dynasties of all time. In his 36 seasons, he raked up 27 NCAA tournaments, appearances 11 final fours and a pair of national championships. Next. Puck up, Rob Gronkowski took his talents off the field and into the rank. The tight end is riding high after the Patriots Super Bowl win, how high you asked? Well on Saturday`s Bruins Islanders hockey game Gronk spike the puck high enough to clear the rink glass -- I was wondering if they had another puck ready to go. And finally, I got your number. You never get a vacation from being a Patriots fan. A man visiting the Bahamas got called out for wearing his number 75 Pats jersey. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BIANCA WILFORK, VINCE WILFORK`S WIFE: You know whose jersey you have on? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, Vince. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His... VINCE WILFORK, PATRIOTS DEFENSIVE TACKLE: Vince, how you doing? That`s me. B. WILFORK: That`s him. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think so, man. V. WILFORK: I like you shirt. How you doing? (Inaudible). (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Vince Wilfork`s wife caught the entire event on camera. The 325 pound defensive tackle, he`s kind to hard to miss doesn`t he? So, one of his fans managed to miss but was sure glad he was standing right there. He got a handshake and an autograph. There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: Time now for trenders in social media. This is where you can follow us, facebook.com/edshow, twitter.com/edshow and ed.msnbc.com and of course my website @WeGotEd. And of course my podcast is free, you can get it 24/7. You can find it @WeGotEd.com, rawstory.com and ringoffireradio.com and of course search Ed Schultz on iTunes. You get it free 24/7. OK. The Ed Show Social Media Nation has decided and we are reporting. Here today`s top trenders voted on by you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: It`s not OK and it has to stop. SCHULTZ: The Number three trender, loud and clear. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The biggest names in music were out and force. OBAMA: We celebrate artists whose music and message helps shape our culture. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At Grammys mostly sported a softer side... OBAMA: Together we can change our culture for the better by ending violence against women and girls. SCHULTZ: President Obama`s Grammy message, it`s a sour note with conservatives. OBAMA: Join our campaign to stop this violence. Go to ItsOnUs.org and take a pledge, it`s on us, all of us, to create a culture where violence isn`t tolerated. SCHULTZ: The Number two trender, jumping for joy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you remember those ball pits that you used to jump in as a kid. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So there is one just for the grown ups in London. SCHULTZ: Brits have a ball with an adult-friendly ball pit. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: An adults-only plastic playground where you can be a kid again. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where is he? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ball pit. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was a holiday surprised for employees that design agency Pearlfisher. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Add more balls. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you play more and work just a little bit less, we`ll probably be more efficient. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to go home now. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But I`m still working. SCHULTZ: And today`s top trender, DSCOVR. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We stand at this point of sort of on the threshold of history. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you do space satellite is that to launch which will dramatically improve solar storm warning. SCHULTZ: NASA`s latest launch will help track solar storms. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The DSCOVR satellite will continue monitoring the constant stream of charged particles from the sun also called solar wind. DSCOVR will orbit the sun in a fixed position relative to earth. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It will be located at that -- 1.1 million miles from earth. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So the (inaudible) can electrify the earth upper outer atmosphere causing power surges on the ground. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These geomagnetic storms can be very damaging to the critical infrastructure on earth. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Having some advance warning is critical to us. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And joining us tonight, Derrick Pitts, Chief Astronomer at the Franklin Institute. Mr. Pitts, always a pleasure. Good to have you with us tonight. This is pretty fascinating stuff but is it really important for us to monitor the sun`s activity that would affect our climate? Your thoughts. DERRICK PITTS, CHIEF ASTRONOMER, FRANKLIN INSTITUTE: Ed absolutely. It is important for us to monitor this sun in this way. This is the first time that NOAA has had an operational space weather satellite in orbit. And the information that will be gathered by this will be extremely important to helping us protect satellites in orbit around earth and even to help us protect power transmission systems here on earth in case there`s a very, very intense solar storm. So the information gathered along with the images of the earth and the monitoring the weather systems are always vital and always helpful. SCHULTZ: Why are we doing it now? What wasn`t it done previously? PITTS: Well, it wasn`t done previously because there have been ways for us to make these observations from earth before but it turns out that there was this satellite left over from about a decade ago that happened to have the architecture that would worked really well for this particular mission, this particular kind of study. And being able to place the satellite at this location about 930,000 miles away from earth, outside the earth`s magnetic field, gives us this opportunity to do this really intense study of the solar wind coming in. So, with the materials available, the equipment available and the launch services available, these things come together to make it a right time to do this. SCHULTZ: Have we seen a lot of changes in the sun`s activity over the pass decades? PITTS: We`ve been learning a lot more about the sun`s activity over the last decade for sure and we`re beginning to learn many things about the sun that we didn`t know before and that`s always really exciting. And the more we learn about the sun, the more we can be prepared for any sorts of intense solar storms that happen. While we`ve been observing over decades, we`ve been able to see the kind of regular activity that the sun has but we also don`t know everything there is to know about the sun, Ed. So, it behooves us to want to gather as much information so we can have -- as complete a picture of how the sun operates as possible. SCHULTZ: As a Chief Astronomer at the Franklin Institute and this is not a political question, but who gets credit for this? PITTS: Well, I think the scientists that came up with the idea that we can use this particular satellite architecture left over from 10 years to do this work really should get a lot of credit for this because they recognized that there`s a piece of equipment hanging around that could be use, could be could be pressed into service. So the NASA scientists, the NOAA scientists and all other researchers who figure that this is a good way to get that information really should get a lot of credit for this. SCHULTZ: What do you think the most vital piece of information that we`re going to get from doing this, from this satellite? PITTS: Well, actually it`s yet to be discovered because we don`t know everything about the sun but the more data that we collect about the sun the more we can learn about the sun. I think the most important thing though there are two really important things. One is the early warning capability that we`ll get from this, Ed. So we can have up to 60 minutes notice of a very intense solar magnetic storm heading our way. And at the same time, we also have this beautiful 24-hour view of the earth that allows us to better track weather systems on the surface and that early warning always turns into saved lives. So those are really, really big important points. SCHULTZ: Would this help us in our solar technology the way that is advancing and has advanced in this country and the manufacturing of it and what not globally? Would this advance that? PITTS: You know, given that there are two different types of operating systems for electrical generation onboard this spacecraft and what we might use here on earth, well we might not say there isn`t much connection. But when you look at the way in which spacecraft are powered specially with close proximity to the sun or in the inner solar system, solar panels really do work very well and there is no reason why we shouldn`t further pursue the development of a solar panel technology that efficient as the ones on space are can become nearly as efficient here on earth. SCHULTZ: Interesting stuff, did you think this whenever get to where we are right now? I mean, what`s the next big thing beyond this? PITTS: Actually the next big thing is the fact that SpaceX is the company that`s launching this spacecraft for NOAA, for NASA and the Air Force. Their ability to provide low-cost reliable access to space is really, really important. SCHULTZ: That`s interesting. Derrick Pitts, great to have you with us tonight. Thank you so much. PITTS: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020901cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 38 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 9, 2015 Monday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS for February 09, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Keir Simmons, Milissa Rehberger, Pete Williams, Howard Fineman GUESTS: Michael Kay, Andrew Liepman, Ron Christie, Mercedes Schlapp, Reggie Love, Jamelle Bouie, Emily Schultheis SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8300 words HIGHLIGHT: Jordan goes hard on the offense against ISIS. Mike Huckabee takes his turn driving the right wing clown car. He says President Obama`s against Christians and Jews, and only supports Muslims. CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Joining the war. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. Tonight, news from the war front. Jordan has carried out 56 air strikes against ISIS since one of its pilots was shown being burned alive by the group itself. In the north, Kurdish forces are taking it to them on the ground, and there`s talk of the Iraqi army actually launching a major counteroffensive against ISIS in the coming weeks. Are these signs the first good ones that the long-sought Arab alliance against the horrors of ISIS is starting to take shape? NBC`s Keir Simmons joins me now from Amman, Jordan. Keir, that`s my question, starting with the Jordanians. How strong an attack are they mounting? How long will they sustain it? KEIR SIMMONS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, they`re definitely mounting a strong attack, Chris. I mean, this has been a sustained air offensive over many, many days. They describe themselves, frankly, as pounding ISIS positions, hitting their fuel depots, hitting their ammunition depots, and they say they are depleting ISIS forces. They`re also very proud that they believe that (SOUND DROP-OUT) the UAE could get substantially involved. We saw UAE F-16s and UAE f-16 pilots alongside Jordanian F-16 pilots just today on a (SOUND DROP-OUT) so they do think that they are making a real difference depleting ISIS by 20 percent, they claim. But as you rightly suggest, the question then (SOUND DROP-OUT) will lead that ground offensive and how effective it can really be, Chris. MATTHEWS: Well, Keir, one Jordanian general told you, I hear, that the leader of ISIS is frightened. Let`s listen to that conversation right here. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have assets all in the air for (INAUDIBLE) of target, like al Baghdadi and his gang. SIMMONS: In your view, he`s frightened? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is no doubt about it. (END VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: Well, there`s always going to be doubt about the ability of anybody over there to defeat ISIS, but now there seem to be signs that -- the Kurds, of course, are fighting on the ground against them. The Iraqi army, we`re told, may go into action in some kind of counteroffensive. Is it possible -- I notice that they`re no longer parading around in the black suits, on the armored personnel carriers, riding around with their banners, you know, just showing off their ability not to get hit. Are they afraid of air strikes now and potential ground attacks, ISIS? SIMMONS: Oh, yes, they`re afraid of air strikes. They would be crazy if they weren`t afraid of air strikes. I mean, you can say many of them are crazy, but you know, they are in hiding. That`s certainly going to be the case, and moving around. And the Jordanians believe that al Baghdadi has moved from Iraq back over to Syria to try and stay out of the way. But when it comes to a ground offensive, I mean, that is likely to be led by the Iraqi army. Already, we know that the Kurds are complaining that they don`t have enough resources, and when it comes to the Iraqi army (SOUND DROP-OUT) that withdrew-- MATTHEWS: OK. We lost -- we lost that. It was a great reporting there. Thank you, Keir Simmons, who`s in Jordan, in Amman, Jordan, right now. I`m joined right now by Michael Kay, international affairs correspondent and a former senior British officer, and Andrew Liepman, who`s the former deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He`s with the Rand Corporation now. Gentlemen, let`s start with this. Do we have any word, Andrew, on the life or death of Kayla Warner -- Mueller? ANDREW LIEPMAN, FMR. DEPUTY DIR. CIA COUNTERTERRORISM CTR.: No, I think, sadly, only ISIS really knows what her fate is. I think it`s pretty clear but highly doubtful that she was killed in a Jordanian air strike. It seems even hard to figure out why ISIS would announce that she was dead if she`s not. But I mean, it`s way too early. There`s no proof of it either way. So I think we just have to wait. MATTHEWS: Is it possible she was killed by them as an execution, but they wanted to make it look like the result of a Jordanian air strike to get a double whammy situation there? LIEPMAN: Sure. It`s pretty clear to me that ISIS wouldn`t know if it was a Jordanian air strike or some other air strike. I think it was pure propaganda. I wouldn`t trust that at all. But the fact that they announced that she was killed, you know, is meaningful, and we just have to wait for more word. MATTHEWS: Well, Secretary of State John Kerry said on "MEET THE PRESS" yesterday that while there is a lot more to do in the fight against ISIS, the coalition is making progress. Well, this is good news, I guess. Let`s listen to the secretary of state. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We have already seen -- I mean, here`s what`s happened. Twenty-two percent of the populated areas that they held have been taken back already, and that`s without launching what we would call a major offensive. It`s with the efforts of the Iraqi army as it`s being retrained and standing up again. We have taken out a significant proportion of the top leadership of ISIS. Their command and control facilities have been attacked, interrupting their command and control. They no longer can communicate the way they were as openly. They no longer travel in convoys the way they were as openly. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Michael Kay, assess those comments. They`re relatively positive about the building of the anti-war -- anti-ISIS campaign by the surrounding of states, including Iraq and the Kurds and now the Jordanians coming on strong. Is there reason for optimism that they actually could challenge ISIS and maybe begin to peel it back? MICHAEL KAY, FMR. SENIOR BRITISH OFFICER: Yes, Chris, the parlance that`s being used there is quite conventional in terms of the way that they`re measuring effect. They`re talking about it in terms of territory and-- MATTHEWS: Right. I heard it, 22 percent. Yes. KAY: Yes. So I think we`ve got to be very guarded about that. I`ve been involved in quite a few campaigns now where one of the biggest problems is the measurement effect across all aspects of what, say, for example, military air strikes will do. When we say military air strikes, I think we need to be a bit more specific. The term that the Brits and the Americans are using is called dynamic targeting, and that`s a synergy between using precision-guided weapons such as 500-pound GPS on laser-guided bombs, and they synergize that with what`s called time-sensitive targeting intelligence, so Predators and aircraft that are listening. And when they see something or hear something that requires very expeditious action, they`ll call in one of these jets from the CASBAC (ph), a close air support stack (ph), and they`ll go in and they`ll strike it. But the measurement of effect is really hard to gauge. Short term, it`s a little bit simpler. They do something called BDA, bomb damage assessment. They`ll go back, they`ll look at the tapes, and if they`re using a precision-guided weapon to take out a convoy, they`ll look at how much of the convoy has been depleted. But longer term, it`s much harder because longer term, things like collateral come into play and it`s much harder to gauge and measure collateral. And what I mean by that is, if, for example, a school was hit or civilians were hit, because the ramifications of hitting civilians and collateral means that they will be able to recruit more. So it`s kind of counterproductive if you`re taking out a convoy of 10 ISIS militants and you then go and recruit 50 as a consequence of your actions. So I think we need to be a little bit cleverer about the measurement of effect that we`re using. MATTHEWS: The net effect. Anyway, U.S. Congressman Michael McCaul, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, said this weekend that Arab countries may have finally been galvanized to fight ISIS. Here he is with some optimism. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R), TEXAS: I believe the air strikes have been limited, had limited success. It`s a policy of containment, not a policy to degrade and destroy the enemy. I think, if anything, the lighting on fire of this Jordanian pilot will now galvanize, I hope, the Arab nations to fight ISIS. I think that under U.S. leadership, if we could galvanize these Arab nations, Sunni Arabs against Sunni extremists, ISIS in Syria, that would be the ideal. (END VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: Andrew, I think that most Americans, including me, that the way we look at ISIS is U.S. interests and whether any Americans are getting executed over there in the horrific ways or whatever ways they choose to execute our people after humiliating them. And my question is, how -- even if they reduce the territory by a fifth, as the secretary of state just said yesterday, that doesn`t stop their ability to just -- to stage these horrific executions, does it. LIEPMAN: No. That`s a really important point. And I think, clearly, we are better off now than we were the day we started launching the strikes. ISIS is weaker. They`ve lost people. They`ve lost equipment. They`ve lost some territory. But it`s way too soon to either declare a victory or to start beating our chests. ISIS is still dangerous. They`re still a threat not just to the region and to the residents of the territory that they control, but let`s not forget they`re encouraging people in our own country, in France, and across the Muslim world to attack civilians where they are. Just today, they put out another very effective, very snazzy piece of social media doing just that. So they`re still a force to be reckoned with. They`re dangerous. And let`s not get ahead ourselves. MATTHEWS: Well, let`s take a look at that video today. It features, apparently, a British hostage, a journalist, John Cantlie. He`s been featured in multiple videos from ISIS. He`s last known Western hostage of ISIS. Let`s watch a bit of it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN CANTLIE, ISIS HOSTAGE: Hello, I`m John Cantlie in the last film in this series. We`re in a city that has been at the heart of the fighting since summer 2012. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: What do we make of this thing? Is this -- what would you call this, Michael Kay? Would you call this, you know, Tokyo Rose kind of thing, where the enemy is using someone or with the -- how do we measure it from here, what role that person speaking there had and the words he`s speaking, the freedom he had? KAY: Chris, I think it`s significant, and the reason for that is one of ISIS`s critical capabilities is the ability to reach out across the world through social media and through galvanizing the Western media and infect and therefore recruit. Now, John Cantlie is the last in a long series of Western hostages, whether it be journalists or whether it be aid workers. And so they will have to leverage this last man that they have in order to- - MATTHEWS: OK, just to get-- KAY: -- keep galvanizing that-- MATTHEWS: -- it clear. Just to get it clear. He is saying words that he`s being ordered to use. He is a prisoner in every way. He is probably fearful of what they`re going to do with him, so we shouldn`t assume any cooperation by him beyond the formal cooperation we`re seeing on the tape. KAY: No, absolutely, Chris. I mean, you`ve got to -- I mean -- I mean, I can`t even begin to put myself in John Cantlie`s shoes. His number one priority is waking up every morning and maintaining the -- and making sure that he keeps alive for another day. And he will be doing everything to buy time. Now, I mean, we can speculate on whether he`s suffering from Stockholm syndrome or just how much duress he`s under, but the bottom line for John Cantlie is that the longer is he can stay alive, then the greater the chances are of potentially some sort of rescue taking place. Now, it works both ways. As long as he`s useful in spreading that message to (ph) ISIS, then, hopefully, he`ll stay alive. But as long as we keep watching the videos and they keep building up, you know, hundreds if not thousands of views on YouTube, that`s useful to ISIS. But the time that that stops happenin is the time I fear for my life if I was John Cantlie. MATTHEWS: OK-- KAY: But every day he wakes up, he is looking to live another 24 hours, and we should not underestimate the duress that that poor man is under. MATTHEWS: Yes, that`s the great irony here, that to the extent he convinces people that he`s really part of the ISIS push, he stays alive. To the extent they realize, as they should, that it`s all phony, that he doesn`t want to do any more than save his life, it probably doesn`t suit their purposes, then they knock him off. It`s a horrible situation. KAY: Absolutely is. MATTHEWS: And they`re manipulatively (ph) evil. KAY: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Michael Kay, and thank you, Andrew Liepman for joining -- both of you gentlemen. Coming up, the big split in the Republic Party over war and what to do with ISIS. On one side, you`ve got hawks like McCain, especially Lindsey Graham these days, who want all options on the table in the fight against ISIS. On the other end, you`ve got doves like Rand Paul. Even Ted Cruz finds himself somewhere in the middle this time. But are any of them willing to honestly say that based on everything we know now, the war in Iraq was a smart move for this country in the first place? I think that`s still a critical question in (ph) their thinking. Plus, a constitutional showdown over marriage equality. Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, the Alabama supreme court -- remember the guy with the 10 Commandments on display -- is telling judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples down there in Alabama, this after a federal district judge ruled that the state`s ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, a battle of constitutions and judges right now. We`ll look at the fallout, by the way, still from President Obama`s speech at last week`s Prayer Breakfast. Mike Huckabee says the only group President Obama will unflinchingly support are Muslims, not Christians or Jewish people. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with my response to Judge Silverman`s (ph) -- Lawrence Silverman`s (ph) piece in today`s "Wall Street journal." I don`t like it. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, Jeb Bush has a small edge in the latest poll from New Hampshire. The former Florida governor is at 16 percent among likely Republican primary voters, according to a new Bloomberg poll. Rand Paul is second with 13, which is pretty close. Scott Walker is in third with 12 percent, right up there. And Chris Christie`s fourth at 10 percent. They are very well bunched. The trouble for Jeb, of course, is that he`s viewed favorably by 35 percent of general election voters in New Hampshire while 50 percent of New Hampshire general election voters in November have an unfavorable view of him. So it doesn`t look like a great prospect to beat Hillary Clinton up there. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, roughly two dozen Republicans are considering White House bids in 2016. That`s 24. But four of them currently serve in the U.S. Senate and will be involved in shaping an authorization for use of military force in the war against ISIS. They`ll have to vote on it. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky are all staking out diverging positions in what Politico calls the Republican Party`s 2016 war primary. Interesting point there, war primary. Lindsey Graham says he wants more boots on the ground not only in Iraq, but in Syria, too. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: You`re going to need boots on the ground not only in Iraq but Syria. And there`s got to be some regional force formed with an American component somewhere around 10,000, I think, American soldiers. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, on that authorization question, Rubio -- Senator Rubio told Politico that, "We shouldn`t be dictating in legislation, you can do this, but you can`t do that. You can go here, but you can`t go there. I think it should be broad enough to allow him, the president, latitude in choosing the tactics, the method, the timing, et cetera. That`s not just President Obama, it`s future commanders-in-chief." So he`s pretty far over. Ted Cruz, surprisingly here, comes down somewhere in the middle. He doesn`t go as far as Graham in terms of hawkishness, doesn`t say we need boots on the ground yet. But instead, we should arm the neighboring Kurds, which is a middle-of-the road position. Here he is, Ted Cruz. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: I don`t believe right now we need American boots on the ground, and the reason is we have boots on the ground already with the Kurds. We need to arm the Kurds, and we need to use the Peshmerga as boots on the ground-- (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, and Rand Paul, who is skeptical generally of American involvement in foreign wars, says the 2000 invasion of Iraq was a mistake and has been called an -- he`s been called an isolationist by the most hawkish Lindsey Graham types. Anyway, in the defense, or absence of a formal debate over our mission to topple ISIS, Paul introduced an official declaration of war back in December which sets an expiration date of one year, a sell-buy date for U.S. involvement. He also warned about getting more involved in that region of the world at all. Here he is with his statement. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: We need to stay the heck out of their civil war! As ISIS grows stronger or they`re not quelled by sending arms to feckless allies in Syria, then what happens? Then they come back again and again. There`s already the drumbeat. There`s already those in both parties who insist that we must have American GIs on the ground. I`m not sending any American soldiers. I`m not sending your son, your daughter or mine, over to the middle of that chaos! (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, same-sex marriage is not the only area of policy where Americans gradually change their minds, as you see here. And the mind of the Republican Party seems to be somewhere different than it was back, say, eight years ago. We have got joining us now Ron Christie, a favored guest here, former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney -- or Cheney, I prefer. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: And Mercedes Schlapp, who is a former press spokesman for the Bush White House. Which Bush White House was that? The W.? MERCEDES SCHLAPP, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Forty-three. RON CHRISTIE, FORMER ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Forty-three. MATTHEWS: Too young to be the other one. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you. Let me ask you about this, since you`re both Republicans. Let me tell you, the way I see it is, Rand Paul is over here on the more isolationist position. SCHLAPP: Sure. MATTHEWS: Leave them alone, let them fight their own fights is what he just said. On the usual, on the more traditional hawkish position of the Republican Party, which is establishment, old-time thinking, get in there, take them on, get the bad guys, whether they`re communists, whoever they are, get them, terrorists, fight them, and don`t hold your arms back and say, oh, we can`t do boots on the ground, keep everything on the table, and then the other guys are in the middle. They`re just in the middle. And even Ted Cruz surprisingly sheepish about saying let`s go to war again. Your thoughts? Analyze it. (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: Well, here you go. I think let`s take Lindsey Graham out of the picture. I know he was mentioned in this political story. But he has a very small likelihood of even winning the Republican primaries. So, he can run all he wants in this aggressive foreign policy area. MATTHEWS: Why is he doing it, though, before you dump him? SCHLAPP: I think it`s a way of him getting the media coverage that he wants. He`s the one that being the anti-Obama of the Republicans, saying go, go strong and win. MATTHEWS: Right. SCHLAPP: Then you have got Senator Marco Rubio. He`s trying to approach it from a Reaganesque point of view, the peace through strength. He does fall into the hawkish area, but he`s also trying to be a little more from the sense of just keeping it open, giving the president the authority he needs to-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: He doesn`t want to constrain the president. SCHLAPP: Exactly. Senator Cruz, the most surprising out of the bunch. Right? MATTHEWS: Mr. Hawk. SCHLAPP: You would think he would jump in there. So, that`s the one that he`s basically saying, I don`t trust President Obama, I want to make sure that we don`t give him the authority to do what he needs to do. And so he`s -- and this is more of a fight I think personally with President Obama. MATTHEWS: I`m going to let them all speak for themselves. But you now take your turn. Analyze the field, from hawk, super hawk, Curtis LeMay hawk, all the way back over to Ron Paul, dove. CHRISTIE: Well, I think Mercedes was largely correct in her analysis here. I think you have a situation where, I hate to say it, Lindsey Graham is looking for attention. Lindsey Graham wants the limelight. Lindsey Graham wants everyone looking at him. He wakes up every day and he thinks he should be president. I don`t see the path any more than Mercedes does. MATTHEWS: But isn`t he kind of a war buddy, if you will, of John McCain? CHRISTIE: Well, of course. Those two are attached at the hip. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: He was your party`s nominee recently. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) CHRISTIE: It`s been a long time ago, Chris. But let`s look at the more serious contenders. MATTHEWS: Well, what has changed since `08? CHRISTIE: I think what`s changed since `08 is that the folks in the United States Senate are very concerned about sending Americans overseas and putting them in harm`s way and putting them on the ground. SCHLAPP: It`s a war-wary nation. CHRISTIE: Yes. SCHLAPP: They don`t want another war. You look at all the poll numbers. You`re talking that over 54 percent oppose sending troops into the Middle East, in that area. And, you know, over 60 percent believe that, yes, we need to do something against ISIS, but definitely no troops on the ground. MATTHEWS: What is it that we can do? We have got the Jordanians fired up, which I`m so impressed with. There`s nothing like a little revenge. We came back from Pearl Harbor saying, let`s go get those guys. Remember the Alamo? It`s a good thing to get you fighting as you have been hit hard. So they`re ready to fight. The Kurds always want to fight, because they want to be Kurds and defend their territory. But do you have confidence in the Iraqis? This is a great Republican question, because somebody`s got to do the ground troops Saint Louis That`s right. MATTHEWS: Somebody`s got to produce ground troops. CHRISTIE: That`s right. And I will tell you who it has to be. It has to be the Iraqis. It has to be the Saudis. You see the United Arab Emirates are sending over a squadron of F-16s. They have to deal with their region, Chris. And I think one of the things, when you look to 2016, of what is this election going to be about, yes, it`s going to be about the economy. But I think there are going to be three main drives in foreign policy. What are we going to do with ISIS? What are we going to do with Iran? What are we going to do with Russia? MATTHEWS: Yes. CHRISTIE: The United States has to be able to act and to react to those situations. MATTHEWS: Well, hopefully, hopefully Iran has been dealt with. But I`m not that hopeful. But I`m hopeful. SCHLAPP: See, Ron, I don`t think that the grassroots, the Republicans in particular are thinking about what`s happening in Ukraine. I don`t think that that is their main thing. They are concerned I believe about the ISIS situation, what`s happening. I think that`s really driving-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think Ukraine is a long way off. By the way, Ukraine has got to learn that it`s next to Russia. SCHLAPP: That`s right. MATTHEWS: It`s a weird situation to be in. I`m not saying Finlandize yourself, but, damn it, you`re not going to take on Russia and beat them. (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: And I will tell you, things will change if there`s an attack on U.S. soil. That will change the dynamics of a presidential election. MATTHEWS: Let`s not -- let`s not pray for that to happen. SCHLAPP: And let`s pray that does not happen. MATTHEWS: Although I think there`s going to be trouble. And every execution drives me crazy. SCHLAPP: Absolutely. CHRISTIE: That`s exactly right. MATTHEWS: And I think it drives-- CHRISTIE: We need a strategy. MATTHEWS: And still I hate -- I will not look at the tape of what happened to that flier. I will not even look at the beginning of the tape. It`s too horrible. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Ron Christie, my friend, thank you. Mercedes, like the car. SCHLAPP: Like the car. MATTHEWS: Stop charging so much for repairs. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, thanks so much. Up next: President Obama`s body man, Reggie Love, has spent more time with the president than just about anyone besides his family. He`s with us tonight to talk about the president`s sort of basic behavior. When he gets to the hotel room at night, what`s he like? I ask him everything. This is going to be fun. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, for five years, Reggie Love distinguished himself as Barack Obama`s body man, spending more time alongside the senator and then president than any other aide. While the role has no formal title or description, it`s commonly described as a full-time personal assistant who stays one step behind the candidate, but has to think and act three steps ahead of a typical 18-hour workday. It was that job that made Love a unique eyewitness to history and now he`s written a memoir about his experience, "Power Forward," what a great name, "My Presidential Education." Well, taking readers from his time at Duke at a basketball -- on the team there in basketball, to the earliest days on the Obama campaign, to the corridors inside the White House during the president`s first term, "Power Forward" is part coming of age story and part how-to manual detailing the personal and professional lessons he picked up along the way. I`m joined right now by the author Reggie Love, former special assistant and personal aide to President Obama. So, you have asked for it. And it`s in the book. So, I`m not going into weird areas here. The president, when he was traveling as a candidate, and later on as president, what did he want to find in his room at night when he got there? Probably 11:00 at night, he`s exhausted. What made him happy? What did he miss if it wasn`t there? Cookies and milk? A book he was reading? What did he like to have in the room when he got there? (LAUGHTER) REGGIE LOVE, AUTHOR, "POWER FORWARD: MY PRESIDENTIAL EDUCATION": Well, let me tell you, though-- MATTHEWS: Oh, you not answering my question? This is HARDBALL. That was the first question, Reggie. Answer that question, number one. LOVE: During the campaign MATTHEWS: Oh, you`re changing the subject already. LOVE: During the campaign -- I`m going to break into it two. During the campaign, I would say, you work 18 hours in a day. The thing that you really just want is, you want a bed and you want, like, a bed that`s made and clean, like, very, very, very basic. But when you`re president, I think it really depends. I mean, there were some nights where he`d want to play some cards or he would want to sit around and watch the game and have some chips or something. But during the campaign, if you`re working all day, you don`t really -- you`re not thinking about comfort food. You`re just thinking about trying to get to sleep before-- MATTHEWS: So, he didn`t need cookies and milk? LOVE: No cookies and milk. MATTHEWS: What about ESPN? Did you have to find out what channel it was on for him and turn the channel on? LOVE: That was a part of it, yes. MATTHEWS: He wanted to see the ball game when he came in the room. LOVE: You had to know what channel ESPN was. That was always -- that was kind of a must. MATTHEWS: How about breakfast in bed? Did he like that? Like in "Downton Abbey"? Did you bring the tray in? (LAUGHTER) LOVE: Well, I`ll tell you, though, he was an avid -- he loved to work out, man. I was really impressed with-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. First thing, because I have written books about this. Jack Kennedy, his guy Dave Powers would come in, in the morning and say open up the blinds, open up the curtains, get the sun in. Make him get up and say, Nixon has been out there way ahead. He`s done three stops already. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Did you have to do any pumping up of the candidate, like say, it`s a big day, get out there? LOVE: There were some times where you would have to say, man, Romney or Clinton, they have called 20 people already today. They`re on their second or third stop. MATTHEWS: There you are walking with him in a great picture. LOVE: If there were ever a moment in which he felt like maybe the thing that he was about to do wasn`t really worth the time, you could definitely nudge him along a bit with a little bit of -- with the-- MATTHEWS: What was his -- what was his first quiz? Like, what`s our first stop today, Reggie? Where are we going first? Why do we have to get up this early? LOVE: Yes. That`s not the first question. That`s the question the night before. MATTHEWS: OK. LOVE: And then he would ask the question again during the day, what do we got again? Just in case anything may have changed. But, you know, what cities are we in? MATTHEWS: Where am I? (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Did he say, where am I? LOVE: Sometimes. MATTHEWS: Yes. LOVE: And, you know, I would always try to mix it up a bit and say, you know, here`s what`s going to be really fun today. MATTHEWS: Good for you. I like people that -- I like producers that do that for me. LOVE: Yes. Right. MATTHEWS: So, did he -- would you say his equilibrium is like -- I`m not like this. But I want to describe some people I know. They`re pretty much the same person every day. Then there are people that have highs and lows. And they`re -- wrong side of the bed is the phrase, out of the wrong side of the bed. How would you describe him in that way, President Obama? LOVE: I think that -- I think he`s pretty even-keel. But I think there are definitely days -- and you probably have some yourself, Chris -- when you wake up and you`re just like -- you`re tired. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I would say things are working, like, some days things seem to work -- seems to me to be working, and some days they don`t seem to be working. It`s just the luck. But I argue about whether to go through this door to my workroom or that room to my bed -- I always argue about things like, should I walk around that side of the car to get the paper? LOVE: Oh, really? Sort of superstition, like-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: No, I want to know whether to go to right side of the car to get my paper or not to go to that side. But I have all these -- they`re like moral issues with me. So, that`s a point. By the way, this book, why should you buy this book? What`s it going to tell people, like, at your age and your -- it`s a trainer book in a way about life in it. Tell me about why they should buy this book, because i love this stuff. LOVE: A lot of -- if you read the book, a lot of people will take different things out of it depending on their age group. When I initially wrote the book, I was kind of thinking of what it was like for me when I was mid-teens, late 20s -- mid-teens, early 20s, and trying to figure out, what am I going to do, why am I going to do it? I came to - - when I got to Duke University, there was no sort of manual about, how are you going to be a college athlete? MATTHEWS: You couldn`t get into UNC, right? LOVE: You know, they wouldn`t-- MATTHEWS: Was that your problem? LOVE: I think they said that I could only play one sport. And neither -- and it wasn`t football or basketball. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: At UNC? LOVE: At UNC. MATTHEWS: Congratulations on the book. By the way, it`s going to be -- this is fun. This is the kind of stuff I call food for junkies. This is good stuff. It`s "Power Forward," a great name, a great title, "My Presidential Education." So, now we know what it`s like to be there, to be there in the room. LOVE: Well, it`s a blessing to have had the opportunity. And I appreciate you-- MATTHEWS: Has he read it? LOVE: He has read it, actually. He said it was an easy read and he thought he was -- he said he thought it was kind. MATTHEWS: Did you test him, make sure he read it? LOVE: I didn`t test him. MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Thank you, Reggie Love. Thanks for coming on the show too. LOVE: Thanks, Chris. I appreciate that. MATTHEWS: Up next, a constitutional showdown over marriage equality. Alabama`s chief justice, Roy Moore, remember him, is taking on the feds over the right to same-sex marriage. And it looks like he`s losing. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hello. I`m Milissa Rehberger. The city of Boston has just suspended all rail service until Wednesday, after today`s storm has already dumped 20 inches of snow. Earlier today, a disabled train left some 50 passengers stranded for more than two hours. And more trouble lies ahead. Forecasters say two major storms could hit the Northeast later on this week. Meanwhile, in Chicago area, a 14th person has died from shoveling snow after one of the city`s worst storms ever. And, in Texas, a jury has been seated in the trial of a man accused of killing so-called American sniper Chris Kyle and his friend -- back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, this morning, in a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court refused to stop same-sex couples from getting married in Alabama, this after Alabama`s chief justice, Roy Moore, ordered probate judges in that state to not issue licenses to same-sex couples. Presently, there`s a lot of confusion in Alabama right now. What is going on? NBC News correspondent Pete Williams is here to explain it. Pete, it looked confusing in the morning. Help us out. (LAUGHTER) PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Well, that`s right. There are about -- only about a third of these judges are actually issuing the marriage licenses after the state Supreme Court justice said they have to obey the Alabama Constitution. Now, he`s certainly right. They do. But they also have to obey the federal Constitution. And a couple of weeks ago, a federal judge says, under the U.S. Constitution, the state cannot ban same-sex marriages. Now, already, lawyers for same-sex couples have tried to hold -- get the federal court to hold those judges in contempt of court. The court said no, but did indicate that it`s -- these judges who refuse to issue these licenses can now be sued. MATTHEWS: OK. So if you`re Ted Olson right now or Ted Boutrous or you`re David Boies, are you pretty happy at the direction this seems to be pointing, where the court`s headed this summer? WILLIAMS: Well, yes, and for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court today declined the state of Alabama`s request to put a hold on that ruling until the Supreme Court decides the same-sex marriage question for the entire country, which it will hear in April and decide by June. So you have got to assume that, if the Supreme Court said, no, we`re not going to put a stay on Alabama, why, you would ask yourself - - if the Supreme Court is going to go ahead and approve same-sex marriage, why would it stop it in Alabama now? That`s thing one. And thing two, just listen to what Thomas and Scalia said today in their dissent. They said the court seems to be tipping its hand. It seemed to be foreshadowing this decision. Yes, for those two reasons. MATTHEWS: Thanks, as always great. Pete Williams, you made it clear. I`m joined by the roundtable tonight. Jamelle Bouie of "Slate", Emily Schultheis of "National Journal", and "The Huffington Post" global expert on everything, Howard Fineman, great guy on this show. Thank you for everything, MSNBC expertise. Let`s go to you, Howard, because you -- HOWARD FINEMAN, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Yes. MATTHEWS: This is fascinating. It could be history could be made this summer. This seems to be a leading indicator that the courts are going to go with the right to same sex marriage. FINEMAN: Yes. I think that politically, culturally, and pretty soon legally, constitutionally, this is going to be settled. I think it`s clear. There are 37 states now including Alabama that allow same-sex marriage. As Clarence Thomas said, not happily, it looks like this is where the court`s headed. I think the Republican Party, I think most conservatives, I think most people in the country have accepted that this has happened. MATTHEWS: I agree. FINEMAN: It`s all too easy to make the comparison to Alabama now to Alabama of the time of Selma. You`ve got some counties in Alabama. There are 67 counties. Maybe 2/3 of them are going to resist. It`s going to be massive resistance. MATTHEWS: Like in Virginia. FINEMAN: To the end. MATTHEWS: Yes. FINEMAN: But then when the Supreme Court speaks for the whole country, which they`re going to do by June, I think it will all be over. It will all be over, settled politically. MATTHEWS: What a reality. You know, Howard and I have gone through this. Nobody ever thought this was going to happen in the country, that the courts would rule this way. But the laws of political physics are, Jamelle, there`s always a reaction. JAMELLE BOUIE, SLATE: Right. MATTHEWS: And I expect the Republican Party that always does this grabs the reaction. They don`t like civil rights, they don`t like women`s rights, they don`t like something, they go for the people who were disaffected by that. Do you think -- BOUIE: Right. MATTHEWS: Is Huckabee going to jump on this baby and say we have to get serious here? BOUIE: I think so. I think this is going to be a really divisive item in the Republican primary, because you`ll have your Jeb Bushes and your Marco Rubios and your Chris Christies saying this is a settled issue, we`re done here, let`s move on. But your Mike Huckabees, your Bobby Jindals, maybe even your Scott Walkers will say, no, we represent millions of Americans who don`t want this -- MATTHEWS: Is that a good general election strategy or only a good primary strategy? BOUIE: I don`t know if it`s a good general election strategy but it certainly is a very good primary strategy. MATTHEWS: Your view of this thing? Emily? EMILY SCHULTHEIS, NATIONAL JOURNAL: We saw kind of an early indicator of this when it was announced that the Supreme Court was going to take this issue on in the first place. You saw some Republican candidates either saying something noncommittal, choosing not to talk about it, choosing not to bring it up, and then you saw others who really immediately came out against it. And so, that seems to be where the battle lines are going to be going forward. MATTHEWS: What`s interesting is, for all the years growing up, people on the right, center right would have a problem with the Supreme Court making 5-4 decisions. You can`t just decide the future of the universe with 5-4 decisions. It`s too arbitrary. And yet the public, I don`t hear it yet, but I`m sure Huckabee will try to stir it up. The people didn`t vote for same-sex marriage. But the polls show they`re for it, right? They don`t go into voting booth and say, change the whole notion of marriage to include same-sex. But they seem to be open to it in all the polling. FINEMAN: What passes for the accomplishment of the Republican Party has said enough, we`re going to accept this. As a matter of fact, the federal judge who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage is a George W. Bush appointee. Her family is from Virginia. She`s from the sort of ruling class of the Republican Party in the South. MATTHEWS: Bourbons (ph). FINEMAN: Excuse me? MATTHEWS: Bourbons. FINEMAN: Yes, exactly. And Judge Moore represents the rural counties. He was a military police officer in Vietnam. They called him Captain America. The Vietnamese, the American soldiers did. And so, it`s a culture clash. But I think to the extent that the Republican Party is dragged against the mainstream here in the Iowa caucuses, which is what`s going to happen by the Huckabees of the world, it`s going to not only divide the Republican Party, it`s going to have the Republican Party fighting a culture war that they`ve lost. MATTHEWS: Yes. FINEMAN: They have to understand that they`ve lost this. You talk to any shrewd Republican strategist and they`ll tell you, we got to get past this. MATTHEWS: Emily, it seems to me you get down to it`s not a political issue whether you`re gay or not. You don`t decide based on party line what you are. I mean, we have cases of transgender stuff going on now, it was always closeted before. And now, you have to people who are conservatives who have -- Senator Portman, people like that have gay people in the family. You have people like Dick Cheney. It`s a reality in our being. You know, I`m sort of a nature, not nurture -- may be a part of both. It`s just amazing how it`s just gone into the families of the country politically left and right and challenged them to think again. SCHULTHEIS: Right. That`s something, like you say is, when people have personal experience with this, sometimes that changes their minds even if they had a strongly held opinion before and Senator Portman is a prime example of that. As gay marriage becomes more accepted in all these states, this is something that`s a reality for a majority of Americans. MATTHEWS: How does Republican -- last question to you, Jamelle. How does the Republican Party stick to its platform? And ride a plats form plank -- I know it`s old time to talk about platforms. You say you`re going to fight them. To say we`re for traditional marriage, blah, blah, blah, and against -- for the sanctity, and the wordage they put in that says we`re against same sex. BOUIE: Right. MATTHEWS: How do they run on that? BOUIE: I`m not sure they do. I think they may have to just kind of pretend like it`s not fair, right? MATTHEWS: Will they get rid of it? Will they strike it? BOUIE: I think they might put something like we really think this should be decided by the states, not the federal government. These are decisions for communities. MATTHEWS: I see. BOUIE: And then they kind of (INAUDIBLE) about it. MATTHEWS: So, they go to a safe position. BOUIE: Yes. MATTHEWS: Doesn`t seem to threaten anybody. In other words, we`re not going to do anything. Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. Up next, Mike Huckabee takes his turn driving the right wing clown car. He says President Obama`s against Christians and Jews, did you notice? And only supports Muslims. Would he say that about a white guy? That`s my question. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, President Obama`s speaking out today against domestic violence. He did it in last night, actually, in a public service announcement. A PSA during the live broadcast of the Grammy Awards. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It`s on us, all of us, to create a culture where violence isn`t tolerated, where survivors are supported, and where all our young people, men and women, can go as far as their talents and their dreams will take them. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: The president said artists have a unique power to change attitudes in this country that set a positive example. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Well, we`re back and Mike Huckabee has been on a roll lately. He complained of trashy women in New York who swore, he picked on Beyonce, and Obama is in his book. Well, today, he took a step further on "Fox and Friends" when he criticized President Obama`s speech at last week`s prayer breakfast, where the president condemned ISIS. But also reminded us that Christians had the Crusades -- well, here is Huckabee. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: Everything he does is against what Christian`s stand for, and he is against the Jews in Israel. The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support would be the Muslim community. And it doesn`t matter if it is the radical Muslim community or the more moderate Muslim community. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, I`m back with the roundtable, Jamelle, Emily and Howard. I contend, I repeat my contention, he wouldn`t say that about a white guy. They`re still playing this Obama is a Muslim number, that`s what they`re playing. And they`re shameless, your thoughts? BOUIE: I don`t know -- MATTHEWS: What else does he mean? BOUIE: I`m not sure that Huckabee is saying Obama is a Muslim. I think what he`s saying is Obama is a Muslim lover. And you think -- MATTHEWS: A Muslim lover, there is a familiar ring to it. You Muslim lover. Howard? FINEMAN: Well, this is you know, we used to talk about dog-whistle politics. This is like fog horn politics. It couldn`t be more blunt. MATTHEWS: Donald Trump must love it when he hears it. FINEMAN: It couldn`t be more blunt, or it couldn`t be more irresponsible. But again, he is running for 18 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses. That is all that`s on his mind right now. He`ll worry about the rest of it later. That is what he is going -- for whatever vote there is in Iowa, in the Republican Congress, that`s what he is going for as well. MATTHEWS: George W., I didn`t like his war policy, I`ll say so in the end of the show again. But he was great on saying this is not a religious war, it`s not an east-west war, it`s a terrorism war. And, of course, it sits there in the Islamic world, but it is not the Islamic people. And I think he was really good on that just the same way Obama is. You have to take the position when you have a portion of your country which is Muslim. Then, you have to look out for who they are and respect them. That`s your job as president of the United States. If you start going up to Muslims, you`re going after American-Muslims. What does Huckabee -- you make a point -- he is not after a Muslim vote. He doesn`t want Muslim support and he doesn`t want to give them respect. SCHULTHEIS: Well, that`s the interesting about this, is when you talk to activists in Iowa about why they like Huckabee, a lot of is that, you know, he is -- he talks about their issues but he seems like a nice guy. That`s the thing that I had heard when I was out there a few months. MATTHEWS: Isn`t that term for that smarmy? SCHULTHEIS: What he is doing now is not being the nice guy. MATTHEWS: OK. Here`s one, I want to get another tribute to Republican I do respect, in 2008, in his race against Obama, John McCain showed some class when an audience member wrongly criticized the president. Let`s watch this great moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t trust Obama. I have read about him and he is not -- he is an Arab. He is not -- SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: No, ma`am. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No? MCCAIN: No, ma`am. He is a decent, family-man, a citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that`s what this campaign is all about. He is not. Thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: That is a godly moment, an American moment. Howard? FINEMAN: No, I think it was great. I think it was great. And the interesting -- MATTHEWS: And he was fighting from behind at that point. FINEMAN: He was behind and he was conducting an act of statesmanship there, knowing where the race was headed as well -- that is true. MATTHEWS: Jamelle Bouie, thank you for coming on. Emily, thank you for coming. And Howard Fineman, as always. FINEMAN: Thank you. MATTHEWS: When we return, let me finish with my response to Judge Silberman`s piece in today`s "Wall Street Journal". It`s about how we went to war in Iraq and it`s the truth. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this: Tonight`s "Wall Street Journal" has an article by Judge Laurence Silberman that needs to be rebutted and done so directly. The column is written as a challenge to those in the press who say President George W. Bush lied us into the war with Iraq. The judge offers his views as someone who served on the commission that looked into the U.S. intelligence prior to the 2003 war. I should open by quoting a line from "Lawrence of Arabia." It`s directed at Lawrence himself in that film, who had convinced Arabs not fully believing it, that they would have independence once the war against the Turks have been won. Quote, "A man who tells lies like me," the British diplomat in the film says, "merely hides the truth, but a man who tells half lies as forgotten where he put it, the truth, that is." Many Americans were rightly taken at that time with the Bush-Cheney argument that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons, and the capability to deliver them. Go listen to Cheney back then, go listen to Condoleezza Rice, if we waited to see the smoking gun she warned us, we`d face a mushroom cloud. But they didn`t have the evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapons and they knew it, so what did they do? They kept saying again and again that Iraq had, quote, "weapons of mass destruction." In this way, W. and Cheney got the American people to buy their war. They never dared say, we should fight a war because a country had chemical or biological weapons, because even they knew, the American people wouldn`t have bought. So, they use the term WMD to sell the nuclear threat without having to prove it existed. Judge Silberman, what got us into the war wasn`t a lie. It was a much slicker job than that. It was a half lie used to sell us into a war that America regrets more than anything in modern history. That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020901cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 39 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 9, 2015 Monday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 9, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Adam Reiss, Joy Reid, Abby Huntsman GUESTS: Joan Walsh, Dana Milbank, Thomas Harvey, Faith Jenkins, Eric Guster, Noah Michelson SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7085 words HIGHLIGHT: Republicans are calling for income inequality. Boston has been hit with more than 60 inches of snow. Alleged they created modern day debtors prisons. Jailing poor people when they were quote "unable to pay a debt owed to the city from traffic tickets or other minor offenses. They say a woman in a white Lexus rear ended the car in front of her. Bruce Jenner`s escalade hit that Lexus sending it into oncoming traffic where the driver was hit and killed. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC ANCHOR: That`s "THE ED SHOW." I`m Ed Schultz. POLITICS NATION with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Tonight`s lead, a major shift in American politics. For years, President Obama fought to tackle income inequality. Calling it the defining challenge of our time. And finally, Republicans are getting the message. They`re suddenly talking about inequality, too. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: The top one percent under President Obama, the millionaires and billionaires that he constantly demagogues earn a higher share of our income than any years since 1928. Those with powers and influence who walk the corridors of power of the Obama administration have gotten fat and happy under big government. But I will tell you, hardworking men and women across America are hurting. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Well, Senator Cruz is half right. Average Americans are hurting, but blaming it on President Obama is off the mark. This problem is decades in the making. For the last 50 years, the bottom 90 percent of workers have barely seen their incomes rise. While incomes have exploded for the top one percent, increasing 271 percent since 1960. This problem has become impossible to ignore. That`s why it`s not just Ted Cruz talking about income equality, Jeb Bush has hopped on the bandwagon, too, and Senator McConnell, speaker John Boehner, Mr. Budget cuts for the poor, himself, Paul Ryan, and the list goes on and on and on and on. All these Republicans are paying lip service to inequality. But they`re not proposing real solutions to fix the problem. President Obama is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our job now is to create additional tools that, number one, make sure that everybody`s got a baseline of support to be able to succeed in a constantly moving economy, whether it`s health care that survives job loss, whether it is making sure that we have childcare that allows two working household family to prosper while still caring for their kids. Having a certain baseline in terms of wages through the minimum wage. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Raising the minimum wage, tax credits for childcare. These are real policies that could help workers. And the other thing, no Republican would dare mention, taxing the rich. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: How do we make sure that the folks at the very top are doing enough for their fair share? The fact of the matter is that relative to our post- war history, taxes now are not particularly high or particularly progressive compared to what they were, say, in the late `50s or the `60s. You know, there`s always been this notion that for a country to thrive, there are some things, as Lincoln said, we do better together than we can do for ourselves. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Until Republicans start pushing real ideas to narrow the wealth gap, the talk about inequality will be just that, talk. Joining me now is Dana Milbank and Joan Walsh. Thank you for being here. DANA MILBANK, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Hi, Reverend. JOAN WALSH, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, SALON.COM: Thanks. SHARPTON: Dana, is this step forward for the GOP? Is this a step forward or at least they`re not talking about the 47 percent, right? MILBANK: Yes, I guess that`s progress, Reverend, I mean, but there is something hilarious about Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell thinking that they`re going to convince Americans that they are the party that cares the most about income inequality. It`s like putting an alpaca sweater on your little dog, Rex, and trying to convince America that he`s a llama. It`s just not going to fly. But, you know, more power to them for trying, because they`re recognizing that the politics have changed and they`re trying to at least rhetorically get in on it. You see it all the way on the left with Elizabeth Warren. And now, crazily enough you`re seeing it with the likes of Ted Cruz. SHARPTON: Yes. But Joan, Ted Cruz is trying to blame the wealth gap on President Obama. Will anyone really buy that? WALSH: No. I don`t think they will, Re Reverend Al. But the thing that he leaves out of the equation, yes, the incomes of the very wealthy have risen. The top one percent is getting richer. However, this president has raised the tax rates so that top one percents, they are paying closer to their fair share. It might not yet be their fair share, but he has raised the tax burden on those people and that does do something to reduce inequality. Not enough, but you transfer some of that income to poorer people, working poor people, you`re narrowing the gap that way. And the president has been able to do that. He hasn`t gotten there when it comes to bringing up the share of the wages. But one thing I also thought was important he talked to Ezra about today was labor law, strengthening labor laws. SHARPTON: Yes. That`s very important. WALSH: Because that is -- it`s not going to happen without -- SHARPTON: And they`ve been really at war with labor and the president really emphasized that. But let me stay on Ted Cruz a minute, Dana. Because he`s talking about inequality, but here are some of the policies he supports. Repealing the affordable care act. Instituting a flat tax rate. He`s against a minimum wage hike and against equal pay measures. How exactly would any of this stuff narrow the wealth gap? MILBANK: No, it would make for a far more regressive taxation system that would, of course, make the wealthy wealthier. Now, there`s a fair criticism to be said that even the things that President Obama`s talking about don`t go far enough. That`s certainly what you`ll hear from the likes of Bernie Sanders. He`s not really taking on the wealthy, he`s not really taking on wall street because, you know, let`s face it, the Democratic Party needs money to run campaigns almost as much as the Republicans do. But, of course, that`s not the argument that Ted Cruz is making. It`s just sort of turn the universe upside down. SHARPTON: Joan, let`s also go to Jeb Bush, one of the loudest voices on the right. He`s talking about inequality. Listen to this from a recent speech of Jeb Bush`s. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Today, Americans across the country are frustrated. They see only a small portion of the population riding the economy`s up escalator. Roughly two out of three American households live paycheck to paycheck. Can we restore that dream, the moral promise that each generation can do better? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, he sounds like President Obama, Joan. But Democrats says he`s got a lot more in common with Mitt Romney. They plan to talk about how he opposed the auto bailout, worked in finance, backed wall street bailout and supports tax cuts for wealthy big business. So how can he talk about inequality if he`s seen as a Romney 2.1? WALSH: He thinks he needs to talk about it. And I agree with Dana, that`s progress. That now you have both sides of the aisle saying this is a problem for the American people. But that speech was kind of shocking in how empty it was, Reverend Al. This is Jeb Bush,. This is not, say, Scott Walker who has also empty policies. But Jeb Bush, we know him -- SHARPTON: You expect more. WALSH: You expect more. You expect him -- he`s not introducing himself to the American people. We know him. So he should have been introducing, this is how I will handle income inequality. He goes to Detroit where all that he serves, all that he does by doing that is reminding the media that he did not support the auto restructuring. But he doesn`t take the opportunity to say, you know what, this is what I would do for the city like Detroit that still has more than its share of problems. There was nothing about anything. Just this notion that we need to grow, yes, we need growth, but we`ve seen growth both under President Clinton and President Obama. We`ve seen wonderful growth that does not do enough to close the wage gap. And that`s what we haven`t gotten to. Growth is not enough. SHARPTON: But, Dana, let`s go the other side of the political partisan divide. I was reading in "The New York Times" over the weekend, an article that says if Hillary Clinton runs in 2016, there are few policies that will definitely be part of her economic agenda. She`ll push to raise the minimum wage, invest in infrastructure, and close the corporate tax loopholes. It is also possible she suggests incentives for companies that share profits with employees and push to strengthen collective bargaining. Now, she faces some criticism for ties to Wall Street. Would these platforms help to counter that for Miss Clinton? MILBANK: You know, Reverend, I think they would counter it to a small extent. She is seeing much more than President Obama as being very tight with Wall Street. And, of course, she`s going to need him out here, the kind campaign that`s going to rely on these big dollar contributions. So I think, you know, certainly, those kinds of policies like Obama`s policies are a step in the right direction and will convince some people. But there, a lot of progressives are disillusioned with the president, but even more so with Hillary Clinton. And that`s why they`re the ground swell for Elizabeth Warren who doesn`t show any indication she`s running. SHARPTON: That`s the challenge, Joan. Of course, the big fight in 2016 is going to be around economic inequality. And Mrs. Clinton has got to deal with the pressure from some of the progressives, who frankly some have real questions and some of us have other questions. And, but she`s got to have a clear voice to battle the Republican because this is going to be one of the most deciding issues in 2016. WALSH: It is. But one thing that that "New York Times" reminded us -- article reminded us about, Rev., she actually came out, even though she was a senator from Wall Street, she came out in favor of closing that carried interest loophole that left investors saying --. SHARPTON: She did do that. WALSH: You know, I forgot about that. There are several things, moratorium on foreclosures. There were several progressive things in that 2008 platform that I hope she brings back. I hope we see that Hillary Clinton in 2016. SHARPTON: Dana Milbank, Joan Walsh. Thank you both for your time tonight. MILBANK: Thanks, Reverend. WALSH: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Six months after the Michael Brown shooting, a new push for justice in Ferguson. But now the fight`s about putting people in prison for being poor. Also, the investigation into that deadly accident involving reality star Bruce Jenner. And a new smear attack on the president by Mike Huckabee. All of that, plus, social justice at the Grammys. From black lives matter, to domestic abuse. How the biggest stars in the world took their fight to the Grammy stage. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Albums still matter. Like books and black lives. Albums still matter. Tonight -- (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: "Conversation nation" is ahead. SHARPTON: Now to the record-breaking snowfall slamming Boston and much of the northeast. This is what it was like driving around in Cambridge, Massachusetts, earlier today. In the last 30 days, Boston has been hit with more than 60 inches of snow, breaking records. In two weeks, enough snow in Massachusetts has been removed to fill the Patriots stadium 90 times. With the storm still passing through the northeast region, what can residents expect to see next? Joining me now from Boston is MSNBC`s Adam Reiss. Adam, you had a snow squall. Can you explain to viewers at home what that is? ADAM REISS, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Sure, Reverend. Good evening. Four storms as you mentioned in less than two weeks. Now we`re up to 73 inches. So a big problem for officials here is what to do with all the white stuff. Well, they bring it here to a snow farm, one of a few snow farms in Boston. We`re in south Boston. Take a look behind me. These mounds of snow, some of them are 40 feet and higher. Trucks have been coming in all day long with piles and piles of snow. They bring it here. They bring it to the middle. These front loaders then take it over to the melter. They`re bringing in melters from out of state because they have so much snow they need to melt down. Some of the other snow is being brought to beaches south of here along the coast. Now, as you mentioned, 73 inches of snow. The governor says that they don`t know what they`re doing to do if it keeps piling up. He says like you said, 90 times they could fill Gillette stadium. He says they should have bid for winter Olympics instead of the summer Olympics as they did -- Reverend. SHARPTON: How is transportation in the Boston area being impacted, Adam? REISS: The airport, Logan airport, was basically operating on a limited basis today. They canceled 500 flights. And in terms of ground transportation, it was basically completely blocked out today. The governor at a press conference this afternoon said he was very angry and displeased with the fact the "T" was not operating. Even in this weather, he hoped that it would least operate in the morning hours but it did not -- Reverend. SHARPTON: MSNBC`s Adam Reiss in Boston. Thank you for your time tonight. And Adam, stay warm. REISS: I will. SHARPTON: Coming up, will Olympic legend and reality TV star Bruce Jenner be charged in a deadly car accident? And President Obama`s top political adviser has advice for Hillary. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: Six months ago today the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, put a new spotlight on criminal justice in this country. And today, a lawsuit is posing new challenges to police practices in that city and in the nearby town of Jennings. Alleged they created modern day debtors prisons. Jailing poor people when they were quote "unable to pay a debt owed to the city from traffic tickets or other minor offenses. In each case, the city imprisoned a human being solely because the person could not afford to make a monetary payment." The suit argues the motivation is financial. Ferguson has a population of 21,000 people. But in 2013, it issued 33,000 arrest warrants raising $2.6 million in fines and court fees. Its second largest revenue source. One of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit is Tanya Debarry, a 52-year-old grandmother. She says she was pulled over for a traffic violation in 2014 and jailed in St. Louis county, released after paying a $300 fine. But instead of being freed, she was transferred to jail in Ferguson where she spent two nights before shelling out another $300. Only to be put in jail in Jennings because of more unpaid tickets. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just traffic tickets. No criminal act. Nothing. Just traffic tickets. If you had the money, you would never go through that type of situation. If you don`t have the money, it`s jail, jail. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Late today, the mayor of Ferguson issued a statement reading in part quote "we believe this lawsuit is disturbing because it contains allegations that are not based on objective facts. Joining me now is Thomas Harvey, executive director and co-founder of art city defenders. One of the groups that filed this lawsuit. Thomas, first of all, thank you for coming on the show. THOMAS HARVEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY DEFENDERS: Thank you so much for having me, Reverend Sharpton. SHARPTON: The suit alleges modern debtors prison in Ferguson and Jennings. Explain what`s going on here. HARVEY: Well, it`s very much what you just described. People are jailed by the cities of Jennings and Ferguson because of unpaid debt. They are held there. They`re not appointing their attorney. They`re told that if they come up with a certain amount of money, they can leave that day. If they don`t have that money, they`re threatened with indefinite detention in the jail. These folks are not brought before a judge in the time required under law. They are told on a daily basis that if they only had $1,000 this day, $500 the next day, in sort of an arbitrary way, what they call a bond is reduced from day-to-day. And if they have the money, they can get out. and if they don`t, they have to remain to remain in jail. And the conditions in the jail are deplorable. SHARPTON: Yes, that is what I want to ask you about that because that`s one of the things that caught my attention. In the law, you describe the conditions. People were denied toothbrushes. Forced to share a single unclean toilet. Enduring untreated infections in open wounds. Given insufficient food and water leading to weight loss and dehydration. Surrounded by walls smeared with mucus and blood. I mean, all for allegations related to a traffic ticket, Thomas? HARVEY: That`s right. And to be more -- to be more poignant about it, it`s because they`re poor people. If hay had the money, if you or I had a traffic ticket, we`d never spend a day in that jail. But if you`re poor and you can`t afford the bond, can`t afford the money, the fines, the unpaid debt, then you stay in jail. And the conditions are awful. Our clients describe things that are horrific in nature. And they`re taunted by -- they allege they`re being taunted by the jailers and that they`re told they could leave if they have the money. SHARPTON: Wow. HARVEY: But instead -- SHARPTON: Well, let me let one of the Missouri residents that talked about the cycle of tickets and fines, and he`s not included in the lawsuit, but he discussed it. Listen to this. HARVEY: Sure. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I do get locked up and I go to court, they want you to pay a certain fine that I cannot afford to pay. I got a family. And because I can`t pay that fine, I`m forced to be locked back up. And when I don`t, go back to court, there`s another $100 added so there`s no way I can get out of it. They want their money. They want their money, and it`s simple as that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Doesn`t that eat away at the trust in the criminal justice system when people feel they`re caught in a web and they just continue to be dealing with fines and fees increasing every step they take, Thomas? HARVEY: Absolutely. I think that, you know, we never make a claim that people were on the streets after the killing of Mike Brown because of traffic tickets. But frankly, this is one of the factors that led to the erosion of trust between the community and its government. And this is a type of thing where people have been suffering this low-level harassment of their entire lives. Some of our plaintiffs in this lawsuit have been jailed 19 and 20 times in their lifetime. SHARPTON: Wow. HARVEY: They`re so accustom to being jailed as a result of their poverty, some find it difficult to remember which jail they were in on one day. For most folks in you`re ever in jail, you know exactly that day. But it`s such a -- it`s such a portion of the culture in St. Louis county to jail poor and black people because of their poverty. Many of our clients don`t even remember which days. We have the court documents to back up what they said. SHARPTON: And not to be misunderstood, if people do something wrong, they should pay for it, but this is so out of proportion. This is way over the top, and I think six months after Michael Brown, to be looking at this shows the culture that all of us around the country are concerned about. Not only there, but wherever this happens. Thomas Harvey, out I`m of time but thank you for your tame tonight. HARVEY: All right, thank you, Reverend Sharpton. SHARPTON: Coming up, will Olympic athlete and reality TV star Bruce Jenner be charge in a deadly car accident? Plus, Kanye almost did it again at the Grammys. Did you love it or did you hate it? Former FOX News host Mike Huckabee`s comments on President Obama and religion. Why I`m calling for an apology, next. SHARPTON: At the national prayer breakfast, President Obama offered a historical perspective on religious extremism by referencing the Christian crusades. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Men have been grappling with these questions throughout human history. Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the crusades and inquisition, people committed critical deeds in the name of Christ. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: These remarks have stirred debate on all sides of the political spectrum. But here`s exactly what we don`t need from former governor Mike Huckabee. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: Everything he does is against what Christians stand for and he`s against the Jews in Israel. The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support, would be the Muslim community. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The president is against people of the Christian and Jewish faiths? Against them, Governor? Are you really saying this? Governor Huckabee, you`re thinking about running for president. It`s time to elevate the debate, not lower it. Is this what you think you need to say to be elected in a party where ugly sells? We`ve known each other for years, Governor, and I know you`re better than this. That`s why I think you should apologize. We can disagree without being disagreeable. This isn`t a nice try, but we still got you. SHARPTON: Time now for the "Justice Files." Joining me tonight, criminal defense Attorney Eric Guster, and former prosecutor and host of "Judge Faith," Faith Jenkins. Thank you, both, for being here. FAITH JENKINS, HOST, "JUDGE FAITH": Thank you, Rev. ERIC GUSTER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you for having us. SHARPTON: We start tonight with a deadly car wreck involving Olympian and reality TV star Bruce Jenner. Bruce was not harmed. Right now, California deputies are trying to get the cell phone records of the drivers. They say a woman in a white Lexus rear ended the car in front of her. Jenner`s escalade hit that Lexus sending it into oncoming traffic where the driver was hit and killed. That driver Kim Howe did not have a valid license according to DMV records. Jenner released a statement saying, quote, "It is a devastating tragedy and I cannot pretend to imagine what this family is going through. At this time, I am praying for them." Jenner is cooperating and passed a sobriety test. No one has been charged. Investigators will look through cell phone records to see whether anyone was texting. Jenner`s publicist says he was not. Faith, let me ask you. If records show Jenner was texting, does it prove he caused the crash? JENKINS: Well, it doesn`t necessarily prove that, but it could prove that he was distracted and if he was distracted, you could be looking at some type of vehicular manslaughter charge. However, I don`t think that`s going to be the case. There were photographers at the scene, and they took photos right before this car crash and Bruce Jenner had a cigarette in his hand, not a cell phone. Now, this crash, Rev was -- SHARPTON: They took pictures right before the crash. JENKINS: Right before the accident. That`s what they the reporting is now and that he had a cigarette in his hand, not a cell phone. And he has consented to allow them to look through his records. This was three-car pileup at least. There was a Prius, a first car that tried to push and stop short. The Lexus, the car that the woman was driving, the woman was who killed, then stopped short and Bruce Jenner hit her car. SHARPTON: Right. JENKINS: Now, California like most states, they have a law that says, you have to follow, be a certain distance behind cars and presumably if someone stops short, you should be able to stop to prevent an accident. So while I don`t think Bruce Jenner`s facing criminal charges, I think there could be some civil charges. GUSTER: He`s definitely civilly liable. SHARPTON: So, what was your take on the whole question of texting? I mean, how do you see this whole case? GUSTER: Well, if he was texting, he would be liable, more than likely criminally as well as civilly because in California, they have laws that discuss distracted driving which all these laws are being passed across the United States. Because if a person is paying attention to their cell phone, looking at their phone, not paying attention to what`s going on in front of them and he hit this lady from behind, then he would be liable for her death. SHARPTON: Now, paparazzi, we`re following Jenner, as you talk about photographers. Police say they were not responsible for the crash. If Jenner is charged, how will that play into his defense, Faith? JENKINS: Well, of course, they`re going to look for all the mitigating factors. Number one is going to be that the woman that he hit actually hit another car before he hit her. So he`s going to say it was unavoidable and because she hit a car, he calls at him to have to try to stop before hitting her. And then he`s going to argue, of course that perhaps paparazzi were around and that somehow contributed. I just don`t see that happening in this case with a three-car pileup. GUSTER: Right. And his problem is going to be, he has to have a fair distance between him and the car were before to allow him to stop and he didn`t obviously stop which can make him liable. SHARPTON: All right. I want to move to this domestic abuse charge, charges, really, dropped against NFL Star Greg Hardy. This is a call that no one saw coming for the California Panther. Last year Hardy`s ex- girlfriend described a terrifying night. She said he choked her with both hands. Dragged her by her hair. Screaming he would kill her. And he picked her up over his head to throw her onto a couch covered with assault weapons, assault rifles to be exact. But today as Hardy showed up in court in North Carolina, she was nowhere to be found. The local district attorney says they have not been able to find Nicole Holder since November. He says he has reliable information that she reached an independent settlement with Hardy. Eric, what`s your take? Is something like this common? GUSTER: It`s very common, Reverend Al. I`ve had cases where a lady has been assaulted and by the time he`s at the jail, they`re hiring a lawyer to get him out. Because most women just want the abuse to stop. It`s not -- they don`t want him to be punished. However, this case is a little bit different. She went to trial one time. She went to a bench trial. He was found guilty. And in most jurisdictions you have the right to appeal to a jury trial which is what he did. SHARPTON: Which is what today was about. GUSTER: Yes. SHARPTON: Let me say this, Faith. Because I want to lead -- the question I want to ask you. Everyone wants know where Nicole Holder is because she had said she didn`t want to go through another trial. The "Charlotte Observer" reports tonight she was snowmobiling in Colorado. Then off to New York City. I mean, is there a way to force her to testify? JENKINS: Well, apparently the D.A. is saying that they tried to serve her with subpoenas to get her to come to court. I`m shocked by this. This was a man who went to trial before a judge. She testified before. He was convicted. Very serious allegations of domestic abuse. SHARPTON: Right. And he was convicted. JENKINS: He was convicted. How do you then today completely dismiss a case against him? I want to know, they should be asking, has he been in touch with her? What about this civil settlement? How much money was she paid? When did they agree to that? It`s very -- SHARPTON: If she wants to take the settlement, Eric, isn`t that her right? GUSTER: It is her right. However, it`s the state`s case to prosecute and the state cannot prosecute without a victim in this type of case. There are domestic violence cases. SHARPTON: The state could have questioned him, right? As Faith is raising. GUSTER: No. SHARPTON: Because? GUSTER: No, sir, they could not. Because if a trial is not commencing a person, well, even if a trial started, he has a right not to testify and take the stand. SHARPTON: Because he`s the defendant. GUSTER: Yes, sir. He would not have to answer any questions. So, they can`t ask him if you pay it all for -- JENKINS: I think you can find her. GUSTER: Yes. They can find her. JENKINS: You can`t tell me that she cannot be found. GUSTER: Yes. They can always be found. SHARPTON: I have to leave it there. Eric Guster and Faith Jenkins, thank you both for your time tonight. GUSTER: Thank you. JENKINS: Thank you. SHARPTON: Still ahead, the Alabama chief justice is trying to stand in the way of progress. Some political advice for Hillary from President Obama`s top political adviser. Wait until you hear what he says she needs to do. And social justice comes to the Grammy awards. "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: Time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, MSNBC`s Joy Reid. The "Huffington Post`s" Noah Michelson. And MSNBC`s Abby Huntsman. Thank you all for being here. ABBY HUNTSMAN, MSNBC CO-HOST, "THE CYCLE": Thanks, Rev. JOY REID, MSNBC HOST, "THE REID REPORT": Thank you. NOAH MICHELSON, "THE HUFFINGTON POST": Thanks. SHARPTON: Did Alabama`s chief justice try to break the law in the name of states` rights? Last night, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Just hours before federal ruling went into effect allowing same-sex marriages. This morning the Supreme Court refused to issue a stay to overturn the ruling and at least eight counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But the confusion has led judges in some counties to continue denying same-sex marriage licenses. Like in Shelby County, where a sign on the courthouse door reads, "Due to the conflicting orders, this office will not issue any marriage licenses for the immediate future." Joy, is this states` rights in Alabama all over again? REID: Yes, it is. It`s almost like Judge Roy Moore is sort of the back to the future Supreme Court justice. I think he needs to get to know something called the supremacy clause, it`s in the constitution, I think it`s Article 6. And it says that federal law supersedes state law and that if the Supreme Court has said you have to issue marriage licenses to same- sex couples, I hate to break it to you, justice, but you do. This is not, this is sort of a stand in the schoolhouse door moment. It should be a no brainer for anyone calling themselves a judge. HUNTSMAN: Yes. SHARPTON: Noah, he -- the courts in Alabama ruled -- MICHELSON: Uh-huh. SHARPTON: They refused to stay it. MICHELSON: Yes. SHARPTON: So what`s confusing about that to these counties that claim today talking about conflicting? There`s no conflict here, there`s no stay on the order by the higher court. MICHELSON: It`s almost like no one`s in charge in Alabama. We`re still trying to figure it out. Even the governor, Governor Bentley won`t say one way or the other what is supposed to go on. He said they`ll support the probate judges no matter what they do. People are afraid to make a move. They`re afraid that if they go the wrong way, they`ll going to get into trouble. And instead of this day being a historic day for same-sex couples, beautiful, hundreds of couples who want to get married, now we`re talking about Justice Moore instead. HUNTSMAN: Yes. It`s because I think the people are confused. Some people are still confused over this. I mean, I like to say that just like we tell people, there used to be a time when blacks couldn`t vote, I will tell my kids and grandkids there was a time when gays couldn`t get married and you see there are still places especially in the south. I mean, I`m from Utah where it`s 50/50. People still are struggling with how fast we`ve been evolving on this. SHARPTON: But this clearly, Abby, is going to change, and -- HUNTSMAN: Yes. SHARPTON: -- and this is sort of like the last breaths of existence. HUNTSMAN: They`re holding on as much as they can. SHARPTON: But the reason I brought it to states` rights, which is part of the civil rights history, is that Joy confused, or wanting to be confused. REID: Yes. SHARPTON: If the Supreme Courts say we`re not staying it, we`re not staying it. What`s confusing about that? The order stands. REID: And Rev, I can understand ordinary citizens being confused. But anyone who has gone to law school which presumably this chief justice has understands the supremacy clause, understands that once the Supreme Court rules there is no confusion. SHARPTON: Anybody that went to school -- (LAUGHTER) REID: Civics class in seventh grade, I think that is where we learned about it. A lot goes back to religion. You have to remember, for many of these folks they can`t separate their politics with what they go to church, and our told on Sunday -- SHARPTON: I understand that. I understand that. REID: -- that is a real challenge, I`m not saying it`s right, I`m just saying, that is what it`s called. SHARPTON: But I also understand religion has been used wrongly before then you`ve got to deal with the law. MICHELSON: Exactly. I mean, Moore is on the record as saying that homosexuality is evil. You know, so when you surf from that kind of advantage point, we know what he`s talking about. SHARPTON: It`s a different kind of bias but they said interracial marriage. MICHELSON: Exactly. I mean, exactly. SHARPTON: You cannot not deal with the law. And if your religion, you feel violated, break the law and suffer the consequences like many of us did with civil disobedience. REID: Yes, indeed. SHARPTON: Let`s move on to presidential politics and some advice for the democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. David Axelrod, the man who orchestrated President Obama`s political rise from the Senate to the White House was promoting his new book today when he offered this advice if Hillary does decide to run again. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: She needs a very well-conceived message about where she wants to lead the country. I think she has to approach this campaign like a challenger, not like a front-runner. Like an insurgent and go out there and really make a strong case. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Run like an insurgent. Abby, what do you make of that advice? HUNTSMAN: Interesting advice there. Everyone is wanting to throw some advice to Hillary Clinton. They want to feel like they have a say in whether she wins or not. You know, I think the biggest thing for Hillary Clinton is being human. And being herself. And every time she talks about being a mother and being a grandmother, we already know she`s smart, we already know what she`s capable of doing. Right? We`ve seen her in so many different positions at this point. I think the biggest thing for her is being who she is and being real. That moment back when she ran last time when she had emotion, when she cried. I think, you know, she was hit for that, but I think a lot of people also were like, you are a real person, you are human and I like you more for that. SHARPTON: But Noah, don`t you get from Axelrod`s advice she`s got to also show some hunger and some drive and some I want this? MICHELSON: Yes. Definitely. She can`t rest on the name Clinton. And I think that some people think that she really has been so far, that she`s just kind of resting on her laurels and that`s going to get her, you know, into the White House. I think that she has to come out hungry, she has come out strong and she has a lot of people to still. SHARPTON: Joy, she can`t play a rose garden strategy if she runs as an insurgent. REID: Yes. Exactly. And the challenge for Hillary Clinton is, inevitability is both her best friend and her worst enemy. Because it can breed a sense of complacency and an appearance of entitlement to the office and she has to give people an affirmative reason to want to vote for her and not just presume that she`s going to assume the office because she`s next in line. SHARPTON: Everyone, please stay with me. When we come back, we have to talk Kanye. He almost did it again last night. And it drew a big reaction from Jay-Z. The panel reacts, next. SHARPTON: We`re back with our panel, Joy, Noah, and Abby. Now to some big statements at the Grammys. Ferrell performing his hit song "Happy" while he and his backup dancers dressed in hoodies posed with their hands up and in a rare appearance, prince chose to make a statement as well. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Albums. Remember those? Albums. Still matter. Like books and black lives. Albums still matter. Tonight -- (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Beyonce sung a beautiful rendition of "Take My Hand Precious Lord." A favorite of Dr. Martin Luther King. And Common and John Legend closed the show with a moving version of "Glory" from the movie "Selma." Joy, I saw James Brown make statements through his music. What`s your reaction to that last night? REID: I think it was important, and, you know, there has been a fair amount of criticism of black artists, particularly hip hop artists for not getting out ahead further on things like the black lives matter movement. I think it does show that these artists are willing to use their celebrity. I especially thought prince`s words were poignant to put that in. To show that they are part of this movement. SHARPTON: And the hoodies obviously coming out of Trayvon. REID: Obviously, exactly, coming out of Trayvon Martin. And it is important to people that artists make a stand on these issues that are so important to substantial shares of their fans. HUNTSMAN: Domestic violence was a big issue last night as well. And you hear people that you are fans of speaking out about it or even talking about their own personal experiences and it really relates to people. But to your point, Joy, I think sometimes it can be so controversial that they think about the timing. Sometimes they`re nervous about getting too out in front of it but I think sometimes it`s smart to get out in front to show you have -- SHARPTON: But doesn`t that also give a connection even if your fans may not agree that you feel and that you have -- you`re more than something that is not involved and doesn`t have a heartbeat as to what`s going on? MICHELSON: Definitely. I think especially with music becoming so depoliticized nowadays, that they have people speaking up and talking out, that I think that really resonates with viewers and they like it one way or another. SHARPTON: All right. Now, we can`t talk about the Grammys without talking about Kanye`s moment. Beat out Beyonce for album of the year and then it almost happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (APPLAUSE) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I need some help. Come back. Oh, my god. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Kanye almost taking over the mic again in protest. Years ago, Kanye had this infamous moment protesting Taylor Swift`s MTV win over Beyonce. Here -- here might be the best part, though. The reaction from Jay-Z and Beyonce is absolutely priceless. The horror quickly turned into delight. Kanye played it off as a joke, but after he said this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KANYE WEST, RAPPER: The Grammys if they want real artists to keep coming back, they need to stop playing with us. Beck needs to respect artistry and he should have given his award to Beyonce. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Abby, what`s your take? Funny or disrespectful? HUNTSMAN: I don`t even know what to make of this guy at this point. I think this whole thing was planned out. I mean, we were talking in the commercial break, Rev, about how he`s married to the biggest self-promoter there is as well. You wonder what those two talk about at night. It was clear he had planned to go up there. MICHELSON: Yes. HUNTSMAN: But then when you hear what he said after, something that struck me, he said, you know, the awards are not going to artists that incite people or that get people into music. SHARPTON: No. HUNTSMAN: And I disagree. Because I think it depends on the artist. I mean, I like Taylor Swift. Blame me for that. I like Beck, so who is he to say -- MICHELSON: I think it`s tacky for him to attack another artist and say that, you know, Beyonce should have won over Beck. But as we were saying earlier too, he`s launching his new Adidas collection this week, he has an album coming out soon, he has a Rihanna album coming out soon. This is a brilliant tactical movement to get in front of people. REID: And by the way, the most tweeted about person or moment from the Grammys last night was Kanye West. MICHELSON: There you go. REID: His name was the top -- MICHELSON: He didn`t win anything, you know? And he`s -- SHARPTON: And he even got Noah to announce his Adidas line and his -- MICHELSON: We`re talking about him. Here we go. SHARPTON: Tonight on POLITICS NATION. MICHELSON: We`re talking about him. SHARPTON: Who would have thought? Joy, Noah, and Abby, thank you for joining me tonight and for joining "Conversation Nation." And make sure you watch the "Reid Report" weekdays at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. And Abby on "THE CYCLE" weekdays at 3:00 p.m. Eastern. Both right here on MSNBC. When we come back, remembering legendary basketball Coach Dean Smith and his winning ways off the court. SHARPTON: Finally tonight, remembering legendary basketball coach Dean Smith. After 36 years at North Carolina, Smith retired as the winningest head coach in Division 1 history. Coaching the likes of Michael Jordan and James Worthy. He won two national championships and an Olympic gold medal. A remarkable 96 percent of his players graduated. But he also was a legend off the court. President Obama talked about that when awarding Smith the Medal of Freedom in 2013. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We also honor his courage in helping to change our country. He recruited the first black scholarship athlete to North Carolina and helped to integrate a restaurant and neighborhood in Chapel Hill. That`s the kind of character that he represented on and off the court. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That character had a lasting influence on generations of basketball fans and players. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHARLIE SCOTT, IST UNC BLACK SCHOLARSHIP PLAYER: Coach Smith made me feel like I was like every other athlete on their team. And I say, again, for a black person in the South to feel like he was the equal of a white person means more than anything else. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Coach Smith supported civil rights and gay rights. He opposed the death penalty and the Iraq war. He stood by his beliefs which he said were rooted in his religious faith. Coach Smith died on Sunday at the age of 83. He not only made champions on the court, he was a champion off the court. Thanks for watching. I`m al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020901cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 40 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 9, 2015 Monday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 09, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes, Ezra Klein GUESTS: Steve Cohen, Matthew Yglesias, Patricia Todd, Drew Fitzgerald, Ron Insana SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8054 words HIGHLIGHT: High stakes political drama at the White House as the president tries to save a nuclear deal with Iran in the face of obstruction from Republicans and Israel`s prime minister. Interview with U.S. Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee. The first gay marriage in Alabama`s history took place today, but a constitutional crisis roils the state. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN: BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections. HAYES: High stakes political drama at the White House as the president tries to save a nuclear deal with Iran in the face of obstruction from Republicans and Israel`s prime minister. OBAMA: It does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they`re about to be completed. HAYES: Tonight, the growing movement to delay Benjamin Netanyahu`s speech to Congress. Plus, shades of George Wallace as a constitutional crisis roils Alabama. And then, the plaintiff behind a Supreme Court case that could destroy Obamacare, who also calls the president the antichrist. A shocking twist to "Imma let you finish-gate 2". KANYA WEST, SINGER: Beck needs to respect artistry and he should have given his award to Beyonce. HAYES: And requiem for tandem computers. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The `80s called, they want their store back. HAYES: What the end of RadioShack means for brick and mortar stores everywhere. ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. The brewing conflict between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached a whole new level today with the two leaders taking backhanded shots at each other in public from different sides of the globe. At a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama was asked about the controversy over Netanyahu`s March 3rd address before a joint session of Congress, an address largely seemed to lobby against a nuclear deal with Iran. The speech planned in coordination with Republican House Speaker John Boehner has been widely criticized as politicizing U.S./Israeli relations. And President Obama responded by throwing some shade in Netanyahu`s direction. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections. As much as I love Angela, if she was two weeks away from an election, she probably would not have received an invitation to the White House. And I suspect she would not have asked for one. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: I suspect she wouldn`t have asked for one. Just minutes after President Obama made those comments, Netanyahu sent out a series of tweets reaffirming he is moving ahead with the speech, even amid reports he was considering logistical changes to the speech in response to all the criticism. Netanyahu said in remarks today, it`s his duty to speak to U.S. lawmakers about the dangers of a bad deal with Iran. That rationale points to the fundamental conflict at heart of this very public, perhaps unprecedented diplomatic flap. It`s not about the two leaders` personalities or even about whether the planning of the speech violated protocol. It call comes down to a very real substantive disagreement over relations between Iran and the rest of the world. If President Obama gets a deal on Iran`s nuclear program, it would arguably be the most monumental achievement in Mideast policy since Carter`s Camp David Accords. It could all but cement his foreign policy legacy, ending 3 1/2 decades of hostility between Iran and the U.S., and reshaping the political dynamics of the entire Middle East. At his president conference today, the president said negotiations are coming down to the wire and is now a question of Iran`s political will. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: At this juncture, I don`t see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that they`re not pursuing a nuclear weapon. We now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. The issues now are does Iran have the political will and the desire to get a deal done? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: At the same time, the Israeli prime minister seems to think that any deal that comes out of a deal with Iran will be a bad one. He`s long sounded the alarm about the Iranian threat and many, both in Israel and the U.S. have voiced concerns that the new landscape after the deal would be an uncomfortable place, for the state of Israel. But even when Netanyahu`s position on Iran maybe popular at home, among his constituents, his attempted end-run around President Obama is not. One prominent Israeli columnist wrote in an op-ed address the prime minister, quote, "Obama is wrong and you`re right, but if there is any chance of bumping him from his position, you`re making every possible mistake and turning him into an adversary. How many clues do you need to understand you should change direction?" A plurality of Israelis now think Netanyahu should cancel the speech, according to a poll conducted by Israeli`s Army Radio: 47 percent versus 34 percent who say he should go ahead with it. Many prominent Jewish Americans think the space is a bad idea, too, including Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League who`s now calling on Netanyahu to scrap it. While Israeli diplomats have reportedly been warning that Israel`s friends in the U.S., there will be harmed ties between the two countries. And if Netanyahu`s goal was to convince Congress to pass new Iran`s sanctions, that already appears to have backfired, with Democrats who favor new sanctions recently decided to give the president another two months to reach a deal. Now, a growing number of Democrats are planning to skip Netanyahu`s speech all together, including some prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Vice President Joe Biden whose office just announced he`ll be out of town during the prime minister`s visit. Joining me now, Congressman Steve Cohen, Democrat from Tennessee, who is signing on to a letter to Speaker Boehner asking him to postpone Netanyahu`s speech until after Israeli elections and the deadline for the talks with Iran. Congressman, why have you signed on to this letter? What do you want the speaker to do? REP. STEVE COHEN (D), TENNESSEE: Well, I don`t think we should have a person up for election in two weeks and a person who`s obviously being used politically to attack the president`s position on negotiations with Iran that are so important. I would like the speaker to put the speech off until after the latter of the two circumstances so that Prime Minister Netanyahu can have a dialogue that is not considered political and isn`t political. Right now, the House of Representatives is being turned into a political theater. A couple of weeks ago, there was an attempt to pass a bill that would have in essence provoke Roe v. Wade. And it was done at a time that there was a pro-life crowd up here marching on the anniversary of the passage of -- not the passage but the declaration of Roe v. Wade. And it was done for political theater. This is political theater too and the United States House of Representatives shouldn`t be used for political theater. It`s hurting the House. And I think what`s going on now is hurting Israel, because there is so many people including myself who are strong supporters of Israel who don`t think this is good for Israel. Israel needs to be close to the United States and close to the president for its protection and its future. HAYES: So, let me ask you this: how many people, when push comes to shove of the 435 members of the House, and the 100 senators, how many people are going to make good on a threat not to show up? It seems to me there is a game of chicken being played by Netanyahu here. He says, I`m going to show up, and I dare you not to come. COHEN: Well, to some extent, that`s going on, and I would just think by going, and having to determine exactly what my position should be on that day, but by going, you`re being assured by Speaker Boehner. Speaker Boehner should have not invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and put him in this position. Prime Minister Netanyahu should have understood that -- (CROSSTALK) HAYES: Well, Congressman, if I could just interject here. From all of the reporting that we have seen and it`s not definitive, this was not sprung upon Prime Minister Netanyahu. It seems he very much wants to come and speak, and understands the circumstances under which he is coming to the country. COHEN: Oh, I`m not suggesting they didn`t each have mutual motives, and there are mutual motives. Speaking before a Congress with congressmen standing up and applauding, which will happen, will probably help Netanyahu in his election, and it helps Boehner with Republicans appeal to people that are supportive of Israel, particularly the AIPAC crowd, this meeting in Washington that week. And it`s kind of like whichever crowd comes to Washington, whether it`s the pro-life crowd, January, or AIPAC in March, we`re going to use Congress as a television studio to help promote the Republican tide of that group. And that`s just wrong. We should be legislating, and we should be -- not interjecting politics and foreign policy. You know, the president controls foreign policy, if these negotiations don`t work, if there is not an agreement, there is going to be war. There`s going to be bombings in Iran. And if Israel does that, which most likely they would do, they need the United States` help or support. We are their strongest allies, and you don`t cause problems with the president who controls the military, not Speaker Boehner, at a time like this. So, I think this whole conflagrance (ph) of events is hurting Israel and is putting Israel in a bad position. And whether it`s for the benefit of Prime Minister Netanyahu`s election, but it`s just not good. HAYES: Congressman, we will eagerly await your decision if, in fact, it is not postponed and we will check back with you. Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee, thank you very much. COHEN: You`re welcome, Chris. HAYES: As President Obama pursues a nuclear deal with Iran, tries to negotiate deadly conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, his critics continue to call for increased military engagement on all fronts and this has been, I think, one of the central dynamics of the president`s second term. Of hawks condemn him for standing by while the world burns, President Obama has shown a profound reluctance towards getting involved in another round of long-term military commitments that stretch our resources and tie our hands and other efforts. Although, let`s be clear, that reluctance could give way in the face of sustained pressure. Just ask the 3,000 troops in Iraq, and the pilots flying bombing missions against ISIS. In an exclusive interview with Vox, the president explained his approach to foreign policy, striking a balance between realism and idealism. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The goal of any good foreign policy is having a vision and aspirations and ideals, but also recognize the world as it is, where it is, and figuring out, how do you tack to the point where things are better than they were before. It doesn`t mean perfect, it just means better. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That was just one part of a very fascinating in-depth interview President Obama gave to Vox, in which he got uncharacteristically philosophical about his priority for the country and his approach to governing. The two people who conducted that interview are joining me now, Ezra Klein, editor-in-chief of Vox.com, and Matthew Yglesias, Vox`s executive editor. And, Matt, let me start with you because you did the foreign policy stuff, and you asked him about sort of what grand theory is here. He gets attacked a lot for essentially what his critics view as fundamentally a kind of ad hoc approach. What do you think you learned? What do you think -- were you satisfied with his answer there is some sort of coherent vision there? MATTHEW YGLESIAS, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, VOX.COM: Well, you know, I think one of the most coherent things that sort of guides the president, at least as he explained it to us, is a sort of a fundamentally optimistic belief that in a lot of ways, the big trends in the world are positive ones. What is important for him, as the leader of the most powerful influential country on earth is to kind of not overreact and not mess things up. He really emphasized that violence is down around the world, that poverty is down, that what lands on his desk tend to be sort of the crisis of the day, the crisis of the moment. But that excessive focus on crises and on possible military solutions can distract attention from the sort of underlying dynamics that are much more optimistic than that, and in which there`s a big risk that the United States is going to sort of do too much, go to far, and kind of expend its strength. HAYES: You know, that`s a fascinating point and it stands in some ways, Ezra, in some ways I think the way he views the domestic sphere, at least it came in your questions to him, particularly on the inequality front, where he basically, it seemed to me in your exchange on that, he basically says look, we can get a better business cycle going. We can hopefully get job growth and wage growth and stuff like that. But the long-term trends that are driving wealth to the 1 percent, those were here before I was here and it`s going to take a long time to undo. EZRA KLEIN, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, VOX.COM: Absolutely. But I do think that something as important is the degree of control he feels he has over the two dimensions. So, when he talks about inequality, he talks about pre-tax and post-tax inequality, talks about how in the past more was done before taxes, more was done at the corporate level, more was done in the culture. It was considered unseemly to have the CEO pay that you have now. And so, there was not as much of a need for the government to get involved, but nevertheless, it is possible for the government to get involved, to use redistribution taxes, other mechanisms, to both alter the simple tax and transfer dynamics to reduce inequality, and to potentially alter things like shareholder representation within companies, and to also alter the distribution of prepay tax. I think that`s a current to where -- how he feels the U.S. is capable around the world wherein I think he is much more cautious about the idea that our commitments can have very unintended consequences and that our ability to predict and to calibrate our actions in order to get specific outcomes is weaker than many Americans in Washington would like to believe it to be. HAYES: I want to come back -- Matt, I want you to sort of talk about that, because there`s one level which you can say, I was writing the script, that`s right, and it always strikes me, well, here is someone that so often, come sit at this desk, cover the news cycle, and some set of people saying, you must do something, send arms to the Ukrainian rebels, intervene in Syria, do this, do this, and the president is saying no, no, no. But at same time, you know, there are 3,000 servicemen and women in Iraq right now. We`re running bombing raids and we`re essentially at war with ISIS. We are about to get an authorization to use military force. I mean, I guess my question is like, is that reluctance just for show? YGLESIAS: Well, you know, I don`t think it is for show. When we spoke about ISIS, you know, he specifically says, well, look, I could send 200,000 troops. That is a reminder there is a long way to go from 3,000 to what is sort of all in on sort of Iraq like that. He says he doesn`t want to do it because he doesn`t think it will work. He thinks you can have ground forces in there and keep a lid on problems, but they could never leave. So, he doesn`t want to over-commit to the situation. At the same time, I think it is difficult for him politically because he doesn`t want to draw a bright line against getting involved. It would be a lot simpler or more satisfying to some people, frankly more satisfying to me to simply wash our hands of certain kind of situations, but he feels the need at least to be involved to some extent, but to sort of try to do what he thinks he absolutely has to without getting sucked as far in as he might go, because the paradox of American military power is that it`s the mightiest military in the world. It can do a lot, but still, it really can`t do everything. We can`t be in Ukraine, and Syria, and Iran, and every place simultaneously. So, you`ve got to sort of pick what you do and it winds up being difficult to communicate and, frankly, a little difficult to rally supporters behind, but there is real a logic to it. HAYES: Ezra, part of the story of this interview is that the White House has been making these efforts to go to new venues. They are doing an interview with "BuzzFeed", they talk to guys at Vox, they did the YouTube thing. There is an interesting exchange you guys had about polarization in which it seems the president thinks that part of what is polarizing people is the media itself. I wonder if you were sold that he -- you`re sold on his understanding of what actually is driving polarization? KLEIN: I don`t think there is any doubt that the media is polarizing people. I don`t think there is any doubt at all. I think there are parts of his description of polarization I am more skeptical off. He I think assigns gerrymandering a higher weight than I would. I think when you look at the political science evidence around gerrymandering, I think it has role in increasing party polarization, but it isn`t sort of as big I think as folks intuitively believe. The place where I think I part with the president`s understanding of the situation is I think he is fundamentally more hopeful about it than I am. I think we really are politically becoming red and blue Americas and I think polarization is flywheel quality, where once we sort aggressively into parties, all kinds of things begin to reinforce those party identities. So, those party identities have become very powerful, something I spoke to him about was the way they actually have become important in racial identity too. Back in the `90s, Republicans and Democrats show no difference on what they thought about the O.J. Simpson verdict. Now, you see huge differences in Republicans and Democrats on the Zimmerman verdict. So, I kind of think polarization is a trend that is going to keep continuing and we need to figure out ways to govern amidst it. I think he is, in general, more hopeful that there are ways for a president to get around polarization and speak to a non-polarized middle in the electorate which speaks to things like his work on YouTube, on "Between Two Ferns", some of the more nontraditional efforts he has made. HAYES: Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias of Vox, thanks a lot. KLEIN: Thank you. YGLESIAS: Thank you. HAYES: All right. The first gay marriage in Alabama`s history took place today. But that`s just the beginning of the story. I will explain ahead. HAYES: The 2016 primary season is, of course, right around the corner. You may thinking how hard will it be for new slate of Republican presidential hopefuls to live up to the standard of discourse set in the 2012 context. Rick Perry for getting the third government agency he wanted to abolish, to Newt Gingrich floating his plan for colonizing the moon, to Mitt Romney trying to settle an argument during a televised debate with a $10,000 bet. I`m here to tell you, you can start popping the pop corn now because the upcoming election is going to be worth watching. And the Republican takes are going to be very, very hot indeed. Here is a quick preview from likely 2016 contender Mike Huckabee speaking this morning on FOX News about which religious groups get more support from President Obama. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: Everything he does is against what Christians stand for, and he`s against the Jews in Israel. The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support, would be the Muslim community. And it doesn`t matter if it`s the radical Muslim community or the more moderate Muslim community. He said that our greatest threat was climate change. Elizabeth, I assure you that a beheading is much worse than a sunburn. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Just wait until the guy hits the campaign train. If Mike Huckabee can turn Barack Obama into an antichristian, radical Muslim- loving, pro-beheading supervillain in less than 30 seconds, imagine what he will do to Jeb Bush during debate season. Republican primary might wined up sounding like a "World Net Daily" comment thread, but it will not be boring. HAYES: This morning, for the first time ever in the state of Alabama, same-sex couples got married. Legally sanctioned by a federal court with a stamp of approval from the Supreme Court of the United States, which refused to halt it. Tori Sisson and Shante Wolfe were the first in Montgomery County getting their marriage license at the probate office. Some major Alabama counties were ready with new forms provided by Alabama Department of Health. Jefferson County probate judge Alan King made it clear yesterday that he is prepared to go forward. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JUDGE ALAN KING, JEFFERSON COUNTY PROBATE JUDGE: We usually have one window open. We will plan to have two windows open. We`ll be ready, you know, we`ll be ready with the forms, we`ll be ready with multiple windows open, and it will be like, we`ll just -- whatever happens in Jefferson County, we will be ready. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In Birmingham, after marrying one couple, the judge there asked for a picture with the newlyweds. Now, in some ways, this is unremarkable in the sense that 36 states already have sanctioned same-sex marriage and Alabama became the 37th. But in other ways, the path to this was a lot more contentious and hard fought thanks to a stubborn Alabama tradition of -- to put it mildly -- thumbing its nose at the federal government. It started a little more than two weeks ago. And a federal judge, U.S. District Judge Jeannie Granade (ph) struck down Alabama`s ban on same- sex marriage, a ban that was part of Alabama`s state constitution. However, that same judge agreed to put on hold on her own ruling for 14 days to allow for an appeal. And, indeed, the Alabama attorney general appealed the decision. But the appeals court, the 11 circuit court of appeals denied the Alabama attorney general`[s request for a stay. So, with the hold on the original federal court set to expire, marriage licenses would be issued to same sex couples in Alabama starting today -- not so fast, says Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court. Now, that name may ring a bell. You may remember this judge, he`s the one who refused to remove his Ten Commandments display from the courthouse years ago. After long legal battle, a federal court ordered it remove, and later, Judge Moore was removed from office by his peers for his defiance. But he made a come back. If you were wondering what happened to that guy, the answer is that he is currently serving chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. And yesterday in that role, you will never guess what Judge Moore did, he essentially instructed probate judges to ignore the federal ruling on gay marriage and stick to what he said was is the Alabama constitution. And this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court in 7-2 vote refused to extend that hold on the federal judges order, means it was about to go into effect. So, you got the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to stop gay marriage in Alabama, and local probate judges, the ones who are going to actually issue the marriage license, they now have a choice. What do they do? Do they follow the lead of the highest court in the nation and issue those licenses, or listen to Judge Roy Moore and refuse? Major counties like Birmingham, Montgomery and Huntsville basically told Roy Moore we`re going to go to the highest court in the land, buddy, and granted those licenses. Same-sex marriages began in Alabama today, making it the 37th state to do so. But, and here`s a big but, about 50 of Alabama`s 67 county probate courts still refuse to issue same-sex licenses, according to Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. Joining me now, Alabama State Representative Patricia Todd, the first openly gay elected official in the state. What -- how is this playing, today`s news, in Alabama? It is a state that most recent polling shows high levels of opposition to same-sex marriage and marriage equality. What is the ripple effect has been like today? STATE REP. PATRICIA TODD (D), ALABAMA: Well, we`re all disappointed in the probate judge`s lack of their ability to do their job. You know, when they got elected to office, if they didn`t have to wear an oath to the Bible or their religious preference, it was to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And today, we saw many of them today fail at their jobs. HAYES: Do you think those probate judges are going to have any accountability? I mean, this seems like a kind of political gamey (ph) for them, maybe not a moral gamey (ph) or legal one, but politically, are they going to face any reprisals for doing this, or is this politically safe for them to do on those counties? TODD: Well, the reality is it is probably politically safe for them to do, but, you know, we`re not elected to office to do what is politically safe to do. We`re here to do what is right for the people of Alabama. And you know, unfortunately, Judge Moore is over the whole judicial branch in Alabama. So, you know, to think they may be fined or penalized, I`m not sure they`ll do that. I`m sure he won`t do that. HAYES: He is their boss, right? In an administrative sense, the guy at the top, the boss of bosses of the probate judge of Alabama is Roy Moore, who is telling them directly don`t do this. The flip side is that you got very courageous judges who said, you know, told their boss to buzz off. TODD: Well, that`s true. Those are the largest urban areas in Alabama, so we knew we would get good support from those probate judges, and the others -- we`re not sure what would happen. Eventually they will have to start issuing the licenses like everybody else, you know? It may be a sign of protest, but to me it was like you were elected to do a job, and today, you didn`t do it. And they not only -- they denied everybody a marriage license. Straight or gay, so -- HAYES: Oh, wait, that`s how these probate judges dealt with it? In those 50 counties? They just said no marriage licenses today? TODD: That`s correct, they refused to issue any marriage licenses today. HAYES: So, then, how does this play out? Is there concern about this legal status of marriages are that are happening? Obviously, this is headed to Supreme Court. It looks like it will be resolved one way or the other. But what is the next steps, do you have a kind of strange tale of two states for the foreseeable future where folks can get married in some counties and not in others? TODD: It`s Alabama, we have done this before. It is amazing to me if people know anything about Alabama history that here we are again with some people standing in the schoolhouse door, so to speak, refusing to uphold the Constitution and carry out a federal court order. But, you know, as I said last time, Missouri is a Show Me State and Alabama is the Make Me State. It will be interesting to see what happens. But, you know, all of this will become so normalized as more people come out, more people get married, start having discussions, and in a couple years, we`ll look back on this and think that wasn`t such a big deal, was it? HAYES: Yes. Well, someone I think is going to make the state of Alabama sooner rather later. Alabama State Representative Patricia Todd, thank you very much. TODD: Thank you. HAYES: There were lots of moments at the Grammys including one of near deja vu. Plus, who are the plaintiffs behind the case that could kill Obamacare. One intrepid reporter went on a journey to find them and, oh boy! That`s ahead. (COMMRECIAL BREAK) HAYES: All right, in my book, biggest headlines out of the Grammy awards last night were as follows. One, Iggy Azalea`s tribute to former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko; Rihanna`s dress, which prompted a slew of quinceanera memes; Pharrell`s outfit, which led to people to speculate whether he was auditioning for the sequel to Grand Budapest Hotel; several powerful moments of political symbolism that really came through last night. During Pharrell`s rendition of his Grammy-winning song Happy, and during Beyonce`s performance of a gospel song featured in the film Selma, performers raised their hands in the unmistakable hand`s up, don`t shoot gesture that emerged from protests of the shooting death of unarmed 18- year-old Michael Brown six months ago today. And Prince, when presenting best album of the year nodded to a phrase that`s become a rallying cry for social justice protesters all over the country Black Lives Matter. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRINCE, SINGER: Albums still matter, like books and black lives, albums still matter. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Then he announced the winner. Many expected it to be Beyonce, including, apparently Kanye West who decided to register his own surprise and perhaps dismay by hopping on stage with Beck who was the actual winner. At first, the stunt seemed to lots of people like a very funny good natured callback to this now infamous moment from the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KANYE WEST, RAPPER: Yo, Taylor, I`m really happy for you, I`m going to let you finish; but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: It`s the Beyonce reaction shot that really makes that moment. That interruption and last night`s near interruption of an acceptance speech both for awards that Kanye felt Beyonce should have won. And everyone thought he was pulling a deftly timed self-deprecating joke last night. Kanye, himself, was quick to correct the record and say he was not in fact joking. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WEST: The Grammys, if they want real artists to keep coming back, they need to stop playing with us. We ain`t going to play with them no more. Flawless, Beyonce video, and Beck needs to respect artistry. And he should have given his award to Beyonce. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now Beck said there`s no hard feelings telling Us Weekly he was just as surprised saying, quote, "I thought Beyonce was going to win. Come on, she`s Beyonce." But by far my favorite moment of the entire night wasn`t actually anything happening on stage, it was the reaction shot of Beyonce and Jay-Z as Kanye was about to reprise his I`m going to let you finish moment, the sheer horror on their faces that don`t do it, don`t do it. As he walked on stage, Beyonce mouthing, no Kanye, And then erupting into laughs when Kanye pulled the nose of the airplane up just in time, deciding this time to let someone else finish. HAYES: Early next month, the Supreme Court will consider a lawsuit with the potential to gut Obamacare based on a legal argument crafted at a right-wing conference that many have dismissed as ridiculous, and which has, as it`s plaintiffs, four people who seem largely disconnected from the case, including one who says she doesn`t know how she became a plaintiff. And says she opposes exactly what the lawsuit sets out to do. The case, called King versus Burwell, rests on a poorly drafted sentence in the hundreds of pages of the law. The people behind the lawsuit say the wording in that sentence means that people in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges, instead relying on federally run exchanges, those people are not legally eligible for the Obamacare tax subsidies that help millions of low and middle class people afford health insurance. Now if the Supreme Court agrees, it blows a huge hole in the Affordable Care Act, because it means people in as many as 37 states will suddenly lose their subsidies. And the effects would be likely catastrophic. 8 million people could lose their health insurance. Premiums can skyrocket by 35 percent or more, nearly 10,000 people could die prematurely each year. The law could also completely collapse. Now that is obviously a nightmare scenario for Obamacare supporters, but also creates a potential political disaster for Republicans who will have to grapple with a very real and very dire consequences for many of their constituents. Now, to be fair, there are at least four Americans, you would think, would benefit from such a ruling: the plaintiffs, you know, the real human beings who are supposed to be personally suffering as a result of Obamacare delivering subsidized insurance in states on the federal exchange. But as Stephanie Mensemer (ph) learned when she tracked those plaintiffs down in a great piece of reporting for Mother Jones, those plaintiffs seem to have little to nothing to gain from the case other than in two cases, the potential satisfaction of helping to destroy the signature achievement of a president they consider to be, quote, "the idiot in the White House and the Antichrist." And that is not even the craziest part, one of the plaintiffs, Brenda Levy, you can see here arguing against allowing gay Boy Scouts in a local news segment, she said she didn`t even know how she got on this case adding, and I`m not making this up, "I don`t like the idea of throwing people off their health insurance." Joining me now is the author of that piece, Stephanie Mencimer, senior reporter of Mother Jones. Stephanie, great piece of reporting. So, let`s start with the beginning. You have got impact litigation, that`s the way it always works, right? Some legal minds craft a litigation strategy. They want to challenge a law. They`ve got to go find plaintiffs. What unites these plaintiffs? How are they the ones who are injured in the sense of having legal standing? STEPHANIE MENCIMER, MOTHER JONES: Well, I think -- they don`t actually have much in common on some level. But they -- at heart, the courts have said, well they`re forced to buy insurance and if they don`t they will have to pay a fine and that is the basis for their standing in this case. But as it turned out, two of them don`t even have to pay a fine and they don`t have to buy insurance, because insurance would eat up too much - - the premiums, even subsidized premiums would eat up too much of their income, and so they`re eligible for a hardship exemption. HAYES: So -- OK, so two of the plaintiffs are eligible for hardship exemption. I don`t want to get too into the weeds here, but there is this hardship exemption that lets you out mandate, right? If buying insurance, even subsidized insurance is going to cost too much you can get a hardship exemption. If that is the case, how do these two people even have legal standing? Like how have these been named plaintiffs in something that`s gone up to the Supreme Court if, in fact, they aren`t actually harmed by what they say they`re harmed? MENCIMER: Well, the lower courts just kind of let it fly. The government challenged this and the courts, the lower courts said it was OK. And lawyers have told me that the judges are kind of reluctant to throw out these sorts cases on standing, because they think people should have access to the courts. But this case is really unusual in how weak the facts are, the fact patterns of each of the individual plaintiffs. And this isn`t the first time it has happened. All of these ACA cases, you know, challenging Obamacare, have had trouble with keeping their plaintiffs. That happened in the case that went to the Supreme Court in 2012. They had to substitute a plaintiff at the last minute because one of the people in the case filed bankruptcy and had all sorts of medical bills that she couldn`t pay. So they ruled -- they said, oh, she doesn`t have an injury. She can`t bring this case. But I think the people bringing these cases have struggled to find people who are both willing to deprive millions of Americans health insurance and also who fit the criteria, the really narrow criteria that they need to challenge the law. HAYES: And this Brenda Levy woman who you interviewed, I mean, she really -- I was left kind of shaking my head, like, is this -- is she actually connected to this case? Did someone pull her name out of a phone book? Like, how is it the case that she is about to go before the Supreme Court and doesn`t -- at least according to your reporting, know what were connection is, necessarily? MENCIMER: I wish I knew. She really just was totally confused. And you know, she is -- she was really unusual. I mean, she actually said she used to be in the Sierra Club, and was a Mother Jones reader. And she`s a teacher. So she was different from the other people in the case. She didn`t seem like somebody who just really had it in for President Obama. And also in her case, she was looking at -- she told me that she was about to pay $1,500 a month for health insurance premiums because she hadn`t gotten on Obamacare. And if she had taken Obamacare, she could get the same insurance for $148 a month. So she was kind of confused a about a lot of things, I think. And you know we`re still waiting for her lawyers to explain some of that. HAYES: Wow. I`m left speechless. I mean this -- look, I understand that this lawsuit is being brought at a high level of kind of statutory interpretation, but the basics of the law, the basics of the law, like, you need plaintiffs who can demonstrate an injury. The standing is a real thing. It`s just remarkable to me this thing is in front of the Supreme Court and that box doesn`t seem so thoroughly checked. Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones, thank you very much. MENCIMER: Thanks for having me. HAYES: All right, it`s the end of an era. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: A new generation of affordable cellar phones at an incredible price breakthrough from RadioShack, the technology store. GIRL: Hi, dad, it`s me. ANNOUNCER: And now there`s a totally portable phone at a price we dare the competition to beat. GIRL: He says we can. OK, be there soon. ANNOUNCER: RadioShack, the first name in cellar telephone technology. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: $2,495, we dare you to beat that. We say goodbye to RadioShack ahead. HAYES: So I did a live Facebook chat today. I got a lot of great questions, including one viewer asking me to weigh in on his lunch options. Spoiler alert, I told him to steer clear of the calzone. If you missed out, you`re going to have another chance next Monday same time, same place: noon Eastern. We`re going to start doing this every Monday on our Facebook page, Facebook.com/AllinwithChris. Check it out while you`re there. Go ahead and hit the like button too, would you please? Stay tuned. HAYES: All right, that was a commercial for RadioShack that aired during Superbowl XLVIII. Just about a year ago. It was funny, self- deprecating and a very expensive wink and nod acknowledgment that perhaps the company`s best days were behind it. Last week, the 94-year-old company filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy with about $1.2 billion in assets and close to $1.4 billion in debts. Liquidation sales have already begun. And of the approximately 4,000 stores in the U.S., around half of them will be sold off to a consortium of companies, including the cellphone provider Sprint. The rest will be shuttered. Now it is not exactly a huge surprise. In fact, it was more than a year ago, a few years ago, that The Onion ran this satirical headlines, "Even CEO can`t figure out how RadioShack still in business." RadioShack ends its run as the butt of jokes, but will be remembered as far more than just a place to pick up batteries for all the stuff you bought at Best Buy, the company played an intimate role in the birth of the personal computer with its Tandy. And for the generation of computer hobbyists that helped launch the entire PC revolution, it was destination of necessity. Speaking to Wired magazine about the news, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak reminisced of his regular trips to his local store as he and Steve Jobs were working their magic in the 1970s. "You had a few catalogues that were full of things like walkie- talkies, but if you went down to RadioShack you could actually see something." Eventually, RadioShack shifted from a place for hobbyists to tinker with computers and gadgets to a straight-up consumer electronics store, but was eventually boxed out by bigger box stores like Best Buy. RadioShack in the new millennium was an anomaly, a 100-year-old business model in the age of Amazon.com. Steve Wozniak who says he still tinkers said, quote, "I use RadioShack probably more than any other electronics store aside from the internet." And that`s part of the problem. When we return, who, or what killed RadioShack? We shall present the suspects. HAYES: Joining me Ron Insana contributor to CNBC; and Drew Fitzgerald, tech reporter from the Wall Street Journal. All right, so first we`re going to talk about who killed it like game of Clue, who killed RadioShack. But before we get to that, like is there something to mourn here? I mean, I mourn it because my grandfather, my dear beloved grandfather, my mom`s dad, was just this kind of amazing hobbyist, tinker guy. And I remember going to his house and there were all these like random little bits of electronica I thought were so cool, that like made me kind of got me interested into tech at an early age. But I don`t know, is there something to mourn here? RON INSANA, CNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I grew up with them as well -- well, having covered, as you like to refer to it creative destruction or as we now call it disruption. You know, RadioShack in many ways didn`t keep up with the times. When I was a kid, yeah, we`d go in there we`d buy our amplifier cords, you know, our guitar cords or whatever we needed for, you know, our musical band, our musical group to work. We went there. But, look, I mean, they`ve been displaced by so many different opportunities, whether online or in bricks and mortar stores that they`re not as relevant as they were. HAYES: Well, part of it is the big box retailers, right. DREW FITZGERALD, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Yeah, that`s true. And part of it is online. I mean, the sad thing is that, you know, your grandpa may not be having those trinkets around, but guess what your grandson can buy that online and you can buy it online. And there seems to me there`s a trajectory here that reminded me of -- it reminds me of the bookstore trajectory. When I was in the 90s it was like everyone was like, oh, these big box chain stores are, you know, kicking out the local book sellers and then now they`ve turned around and Borders gets killed by Amazon. I mean, the big question is are we going to go to stores in 10 years? INSANA: Absolutely. But it depends what for, right. I mean, if you can get your gear online and you don`t need to feel it and you don`t have to have that tactile experience, of course you can get stuff online. Clothes, a little bit different. Cars, a little bit different. Restaurants different. HAYES: Well, restaurants, OK. We say that now. And I wonder how much that`s innate preference and how much that`s just acculturated. Meaning, it would -- I remember when Zappos launched. I was like who the heck is going to buy shoes that they can`t try on? I remember thinking that. Well, the answer is lots of people. And lots of people buy clothes. Like it`s possible to me that we just like people your age cohort, my age cohort. INSANA: I`m a lot older than you are. HAYES: Perhaps not you. That like basically this is just like people will get accustomed over time to just ordering everything. FITZGERALD: Well, we`re a long way away from that. There`s still roughly like about 10 percent -- less than 10 percent of sales are done online. I mean, we still go to stores for a lot of things. And we`re only a few blocks away from Amazon will be opening a store... HAYES: Which is tech support, right. INSANA: Here in New York City. FITZGERALD: ...like 600 stores country, right, is the plane? HAYES: Amazon is going to 600 stores? FITZGERALD: That`s what I`ve heard, but I don`t... INSANA: Well, we may be a long way away from that. There`s still sales taxes to deal with. So... HAYES: OK, so here`s the other thing. So part of it is just the big box retailers, part of it is Amazon, right, online. Part of it also is, I think, which if the fascinating thing about the shift from hardware to software, right? So, here is an example. 1991, RadioShack print add. The following items are for sale: AM/FM clock radio, in ear stereo phones, microthin calculator, a Tandy 1000 computer. OK, in the same add, a VHS camcorder, a mobile cellar telephone, a deluxe portable CD player, a handheld cassette tape recorder. All of those items are now in one smartphone, right. We have gone from hardware to software. FITZGERALD: Well, here`s another point about that. Back in its heyday, in the `70s, almost everything -- everything we bought at RadioShack was made by RadioShack. INSANA: Tandy. FITZGERALD: It was the Tandy company. You know what it`s like RadioShack now? Apple. I mean, it`s a very different type of brand. But you go to Apple you get only Apple products. And Apple isn`t doing too poorly, especially in retail. HAYES: And they`re doing well in retail -- that`s a good point. I never thought of that, right. And RadioShack wasn`t just a middleman, right, they were... INSANA: Yeah, it was called a Tandy corporation even in the ads. You know, the ad on television. And so, look, I mean, we`re still going to go to stores. I mean, I have a 17-year-old daughter who as much as she orders things online, she still wants to go to the mall with her friends. She wants to hang out. There is a social element to retailing that you can`t get online even if you`re communicating with people. Look, these kids text each other at a sleepover sitting next to each other, but they still want to got out and have some fun at the mall and go shopping for stuff. HAYES: So you don`t think -- OK, so let`s stores still exist, right. Here is another theory for the demise of RadioShack I thought was fascinating. This is the Wall Street Journal, which is basically like the death of American hobbies was the thesis. So here is the following. In 1979, the average worker put in 1,687 a year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. By 2007 that number was 1,867, net difference, 181 hours a year represents more than a month of extra work every year. You do wonder if the world that RadioShack, which is like the tinkerers world, right, does anyone have time to do that anymore? Was that just like erased by... FITZERALD: A lot fewer people. A lot fewer people -- there`s a big movement -- and RadioShack has worked really hard over the past couple of years to reclaim that. They`ve had a lot working against them, mostly the fact that there`s no money selling smartphones anymore if you`re selling it in the store, unless you`re Apple. INSANA: And remember, too, tinkering is a younger person`s experience, right. So our kids are tinkering with different things... HAYES: And they`re tinkering -- right, exactly, software as opposed to hardware. INSANA: But they still go out and buy hardware. They still play baseball, they still play football, they still go to sporting goods stores. That stuff is not... HAYES: Oh, you mean like physical things in the world. That`s not hardware, that`s a baseball bad. INSANA: That`s hardware. HAYES: OK. OK. But not in like a technical, not in like a computer sense. INSANA: Well, no but dammit, people do other things than that as well. I mean, and so you do have to go to stores... HAYES: Not for long. INSANA: You think baseball is going away? HAYES: It`s all going away. Look... INSANA: We`re going to have flabby little kids. HAYES: We`re going to have these chips in our head, it`s going -- we`re going to basically be brains in vats in 10 years. Mark it down. If you could invest in a brain -- are you watching me for viewer for investment advice... INSANA: Oh, really? HAYES: Brain in the vat. Brain in the vat technology, long on brain in the vat technology 10 years from now. FITZGERALD: Stay long Apple. HAYES: Exactly. Or just go long Apple. Ron Insana, Drew Fitzgerald, thank you both. All right, that is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show starts right now THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020901cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 41 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 9, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 09, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: Tim Kaine, Kenji Yoshino, CJ Phillips, Charlie Rainwater SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7652 words HIGHLIGHT: Interview with U.S. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. After a federal judge overturned Alabama`s ban on same-sex marriage, ordering the state of Alabama to start performing marriages for everyone as of today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered the state`s local family law judges to not perform same-sex marriages despite the federal ruling that said they had to. The Clay Hunt Veterans Suicide Prevention Bill passed both houses of Congress, and President Obama will hold a big celebratory signing ceremony on Thursday afternoon. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Chris, can I retroactively participate in your panel discussion? CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: You can. Tell me about your thoughts on RadioShack`s demise. MADDOW: Here`s the thing about RadioShack, which makes it truly tragic. I have never gone into a RadioShack and left without the thing I needed. And that is because the people who work at RadioShack were expected to help you. HAYES: That`s right. MADDOW: What other store do you go into and they got like tools? HAYES: That`s right. And the model of retail in which, I was comparing it to, when I was a kid, we would buy shoes. The shoe sales people knew things about shoes. The model of a retail store in which there`s embedded knowledge in the sales person, that is also going away, also Ron, but Apple kind of does that. MADDOW: Yes, but you got to make an appointment, you know? They`re setting it up like a school. RadioShack, you walk in with your busted garage door opener and 3 bucks. And the guy is like sit down. I`ll take care of it. HAYES: (INAUDIBLE) for you. MADDOW: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. HAYES: Enjoy. MADDOW: That was fun going back in time to be on Chris`s show. All right. Thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. OK. It has now been just over three days, a little more than 81 hours and there is still no clarity tonight on this story. But we do have some new information, some pretty specific new information that I want to convey to you right now. All right. This all started on Friday afternoon, roughly noon Eastern Time. We started to hear the first reports on Twitter and other social media platforms that an American woman, a young American woman had been killed while she was being held as a hostage by the terrorist group ISIS. Now, it had been known for some time that 26-year-old American aide worker Kayla Mueller of Prescott, Arizona, was being held as an ISIS hostage. she was believed, in fact, to be the last American being held by ISIS. They had her for almost a year and a half since they kidnapped her in Syria. But before Friday, not much was known about her fate. That was in part because her parents, her family, wanted her name kept out of the news. They thought it would be a way of keeping her safe. But it was in part by decisions by ISIS. We hadn`t heard much about her from them either. Then on Friday, ISIS made this announcement online that Kayla Mueller had been killed. That ISIS announcement that their last remaining American hostage was dead. That announcement came as a surprise for a few different reasons -- excuse me, for a few different reasons. For one thing, as weird and morbid as it is to say, ISIS has now killed so many of it`s hostages that we have learned their basic routine for how they do things. Last summer, when ISIS wanted it to be known they had American hostages and they intended to kill their American hostages, they paraded those hostages, right? James Foley, Steven Sotloff, later, Peter Kassig, they were made to appear in ISIS propaganda videos that were released online. And ISIS each time said, we are going to kill them unless you, the American government does X, Y, and Z. In each of those cases, the American government refused to pay ransom or change policies when ISIS demanded it. And those American hostages were later executed by ISIS. Last month, ISIS did the same thing with a pair of Japanese hostages who they were holding. They paraded these two men in various propaganda videos. They gave the Japanese government a deadline. They said if you don`t do x, y, and z, we will kill these Japanese hostages. And ultimately they did. I mean, this is a gruesome and barbaric stuff. But honestly, it`s a pretty well worn tactic on their part this time. They have done it a lot now. But in the case of Kayla Mueller, with this hostage, there was no such routine. There`s no propaganda video. There were no public deadlines or demands given. They just announced on Friday afternoon that she was gone, that Kayla Mueller had been killed. And they provided no evidence to prove it beyond their own assertion. They released Kayla Mueller`s name. They said she had been killed. They released a few still images of a building in Syria where they said that Kayla Mueller had died. They said she died not at their own hands, not at ISIS`s hands. They said she died as a result of a U.S. coalition-led bombing raid, specifically they said it was bombing raid conducted by Jordanian pilots. So, that`s what they said, and that is what we were able to report as of Friday. To be clear, then and still today, ISIS has not offered any further evidence that this American young woman has actually been killed. And the claims that she was killed by a Jordanian air strike don`t square with what we know now about coalition air strikes in Syria on Friday which is when they say she died. ISIS says Kayla Mueller was killed in an airstrike on Friday in the Syrian city of Raqqa, which is their sort of capital city. It`s their base of operations in that country. Jordan, today, says, yes, they have launched more than 50 combat operations in Syria since last week, against ISIS targets, but they say they have launched none near the Syrian city of Raqqa. And so, it remains a mystery tonight as to whether or not this 26-year-old American aid worker was actually killed on Friday as ISIS says she was. Her family in Arizona is holding out hope that Kayla Mueller is still alive. They now say they have reached out to ISIS to try to confirm that. They`re seeking a private communication from ISIS to Kayla Mueller`s family. Look at this. This is remarkable reporting tonight from NBC`s Andrea Mitchell. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS (voice-over): Her parents` vigil continues, waiting for her captors to answer their last appeal three days ago. So far, silence. Nothing since ISIS claimed that Kayla had been killed in a coalition airstrike. A fate that the family refuses to believe. TODD GEILER: The family right now is in a very fragile state as you can imagine. They`re worried. MITCHELL: Her parents` desperate plea to the terrorists, "You told us you treated her as your guest. As your guest, her safety and well-being remains your responsibility. At this time, we ask you who are holding Kayla to contact us privately." But they haven`t. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: "This time we ask you who are holding Kayla to contact us privately." Imagine what it takes for the family to do something like that. While Kayla Mueller`s family and all of us, honestly await any further word about her fate, we are now getting some specific new details about the U.S. mission that was attempted to rescue her and to rescue the other American hostages last summer. What we have known previously is that U.S. Special Operations troops launched a rescue attempt inside Syria last July. This was a risky helicopter-led rescue mission inside Raqqa to try to find the four American hostages that ISIS was holding at that time -- James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Peter Kassig, Kayla Mueller. That mission, that raid, was unsuccessful, but we`re learning there were certain clues the Special Ops found on the ground there that indicated that the hostages had recently been at that location, specifically they reportedly found strands of hair they believe to be from Kayla Mueller. They found those strands of hair where they believed it to be held and launched the raid looking for them. But the hostages had been moved before the Special Ops guys got there. But details like that from that failed mission, those are now starting to leak, even as Kayla Mueller`s fate remains uncertain. ISIS meanwhile is moving ahead with their propaganda campaign today. They released a strange new 12-minute propaganda video featuring another one of their hostages, featuring British photojournalist John Cantlie. ISIS has been using John Cantlie in the surreal way for several months now. They`re essentially using him as if he is an ISIS reporter, using him as a Western journalism-style mouthpiece, in this case to show that life under ISIS rule is great. The latest video shows the hostage touring Aleppo talking about how great the ISIS fighters are doing there now, how they don`t fear the Americans at all, just bizarre to hear this stuff being voiced under duress by hostage John Cantlie. Earlier today, NBC`s Keir Simmons filed this bit of reporting from Jordan. As I mentioned, Jordan has been very public about its stepping up its air campaign against ISIS, in the last week after a Jordanian pilot was burned alive by his ISIS captors. Well, today, the commander of Jordan`s air force told NBC that Jordan has its sites set on the top leader of ISIS specifically, on Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed supreme leader of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Al Baghdadi does not appear often in public for obvious reasons. His movements are well-guarded by ISIS. But watch this. Watch what the top commander of Jordan`s air force said this morning. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: We joined Jordan`s pilots preparing for a mission that was canceled this time. Still, they say the ISIS leader himself, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is in their sights. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have assets always in the air for an opportunity for target like Baghdadi and his gang. REPORTER: In your view, he`s frightened. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is no doubt about it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: We have assets always in the air for a target of opportunity like al-Baghdadi. So, that was this morning, and then -- this is kind of interesting. I mean, who knows if these things are related. Just a few hours after that NBC News interview, new reports surfaced that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had been wounded, seriously wounded in coalition air strikes in Syria today. It was reports from "Reuters" today that Baghdadi was wounded in airstrikes in Raqqa. NBC`s Jim Miklaszewski reports tonight that U.S. military and intelligence officials said they have no information to confirm that claim about whether or not he was hit today. Of course, there has also been previous reports that he was wounded or killed -- reports that turned out to be false. Still though, a girl can dream. And here is a new and potentially significant new wrinkle in this story. This U.S.-led military campaign against ISIS up until has been focused exclusively on Syria and Iraq. More than 2,000 airstrikes against ISIS on those two countries over the last six months. But today, we learned that surprise, this war is apparently not contained to just Syria and Iraq. American military personnel launched an attack against ISIS today in Afghanistan. Last month, "The Washington Post" ran this story, "Meet the shadowy figure recruiting for the ISIS in Afghanistan." That story described a former Taliban commander who was once in U.S. custody, he was freed during the Bush administration, where he landed after he was freed from custody was back in Southern Afghanistan, ultimately. And what he has been doing there is recruiting for ISIS. And that is weird, right? Because ISIS is in Iraq and Syria. Afghanistan isn`t even contiguous with those countries. It`s quite a long distance away. But still, "The Washington Post" reported that this guy was trying to make a go of it for ISIS in Afghanistan. That report about that ISIS commander came out last month, January 13th. Today, it is reported that specific guy, that commander, was just killed in Afghanistan and he was killed by an American drone. So, a one name guy who everyone said was key to ISIS`s effort to gain a foothold in a third country. He was key to their effort to gain a foothold in Afghanistan. He was the one guy who everybody was willing to say he is the outpost of ISIS in Afghanistan and he`s recruiting heavily. Apparently, they got him. It was the Afghan government that announced that, quote, "precision strike" today, but local Afghan officials in the area said the actual hit that killed the ISIS operative came from an American drone. One tribal elder telling the "New York Times" that the ISIS commander and a few others had just returned from a livestock market where they had gone to preach and encourage people to join ISIS, and then he was shot down by a drone. "New York Times" describes this strike as the first known military operation undertaken against ISIS in Afghanistan. More than 1,000 miles from the group`s home territory in Syria and Iraq. So, if you`re keeping track at home, the U.S. is at war with ISIS in Iraq, and in Syria, and now in Afghanistan as well. It is getting to be a big war, right? I mean, three countries, thousands of airstrikes, hundreds of aircraft, thousands of ground troops, not to mention the special forces raids behind enemy lines. It is getting to be a pretty big war, this thing we`re not calling a war. And all of it without any input from the U.S. government that gets to declare when, where, and why we go to war. And there`s also some real news tonight on that front. Late last week, we learned that congressional leaders were told by the White House to expect the White House to send over draft language for this war, draft language for Congress to debate on and vote on authorizing this new war that we`re uncomfortable calling a war. Tonight, there are reports that that draft language could -- could -- be heading to Congress the day after tomorrow. Obama to seek new authority for Islamic State fight by Wednesday. Now, I should note that NBC News has not independently confirmed that it will be Wednesday. These are unconfirmed reports at this point, but when it does happen, apparently that will mean that six months behind the news, Congress will have actually started to debate in a real way, not just on TV shows, debate in a binding way, what we are doing against ISIS. How that mission should be defined, how that mission should be constrained, and whether or not what we`ve been doing for the last six months already is working. Joining us now is Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He has led the effort in the Senate to get a new authorization vote for this mission against ISIS. Senator Kaine, it`s great to have you here. Thanks for your time. SEN. TIM KAINE (D), VIRGINIA: Thanks, Rachel. Great to be with you. MADDOW: What is your understanding about what is about to happen on this subject? And is it what you have been advocating for? KAINE: Well, Rachel, I started this talk in June of 2014 about the need for Congress to approve a mission against ISIL, which was then seemingly a threat. I don`t think any of the previous authorizations cover what we`ve been doing since August 8th. We are in our seventh month of war, but I was heartened when the president in the State of the Union said he would be seeking congressional authority. And again, I`m not sure of exactly the day, but I think very soon, the White House will send a proposed mission statement for this war and in the Foreign Relations Committee, I serve on committee in the Senate, we will be undertaking to question administration witnesses about the proposal, the limitations in the proposal, and we will probably add our own revisions and amendments to it. It`s way past time that we do this. We`ve already lost American service members lives in operation and inherent resolve without Congress doing what we`re supposed to do. So, I`m glad that day is finally arriving because there are many questions we need to ask. MADDOW: In terms of the scope of those questions, and what you think your committee and the rest of Congress will be doing with the proposed language, obviously, it seems clear to me as it does to you they were putting the cart before the horse to debate a war that`s already been under way for six months. KAINE: Indeed, absolutely. MADDOW: Is there, weirdly though, some sort of strategic upside to that? Because now, one of the things you can debate is not, you know, wondering what might work against ISIS, but what we have been trying already, debating whether or not we`ve been fighting them effectively for these past six months. KAINE: Absolutely. And you`ll see us doing that, and that question of effectiveness and the mission has many components. Are there geographic limitations to the battle? You talk about the death of the ISIL commander in Afghanistan? Should there be a sunset clause? I think there should be, where the president would have to come back and seek a new authorization after a certain period of time. Are we -- is this just a mission against ISIL, or, as you know, during the early authorizations, the administrations both wishing Obama developed a broad notion of associated forces that will enable us to take the fight probably far beyond what Congress originally intended. And then there`s some probably the most critical question is, what does the White House say about the use of any American ground troops in this mission? Our work thus far has been largely in waging I think a pretty significant air campaign that`s been effective in Iraq to support ground troops from the region, and the president has said on the number of occasions, we`re not going to be using American ground troops in this particular war, but we need to kind of dig into that. I suspect you`ll see that as a significant point of difference between members of Congress who are overwhelmingly in support of military action against ISIL. But there are some differences on important details. MADDOW: When I -- when I imagine what these hearings are going to be like, and what this debate is going to be like, we know enough already from the news to know that ISIS is not degraded or undermined to a degree that the U.S. is going to feel comfortable with in terms of our national security and the risk to destabilizing the region. So, we know there`s going to be bad news to hear about ISIS` persistence in the face of these 2000 air strikes. I worry and wonder and anticipate that because of that, the debate is inexorably going to steer toward a bigger response than we`ve already got. It is inexorably going to steer toward ground troops or toward activating other kinds of military resources that we haven`t thrown at this problem thus far. Do you think that`s an inevitable course of that debate? KAINE: The debate is certainly going to have people making that argument, Rachel. I`m skeptical about it and I`ll tell you why. You know, again, I introduced a resolution. We ought to take military action against ISIL that I introduced in September. But do I think a weariness about ground troops makes a lot of sense. Last week, King Abdullah of Jordan was here and sadly, he was here on the very day when the Jordanian pilot was burned and that video was released. It was kind of a very emotional meeting with him. But he said something very powerful, he said, look, this is not America`s fight. This is the region`s fight against its own terrorism. Now, we need your help but you have a right to expect that we in this region will stand up against this regional terrorism. We`ll stand up against it. And if we do, you should help us. You can`t carry the burden of the fight alone. We`ve already been the party that has directed more than 80 percent of the air strikes. These nations in the region, they have a lot of weapons and I know because the U.S. has sold them a lot of weapons. But other than Jordan, they`re not really all in, trying to beat this extremism, which is created in the region and which poses a much more direct threat to them immediately than it does to the United States. So, sure, we`ll have a debate back and forth about ground troops, but the point that I`m going to be making is this: the U.S. cannot police a region that does not want to police itself. Now, we and other nations can help a region that will police itself, but one of the important questions is, how seriously are the countries in the region taking this fight to ISIL? And if they`re not, that`s going to be a significant question that we`re going to have to ask why and get good answers about. MADDOW: Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, thank you so much for your time tonight, sir. KAINE: Absolutely. MADDOW: And I have to say, just personally, thank you for being so loud about this issue, about Congress` responsibility here. You were loud about it when a lot of other people weren`t, and I think you gave other people courage to speak up on this subject. Thanks for being ahead on this one, sir. KAINE: And I`m going to keep being loud, Rachel. MADDOW: Good. Well done, sir. Thank you very much. All right. We got lots ahead tonight, including total chaos in Alabama today. Much of it of a very happy variety. Also, coming up on the show this hour, we`ve got have bears and owls and ducks. Seriously. Moo. Stay with us. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: I don`t think I`m allowed to touch him, I don`t know how he keeps getting back in here. But he is back. Unnerving. But now that you`re here you may want to stay where you are. We do have some news concerning this -- concerning this guy. Stay with us. MADDOW: Quote, "Confusion and disarray in administration of the law," yes, and then some. After a federal judge overturned Alabama`s ban on same-sex marriage, ordering the state of Alabama to start performing marriages for everyone as of today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore said, "If Alabama did that, if Alabama followed federal law and followed federal court orders on this matter, that would create, quote, `confusion and disarray in the administration of the law.`" And so, last night, Judge Roy Moore acted to prevent that kind of confusion and disarray. He ordered the state`s local family law judges to not perform same-sex marriages despite the federal ruling that said they had to. Huh? So, thank you, Judge Moore in Alabama. Thanks to him, "chaos reigns". Probate judges across the state grappled with conflicting rulings. Alabama Live had to put together this handy county by county map today showing just what kind of marrying was happening in each county in Alabama today. And no confusion and disarray there, Judge Moore. Many probate judges today decided just not to issue any marriage licenses at all, to gay couples or straight couples. So, that`s one way to solve the problem. Marriage unavailable for anyone, that`s not confusing at all. And for those judges who did want to make their way through the thicket of conflicting rulings and instructions, Alabama`s attorney general issued this helpful statement. Look at this, "I advise probate judges to talk to their attorneys about how to respond." That`s right. So, the judges should get lawyers. And the judges should speak to their lawyers about with a they should do -- not confusing at all. It should be noted, though, in the handful of green counties, there were a lot of very happy gay couples getting hitched in Alabama. And the reason they were able to get hitched under that federal court ruling is that the U.S. Supreme Court denied the state`s request to stay that ruling. And, of course, everybody has been trying to read the tea leaves on the United States Supreme Court on the issue, because they are set to rule this year on whether gay marriage is protected by the constitution. People are anticipating this could be a big national sweeping ruling within just the next few months. So, today with this decision in Alabama, a lot of people saw the Supreme Court`s decision to not block same-sex marriages from going forward, even though the state wanted that. Some people saw that as a sign that maybe the Supreme Court is going to rule favorably toward marriage equality when they hear that case later this spring. One of the people who seemed to think that today was Justice Clarence Thomas. He doesn`t like the idea but he seems like what he thinks is going to happen. Joining us now to explain is Kenji Yoshino, legal scholar and the Chief Justice Earl Warren professor of constitutional law at NYU. He`s also the author of the forthcoming book "Speak Now: Marriage Equality on Trial." Kenji, it`s great to see you. KENJI YOSHINO, LEGAL SCHOLAR: Great to be here. MADDOW: Clarence Thomas did a little punditry today. I mean, this was his dissent. He said Alabama should have been granted its request to not implement marriage equality today, because they didn`t to, even though a federal court told them to. But in so doing, he basically said, yes, everybody is about to get gay married everywhere. YOSHINO: Well, I think actually what he said was that this could be taken as a sign, right? MADDOW: OK. YOSHINO: I think that he was trying to give himself a little running room there, that this might not be the case. MADDOW: OK. So, is there reason to look at what happened between the state of Alabama and the Supreme Court today as anything other than something about Alabama, as something that might tell us what`s going to happen nationally? YOSHINO: Oh, I think there definitely is, you know? The big difference about this case that the Supreme Court had granted review in between. So, this is different from all of the other earlier cases because the Supreme Court has now granted review and arguments will be held in April. The decision is going to be made by June. So, Justice Thomas has a point when he says this will be decided by June, so therefore, just wait awhile. MADDOW: Leave the status quo in place since you know this is going to be settled. YOSHINO: Exactly, and that`s different from status quo before the Supreme Court took place where people could be waiting independently if a stay didn`t put in place. MADDOW: Obviously, there is a lot of historical resonance because it`s Alabama, saying, you know, we`re not going to do what the federal court tells us to do. We don`t recognize your authority here. The resonance there is too obvious to restate. But what do you make of the legal chaos today with the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who`s been very outspoken on this subject, essentially directing lower court judges in the state to not follow federal law. And all of those probate judges making decisions, county by county, whatever -- based on whatever they felt was the right thing to do. How do you explain that? YOSHINO: I think it`s extremely troubling from a rule of law perspective. And we`ve seen this before. We saw it in California during the Prop 8 litigation. MADDOW: Oh, the other direction, right. YOSHINO: Yes, they kicked it and said the California district rules is the law of the case, meaning the final and ultimate disposition of the case. There was some squawking on the side about how only the parties before the court were bound, and this wouldn`t bind California. But that ended up not being the case. You know, Kamala Harris put a stop to that as attorney general of California, and that squawk kind of died out. Now, that that squawking as an imprimatur of someone like the chief justice of the state supreme court, it has a very difference resonance, and a very troubling resonance with regard to the rule of law, because I think what he`s saying is it`s perfectly fine to disobey a federal, as you said, ruling by a district court judge so long as it doesn`t comfort with his interpretation -- remember he`s not a judge in the case -- with his interpretation of what the United States Constitution requires. MADDOW: How do you think it will resolve in Alabama? Usually these things resolve when a federal court tells a state this is what you`re allowed to do and this is what you`re not allowed to do. In this case, that has not brought us to the end, the chaos in Alabama today, I mean, punctuated by some very happy people being married some places. But that chaos today, how does that get resolved? YOSHINO: Yes, I think it`s going to get resolved by suits against probate judges who refused to issue warnings, right? So, I think that one of the reasons why the judges are choosing the quality of graveyards to the quality of the vineyards. Marriage for no one as opposed to marriage for everybody, because they`re trying to hedge themselves against claims that they are flouting the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. So, I think this will be -- those lawsuits will percolate. One thing where Justice Thomas and I agree on is, you know, at a minimum, this will be over in June 2015. MADDOW: Well, Judge Roy Moore, if you accomplish nothing else in your life, (a), you did create a lot of chaos in Alabama today in the administration of law. But also, Judge Roy Moore, in some weird way he may have stopped straight marriage in Alabama at least in a number of counties. I`m sure he is sleeping well. Kenji Yoshino, Chief Justice Earl Warren, professor of constitutional law at NYU and the man who explains these things to us -- Kenji, thank you. YOSHINO: Thank you so much. MADDOW: All right. Just ahead, an adult-sized portion of info bunk will be debunked. Please stay with us. MADDOW: Stay where you are my fine feathered friend, creep. Last week on this show, we told you about a series of owl attacks -- owl attacks on joggers in Oregon, specifically in a park in the state capital of Salem, Oregon. The first victim was Ron Jakes, an Oregon surgeon who has been jogging extra hard in the park in order to make sure he could still fit into his adorable Green Bay Packers suit. He`s a Green Bay Packers fan and he likes this suit. Full disclosure, this is not what he was wearing when he got attacked by the owl. But when he did get attacked by the owl, the owl came down on him so hard that it punctured his scalp, presumably with its talons. The doctor thought he was having an aneurysm when this owl attacked him. And now, since in that same park, there had been at least three more people have been attacked since the doctor. Well, now, the city of Salem has these attack owl warning signs. Given the ferociousness of the owl encounters and the mounting number of owl attacks, we thought the sign should be a little scarier. We suggested this sign for an owl warning sign for Salem, Oregon. We also after posting that sign online, we heard back from the doctor with the Green Bay Packers suit who was owl victim number one. He saw our report about what he went through. Look what he sent us. Look. Look, that`s him on the right wearing a shirt with our attack owl warning sign printed on the front of it. Dr. Jakes will warn the people. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Also today, "The Statesman Journal" newspaper in Salem, they announced the ten finalists in their effort to name the aggressive owl in their town. They want a name for the owl. You can vote for Thurston Owl III, also, Hoodini -- because owl. Claws, that`s a simple one but it might sound Christmas-y. I like owlgetcha. That`s pretty good. Polls are opened until noon tomorrow, West Coast time. That`s the latest on Oregon and owls. But tonight we also have live, and in the flesh our new favorite Oregon Bears, CJ and Chris, proud Oregon Bears who are playing a surprising role in national top tier American politics right now from their perch in Oregon. And that story is coming up and so are they. This is going to be good. Please stay with us. MADDOW: Every now and again I get to do a segment called "And Now Here is a Thing." It is just a thing that happened that you should know about. Without further adieu. And now, here is a thing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUBTITLE: And now, here`s a thing -- MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST: You know we call you "The Duck" in Nerdland. ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Duck? HARRIS-PERRY: We call you "The Duck", so -- in Nerdland, we say you have a very placid and even way of presenting, but you`re just working for justice underneath, Would you quack for us? HOLDER: I`m not sure I`m going to do that, but I like the analogy. HARRIS-PERRY: You do like the analogy, good. HOLDER: I like to think -- well I was born in New York City in the `50s and `60s, and for an African-American guy, the thing was to be cool, you know? You had to be cool, things don`t bother you. So, on the surface that`s how I like to appear to be, but you`re absolutely right, those little duck feet are moving as fast as they can underneath, and things are going as fast as they can behind the scenes. And I may have been cool in congressional hearings on the outside, but I was pissed off a lot of the time too, you know? It`s a question of trying to rein in that -- those feelings and make sure on the outside, I was cool. SUBTITLE: And that is the thing that happened. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: And that is a thing that happened. No, I will not quack like a duck for you Melissa Harris-Perry, says outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, while admitting to getting P.O.`d a lot of times in congressional hearings. Placid on the surface, paddling furiously below the waterline, I can`t believe that happened. That was so excellent. Well-done. MADDOW: Hoot, hoot! Debunktion Junction. What`s my function? First, true or false. OK. Today was the day that Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was due to show up for day one of his federal prison sentence. After being convicted on more than a dozen felony corruption charges and sentenced in the pokey. A judge later announced that Governor McDonnell would be allowed to stay free on bond while he pursues his appeals, so today didn`t have to be day one in prison for him. Today was also, though, the day that we were due to learn the federal sentences recommendations for Bob McDonnell`s wife. Today we got that news about the recommended sentence for Maureen McDonnell about her felony corruption charges. And the news about her recommended sentence was fairly shocking. Look -- 18 years, whoo, 18 years. Her husband, Governor Bob McDonnell got two years. But prosecutors are trying to lock Maureen McDonnell up for 18 years? That was the news today. Is that true? Or is that false? (BUZZER) MADDOW: It`s false, actually. Prosecutors are not seeking a sentence of 18 years for Maureen McDonnell. That literally was just a typo, I`m sure it was a terrifying typo for Mrs. McDonnell. But it originated in an "A.P." wire report today about her case. And because it was in a wire story, that misinformation got replicated in "Politico", and in "Salon", and, of course, "A.P.`s" story which shows up in their own native ways all around the Internet, went rocketing around the news faster than a Ferrari borrowed from a political patron who would like to boost -- would like a boost from the state. Hello, Governor. In reality, prosecutors are asking the court to sentence Maureen McDonnell to prison but not for 18 years, but what they`re asking for is 18 months. Oops. Literally, it was a typo. I mean, by law, she could be up for more time at her sentencing later this month, but the governor`s punishment turned out to be a fraction of what he could have gotten, and now, the first lady looks to be on the same path to not much time in prison. That terrifying typo, one final gift from Governor Gifty just in time for Valentine`s Day. Also, true or false? Over the weekend, the Web site "Politico", again, spent time poking fun at the current list of potential Republican candidates for 2016. Quote, "A line up of long shots crowds the Republican field." Quote, "The Republican 2016 presidential field includes three politicians, George Pataki, Jim Gilmore and Bob Ehrlich, who last won election when the flip phone was hot technology." OK, is that true or is that false? Is it true or false there are three Republicans in the 2016 field who last won elections like more than a decade ago, back in flip phone-ville? Is it true or false that there are three of those guys in the field? (BUZZER) MADDOW: False. While it is true those three guys, George Pataki, Jim Gilmore, Bob Ehrlich, have not won any election in over a decade, "Politico" also inexplicably left out their comrade in arms here, Jeb Bush. The last time Jeb Bush won an election was also more than a decade ago when he was reelected governor of Florida in 2002, and yet it`s almost like they`re not willing to hold that against Jeb Bush the way they hold it against those other guys on the Politico.com long-shot list. I mean, the point remains though, a lot has changed since 2002. Right now, Jeb Bush is dealing with a very contemporary, very contemporary political problem, thanks to a couple of adorable bears from Northwest Oregon. And those bears are coming up next. Please stay with us. MADDOW: Something about traveling to London that makes America`s would-be presidents kind of bonkers, or makes them look bonkers at least. Mitt Romney went over there and insulted the London Olympics, then had the British prime minister insult him back. He forgot names, and he talked publicly, he bragged publicly about stuff that were supposed to be secret. Bobby Jindal was just in Britain and he also got insulted by the British prime minister after he spouted a bunch of made up, debunked right wing blog comment, "World Net Daily" nonsense about Britain while he was in Britain and they knew the difference. He just embarrassed himself. And then, Chris Christie tripped on his own tongue about whether kids should get their shots. Following those remarks, he then canceled his media availability even though he was in London and reporters kept following him around anyway while he snarled at them. I don`t know what it is about London, but it`s like quick sand for these guys. Step right up, sink right down. The next contender to try his lack with the British people and the British press is Wisconsin`s Governor Scott Walker. Scott Walker is going to be in Britain all week. Maybe, it will go great. Maybe he will break the curse, but be on the lookout for how these things usually go. So, Scott Walker in the U.K. today. Chris Christie back from the U.K. and off to Iowa today. Rand Paul was in Iowa over this weekend, still talking about vaccines, seriously, he gave another vaccines interview this weekend. But the big news that`s happening right now among Americans who want to be president is that Jeb Bush is rolling out his online Jeb Bush for president operation. A bit of bumpy start to that today, as they made a big deal about hiring this guy as their new chief technology officer for the Jeb Bush for President PAC. Shortly after making the announcement of that hire though, Andrew Kaczynski at "BuzzFeed" starting that guy`s online history starting to disappear. Tweets like these, quote, "New study confirms old belief, college female art majors are sluts. Science majors are also sluts, but uglier." Or this one, quote, "Most people don`t know that Halloween is German for night that girls with low self-esteem dress like sluts." Or this one, quote, "When I burp in the gym, I feel like it`s my way of saying, sorry, guys, but I`m not gay." Or, this is a nice one, quote, "There are 12 girls that will never amount to anything greater than being some girl that`s slept with Tiger Woods." So, he seems nice. Where did you find him? That`s who Jeb Bush just hired to be his chief technology officer for the big online rollout of his campaign. He`s also launching he`s running for president Web site. We don`t know exactly what kind of Web site it is, but we do know that it goes live tomorrow and that it will include the first chapter of his new e-book, along with a whole bunch of emails from his time as governor, for your perusal. We also know that the new Jeb Bush for President Web site being launched with all this fanfare tomorrow will not be at the web address JebBushforpresident.com. Not because he`s shy about that at all, but because these gentlemen, this couple from Oregon, they are the proud owners of JebBushforpresident.com. And they have been since 2008. C.J. Phillips and Charlie Rainwater are a couple of self-described high-tech bears. They`ve been together for almost 20 years. They both work in tech. They both disagree with Mr. Bush`s record and past remarks on gay rights. And now, thanks to them, there is a handy place to learn about and discuss gay rights online, at their Web site, which is JebBushforpresident.com. Joining us now are CJ Phillips and Charlie Rainwater, the proud owners of that Web site. Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. I`m so happy to meet you. CJ PHILLIPS, OWNS JEBBUSHFORPRESIDENT.COM: Hi there. CHARLIE RAINWATER, OWNS JEBBUSHFORPRESIDENT.COM: We`re happy to be here. MADDOW: First of all, I feel like I`ve made a big deal out of the fact that you guys are bears and that you call yourselves high-tech bears. I want you to know that I mean it with as much affection as I can possibly muster. I hope that hasn`t bothered you at all. PHILLIPS: Yes, right back at you. RAINWATER: Yes, not at all. MADDOW: Very good. Sometime, I`ll tell you about the gardening bears I met in Texas, who said they lived at a place so nice, where the gardens were so nice it was bear-sigh. (LAUGHTER) RAINWATER: We love to hear that story. PHILLIPS: Bring it. MADDOW: So, you guys were living in Texas actually when you decided to buy this Web site in the first place. Tell me about that decision. PHILLIPS: Well, we were living in Austin, which is an amazing city. And there was this weird convergence of the timing of the other Bush getting out of office and President Obama coming back in, or coming in, and Texas passing some really, pretty strict legislature that put us in a bind, right? And Charlie and I were talking. And it`s like, wouldn`t it be funny if we could use Jeb Bush`s name to like try to educate people about LGBT issues, get on the Internet two minutes later, we bought the domain for 8 bucks. MADDOW: And have you been renewing it ever since? Have you had the Jeb Bush folks try to buy it from you? Or any -- have they approached you at all? RAINWATER: No, they haven`t approached us. We haven`t heard a word from them. Every year, it would come available. We were like, do we want to keep it? Yes, we need to do something about it. And we would renew it and then procrastinate and not really do anything. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: So, what are you guys going to do with it? I see that you`ve definitely started something already. It redirects to a page that`s got discussions under way and some explanation about why you bought it. Do you have a bigger plan in mind? PHILLIPS: We`d really like to use it as a platform for letting people learn about this is what a real LGBT couple faces, right? What we`re really like. So many times in our past, we`ve heard people ask us questions, because they don`t know. They don`t know another gay couple. They don`t realize that two guys who look like us, big old bears, are a couple, right? This is a chance. This is what we want to use it for. MADDOW: Since you guys have become known for owning this domain and this suddenly very, very relevant domain, have you had any negative comments, or any notable positive reactions? What`s happened since you guys have come out about this? RAINWATER: We`ve had a lot of very nice, very supportive comments, some really good stuff. Unfortunately, some of the worst negative comments were on an Oregonian here in Oregon. MADDOW: On the newspaper Web site. RAINWATER: On the newspaper Web site. One comment was we look like two frail refugees from a nursing home. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Wow. That`s some imagination. I can`t even squint and come up with that. Anything but frail in every way. CJ and Charlie, you guys have been such good sports about this. You`re sort of genuine openness about what you`re doing here and your feelings about it and everything have turned this into a story that I think you can keep it going as long as they can`t pry this Web site away from you. I wish you guys the best of luck. RAINWATER: Well, even if they do eventually get it, we have a backup site. MADDOW: What`s that? PHILLIPS: CJandCharlieforpresident.com. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Naturally. I recommend an owl for a mascot, fellows. PHILLIPS: Absolutely. RAINWATER: Swooping down on a jogger. MADDOW: It`s great to have you, guys, here. Thank you. Good luck to you both. PHILLIPS: Thank you, ma`am. Bye-bye. RAINWATER: Bye-bye. MADDOW: I love my job. Gave me an excuse to call these guys. I love this. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: Two big things are about to happen this week, both of which are very, very, very rare in Washington. One of them is that there`s going to be a presidential veto, woo-hoo. We`ve only had two vetoes the whole Obama presidency. Both on little technical matters nobody remembers. But now, on Wednesday, the House is expected to pass the Keystone bill, Senate already passed it last month. So, once the House does this thing on Wednesday, that heads to President Obama`s desk for his signature, which it will not get. Veto coming. The White House has said for a long, long time, that the president may or may not approve Keystone once all the reviews are done. But they say that it is his call to make, not Congress`. So, he will do a thing he never does. He will do a thing we have not been able to cover the whole time he has been president, veto on the way maybe this week. And almost as rare as a modern presidential veto is the blue moon of this Congress actually making a new law. But that`s about to happen too. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Marine Corporal Clay Hunt`s family, they did the impossible. They moved mountains. They got Congress to do something substantive. The Clay Hunt Veterans Suicide Prevention Bill passed both Houses. It will become law. We`ve just now learned that President Obama will hold a big celebratory signing ceremony on Thursday afternoon. President Obama always talks about how much he loves a signing ceremony. But honestly, he gets very little opportunity to do them because this Congress passes nothing. But on Thursday, we will see the results of a nice, rare exception to that rule. And rightfully, I think they`re going to make as big a deal out of it as possible. That does it for us tonight. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020901cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 42 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 9, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 09, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Howard Dean, Joy Reid, Josh Barro, Adam Reiss, Joy Reid GUESTS: Michael Weiss, Josh Dubois, Michael Wear, Asra Nomani, Deborah Lipstadt SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7652 words HIGHLIGHT: The president is under bipartisan pressure from Congress to supply weapons to Ukraine to push back Russian invaders. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel. The veto season has begun. RACHEL MADDOW, TRMS HOST: It`s very exciting to have a new noun to talk about. O`DONNELL: And many more to come probably. MADDOW: Yes, I guess. O`DONNELL: Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Well, President Obama is trying to stop Vladimir Putin and Ukraine, Boston is praying for the snow to stop, and no one can stop Kanye. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By the time a decision reaches my desk, by definition, it`s a hard problem with no easy answers, otherwise somebody else would have solved it, and I would never even hear about it. If Russia continues on its current course, Russia`s isolation will only worsen both politically and economically. With regard to ISIL, Germany and the United States remain united. JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: This is a long-term operation, not a short-term one. SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: I don`t believe right now we need American boots on the ground. OBAMA: With respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu. REPORTER: Are you thinking of not going? Do you think you`ve decided yet? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Oh, yes, I`m not thinking about not going, I am not going. OBAMA: As much as I love Angela, if she was two weeks away from an election, she probably would not have received an invitation to the White House. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ve never seen this type of snow here in the city of Boston and any other time in the history of our city. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My plan is to shovel over here next to my husband`s car. CROWD: Whoo-hoo! UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The state of Alabama started issuing marriage licenses to same-section couples. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roughly two-thirds of counties refused to issue marriage licenses, after Roy Moore urged local officials to ignore the federal court ruling. KANYE WEST, MUSICIAN: Beck needs to respect artistry and he should have given his award to Beyonce. He needs to stop playing with us. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: The president under bipartisan pressure from Congress to supply weapons to Ukraine to push back Russian invaders. The president met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I think both Angela and I have emphasized that the prospect for a military solution to this problem has always been -- well, it is true that if, in fact, diplomacy fails, what I`ve asked my team to do is to look at all options. What other means can we put in place to change Mr. Putin`s calculus? And the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that`s being examined, but I have not made a decision about that yet. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, the president has some difficult calculations to make. It`s political and strategic, and this decision about arming Ukraine. HOWARD DEAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: He does. And there`s a way three hasn`t -- an option that he hasn`t looked at. First of all, if he does send defensive weapons, he`s going to have to think about the next step. What happens if that means Putin puts more military effort on the ground. Then are we going to send troops? So, he`s got to think that question through before he goes to defensive weapons. But there are a set of sanctions we haven`t applied yet. And those are the sanctions that we applied to Iran to bring them into the negotiating table. These are really, really tough sanctions. We have the power to cut the Russians entirely out of the international banking system, which we did in Iran. And I think that we probably ought to do that before defensive weapons, because it`s a possibility that defensive weapons will lead to the necessity of American troops on the ground, and I think that`s a big step. O`DONNELL: Joy Reid, we have such a mixed record, to put it politely, about whom we choose to arm and what conflict. And when we arm rebels, we`ve got a horrible record. It virtually never works the way we want to. This, though, is arming a government. This is a different thing. But it`s not exactly the same thick as supplying arms to Israel and up and running operation that knows how to really defend itself. JOY REID, THE REID REPORT: It`s complicated by the fact that when you talk with Ukrainian side, they`re say they`re not fighting separatists who are loyal to Russia, or interested in joining with Russia, they`re fighting Russians. So, the possibility that we`re actually supplying arms that will then be aimed at Russian nationals is a very real possibility and the notion of a proxy war between the United States and Russia is very real. I think that`s why you see a lot of caution on the part of countries like Germany. And, of course, Angela Merkel has a relationship with Vladimir Putin, much more than perhaps we do. So there is a possibility of this spiraling out of control. And for Americans, we are rightly very concerned about being sucked into yet another conflict in this part of the world. That feels very cold-war vintage, but it is actually very dangerous right now. O`DONNELL: And, Josh Barro, it`s been difficult for Angela Merkel to be onboard with this. The sanctions in particular with Russia. And so, she gets to say to President Obama, look, we have given you a lot. We`ve come your way a lot on this. It`s been hard for us. So, we don`t want these weapons. JOSH BARRO, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, it makes sense. Europe`s economy is much more closely tied in with Russia than the U.S. economy is. This is in some sense a cheap thing for us. Now, it`s cheap to end up in a proxy war, but whatever happens in the Ukraine either economically or military is going to reverberate much more within Europe than it is in the United States. So, it makes sense that the Europeans are more cautious. When I look at this, I see -- you know, Russia is an unsustainable situation in part because of the sanctions we`ve imposed and in part just because of the falling price of oil. Russia`s basically a petro state, and they`re not going to be able to maintain their economy as they have with oil prices here. So, it feels like with the application of more sanctions as the governor discussed is Russia ought not to be able to keep doing this forever. The question is, how long does it take for the economic pressures to make it impossible for Russia to intervene the way it has in the Ukraine. It might be longer than we considerable to be acceptable. O`DONNELL: Michael Weiss, let`s go to that step and let`s say the president decides to arm Ukraine. What does Vladimir Putin do? MICHAEL WEISS, COLUMNIST, FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE: It`s a good question. Look, I actually think there`s a false dichotomy here. One of the things Ukraine needs most is not so-called lethal weaponry. It is non- lethal military equipment such as surveillance drones so they can monitor Russian and separatist positions, radio communications. I mean, I`ve interviewed loads of Ukrainian soldiers and volunteer battalion fighters who say they are using walkie-talkies you`ll find on paintball tournaments. So, they`re using World War II era, in some cases, materiel. It`s not about just sending -- really, the one weapon that they need most are javelin anti-tank missiles. The rest of the stuff is, you could argue not amplifying or escalating the conflict, just allowing the Ukrainians to do what they`re already doing, but to do it much better and to defend themselves and protect their soldiers. O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, laid out by Michael, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Vladimir Putin is probably not going to interpret this as just defensive weapons that just kind of even the playing field a little bit. DEAN: Well, I think we have to look at what Putin`s goals are. Putin`s goal is to return as much as possible to the glory days of the Soviet Union`s domination of Eastern Europe. And this isn`t just Ukraine. He`s doing this in Georgia. He occupies 20 percent of the territory in Georgia. They`ve kidnapped a border guard in Estonia and brought them and they`re now languishing in a Russian jail. So, this is an aggressive posture that Russia has taken. The only reason I hesitated at the javelin anti-tank missiles is I think you have to be willing to go the whole way if you`re going to do it. The worst thing we could do is some partial arming, even if it`s javelin anti-tank missiles. We`ve got to anticipate that he`s going to get more aggressive. And we have to know exactly what we`re going to do about it before we take the first step. Hence my argument for cutting them entirely out of the international banking system and hoping that sends the message. He is going to have a lot of resistance in the Kremlin if his people start losing tons and tons of money. They`ve lost a lot already and it could get much, much worse. O`DONNELL: And, Joy Reid, the president is under bipartisan pressure on this. John McCain out there today is saying that Chancellor Merkel, President Obama are completely wrong about this, they should be rushing arms in there right now. But there are some Democrats who support that idea. . REID: Yes, there are Democrats who support the idea, although again, I think that if you just stack it up, it is much more important to Russia. They`ve seen it more important to them to take and retain Ukraine than it is for Americans, who for the most part don`t understand necessarily what this war or what this sort of proxy war is about. And I think that Howard Dean makes a very good point. Russia`s very vulnerable. Their economy is not doing well. They`re not bearing up well under these sanctions. Yes, they are Europe`s gas station, but the oil prices are cratering, they are low. They`re in a very vulnerable. And I think that that the U.S. is in a position to do significant damage with sanctions without then triggering this sort of reflex of Vladimir Putin to go to more military force. O`DONNELL: And the complexity of the chessboard in all matters includes questions of the Islamic State, Chancellor Merkel being helpful about that. Let`s listen to what the president said today about the Islamic State. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections. As much as I love Angela, if she was two weeks away from an election, she probably would not have received add invitation to the White House, and I suspect she wouldn`t have asked for one. So, you know -- (LAUGHTER) So, you know, this is just, you know, some of this just has to do with how we do business. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: I promise you, he did say something about the Islamic State. But, Josh Barro, there`s been some talk that Benjamin Netanyahu has been reconsidering this mess that has been created. Abe Foxman, distinguished American Jewish leader saying this thing is a mistake, the Netanyahu coming to address Congress. BARRO: Yes. Well, I mean, if it`s a political ploy, it`s not one that has worked. And so, it makes -- it`s not just about how it affects U.S. politics, it`s about how it affects Israeli politics. His upcoming election, part of the point of taking what I think he thought was going to be a power play in the U.S. was to demonstrate he was able to bend American officials to his will on this, which he is not going to be able to do from this speech. So, it makes sense to me from Benjamin Netanyahu`s own political interest to be thinking about backing away from the speech. But I can`t predict what he`s going to do. O`DONNELL: And, Michael Weiss, there`s poll numbers indicating that Netanyahu has gone down in domestic polls in Israel, crucial to his reelection as a result of this problem with Washington. WEISS: Sure. I think it was a sort of measure of tone-deafness here, thinking that he can appeal directly to the American electorate, go over the president`s head, go over a lot of Congress people`s heads as well. I mean, look, the Israelis are calculating, Netanyahu in particular, that there is a fundamental vulnerability to the president`s strategy with Iran and this is something that is seen by both Republicans and Democrats. There are a lot of Democrats out there who think we`re empowering Iran not by negotiations necessarily but by kind of turning a blind eye to things such as the Houthi takeover in Yemen, what Shia militia groups in Iraq are doing in the ground with indirect U.S. air support, including ethnic cleansing of Sunni populations in Iraq and Syria. I mean, that`s an ungodly mess that has no sign of being reconstructed or put back together again. The problem is, of course, there are certain things that you just don`t do. One of them is, in the midst of an election, say, "Screw you, Mr. President, I`m coming to Congress." O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, there are members of Congress who are finding convenient reasons not to be there. Vice president is saying he`s going to be traveling, he won`t be there. But your senator, Bernie Sanders, no excuses, he`s just saying I`m not going. I`m absolutely not going to Benjamin Netanyahu`s address. DEAN: I think the prime minister has done an enormous amount of harm to Israel over his tenure. You know, if you look at polls of Jews, American Jews under 30, Israel is not on their radar screen. That -- this is very, very bad what`s happened to the relationship between Israel and the United States. My own personal view is that the prime minister has overplayed his hand on multiple occasions. How about the vice president going over there a few years ago, and Avigdor Lieberman I think it was announced that there would be 2,000 more settlement dwellings put in while Joe Biden was in Israel. I mean, it`s -- you know, it`s also as if they deliberately decide to poke us on eye as many times as possible. So, I think that the prime minister`s getting what he deserves. I think the vice president to boycott this talk as the president of the Senate is pretty extraordinary. And I think his own poll numbers are starting to see that in Israel. This is a really stupid thing to do, and the Israelis know it. And Netanyahu has put his own personal interests above the interests of the nation of Israel. And that`s never a good thing for a leader to do anywhere. O`DONNELL: We`re going to continue more of this discussion, including what the president really did say about Islamic State. That`s coming up. And later, the controversy that began when President Obama said this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the crusades and inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: A jury of ten women and two men has been chosen for the trial of the man accused of murdering former Navy Seal Chris Kyle, the man who was portrayed by Bradley cooper in the movie "American Sniper." The judge denied the defense request for a change of venue. The defense argued that defendant Eddie Ray Routh would not be able to get a fair trial in Stephenville, Texas, where every showing of "American Sniper" sold out in its first two weeks in the only movie theater there. Seeing the movie was not only disqualifying for jurors, but they had to be able to convince the court that they could completely disregard the movie and consider nothing other than the evidence that will be introduced in the trial. Opening statements in the case are scheduled for Wednesday. We`ll bring you complete coverage of that trial here on THE LAST WORD. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: With regard to ISIL, Germany and the United States remain united in our determination to destroy this barbaric organization. I thanked Angela for her strong support as a member of the international coalition that is working in Iraq. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joy, so there`s another dimension to the discussion they had earlier about Ukraine. REID: Right. O`DONNELL: Remember, this is not the only help the president is looking for in the world. He`s also got the Islamic State problem. REID: Yes, absolutely. And when he ended that statement with Iraq, therein lies I think the difficulty, because, of course, we do have this coalition. There are Western countries involved in it. You obviously have Jordan. But in terms of ground forces, which most military experts believe, you`re going to need at some point if you`re going to really defeat ISIS, who is going to supply those ground forces, and if it is going to be primarily Iraq, which is what U.S. officials are indicating, you`re talking about the same Iraqi army that turned tail and ran from ISIS, leaving behind the equipment that ISIS now owns. So -- O`DONNELL: And that supplies a rationale for what Lindsey Graham says about this, the fact that the Iraqi military is so weak. Let`s listen to what Lindsey Graham said about boots on the ground. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: You`re going to need boots on the ground not only in Iraq but Syria, and there`s got to be some regional force formed with an American component, somewhere around 10,000, I think, American soldiers. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, 10,000 American soldiers in Syria and Iraq. DEAN: He`s smoking the same stuff when he voted for Bush`s war in 2003. If we hadn`t gone in in 2003, we wouldn`t be in this position now. Look, we need boots on the ground, but not ours. We cannot keep fighting for people who won`t fight for themselves. Now, Lindsey Graham is correct. The Iraqi army is a mess and I think it`s a pipe dream to think it`s ever going to be any better, and they are also, with Shia militia committing atrocities on the Sunnis, which is one of the things that`s supporting ISIS. This can be solved with most likely the Kurds being the essence of the fighting force and plenty of American and coalition support. It`s conceivable you could even get the Jordanians involved after what happened to their pilot. I, by the way, think that when they burned the Jordanian pilot to death, that is the turning point. I have now seen on the television, Middle Eastern imams finally coming out and condemning the ISIS people as un-Islamic. That is what I`ve been waiting for. That is critical, and I think ultimately we are now winning the propaganda war, and that`s very, very important. O`DONNELL: And, Josh Barro, so immediately on the heels of that, there comes the word that Kayla Mueller was killed during a bombing raid. They don`t have the normal proofs that they offer for this, like a beheading video or burning someone to death on video. But, and the family`s still desperately hoping that she`s still with us, but it shows once again that the Islamic State has a move, after whatever move you make. BARRO: Right. No, I think that`s right. But I think, with, you know, us talking about this with the Germany and the meeting this week, this isn`t just the U.S. going to Germany and sort of asking for a series of favors and support for things we care about. I think there`s actually a symmetry with the Ukraine issue. In Ukraine, we are more interested in engagement than the Germans are because there`s all this downside for Europe. I think with ISIS, it`s the opposite. The risks to Europe are much higher than the United States. You have a lot more fighters who have gone from Germany and France and the U.K. to fight over there. There`s a lot more risk of terrorism coming back into Europe. As we saw in Paris with something just inspired by this, but in any case, the risk from what`s metastasizing out of ISIS is much greater from the European continent than it is here. So, I think that`s the reason to expect good cooperation from our European allies going into this, more enthusiastically than in Ukraine. O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, in your neighboring state, we have a new president poll, and we have a front runner, we have in New Hampshire, I take New Hampshire polls much more seriously than Iowa. I think they`re more predictive of where the country`s going. We have Jeb Bush at 16, we have Rand Paul at 13, Scott Walker at 12, Chris Christie at 10, Mike Huckabee at 6, Ben Carson 6, Marco Rubio 5. How do you read that poll, Howard Dean? DEAN: I don`t, Lawrence. I mean, I think polls at this stage of the game are nothing more than stuff for people like us to talk about. I mean, to say that Jeb Bush is leading the polls with 16 percent, I don`t think so. This is all exercise in people who, I don`t know who did the poll, but I just, you know, it`s hardly worth talking about. O`DONNELL: Spoken by a man who was once leading in early presidential polls. DEAN: I know for a fact. They did not show up right at the right time. O`DONNELL: And I mean a big lead, not 16. DEAN: That`s right. O`DONNELL: Joy Reid, it does seem that first poll of the serious Republican voter, and if you start to look at -- I mean, Christie`s going to collapse, and I know that. REID: Yes. O`DONNELL: America might not. But when I look at that, I say, OK, where`s Christie`s ten going to go? And it seems like that would float right up to Jeb. I mean, I -- based on where things stand right now, that looks like a pretty good poll for Jeb. REID: Well, on the one hand, if the Bushes of Kennebunkport, Maine, can`t do better for one of their sons at 16 percentage point in New Hampshire, it`s not a good sign. At the same time, I agree with you that Chris Christie is Rudy Giuliani. That is who he is, that`s how he`s going to wind up. And where did that flow? I think you got Scott Walker and you got Jeb Bush. Those are the two places for establishment interest in money to go. And, of course, Walker has sort of a similar thing in Iowa, right, where he`s in a neighboring state, so he`s got the same media market. I think they`re all playing about where they should be at this point. Jeb`s upside is, to me, so overwhelmed by the downside of the Bush brand that it`s hard for me to imagine all the establishment support going to him. But for whatever reason, there is a bank of establishment money that wants Jeb Bush to be the guy. O`DONNELL: Josh Barro, I suspect when the big money looks at this poll, they look at it and say, hmm, give me another poll. I`d like to see another poll next week. BARRO: I`m with the governor. I think this tells us nothing. The other thing is, I mean, it sort of seems like support should flow from Christie to Jeb, because they`re both sort of more moderate candidates. But your average voter thinking about Chris Christie is not necessarily saying, well, I want a moderate candidate, I`m for Christie. Maybe they`re likely, I want someone who`ll take to the union, I want Christie, those people are likely to end up with Walker. But I think Jeb`s biggest weakness is not the Bush name. I think his biggest weakness is he doesn`t seem to have Mitt Romney`s willingness to debase himself on any issue where the Republican case -- REID: On immigration. O`DONNELL: Oh, give him time. BARRO: But Common Core is something he`s emotional about. I don`t think he respects people who think that Common Core is evil. REID: That I agree with. BARRO: And he`s going to have to appeal to those people for votes. And I don`t think he`s going to be able to. O`DONNELL: We`re going to break it there. Howard Dean, thank you very much tonight. DEAN: Thanks very much. O`DONNELL: I really appreciate it. Coming up, we will go live to Boston, where I was yesterday. The snow, if the snow hadn`t already buried the reporter we have standing outside there in the snow. Where else would a reporter be? You wouldn`t believe it was snowing, right, if we didn`t show you someone standing out in the snow. That`s coming up. We`re also going to have more of the reaction over the weekend to what President Obama said about the Crusades. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHARLIE BAKER (R), MASSACHUSETTS: If I`ve learned one thing over the course of the past two weeks, it`s -- Mother Nature makes the rules. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That`s Massachusetts` brand new governor, Charlie Baker, who has just signed his second state of emergency declaration as another snowstorm overwhelms the Boston area. Tonight, Massachusetts has seen over 5 1/2 feet of snow over the last 17 days. The snow has collapsed some buildings. It has buried thousands of cars. It`s made commuting to work or school a daily ordeal. Boston has gotten more snow over the past 30 days than any other 30-day period in its history. I was in Boston yesterday. And the good news is that the parking meters are buried in snow, so you don`t have to pay the meters. But the snow is so big there -- the snow banks at the parking meters are so big that there is no room to park your car at a meter, Joy Reid, anywhere -- (LAUGHTER) -- in Boston. You can`t. It`s impossible. Joining me now from South Boston is MSNBC`s Adam Reiss. (END VIDEO CLIP) Adam, where are you exactly, and what is that behind you. ADAM REISS, MSNBC REPORTER: Good evening, Lawrence. From South Boston, a frigid South Boston now, four storms in less than two weeks, dumping 73 inches of snow. Take a look behind me. They`re wondering, "Where do we put it all." That`s the big challenge for officials here. This mound behind me, some 50, 60 feet high. Trucks have been coming in here, one ride after another all day long. Then the front loaders take the snow from over there to over, where the melter is. They`re bringing melters in from out of state. They`re also taking the snow to down to the south shore, dumping it on beaches down there, 73 inches of snow. The governor said they don`t know what to do with it. You could take all this snow and put it in Gillette Stadium, where the Patriots play, 90 times. Now, the governor said in jest, "Maybe, the city should have bid for the Winter Olympics instead of the Summer Olympics. And more snow coming later this week with more frigid temperatures. Lawrence? O`DONNELL: Adam Reiss, thank you very much for joining us. Coming up, the controversy that started when President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast about the crusades. Over the weekend, a White House advisor explained what President Obama meant to say when he said this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Lest we get on our high horses and think this is unique to some other place. MARK LEVIN, SYNDICATED RADIO SHOW HOST: Talk about high horse. OBAMA: Remember that during the crusades, the inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. LEVIN: Would he ever say the terrible deeds committed in the name of Muhammad. BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: It is simply inexplicable that Barack Obama would compare historical injustices by Christians a thousand years ago to the current atrocities being committed by Muslim jihadists today. BILL MAHER, HBO HOST: I`ve made this point myself a billion (bleep) times, -- (LAUGHTER) -- that if I was living in the 16th Century, it would be Christianity I`d be going after because they`re the ones who are the most violent and the most intolerant. JON MEACHAM, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "RANDOM HOUSE": The crusades ended and the Renaissance began. MAHER: We did it then, they`re doing it now. AMY HOLMES, THEBLAZE ANCHOR: He is not willing to talk about radical Islamic jihad, -- MAHER: Right. : Boko Haram and al-Qaeda and ISIS, that all say that their behavior is coming from their interpretation of Islamic text. DAVID BROOKS, WRITER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": I`m pro-Obama. I`m totally pro-Obama on this. I think he said the right thing. MEACHAM: Christianity managed to reform itself. OBAMA: In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow, all too often was justified in the name of Christ. BROOKS: You`re saying, you know, We`re prone to zealotry. MEACHAM: Why question is, why he felt compelled to bring this up at all. BROOKS: I have my own theory. You`re not a big fan of the Prayer Breakfast, I think. And I think he almost enjoys creating a rhetorical debate. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, in Washington, Asra Nomani, a journalist and the author of "Standing Alone -- an American Woman`s Struggle for the Soul of Islam." Also, Joshua Dubois, President of Values Partnerships and the Former Director of the White House Faith-Based Initiative. Michael Wear, who served in President Obama`s office in Faith-Based Initiatives and directed the Faith Outreach in the Obama 2012 campaign. Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of Modern Jewish History at Emory University, joins us from Atlanta. And, Joy Reid, Host of "The Reid Report," who`s still with us here in New York. Josh Dubois, in "The New York Times" on Saturday, in an article, the administration cooperated with an effort to clear up the reaction to this, Eric Schultz, Deputy White House Press Secretary said, quote," What I think the President was trying to say is, over the course of human history, there are times where extremists pervert their own religion to justify violence. And, Josh, I think if the President had said that, there wouldn`t be any controversy. JOSH DUBOIS, PRESIDENT, VALUES PARTNERSHIPS: Well, Lawrence, with due respect, I mean, there`s a controversy because the right set the trap and a lot of folks, including progressives, took the bait. The President was making a very clear point. I think he made it pretty clearly. He said, in a continuum of historical events, people had misused religion to do evil things. And we can`t blame the religion itself when people did that. He pointed to the crusades, and then he pointed to slavery and to Jim Crow as well. And, now, he`s saying, we can`t lay the evil deeds of ISIS at the foot of Islam. I think that`s a perfectly legitimate thing to say. What happened though was that the right jumped on that and sort set the trap. And then, unfortunately, a lot folks responded to that. But, now, today, we see people taking the President`s side, from the center left with E.J. Dionne, to the center right with David Brooks. And a lot of other folks are saying, "You know what, I think the President had a point there. And it was an important point that he made." O`DONNELL: Michael Ware, you and Josh worked in the office Faith- Based Initiatives together. And when they do the Prayer Breakfast speech, is that one of the speeches that they run by your shop before it goes out. MICHAEL WEAR, DIRECTOR, OBAMA 2012 FAITH OUTREACH: Yes, we`re certainly involved in the speech but, always, of course, the President has -- O`DONNELL: Yes. WEAR: -- the final word. And the pen is in the hands of the speech- writing office but, yes, typically, these speeches -- O`DONNELL: I mean, if we`re looking at it as speech-writing staffers, are there any changes that you would have suggested in that draft that ultimately went public. WEAR: Yes -- you know, honestly, I think -- I think the speech -- that specific segment in the speech was inartful and had in it some assumptions that maybe weren`t necessary. I think, if he wouldn`t have talked about getting on high horse, maybe it wouldn`t have been taken by some the way that it was. I think there`s a much more hopeful, positive way, he could have gone about it instead of talking about how Christianity was used to justify all kinds of things. What he could have said, and which actually fits in with the President`s strategy when talking about these issues, going back to Cairo and even previous to the Cairo speeches, you know, we have a reason to be hopeful even in the midst of this religious violence. Because we have a history of Christians perverting their religion to justify slavery. But then, we also have Christians who stood up to take back the mantle of their religion, to speak out for a God who, who crushes oppressors and frees the slaves. And so, I do think it was inartful, but I agree with -- Josh went with David Brooks and others who have said that the key point was a good one. I`ll just add though that the point is not sort of a novel one for those who are in the audience, or for Christians themselves, sort of -- even the Southern Baptist convention that was created in large part to support slavery, has since, you know, in Baptist terms, repented from that and recognized it for the stain on their denomination, on Christianity that that was. So, the idea there was sort of that he was teaching folks in the audience something new isn`t right, but the reminder was a good one. O`DONNELL: In that "New York Times" article, where the administration was working on correcting the impressions about this medieval historian on the center of study of Islam in London, Thomas Asbridge, said, "It is the most," referring to crusades, he said, "it`s a word you have to use with great caution because it is the most highly-charged word can you use in the context of the Middle East." Asra, you didn`t approve at all of the President using that word, "crusades." ASRA NOMANI, AUTHOR, "STANDING ALONE": Well, my problem is that what we have inherited, coming into the National Prayer Breakfast, was many months of denial on the part of the President and the administration on this very fundamental issue that the Islamic State is very much about Islam. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Last fall, the President said that the Islamic State is not Islamic. Earlier this week, last week, he said that whatever ideology it was that caused the Islamic State guerrillas and the fighters that exist within them to burn a soldier to death, that was all that he could state. But, you know, I have before me the Koran. And I have post notes here on every citation that the Islamic State has used to justify their violence. Christianity has had to deal with verses like Deuteronomy, right, the war verses. But one of the verses that Islamic State people use is one that says, "Fight against them, so that Allah will punish them -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- by your hands and disgrace them and give your victory over them, and heal the breaths of a believing people." That was the title on the video of the emulation of the Air Force pilot from Jordan -- "Healing the Chests of the Believers." And what I would like to argue is that we`re at a point in Islamic history where we`re at a crossroads, just like Christians have been, just like the Jews have been. And we have to take passages from inside of our Koran, those war verses that are used by the militant, and we have to take them on. And we need liberals on our side. We need them. DUBOIS: Yes. And that`s precisely the point. I agree with you but that`s precisely the point that President Obama was making -- is that we have to draw distinctions between how ISIS is interpreting these verses and how the vast majority of Muslims interpret these same verses, just like the -- NOMANI: I would argue -- I would argue -- DUBOIS: -- have to do the same thing. NOMANI: Sure. But I would argue that nobody is putting Islam on trial. And, ultimately -- ultimately, if we try to avoid a conversation about Islam, it`s only the militants and the guerrillas that win. The moderates and the liberals are not going to win. And as long as the liberals decide that they`re going to sit on the fence and they`re going to be politically correct about this, -- DUBOIS: Yes. NOMANI: -- we`re not going to have honest conversations. And I really appreciate, Lawrence, that you dare to do this, because so many liberals have sadly sat on the fence. And I count myself as liberal and I have felt so disheartened that that spirit of political correctness has made it that we can`t have an honest conversation about some very real issues in our world today. O`DONNELL: OK, let`s -- DUBOIS: Unfortunately, a lot of people are putting Islam on trial. O`DONNELL: Josh, excuse me, can we hold it right there, Josh. We`re going to come right back. DUBOIS: Sure. O`DONNELL: I just need to get through a commercial break. We`re just going to continue this discussion. Just hold it right there. We`re back with more on the President`s comments at the Prayer Breakfast. Professor Lipstadt, what was your reaction to the President`s use of the crusades in that speech. PROF. DEBORAH LIPSTADT, EMORY UNIVERSITY: Well, I think, first of all, regarding the crusades, he got it precisely right. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. LIPSTADT: The crusades were horrible. They were terrifying. And they were Christian in origin or they came out of Christian sources. But, I think, someone earlier in the program used the word, "inartful." And that was a very kind way of putting it. I think Asra Nomani just made a very important point -- that there`s been a reluctance in the White House, amongst many people -- I see it on campuses as well -- that`s where I make my -- where I live my life -- a reluctance to name this as an expression of violence extremist Islam. Not all Islam, not all Muslims, not at all. But there is a strong strain of violent, extremist Islam. And unless you name something, you can`t solve it. We saw that this summer in our country, and in the fall, with all sorts of problems, with shootings and Ferguson and Staten Island. And unless you name something -- call it racism, maybe not only racism, but unless you name it, you can`t solve it. And I think there`s been a reluctance to name this as a strain of violent extremist Islam. And the problem is, we`re pulling the grounds out from under moderate Muslims who would want to address it. But if we don`t say it`s there, then it sort of leaves them -- leaves them hanging. O`DONNELL: Joy -- Joy -- LIPSTADT: So, while I think -- I think he was making an important point in saying, "Look, this is not only Islam`s problem." But it`s Islam that`s having the problem right now and that`s what we`re facing right now. And the term, "high horse," was not -- not the most desirable one. I think that that also skewed matters. O`DONNELL: Joy Reid, the oddity of mentioning the crusades is that was a Catholic enterprise run by the Pope. And so, if Barack Obama is going to get up there and say -- you know, as Asra points out, that you`re trying to extricate Islam from the Islamic State. And then, you figure out, if the crusades is your example, that was, without question, a religious exercise. Yes, it included other geopolitical objectives, but it was, without question, religious. JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Well, I mean, the thing is is that -- and this is where one of those rare times that you and I disagree -- but I think that the relationship between the crusades and the Islamic State is an inverted relationship. In the case of the crusades, it was the church proper mounting a holy war, going into the Middle East, -- O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm, yes. REID: It became an incredible destruction in the name of the official church. Whereas, in point of the Islamic State, they are antithetical to the religion. I watched that 20-minute video of what they did to that pilot. That is not the practice of religion. They are more on the order of what the clan has done to Christianity, not a thousand years ago during the crusades, not in 1099. But, 50 years ago, 20 years ago, there are African-Americans alive right now, who remember crosses -- actually, the cross, the crucifix, burned on their lawn by people who were considered good Christians -- the Sheriff, the good Christian folk of the community, who are perverting and twisting the Christian religion into violent hatred of African-American. The people who blow up abortion clinics and shoot doctors, not a thousand years ago, in the current contemporary world, are doing so in the name of Jesus. They`re doing so, claiming to be Christians. And, I think, the President did very explicitly say, ISIS is taking a religion and twisting it to sick, sadistic ends. He said that explicitly but he also said, humility requires us to admit that extremists can exist in any religion. There are Buddhist monks who engage in violence. There are Christians who engage in violence. And then, it is not only Islam capable of it. I really don`t understand why that`s controversial. O`DONNELL: Well, because -- because, just clearly -- we`re going to go to break. But the point is -- we can come back to this point after the break -- the reason is that the scale involved in the Islamic State does not exist in any other violent perversion of any other religion on earth at this time. It certainly did in the crusades. But not at this time. We`re going to have more with this discussion right after this. So, Joy, if the President is going to mention the crusades in relation to the Islamic State, what prevents Vladimir Putin when President Obama wants to talk to him about incursions in Ukraine. What prevents Vladimir Putin from saying, "Hey, you guys shot and murdered your way all the way across continental North America, exterminating Native Americans on the way, and violating every single treaty with them in order to establish your 50 states, so -- (LAUGHTER) -- answer to that -- REID: OK. O`DONNELL: -- answer that when we come back -- REID: OK. O`DONNELL: -- after this. OK, so, Joy, -- (LAUGHTER) -- so, Putin says after -- "Now that you`ve mentioned the crusades, Mr. President, and you want me to, you know, be careful with Ukraine, what about you, you know, murdering your way all the way across continental North America, -- REID: Uh-hmm. O`DONNELL: -- extinguishing Native American tribes as you go to create your 50 states." REID: Yes. And I think the answer is, nothing stops Vladimir Putin from saying that. But I think that wisdom and leadership requires that the President to answer back to Vladimir Putin. There was a moral cost. There was a great cost to causing great suffering. We`re still suffering that moral cost in our country. And you might want to do better by your country. O`DONNELL: And Vladimir Putin says, "Oh, so that`s why you say America is the greatest country in the world every time you talk about" -- REID: Well, that reflex of us needing to paddle and coddle ourselves and make ourselves feel like we`re the greatest thing ever and we have no faults, -- O`DONNELL: Right. Talk about a high horse. REID: I don`t get that either. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: That`s the highest horse there is. Asra, you wrote something after the President`s speech, in which you mentioned and you taught us actually that, in that video, where they burned the pilot, they talk about the crusades and crusaders very specifically. It`s very specific language used there. The refer to that pilot, who they are burning to death, as a crusader detainee. That was your translation of what they say. NOMANI: It`s actually their translation also. O`DONNELL: OK. NOMANI: They literally put onto the page that the pilot was a crusader detainee, that Jordan, Oman and every other nation involved with the U.S. is part of a crusader coalition. And look at this conversation. We`re having a conversation about the crusades from hundreds of years ago. There`s a girl in Pakistan who got shot in the face because of an interpretation of Islam that said girls can`t go to school. There are girls in Nigeria that are being kidnapped because of the same interpretation of Islam. I`ve been given death threats just because I`ve wanted to walk through the front door of my mosque. We have a serious problem in our world today, right now. And if we cannot have the debate on Islam hijacked, just through the nature of political correctness, we should not see this culture of wounds collectors. We should actually try to find solutions. We all know that victim cultures cannot get out of that on their own, and that nothing we can do will get them to stop. So, we have to stop feeding the wounds collecting. O`DONNELL: Josh, go ahead. DUBOIS: Yes, Lawrence, you mentioned the issue of scale, and that we haven`t seen anything of this scale in the present day or recent past. And, with due respect, I just have to disagree with that. As Joy was saying, up until the middle of the last century, we saw both the Klan and other vestiges of white supremacy ravaging the American South. And, you know, those things that they were burning in lawns, they weren`t lower-case Ts, they were crosses. They were directly using religion to subjugate and to murder people. But they were not doing -- that was not Christian. And just like that was not Christian, what ISIS is doing, I don`t believe, is Islam. And I think that`s the point the President was making. O`DONNELL: Michael, our last word. Go ahead. WEAR: Yes. I think Asra makes a great point about the fact that we need to have a debate about Islam. And I think Muslims should be leading that conversation. What I disagree is, I think it`s clear for the President and his administration, this is about more than political correctness. Right or wrong, this is about a foreign policy judgment that there is -- that there is a strategic gains to be made by refusing to associate Islam, the religion, with the terror that we see in the Middle East. And, you know, I think it`s important to be a part of that conversation. O`DONNELL: And Professor Lipstadt, I, for one, can`t wait for all of Islam to be able to get up on a high horse and look down and say, "We don`t do things like that." LIPSTADT: I think that would be great. You went back -- to go back to your original question about Putin, you know, Putin said to Angela Merkel, "Who are you to tell me about this. Just 70 years ago, your people were murdering people and putting them in gas chambers and shooting them." I think she would have apoplexy, you know. Just because something happened -- of course, I`m talking to you from Atlanta, where there were crosses burned not far probably from where I am, and there was certainly terrible, terrible discrimination and terrible racism in this region. But that doesn`t justify what`s going on now. And I think the one other point is, we keep talking just about ISIS. This is not just about ISIS. If you listened to speeches from various imams. If you read literature, you see this is - (inaudible), she said this is much more widespread. O`DONNELL: Professor Lipstadt, I`m sorry, we are out of time. Josh Dubois, Michael Ware, Asra Nomani, and Joy Reid. I thought I left enough time for this discussion, I didn`t. I wish we had more time. Thank you all for joining me tonight. Thank you. Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 10, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 020901cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 43 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 10, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 10, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Hampton Pearson, Jonathan Alter GUESTS: Sherrod Brown, Larry Cohen, Jim McDermott, Bob Shrum, Bernadette Del Chiaro SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7305 words HIGHLIGHT: Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle speak out against the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, trying to save good American jobs. Kayla Mueller`s family remembers the bright, ambitious human rights activist who was killed while held in captivity by ISIS. Office supply chain Staples joins the list of companies attempting to crack-down on part- time workers due to the ACA, preventing these employees from working over 25 hours. Before campaign season begins, infighting taints the potential Hillary Clinton presidential machine after David Brock resigned from his PAC position. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ... those aren`t easily forgotten. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Give us fast track for TPP. Well what`s TPP? OBAMA: The burden of proof is on us. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: And later, unhinging the Hillary 2016 machine. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We now have campaign infighting without the campaign. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three. SCHULTZ: Plus, farming sun shines in the Golden State. SALLY JEWELL, UNITED STATES INTERIOR SECRETARY: This is special place. It`s blessed with year-round sun. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We start with big news on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now, if President Obama throughout his time in the White House, he`s always been a guy who`s not been short on detail. This is a guy who studies issues, gives a lot of deep thought in what he wants to do before he makes a decision. But I don`t get the detail on this trade agreement. And the most excessive interview he`s done on this has been done recently, and again, the President is vague. Now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is probably the biggest economic trade deal this country`s ever done and yet it`s being done in secrecy. This story starting to reach critical mass, meaning other media folks are starting to pay attention. More, more people in the Congress are talking about it. During President Obama`s interview with Vox, that would be V-O-X, not the folks across the street. He made his first extended remarks on TPP. And what`s amazing about this, it`s a lot in generic talk. The devil in the detail is not in front of the American people. The President admitted that there are problems with past trade deals. No kidding. He knows why the American people are skeptical of the TPP. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: This was part of the debate that we`re having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we`ve been negotiating. There are a lot of people who looked at the last 20 years and say, why would we want another trade deal that hasn`t been good for American workers? That allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got cheaper sneakers but we also lost all of our jobs. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Now, respectfully Mr. President, you used the word debate. That`s the issue here. There has been no debate about this and how injurious this could be to American workers. President Obama then laid out the case for the TPP after that sound bite. The President said the United States has working hard to make this trade deal fair. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: My argument is two-fold. Number one, precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we`re trying to deal with right now is, can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it`s fairer, because right now it`s not fair. And if you want to improve it that means we need a new trading regime. We can`t just rely on the old one because the old one isn`t working for us. But the second reason that it`s important is because the countries we`re negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. If we don`t write the rules out there, China`s going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Wait a second. If you`re the biggest customer in the world, who`s going to want to cut you out? It seems like we`re not swinging a big enough stick here. We are the United States of America. We`re the biggest customer. We have the best economy. We have the most innovative people on the globe and yet we`re dancing to somebody else`s music. I don`t get. And President says that this horse is out of the barn. He is talking about the global economy. Gosh, we can`t have any level of protection as in whatsoever because we`re in a global economy. This deal does not deal with tariffs properly. This deal does not deal with sovereignty. It`s going to be undercutting American law. So finally, President Obama said something that I hope he lives up to. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Those experiences that arose over the last 20 years, those aren`t easily forgotten, and the burden of proof is on us, then to be very transparent and explicit in terms of what it is that we`re trying to accomplish. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Mr. President, do you think that there`s been transparency with the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Transparency, this deal has been done in secret, just about every story that we`ve done on the TPP. Everybody complains about -- nobody knows what the hell is going on. There are members of Congress collectively who have said openly and complained about, they don`t know what`s in this deal. They just keep hearing leaks that come out here and there but nobody gets the hard copy to read to it. The President needs to explain to the American people, not in a seven- minute interview. Why the TPP would be different from other past trade deals and knock off the generic conversation. So far, this trade deal has been conducted in secret. And according to reports, hey we`re just weeks away. So far the American people have absolutely no details and the American people I`m talking about are the members of Congress, the people that you`ve elected. The President needs to tell the American people two major things on this. First of all, how will this trade deal protect American jobs? And, of course, it won`t. And second, how will this trade deal affect America`s already massive trade deficit? In other words, will it bring it down or will it continue to explode? Last week, the trade deficit jumps 17 percent to $46.6 billion. It`s the biggest percentage increase since July of 2009. We`ve seen over 700,000 jobs lost because of NAFTA, 60,000 jobs lost and lots of -- to the South Korean trade deal. Now, China`s preferred nation trading status has skyrocketed our trade deficit. How is that a good thing? We continually do bad deals. Things are getting so heated. Now, this is where it gets politically interesting. Things are getting so heated that some Republicans -- they`re even starting to trash the TPP. Here is North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones earlier today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. WALTER JONES, (R) NORTH CAROLINA: If you want to sell out America then get behind giving the President what I call the trade promotion authority, better known as fast track. This is absolutely a threat on our constitution, on our sovereignty. When you allow a President to have the authority to bring before Congress the issue but now allow Congress to debate, to amend or to change the agreement, then that in itself is not what the constitution intended for this country. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Now, that is the best sound bite and a best description as to why the Tea Partier and the hard conservatives in the Congress are against this trade deal. But the Democrats are against it for different reasons. Congressman Jones believes that the TTP is a sellout to the corporations. It`s a Wall Street deal. The Tea Party should be up in arms over this deal because of the sovereignty issue. The TPP would undercut American sovereignty and give power to international corporations and our Congress, our lawmakers would not have to say in the disputes. In other words, nobody else would be running us. Meanwhile, a group of bipartisan senators are working to save American jobs by addressing what we have talked about in the past, currency manipulation. Now, this is where the playing field has never been level. And this is what the President did not mention in his interview. How can you talk TPP and not talk currency manipulation? You can`t. Earlier today, Senator Sherrod Brown, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer and Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham -- oh, we got some very interesting new fraternity members, don`t we? They all got together and introduce the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act. Now, this act would use trade law to counter harm to U.S. manufacturers caused by currency manipulation. It would also provide consequences for countries who refuse to address currency manipulation. This idea that China is going to be writing rules -- no, that`s not true. China is not dictating to other countries in this deal. Everybody is supposed to be an equal partner but you know who`s not in equal partner? You, the American taxpayer, the American service industry, the American manufacturers. There`s going to be differences on tariffs. That hasn`t been explained to the American people. And so what the President is doing to sell this, he is saying, well it`s us against them. Hey, it`s China. I mean, if we`re so worried about China, why in the hell did we give them favored nation trading status back in the late, you know, 1999? Why do we do that? The strategy of this White House seems to be -- well, whatever big business wants and if it undercuts our sovereignty, well, we could probably go along with that too and I`ll go out to the American people and try to sell it and say that other trade deals have been bad but this one is going to map everything up. It isn`t. It simply isn`t. And again, there is very limited detail on this. Gets your cellphones out, I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Do you think President Obama is correct on the TPP?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment at our blog at ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in this show. For more, Senator Sherrod Brown joins us tonight from Ohio who has talked about this quite a bit. Senator, why will your new Currency Manipulation Act work? What does this do? Good to have you with us. SEN. SHERROD BROWN, (D) OHIO: Well, it works because it gives us a tool to level the playing field in the sense that when China cheats on currency or when Japan cheats on currency as Senator Stabenow pointed out in (inaudible) on other things and countries cheat on currency that it gives us a mechanism to fight back and win trade cases. And dissuade them in the future from doing it and -- that`s primarily why this is so important. We want this currency provision and yes as you pointed it out its good bipartisan sponsorship, five Republican, five Democrats, who want to make sure it`s that way. We passed -- the Senate passed it overwhelmingly two or three years ago. The House passed it at different times, Speaker Boehner hasn`t brought it up to a vote. But now is the time because of fast track and because of Trans-Pacific Partnership that we have a place to put this bill to demand that the President doesn`t get this power agreement, doesn`t ever pass unless its got a currency provision to protect the American workers. SCHULTZ: Senator, where is the debate? The President said to that interview that that what we`re debating right now. Did I miss that coverage on the Senate floor? BROWN: Yeah. When President said the horses are already out of the barn. Unfortunately, there`s a new horse leaving this barn almost everyday when we see the kind of job lost. The trade deficit with the China now over upward of $300 billion. It was only -- as you mentioned PNTR with China 1999, I believe the trade deficit bilateral with us with the China was only -- was around $10 billion or $15 billion... SCHULTZ: Yeah. BROWN: ... so we see what`s happened. It clearly hasn`t worked. But currency is the best way to fight back on this, to make sure from now on every single agreement has a currency provision, number one, and number two that our Department Of Commerce is told they must look at currency when they make a decision on unfair trade practices. So far they had the options to look in currency and they never do. And it`s not something that presidents of either party have done well. This President has been better than his predecessors on trade enforcement... SCHULTZ: Yeah, he has. BROWN: ... but he`s not in the right place on this, and we`ve got to do better on this. SCHULTZ: Senator, let`s go to your backyard. How to explain the TPP to steelworkers in Lorain, Ohio? BROWN: Well, you explain -- the place you`ve been in Lorain had 12,000 workers once, now it`s about 2,000. It`s done a little better now with more drilling on gas and oil. Although they just have temporary layoff of a number workers probably for three months... SCHULTZ: Yeah. BROWN: ... for whole host of reasons. But once we start enforcing trade rules, those workers are going to -- more of them are going to work and more of them will have more job security. And so, it`s a question of we don`t -- they didn`t like NAFTA, they never like NAFTA, they didn`t like PNTR with China. Why would we possibly inflict another trade deal on workers... SCHULTZ: Yeah. BROWN: ... in Lorain, in Youngstown, in Dayton, when the damage is so evident and the future with this kind of trade agreement is so oblique? SCHULTZ: And finally, Senator, what do you say to the President when he says there has to be more transparency on the TPP? BROWN: Well, there does have to be more transparency, there hasn`t been... SCHULTZ: OK. But there hasn`t been any -- and why is that? BROWN: Well, there`s supposed to be more consultation with Congress on what the agreement is, what the -- negotiation are going. There supposed to be directives on what do you do on the environment and labor standards, what do you do on something called investor stay which gives the tobacco companies even more power in the world commerce. None of that has happening in this agreement except for a few informal conversation, we try to have with U.S. trade rep. but none of it has been open enough, the public not had nearly the input. SCHULTZ: No. BROWN: ... the labor community hasn`t -- people that care about climate change haven`t, people that care about public health haven`t had the input. This is pretty disastrous in the way this is rolled out. SCHULTZ: Senator Sherrod Brown, Ohio, good to have you with us. BROWN: Thanks. SCHULTZ: I appreciate your time. Let me bring in Larry Cohen, President of Communication Workers of America. It`s not just manufacturing, it`s going to hit the service industry as well. Mr. Cohen, your response to the President saying that the TTP will make things better for American workers and he knows that other trade deals are bad and this one going to be better. I mean, that just simply isn`t true, is it? LARRY COHEN, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA: No, it`s all about enforcement. And the problem is, is that when a multinational corporation wants to enforce their version of the trade deal, they sue. And Sherrod Brown just said it, in a secret tribunal called ISDS, where they can reparations of billions of dollars. There are 500 of those lawsuits now. And when we try to enforce a labor or environmental or consumer provision, we have to go through our government to the other government and it literally take years. I`ve been involve in that enforcement with Mexico, Columbia and recently Honduras. It takes years. And when we talk about China, the government of Vietnam doesn`t want to see investor-state dispute settlement in these deals, that`s the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So, if our goal is to get Vietnam closer to us, let`s get rid of ISDS and let`s put citizen rights on the same level as cooperate right. SCHULTZ: So what is President Obama referring when he says China is going to write the rules? What rules is he talking about? They`ve been the biggest cheater on all these trade agreements. COHEN: He`s talking about the fact that these are countries, that geographical and geopolitically do have links to China. But again, what we would say to him, what I have said to him is, then let`s get rid of investors-state dispute settlement. Those governments -- the four or five governments that we don`t already have deals with Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Vietnam, they don`t want investor-state in these things and neither do we. Because if a U.S. Company can guarantee their profits in Vietnam... SCHULTZ: Yeah. COHEN: ... why will they invest in the U.S. when Vietnam has $0.75 an hour wages? And in the U.S. obviously the minimum wage is significantly higher, but not high enough. SCHULTZ: And how is... COHEN: We don`t think this adds up anyway you add it. SCHULTZ: How does the President expect American officials to enforce trade laws in Vietnam? What`s the mechanism their, its never been done before, how is it going to be down now? COHEN: He expects the future U.S. trade representative and whatever agency it is of the U.S. government that has jurisdiction, whether its labor or environment to eventually write a report on complaints that we could make or other. And then go to that government with the report saying, we want you to live up to the agreement. Again, the problem is even if that were true it takes years and years. And the reason the U.S. Chamber is supporting this is because they get to sue for reparations. We don`t get any reparations for what happens to workers... SCHULTZ: Yeah. COHEN: ... all we get is a report. SCHULTZ: All right. President Obama specifically responded to labor leaders in his Vox interview. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: When I talk to labor organization I say, right now, we`ve been hugely disadvantaged, why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that`s a big deal. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Mr. Cohen, your response to that. COHEN: My response is, again having just been in Honduras before that Columbia is years to enforce labor right when people are killed, when there`s no right to organize, when the minimum wage is in enforce. We can`t wait for years to enforce it. And I do think that Vietnam because they want this deal may well make some changes. Mexico is not going to make the changes. We want to see how we going to enforce this deal in the same kind of time the corporate America is going to enforce their side. So either say, get rid of investors-state dispute, one way lawsuits from the corporate world or/and put us all in a level playing field or give us investor-state, so that citizen-state dispute settlement. So that we can sue... SCHULTZ: Yeah. COHEN: ... when workers are disadvantage. SCHULTZ: All right, Larry Cohen, President of Communication Workers of America, always a pleasure. Good to have with us. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow and on Facebook, certainly we want to know what you think. We read your comments. I appreciate it. Coming up. Staples is trying to save money by cracking down on part-time workers. Mitt Romney`s business model, it`s on full display. Plus, infighting in Hillary Clinton`s political operation looks like 2008 all over again. We`ll bring you the detail, Bob Shrum, Jonathan Alter on the way. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Tonight, we are hearing from the family of murdered American hostage Kayla Mueller. Earlier today, the Pentagon confirmed the 26-year-old aid worker died at the hands of ISIS. The terror group had claimed that Mueller have been killed on a Jordanian airstrike. Muller`s family addressed the media a short time ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LORI LYON, KAYLA MUELLER`S AUNTS: Even as a little girl, Kayla was a bright, inquisitive kind little girl. At a very young age, Kayla knew her passion. She knew her calling. A lot of people never have the opportunity to say that. Kayla`s calling was to help those who were suffering whether in our hometown of Prescott or on the other side of the world. She has done more in her incredible 26 years than many people could ever imagine doing in their lifetime. My daughter sets me things that were important to Kayla or finally getting the attention that they deserve. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Mueller was taken hostage outside a hospital in Syria in 2013. We`ll be right back with more in the Ed Show. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Office supply chain Staples has been looking for ways to save some paper. The most recent earnings report showed a 6 percent drop in sales of the previous year. The company closed over 100 stores in North America in 2014. They`re cutting down on competition by buying up rival Office Depot for $6 billion. And when it comes to employees, they`re cracking down on part-time workers. BuzzFeed news reports the company is threatening to fire part-timers who log more than 25 hours a week. A note posted in one of the Staples` stores explained associates who clocked more than 25 hours a week could face termination or multiple incidence. The note cites recent changes for the tough stance. Many are questioning whether the move is related to the implementation of the Health Care Law Employer Mandate. The Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide health insurance for employees working more than 30 hours a week. If they don`t, they could face a fine of $3,000 per person. Staples denies Obamacare played a part in this cost cutting. The Spokesman says their part-time policy predates the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. They say, managers may have reiterated the policy in an effort to improve the efficiency and a competitiveness of the stores. The company once supported by Mitt Romney`s Bain Capital is an example I think of Mitt Romney`s economy, just going after the workers. Joining me tonight, Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. Is this Obamacare? Is this being used to squeeze the bottom line on workers? Your thoughts on this. REP. JIM MCDERMOTT, (D) WASHINGTON: I think it`s not caused by Obamacare, Ed, and they are saying it`s not. What`s happening here is that the whole market is being squeezed and they`re buying up office, or Home Depot or Office Depot and they are in trouble financially and they are trying to keep their employees down at 25 hours. Now, the real question we ought to be asking is, where do they stand on the $15 an hour? Do they think there should be a minimum wage increase, because at 25 hours a week you can`t possibly support a family. The people who are working there, you read their stories, they`re also working some place else another 25 hours. They`re working 50 hours a week in two different places. So, the economy is not working for a lot of families at this point. SCHULTZ: You know, Republics have been trying to redefine full-time employment under Obamacare to be 40 hours a week. Would this help or harm workers as you see it? MCDERMOTT: Well, I think if you`ve taken the big picture Ed, this is in a long-term good for us because they`re driving us toward single payer. Employers are trying to get out of participating in the employer mandate. They don`t want to provide for their employees if they can get out of it. So they`re all playing all kinds of games and ultimately this 40-hour week thing means everybody whose -- people are working 38 hours or 35 hours, they aren`t going to have to offer them health insurance either. They will come into the subsidized exchanges and be a part of the federal system. I think we`re moving to a system where business is trying to offload their responsibility for the health of their workers. SCHULTZ: Well, and their workers can go get in the exchange if the exchange is setup in the state that they`re operating in. I mean, when you take a company that is dealing in all 50 states, well, on one hand Obamacare is helping them on the other hand they`re trying to shed off the expense. I mean, it`s a race to the bottom line. That`s what it comes down to. MCDERMOTT: Well, you see that you`ve just pointed out the reason why there has to be national plan. There has to be a national single plan because you can`t have 50 different states a company like this that`s in 50 different states. Their workers would be going to 50 different exchanges all getting different things. They won`t know what they`re -- they won`t have anybody to turn to, to say is this good or is this bad because every place will be different. And I really think that the whole question here of whether we`re going to have 40-hour a week, is whether the employers want to give -- health insurance to their workers or not. And... SCHULTZ: Well... MCDERMOTT: ... in my view, they don`t. SCHULTZ: And the bottom line here is, nothing is going to change legislatively on this. Republicans are never going to jump in and tell businesses they can`t operate this way. They`re going to say, well the free market, they can limit it too as many hours as they possible want. So this problem isn`t going away anytime soon nor is it going to be address anytime soon, correct? MCDERMOTT: Right. The President put the agenda up there. He said, you know, minimum wage should be increased and so forth. He`s talking about the middle class. We`re talking about middle class people who are working 24 hours a week in two different jobs to hold on to their house... SCHULTZ: Yeah. MCDERMOTT: ... and their family and their education. They are struggling like mad and we`re not getting any of from the Republicans. SCHULTZ: Congressman Jim Mcdermott, good to have you with us. I appreciate your time. Coming up. There maybe trouble in Hillary land, the Rapid Response Panel rips to cover off this one. Speaking of covers, college football gets -- college football gets, yes, its first Top 25 poll of 2015. Big names revealed in tonight`s two-minute drill. Stay with us. HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC Market Wrap. All three major averages (ph) soared higher today. The Dow gained 139 points, the S&P almost 22, and the NASDAQ up almost 62 or 1.3 percent. Notable gainers today include Apple rising more than two points to become the first U.S. company to come close with a market cap of over $700 billion. And Coca-Cola rose about 3 percent after beating earning estimates by $0.02 a share. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching us tonight. Hillary Clinton`s 2008 presidential campaign was basically (inaudible) rumors of dysfunction, infighting and political backstabbing. Not good. 636 days out from the 2016 election and we`re hearing kind of the same stuff. On Monday, Political Operative David Brock resigned from the Board of super PAC Priorities USA Action. Brock is a reformed conservative and a close Clinton ally. Brock is also a founder of the pro-Clinton Groups American Bridge and Media Matters. In his resignation letter obtained by Politico, Brock accused Priorities officials of planning an orchestrated political hit job against his own groups. Brock wrote a serious breach of trust between organizations that are supposed to work together has created an untenable situation that leaves me no choice but to resign my position. Brock accused Priorities USA Action of planting a damaging New York Times story which questioned the fundraising practices of Media Matters, American Bridge and Ready for Hillary. It was looking like a grim Clinton rerun until last night when Brock and Priorities USA Action both released statements signaling truce. Brock said, after speaking to several leaders of Priorities USA he was open to returning to the board and finding a way to move forward. Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm who is co-chairs of Priorities super PAC released a statement saying the group is working to address Brock`s concerns. Granholm wrote, "We all have the same shared goals." There`s no doubt about that but it doesn`t sound like everybody is on the same page. Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel, MSNBC Political Analyst Jonathan Alter also with us, Democratic Strategist Bob Shrum. Gentlemen, good to have you with us. JONATHAN ALTER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Glad to be here. Bob, you first, what do you make of this infighting? I guess they better get this stuff out of way early on, huh? BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well first of all it shows you can pick your staff but you can`t pick your super PACs. Look, a lot of the Hillary folks who are close to her have some really influence here. I suspect this we`ll get stitched up. Brock has done some very useful work but he shouldn`t have gone public. And no one should have in this mess gone to the press. And it symptomatic of a challenge she faces. She has so much support, there`s so much money slashing around. It`s a real challenge to make sure we have a discipline campaign here. And that`s key. It`s a key to winning. That was a key to no drama Obama. What we need here is no conflict Clinton. Right now I don`t think voters care about this. They`re not paying any attention to it. But if it happened months from now, then you would disrupt the campaign, you`ve be thrown off message, you have a candidate in disarray, a campaign in disarray. So I think she`s right to take the time to hone her message, to get the people in place, to impose some discipline because team of rivals may work in a President`s cabinet. It does not work in a presidential campaign. SCHULTZ: Jonathan, are these people just jockeying for power position here and influence? ALTER: Not just influence and power but money, and this is what`s troubling here, what this is about is that is that there was a fundraiser who raised millions of dollars for these different groups including David Brock`s but she was taking a 12.5 percent commission. So she was -- herself getting millions of dollars of the donors` money. And a lot of those donors understandably got kind of upset because they thought they were giving the money to Hillary not to the fundraiser. And so, what this raises is the question of what Hillary supporters are in it for. And this was a big gap between Hillary and Obama in 2008. In 2008, Obama`s people were in it for Obama. SCHULTZ: Yeah. ALTER: They were selfless. And that`s what helped make the campaign work. The Hillary people were more in it for themselves. If we get a repeat of that this time, she won`t have the passion and a genuine commitment that she needs to go the distance. SCHULTZ: Why do I get a feeling Jonathan that Hillary got engaged in this? She might have personally involved in mapping this thing up. ALTER: I think that`s a pretty smart supposition here because she realizes, as Bob said, that she just cannot have this kind of, you know, turmoil in the ranks. And that people have to, you know, stop thinking about themselves and whether they have been insulted by somebody else`s leak or whether they`re getting a commission that they think they... SCHULTZ: Yeah. ALTER: ... deserve on their fundraising and start thinking about why they`re doing this which is suppose to be elect Hillary Clinton. SCHULTZ: And, Bob could we interpret this as David Brock saying, look I`m going to be player here. I`ve been around this for a long time. The grassroots are close to do -- how he operates. And he just has to be heard and then Jennifer Granholm saying, acknowledging his concern like he will be heard and will be influential in this. What do you make of it? SHRUM: Look, disagreements happen in campaigns, but you can`t take them outside. If you take them outside, you begin to get in a lot of trouble. Now, Jonathan is right. A 12.5 percent commission on fundraising, I was knocked over by that. That`s bigger than any other commission that I know of inside presidential campaigns. And in fairness look, the people who work for Barack Obama, a lot of them who made the ads, did the mail all of that. They made a reasonable sum of money even a generous sum of money in 2008. But this is way over the top. Now, I don`t want to get into the middle of the dispute, its clear there`s a Clinton people wanted to calm this thing down as quickly as possible. It`s also clear by the way that Barack and Media Matter have done some important work. And they`ve done a very effective job of defending her. But I hope what`s happened here is that Hillary Clinton and the people around her, they`re sending a very clear message. We`re not going to have this kind campaign. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SHRUM: ... we`re not going to have the classic exercise of everybody, every time their unhappy going to the press, going to Politico taking this thing outside. SCHULTZ: But wouldn`t you gentlemen be curious to know whether Hillary knew that somebody was getting 12 percent off the top? ALTER: Well, that`s a really good question because... SCHULTZ: You know... SHRUM: There is she shouldn`t by the way. ALTER: Yeah... SHRUM: In theory she can`t know what was being paid at the super PAC. ALTER: Now this is something that Bob knows more about than I do. But I take a really hard line on this. So political consultant, fundraisers they`re in kind of two categories of getting paid. One is retainer and they`re paid a certain amount and another is percentage, either percentage of the money they raise or a percentage of the ad buy (ph). I think that candidate who lets his or her people work on a percentage to have head examined. And there`s enough choices of different people who`re talented in this area that everybody should work on a retainer. Nobody should have vested interesting in putting on more ads or they get more money, you know, or... SCHULTZ: Well, it raises the question, the credibility of the fundraiser. Are you in it for the money or do you really want Hillary to win? ALTER: Yes, you`re right. SCHULTZ: As you said that the... ALTER: Exactly. SCHULTZ: ... people were supporting Obama, they were selfishly, you know. ALTER: They were... SCHULTZ: Unselfishly should I say. ALTER: There were, as Bob said, there were a lot of people made good money in the Obama campaign. But overall there was a spirit... SHRUM: Sure, yeah. ALTER: ... of this being... SCHULTZ: Yeah. ALTER: ... about Obama and not about himself. SHRUM: I do have to fess up on one thing. I mean in presidential campaigns, my media firm was paid a commission. It was nothing like 12.5 percent. I find that an absolutely outstanding number and I think that`s probably what set off the conflict here. SCHULTZ: Well, it would seem to me they`re going to have to raise a lot of money because Kochs just recently had fundraiser that did $268 million. That`s a big chunk of almost a billion that they want to throw into this. Bob, you`re thoughts. SHRUM: Well, yeah. I said there`s going to have to be major fundraising effort. I think the people who do the fundraising ought to be recompense, a lot of them are very skillful. I don`t necessarily agree with Jonathan, that none of these can on the commission basis. But I think the commission has to be reasonable. I don`t think there`s a theological bright line that has to be drawn here. But where I do agree with him is that your really have to be committed to the candidate, because you`re going to have moments when things are in trouble, when things are tight, when for example you might as we did in the Kerry campaign in the last couple of weeks. Say we just giving up... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SHRUM: ... giving up all the commission... ALTER: And I think... SHRUM: ... we want to put more money on T.V. SCHULTZ: Yeah. ALTER: The key thing here is that, some of the Obama people are now going to work for Hillary. So there`s a very talented guy name Teddy Goff from Ran Digital for Obama. They raised in the month of September 2012, a $150... SHRUM: Right. ALTER: ... million online in donation under $100. That`s the way to finance campaigns. The problem in politic is not money. It`s big money. And if Hillary can tap that small donor-based she`s going to be OK. SCHUTLZ: All right, Jonathan Alter, Bob Shrum. Always great to have both of your guys on... SHRUM: Right. Thanks. SCHULTZ: ... this matter (ph). Thanks so much. Coming up, California opens one of the world`s largest solar energy farms, all thanks to what? You got it, federal funding. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Two minute drill here we go. Preseason football poll already, it`s February. National signing they just ended and already college football fans have got something to chew on. Here are the top teams in ESPN`s 2015 way to early preseason Top 25. Number 3 goes to USC, Number 2 goes to Horned Frogs of TCU, Number 1 defending champs, Ohio State. Next up, a league of their own, a little league pitching phenom and NBA star shared a moment during warm ups of a basketball game Monday night. Mo`ne Davis and Golden States Warriors point guard Stephen Curry exchange autographs. Finally, vintage Lynch an NBA player attempted to take a page from Seattle Seahawks Marshawn Lynch`s playbook for a post game interviews. L.A. Clippers center DeAndre Jordan posted 22 points and 27 rebounds against the Dallas Mavericks. He tried to channel his inner beast mode, but couldn`t keep a straight face. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know shooters get into a zone but do rebounder get into that same zone? DEANDERE JORDAN, L.A. CLIPPERS CENTER: You know, I`m here. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why is your mom here? JORDAN: Oh no, she came to support. MATT BARNES, L.A. CLIPPERS SMALL FORWARD: Mom on the (inaudible). (CROSSTALK) (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And there`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: We are just minutes away from the launch of a critical NASA mission. We talked about this yesterday on this program. A SpaceX rocket will take a weather satellite into orbit to monitor climate change with technology that could be a game changer, that launch to take place at Cape Canaveral any moment now. Now, this is the story for the folks who take a shower after work. A 160,000 Southern California homes can now be powered by sunshine. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SALLY JEWELL, U.S. INTERIOR SECRETARY: Is blessed with a year-round sun and what`s happening behind me is taking advantage of that year-round sun. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: United States Interior Secretary joined California state officials to open the 550 megawatt Desert Sunlight solar project. Now, what made this project possible was federal funding. First Solar, the projects developer received nearly $1.5 billion from the United States Department of Energy. Utility companies, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison have already agreed to purchase power from Desert Sunlight for the next two decades. California seems to be leading the way with solar in the United States and just a short time ago, Apple`s CEO Tim Cook announced that the company will partner with First Solar to build an $850 million solar energy farm in Monterey County, California. Bernadette Del Chiaro, she is the Executive Director of the California Solar Energy Industries Association joins us. Bernadette, I appreciate it. This is, rather interesting that $1.5 billion of public money goes to this certainly against the conservative thinking that lawmakers have had that, you know, it`s only the private sector that`s going to get things done. Is this a waste of money? BERNADETTE DEL CHIARO, EXEC. DR., CALIFORNIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION: Well, absolutely not. And the private sector is getting a lot done especially in the solar industry sector. We grew by one -- the United States -- the job growth in United States 1 full percentage of it came just from the solar industry last year. So we`re providing tremendous amounts of jobs and economic development not just here in California but all across the country. So for the government to do what it does best which is create opportunities for innovation and for businesses to basically do what they do best, in this case turn our abandoned sunshine into renewable pollution free electricity. SCHULTZ: Isn`t this kind of a wake up moment for America? We haven`t heard numbers like this or a project like this in the past. DEL CHIARO: It`s phenomenal. We have installed just in California alone more solar power in the past 18 months than the past 18 years combined. We`re putting up more solar power both in rooftops, hundreds of thousands rooftops across the country as well as large projects in the desert like the one you refer to that just unveiled today. We`re doing this basically every single day of the year and it is the absolutely the wave of the future. It`s here to stay and it`s a really -- a huge success story of government actually getting behind smart, innovative no-brainer business opportunities turning the sunlight into real jobs. SCHULTZ: This got very little or no conversation. I mean, $1.5 billion, I mean, there is global investment going on solar energy and obviously it`s on the move of the United States now but could we be doing more, is there more money where this came from? DEL CHIARO: Absolutely. I mean, first of all, the government`s role is mostly in reducing risks so that businesses can come in and make those investments and invest hundreds of times more than what the, you know, tax payers investing in a promising technology and that`s what we`re really seeing. We`re also seeing individual homeowners and individual businesses -- you mentioned Apple, they`re coming up, stepping up to the plate and putting their money with their mouth just in terms of investing in pollution free and really smart forward thinking technologies like solar. So there`s a really important role for government to continue to play. You know, one of the things we need to do here is level the playing field between wind and solar and renewable energy that is homegrown, it`s American grown and its pollution free and traditional energy sources which are benefited for a hundred years with government subsidies. So, what the government is doing is help to level the playing field, reduce risks and business will basically step up and innovation will take care of the rest and we`ll be able to run our computers and toaster ovens in our cities on pollution free electricity... SCHULTZ: Where is the next... DEL CHIARO: ... in the very near term. SCHULTZ: Bernadette, where is the next big opportunity here? I mean, the sunshine is on a lot of places in America. DEL CHIARO: Yeah. I mean, really our cities, the rooftops, through out our cities are the next biggest untapped potential. To give you a sense, California has the biggest rooftop market right now in rooftop solar. We`ve only installed maybe 1 percent -- 2 percent of the roofs here in the state. So we`ve really only scratched the surface. We have cities up all across the country that are investing in the rooftop solar, New Jersey, Massachusetts, even in the middle of the country, Texas, there is real Cinderella stories of unlikely, you know, states coming up and realizing that saving consumers` money, putting people to work right in your community, you can`t outsource these jobs. They`re inherently naturally American. SCHULTZ: What kind of jobs are we talking about here? This is the money shot. What kind of job? Is this a job creator? DEL CHIARO: It is absolutely a job creator. The solar industry just -- we have recently report for the Solar Foundation says the solar industry across American employs 175,000 people and what`s really important is the growth. So we`ve grown. We added 1 percent of all of the jobs that what added to America were come -- just from the solar industry, 1 whole percent. So we`re actually playing a major role in creating new meaningful good jobs, good careers for everyday Americans all across the country. SCHULTZ: I like it. Bernadette Del Chiaro, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. Great story. We have a quick update, NASA just scrubbed the launch of the SpaceX rocket. They`ll give it another shot at 6:03 P.M. Eastern Time on Wednesday. That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 11, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021001cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 44 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 10, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST Hostage Kayla Mueller Confirmed Dead; Congress to Consider War Authorization BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Keir Simmons, Michael Sheehan GUESTS: Charles Sennott, Sen. Bill Nelson, Mo Brooks, Susan Page SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8026 words HIGHLIGHT: While we now know Kayla Mueller is dead, we do not know how she was killed or when. President Obama is ready to ask Congress for a war resolution against ISIS. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Kayla is gone. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. And "Let Me Start" tonight with confirmation that the American hostage Kayla Mueller is dead. Mueller was taken by ISIS in August of 2013 while working for an aid organization in Syria. She was there trying to help the suffering people of that country. And today, her family said they`ve received evidence that she is dead. According to NBC, the evidence was a photograph of Kayla`s body which had been e-mailed -- the photograph -- to her family over the weekend. While we now know she is dead, we do not know how she was killed or when. ISIS said it was a Jordanian air strike that killed her, but there`s strong reason for skepticism, as White House press secretary, Josh Earnest showed today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The information that we have is that there is no evidence of civilians in the target area prior to the coalition strike taking place. And that certainly would call into question the claims that are made by ISIL. What is not possible to call into question is that ISIL, regardless of her cause of death, is responsible for it. This, after all, was the organization that was holding her against her will. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Agreed. Anyway, why would we believe the ISIS version of events in any case? After all, this was a group that was negotiating over the fate of a Jordanian pilot several weeks after the pilot was gruesomely executed. We begin tonight with the two key questions -- when and how did Kayla Mueller died? I`m joined by NBC`s Keir Simmons, who`s in Amman, Jordan. Keir, thank you for joining us tonight. What do we really know, except we now believe, because the parents have gotten some evidence of a picture of her, that she is deceased? What do we know besides that? KEIR SIMMONS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, really, we don`t know very much at all, to be honest. U.S. officials say that she appears -- and we`re talking about them trying to study just a picture, just a photograph. But they say that she appears to have suffered trauma wounds that would not be inconsistent with her being in the vicinity of a bomb. But of course, we`re talking about Syria, and Syria is a place where bombs are dropped by numbers of different parties, including by the Syrian government itself. And we`re talking about ISIS -- ISIL, as the White House calls them -- where they are constantly making bombs, building bombs. So she would have been around the kinds of munitions that could have caused these injuries, not falling from the sky. And that`s really where it is, Chris, to be honest. I mean, ISIS made these claims. The Jordanians are repeating those same points being made by the White House, that you can`t believe a single thing that ISIS says. It is very, very difficult to be certain when she died or how she died. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about Jordan. You`re in that country right now. It`s a valued ally of our country`s. They`re massing troops, ground troops, on the border with Syria. To what purpose? Can we tell? Are they ready for an invasion? Or is this a show of strength, or simply border protection, which would make sense? SIMMONS: We think it`s border protection, but the talk about a possible offensive against ISIS has been building ever since the air campaign has been building in recent days. Chris, some things that might have been missed, though. The Iraqi deputy prime minister has said in the last 24 hours he doesn`t believe that their forces are ready for a ground offensive against ISIS, even with the kind of air power that they would have in support. And Chris, you`ll know that the idea, for example, of Jordanian troops heading across the border into Iraq to fight ISIS would be pretty extraordinary because you`re talking about a country that is primary led by -- OK, it`s a coalition government, but it`s a Shia government, many people think. And then when you talk about Syria, as I mentioned earlier, that is a country run by President Assad. So again, a difficult arena to intervene in by the Jordanians or any other Gulf states. So you probably are relying on the kinds of forces, like Iraqi troops, like Kurdish troops, and you really want to be certain that they are ready. And the Kurds, by the way, have been complaining that they don`t have what they need in order to really fight ISIS. That will be a bloody battle, Chris, when and if that happens, I guess, and those -- all of those supporting the idea and pushing ISIS back are going to want to be confident that they can be successful. MATTHEWS: Right. Thank you so much, Keir Simmons, once again from Jordan. Anyway, the president said today -- our president -- that Kayla Mueller represented what is best about America. Quote, "On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I convey our deepest condolences to Kayla`s family and all those who loved Kayla dearly. As this time of unimaginable suffering, the country shares in their grief. Kayla`s compassion and dedication to assisting those in need shows us that even amongst unconscionable evil, the essential decency of humanity can live on." And one of Kayla`s senators in Arizona, one of those representing her, John McCain, had this to say. Let`s watch John McCain. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: This wonderful young woman represented the best of us. She had a remarkable impact on the lives of so many people who never had the honor of meeting her, and her story will forever be an inspiration to us. On behalf of the people of Arizona and the United States Congress, I want to express the deepest condolences to Kayla`s parents, Marsha and Carl Mueller, her loving family and many friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Kayla devoted her young life to helping people in need around the world, to healing the sick and bringing light to some of the darkest and most desperate places on earth. She will never be forgotten. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: The good John McCain. Anyway, this afternoon, Kayla`s aunts also paid tribute to her. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LORI LYON, MUELLER`S AUNT: Kayla`s calling was to help those who are suffering, whether in her hometown of Prescott or on the other side of the world. She has done more in her incredible 26 years than many people could ever imagine doing in their lifetime! Kayla has touched the heart of the world. The world grieves with us. The world mourns with us. The world wants to be more like Kayla, and if that is her legacy and the footprint that she leaves on the world, then that is a wonderful thing. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I`m joined right now by MSNBC terrorist analyst Michael Sheehan. He`s a former assistant secretary of defense, also Charlie Sennott. He`s the co-founder of GlobalPost and executive director of the Ground Truth Project. Gentleman, thank you both for joining us. So this is sort of a wide-open question, like every American watching who cares about this country, and I think good people around the world, including that incredibly heroic pilot who was killed in the most horrific fashion, burned alive, knowing it was coming, watching it happen in front of people like that -- I don`t even want to look at that picture -- and this perfect young human American, who spent her life doing only good, and killing people just for the hell of it. I don`t have any idea how she died, but what do we make of this? And what`s it going to do to us? I keep thinking, Michael, if we get somebody -- now, this sounds pretty tough, but when are we going to stop this? I mean, we get a person over there, we all know who they are, what happens then? Do we change the rules? Do we go into it with a Rambo-style attack and do what we can to get them out? We did it with her. We tried. Do we have any capability to stop this hell, ISIS, unless we defeat the whole operation? MICHAEL SHEEHAN, MSNBC TERRORISM ANALYST: It`s very difficult when there`s a hostage taken, Chris. They`re very good at hiding, and they know the capability we have. They movie them from place to place. They try to keep a low signature. I was involved in trying to find Bergdahl and other hostages when I was in the Pentagon, and we found one and rescued one in Somalia. But it is extremely difficult, and especially with these people that have some experience in hiding these folks. MATTHEWS: Charlie, do we have any satellite photo capability to isolate? You see these things on television. You wonder. We look so darn good, but is it still a needle in a haystack, finding an incident, for example, of a hostage, where we can actually see them planning or about to carry out an execution? Can we see it? CHARLES SENNOTT, GLOBALPOST (on-camera): You know, finding a hostage is so hard in these situations, but they did have pretty good aerial surveillance of Raqqa, and there was information early on in the summer last year that really did indicate that this is where these hostages were being held. I think there`s so many things we don`t know right now. There`s so many facts we don`t have, more questions than answers. But there`s one thing. Just to stop for one minute and say I can`t understand this at all. I don`t think any of us can. But there is something here that I do have a bit of knowledge of and that I`ve seen into, and that is how this family felt all that time, how they hung onto hope. And we know that through getting to know the Foley family. Jim Foley was a correspondent who we worked with. He was a friend. He was a colleague, great journalist, also, you know, so much like Kayla, driven to service, driven to bearing witness to what was going on there, and just as President Obama put it, you know, the best among us. And I think there`s something here to recognize in the family, what they`ve been through, and their dignity in dealing with this. I saw the Foleys do the same thing, and I`m just really in awe of this family, the way they expressed their pride in their daughter, in the work she did for others and the service that she had. And they talk about how proud they are of her as a person. I think that`s amazing, an amazing testament to young people who are out there in places like the Middle East trying to make a difference. It`s really extraordinary. MATTHEWS: I`m just wonder how long we`re going to put up with this, Michael. And I understand everything you guys are telling me about the difficulty of it. If we hadn`t been through these wars of Afghanistan and the two Iraq wars, this would have been like something like the war of Jenkins (ph) ear or something. We would just, All right, we`re going to war, you know? All right, you`re doing this to our people -- like, even Jimmy Carter, who could be pretty pacifist -- and I worked for him -- if they had started executing our diplomats back in the `70s, I think we would have gone to war. And I think -- when do we say enough? SHEEHAN: Well... MATTHEWS: And just start bombing the hell out of them? SHEEHAN: Well, we are... MATTHEWS: Are we bombing the hell out of them? SHEEHAN: We are... MATTHEWS: Are we really prosecuting a real war there? SHEEHAN: We are bombing the hell out of them, and I think we might be able to expand that bombing more into Syria, as well. But Chris, this has a dual-edged sword. They did this for a purpose. First of all, they`re just barbaric and it`s just in their blood to kill people and Westerners that they hate. But also, there`s a purpose. No president of the United States wants to wake up in the morning and see a young special forces captain held in a cage being ready to be burned. They`re doing this to try to intimidate us so that we go home. And it`s important that the president of the United States articulate why we`re there, to prepare the country just in case this happens again. MATTHEWS: What happens if we start putting people on the ground as forward air controllers and people who have to spot positions and targets, and they grab one of those guys? SHEEHAN: It could happen. We have people on the ground right now in Iraq, the special forces advisers. And I can tell you, Chris, we are more effective the more close we are with the combat forces that we`re advising. MATTHEWS: And we`re more exposed, too. SHEEHAN: That`s right. And if we stay behind and cower in hotels, we`ve allowed that terrorist act of killing one person to affect our entire policy. SENNOTT: I agree... MATTHEWS: It`s a brutal story. Last word -- last word, Charlie. What`s your sense of what we should be doing? I mean, I don`t know if it`s your field to say what the grand strategy would be. What do you think? SENNOTT: Well, I think one thing is ground forces. You`re not going to be able to accomplish this without them. But the other thing in the bigger picture -- it`s a little bit philosophical. How do we win this? We win it with ideas. We`re a country that`s about freedom. We`re a country that`s about freedom of expression. And you know, these terrorists at the Islamic State are a kind of death cult. Why on God`s earth would anyone want to ascribe to that or belong to that? And I think the Middle East is waking up to that when they watched burning alive a pilot who had been downed. MATTHEWS: A Muslim. SENNOTT: The Middle East is having its own reaction. We win this on ideas and by staying true to who we are and not letting them divide us. MATTHEWS: Yes, well, there`s some evil pretty manifest here. Anyway, thank you, Michael Sheehan. Thank you, Charlie Sennott. Thank you -- we used to have you on a lot. Thanks for coming back, Charlie. SENNOTT: Thank you. MATTHEWS: Coming up -- President Obama is ready to ask Congress for a war resolution against ISIS, but what would that war look like that he wants to wage, and how much power will Congress give the president? Unfortunately, politics is going to play a role. And will American troops actually face the enemy in the field the way that Michael just suggested? Big questions tonight coming up here. Plus, Reince Priebus and the Republican National Committee is accusing Hillary Clinton of hiding because she`s not acting like a candidate yet. Perhaps Reince wants her in the race so that the Republican candidates will stop attacking each other. I`m just guessing. And David Axelrod now says in his book that President Obama was BS`ing -- to use his term -- when he said he didn`t support same-sex marriage. Axelrod says there was no evolution. The president was always for it. We`ll see what the president says about that. Finally, last October, basketball superstar Michael Jordan mocked the president`s golfing ability. Now we find out the president rejected a gift from Jordan because -- catch this -- Jordan misspelled the president`s first name. Well, this is really trash talk, isn`t it. Anyway, that`s all where it belongs, in the "Sideshow. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Today, Kayla Mueller`s family released an unpublished letter that Kayla wrote last spring while being held by ISIS. Here`s part of what Kayla wrote. "I`ve come to a place and experience where in every sense of the word, I have surrendered myself to our creator because, literally, there was no one else. None of could have known it would be this long. But know I am fighting from my side in the ways I am able, and I have a lot of fight left inside of me. I`m not breaking down, and I will not give in, no matter how long it takes." We`ll be right back after this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: There`s already the drumbeat, there`s already those in both parties who insist that we must have American GIs on the ground. I`m not sending any American soldiers! I`m not sending your son, your daughter or mine over to the middle of that chaos. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky last year warning against more American military engagement in the Middle East. The White House is expected to release a proposal giving President Obama the congressional authorization to wage war against the Islamic State as early as this week. The White House is negotiating with the Congress over the language of what`s called an authorization for use of military force. Well, earlier today, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration is working hard to secure backing from both Democrats and Republicans. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: In the intervening period, since the president first discussed this back in November, and even before the president made this announcement back in November, administration officials had been engaged in conversations with Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate to try to arrive at language that could be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. In recent days, we`ve stepped up our engagement to -- with Democrats and Republicans on the Hill to try to finalize language that could be submitted by the administration to Congress, and we`re hopeful that we can provide that information relatively soon, that language relatively soon. And hopefully, there will not be a significant delay in Congress acting on that legislative language. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, the last time the Congress granted an authorization of that kind was in 2002, when President Bush asked for the authority to invade Iraq. Thirteen years later, President Obama is asking a different Congress for authority to act in the war against ISIS. The big question remains, should American soldiers do the actual fighting? Joining me right now are two members of the Congress who will have to take that vote soon. Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, is from Florida. Senator Nelson, should we have American soldiers doing the fighting against ISIS? SEN. BILL NELSON (D), FLORIDA: The short answer is yes, and we already are. We`re hitting them from the air, and in some cases, we`ve already had boots on the ground as we have tried some rescue missions. MATTHEWS: What about having soldiers, our soldiers, join the other forces, like the Iraqi forces, as they go to war with ISIS? Is that something you would support, being in their ranks out front doing the fighting? NELSON: Large standing armies, no, but forward air observers or special operations forces doing a particular mission, yes. MATTHEWS: What happens if they continue executing our people and grabbing them and then killing them publicly? Does that increase the urgency of our involvement? Does it enlarge the nature of our involvement as you see it? NELSON: That`s why we have to win. And that`s why we have a renewed vigor. And just -- look, as you well pointed out, this inhumane burning of the Jordanian pilot, that`s not only united the Jordanians. We met with the king last week. But it has united the entire Arab world from Indonesia in the east all the way to Morocco in the west. And they are -- they are united to join us to go after and to stop ISIS. MATTHEWS: What happens if what you describe as our appropriate policy of using troops for forward to ground control and helping the planes know where to strike, picking the targets, what happens if that`s not enough to beat ISIS? NELSON: Well, or what happens in ISIS goes to another country? I think we`re going to have to give the president some flexibility. He used the words enduring forces. It`s equivalent of like a large standing army on the ground. That`s not going to be allowed in this authorization. MATTHEWS: Thank you so much, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. Thank you, sir, for taking the time. NELSON: Thanks, Chris. MATTHEWS: U.S. Congressman Mo Brooks is a Republican from Alabama. Congressman, did you hear Senator Nelson? He offered up the idea of the limited commitment of troops, to basically help with the spotting of targets by our air attack, and basically not -- I wouldn`t say not infantry moving into combat against the enemy. Where do you stand in terms of restricting the president? REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: Well, I`m a little bit perplexed by his comments. Personally, I think this needs to be the standard. America should not go to war unless we`re committed to do the things that are necessary to win, which means that we should not restrain our commander in chief if in fact that is what America wants to do. In that regard, the president of the United States has to show that he has a strategy that can result in the extermination of the Islamic State. Second, the president has to show a willingness to be committed to the cause. There will be casualties, American casualties, and as was seen from the Islamic State, we might as Americans be confronted with some very horrific events that are on the Internet or on TV. And we have to be prepared for that if we`re going to embark in this endeavor. And I want to know that our president is committed to the task, and has a strategy that can win. And if he`s not committed or does not have a strategy, then we should not engage. Rather, it should be a much greater multination effort, perhaps a United Nations-led effort. MATTHEWS: That has a good sound to it. I think it sounds like Doug MacArthur. There is no substitute for victory. And I`m just wondering, in that case, when we`re fighting an enemy like that, we would occupy and then liberate the people later and move and we would come home. What do you if you go in and fight ISIS and you liberate areas of Iraq and areas of Syria? Who gets that territory behind your front? Who do you give it to? That`s always been my question. BROOKS: Well, I would hope what would follow a defeat of the Islamic State is, with respect to Iraq, you would have an Iraqi government that would be able to reassert control over its territory, and similarly a government in Syria, which brings up another question. Is the president going to use this as a subterfuge for toppling the Syrian regime? As you know, within the past couple years, this White House and its secretary of state then, Hillary Clinton, called for a toppling of the Syrian regime. So this is a very delicate situation with the Islamic State, with the Syrian regime, with al Qaeda on the perimeter, with Iran not that far away. And I think the president needs to express in a way that gives the American people confidence that we have a winning strategy and the commitment to win. It does us no good to get embroiled in war if we`re not going to end up with a victory. MATTHEWS: OK. Thanks so much. That was a very clear statement by Mo Brooks, congressman from Alabama. Joining me right now is David Corn, Washington bureau chief of "Mother Jones" and MSNBC political analyst. David, what do you think? DAVID CORN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first, my condolences to the Mueller family. I can`t imagine what they`re going through today. It`s horrific, which is why we`re talking about the bigger picture. The idea that the congressman just stated of the extermination of the Islamic State at the hands of the U.S. military I think is not realistic and far-fetched. The way you would get rid of... MATTHEWS: Why? Explain that. CORN: Because I don`t think we enough bodies, whether we have the will or not, to go in there and actually secure that whole portion of the Middle East. Even if you go in... MATTHEWS: There`s 30,000 of them. That`s it. CORN: They control large swathes of land. And when we went in with Iraq, we saw that there`s not a political solution. If you don`t have a Sunni awakening, which is more political than military, you can`t do it on your own. Right now, even the bombing raids that we have targeting ISIS, every time they hit a civilian target, it radicalizes the Sunnis and helps ISIS as well. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I agree with that, because I think the government of Iraq is a Shia government. And we just heard earlier that there`s a problem -- from the experts - - that the reason Jordan won`t go on the ground against ISIS, they don`t want to be on the same battle, on the same side as the Shia governments of Assad and of course in Baghdad. CORN: This is not a polar dispute. If you go into Syria, and you topple the Assad government, the ISIS-affiliated forces are right now stronger on the ground. And they could take over Syria. MATTHEWS: OK. Let me throw this at you. Are we going to let this continue? This is my conundrum here. I agree with you all this stuff. You know your stuff. CORN: Yes. MATTHEWS: Are we going to let them keep executing people, pouring gasoline? Wait until they get somebody over there, a nun over there, and start pouring gasoline on her. At what point are we going to say we`re going to blow that place up with anything we got, even if we don`t win? When do you just explode as a country and say we`re not going to take that anymore? When is that going to happen? CORN: Yes. Well, that`s a good question, but acting out of anger and revenge, while it would feel good, would probably not get us the policy ends want. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Do you think we`re going to sit? Suppose they grab somebody we know over there, maybe a journalist we know, maybe a celebrity. Who knows how they grab. And it`s going to be a person we know. It certainly was for these families, as you point out. CORN: Of course. MATTHEWS: Thanks for your condolence, of course, because they`re appropriate, because we don`t know these people. You can have tremendous empathy for somebody like the young woman Kayla, because we have sort of gotten to know her. But what happens when it`s somebody over there -- I just don`t know how long we can take this as human beings. I just think it`s a real problem. And I`m thinking of Rambo kind of stuff, because at some point you have got to go in there with what you got and do the best you can, or you`re not going to be very proud of yourself. CORN: Well, listen, we try to use indiscriminate bombing. MATTHEWS: No, I don`t mean indiscriminate bombing. I`m talking a heroic kind of an extraction campaign. CORN: Well, to the degree you can do special force operations -- and we have tried that with hostages. Sometimes, it`s worked. Sometimes, it hasn`t worked. MATTHEWS: Yes. CORN: And I believe that President Obama is fully committed to doing that when it`s possible. But as Michael Sheehan said earlier in the show, it`s really hard sometimes to locate these people and figure out what to do. Now, whether we`re going to sort of go in, you know, with ground troops and take on the military responsibility ourselves, that`s exactly what ISIS would want. I don`t think we can conquer ISIS if the regional powers and forces don`t figure out on their own that it`s most in their interest to do this with our help. MATTHEWS: I agree. They may want it, but Baghdadi doesn`t want his head blown off either. Anything is possible. Thank you, David. CORN: Sure thing. MATTHEWS: This is a very conflicting situation. Up next: President Obama rejected an autographed poster from Michael Jordan, the basketball ball, because Jordan misspelled his first name. This is a little bit of a tiff here, and that`s where it belongs, that story, in the "Sideshow," and nowhere else tonight. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. And time for the "Sideshow." While the debate over childhood vaccinations has proved to be divisive, especially among the Republican contenders for 2016, Conan O`Brien came up with an absurd solution last night, one that allows parents greater choice, like Chris Christie says he wants, while at the same time maintaining public health standards. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "CONAN") CONAN O`BRIEN, HOST, "CONAN": There`s a new day care center that`s figured out a way for vaccinated and unvaccinated kids to still attend school together. NARRATOR: For children who haven`t been vaccinated, there is a real danger, a danger of being ostracized, of being made to feel unwanted. But here at Kind Hearts Day Care, we have created a safe environment for all children, vaccinated and unvaccinated. (LAUGHTER) NARRATOR: We provide a safe, nonjudgmental environment, where all children can enjoy a carefree existence. (LAUGHTER) NARRATOR: And in the event of danger, Kind Hearts has procedures in place to keep your beautiful children safe with minimal disruption. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) NARRATOR: Kind Hearts Day Care. (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: How do they do that? Anyway, next up, a profile of former campaign strategist David Axelrod in "New York" magazine reveals another chapter in the weird history between President Obama and basketball superstar Michael Jordan. Just before Obama`s 50th birthday three years ago, Axelrod sent Jordan a poster to autograph as a gift for the president. But when it came back, the inscription from Jordan read, "To Barrack, you still owe me dinner. Wishing you well, Michael Jordan." The problem was, of course, is the basketball legend misspelled the president`s first name, with two R`s. Barack has only R and Jordan used two. When Axelrod gave the signed poster to the president, the president refused the gift, saying he couldn`t put it up because Jordan misspelled his name. So Axelrod kept it, eventually hanging it at Chicago University`s Institute of Politics, where it remains today. But this sort of towel-snapping between Jordan and the president may simply be the way they carry on. Remember, rest last October, when Jordan took a shot at the president`s golf game. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHAEL JORDAN, FORMER NBA PLAYER: I never played with Obama, but I would. But, no, that`s OK. I would take him out. He`s a hack. Man, it would be all day playing with him. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You really want to say that to the president of the United States? JORDAN: Don`t worry about it. I never said he wasn`t a great politician. I`m just saying he`s a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) golfer. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, he`s not a bad golfer. JORDAN: OK. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, and the trash talk continued when the president fired back in an interview on Wisconsin radio. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is no doubt that Michael is a better golfer than I am. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. OBAMA: Of course, if I was playing twice a day for the last 15 years, then that might not be the case. And, you know, he might want to spend more time thinking about the Bobcats, or maybe the Hornets, but that`s a whole `nother issue. (LAUGHTER) (END AUDIO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Of course, Jordan is the majority owner of the Charlotte Bobcats franchise, now known as the Charlotte Hornets. I guess they`re not doing too well. Up next: Why is Reince Priebus and the Republican National Committee going after Hillary Clinton for not getting in the presidential race? Perhaps he wants Republicans to stop attacking each other. That`s next with the roundtable. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. Just moments ago, Jon Stewart has announced that he`s leaving "The Daily Show." Comedy Central`s president has released a statement saying Stewart will leave later this year, and credits Stewart for turning "The Daily Show" into a cultural touchstone for millions of fans. No word on why Stewart is stepping down from the show he has hosted since 1999. Stewart will make an announcement in tonight`s show. And in other news, NBC News has learned that the U.S. will temporarily close the American Embassy in Yemen because of the government`s takeover by rebels linked to Iran. Most of the nonessential staffers have already been evacuated -- now back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Reince Priebus, chairman of the RNC, must have noticed the Republican 2016 contenders spent last week jabbing at each other over the vaccine issue, of all things. So, today, in order to get the focus back on the opposition, he launched a new campaign called "Hillary`s Hiding." On its Web page, the RNC outlines plans to keep a running count of the days since Hillary has done an interview or visited early primary or caucus states, and it plans to put up "Hillary`s Hiding" billboards in those early states as well. Well, this comes on top of the Republican opposition research group America Rising and their Facebook page with a similar theme, "Hiding Hillary." Anyway, there`s a saying in politics. Only talk when it improves the silence. And right now, Hillary Clinton is following it. Will Reince Priebus`s new campaign work to flush her out? I`m joined right now in the HARDBALL roundtable tonight "USA Today"`s Susan Page, former RNC Chair Michael Steele, and "The Washington Post" Jonathan Capehart. This is going to be fun. Why are they trying to sort of get her out there? SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "USA TODAY": Because isn`t she in a perfect position? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: She`s winning. PAGE: She`s not out there. She doesn`t have to answer questions. There`s not a chance she`s going to say something that will be embarrassing. It`s perfect. And she can do this for a long time, because there`s no credible challenger to Hillary Clinton. MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: And from the GOP`s side, it`s perfect, because they can create all this noise and buzz around her, raise money off it, and just stoke the flames. MATTHEWS: Wait. Wait a minute. You can do that by attacking her policy and her -- her positions. STEELE: No. MATTHEWS: And you can attack her record. But attacking the fact that she`s not talking? How do you do that? STEELE: It works, it works. MATTHEWS: So, you think Reince is a brilliant guy, huh? You figured out. STEELE: Well, not necessarily the question of brilliance. It`s just -- tactically, it`s just smart to engage an opponent who`s not on the field yet and try to draw them out and get their base all fired up, recognizing that there`s still this issue about whether or not she doesn`t have an opponent. So I mean, this playing -- MATTHEWS: How many votes will Hillary Clinton lose next November, about 18, 19 months right now, because Reince Priebus has decided to try to scare her out there, get her out there. JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, right, try to scare her out there, try to goad her out there, maybe even annoy her. But the other thing is, maybe try to stir a little panic within the Democratic Party, which is Democratic Party is very expert at scaring themselves into action. But this sort of thing only works if the focus of the attention, Hillary Clinton, even cares, that have hiding Hillary. She couldn`t care less, and so they can do everything they want. She`s going to go on her own timetable, not care what they do, and that`s the right thing to do. MATTHEWS: Isn`t the primary concern of most of the people around Hillary? And this is not a knock, and certainly not my usual knock, what job they`re going to get in the campaign? That`s what they`re really focusing right now is -- SUSAN PAGE, USA TODAY: That`s the number one -- MATTHEWS: -- am I going to be deputy communications director? PAGE: What`s the size of my contract? That`s absolutely right. Now, the time will come when Hillary Clinton, even if she doesn`t have a real opponent in the Democratic Party, is going to have to come out and answer questions, and do press conferences, and do interviews. But that time isn`t yet. STEELE: Yes, she doesn`t need to do it now. I would say one of the mistakes they made is we`re going to announce sometime in June or whatever. You don`t need to tell anybody anything about your timetable or your schedule. When you`re ready, you announce. So, I think that they are kind of backing off this sort of proactive getting out in public phase and just letting things ride to the spring. CAPEHART: Well, you remember, though, after the midterm, people started asking, when are you getting in? When are you getting in? When are you getting in? MATTHEWS: I think that it stopped. CAPEHART: Yes. MATTHEWS: The media, we`re not pushing her to get in. Most people know it`s a smart move. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You want something to write about. Here problem is she gets in, she`s going to take a strong position on ISIS, how many boots on the ground, forward watchers, actual GIs confronting the enemy. People in the ranks, these are tough questions, or just let these guys keep executing Americans in the most horrific night after night. Who wants to answer that question every day? PAGE: She probably has to answer some questions anyway even if she`s not running. Things like, what about this authorization for military use of force? I think she probably has to -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: She voted for one. STEELE: Can I say one thing, though? Can we just relax a bit? Because none of these people have declared for the presidency of the United States? MATTHEWS: OK, Papa Bear, what is this? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Who are you? Let me tell you what we do here. This is the place for politics. If you want to play hoops or something, whatever you want to do, this is where we play politics. STEELE: There`s no expectation -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: It`s already begun, Michael. This campaign has begun. STEELE: But from the candidates` perspective, they don`t have to answer your questions. MATTHEWS: They are -- we are watching polls in states like New Hampshire already and Iowa. And what I`m watching is something very scary about your party, if I were in your party, which is it doesn`t seem to have a natural leader, that is very flat, everybody is in the teens, the big Bush name that everybody thought was great, is about three points ahead of Scott Walker. So, if I were you, I would be worried about the fact, I want this campaign to move a little faster, but it is moving now. STEELE: It is moving, and I agree with you -- (CROSSTALK) STEELE: I think largely it`s because there is -- there is this stage now where people are getting out and they`re touching the grassroots on the base to organize and develop that momentum. You still have two or three governors who are going to enter the field. You still have the whole -- MATTHEWS: Who is coming in? STEELE: Oh, I think you`re going to see Mike Pence possibly, certainly Bobby Jindal is there, John Kasich. I mean, there is some good people -- MATTHEWS: That`s one of three. STEELE: Some good names, two or three. MATTHEWS: One of three might be interesting. STEELE: But they`re all going to be interesting players once they get on the field. MATTHEWS: Do you really think Mike Pence could be your nominee for president? STEELE: Sure, he could. Yes, I think he could. MATTHEWS: Oh, my God. STEELE: He`s got good grassroots. He`s got good connections with the base. And, you know, he`s a guy who translates well with -- MATTHEWS: Who`s the last guy from Indiana you guys were pushing? Mitch Daniels? STEELE: Mitch Daniels. MATTHEWS: What is it about you guys? Boring Indiana. Boring Indiana Republicans. STEELE: Indiana is not boring. PAGE: That`s a very East Coast attitude. As someone from Kansas, I would say that you people always think the people -- STEELE: Thank you. PAGE: -- from the middle of the country are boring, and it`s not true. STEELE: It`s not true. They win. PAGE: Eisenhower, a Kansan. CAPEHART: A Kansan, but not Indiana. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Trivialism (ph) here, it`s unbefitting. Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. And up next, David Axelrod reveals that President Obama was for marriage equality all along and wouldn`t say so. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, Scott Walker of Wisconsin is latest Republican presidential candidate to brush up on his foreign policy credentials. The Wisconsin governor met today with British Prime Minister David Cameron over in London. Walker is in the U.K. for a four-day trip aimed at increasing trade investments in his state, and he is no doubt determined not to repeat the mistakes that Chris Christie made last week when he was in London. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: We`re back. In his new book, David Axelrod reveals that in the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama didn`t believe what he was saying about same-sex marriage. Here`s Axelrod. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID AXELROD, FORMER OBAMA SENIOR ADVISOR: There`s no doubt that his sympathies were very much on the side of allowing gay couples to marry. He also recognized that the country wasn`t there yet, and that we needed to bring the country along. He was sensitive to -- there was a lot of resistance in the black community to it. He took a strong position in favor of civil unions, but it was always, I think -- you know, when I think about the things we had to deal with over the course of my association, this was always the most vexing issue, because there was some part of him that so wanted to say you know what? I just don`t believe it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, in his new book that just came out, "Believer" it`s called, Axelrod recalls that after Obama stumbled on the gay marriage and the debate, he told Axelrod, "I`m just not very good at BS-ing." Well, that`s the way I say it. Anyway, David Axelrod will be here on HARDBALL tomorrow. We`re back with our roundtable Susan, Michael, and Jonathan. You know, this is an interesting knock that David who seems like such a nice guy, in many ways, seems like a great guy, he is taking a shot at the president, you know, Michael, on something that didn`t seem -- why is it so vastly important that he didn`t come out and say I`m for marriage equality, in 2008, which would have been difficult. I think even as late as 2008, it was still a tricky position to take. STEELE: It`s a trick issue, but I don`t see David taking a knock over time, given what the president has said as a senator in his home state of Illinois, as a state senator. MATTHEWS: He had been out for it? STEELE: He was not out, you know waving a flak for this issue. And so, it was clearly a political calculation the president made. I think David put it in the right context, you know? The president could not find himself BS-ing on this issue as well as others could. But having said all of that, the president did change the conversation ultimately. MATTHEWS: Joe Biden changed the conversation. STEELE: Give credit where credit is due. MATTHEWS: What do you think of this? Do you think this is like a mortar or venial sin politically that he didn`t come out early? (CROSSTALK) CAPEHART: No, no, I`m shocked that a presidential candidate played politic on a vexing social issue like marriage equality. A lot of people knew that then-candidate Obama was in favor of it. In fact, there had been some reports about a fundraiser in New York City, in 2008, maybe 2007, my ex was there, I just found out a couple months ago where the candidates said -- listen, I`m there with you. I`m not going to be able to -- MATTHEWS: It was a gay group. CAPEHART: Yes, it was gay group. It was a fundraiser. I`m not going to be able to do anything right away, but just know this. But you know what? Look, this conversation would be completely different if DOMA had not been overturned, if the president hadn`t stopped defending DOMA in, up against court challenge, if he hadn`t done "don`t ask, don`t tell". The problem that I had with the president after Joe Biden put the president -- Vice President Biden put the president in the box was that you had the president`s actions, which were highly pro-gay rights, pro-marriage equality not matching his rhetoric. So, when he finally did that interview with Robin Roberts, where he finally said, I personally believe that same sex couples should marry, finally the rhetoric and the actions that he had been taking for the last five -- for the four years in office -- MATTHEWS: So, he was ahead of his words. CAPEHART: Action-wise, yes. MATTHEWS: That`s rare in politics. PAGE: You kind of wish that public officials would always say exactly what they think, right? We would -- we would honor that, that is not always realistic. On the other hand, you can look at the political landscape, and the other things he was dealing -- MATTHEWS: We`re all used to a terrible term for politicians which is rolling disclosure. They tell you the truth when they feel like that. STEELE: They tell you the truth when it`s politically convenient, or easy, or safe to also share that with you. And I think this is an example of that. I think, yes, Joe Biden, to a certain extent forced the president`s hand on this issue, but at the end of the day, Axelrod I think pegs the way a lot of us saw it, and understood it, that this president was saying one thing to one group and saying something else to the country. MATTHEWS: On bigger issues, remember FDR, who most people look up to dramatically, was telling people your sons will not fight in the foreign war, through the 1940 election, knowing all the time he was hoping to get us involved in Europe. I mean, he wanted to fight the Nazis. Everybody knew he wanted to fight them. CAPEHART: You know, Chris, again, on this issue, what we saw with the president on marriage equality, we saw him bringing the country along, he did the same thing on "don`t ask, don`t tell." Remember, President Clinton made a promise to the gay community, I`m going to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military. He gets into office and he tries to fulfill his campaign promise. He tries to do it. And what ends up happening, we got "don`t ask, don`t tell", which ended up being worse than the policy he tried to erase. Now, President Obama comes into office, the gay community goes bananas not even 100 days into his tenure because -- MATTHEWS: OK. You got a hot hand. I`m going to ask you the hottest question of your life? Ready? CAPEHART: Uh-oh, here we go. MATTHEWS: Is the president secretly for single payer and he just put this Obamacare thing to fail so he`s going to end up with single-payer, because that`s where he wants to go? CAPEHART: Oh, that`s very good question. PAGE: No. MATTHEWS: I want the answer. (LAUGHTER) STEELE: I know the answer to that one. I think yes, single payer is the ultimate game. PAGE: He does not want it to fail. MATTHEWS: But if he gets single payer out of it, he`s won. (CROSSTALK) STEELE: He won`t. MATTHEWS: Opinion writer? CAPEHART: I`m an opinion writer, I have not had enough time to study the issue to give an informed -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That doesn`t stop most people. Thank you very much, Jonathan Capehart, who`s thinking, Susan Page, and Michael Steele. When we return, let me finish with how we`re going to deal with this ISIS horror story, and it is real. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight on this: I don`t hear a plan on how to deal with ISIS, the people who are lopping off heads, burning young men alive, and doing who-knows-what to a young American woman. I don`t hear a plan out there to stop them from doing these things. I hear what the Jordanian air force is doing, what the Kurds are doing up north, what the Iraqi Army may do, but I don`t hear a plan to stop ISIS from doing what it`s doing. So, how are we going to live with this? Are we going to close our eyes with each atrocity? Are we going to act towards the horrors of ISIS the way we act toward the growing federal debt, or are we going to say how bad it is and how we all had to do something about it, knowing that it`s going to sit there? Are we going to let the ISIS horror show continue week after week after week without end? Look, I believe the reason this is happening personally is that the Bush administration and the neo-cons went forward with their debaathification project back during the occupation, throwing all of the generals in Saddam`s army out the door. Was I (ph) the only who know these generals would reemerge as leaders in the ISIS fight against the government we set up in Iraq? I suppose people on the hawky side will say that ISIS was created because President Obama pulled our troops out of Iraq. But here we are with the horror neither side wish to create, which neither side fully imagine it coming to be in the area of Iraq and Syria that`s being governed by the terrorists and executioners now. We began tonight looking at how to deliver ourselves from this horror we will continue looking unfortunately. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 11, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021001cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 45 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 10, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 10, 2015 BYLINE: Rev. Al Sharpton GUESTS: Gregory Meeks, Jim Arkedis, Chaka Fattah, Faith Jenkins, Karen Desoto, Angela Rye, Jason Johnson, Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 6742 words HIGHLIGHT: Americans all over the country are grieving for Kayla Mueller and Kayla Mueller`s death is obviously a real tragedy for her family and for all Americans. GOP Senator Mark Kirk said Democrats would be to blame if there was a terror attack. Testimony should start tomorrow in the case of Eddie Ray Routh. He`s accused of killing sniper Chris Kyle, the man "American Sniper" is about, and his friend Chad Littlefield, in 2013. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC ANCHOR, THE ED SHOW: That`s "the Ed Show." I`m Ed Schultz. "Politics Nation" with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Emotional reaction from the friends and family of Kayla Mueller. They spoke out late today about the aid worker who was killed while being held hostage by ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERYN STREET, KAYLA MUELLER`S CHILDHOOD FRIEND: Kayla was my closest friend, my candid spirit. And I`m going to miss her more deeply than word can express. LONI LYON, KAYLA MUELLER`S AUNT: She had a quiet calming presence. She was a free spirit, always standing up for those who are suffering and wanting to be their voice. STREET: I`m not yet sure how to live in the world without Kayla, but I do know we`re living in a better world because of her. So I`m going to end on a quote that reminds me of her. Peace is not something you wish for. It`s something you make. It is something you do. It is something you are. And it`s something you give away. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: A heartbreaking tribute to this young woman, but it`s still unclear what happened to her. ISIS claims she was killed when a Jordanian bomb hit this building in Syria. But the U.S. says it can`t confirm that. And one senior official said her injuries were not consistent with an airstrike. Jordan has steep up its response to ISIS after the group killed a Jordanian pilot. The country has deployed thousands of troops to the Iraqi border. This as President Obama preparing for ask Congress for new authority to use force against the terror group. It will be the first war vote in Congress in 13 years. But tonight Americans all over the country are grieving for Kayla Mueller. Today her family released a letter she wrote them more than a year in captivity. She wrote, I have been shown in darkness, light, and have learned that even in prison, one can be free. I am grateful. Joining me now is Congressman Gregory Meeks, Democrat of New York. He serves on the house foreign affairs committee. Also with me is Jim Arkedis, a Truman fellow and former Pentagon analyst. Thank you both for being here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for having us. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: Congressman, Kayla Mueller`s death is obviously a real tragedy for her family and for all Americans. Will this stiffen resolved to fight is, in your opinion? REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D), NEW YORK: Well, I think we have the resolve to fight ISIS, and we will continue that resolve. I think that United States utilizing our air powers and working and coordinating with our allies will just stiffen it. I think that what will happen is hopefully that our Arab allies, as you seen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, others, stepping up their commitment to this fight, because we have to get rid of this terrorist group. SHARPTON: Jim, the Mueller family received a forecast of Kayla`s body. And a senior U.S. official says her injuries are not consistent with an airstrike. Is ISIS trying to avoid responsibility for her death? JIM ARKEDIS, FELLOW, THE TRUMAN PROJECT: They are absolutely trying to avoid responsibility for her death. And the importance thing for us all for remember is that they are 100 percent responsible for it. They took her hostage. And so, it`s heartbreaking to hear her friends and family talk about what a special person she was. And if there`s any doubt in their minds that somehow she got wrapped up in this entire thing and that blame should be laid at the feet of anyone other than ISIS, it`s simply not true. They are the ones who kidnapped her and they are the ones who held her hostage, and that`s the end of the story. SHARPTON: Congressman, we don`t have all details of what President Obama will ask for, but in his authorization for the use of military force, that is -- but the "Associated Press" says it`s expected to be a three-year authorization, so the next president would need to get it renewed. It will have no restrictions on geographic location, and it would be limited to fighting ISIS or a future group that evolves from it. Will Congress approve this kind of authorization? MEEKS: Yes, I think that we`ve got to see, you know, the devil is always in the details. And I think that as long as we`re not talking about boots on the ground, maybe with the exception of special forces, I think that the Congress is ready to come together to make sure that we are working to give the president the kinds of dollars and authority that he needs to combat against ISIS, and working in conjunction with our Arab allies in the region. And we -- SHARPTON: How will this tragedy, Congressman, how will this impact any future decisions of how we deal with these matters in the future how we vote on these matters? MEEKS: Well, you know, I think number one, it is clearly Kayla is someone, 26-years-old, dedicating her life to individuals that you don`t know that may not see the world as her. It just shows the exemplary, the different life that she has and great family she has. And I think Congress is going to be resolved as stand around our American citizens in that regards. Those that have been that were decapitated. Those individuals destroy. And Congress is going to stand behind them and make sure that those lives are not lost in vain. That is something that I think helps stiffen and makes us understand the necessity to bestow and to and give the president the kind of strength he needs working with our allies. And we can do that, because it would hurt us to put books on the ground. Because then we look at it United States and not Arabs that is focus a bit, just a western situation. And any boots on the ground, it needs to be other Arab nations, I think that would focus on, I look at, and I will be looking at the authority that the president is asking for, and if it`s in that regard, I think that in those constraints, I think it will pass with strong support. SHARPTON: Jim, the president talked about Kayla Mueller in an interview with BuzzFeed posted just moments ago. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I deployed an entire operation at significant risk to rescue not only her, but the other individuals that had been held, and probably missed them by a day or two, precisely because we have that commitment. The one thing that we have held to is a policy of not paying ransom ransoms with an organization like ISIL. And the reason is, is that, it once we start doing that, not only are we financing their slaughter of innocent people and strengthening their organization, but we`re actually making Americans even greater targets for future kidnappings. So you know, it`s - - it`s as tough as anything I do, having a conversation with parents who understandably want by any means necessary for their children to be safe. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Jim, he says we would be financing their slaughter and that we would be putting Americans at more risk and of really putting them in a situation where paying ransom would increase a lot of the danger, your reaction to the president`s statement? ARKEDIS: I fully support the president`s statement. The fact of the matter is that ISIS is a group of brutal thugs. And the only language that they understand is power. And I am absolutely for negotiation and compromise whenever it is possible. Dialogue is one of the most important parts of our foreign policy. However, ISIS is beyond -- far, far, far beyond the point of trying to speak with and reason with. And we have to use our military to be very strong against them and snuff out this cancer at its root. And at this point our military is the only way to do that, and the president is right to say if we continue to pay ransom, that will only continue to encourage them to take future hostages and financial their current operations. So yes, I absolutely endorse what the president said. SHARPTON: Now Congressman, when the president talk about we would be putting more Americans at risk, I want to raise -- the White House press secretary, he was asked today if ISIS is holding any other Americans. Here`s how he responded. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: There is at least one other hostage that is held in the region, but you asked me specifically about ISIL. What I can tell you is that we are aware, we have avoided discussing the individual cases of Americans being held hostage, but we were aware of other American hostages being held in the region. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, this is interesting, because he`s saying there`s at least one other American being held in the region. Does this have an impact on U.S. policy, Congressman? MEEKS: I think that our policy is going to move forward. And I think that the statement earlier that we cannot, you know, start ransom money to help finance these guys, we could do that. But I think it`s also good. You know, there`s other thing going on, and that is to talk about though that maybe held hostage continuing because I know what the president is doing. He`s trying to find them first. And he is not afraid if he finds out where they are, to try to get them and get them out. And so, those kinds of operations, you do clandestinely, so this president is serious about trying to find them and getting them out, and to the degree that we can, not paying for them, that`s what`s taking place right now. And I think that`s the way he needs to continue to move forward. SHARPTON: So a terrible tragedy. And we`re going to stay on this. Congressman Gregory Meeks, and Jim Arkedis, we thank you for your time tonight. ARKEDIS: Thanks, Reverend Al. MEEKS: Thank you. SHARPTON: Coming up, eight years ago today, Senator Barack Obama announced his intention to run for president. What he`s saying today about his agenda. Plus the so-called "American Sniper" murder trial. As the movie smashes record, a real-life trial is about to kick off. Will the movie impact the trial? And Aaron Hernandez`s fiancee gets immunity. Will she testify against him? And what is President Obama saying about Michael Jordan`s trash talk? Conversation nation is ahead. SHARPTON: Breaking news tonight. NBC News has learned that a New York police officer has been indicted in the shooting death of Akai Gurley. The 28-year-old was shot by a rookie police officer Peter Liang in a dark stairwell at a Brooklyn housing project in November. NBC News has not confirmed the charges, but "New York daily News" reports the officer has been indicted for manslaughter. He could face up for 15 years in prison. The Gurley shooting came just months after the tragedies in Ferguson and Staten Island. In that case Eric Garner was killed by a police chokehold which was caught on camera in broad daylight. A grand jury decided not to indict the officers involved, but the justice department is investigating. In all the cases I mentioned here, we have said we believe there is enough evidence to have a public trial. Thankfully in the death of Gurley, we will now have that trial. We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I stand before you today to announce my candidacy to president of the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Then Illinois senator Barack Obama eight years ago today announcing his intention to run for the country`s highest office. Traveling to the same spot where Abraham Lincoln announced his candidacy, the old state capitol in Springfield, and laying out a vision that would guide him and the country in the coming year. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Let`s make college more affordable, and let`s invest in scientific research. Let`s be the generation that ensures or nation`s workers are sharing in our prosperity. We can turn this crisis of global warming into a moment of opportunity for innovation and job creation. I want to win the next battle for justice and opportunity. I want to win that next battle for better schools and better jobs and better health care for all. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Eight years later, despite historic obstruction from Republicans, millions more Americans have health coverage. The uninsured rate is now 12.9 percent, a record low. On claimant change, a landmark agreement with cut carbon emissions up to 28 percent by 2025. On the economy, 7.5 million private sector jobs have been added. Now the president is entering what he calls the fourth quarter of his presidency. He`ll put forward an ambitious domestic plan tackling income inequality. Republicans have tried to derail his agenda from the start, and they`re still trying. And it`s that fight over protecting and expanding the Obama legacy that will dominate the next two years and beyond. Joining me now is Congress Chaka Fattah, Democrat from Pennsylvania. Just minutes ago, he and other members of the congressional black caucus wrapped up a meeting with President Obama. Thank you for being here. REP. CHAKA FATTAH (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Reverend, it is great day to be here and historic day because I remember that speech. And it was just within days from that that we saw his campaign really take hold. And we`ve seen the results. This country is moving forwards under this president`s leadership. And we`re going to block and tackle and defend this legacy, but we also want to advance the legacy. There`s so much more for us to do. That`s what the president talked with us today about. SHARPTON: Now Congressman, eight year after announcing he would run for the White House, what priorities did you talk about with the president today? FATTAH: We talked about criminal justice reform. As you know there`s a bipartisan consensus around doing something about defend that we incarcerate more people in our country than any other nation on earth on a per capita basis, and we have to change that. We talked about education. We talked about making sure that the insurance of dealing with the question of the economy, that we make sure that family that are struggling to get into the middle class are also included in the debate, and that we work to maintain the middle class and make sure they can share in a country`s prosperity. SHARPTON: Now, you know, right now Republicans are trying to hold funding for homeland security hostage to roll back the president`s immigration action. Today GOP Senator Mark Kirk said Democrats would be to blame if there was a terror attack during this. Quote "the Republicans, if there is a successful attack during the DHS shutdown, we should build a number of coffins outside each democratic office and say you are responsible for these dead Americans." At a time when the U.S. is dealing with the threat of ISIS or ISIL, what do you make of this remark f a Republican senator? FATTAH: I remember the attack on 9/11, and Democrats joined with Republicans and with President Bush to respond to that. Only under President Obama have we seen the notion of a terrorist attack as an opportunity for a partisan attack on the president. It`s shameful we have a majority party that really is morally bankrupt to the point of attacking the president on some notions that our enemies, our foreign enemies would be successful on some attack. That`s not what we did. SHARPTON: But even beyond the partisan politics. It`s almost unbelievable. They`re talking about holding up funding of homeland security at a time like this. We`re dealing with the mourning of a hostage that has been killed and they`re talking about holding the funding to deal with their differences on immigration? I mean, this is unbelievable, I would assume, to most Americans. FATTAH: Well look, this president is unequivocal. He will not compromise on the question that we`re going to make sure that we protect the homeland and that we don`t have a bill that they try to deal with thinks policy issues on. So he says send him a clean bill and he will sign it. And we know that we want our airport, our courts, our railroad stations, our community is safe, and that, you know, the questions on homeland security should not be merged into this immigration debate. The president has said pass a bill, send it to him, let`s fix the immigration system. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill, the house refused to take it up. So don`t take it out on the appropriations bill. Let`s make sure that the Congress does its job. If they want immigration reform, let them pass a bill. SHARPTON: The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he is coming to address the Congress in March, despite many that have called on this speech to not take place since it went around protocol in not informing the president of the United States of the invitation by the speaker of the house. Did that come up in the meeting with the caucus? And are members of the congressional black caucus going to join other Democrats who say they are not going to attend of speech. FATTAH: Well, no. It didn`t come up in the meeting. And I did note today that they did finally read the letter. We say there was invitation by the five partisan leaderships of the Congress. Well, we know that that is not true. That was a pretext because the bipartisan leader of the Congress did not invite them. And I think this would be used as a circumstance in which perhaps this speech can be delayed. But there will be lots of people, not just congressional of black caucus members. The vice president would not be there. A host of people think this is ill-advised. And that again, we should not put our nation`s relationship with one of our most important allies, Israel, in this partisan mix here to try to, you know, I don`t know what the specifically was things, but I think it should be reconsidered. And I don`t believe that at the end of the day, we are going to see the speech go forward. SHARPTON: Well, the speech is to come out and really oppose the president`s position, but it did not come up in the meeting with the congressional of black caucus and the president, you are saying no? FATTAH: It did not come up at all. SHARPTON: But do you feel most of the caucus members will not attend the speech? FATTAH: I feel that. And I also feel that there is so many other members who would not attend the speech. This is not a matter of the congressional of black caucus. This is a decision in which we have foreign leaders who are invited on a bipartisan basis and we don`t have a circumstance where right in the midst of an election in a foreign country that we would use the Congress as a prop for that election. SHARPTON: Congressman Chaka Fattah, thank you for your time tonight. FATTAH: Thank you. SHARPTON: Still ahead, the "American Sniper" murder trial. How the hit film could affect the trial of the marine accused of killing Chris Kyle. Also a bombshell development in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial is all in tonight`s justice files. SHARPTON: Move over binders full of women. We have a new one. Meet Mike Moon. The Missouri state rep has a strange new political strategy. He released a resolution to quote "insist that each member of the Missouri congressional delegation endeavor with manly firmness and resolve to totally and completely repeal the affordable care act." Repeal the ACA with manly firmness? I heard that he lifted that line from the declaration of independence, but I really think he just has been watching too many tough guy movies. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead, make my day. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you talking to me? You`re talking to me? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Say hello to my little friend. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel the need -- the need for speed! UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ll be back. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But maybe Mike Moon is on to something, like that manly all male panel Republicans held on women`s health, or the almost all male committee chairs they appointed. And maybe they thought it was manly not standing and applauding for the equal pay at the state of the union. And now we have a new one, manly firmness on Obamacare. I guess State Rep. Moon thinks it`s tough when 200,000 Missouri residents lose health insurance if the law is repealed. Kicking people off insurance isn`t manly. It`s wrong. Did he think we would ignore his macho man fail? Nice try, but we got you. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST, "POLITICS NATION": It`s time for the "Justice Files." Joining me now legal analyst and professor at New Jersey City University Karen Desoto, and also former prosecutor and host of "Judge Faith" Faith Jenkins. Thank you both for being here. FAITH JENKINS, HOST, "JUDGE FAITH": Thanks, Rev. SHARTPON: We start with the murder trial in the shadow of a Hollywood blockbuster "American Sniper." Testimony should start tomorrow in the case of Eddie Ray Routh. He`s accused of killing sniper Chris Kyle, the man "American Sniper" is about, and his friend Chad Littlefield, in 2013. Investigators say Kyle and Littlefield took Routh to a gun range to help deal with his PTSD. They say Routh turned on them, killing them both. The movie is about Kyle, his breaking Box Office records, raking in millions. The judge estimating no more than two dozen people were dismissed from service because of the publicity about the case and what it could do to the impartiality of judgment in the trial. In the movement -- and the hero status might affect the trial. Faith, the judge went to great lengths trying to find an impartial jury. Is that even possible here? JENKINS: It`s possible and according to all the attorneys and the judge, they selected a jury and it has been done. Is it challenging? Of course. Because anytime you`re selecting a jury, you want people who don`t have any independent knowledge of the case and the facts of the case coming into the courtroom. So what they`ve had to do is they`d have to sit done, they`ve had to ask these jurors what have you heard about this case? Have you seen the movie? Have you read the book? And if you have, that doesn`t mean it is automatically dismissed, the question is, if you have, you set aside what you previously heard and just base your decision on the facts and the testimony you hear in court. SHARTPON: But Karen, how do you weigh whether or not they are in fact impartial? I mean, they may say the right things, but how do you really determine that? KAREN DESOTO, NEW JERSEY CITY UNIVERSITY: Well, how they answer the questions, but I`ve tried enough to enough cases to tell you that there`s no such thing as an impartial jury. Everybody comes with their own biases and motives and their own agendas. So you try to get as close as you can to that. Can you? You can try, but the problem is you have to take their word for it. If they`re going to answer truthfully, well, you know, you don`t know. And there`s always these unconscious biases that I think speak volumes. SHARPTON: Now, I want to play the 911 call Routh`s sister made after Kyle and Littlefield was killed. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DISPATCHER: 911, what`s your emergency? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Listen, my brother just came by here. He`s now lost it. He told me that he`s committed a murder. DISPATCHER: Okay, hold on. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: And I`m terrified for my life. I don`t know if he`s going to come back here. DISPATCHER: Who did he say he had killed? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: He said that he killed two guys they went to a shooting range, and like he`s all crazy -- he (bleep) psychotic. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Routh has a history of PTSD. His attorney plans to use an insanity defense. Will jurors buy this? JENKINS: This case isn`t a who had done it, right? So his defense is going to be some type of mental disease or defect. I don`t think based on his history, his family called the police before. They had taken away his guns. They said that he was having some issues, some mental issues, based on his history, yes, I think the jurors will going to say that this was a person suffering from some type of mental disability. However, that`s not the standard, the standard for court is, did he know right from wrong at the time? Did his mental disease or defect cause him not to know right from wrong when he killed these two individuals? That`s the standard in court. SHARPTON: Karen, you know, the defense tried to move the location, they tried to move the timing of the trial and failed. How will they try to manage the public image that Kyle has? DESOTO: Well, unfortunately I think that that`s very difficult. This is a small county, this is a small town. Moving it anywhere is always going to be problematic, however you also have a judge that used to be a former district attorney. Those were factors that are all going to be very difficult. You can`t play down this kind of publicity. This is a movie that almost everyone has seen, you`re talking Oscar nominations, it`s Bradley Cooper, my goodness, and of course the equation of him as a hero is going to be problematic for the defense team in this case. SHARPTON: Now, let`s move to a developing story in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. Late in the day we learned his fiancee might be on the stand testifying against him, the judge giving her immunity. She was facing a perjury charge. This deal means she could be forced to testify against Hernandez or face jail time, according to "The Providence Journal." Prosecutors have suspected that she may have dumped the murder weapon and disposed of other evidence. She`s been in court sitting right behind the former New England patriot, and she still lives in their home with their daughter. Hernandez and two other American are accused of killing semi pro-athlete Odin Lloyd in 2013. Karen, what do you make of all of this? DESOTO: Well, I think it`s an amazing development in the story, because there have been allegations about the motivations of why this took place. Why would Aaron Hernandez kill Lloyd? And this is one of the pieces to the puzzle. This testimony is going to be key to that, because it appears that there really is no motive at this juncture. So this information could give them that, plus the murder weapon. I mean, these are two key details that the prosecutor was probably sweating prior to giving this immunity, and obviously they are giving her immunity, because they`ve worked out, hopefully some type of a deal and she`s going to testify. SHARPTON: Faith, motive Karen says and murder weapon, there was a picture and people were debating whether that was a gun in Hernandez`s hand in the photo, or whether or not it was a something else, a remote that you would use for television. She could clear that up, possibly. JENKINS: And if she does. If she testifies that she took a gun and removed a gun from that house and hid it that could be the nail in the coffin for Aaron Hernandez and his defense. SHARPTON: So, you think she will actually testify. JENKINS: If she`s forced to take the witness stand and she has immunity, if she didn`t testify, she could go to jail. So, she`s in a very difficult place here. She`s already been indicted for perjury. DESOTO: Why would you give them somebody immunity unless of course you want them to testify. JENKINS: Right. So, they know she knows something. SHARPTON: But will she do it? Yes or no? DESOTO: Well, she has to. JENKINS: She has to take the witness stand. What will she say? We don`t know. If she`s subpoenaed, she has to, you know, appear on the stand. SHARPTON: We`ll see. We`ll be watching. Karen Desoto, Faith Jenkins, thank you both for your time. JENKINS: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Coming up, the GOP has a new plan against Hillary Clinton, and it might backfire. Plus, President Obama talks about Michael Jordan`s trash talk. And we`ve seen President Obama sing at the Apollo, but now he`s singing "shake it off." Kind of. "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: Time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining me on the panel, political strategist Angela Rye. Political analyst Jason Johnson, and HuffPost Live host Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani. We start tonight with the GOP`s new strategy against Hillary Clinton. They`re actually trying to push her into running. The RNC posting a memo on the GOP`s home page declaring Hillary`s hiding, quote, "Potential republican presidential candidates are out in public, speaking to voters and sharing the ideas, but Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be found. And they promise we`re going to keep asking, where is Hillary? You will see more from us in the coming days and week." They also released this attack video. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Hello? PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: Hey, this is Barack. Listen, I need to know if you`re on board. CLINTON: Well, yes, I guess it could. OBAMA: Because I`m counting on you. CLINTON: I try to help. OBAMA: Because I`m counting on you. CLINTON: Of course, I will do anything to help. OBAMA: Okay. Good. It all comes down to you. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our nation and the world. (LAUGHTER) CLINTON: You`re absolutely right. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: What is happening here? OBAMA: I know it`s disappointing, though I was never that good. I hope I get a chance to see you guys again at the White House sometimes soon. CLINTON: All right. Well, look, I will be there as fast as I can. (LAUGHTER) I love that phrase. I think if you don`t mind, I will use that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Angela, create a video, but are they really sure about this strategy? I mean, be careful what you ask for. ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Rev, can we talk first about why they`re using that Jimmy Fallon slow jam in the news like background track? That is horrible. And On top of that, when was the last time Hillary Clinton had a flip phone? Like, they don`t even have new footage. It is terrible. Not only is it a bad strategy, it`s a bad video. And I don`t know who they`re trying to get to watch it, but I think we`re all smart enough to know what it looks like when you just splice clips together. You make a mess. That`s exactly what this is, a hot mess. SHARPTON: Well, Caroline? CAROLINE MODARRESSY-TEHRANI, HUFFPOST LIVE HOST: I mean, absolutely. I was going to say the one good thing about all of this, I suppose is the GOP at least has started to use YouTube, that obviously like trying to show off the new technology. Well done. You`re nearly there, guys. Not quite, though. I mean, this really misses the mark. And it kind of looks like somebody did it in their basement which is -- SHARPTON: But Jason, they really want Hillary Clinton out of hiding? JASON JOHNSON, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR: I don`t think so. This is one of those like Brer Rabbit like, don`t throw me into that Briar Patch situation. Once Hillary Clinton comes out swinging they`re all going to be -- I mean, everybody knows when Hillary Clinton is really bringing to the table. And I also think it`s crazy. When I looked at this video, it only had like 300 hits. I`m sure there`s YouTube cat videos that have done better in it so far. So, if this is their promotion to try and bring Hillary Clinton out of hiding, she`s got to actually see it, first, and apparently no one has. SHARPTON: Well, you know, Angela brought up the flip phone in terms of no one uses those phones anymore, maybe that`s the demographic they`re trying to get to. RYE: Hello, church. Hello, church. Absolutely. SHARPTON: Now, Michael Jordan might be the greatest basketball player of all time, but he`s not winning any spelling bees. David Axelrod talked about getting Jordan to sign a poster for the President`s 50th birthday. MJ wrote, quote, "To Barrack, you still owe me dinner. Wishing you well, Michael Jordan." But he misspelled the President`s name with two Rs. That`s why I tried to roll the Rs. Still a nice thought from Jordan. Most recently there`s been some ribbing between them after Jordan called the President a hack golfer. Now President Obama has no hard feelings. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: You know what? Michael will always be -- will always have a place in my heart, the joy that he gave all of Chicago. He talks trash on the golf course, I understand even though he has never played with me, he`s a pretty hyper-competitive guy, and obviously somebody wasn`t giving him the proper spelling of my name. But I`m going to forgive him for all of that. Because I have six championship memories that will never go away. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Caroline, I think that was interesting, the President took it in good stride. What do you think? MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: I thought it was really sweet. And I do think there`s a deeper situation going on here, which is that Michael Jordan, famous for playing mind games. I think that this is the ultimate mind game. I think he`s trying to psych up the President before he`s calling him up and saying let`s play another round of golf. I think this is all part of Jordan like his stealth approach to finally beat the President when they do play golf. SHARPTON: So, is this a mind game to build up to the ultimate golf match between the President and the greatest basketball player of all time, Jason? JOHNSON: Yes. I think so. I`m sure Jordan will get on the court, they`ll get on the golf course, and Jordan will be like, you know, I won six of them, and Barack Obama won`t really know how to respond to that. I mean, look, it`s very clear to me that this goes back, this is like some deep Chicago thing, Jordan wants to make sure that President Obama always knows who is the better champion. So, yes, I think this is going on the golf course and eventually is going to hit the basketball course. SHARPTON: But Angela, Michael Jordan won six, but the President won two real big ones. I mean, there`s no shame in his game. RYE: There`s no shame in his politics or on his game. I think that he said the last time that when Michael Jordan criticized his golf fame in a word we won`t use on this show, Reverend. But he did say, he said, back to him, hey, if I was playing golf twice a day for 15 years, I probably would be just as good as you. So, even if this is a buildup to a match, I think it`s one that the President would take in stride, when he has time, Rev. When he`s not solving the nation that cannot make -- SHARPTON: Well, they`re both welcome on POLITICS NATION for the pre or post interview. Everybody stay with me. By the way, Jason, spell Barack - - no, just kidding. (LAUGHTER) We`ll be back with President Obama doing "shake it off" sort of. Next. SHARPTON: We`re back with the panel. Angela, Jason and Caroline. You`re probably sitting on your couch in your favorite chair watching this show right now, but is your TV watching you, too? The "Today" show`s Kerry Sanders has more on how one brand of television might be eavesdropping on everything you say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KERRY SANDERS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Samsung`s newest smart TV has a little camera on top that pops up to watch you. And when you talk, it hears and then follows your command. Pause. Unless you opt out, it`s always watching always listening. Deep in the Samsung Smart TV user agreement is this warning, "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party." Samsung says it takes consumer privacy very seriously, using industry standards security to secure consumers` personal information and prevent unauthorized collection or use, and the company doesn`t keep or sell the voice data to others." But critics warn it`s not a problem until it is. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: So a divorce lawyer might be interested in the kinds of things that go on on the family`s couch, for example. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Caroline, what do you think? Is Big Brother finally here? MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Yes. I mean, honestly, Rev, yes, I think so. This is kind of terrifying. And I appreciate the company sort of saying, looking though, we`re being transparent about this to a point by putting it in the privacy terms and conditions, but still it smacks of something that is too -- too dangerous, going too far, and I`m concerned as well. Because I mean, you know, they say we`re going to keep your data safe. Well, really? I mean, we`ve just come off the back of the Sonny hack, where it`s another large conglomerate says, don`t worry, all your information is safe, and then look at what happened. I just don`t think that they`re able to make good on the promises to safeguard our data and I don`t know why they want to sell it to a third party, quite frankly. SHARPTON: Jason, this could be a very, very controversial in a lot of homes for a lot of reasons. JOHNSON: Well, yes, first off, they were also saying that they might eventually as facial recognition technology. So, it isn`t like how "The Terminator" started. You know, intelligent A.I. coming out of the screen. One. I don`t want anybody to hear what I`m saying in front of the TV, I do a lot of cussing before NFL games, I`m sorry to say. But on top of that, I just think it`s a grotesque violation of privacy, and Samsung really needs to change its policy. SHARPTON: Well, I`m not even going to ask you, Angela, because we know that technology has gone too far in your mind. RYE: Absolutely. I think when you think about the fact that they have in that little clause that says unauthorized use, I want to know what the authorized use is? SHARPTON: Yes. Right. Well, you may not want to know it. Finally tonight, is there anyone who knows how to shake it off? It`s President Obama. Evidenced by this latest dub of him singing Taylor Swift`s hit song. Angela, pretend you`re on "The Voice." How was it? RYE: Well, his voice wasn`t that great, but the spicing again of the clips we saw from bad version of that earlier, this was really good. And you missed the uh-huh part, Rev. That`s what I wanted to see. That`s the best. SHARPTON: Caroline? I just going to say that I don`t think Kanye would be interrupting that performance. (LAUGHTER) RYE: That`s good. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: I think it was pretty good. Definitely better than the GOP mashup that we`ve saw it earlier. SHARPTON: Jason? JOHNSON: I absolutely love it, but nothing will ever beat the mashup of Mitt Romney singing the real slim shady from a couple of years ago. (LAUGHTER) That was the best one we`ve ever seen. So, Barack comes in second. The President comes in second. But Mitt Romney is always first. SHARPTON: Well, Angela, Jason and Caroline, thank you for joining us. "Conversation Nation" will be right back. SHARPTON: We close tonight by remembering Kayla Mueller, and a life spent helping others. Mueller was captured in 2013, while helping refugees from Syria`s civil war. Before that, she had done aid word in Israel and India, and back here at home. She had helped homeless women and HIV patients. Today President Obama said, quote, "Kayla represents what is best about America, and expressed her deep pride in the freedoms that we Americans enjoy, and that so many others strive for around the world." It`s a feeling shared by her friends and family. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERYN STREET, CHILDHOOD FRIEND OF KAYLA MUELLER: She had this amazing ability to share another person`s suffering and still add a little happiness to it. She could always find that silver lining. LORI LYNN, KAYLA MUELLER`S AUNT: The world wants to be more like Kayla, and if that is her legacy and the footprint that she leaves on the world, then that is a wonderful thing. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Mueller`s family shared a powerful letter she wrote to them from captivity, a letter that a lot of people read through tears today. She wrote, quote, "I remember mom always telling me that all in all in the end the only one you really have is God. I have surrendered myself to our creator, because literally there was there was no else -- one else that I could. I have been shown in darkness, light, and have learned that even in prison one can be free." She also wrote, "I am also fighting for my side in the ways I am able, and I have a lot of fight left inside of me. I`m not breaking down, and I will not give in, no matter how long it takes. Do not fear for me. Continue to pray as will I. And by God`s will, we will be together soon. All my everything, Kayla." It shows that even in darkness, her sprit was strong and she sought light. They may have broken her freedom, but they didn`t break her spirit, a spirit that we must all have to fight the ruthlessness and those that would look at life as something they can take for no reason. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 11, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021001cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 46 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 10, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 10, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: Bruce Berman, David Carr, Chris Smith SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7266 words HIGHLIGHT: Boston has got so much snow, though, that even the snow farm mountains are overflowing at this point. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, man. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. We do have some breaking news tonight, awkwardly, concerning our own network. NBC News has just announced that they are suspending longtime "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams for six months without pay. Brian Williams will be suspended both from his role as anchor of the evening newscast and the show`s managing editor, which means he`s in charge of the content overall. Tonight`s announcement, which has just happened within the last hour, comes less than a week after Mr. Williams publicly apologized for saying he had been on board a helicopter in Iraq in the very early days of the Iraq war in 2003, a chopper he said that came under RPG fire, when, in fact, he had not actually been on that helicopter. In his apology, the anchor said he`d made a mistake, that he was instead in a following aircraft, not the one that took fire. He said that he essentially conflated the memory with his -- he had conflated the story with his memory. But he apologized. After that apology, NBC opened an internal review of Mr. Williams` reporting. Meanwhile, this weekend, on Saturday, Brian Williams announced this. He said, "As managing editor of NBC Nightly News, I have decided to take myself off of the daily broadcast for the next several days." He said, quote, "Upon my return, I will continue my career-long effort to be worthy of the trust of those who place their trust in us." NBC News` review is still underway, that review is still ongoing. But, again, the breaking news tonight is that the network has announced that they are suspending Brian Williams without pay for six months. In a statement tonight, the president of NBC News, Deborah Turness, she said the suspension without pay is effective immediately. Quote, "While on Nightly News on Friday, January 30th, 2015, Brian misrepresented events which occurred while he was covering the Iraq war in 2003. It then became clear that on other occasions, Brian had done the same while telling that story in other venues. This was wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian`s position. In addition, we have concerns about comments that occurred outside NBC News while Brian was talking about his experiences in the field. As managing editor and anchor of Nightly News, Brian has a responsibility to be truthful and to uphold the high standards of the news division at all times. We felt it would have been wrong to disregard the good work Brian has done and the special relationship he has forged with our viewers over 22 years. Millions of Americans have turned to him everybody and he has been an important and well-respected part of our organization." We also have a statement from the head of NBC Universal, Steve Burke. Mr. Burke says, in part, quote, "This has been a painful period for all concerned and we appreciate your patience while we gather the available facts. By actions, Brian has jeopardized the trust that millions of Americans place in NBC News. His actions are inexcusable and the suspension is severe and appropriate. Brian`s life work -- excuse me -- Brian`s life`s work is delivering the news. I know Brian loves his country, NBC News, and his colleagues. He deserves a second chance and we are rooting for him. Brian has shared his deep remorse with me and he is committed to winning back everyone`s trust." Again, that statement from Steve Burke, who`s the head of NBC Universal. But, again, the breaking news tonight. NBC News announced tonight that "Nightly News" anchor and managing editor, Brian Williams, is suspended, without pay for six months. Here is the awkward part for us. I said at the top, this was a little awkward. Here`s why this is awkward for us on this show and for me as its anchor. So, we are MSNBC. The NBC in that means we operate under the NBC umbrella, and there is a good reason why you see so many faces from NBC News on our air. It`s because we really are working partners with them. We are working partners. We are partner organization with them within the news division. But tonight, even as we are reporting on this breaking news about the news division of which we are a part, no, NBC News will not make anyone available to discuss this story with us on the air. Now, that may change in days ahead. You`d think if they`re going to talk to anybody about this, we might reasonably get a leg up on getting interviews with any NBC News executives to explain this decision, if only because we`re right down the hall. But so far, no one. Again, I hope in days to come that that might change. But as of yet, we are not talking to NBC News executives about this yet. I live in hope. And we`re going to have more on that in just a moment. But this has been sort of a wild night of late breaking news, late breaking big news about the media. The other big breaking news to report tonight about the media is some honestly really unexpected news, and that is that Jon Stewart, long time host of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central is stepping down from that job. He`s stepping down from that job. He`s leaving "The Daily Show". This news just broke late night. Jon Stewart actually broke the news himself during tonight`s taping of "The Daily Show." He told the audience that was there in person for tonight`s show that he would be leaving the show. And, then, of course, the news very quickly filtered out to the rest of the world. Jon Stewart has been host of "The Daily Show" since shortly after its funding. He has been host since 1999. He has been the one constant on that show since then, even as a revolving cast of contributors and co- conspirators and correspondents have come and gone. The Comedy Central confirmed through a statement tonight that Jon Stewart will be stepping down from that job by the end of this year. They said, he will remain at the helm until later year. And that`s a big deal, right? That is a big deal for the comedy world since this news comes at the same time as comic legend David Letterman is leaving his job at CBS. It`s also a big deal for the news and information world broadly because for a whole generation of people, Jon Stewart has been in the news, right? I mean, yes, there is a whole news enterprise separate from what he calls his fake news enterprise. But he has legitimately been source of news and information and zeitgeist for nearly two decades running now. He doesn`t like to talk about it that way. He doesn`t like to admit it that way, but it`s true. And maybe the most amazing thing about Jon Stewart`s run on the national stage art is that it started like this. This is from the 1997 White House Correspondence Dinner when Jon Stewart at the last minute was essentially the only guy they could get to be the comedy act for that unpopular gig that night. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TERENCE HUNT: Now, we turn to a veteran of the stand up comedy circuit and television. Jon Stewart is considered one of America`s top young comedians. He has hosted his own night time talk show for MTV, aptly titled "The Jon Stewart Show." There is a lot more about Jon Stewart that I can tell you, but one of the nicest things is simply this: he showed up when someone else didn`t. JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: I am very happy to be here and let me just say, this is the nicest Seder I`ve ever been to. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Jon Stewart was the third choice at the White House Correspondence Dinner that year. Rosie O`Donnell had been asked, she said no. Dennis Miller had been asked, he said no. And so, they got this guy nobody had heard of named Jon Stewart. And Jon Stewart since then had simply been one of the most influential comedians on the planet. And it`s because of stuff like this that he does on a nightly basis. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: There was some individuals who were wrong about the whole (EXPLETIVE DELETED) thing, just wrong, just dead wrong, like, about everything -- all of them. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Let`s act now to get rid of a tyrant who`s abused and killed his own people, who is procuring weapons of mass destruction, substantial evidence to that effect. BILL KRISTOL: The choice is disarming them by war or letting them have these weapons of mass destruction. PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Dealing with a country that can really finance reconstruction and relatively soon. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Baathists who use their power to repress the Iraqi people will be removed from office. STEWART: By the way, you can have all of these memorable screw ups and more. Just call now and order. That`s what I call being totally (EXPLETIVE DELETED) wrong about Iraq. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: By the way, for all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white. But this person is just arguing that maybe we should also have a black Santa. But you know, Santa is what he is. And so, just so you know, we`re just debating this because someone wrote about it, kids. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) just got real. Santa is just white. And who are you actually talking to? Children who are sophisticated enough to be watching a news channel at 10:00 at night, yet innocent enough to still believe Santa Claus is real, yet racist enough to be freaked out if he isn`t white. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: I should be noted, and I think it does need to be noted that Jon Stewart himself at times veered out of the "just doing fake news here lane" that he ascribed to. In 2010, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert held a joint rally in Washington, D.C. called the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. It was sort of bluntly a response to the Tea Party maybe, a response to the extremes in politics that were starting to take over the conversation, maybe. Whatever it was, something like 200,000 people turned out for that rally with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart sort of broke out of his comedian role for a few moments at that very weird, very cool event. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: But we live now in hard times, not end times. (APPLAUSE) And we have animus and not be enemies. Most Americans don`t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Look -- look on the screen, this is -- this is where we are, this is who we are. These cars -- that`s a school teacher that thinks his taxes are too high, he is going to work. There is another car, a woman with two small kids can`t think about anything else right now. But this is us -- every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear -- often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers. And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile long 30-foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river, carved by people, by the way, who I`m sure had their differences. And they do it, concession by concession. You go, then I`ll go. You go, then I`ll go. You go, then I`ll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car? That`s OK, you go, then I`ll go. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Jon Stewart speaking at the rally that he held with Stephen Colbert couple of years ago that was sort of billed as a satire of political rallies, but ended up being kind of political rally of its own. I had a chance to interview Jon Stewart in 2010 after that rally, and we talked about the difference between news and fake news, the difference between news and social commentary, and how him as a comedian fit into that. This is what he had to say about what he has been trying to do every night on "The Daily Show". (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: I feel more of a kinship to Jerry Seinfeld than I do to, you know, what you guys do, or what CNN does or what NBC does, in that he is able to comedically articulate an intangible for people. When they see it, they go: God, it`s been in my head, and it`s -- I know it`s been in there, but I never put it together with that kind of rhythm in four levels, and that`s hilarious that you were able to articulate that. He is a craftsman at that, like he is the best at being able to craft those moments of sort of these intangible, esoteric thing and put them together into something that really connects with people. We try and do the same thing, but with a more political and social avenue. But it`s still, if you were to look at our process, he is much more our process than the news is. Does that make sense? MADDOW: But what I know of your process seems similar to the way that I put my show together. STEWART: Then you really need to change that. MADDOW: I know. I mean -- STEWART: You -- we have to -- because we`re parodying a news organization, we have to have the logistics and mechanics of one -- MADDOW: Yes. STEWART: -- but the process that the material goes through is not a news process, it`s a comedy -- MADDOW: But it`s fact-checking. STEWART: Well, we do that not to be journalists. We do that because it wouldn`t be that funny -- MADDOW: If it was a lie. STEWART: Yes, if it would be like, I think it`s pronounced Baltimore, not Baltimore (ph), you know? You do that because untrue things stand out like a sore thumb in -- MADDOW: Even though you identify as fake news, and having a -- built with a fake news process -- STEWART: Yes. MADDOW: -- I think -- STEWART: We don`t say fake -- fake is wrong. That is a misnomer that we use, it`s glib. It`s not -- we`re not news anything. We`re commenting on the news, comedically. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Commenting on the news comedically. That was Jon Stewart back in 2010. But again, the breaking news tonight is that Jon Stewart is leaving. Jon Stewart is stepping down from his role as host of "The Daily Show" at the end of this year. This does not appear a temporary stepping away like he had when he took off time to go do a movie. No, this seems to be him leaving. Jon Stewart announced the news himself during the filming of his show tonight. It has been confirmed in a statement by Comedy Central. That news, somewhat incredibly, is coming at almost exactly the same time that NBC News has announced that America`s most iconic news anchor Brian Williams is being suspended from his role as anchor of "NBC Nightly News", suspended for six months without pay after he misstated his role in a combat incident in the early days of the Iraq war, in which he said he was in a helicopter that came under fire when he, in fact, was not. Joining us now to talk about all this and more is David Carr, "New York Times" media columnist. David, thanks very much for being with us tonight. DAVID CARR, THE NEW YORK TIMES (via telephone): Nice to be with you, Rachel. MADDOW: So, this came as new news at the end of about a week now of a lot of news about Brian Williams. Is this what you expected as a media observer in terms of how NBC would handle this? CARR: I think it was a good outcome. I do -- I wanted to hear both as a consumer and as a reporter from somebody besides Brian Williams about this. It was -- you know, him saying he was story, sort of kind of, and then him saying he was taking himself off of the news. And even though I know and like Brian, I thought to myself -- well, you really should not be in charge right now. You`re not the managing editor of much of anything. You should sit still, and quiet, and find out what is going to happen. MADDOW: In terms of -- it`s weird you know that this is happening at the same time, within a few minutes of us getting the same announcement about Jon Stewart leaving under very different circumstances on leaving forever at "The Daily Show." But, I mean, just watching Jon Stewart`s coverage of this last night on "The Daily Show" -- I mean, I found it striking that his essential defense of what happened to Brian Williams was that the news should not be so high and mighty about getting stuff wrong, that it`s not that everybody believes that the news, in particular, sort of the voice of god news is always correct. In fact, the news has been wrong about some really important stuff. And so, what explains the intense personal focus on Brian Williams, given all of the things that come across as wrong on the news all the time. CARR: Yes, I think that Mr. Stewart did a good job as he often does of proportionality is that, is it bad because you said you`re on a helicopter that got hit or didn`t, or because you said another nation was armed with weapons of mass destruction when that turned out not to be true, which of those errors is worse? Which deserves really to be looked into? I think it`s -- I think it`s interesting what is going on with Jon Stewart and Brian Williams because Brian Williams actually lived on that continuum between the so-called real news and celebrity culture, those commenting on the news, and is able to move through all of those worlds with a great deal of gracefulness. As it turned out, he kind of got tripped up, trying to make the trip back and forth. MADDOW: David Carr, "New York Times" media columnist, joining us on short notice tonight -- David, thanks very much for your time. I appreciate it. CARR: Oh, it was an absolute pleasure. MADDOW: Thanks. All right. Joining us now is Chris Smith, contributor editor for "New York" magazine. He interviewed Jon Stewart for a piece just this past November. Chris, thanks for being here. It`s nice to see you. CHRIS SMITH, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Thanks for having me, Rachel. MADDOW: The thing that has been fascinating in the media about "The Daily Show" is trying to find a niche for it, trying to find a way to describe it, that accounts for its influence among newsmakers and among the rest of the media, even as it maintains itself to be a comedy show. Do you feel like that has been an appropriate focus or were we all sort of missing the point about what Stewart was doing? SMITH: Well, in that clip you showed from John talking with you, I mean, he did a bad job of defining what he does, which in a crazy way is the beauty of it, is he blurred a lot of these lines. Yes, at the core, it`s jokes about the news. But over the course of 16 years, he really expanded what that meant. I mean, it sounded (ph) satire, it sounded just stupid gags. It is at times straight out commentary. It became over the years much more -- in the past five or eight or so years, a criticism of the media. And that was an interesting evolution. But the fact that Jon never really pinned it down and didn`t want to - - didn`t want the show to, is part of why it has been so successful. MADDOW: That was actually going to be my next question to you, even before you pointed that out, that the media criticism turned there. I think -- I felt like within the media, I don`t know a lot of people in the business. I think I`m actually a little bit more isolated from my colleagues that most mostly by choice because I`m shy. SMITH: NBC won`t even come -- MADDOW: NBC won`t come to us about the Brian Williams decision for example. I don`t have anybody`s phone number. But I feel like when Jon Stewart turned his lens toward media criticism, it affected the way the media thought about its own job, because I think we saw in him very effective ridicule of the ways we get stuff wrong. Do you think that`s true? SMITH: I think it`s very true, and a friend of mine and another reporter pointed out today that when I wrote a piece about Jon in 2010, I interviewed Brian Williams, and then about -- Brian talked about why he envied what Jon was able to do, and that`s ironic or comic or just weird now. But yes, certainly people in the so called mainstream news business took their queues from what John was doing, both to try to get larger audiences, but to try to stay ahead of t he curve. He`s media criticism grew in large part because Fox News was so successful, I mean it gave him a great target about something he disagreed with, philosophically the politics, but also how successful they`ve been in actually selling their message, gave him a great target to pull apart whether, you know, it was more serious stuff than Megyn Kelly and Santa Claus, or, you know, Cheney and the run up to the Iraq war. MADDOW: One of the things I have to say is somebody sort of obsessed with how we got into the Iraq war. He, I feel like is the only other person who is in the media at the same time that I am, who is as obsessed with that topic. SMITH: Yeah. MADDOW: So very gratifying to me that he`s never let that he has never let that go. SMITH: Yeah. MADDOW: Meeting him recently is last night. He`s been tenacious on some issues like that in which I think he has changed the way that people think about them across (inaudible). But I wonder what will happen when he leaves. I mean, obviously he span off the (inaudible) party, he span off John Oliver, he span off the, The Night with... SMITH: Larry Wilmore. MADDOW: ... Larry Wilmore and... SMITH: Sure. MADDOW: ... his brand new show, which is just starting to wave reviews. Does somebody follow in Jon Stewart`s footsteps or does -- is his influence now wide instead of direct? SMITH: Yeah, I mean that`s going to be a very hard chair to fill, how much of a vote Jon gets in picking that person versus Comedy Central. It`s going to be really interesting. You know, I think if it`s up to Jon, he would like to open it up, broaden it in weird and interesting ways. Brian Williams was on the show last night. But if people stuck around The Daily Show, there was a guy named Bassem Youssef who is a doctor, I think by profession who became a comedian and satirist in Egypt. Jon, in filming his movie this past summer spend some time in Jordan, spend some time in Egypt. And saw places where what Jon does, what you and I do even is not allowed by and large. MADDOW: Right. SMITH: And not that he`s going to turn the "The Daily Show" into an overt, you know, small deed revolutionary machine, but -- that he, you know, has some notion of helping people like Bassem or, you know, taken the show in an unexpected direction. MADDOW: Chris Smith, Contributing Editor for New York Magazine. Thank you for being here. Especially, again, on short notice to discuss news that I did not expect at all. SMITH: Anytime. MADDOW: I appreciate it. All right we got much more ahead on this very, very, very, very, very, very busy news night. Please stay with us, we`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUSAN SELKE, CLAY HUNT"S MOTHER: I know a lot of that, we`ll be seeing news coverage about the bill this week and that is good news. I want our guest to know that we care about you and your life, and that is why we have fought all year for you, to get this bill passed and to get you the care that you deserve. So please don`t give up, don`t loss hope. If you need help, ask for it. And trust now, we trust now that it will be there for you. America is a nation that`s full of hope. Today, I pray that we have started to give that hope back to our veteran. Thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: On Thursday, President Obama will sign it and that will formally make it law. But even before that, Congress signed it today. They held a big bipartisan on camera, bicameral signing ceremony, even just for Congress, even just for the part where they send the bill they`ve already passed formally to the President. Why did they do that today? I think A, it`s rare enough that Congress passes anything, time to make a big deal out of it. But B, this happens to be something that they really want people to know has passed. The Clay Hunt veteran Suicide Prevention Act will become law this week, at a time when nothing passes through Congress and becomes law, today that was his mother, Susan Selke and his stepfather who is on hand, as that bill heads to the White House for President Obama`s signature. They`re making a big deal out of this, because they can -- they`ve got nothing else to make a big deal out of, but also because this is something that deserves, I think as much publicity as they can get it. It`s almost there, it`s almost done. Thursday, it will be law. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, 44TH AND CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: She was an outstanding young woman, had a great spirit. And I think that spirit will live long. I think the more people learn about her, the more they appreciate what she stood for and how it stands in contrast with the barbaric organization that held her captive. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: This is President Obama today speaking in an interview with BuzzFeed. That was his fist opportunity to comment on the news. Now, confirmed by the White House and the intelligence community that Kayla Mueller, the last American known to be held hostage by ISIS. The only American woman known to have been held by the group, the news not confirmed by the White House and by Kayla Mueller`s family that she died while being held by ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REV. KATHLEEN DAY, MUELLER FAMILY FRIEND: People told us that Kayla try to teach the guards crafts, to make origami, little cranes, little piece cranes. And that they told each other stories and they sang each other songs, that they try to exercise in that small space, and that Kayla would stand on her head. Let me just -- does of us who know her know what a free little spirit she was. We`re just delight on that, that Kayla remains Kayla. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: After Reverend Kathleen Day, who`s a friend of the Mueller family, she was speaking in Ms. Mueller`s hometown of Prescott, Arizona this afternoon. She and family members of Kayla Mueller related stories that the family had heard, in part from fellow hostages who had been released from captivity, even as Kayla was not. Now, Kayla Mueller`s family had made a public plea to ISIS on Friday night, after ISIS said on Friday that Kayla had been killed by a coalition airstrike. The terrorist group did not make public any information that would have proven that accretion they were making about her. But apparently ISIS did provide a photo to the family this weekend, which U.S. government sources verified as real, and which apparently confirmed her death. Although, not the means by which she died. That`s still unknown. President Obama vowed today, "No matter how long it takes, the United States will find and bring to justice the terrorist who are responsible for Kayla`s captivity and death." President Obama`s language to authorize the military campaign against ISIS, goes to congress as early as tomorrow. Lots ahead tonight, stay with us. MADDOW: This past November, Buffalo, New York, you might remember, they got pummeled with a lot of snow. Even for Buffalo, New York. See the little people inside all the white stuff? They got hit by something like four to five feet of snow in a single storm, and that`s not even including the blowing and drifting, which left like seven feet-plus of snow piled in some areas. Home to the Buffalo Bills, the Ralph Wilson Stadium where the Bills play, that was totally snowed in, and four days after that storm, the Bill had a big home game planned against the New York Jets. So, they reached out to their fans, they offered 10 bucks an hour, plus free tickets if anybody would come help and shovel out the stadium? People did step up to come shovel, but it was not nearly enough to clear out the 220,000 tons of snow from the outdoor stadium. And so, what they brought in was these beasts -- snow dragons. High tech industrialized snow melters that were hauled in to clear those 220,000 tons of snow from the Bills stadium. Well, now those are being deployed to the great city of Boston, to take on the ginormous piles of snow, some of which are now 10 to 20 feet tall that have grown ominously throughout the city of Boston. The city of Boston, along with the whole state of Massachusetts, has been hit with a continuous, never ending onslaught of snow for the past couple of weeks. The state is now basically throwing up their hands. They`re calling up 500 national guard troops. The governor of Massachusetts had asked the state of Vermont, and the state of New York, and the state of New Jersey, and the state of Pennsylvania for help. The city of Boston has also started farming. They opened what they call snow farms. Five giant snow farms that are basically huge piles of snow they make in vacant lots and then build continuously with tractors. Crews there unload thousands and thousands and thousands of dump trucks full of snow that they pick up around the city throughout the day, and they built all of that snow into a giant, dirty cold mountain, and that`s called a snow farm. Boston has got so much snow, though, that even the snow farm mountains are overflowing at this point. And so, cue the snow melters. Boston has fired two of these guys up now. They have two snow dragons on loan, but there is so much snow to melt in the city that the governor of Massachusetts says he may buy another two snow dragons for the state. So far, the melting capacity is not enough, particularly because Massachusetts is about to get even more snow on top of the many heap that are already on the ground. I mean, the snow that`s there now already is disappearing cars and dwarfing people and making travel in many places totally impossible. Now, what`s happening is that cities all over the state, cities that are faced with this problem on what to do with snow, they got nowhere to put, cities are considering dumping the snow into nearby bodies of water. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not exactly something these communities want to do, but they are forced to do it and they`re allowed to do it in these exceptions. With storm after storm, and more snow piling on top of that old snow and more on the way, they literally have no place to put it. Marblehead, Salem, Lawrence and Lowell had already have received the go ahead to go ahead and dump this snow in the Atlantic Ocean. That is video you see of the snow going in and then underwater. State law prohibits it because of pollution concerns of what`s mixed into that snow, but in extreme circumstances like we`re dealing with now, where public safety is an issue, towns and cities are asked to simply notify the Department of Environmental Protection. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: When all else fails, dump it into the sea? Boston is supposedly not planning on dumping their snow into Boston Harbor at this moment, although they used to do that back in the day. We`re leaning tonight that in addition to the cities of Marblehead and Salem and those other places listed on that news report, the city of Newburyport has also obtained a waiver to dump their snow into river. The mayor says they`re doing it just because they`re maxed out in terms of snow and places to shove it. So, why not shove into the Merrimack River? What does this strategy mean for Massachusetts? Especially considering that Massachusetts is expected to great another foot of snow before this week is over. Will all of the cities start dumping their polluted snow into bodies of water? And when the snow problem is gone, what happens to all that water? Is this really the only way? Joining us now is Bruce Berman. He`s communications director for Save the Harbor/Save the Bay. Mr. Berman, thanks very much for joining us. BRUCE BERMAN, SAVE THE HARBOR/SAVE THE BAY: Thanks for having me, Rachel. MADDOW: So, as Save the Harbor/Save the Bay guy, I have to ask what you think of this decision to dump the excess snow and anything it`s been sitting into bodies of water that include the ocean and rivers? BERMAN: It depends on what the circumstances are. We spent $5 billion cleaning up Boston Harbor. It is sort of the forefront of civic life here. We really care about it. We have some of the cleanest urban beaches in the country. That said, we have to keep a sense of perspective. We have had an extraordinary series of storms, 70 inches. I`m 5`10", that`s 70 inches of snow in the past couple weeks, a public safety crisis. And as a last resort, and when the water is deep and when it`s fast moving, it doesn`t concern me that much. You have to keep a sense of perspective here. Today, I think the mayor announced that we`re going to be moving 2,000 truckloads of snow to the snow farms. And that is terrific. We`re very glad that we haven`t had to take that step here in Boston yet. But if we did have to do it, that would be about 2 million gallons which is about 1 percent of the daily flow of the Charles River. Certainly, snow if filthy, urban snow is dirty, and it`s not our favorite resort. But at the end of the day, public safety first. MADDOW: Is there anything they can do to be dumping into rivers or any of the towns that are going to be dumping into the sea, is there anything they can do to mitigate any potential environmental worries about what they`re doing? Are there cleaner or better ways to do this if you have to do it? BERMAN: Absolutely, I mean, the critical thing from our perspective is that snow is fairly heavy when you dump trailer truckloads into the water. So, we`re concerned that it not be done in shallow water, that it not be done in embayment, that it be done in deep water. Boston Harbor has got an average depth of about 40 feet at low tide. We have a nine-foot tide. So, you know, you want to do it at high tide, with the tide falling. And to be honest, you also want to be alert. There is a lot of crap that you can see. We have a tradition here in Boston of putting space savers in our space once we dug out our car. You know, a dinette set or -- MADDOW: Right. BERMAN: -- you have to be careful, otherwise, we`re going to end up with floating infrastructure in the harbor. But on the very serious level, you know, this is a very unusual circumstance. I`ve been the bay watcher for Save the Harbor for 25 years, and I have never seen anything like it. They`re calling it stormaggedon and it feels like we`re under assault by Mother Nature. MADDOW: Bruce Berman, communications director for Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, thanks for some perspective on this. Really appreciate your time tonight. Thanks. BERMAN: Thanks for having me. MADDOW: Got to tell you, my usual commute from Western Massachusetts to New York, I come down -- I go home on the weekends and I come down here Monday morning. I usually leave at about 8:00 in the morning and I`m at my office by noon. So, I left early, I left about 7:30 yesterday morning in order to get to work. I arrived at my office at 7:45 p.m. That`s how long it took to get here, in part because we now live in a snow cave. Yes. In Massachusetts right now, if you haven`t seen the pictures, I mean, if you don`t believe those pictures, they`re for real, man. It`s like nothing I have ever seen. All right. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: The good people of Salem, Oregon, named their owl today, the one that keeps attacking their joggers at a park in the state capital city. They took a poll on what his name should be. Owlcapone won. "The Statesmen Journal" newspaper is calling him Salem`s winged wise guy. But you are beautiful, Owlcapone, and Salem got you something else today, too. They also got you the best new thing in the world. Sorely needed tonight. Stay with us. MADDOW: One of the things I did not expect to be covering this year is one of the strangest trends in American politics, which is very prominent Democratic politicians having shocking and unusual injuries. This is now becoming a series and the next installment in this series is next. Stay with us. MADDOW: When last we checked in on Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the top Democrat in the Senate, he looked like this. On New Year`s Day, Harry Reid was working out at home in Nevada when he had some kind of bizarre workout accident. He was apparently using a resistance band, stretchy thing, the band snapped and Harry broke a bunch of bones in his face, broke a few ribs, and he sustained some serious damage to his right eye. Well, Harry Reid has soldiered on. He has returned to work. But it has remained unclear whether or not he will regain any vision at all in his right eye. He had surgery on that eye last month. We just learned today that he will now undergo another round of eye surgery tomorrow at George Washington University Hospital, again to try to restore the vision in his right eye -- the second surgery to try to save that vision. We wish Senator Reid, of course, the best of luck with that procedure and what is turning out to be a health ordeal for him. Also, news today of another workout accident involving another very prominent Democratic politician, and I`m not kidding. This one involves former Democratic Governor Martin O`Malley of Maryland, who is best known nationally because he`s very, very publicly testing the waters for a possible presidential run on the Democratic side. Martin O`Malley, we have now learned, suffered some kind of workout accident over the weekend in which he broke his elbow. Governor O`Malley tweeted, quote, "broke my elbow over the weekend at the gym. Thanks to the staff at Union Memorial, surgery went well and I`m on the road to a quick recovery." His staff says he broke it while lifting weights. If you`ve ever seen YouTube videos of weightlifting injuries involving broken elbows, you`re probably cringing right now. But there`s no indication that it was one of those super gruesome ones. We reached out to a spokeswoman from Martin O`Malley tonight. She told us the governor was lifting weights at the time of the accident, but she wouldn`t provide any further details about how the accident happened. She says the governor`s right arm will be in a brace for the next three to five weeks. Who says politics is not a dangerous sport, especially if you like to remain fit while you`re doing it? We wish a speedy recovery to both of you, gentlemen. MADDOW: In Eastern Oregon, when it rained this week, it looked like it rained milk. The rain was all chalky and dirty and opaque. The National Weather Service office in Pendleton, Oregon, took pictures of the guck that rained from the sky, pronounced it milky, and said they were looking into where it came from. Apparently, the best guest so far is that the rain of milky ickness falling from the sky in Eastern Oregon was a weird weather byproduct of a dust storm in Nevada. OK. The world works in mysterious ways. Also in Oregon, if you want to become a major political party, a major political party, you have to submit the membership list of your party to the state. If your membership list equals 5 percent of the total number of people who voted in the last statewide election, you can be a major political party. Well, here`s the threshold last year. That`s 5 percent of the total number who voted for governor in that state last November. That`s the number you have to hit in terms of your membership list if you want to be a major political party, just like the Democrats or the Republicans. That`s the number. Here is what the independent party of Oregon just turned in. They made it by three people. And so now, Oregon is the latest state in the country to have another major political party on the ballot and running primaries and everything alongside the stand by red and blue. You know, you spend enough time rooting around in some random state`s news, it turns out there`s weird stuff going everywhere all the time. Oregon, though, I think is better than everyone else right now when it comes to weird news in this news cycle, for whatever reason. But on that front, there is a best new thing in the world. As we`ve been reporting, there is a park in the state`s capital city of Salem where four people so far have been attacked by a big barred owl while they were out jogging. We`re talking a big owl, four foot wingspan, talons several inches long. You should also know that they`re totally silent when they attack, you don`t hear them coming at all. This thing has been probably protecting its nest for what it believes are marauding joggers that threaten it somehow. Sometimes, the owl just steals a guy`s hat. Sometimes it`s knocked a guy down. One case, it punctured a guy`s scalp and hurt him so badly he thought he was having an aneurysm or maybe he was dying. It`s a big owl. Four attacks so far on the same park. And these are the warning signs that the city of Salem put up about it afterwards. I just thought, you know, pretty tame, given what`s been happening. Well, we asked for your help in redesigning the Salem warning sign. This was a good one. "Beware of owl". Or this one, "Here be owls." It`s right there in the bottom, kind of like here be dragons. But with this one, you had a very close up view of the owl`s feet. This one was really good. I think this one has to be like oh, no, it`s Mr. Bill. Oh, no, it`s the great barred owl. But then there`s this one. Owl not only attacks you, it picks you up and carries you to its nest and feeds you to its terrifying young. In the end, we settled on this one, which I love. Allegra Flores -- there we go. Allegra Flores made it, she`s our in-house artist. We all love what she did. We put this on the show a couple of days ago, and then the Salem, Oregon surgeon, who was the first owl victim in the park, the guy who thought he was having an aneurysm when the owl got him, some friends of his made our suggestive sign into a shirt. They`re now selling them online in Salem, which is awesome. But meanwhile, we sent this proposed owl attack warning sign to the nice folks at the Parks Department in Salem, Oregon, in part, because we enjoyed making it. But in part because we did really think it might be a better public service than what they had. So, we sent this to them asking basically if we got it right, if this was inaccurate in any way, if they suggested that we change it at all. We also, and this is a little cheeky, we asked them if they want to use it. Turns out, they want to use it. They did ask us to make one change. Look, see if you can tell the difference, they asked us to drop the little lanes to show the jogging trail. See? Because you never know where the owl may decide to descend. You don`t have to be on the trail. It can get you anywhere. But they said they like it and they`d like to use it. This is what they said to us, quote, "It is our hope that installing the attack owl signs will, of course, warn park users of the possibility of an owl encounter, but also celebrate the unique presence of the owl." Yes. I agree. Celebrate it. And they want the sign! And so, we are happily passing this on to them. It`s in the mail, Salem, Oregon Parks Department. It`s in the email in terms of the digital file and we`re also I think just mailing you the big one if we can care off the postage. Thank you for being so cool about this whole thing. I have to say, you know what? To all of Oregon, from the giant, adorable gay bear couple that owns jebbushforpresident.com, to your governor`s bizarre girlfriend scandal, which is apparently the biggest scandal in Oregon political history, to your rain that looks like milk, to your Republican Party chairman, whose day job is collecting people`s urine by mail, to your attack owl and the way that you love them, to your jogging surgeons who sometimes wear homemade Green Bay Packer suits with a cape. To all of Oregon, I don`t know why we`ve been so into Oregon news lately, but I`ve got to say thank you. The rest of the news in the world right now sucks. The rest of the world has news that is terrible. But Oregon, you are freaking excellent -- best new thing in the world. We are sending you the sign. That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 11, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021001cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 47 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 10, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 10, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Beth Fouhy GUESTS: Bill Carter, Kevin Avery, Lizz Winstead, Hunter Walker SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7672 words HIGHLIGHT: NBC announced tonight that "Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams is being suspended for six months. Jon Stewart has announced that he is leaving "The Daily Show." LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel. We`ve got a chair here. I`m always going to have a chair here. So, whenever you feel you didn`t get in everything you needed to get in, just run over here and jump in. RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: I`ll be right there. O`DONNELL: OK. Thanks, Rachel. Well, tonight, we will be covering that trial in Texas. The man who killed Chris Kyle goes on trial tomorrow in Texas. Also, Benjamin Netanyahu continues to ignore everyone who`s advising him to cancel his speech to a joint session of Congress. And Jon Stewart, as you by now know, shocked the media world and the political world tonight. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ANNOUNCER: This is "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW: Welcome to "The Daily News". My name is Jon Stewart. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jon Stewart has announced that he is leaving "The Daily Show." STEWART: But first -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`ve learned the jury has been seated in what`s becoming known as the American sniper trial. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s ten women and two men. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just hope a fair trial gets done. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s just kind of the persona that he`s guilty, period. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I`m going to the United States. Not because I seek a confrontation with the president, but because I must fulfill my obligation. JEN PSAKI, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: The prime minister of Israel has come many times in the past. NETANYAHU: This is not a personal disagreement between President Obama and me. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is there a back and forth going on between the president and Bibi Netanyahu? JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: If there is, I`m certainly not going to continue it from here. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president of the United States is set to ask Congress for new war powers. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To ask for new war authorization as soon as tomorrow. STEWART: Obviously right now, the Middle East is spiraling out of control. So, tell me, what should America do about that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, how about nothing? SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: I think it would be pretty safe to say we`re stuck. JEH JOHNSON, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We need a fully funded appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and we need it real soon. MCCONNELL: It`s clear we can`t go forward in the Senate unless you`ve heard something I haven`t. And so, the next move obviously is up to the House. STEWART: But first, here it is, your moment of Zen. Here it is, your moment of Zen. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: You made it, the fastest run across the hall. MADDOW: Our studios are not that far apart. O`DONNELL: No, but we had to rewire you for this show and all that stuff. MADDOW: It`s true. O`DONNELL: All right. I`m glad you`re all here, because Rachel, you handled this an hour ago. I have to now handle what is for me one of the most difficult thing I`ve had to do in this job. And that is the news NBC announced tonight about Brian Williams being suspended for six months. So, I just want to read the NBC News statement about this, issued by the NBC News president, Deborah Turness. She said, "While on Nightly News on Friday, January 30, 2015, Brian misrepresented events which occurred while he was covering the Iraq War in 2003. It then became clear that on other occasions Brian had done the same while telling that story in other venues. This was wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian`s position. "In addition, we have concerns about comments that occurred outside NBC News while Brian was talking about his experiences in the field. "As Managing Editor and Anchor of Nightly News, Brian has a responsibility to be truthful and to uphold the high standards of the news division at all times. We felt it would have been wrong to disregard the good work Brian has done and the special relationship he has forged with our viewers over 22 years. Millions of Americans have turned to him every day, and he has been an important and well-respected part of our organization." In addition to that statement, the head of NBC Universal, Steve Burke, issued a smaller note to us all here at NBC saying, "This has been a painful period for all concerned and we appreciate your patience while we gathered the available facts. By his actions, Brian has jeopardized the trust millions of Americans place in NBC News. His actions are inexcusable and this suspension is severe and appropriate. Brian`s life`s work is delivering the news. I know Brian loves his country, NBC News and his colleagues. He deserves a second chance and we are rooting for him. Brian has shared his deep remorse with me and he is committed to winning back everyone`s trust." This is so difficult for me. I couldn`t be more biased. I like Brian. He`s a friend of me. Bill Carter, you`re here because we need an objective, outside view of this. This was your beat at "The New York Times," covering this kind of news. What is your reaction to those statements tonight? BILL CARTER, FORMER NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER: Well, I mean, it`s disturbing and it`s sad. It`s disturbing because they obviously feel like they found a lot that makes this really serious. When we first heard about it, we thought well, maybe he just did some embellishment. But I think this is a sign that there`s something very serious and maybe consistent. And so they had to take some action. It`s sad because I agree with you, I like Brian enormously. I think he`s really good at his job, I have enormous respect for him. And I think he`s been a very important person at NBC News, so it`s a tremendous blow. O`DONNELL: I`ve had the occasion, I remember in 2000 at the Republican Convention in Philadelphia, Brian is anchoring in this chair. I`m sitting in that chair beside him for quite a long time, and just marveling at his skills, Rachel, you know, in this job. Which involves so many things and so many -- he had so many quick and extemporaneous issues that came up with that he had to deal with. I just don`t know what to make of the whole thing. I just have been kind of pulling for him, as Steve Burke says. And for me, it`s just on a friend basis. So, I`m not going to be the guy who comes on and analyzes this story -- is capable from analyzing from any other than a friend basis. We`re lucky, we`re very lucky at NBC that we have someone like Lester Holt to get into that chair, occupy it flawlessly as he has done, you know, in this difficult situation. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW": And you know, there`s a question as to the institution of NBC News and its anchor and where the division is between them. I mean, he`s had this title of managing editor, in addition to being anchor, which is an important thing. I mean, he`s overall responsible for the all of the overall content on NBC Nightly News. In fact, the initial decision to take Brian off the air for a few days before the six-month suspension, Brian announced it was him making that decision for himself as managing editor of his own broadcast. I think to Bill`s point, though, in terms of what this decision implies about what NBC News found, that`s going to be very interesting. I mean, obviously, NBC News has a responsibility to correct any misstatements made on their air, if they were made -- if they were presented as news and they weren`t. Anything that was false and that was done as an NBC News product must be corrected by the news division. Things that Brian said about himself, off of NBC News, not in a news- delivering capacity, are a much grayer area in terms of what the responsibility is of the news division, both to discipline for those things and to correct them. And that`s going to be interesting to see. And that`s why I wish we sort of had more information about what was behind this decision. O`DONNELL: Yes, I think they`re working on it. I spoke to a combat veteran Friday night. This story was ripe, and as someone who lost a limb in combat. And he just said, you know, I`m pulling for Brian. I know a lot of people who come out of these situations and their stories aren`t exactly straight, and he just said it`s not -- talking about war stories. That`s why they call them war stories. So anyway, I`ve heard real sympathy for him out there. But I just think it`s such a difficult case, and so strange and mostly shocking. I still haven`t processed the shock of it. BETH FOUHY, MSNBC SENIOR EDITOR: It`s really shocking. And I`ll tell you, as an employee of this company, I`m very sad. I`m quite upset by it as you are and I`m sure Rachel, as well. As a journalist, sort of outside of the bit, looking at how they decided to handle it -- look, people are going to take potshots for NBC for the decisions they made. But I actually think this was an appropriate way the deal with this. So many days we`ve been watching Twitter, watching Facebook, watching the reporting. It`s been sort of binary. Either he stays or he goes. And then when they came up with this decision, I thought it was a bit odd. But then I thought, you know what? That`s probably the right way to go. It`s very serious. He`s been taken off the air, which is an anchorman`s oxygen, as you know. And yet, it`s not - it`s saying his career here has been valued in some way, that it`s been worth something. That it`s counting -- MADDOW: But we don`t know why they made this decision. I mean, the only thing they said -- (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: -- is what Brian said himself, which is the thing he said on the broadcast a week or so ago on Nightly News was incorrect. They said nothing else. CARTER: Yes, they said there were other comments. MADOW: Other comments. But we don`t know what they are. We don`t know if they were war stories. We don`t know if they were about something else. I feel like NBC has done something very serious, and they said they have made a severe decision that is appropriate. But we don`t have any way of assessing whether or not it is appropriate, because we don`t know what they found. FOUHY: Right. The fact checking that they`re doing under the investigative unit needs to go on, and the audience deserves an answer. MADDOW: I`m frustrated by the fact we don`t know more. O`DONNELL: Kevin Avery, are you feeling deceived that we got you here under false -- (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Kevin is a writer for HBO -- (CROSSTALK) KEVIN AVERY, ACTOR/WRITER: What are we doing? O`DONNELL: Kevin is one of the brilliant writers for HBO`s "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" and we invited him to discuss the biggest news of the night, which was Jon Stewart deciding he was going to leave of his job. And a half an hour after that happened, we got I really want to get on to what happened at Comedy Central today and what this means in your field. This is a giant situation that`s just opened up over there. AVERY: It`s weird. It`s obviously a huge thing. I actually got the call -- I didn`t know about the news until I got the call to do this show. (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: The whole industry was turned upside down. (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) AVERY: It`s happening. I don`t know what`s going on. So, yes, it`s all -- it`s weird. It`s very weird. You know, I -- the first thought is who is going to replace him? How are you going to fill those shoes, you know? O`DONNELL: Well, I mean, look at John Oliver. I mean, look what happened that`s who replaced him, and they went right inside the building. So, inside the building right now, they have Samantha Bee, Aasif Mandvi, Jason Jones, Al Madrigal, we`ve got pictures up here, Jessica Williams, and could you put Rachel Maddow`s head shot up there. Have you had any calls from Comedy Central? MADDOW: You know, no, unless they`re going to do anything about owls attacks in Salem, Oregon. O`DONNELL: I don`t know. Rachel is -- (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: They could get the owl. O`DONNELL: Kevin, do you want to take a big bow for the writers of these shows? Because one of the things that John Oliver taking the chair showed was he was working with all of the same writers who are there for Jon, so the quality of the show really held on. AVERY: Yes, I mean, it`s funny. When we started doing "Last Week Tonight", I did have this initial sort of -- this is a nervousness doing a new show like that. I hope this is going to work. But I always go back to the fact that oh, no, he`s done this. He`s slipped stuff right into Stewart`s shoes and just kind of bangs it out and was great. So, yes, I don`t know, that kind of goes away when I think of that. Like, oh, here`s the guy who knows what he`s doing. MADDOW: Does "The Daily Show" go away? O`DONNELL: No. Bill Carter will tell you why. CARTER: People forget "The Daily Show" existed before. MADDOW: Craig. O`DONNELL: Craig Kilborn. CARTER: So, "The Daily Show" is the franchise and Jon took it over. (CROSSTALK) CARTER: Jon put his stamp on it like nobody`s ever -- he`s won 10 Emmy Awards in a row. I mean, that`s his show. But "The Daily Show" is going to go on and they will find another host. They`re good at that, they`re very good at that. They put Stephen Colbert on. I think Larry Wilmore is doing really well. MADDOW: Yes. CARTER: I think they`ll find the right host, but replacing him is an enormous task. I mean, I don`t envy the guy or the woman. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what is now in so poignant moment in his "Fresh Air" interview with Terry Gross where he talked about what would happen if he left. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) STEWART: I do feel like I don`t know that there will ever be anything that I will ever be as well suited for as this show. That being said, I think there are moments when you realize that`s not enough anymore or that maybe it`s time for some discomfort. I`m still very proud of the work we do day in and day out. The minute I say I`m not going to do it anymore, I will miss it like crazy and I will consider that to be a terrible mistake that I`ve just made. And I will want to grab it back. (END AUDIO CLIP) O`DONNELL: So, Kevin, that means he`s home tonight missing it like crazy. And tomorrow he`s going to try to grab it right back. AVERY: I think he`ll come right back. I think he`ll be gone for like five seconds, I mean, you know -- MADDOW: Can I book you for my show tomorrow? AVERY: Yes. (LAUGHTER) AVERY: I think he`ll we`re missing an obvious choice, you know? I mean, Colbert leaves, he takes over for Letterman and someone, you know, Wilmore is sort of taking over Colbert`s spot. What`s Letterman doing? Bring him back -- MADDOW: Yes, there you go. CARTER: I thought you were going to say Brian William there. AVERY: I -- you know, that`s a possibility. You guys, I really think you`re going -- having a round about way of trying to ask me to do it. O`DONNELL: Yes. (LAUGHTER) AVERY: And what you`re doing there, you know, that`s what this is all about. (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: And, Beth, Jon Stewart changed politics. You know, there was a time when -- in Washington, the calculation was, I will mention name you might not know, if Johnny Carson did three -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s not young. O`DONNELL: You`re kids. AVERY: I don`t know. O`DONNELL: If Johnny he did three consecutive jokes about a politician, he was dead. It turned out the rule got broken when Bill Clinton brought into his 1992 campaign, you know, disaster stuff with scandals and sex scandals. And Johnny went up and did something like eight Clinton jokes in a row. Inside politics, people went, that`s it, it`s over. I thought -- well, that`s it. I used that math. Carson jokes, it`s over. FOUHY: Well, remember this, who is -- allegedly the first choice to replace, to take over "Meet the Press", instead of Chuck Todd? It was Jon Stewart. O`DONNELL: I never believe that. FOUHY: Oh, it was pretty much confirmed, Lawrence. CARTER: I think you could believe it. FOUHY: That is a sign comedy has done a better job covering politics than regrettably -- CARTER: That comedy has, for sure. I mean, he`s particularly attracting people who don`t pay attention to the regular news, his show became sort of a de facto newscast for people under 30. FOUHY: Well, I think that`s the real danger. If he goes, and yes, you`re saying that someone will replace him, but will that person have this kind of ability to bring a different audience to the news and to treat news as something to expose and make fun of, rather than come one this high handled approach that`s been the traditional way to do it? O`DONNELL: Kevin, is it your sense -- your audience -- my sense of it is, "The Daily Show`s" audience, your audience -- their laughs are working off of a base of news knowledge that they have before they get to your show. I mean, some of these jokes wouldn`t work if they didn`t know a lot already because they get to your show. AVERY: Yes, I mean, I don`t think the audience shows up and then -- oh, this is something I never heard of before. I think you`re watching the show because you`re always interested in these topics. So, yes, I think the audience wants to hear more about it. I think there`s already sort of an understanding and they just -- they`re kind of -- we want to know more. How can you make this funny for us? How can you make us enjoy this because some of it is just not, some of it just horrible stuff? MADDOW: I think that what`s really important to the humor and the influence is the credibility of the show. I mean, "The Daily Show" and other Comedy Central shows that do the news, do corrections when they get stuff wrong. They`re credible. They`re bringing -- they have rigorous fact-checking. They bring you stuff that you can take to the bank, even if it does have a lot of fart jokes in the middle of it. CARTER: The best research imaginable. If a politician said anything in his high school on a video, they find it and say, well, that`s what he said 20 years ago, and they manage to turn -- they are as good at that as anybody. O`DONNELL: Jon Stewart going home, ladies and gentlemen, dressed exactly as a friend of mine who was at the show the other night said, a friend of mine ran into Jon in the hallway and he didn`t recognize him. He`s actually, it`s Penn Jillette, he was there for Larry (INAUDIBLE). Didn`t recognize him and Jon said, "Penn", and Penn looked at him, and Jon said, yes, I dressed like a child. Rachel, true confession time. MADDOW: Yes? O`DONNELL: Do you watch "The Daily Show" as I do and look at certain things that they do and think, oh, if we could ever do it that way? MADDOW: I also think like, I can`t believe he did it first. I can`t believe he did it first. I was thinking about doing that, and now, I can never do it because I can`t do it like that. That`s what happened, is the opportunity cost with him getting to something before I had a chance to try to do it in a one, you know, mini-version of what he could do. I mean, listen, they don`t have the constraints of a news show in the sense that, you know, they pick whatever they want and talk about it for as long as they want within the 30 minutes, that time frame. They bring in an interview or not, moment of Zen, or not, time to go. O`DONNELL: Right. MADDOW: So, you know, you`re not doing seven segments and the whole thing. They do seasons. They take hiatus. They have all of this great stuff. But when they do news segments, they`re better than -- anything than any of us are doing. You know, it`s true, they do -- their production value, their credibility and the sense of humor and the swearing. CARTER: Yes, that helps. But they also - (CROSSTALK) CARTER: They comment on the media better than anyone. O`DONNELL: Yes, they do. And we all live in fear of those comments. CARTER: Yes. O`DONNELL: We`re going to take a quick break. One of the creators of "The Daily Show", Lizz Winstead, is going to join us next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: And now, for our continued comprehensive coverage of "The Final Blow." You`re out of order, he`s out of order, this whole trial is sexy. Republicans want to call Monica Lewinsky to the stand, as well as any other women Clinton may have had affairs with. However, many officials oppose the idea, saying the caravan of trailer homes to Washington could paralyze interstate traffic and rob the Little Rock fast food industry of hundreds of its most reliable assistant managers. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That was Jon Stewart`s very first "Daily Show". One of the creators of "The Daily Show" is going to join me, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In Slate, they have a piece on dotcom, Santa Claus should not be a white man anymore. By the way, for all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white. But this person is just arguing that maybe we should also have a black Santa. But you know, Santa is what he is. And so, just so you know, we`re just debating this because someone wrote about it, kids. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) just got real. Santa is just white. And who are you actually talking to? Children who are sophisticated enough to be watching a news channel at 10:00 at night, yet innocent enough to still believe Santa Claus is real, yet racist enough to be freaked out if he isn`t white. Why -- (APPLAUSE) STEWART: That`s such a narrow -- yes, West Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Kevin, it`s so fascinating to watch his comedy tools develop over the years. That take, that silent reaction take that he did at the end of the video was something he didn`t have refined to that level when he started that show. AVERY: Yes. I mean, that`s one of those things that you -- that`s part of feeling out your audience and comes with years of knowing what the crowd wants to see from you. And also knowing what they`re all thinking, too. You know? Because I was watching that clip going, what the hell? What`s going on here? Do we not know about -- he`s brilliant at that sort of taking what -- he knows the audience want to hear. O`DONNELL: We`re joined by phone by Lizz Winstead, one of the creators of "The Daily Show." Lizz, here we are at this gigantic crossroads for the show that you created. The first host of the show was Craig Kilborn, is that right? LIZZ WINSTEAD, CO-CREATOR, "THE DAILY SHOW" (via telephone): That`s correct. O`DONNELL: He did about two years, and then Jon Stewart came in and very -- how quickly do you think Jon Stewart made it his own? WINSTEAD: Well, I think once Jon realized -- I have a really bad cold, guys. So -- O`DONNELL: We figured that out as soon as I heard your voice. WINSTEAD: I was on Theraflu and my phone blew out. And I was like, did someone horrible die, everyone at MSNBC has called me? (LAUGHTER) WINSTEAD: So, I`m really, but that`s not the case. But I think once Jon realized he didn`t have to be Craig and he could be himself, that`s when he really could settle into his own and what Jon did with the show that I think is brilliant is, when it was Craig, the show was, for lack of a better way to put it, more like Colbert, because there was no voice of the people. Everybody was in character. So, what Jon did was, he was the voice of all of us, and he surrounded himself by the fools that he perceived as sort of the media do, and then he could play the voice of reason. It was so brilliant and it allowed him to do exactly what you were all talking about, which was to be accurate, to show the hypocrisy, and not only take on media makers but the media itself, which I think he`s done brilliantly. O`DONNELL: And, Bill Carter, Jon Stewart did not become the highest rated comedian in late night, but he did become, by an order of magnitude, the highest paid. I remember being quite shocked to discover that little old Comedy Central was capable of paying more than ABC, more than NBC, he`s making more than Jay, Jay`s peak of earnings, more than Dave. CARTER: Well, you know, if you think about what Jon did for Comedy Central, I mean, they had "South Park", they had other franchises. O`DONNELL: Yes. CARTER: But, boy, did he put that network on the map, and then he got Colbert. Colbert was on the show, but he turned him into a star and built another show. So, now they had an hour, four nights a week that was really strong and the demos got very strong young audiences. So that`s so valuable for that network. Basically, he was face, the signature start of that network. O`DONNELL: Yes. And, he`s -- Rachel, he`s done a great job of that executive half hour that follows, Larry Wilmore, he`s the one that said it should be Larry. He`s doing a fantastic job of building beyond just "The Daily Show." MADDOW: It takes the right amount of ego and the right amount of adulthood and maturity and equanimity to be willing to be a launching pad for everybody else`s great careers, right? I mean, to see Colbert not only be successful on "The Colbert Report" but to make the leap he`s making to CBS, to spin off with Larry, to spin off with Jon, to have launched so many other people into doing similar but its unique work I think it speaks well to him just in terms of his eye and also his maturity, his willingness to be a good guy about to share the wealth. (CROSSTALK) WINSTEAD: Can I also add? O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Lizz. WINSTEAD: The maturity to have the patience to let something develop so that you can really make pin point decisions. Know that great jokes should be thrown out, because they don`t fit in the tone of the show, and even waiting until Stephen was ready and full formed and grown. Stephen probably could have launched his show even six months before he did, but they waited until the exact right time for a seamless flow. And patience in this business is just so incredibly precious and can make all the difference in the world. I think that is just one of the greatest things that he`s done. O`DONNELL: I want to take a look at one of his more serious moments, because there certainly have been many and they`ve usually been under difficult circumstances like after 9/11. But I want to see something more recent this year, what he said after the Eric Garner decision. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: I -- I just-- I don`t know. I honestly don`t know what to say. If comedy is tragedy plus time, I need more (EXPLETIVE DELETED) time. But I would really settle for less (EXPLETIVE DELETED) tragedy, to be honest with you. You know, I think what is so utterly depressing is that none of the ambiguities that existed in the Ferguson case, exist in the Staten Island case. And yet, the outcome is exactly the same. No crime, no trial, all harm, no foul. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That`s what I love about that. I think that in his heart he felt like I don`t know what to say. Then, in fact, he did find what to say. FOUHY: Right. But he didn`t try to apply any humor or satire. And that`s why it stood out. It was a genuine moment that was absent the Jon Stewart, you know, dig that he normally gives. Another thing I was thinking watching that, even that very somber segment, but the segment before that we bumped in on was the very mature view that Jon Stewart had early on the show had to make things snackable, very oriented towards social media. These segments that could just be clipped, you don`t have to stay up until 11:00 to watch the show. You could get up the next morning, everybody is talking about it on Twitter, everybody is posting it on their Facebook. So, it lives on and on and on, the long tail of the Internet kind of brings it back around. So, yes, for a TV producer, you want everybody to watch the show when it takes place, but for this comedian, for this material, it lives on and on and on in all these different platforms, and he was doing that pretty much before anybody else was. O`DONNELL: We`re going to take a quick break and come back with more. O`DONNELL: Rachel, I could just watch Stewart clips all night. (LAUGHTER) Why don`t we. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: OK. O`DONNELL: OK, here`s -- (LAUGHTER) -- here`s the gang about 12 years on "The Daily Show." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEPHEN COLBERT, FORMER COMEDY CENTRAL HOST: Aloha, Jon. (LAUGHTER) JON STEWART, COMEDY CENTRAL HOST: Stephen, this has become a huge story overnight. But no one seems to know what these allegations are about. Have you been able to learn any of the specifics. COLBERT: It is a great story. It`s the type of story the reporter waits his entire career not to be able to report on. (LAUGHTER) Now, if you`ll excuse me. I`ve been invited to a grouse hunting party in Shropshire. It`s just a few dozen men, some stable boys, -- (LAUGHTER) -- all of us in kilts, naturally, -- (LAUGHTER) -- drinking a few yards of ale. And here`s the fun part, Jon -- whoever shoots the -- (LAUGHTER) -- whoever shoots -- (LAUGHTER) -- whoever shoots the fewer grouse has to go through the spanking machine. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: Stephen, I have to tell you, that story, or what I heard of it, all sounds pretty gay. (LAUGHTER) COLBERT: Not gay, Jon. Aristocratic. It`s a different culture than ours. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Oh, Rachel, what I love about that is there`s Stephen Colbert, who then proves himself, years later, to be the most perfect in- character player you could ever have, who never cracks ever about anything. MADDOW: Yes. O`DONNELL: And he can`t hold it together. MADDOW: And when he can`t hold it together, Stewart just like, "Oh, you`re setting yourself on fire?" O`DONNELL: Yes. MADDOW: "Allow me to hold the fire trucks back." O`DONNELL: Yes. MADDOW: He just lets him go, like, "I`m not going to say anything. I`m not going to rescue you. You go." And that`s one of those clips where I -- where, just like -- you know what, the under -- the underappreciated factor here is the live audience. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. MADDOW: You know what I mean. No matter how -- no matter how funny anybody else is in news, nobody else has a live audience -- (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Yes. MADDOW: -- like these guys in Comedy Central. And it matters so much because they become this, basically, fourth wall, right. So that, you know, that what you think is funny actually is funny. It gives you permission to laugh. But it also gives them away to play so many more of their talents than they would otherwise, by using it just talking to a teleprompter. And it`s so -- it`s so effective. It`s such a -- O`DONNELL: Kevin, there`s a way in which that live audience -- they`re kind of like your co-writers. You write the material, -- KEVIN AVERY, ACTOR AND WRITER FOR HBO`S "LAST WEEK TONIGHT": Yes. O`DONNELL: -- and then they kind of make a declaration about how important that line was as you move on. AVERY: Yes. I mean, they`ll tell you right on -- you know, on the spot, "Hey, we want you to do a little bit more of this, a little bit more" -- O`DONNELL: Yes, yes. (LAUGHTER) AVERY: And also, there`s something, too, about watching Colbert break like that, because there`s a guy who -- he`s constantly in character, he`s constantly being that guy. And then, to see him lose it like that, the audience -- it`s weird because Jon is just being straightforward. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) He`s being Jon. But, every once in a while, it`s fun for the audience to see Stephen just be real, -- MADDOW: Uh-hmm. AVERY: -- be super honest, you know. That was the fun thing about watching those guys. O`DONNELL: And, Beth, the -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- the thing that Jon Stewart kept doing time and time again in our politics was just finding that thing -- in a candidate or that -- maybe we were on the verge of noticing but hadn`t quite noticed yet. And then that became the comedy hook that everybody was using into that candidate. BETH FOUNY, MSNBC SENIOR EDITOR: Yes. And that sort of relates to what I was saying before, that how everything became so snackable and cheerable. And what everybody would send around was like, "Jon Stewart perfectly skewered" -- O`DONNELL: Yes. FOUHY: -- fill in the blanks -- O`DONNELL: Yes. FOUHY: -- John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- Michele Bachmann. Everybody was saying pretty much what we were saying before. It`s like, "Damn, why didn`t I think of that." He always thought of it first. He said it brilliantly. Everybody shared it. Everybody said, "This is what -- this is what I was thinking but I couldn`t figure out how to say it." He said it. MADDOW: Case in point, Lindsey Graham, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- attempting to run for president this year. One of the main reasons Lindsey Graham can`t seriously run for president is because everybody under the age of 40 really only knows the way Jon Stewart talks about Lindsey Graham, which is a disqualifying caricature. It just can`t -- I mean, once that is who you are, once you`re Gerald Ford, who falls down the steps, whether or not you actually did fall down the steps, once that caricature is more powerful than your actual persona, forget it. O`DONNELL: Lizz, when shows become a giant hit like this and they come to this kind of historic moment in the show, it`s always interesting to look back at all the giant mistakes that could have been made at the conception stage, including -- there`s the question of live audience. Was there ever any doubt -- was anyone ever saying, "Hey, that could be difficult. There`s a budget issue -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- with a live audience." LIZZ WINSTEAD, "THE DAILY SHOW" CO-CREATOR (via telephone): Oh. O`DONNELL: They`ve got to manage a live audience. That might be tricky. WINSTEAD: Well, let me tell you that we launched without a live audience. O`DONNELL: Oh, my God. MADDOW: Oh. WINSTEAD: And that lasted about a minute and a half. I think it -- (LAUGHTER) -- it literally lasted for, I think, three shows and it was like -- O`DONNELL: So, Lizz, were you standing offstage trying to laugh very loud so the mics could pick you up. WINSTEAD: You know, I could stand here and laugh really loud and the mics could pick me up. (LAUGHTER) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) But, yes -- I mean, it was such death right away that we scrambled and had an audience. And it made a gigantic difference. So, back to you guys` point about those guys picking out that moment or that piece -- I don`t want -- I certainly want you guys off the -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- hook slightly on that. because their job is to find that and your job is to do the news. And so, that -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- that`s where the differentiation part happens, right. It`s that they have the luxury of being able to seek all day for the foible. And then to take that foible and explore it for a story. And they do it brilliantly but, you know, it`s the luxury of being able to look through a lens that is part news, but also part -- sort of looking, scratching the underbelly and seeing who`s behind the curtain. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We`re going to take a break here. Hunter Walker, you didn`t get in this time but, when we come back, we`re going to come back with a little piece that`s going to show you how important New Jersey was to this show. (LAUGHTER) You`re going to love this. (LAUGHTER) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: We want to take a moment to focus on our president, President Bush. He was in Kennebunkport for a long weekend, trying to take his mind obviously away from the pressures of his job. He did so by playing a little golf. But, you know, the tragic events in the Middle East were impossible for him to ignore. Here`s how he addressed them. GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killings. Thank you. Now, watch this drive. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) STEWART: You were this close. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Rachel, at that time, 2002, there was no one else in any television program anywhere in America that was catching that moment that way. MADDOW: Yes. And that was -- I mean, talking about the research skills, it`s not just being able to go through lots of stuff, it`s the ability to have the acuity to watch past the sound bite, -- O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. MADDOW: -- to watch for the things just outside the frame, to recognize the absurdity where everybody else is soft of willing to take the stage instructions. This is brilliant stuff. O`DONNELL: Another quick break, and then, Hunter, I promise you, the New Jersey moment is coming up. (LAUGHTER) OK, Hunter Walker, here is the New Jersey moment. And it was -- it was not on the show. It was not on "The Daily Show." It`s my favorite Jon Stewart moment not on "The Daily Show" and I think one of his most beautiful pieces of writing. It was at the Rally to Restore Sanity in Washington, D.C. And he gave us an example of how people could get along. It was really unique and born of New Jersey life experience. Let`s watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: Look on the screen. This is where we are. This is who we are, these cars. That`s a schoolteacher who probably thinks that taxes are too high. He`s going to work. There`s another car, a woman with two small kids, can`t really think about anything else right now. There`s another car swinging. I don`t even know if you can see it. (LAUGHTER) A lady is in the NRA and loves Oprah. There`s another car, an investment banker, gay, also likes Oprah. (LAUGHTER) Another car is a Latino carpenter. Another car, a fundamentalist vacuum salesman, atheist obstetrician, Mormon Jay Z fan. (LAUGHTER) But this is us. Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong beliefs and principles they hold dear, often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers. And yet, these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile-long, 30-foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river, -- (LAUGHTER) -- carved by people, by the way, who, I`m sure, had their differences. (LAUGHTER) And they do it, concession by concession. You go, then I`ll go. You go, then I`ll go. You go, then I`ll go. Oh, my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car. Is that an Obama sticker on your car. Oh, that`s OK. You go, and then I`ll go. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Hunter, the "You go, then I`ll go," it was a New Jersey poetry. And there were shots. I was watching it on C-SPAN that day, and the monitors were up. And he kept the video of the cars. You can watch the cars making that decision every time he said, "You go, then I`ll go." It was really, really beautiful. And, Kevin, you`ll like this. I spoke to a "Daily Show" writer friend that I knew after that. I complimented him on that. And he said to me, "That was all Jon. Jon wrote that." HUNTER WALKER, POLITICS EDITOR, "BUSINESS INSIDER": Well, I had so many friends that were at that rally. And I think, you know, for my generation, they`ve really had an emotional connection to Jon Stewart. And I think, one thing that we haven`t really touched on yet today is that we saw this new media revolution in sort of the middle part of the last decade. And he really prefigured that, this so-called fake news, where he brought in his opinion, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- he brought in his personal perspective. He brought in some humor. He was doing that before the blogosphere. And, really, the other news media followed suit. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And we have -- we`re joined by Harry Enten, who -- you`ve been watching this stuff -- you know, you didn`t have to live through the decades of TV that didn`t have this kind of Jon Stewart stuff that I lived through, which is -- which is being played against constantly in these shows, whether it`s conscious or subconscious. But what`s your reaction to the big news tonight. HARRY ENTEN, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER AND ANALYST: I mean, all of my friends watch Jon Stewart. O`DONNELL: Yes. ENTEN: Forty percent of Jon Stewart`s audience are 18 to 29-year- olds. That`s amazing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) The median age for most television programs are right in their 60 percent. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. ENTEN: And, also, younger people tend to be more liberal, more democratic. Jon Stewart`s is one of the few shows on television right now, or one of the few news programs right now in which the plurality of people are liberal, identify as liberal. Most people in this country identify as conservative, or a plurality do. So, the fact of the matter is, this is much bigger news than, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- say, Brian Williams being suspended for six months. This is huge news for my generation. O`DONNELL: Beth Fouhy, but I -- do you have conservative friends. I have Republican friends who tell me about great Jon Stewart bits all the time. They watch that show and get a huge kick out of it. FOUHY: Yes. I mean, he does do a fox on all your houses. I mean, let`s face it, he does have an audience that skews more liberal. One would imagine, he`s probably fairly liberal. But the fact that he goes right after the media, he`ll make fun of the president when the president deserves to be made fun of. Let`s not forget, he was the roommate of Anthony Weiner when the Anthony Weiner scandal went down. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And he was right there in the mix of it. He said -- he would say, "Look, I know the guy. I`m friends with the guy but the guy really, you know, kind of creeps me out." I mean, he calls truth. And that`s what people like. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: David Axelrod was apparently the guest on the show tonight. Because he does so many book interviews, it`s David Axelrod`s turn. David Axelrod tweeted -- TEXT: "Just had the honor of being the Great Jon Stewart`s guest on "The Daily Show," where he announced he`s leaving. Emotional night." Kevin, I can imagine what an emotional night it is over there after that kind of run. And there are still -- they`ve got, maybe six months to go. He said, "I`m going to leave later this year," so that`s several months. How do you think will change the working atmosphere there, knowing this is going to end. AVERY: I mean, you know, I would imagine it`s going to slowly hit -- the reality of it is it`s going to slowly hit people, hit the writers, hit the production staff. But I also think it`s going to make people -- you know, these guys are going to -- want to sort of crank out the best shows that they can on the last -- you know, in these last sort of months that they have Jon Stewart with them. I would imagine -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- it would really kind of galvanize and really energize the staff and make them, you know, "Hey, let`s -- better, funnier show. Let`s just keep doing what we`re doing." Because it`s going to -- when it`s gone, it`s going to be, you know, it`s just going to be weird. It`s going to be -- I`m a writer. I want to write the best that I`ve ever written for him. O`DONNELL: Yes, I would think so. (END VIDEO CLIP) Within seconds of this being announced, there was a report by a reporter on "The Hill" saying, everyone on the floor -- the House is talking about Jon Stewart leaving. We`re going to get some congressional reaction and come back quickly. We`ll be right back. Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted tonight -- TEXT: "Washington is rigged for the big guys and no person has more consistently called them out for it than Jon Stewart. Good luck, Jon." We`ll be right back with more about Jon Stewart leaving "The Daily Show." Here is Jon Stewart`s first show after 9/11 -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: Good evening, and welcome to "The Daily Show." We are back. This is our first show since the tragedy in New York City. And there`s no other way really to start the show than to ask you at home the question that we asked the audience here tonight. And that we`ve asked everybody that we know here in New York since September 11th, and that is, "Are you OK?" And we pray that you are and that your family is. They said to get back to work. And there were no jobs available for a man in the fetal position under his desk crying, -- (LAUGHTER) -- which I gladly would have taken. (LAUGHTER) We`ve had an unenduring pain here, an unendurable pain. And I just -- I wanted to tell you why I grieve. But why I don`t despair. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Kevin, I`m not sure who could have handled that better, someone who grew up in the region, living and working in New York at the time. AVERY: Yes. I mean, he was sort of a guy we are all looking to to help bring us back from that, you know. It`s like, what`s he going to say. What`s he going to do. And it`s also the mark of a great comedian who can -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- sort of be as real as that and still -- you know, and still keep his audience with him, you know, still not weird out the audience, like, "Oh, is this is going to be awkward?" You know, we`re OK with him taking a moment to be very honest and sort of open himself up like that. O`DONNELL: Lizz Winstead, the show you created is now in, what, its 17th, 18th year, "The Daily Show." And it looks like once they get that new host in place, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- maybe another 17 years. (LAUGHTER) WINSTEAD: Yes. And I think that -- I just feel really happy that -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- I could build (ph) some bones that Jon could prevalently (ph) carry to where it is. And John Oliver showed that, you know, you can -- you can put a new voice and a new host in. And with talented writers, you know, audiences, always, they`re a little uncomfortable and have to get used to a new person. But I think that the trajectory that the show took with the -- with Jon at the helm, has even opened it up to be a vehicle that, with the right person, can just carry on and create its own new chapter. And I`m actually really excited about it. O`DONNELL: Hunter Walker, this may be one of -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- those moments where we thought we knew how much we needed Jon Stewart and how much we`re kind of addicted to what he does. And then, he says, "I`m leaving." And, oh, boy. It`s worse than I thought. WALKER: Well, I definitely think we haven`t seen the last of him. I mean, he just -- O`DONNELL: Oh, no. WALKER: -- he just did a movie. There`s something else in the works. But, I think, the big question I have right now, you know, Colbert set the bar really -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- high with his finale. He had this like supernova -- O`DONNELL: Oh, right, there`s a finale coming. WALKER: Yes. What is Jon Stewart going to do to -- O`DONNELL: That`s the perfect note to end on. Thank you very much to the whole gang here -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- Beth Fouhy, Lizz Winstead on the phone. Harry Enten, thanks for coming in. Kevin Avery, thank you, Hunter Walker. That`s it. Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 11, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021001cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 48 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 11, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 11, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Julia Boorstin GUESTS: Lawrence Korb, Bill Carter, Lizz Winstead, Dave Marciano, Paul Herbert, Michio Kaku SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7664 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama asked Congress to authorize military force against ISIS, laying out a detailed plan to degrade and destroy the terrorist group. NBC suspended "Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams for six-month without pay. Meanwhile famed satirist Jon Stewart announces his upcoming departure from "The Daily Show". The House passed a bill to begin construction on the Keystone XL pipeline. One of the most prized possession in the sea, blue fin tuna, requires following strict fishing regulations to keep the population alive. Big scandal in the Little League of baseball after the champions were stripped of their title, while Brett Favre lobbies to move his Packers` Hall of Fame Ceremony inside Lambeau Field. SpaceX launch in Cape Canaveral lift-off for Falcon 9. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven. SCHULTZ: Tonight, authorizing action against ISIS. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: The president`s point is that he wants to dismantle and destroy ISIS. OBAMA: I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the thoughtful and dignified debate that this moment demands. BOEHNER: I haven`t seen the strategy yet that I think will accomplish that. OBAMA: This resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. SCHULTZ: And later, interrupting your regularly scheduled programming. BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: I want to apologize. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Brian Williams has been suspended without pay for six months. LESTER HOLT, ANCHOR, NBC`S TODAY SHOW: Brian told us, it`s clear he`s becoming too much a part of the news. NORAH O`DONNELL, CBS THIS MORNING CO-ANCHOR: Jon Stewart dropped a bomb shell. JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW HOST: I am a terrible employee. O`DONNELL: Stewart announced, he will step down later this year. STEWART: It is time for someone else to have that opportunity and -- no, no, no, no, no. SCHULTZ: Plus, fly me to the moon. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We started thinking about living somewhere else. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our next destination on this journey is the moon. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To extend the commercial sphere to the moon. SCHULTZ: A new era of space travel sets imaginations and big business souring. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching. President Obama is officially asking Congress to authorize military force against ISIS. If approved, it will be the first time in 13 years Congress has authorized military use of force. Just moments ago, President Obama laid out the details of his proposal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Today, my administration submitted a draft resolution to Congress to authorize the use of force against ISIL. This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL. It supports the comprehensive strategy that we`ve been pursuing with our allies and our partners, a systemic and sustained campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Support and training for local forces on the ground, including the moderate Syrian opposition. Preventing ISIL attacks in the region and beyond, including by foreign terrorist fighters who try to threaten our countries. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The authorization also strengthens the Iraqi government and provides humanitarian assistance to the region. The President`s legislation would repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization. It will leave in place though the 2001 authorization to fight al-Qaeda and its affiliates. President Obama`s proposal was sent to Congress shortly after the death of American hostage Kayla Mueller, the draft specifically mentioned Mueller and three other American hostages killed by ISIS. The President`s request is far more measured than George W. Bush`s 2002 Iraqi war authorization. The 2002 authorization was broad, open-ended and never expired. The main measure of the new authorization is to limit the use of ground troops against ISIS. President Obama made this clear earlier today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The resolution we`ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. The 2,600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases. And yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment. But they do not have a combat mission. The United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East. That`s not in our national security interest and it`s not necessary for us to defeat ISIL. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The authorization specifically says ground troops cannot be used in, "enduring offensive ground combat operations." It`s carefully worded ground troops can still be used in other operations like rescue mission, intelligence collection and special ops forces can be used against ISIS leaders. Another big change is the hard time table. The authorization to fight ISIS will run out in three years. The President will be required to give an update to Congress ever six months. This authorization will no doubt limit the next President`s ability to wage a ground war against ISIS but the President could always go back to Congress for a new authorization. Meanwhile, Republicans are already crying foul. Jon Boehner, Speaker of the House said this about the defense authorization earlier today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: I believe that if we`re going to authorize the use of military force, the President should have all the tools necessary to win the fight that we`re in. And so as you`ve heard me say over the last number of months, I`m not sure that the strategy that`s been outlined will accomplish the mission the President says he wants to accomplish. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: It could be the first time even John Boehner wants to give President Obama more power. On Tuesday, Senator John McCain said that he would support a new authorization if it places no restrictions on troop movements. At this hour, senators Corker of Tennessee and McCain are leading a discussion with lawmakers on the President`s proposal. There`s actually some conversation in Republican circles that some won`t support this. This is rather ironic. Back in 2002, if the Democrats had not supported the President they would have been called anti-American. Don`t support the troops on a pre-9/11 war footing, come on. The President has a strategy. The Congress needs to support it until there`s another commander-in-chief or let the debate begin. The righties want more war, more troops, what`s their plan other than to criticize the President? It seems to me that this vote is long overdue and it clears the beach and closes any political loophole that might be out there to make sure that this country if focused and on the same page going after ISIS. Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Is President Obama doing the right thing by asking Congress for a force authorization?" Text A for yes, text B for no to 67622, you can leave a comment on our blog at ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring you the results of the poll later on in the show. For more on this discussion tonight let`s go to Lawrence Korb. He is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Mr. Korb, good to have you with us tonight. LAWRENCE KORB, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Nice to be with you. SCHULTZ: Is this is a strategy? Is this clearly focused? KORB: Well, I think it is and that`s why it`s interesting as you mentioned Speaker Boehner doesn`t like because he doesn`t like the strategy, he wants to say a different one. The one thing I wish he would have done was repeal the 2001 authorization of military force because that`s open-ended. He can use it or successors can use it to, you know, really broaden the conflict and pretty much to anything they want. SCHULTZ: So, the deployment of troops, I understand this that the President would have to go back to Congress if he wants to deploy troops in a combat mission in Iraq and Syria against ISIS? KORB: According to this he would. In other words, if they wants to send like 150,000 troops to Iraq like we did back in 2003, yes he would. But there again, if the Republicans get their way he wouldn`t because that would place no limits on what he can do. Both Speaker Boehner and Senator McCain don`t want to place any limits. SCHULTZ: So Mr. Korb, what`s different? What makes yesterday`s operation different from tomorrows? KORB: Well, I think basically what the President is trying to say is, yes, he wants to fight ISIL but it`s going to be a limited engagement and if you want to have massive ground forces like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. They`re not going to come from the United States, they`re going to have to come from the countries in the region because of under (ph) the final analysis it`s really their struggle. SCHULTZ: Your impressions of what we`re hearing from conservatives that this doesn`t go far enough and they don`t want to limit any ground troops or any kind of movement. KORB: Well, again, they want a different strategy but the fact of the matter is, they`re not the commander-in-chief, they don`t control the White House. And they can approve or disapprove but if they put in the language that they want, basically we`re back to where we are with the 2001 AUMF when you say, well you don`t want to restrict the President`s hand and I thought it was ironic when you mention, there`s Boehner who is always complaining about, you know, Obama over stepping and, you know, being imperial President. He doesn`t want to put any restrictions on. And I think what they want is, if it doesn`t go well they can say, well, we said you should have, you know, had more authority rather than, you know, voting on the President`s strategy. SCHULTZ: So why do you think the President is doing this now? And is it important to get the Republicans on record here? KORB: Well, I think it is because when we go to war which we are I think it`s important for the American people to be involved through their elective representatives and I would -- it would be great if we had a great debate about this, what can the President do, how many forces do we have, I would, you know, I, you know, I looked at the thing that President said, I wish there were some geographic limits on it. You know, where do we, you know, where do we stop and then back to this language about associated groups, well, where is that start? I mean, you and I can, you know, say, we`re going to start our own version of... SCHULTZ: Yeah. KORB: ... ISIL and so I think those -- I hope that those come out in the debate. SCHULTZ: Do you think the executions of American hostages have had anything to do with this... KORB: Well, I think... SCHULTZ: ... or would have this happen anyway? KORB: You know, I think, well, I mean, I think the execution has gotten the American people to support it. Because back in August when we first went in there to rescue the Yazidis on Mount Sinjar, the American people said, not Iraq again, we don`t want to do that. But when they saw how horrible these people are by beheading the two Americans and now, however, they killed this poor young lady from Arizona. I think they`re going to want military action but not a big ground war. SCHULTZ: Well, we really don`t know if we`re making a lot of progress, do we? KORB: No, we... SCHULTZ: We don`t hear a whole lot of chest pounding on what we`re doing to ISIS, the strikes continue but they don`t seem to be hindered too much in the way they`re moving or the way they`re acting. KORB: Well, I think we are making progress but it`s not going to be done overnight. And I disagree with the President where he says, you know, degrade and defeat. We can degrade them but to defeat them you have to undermine their narrative. And what they did to that Jordanian pilot by burning him alive, I think is going to send a signal to folks... SCHULTZ: Yeah. KORB: ... on that part of that world who might want to join them that this is not the future of Islam. SCHULTZ: So does the President really believe that this is the way to go to defeat ISIS? Or is he just making sure that we don`t make another mistake and put ground troops? I mean, if we put ground troops in combat position and did combat operations, obviously, I think conventional wisdom is we`d be a heck of a lot more successful than what we`re doing right now. KORN: Yeah, but... SCHULTZ: So do you think -- or Am I wrong on that? That`s an opinion point but I mean that that`s the argument that`s going to come from conservatives that we`d get the job done a hell of a lot faster if we had troops on the ground getting after these folks. We can only do limited things with airstrikes in special ops. So the question is, is the President doing this because he really believes this is the proper strategy or is he doing it because he know Americans really, right now, don`t have an appetite for ground troops? KORB: Well, it`s the proper strategy for two reasons. Number one, the Iraqis don`t want us to send ground troops again. It`s kind of, we`ve been there and done that. And then, the other is at some point, you got to leave and if those countries are not willing to fight and die for their own or their soldiers are not willing to fight and die for their country, it will happen again. So I think it`s so important we got to get the Iraqi military ready because eventually we`re going to leave. And the same way in Syria, you`re going to have to have an army in there that`s against Assad and against ISIS if you ever want to bring this to a conclusion. But it`s not going to happen overnight because of the fact that this is an ideology that keeps attracting unfortunately people from around the world to go there. SCHULTZ: All right. Lawrence Korb, great to have you on the Ed Show. I appreciate your time tonight -- your expertise on this. Thank you. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us on Facebook and thanks for that. Coming up. The changing media landscape, we`ll be joined by the co-creator of "The Daily Show" and one of the top media minds in the country. Plus, the Keystone bill is expected at the head of the President`s desk tonight. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. News of two major media shake-ups broke Tuesday night. The earth was almost shaking. NBC National Correspondent Peter Alexander has our first story. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PETER ALEXANDER, NBC NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Brian Williams has been suspended without pay for six months. He`s both anchor and managing editor of NBC`s Nightly News, the role he`s held since 2004. NBC News President Deborah Turness announced the suspension late Tuesday saying Williams misrepresented events regarding an incident that occur during his coverage of the Iraq War in 2003. She called that wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian`s position. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: In addition to the suspension, NBC News says its internal review is ongoing. NBC News President Deborah Turness also confirmed Lester Holt will continue to substitute anchor, the NBC Nightly News. Next up. After 16 years manning the desk at the Daily Show, host Jon Stewart announced that he will be stepping down. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: It`s been an absolute privilege. It`s been the honor of my professional life. And I thank you for watching it, for hate watching it, whatever reason you are tuning in for. It -- you get in this business with the idea that maybe you have a point of view and something to express. And to receive feedback from that is the greatest feeling you can ask for. And I thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Stewart will remain at the helm of the Nightly Show until later this year. Comedy Central released a statement thanking Stewart for the better part of the last two decades writing, "He will always be a part of the Comedy Central family." Joining me tonight, Bill Carter, National Media Reporter, also with us Comedian and co-creator of the Daily Show Lizz Winstead. Great to have both of you with us tonight on these two big stories. First, let`s talk about Jon Stewart. Bill, what was your reaction when you heard this? BILL CARTER, NATIONAL MEDIA REPORTER: Well, you know, I wasn`t totally shocked because I think Jon has been laying out sort of the possibility for quite a while. And, you know, I think it`s unusual only in the sense that, you know, late night is usually like the end of someone`s career. They start and they finished doing that because there`s nothing else you can do after late night and I think it`s exciting that he`s doing something new. But, I also think that the format brilliantly created here by our other guest is really a great format. So it`s not like only Jon Stewart can do it. SCHULTZ: Lizz, did you have any idea that Stewart would be as impactful as he has been? LIZZ WINSTEAD, CO-CREATOR, THE DAILY SHOW: You know, you never -- if I were to say yes, you should tell (ph) at the show because (inaudible) great. But I think knowing Jon and knowing that he has been a voracious consumer of information and news and always made it fun since I`ve known the guy since 1990. I knew that he would be able to take the framework that I have setup and make it his own. And I think the thing that he did that`s astoundingly wonderful for the franchise is that he worked as hard on his own material as he did on shaping the correspondents, shaping the material so that -- he was preparing the show for a legacy as much as he was preparing himself to leave. And I think that`s really impressive. SCHULTZ: So, will there be another Jon Stewart? I mean, I used to watch Johnny Carson thinking, gosh, nobody is ever going to be doing late night again. Well, you know, people are replaceable. WINSTEAD: You know, I don`t think you want another Jon Stewart... CARTER: No. WINSTEAD: ... I think he want Jon Stewart to go take Jon Stewart to the next... CARTER: Yeah. WINSTEAD: ... level. And I think what you want to do is -- he gave us John Oliver and we want John Oliver sit in that chair and seamlessly do a John Oliver version until... CARTER: Yeah, exactly. And, Lizz, -- and he created Stephen Colbert. I think people can bring their own... WINSTEAD: Yeah. CARTER: ... talents to the show, that`s what will happen. SCHULTZ: Did you ever expect, Bill Carter, that people would view Jon Stewart as a news guy. And there are people that think well, I mean, he`s not B.S. at all I`m going to get straight from him and there`s going to be attempt to comedy to the whole thing. CARTER: Well, especially young viewers who don`t really watch a lot of news shows. They`ve turn to him and he gave them information along with the comedy. But he also had a point of view so he -- to me he was the best editorial page cartoonist that we have now. That`s what he was doing. SCHULTZ: Do you think he was surprise by that? The way it evolve and the way he was viewed by people as a news source by millennial. WINSTEAD: Yeah. Because I think that, Jon is not being dishonest when he says, we`re a comedy show first... CARTER: Yes, exactly. WINSTEAD: ... he`s really believes that... CARTER: Yes. WINSTEAD: ... and he really is that. And so, the things that people put upon him is not his, that`s not of his making. He does what he does, he can -- he brilliantly exposes hypocrisy through humor. And if people are putting that much pressure on Jon Stewart to be the news man, it says more about the news that it does about Jon Stewart. CARTER: He comes at -- from a comic sensibility. He will say I`m a comedian always. WINSTEAD: Always. CARTER: And I have to press his more (ph) because I would say, what you`re doing is a formal journalism. And he said, no it`s not, I`m a comedian. Yet, he would occasionally do interviews that were truly news making. WINSTEAD: Yeah. CARTER: Really, really true and, boy, if you get on the wrong side of him you didn`t want to be, you know, screwed when he could screw you. So he had journalism chats (ph) for sure. SCHULTZ: Was that part of the whole genre? I mean, that he could, you know, do things that other information or info team and people couldn`t do and yet he could come through with the hard question and really make you looks stupid at times. CARTER: Absolutely. SCHULTZ: I mean, that no one really broke through in that way did they? CARTER: Well, I think Jon brought an absolutely unique take on this whole idea of what you can do with news on television, I do. But I think it was also -- it was real information. You could find -- I found out things on that show all the time. You know, the other thing here were fantastic at research. WINSTEAD: Yeah. CARTER: They would find a clip of somebody saying something that you couldn`t believe -- they wouldn`t believe that you could find it. They were great at that and that, that`s a form of, you know, real journalism, finding... WINSTEAD: Yeah. CARTER: ... new information like that. WINSTEAD: And what you want to do with your new host is make sure that you have somebody who has such a voracious curiosity for information, somebody I hope the person that they choice comes to the party with that, because when you`re in a room and you`re looking for that colonel. It`s important that every single... CARTER: Yeah. WINSTEAD: ... person has a bit of, look there I remember that guy, I remember that story, you know, you really want that. SCHULTZ: So in creating this, Lizz, did you think that there would be a real appetite for this? Did you think that it would evolve into the machine that it is? WINSTEAD: Well... SCHULTZ: I mean, how did you envision this show when it`s started and when you`re creating it and to where it is today? WINSTEAD: Well, in the creating of it, part of it was -- I had been really watching the media with the first Gulf War and watching -- you forget it was a different media landscape back then. There was only one cable channel. The Evening, I think there was like 20 like news magazines... CARTER: Right. WINSTEAD: ... that we`re doing all that kind of scary, your mattress, what you don`t know might kill you. And then a lot of local that believes these (ph) kind of stories. So our format was based on the existing media that was. And so, we really satirize local news, and news magazines and the format that way. I think that -- I don`t think that I`ve ever though that there would be three cable channels in the course... CARTER: Right. WINSTEAD: ... of the same year we launched. And that we would be looking at so much horrible ways to fill time. You know, like the -- like, you know, going in -- the poop cruise for, you know, 24 hours. I mean, that kind of stuff was really the bread and butter. But, you know, you put Jon at helm and then he followed the trajectory of the media so brilliantly that -- and then added his spin. I just don`t know how you -- I just literally don`t know how you find that person who was dedicated, so spot on and also like -- can make -- as the confidence to make the right choices, to get the show up every night like it`s not just a funny person. It`s a person who has a whole bunch of... CARTER: Yeah. WINSTEAD: ... character traits that you need to have in place. CARTER: A real leader. Yes. WINSTEAD: A real leader. CARTER: Yes, he has to be the leader of the show. WINSTEAD: Yeah. SCHULTZ: Bill, where do you think it goes from here? CARTER: Well, I think they`re going to work very hard to find a replacement. I think Jon has timed this in a way that whoever comes in will get full crack at the next presidential election... WINSTEAD: Yes. CARTER: ... which a smart move. There`s always news to satirize in that format and I think -- they`re going to really throw everything they have because this is the franchise for the Comedy Central network. Now, it is -- I mean South Park is a great show and was actually on before, I think your show was it or? WINSTEAD: Uh-uh. CARTER? No? WINSTEAD: No. CARTER: But it has partly given them identity. But that`s on -- one night a week. This is four nights a week with a signature star. It`s the franchise for this network. SCHULTZ: You think he wore out? You think he just got tired doing it? CARTER: I don`t think he got tired because you could still see he was brilliant. But I do think he`s a guy with a lot of imagination and maybe - - you know what he said. He said on air, he said he was restless. That`s what it came down to. He was restless. SCHULTZ: So he is -- I could interpret that as he thinks he`s probably done everything he can do on that show and it`s time to move on. WINSTEAD: I think he would like switch up in his hours too. I think he really want to spend some time... CARTER: Yeah. WINSTEAD: ... with his kids and his wife. I mean, it`s like I always say, you know, you get on the show like that and if you`re not in a relationship when you get into the show, you`re never going to get to have sex again, you`re never going to get eat at a normal hour, you`re going to be drinking booze at 8:00 in the morning. Like everything is... CARTER: It does consume your life. WINSTEAD: ... off the chart. SCHULTZ: Lizz Winstead and Bill Carter, great to have both of you with us tonight. Thank so much. WINSTEAD: Yup. SCHULTZ: Coming up. The Keystone XL Pipeline Bill is on its way to the President desk. Plus, the boiling point on overfishing, the guys from the hit reality show, "Wicked Tuna." Now, OK, I fish we`re going to have compare notes here. They`re concerned about the growing environmental threat to our oceans. That`s all coming up stay with us. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Breaking News from Capitol Hill, the Republican control House has just passed a bill to approve construction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The vote was 270 to 152, 29 Democrats voted for the bill. Once again wasting time and taxpayer money by voting for a bill President Obama has vowed to be veto. GOP law makers are trying to portray the expected veto as an example of President Obama`s obstructing bipartisan job creation. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: Keystone has been reviewed and approved numerous times. Even our President`s own state department we`ll say it creates 42,000 new jobs. But instead of listening to the people, the President is standing with a bunch of left-fringe extremist and anarchist. The President needs to listen to the American people and say, yes. Let`s build the Keystone pipeline. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So, if you`re concern about climate change you`re an anarchist, interesting. Republicans are wrong. The Keystone XL pipeline would not create thousands of permanent jobs. They would be temporary. It`s become political theater and really a waste of time. Republicans want to prevent President Obama for making any progress. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing examining the Obama administration`s plan to curb heat trapping carbon dioxide from power plants. The initiative is the corner zone of the President`s effort to curb global warming. The House is expected to unveil a larger energy bill next week. There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. JULIA BOORSTIN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: My Julia Boorstin with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stock closing flat after tough day (ph) of trading. The Dow losing 6 points, the S&P ending flat and the NASDAQ breaking out with the 13 point gain. Some breaking after the closing bell today, shipping lines are planning a 40-day shutdown of U.S. West Coast ports amidst stalled negotiations with the dockworkers union. And Netflix is blaming a technical glitch after its "House of Cards" Season 3 was briefly in posted online. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. One of those popular shows on television is "Wicked Tuna." And if you love the fish the way I do, just let`s cut to the chase. These guys are living their dream, they ain`t working. CAPTAIN DAVE MARCIANO, COMMERCIAL TUNA FISHERMAN: That`s right. SCHULTZ: I got to tell you bluefin tuna and some of those beautiful fish in the world, very powerful. In the ocean they can reach up to 13 feet in length and weigh over 2,000 pounds. Now, these fish put up a fabulous fight and they can dive 4,000 feet. I mean you better have a lot of line here folks. Now, the bluefin tuna is really, really priced for its high quality meat. It`s mainly used in sushi and 80 percent of the bluefin is consumed in Japan. They are so popular they demand really a high price at the market, absurd number actually. In January, the first bluefin of the year sold for $37,000. The 380-pound fish went for $98 a pound. Now demand has caused tuna populations around the world to plummet somewhat. Now last year, NOAA said the Pacific bluefin population was estimated at just 40,000 adult worldwide. It`s just 4 percent of the fish`s historic average. In the Atlantic, strict fishing quotas have caused populations to rise in recent years. In 1998, the bluefin population was one-fifth of the 1970`s level. Today, it`s one-half of the 1970`s level. Our next guests know all about sustainable tuna fishing. They follow the rules and they know how to really do what has to be done on deck to land that big fish. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kick the bow. Kick the bow. Keep going. Keep going. A little more. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, get ready this maybe it, once I come around on him again. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s right there. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pull her up (inaudible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, how did that feel? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. He is a round one. That is a round fish. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can see that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don`t have him yet. We have to get a tail strap on him. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get it over. Get it over there. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, good job, Jay (ph). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh yeah. Nice hook, Joe (ph). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a 500-pound fish. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And that is what the Ed Show should look like. Let me bring up Captain Dave Marciano and also Captain Paul Hebert. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. MARCIANO: Thanks for having us. CAPTAIN PAUL HEBERT, COMMERCIAL TUNA FISHERMAN: Thanks for having us. SCHULTZ: You are the stewards of the resource. Tell me about tuna fishing, Dave, on the East Coast. Is it coming back? MARCIANO: Oh absolutely, it`s coming back. You know, the trick with fisheries management a lot of it is trial and error. You know, fishermen - - the scientists tell us the problem, fishermen work with scientists to try and create rules that will allow the stock to rebuild while we can make a living fishing too. Because it`s important, you know, to be able to do both, what`s good for fishermen and the fish. Now, it`s taken some time just like it took time to deplete the resource but over the past 20 years, we`ve seen some great rebuilding and specially the last decade or so... HEBERT: Big and wide (ph). MARCIANO: ... we have see -- right, greater numbers every season and that`s because, you know, U.S. fishermen have really been leaders in the world when it comes to sustainable fishing practices. SCHULTZ: Do those all -- do those folks making the rules pay attention to you guys? HEBERT: Well, they`re going to have to because the stocks have been coming back. We`ve been doing really good. This year we saw more fish that we`ve seen in 10 years. SCHULTZ: Did you think that show is going to be this popular? HEBERT: No. MARCIANO: Never. SCHULTZ: No. HEBERT: We didn`t know. We would -- we all... SCHULTZ: Well, you got to be kidding. You got to be giggling every time you see it. HEBERT: And has opened doors, they have no idea when they approach us with it. MARCIANO: Right. HEBERT: You know like, what do we going to do with this guys? MARCIANO: You know, we have three -- like you said or like I see all the time, we just ride the wave while it last, it`s something... HEBERT: We`re very lucky. MARCIANO: ... we never planned on and it certainly helped us out in making that livelihood from fishing. And the part I really like about it is find the, you know, we`ve been able to put a face on fishermen. You know what mean? Because a lot of times, there`s opinions about fishing and, you know, sometimes they`re not, you know, very kind the way they portray fishermen. At least for this part of what we`re doing, working with National Geographic. You know, we feel it really good about being able to put a face in the fishing industry. HEBERT: There`s been a lot of speculation about, when you say tuna fishing, people think of -- that`s, we catch one fish, one hook one at a time and that`s how we catch our fish. SCHULTZ: And the last fish that you caught is just as exciting as the first one you ever have? MARCIANO: Absolutely, yes. Absolutely, yes. HEBERT: And I`m trying to remember the first one we do, right... MARCIANO: Yes, yes. SCHULTZ: That`s the hook, yeah. HEBERT: I remember, yeah... MARCIANO: I remember, when these were knocking -- when we hooked the first one when I was fishing on a Jennie Vee (ph) with Billy Brown. HEBERT: See, you`d never forget. SCHULTZ: There`s no rush in the world like that. HEBERT: No. SCHULTZ: There really isn`t and... HEBERT: It`s the biggest adrenaline rush, plus the money is not bad either. SCHULTZ: OK. What`s it like when you`re out there and things are, it`s a little slow today and we got -- we`re up against the clock. We got to get thing going. What`s that like? HEBERT: We live by it. I mean, we`ve had good years, we`ve had bad years. We do it for a living, this is our income. We know what has to be done and we know we have to hang in that. We`ve gone a month without a fish, without a hooked up. We`ve all gone through it. SCHULTZ: That`s tough. HEBERT: Oh, it`s really tough. SCHULTZ: That`s a pressure. MARCIANO: The classic with the fishing industry, you know -- it`s either feast or famine, you know, so always... HEBERT: That`s how it is. MARCIANO: ... have to remember when fishing is good, you put some away for when the fishing isn`t good, right? We`ve had to live with that especially... HEBERT: Yeah. MARCIANO: ... with a family and bills to pay. You know, and it`s inherits in the fishing industry whether its bluefin tuna or any other fisherman that are out there. SCHULTZ: If regulations had not put in place at the time they were, what would have happen? MARCIANO: I think you would have faced a stock collapse. HEBERT: Absolutely. MARCIANO: Now, keep in mind when we say stock collapse the definition of that -- of a stock collapsing is they no longer become commercially viable to target. So they`re not extinct, they`re not gone forever, they`re not wiped off the face in the planet but there`s not enough fish for guys to target and make money. Now this is a key difference though, because in my opinion successful fisheries management. It is a fishermen being part of the solution not part of the problem as well I like to think of myself as. And ,you know, it`s important to say, all right, how do we rebuild the stock, how do we get to those ever increasing abundances of fish while allowing fishermen like me to make a living even in reduced manner. You know what I mean? So no, we`re not fishing... HEBERT: As in Canada has been setting rules. MARCIANO: ... extremely as we could 25 years ago but at least we`re fishing somewhat and now we`re seeing, you know, the benefits of that results. We`re seeing the stock increase. So hopefully in the future, we`ll be able to fish more as the stock gets healthier and healthier. And just this year they increased the U.S. quota. ICCAT increased the U.S. portion of quota by 20 percent overall for United States just based on the health of the resource itself. HEBERT: And what is that tell you? That tells you the stocks scientifically are getting better. SCHULTZ: What kind of response you get from fans around the country? They love the show (inaudible)... HEBERT: Oh, yeah. Everyone loves the show, a lot of people love the show. SCHULTZ: All right. Is it water temperature? Is it moon faces? Is it structure... HEBERT: It`s everybody. SCHULTZ: ... Is it structure... MARCIANO: Yeah. SCHULTZ: Is it chasing bait-fish? What is it? MARCIANO: I mean, it`s bait, it`s the moon, right? HEBERT: Everything has a factor on this fishery. MARCIANO: Ultimately, you know, I`d figured out that with this bluefin tuna in particular, as soon as I think I know what they`re doing... HEBERT: Yeah, that`s (inaudible). MARCIANO: ... what when I`m going to stop catching fish... HEBERT: Every time you think you`re into something and you`ve figured something out, that`s out the window. SCHULTZ: OK. Now, what`s the biggest fish you guys have caught? HEBERT: I got a 1,287. That`s a big one... SCHULTZ: That`s 1,287. MARCIANO: I was about 1,200. SCHULTZ: OK. Wrong Lake in Manitoba, I could do a 25-pound Northern Pike but I can`t do any 1,200 pounds guys... MARCIANO: Now, look, I can tell you... SCHULTZ: I just can`t do that. MARCIANO: I never caught a 25-pound Northern Pike, all right? And I would be happy to do so. That`s why we`re fortunate. SCHULTZ: OK. You`ve got the invitation. But you know what? I can tell you exactly where those fish are going to be... HEBERT: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... depending on the conditions... MARCIANO: Right. SCHULTZ: ... time of the year and also water temperature all that stuff... HEBERT: We also have that setup. We know where we fish, we know where we fish, we know where they`re going to be, what time they`re going to be coming by. SCHULTZ: Yeah. MARCIANO: To a point but remember, with this -- unlike the lake, right, these fish are HMS species, highly migratory species. We know through tagging studies that this giant bluefin can travel 800 miles in a 24-hour period if they are inclined to do so. SCHULTZ: What`s the biggest threat to them? MARCIANO: Killer whales. Actually -- well, you need overall... SCHULTZ: Yeah. MARCIANO: ... stock and so. I mean, I think you know for a long -- it was overfishing, right? SCHULTZ: Yeah. MARCIANO: Even in this country. HEBERT: Lot of pressure on this. MARCIANO: Now for 20 years we`ve demonstrated in this country that proper management techniques can get you good positive results. SCHULTZ: Sure. MARCIANO: And I think the rest of the world is catching on to that. And, you know, we`re seeing that around the world. People are seeing the benefit of -- if you manage fisheries sustainably you create more fish and it`s just better, you know, its good business. Look, where`s the profit for me... SCHULTZ: Yeah. MARCIANO: ... if we catch all the fish today... HEBERT: Everybody`s going to buy... MARCIANO: ... how I going to make to pay check tomorrow. SCHULTZ: All right. HEBERT: When everyone obliged by the rules, we got -- it`s on every Sunday night, the shows on every Sunday night. MARCIANO: On the National Geographic Channel. SCHULTZ: All right. I`m going to put all of these... HEBERT: It`s Sunday night, 9:00. SCHULTZ: Sunday night, 9:00. Paul Hebert, Dave Marciano, tight lines my friends. Good luck to you. HEBERT: We plan on. MARCIANO: Thank you very much. SCHULTZ: Good luck to you. And yell at the guy on back when there`s a fish on, all right. HEBERT: Seeing all the little thing. MARCIANO: Hey. SCHULTZ: Right. Coming up, the big business of the moon. We`ll tell you about their plan to inhabit the moon -- we`re going to the moon with that tuna. That`s what we`re doing. Stick around. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Here we go. Tonight`s two-minute drill, Little League big scandal. Chicago`s Jackie Robinson West team has been stripped of its 2014 U.S. Championship Title. Little League International says the team violated residency rules by recruiting players who lived outside the area the team represents. Team manager Darrell Butler has been suspended. As a result, the title now goes to Mountain Ridge Little League from Las Vegas. Little League International CEO Stephen Keener called it a heartbreaking decisions. Up next. Pack it with Packer fans, that`s what he saying. Three-time MVP Quarterback Brett Favre, once -- his induction into the Packers Hall of Fame to be -- come on, open it to the public. As of now, the team plans all the ceremony in Lambeau Stadium`s atrium area. All 1,600 tickets to Farve`s introduction ceremony were sold to sponsors and supporters without availability to the general public. You didn`t like that. Little boy from Mississippi says, hey, wait a minute, he wants to move the celebration inside Lambeau Field saying, I think everyone should have an option to go. Finally, Charles Barkley has something to say to all of the number of crunchers (ph) out there. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHARLES BARKLEY, FORMER NBA PLAYER: Analytics don`t work at all. They`re just some crap to some people who are really smart made up to try to get in the game because they had no talent, because they had no talent to able to play... SHAQUILLE O`NEAL, FORMER NBA PLAYER: I agree with you on that, Charles. BARKLEY: ... so smart guys wanted to fit in. So they made up a term called "analytics". Analytics don`t work. All these guys who run this organization, who talk about analytics, they have one thing in common. They`re a bunch of guys who ain`t never played the game, and they never got the girls in high school, and they just want to get in the game. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tell us what you really think. Lots more coming up with the Ed Show. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, we`re just moments away from the SpaceX launch in Cape Canaveral lift-off for Falcon 9, it`s been delayed three times. The fourth attempt is scheduled at 6:03 P.M. Eastern Time this evening. In more space news, Newt Gingrich may have been on to something. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NEWT GINGRICH, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: By the end of my second term. We will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Well, a moon base could be a reality far more than a Gingrich being president. Bigelow Aerospace requested turf on the moon. The company wants to develop inflatable habitats suitable for your lunar needs. In a response, the FAA said that they want to ensure commercial activities can be conducted on a non-interference basis. They`re open to getting the ball rolling but activities on the moon are still regulated by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, space project could get cheaper though. The U.S. military is developing a plan to launch smaller grade rockets from F-15 Fighter jets, the (inaudible) program could slash millions from lunching cost and finally space projects could get smaller. The European Space Agency launched an experimental wingless shuttle this morning. The car size spacecraft already returned to earth as planned. Joining me tonight as Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Physics at the City University of New York and author of "The Future of the Mind." Great to have you with us tonight. DR. MICHIO KAKU, AUTHOR, THE FUTURE OF THE MIND: Glad to be on. SCHULTZ: Why should we go to the moon? KAKU: Well, it sounds like outer lunacy, right? However, in 2025 the Chinese will put Chinese flag on the moon. And there could be -- not exactly a gold rush but there could be renewed interest. In fact even rivalry between the great powers to see who can get some lunar real state. And Bigelow Aerospace as you pointed it out got squatters rights. Squatters rights to squat on the chuck of lunar real state, not ownership. But they have exclusive right to develop balloons on the moon, balloons that could then be use as modules for a potential lunar base. You know, if our pioneers two centuries ago had inflatable modules, we wouldn`t have log cabins, you simply push a button and boom the balloon inflates and there`s your moon base. SCHULTZ: So we really don`t know where this is going, do we? I mean there is endless possibilities and imagination here. KAKU: Well, I think people are clueless when it comes to bottom line is, what is your business plan? I mean, the moon is one gigantic rock, its rock -- very similar to that found on the planet earth because the moon came from the earth originally about 4 billion years ago. And so, why not simply mine the earth? Do you have to go to the moon in order to mines these mineral? Maybe helium three say some people, maybe some exotic chemical are found on the moon. But you really have to scratch your head to find a commercial reason for going to the moon. SCHULTZ: But do you think we`ll see a business race so to speak, to be on the cutting end edge and to be there? KAKU: Well, I think there will be a motion to repeal the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. That ban nations from claiming huge chunks of lunar real state. And I think there could be in fact a traffic jam around the moon, around 2025 as the Chinese and don`t forget the Indians, they`re not too far behind. And of course the Russian and United States begin to reclaim lunar real state. SCHULTZ: The military is developing a cheaper way to launch satellites. What does this mean for the collection of data? KAKU: Well, to send this in orbit you would have to piggyback on a gigantic space mission. Why not have a mini-stellite capability that is an airplane, a jet, for $1 million, just $1 million dollars that can send 100- pounds into orbit almost overnight. So you wouldn`t have to have all the paperwork, you wouldn`t have all the launch problems, just this send up by F-15 Fighter jets into outer space. SCHULTZ: And the ESA shuttle is reusable. How beneficial is that? KAKU: Well, reusability is the holy grail of the commercial space program. And in fact, the count down has begun as you mentioned in 30 minutes or so, we should know whether or now space history is being made with the Falcon 9. SCHULTZ: Are you confident that this is going to help us, you know, forecast storms and severity and do what it supposed to do when it comes to measuring the moisture in the ground. KAKU: Well, it was Al Gore who first envisioned the deep space climate observatory to seek between the sun and the earth to have continuous 24- hour surveillance of the planet earth. And so we are now beginning to seriously look at global warming about the effects of the entire earth with regards to it heating up. And also it`s is suppose to monitor solar flares from the sun. That`s another thing to worry about. Big solar flare could really ruin your day. It could paralyze our electric grid in a worst case scenario and send us back a hundred years in worst case scenario. SCHULTZ: Dr. Michio Kaku, I appreciate the conversation. Thanks for coming in. KAKU: Thank you. SCHULTZ: You bet. And that is the Ed show. I`m Ed Schultz. "PoliticsNation" with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021101cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 49 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 11, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS for February 11, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, David Axelrod, Milissa Rehberger GUESTS: Sen. Joe Manchin Rep. Scott Perry, Steve Clemons, Rep. Donna Edwards, Sabrina Siddiqui, Jeremy Peters SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8521 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama asks the U.S. Congress to approve what amounts to a declaration of war against the terrorists of ISIS. Is paying ransom to terrorists always wrong? Jon Stewart, for whatever reason, says he`s leaving "The Daily Show". CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: War power. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. Late today, President Obama blew the bugle. He asked the U.S. Congress to approve what amounts to a declaration of war against the terrorists of ISIS, the authorization for use of military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Will the Congress give it to him, this authorization to go to war with ISIS? Will doves have faith in the language in the war authorization that rules out, quote, "enduring offensive ground combat operations"? Will hawks say this overly ties the president`s hands? The president said he hopes to have strong bipartisan support for the war authorization against ISIS, but could the combined opposition of doves and hawks alike deny him that support? And how`s that going to look to America`s enemies? The draft language from the White House today says "The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as the president determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or its associated persons or forces." However, it also sets, as I said, some limits, according to the draft. Quote, "The authority granted does not authorize the use of United States armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations." Well, this afternoon, the president elaborated on what this authorization was not, another Iraq or Afghanistan war. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The resolution we`ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war like Afghanistan or Iraq. As I`ve said before, I`m convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East. That`s not in our national security interests and it`s not necessary for us to defeat ISIL. Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL, and that`s what they`re doing. At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Joining us right now is Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Senator Manchin, do you think the United States should be using military force to defeat ISIL? SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Oh, we`re going to have to use military force. It`s a matter of, do we use our own combat troops on the front lines and get bogged down like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not intended to, and I appreciate the president for saying he doesn`t intend for that to happen. But you know, in West Virginia, we have a little common sense and we know what the word of insanity means, the definition of insanity, and it looks like over in that part of the world, you just get bogged down. And if money or military might would have changed it, we`d have done that by now, Chris. So -- and you read the thing about the enduring offensive ground combat operations. MATTHEWS: Right. MANCHIN: What does that really mean? MATTHEWS: Well, what could it mean to you in a way that would concern you and make you perhaps vote against this resolution? MANCHIN: Well, the bottom line is, I`m not going to vote for anything that has the interpretation that we can have combat ground forces on the front line fighting someone else`s war. Now, we`re going to go after ISIL. It makes no difference. We`re going to protect America. But if we could just fast track Jordan, getting them the necessary equipment they need to fight this war, if we can get the Turks to engage, if Saudis would engage -- the Kurds are fighting and doing a heck of a job and we ought to make sure we`re getting them the equipment to do the job. The other thing is, Chris, the 2001 AUMF -- it`s still in force. I don`t really know what the reason or the purpose why we need this one if you`re not going to repeal 2001. MATTHEWS: Well, I`m just looking at the language that you just mentioned, Senator. I know you`re going to have to deal with this in a more fine way, word by word... MANCHIN: Sure. MATTHEWS: ... but one word that looks like it bothers you is "enduring," that you want to basically say let`s have no offensive ground combat operations. Wouldn`t that get to where you`re at? MANCHIN: Yes. I think from the standpoint, we do have to look at this, and if we can get it to the point that we have some comfort with that, but "enduring" right now could mean that, basically, Oh, we don`t intend for them, but we`re going to go ahead and put, if it takes 5,000, 10,000 or (ph) surge -- surge, I mean, you`re putting an awful lot of American lives on the front line again, and we`ve seen the outcome of that. I don`t wish to repeat that one. They`re not determined to fight their own ground war over there yet (INAUDIBLE) I would think Jordan and King Abdullah was very, very precise in what he was going to do, and he did it. We need to have... MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you -- yes, you know what I know, Senator, probably more from briefings, but the president says today that he needs that authorization for anything short of enduring ground combat operations because there may be an opportunity to jump in there with special forces, SEALs or whatever, and capture a whole bunch of these bad guys at once. So he wants the option play to be able to go in there, not as a big front line moving -- sweeping across the ISIS territory, but in that opportunity. He wants to have a chance to use ground forces in an opportunity situation to grab the leadership. Are you against that? MANCHIN: What I`m saying, no. I want to make sure that we stop ISIL any way we can to support, basically, the people over there who are fighting the front lines. The Iraqis are engaging. We have to use our special ops where we can to make sure that our air strikes, and you know, our -- that we`re being effective. Chris, the only thing I`m saying is that the 2001 AUMF is still in play. MATTHEWS: Yes. MANCHIN: That`s the one that Bush has used. That`s the one that President Obama has used, and a broad scope. I don`t know why they think this one here, who they`re trying to appease with it. If they were repealing 2001 and 2002, and we only had one to work on right now, that`d be a different story. So I`m going to wait and see what the language they come up with. If they`re able to change it a little bit, as you`re said, if we`re ever to have strategic strikes, get in and get out, all this could be different. But we haven`t seen that yet. MATTHEWS: I can see your argument, and certainly, your background in understanding all this and representing West Virginia. But the president is, I would say, to your left in terms of war. I think you know that. He`s a bit more dovish. You`re of a centrist mode, I think. Do you really think he`s going to turn out to be more hawkish than Joe Manchin? More hawkish. I mean, it doesn`t seem in his build (ph) to do that. MANCHIN: I don`t -- I don`t -- I would hope that would not be. I mean, I say in West Virginia, you know, we`re one of the most patriotic states in the nation, veterans per capita and people still fighting. We`re willing to go anywhere to defend this country. But again, I`ve said, ground troops in that part of the world has not solved that problem. We`ve lost 6,000 -- more than 6,000 Americans already, 55,000 have been maimed, and we`ve spent $3 trillion, Chris. MATTHEWS: OK. MANCHIN: They have got to engage over there. Now, make no mistake, if it looks that ISIL`s a threat and coming in this direction, we`ll do whatever. We`ve got... MATTHEWS: OK... MANCHIN: ... more problems right now with them coming -- basically coming back to our country, coming to the Western world. MATTHEWS: Well, here`s the hardball question. We all look -- I know you do, as well as I do -- with incredible -- what`s the right -- agony at what they`ve done to our people over there, especially the young woman, Kayla... MANCHIN: Oh, my. MATTHEWS: ... Kayla Mueller, and what they did to that poor, courageous pilot for -- for Jordan. We look at that and we want to stamp it out. We don`t want that to be on our planet with us. We don`t want to see that happen again. We want to get the people and erase them who do that. At the same time, you draw restrictions. You say, Well, let the Jordanian air force do it, let the Kurds do it, let whatever there is of the Iraqi government or army, if there is such a thing, and they`re all Shia, and maybe these sort of -- these sleeper cells on our side in the Syrian Free Army, whatever they are. But in the end, do you see any coming together of ending this war, ending this ISIS organization in the near future? Do you see it in any future? MANCHIN: Chris, first of all, my heart goes out to the families in these horrific tragedies, horrible atrocities to these people. My heart goes to out, along with every other American. But with that also, my heart goes out to over 6,000 American families that lost their loved ones trying to help that part of the world and those people in that part of the world. They`ve got to stand up and fight for themselves. They`ve got to clean up their mess. We`ve got to keep them from coming in through any way, shape or form into this country. Sleeper cells, whatever it may be, people coming back -- there are quite a few Americans engaged now. We`ve got to stop that. Europe has got a horrible problem with it. So these are the areas that we can keep them from coming in. Putting more troops on there, kind of rile them all up and ginning them up to go out and recruit and get more people fighting America -- that doesn`t seem to win that war over there. MATTHEWS: OK. A lot of thinking going into that. Thank you, so much. MANCHIN: (INAUDIBLE) MATTHEWS: I know it`s a complicated one. Thank you so much, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. MANCHIN: Thanks, Chris. Thank you. MATTHEWS: I`m joined right now by U.S. Congressman Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania. Congressman Perry, this is a tough one, but would you support the authorization for us of military force against ISIS as it`s been written today by the president? REP. SCOTT PERRY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, I don`t know if I`d support it as written, Chris, but I think -- I certainly think it`s time to update the authorization of the use of force. I don`t think they were ever meant to go into perpetuity forever, as it seems they have. So I do support an authorization of the use of force, but I have questions, and I think many Republicans and Democrats have legitimate questions. And I think the president even -- he even kind of implied that that was going to be case and we were going to have a responsible conversation about the use of force and actually make it better. So with that, that`s kind of my position at this point. MATTHEWS: Well, he seemed to build a wall on his leftward side this time, his dovish side, by telling the doves, Look, it`s not going to be an enduring combat operation. PERRY: Right. MATTHEWS: Do you have some concern on the other side, on the Republican or conservative side, that there`s not enough stretch to this thing and not enough width, bandwidth to get something done? PERRY: Yes, I think there is some question about the term "enduring." You know, what does that mean? And to some people, it means it`s a limitation. To others, it mean it could be wide open and it leaves it up to conjecture. And from my standpoint, while we`re looking at ISIS, what about Khorasan? And what about Boko Haram? And what about AQAP and all these different district (ph) groups that -- you know, today it`s ISIS, but tomorrow it`s going to be somebody else. And so is it too limiting? This is an ideology. You know, it transcends borders... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: They still have the 2001 document he`s not going to get rid of, which is pretty -- pretty inclusive, isn`t it, according to your concerns? PERRY: That`s exactly right. And quite honestly, the president already said he`s got the article 2 power. So maybe this is an unnecessary -- at all, but you know... MATTHEWS: I think that`s a good point. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I bet he`d argue that point, if he has to. PERRY: Well, I agree. I think he would argue it, and I think he`s already said it. So that, you know, I think he`s coming to the Congress for validation. And you know, listen, I think is an appropriate discussion to have, but I don`t necessarily believe that what he sent is ready for primetime, and Congress has to do its part. MATTHEWS: Well, let`s look at here -- the speaker had today -- he had to say about the president`s strategy, or lack that (ph) of, to defeat ISIS. So far, he seemed to not believe there is such a strategy. This is a good argument, and I want you to respond to what the speaker says. Let`s watch. PERRY: OK. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I believe that if we`re going to authorize the use of military force, the president should have all the tools necessary to win the fight that we`re in. And so as you`ve heard me say over the last number of months, I`m not sure that the strategy that`s been outlined will accomplish the mission that the president says he wants to accomplish. And his point, the president`s point, is that he wants to dismantle and destroy ISIS. I haven`t seen a strategy yet that I think will accomplish it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Congressman, same question I asked Senator Manchin of West Virginia. How do you connect our hatred of what these people have been doing to their prisoners over there -- burning somebody alive, a good soldier, killing one of the American women -- whatever way they did it, they killed her. And yet we`re limiting ourselves to helping their Jordanian air force, maybe helping what there is of the Iraqi army, helping the Kurds, as always, maybe having the Free Syrian Army somehow get equipped to fight and trained. But it doesn`t seem like our emotions are backed up by our actions. It doesn`t seem to be enough there. My thinking. Yours? What are yours? PERRY: My thoughts exactly. With all due respect to the speaker, I think what we see from the president is some aspirational goals, right, an objective. We want to defeat ISIS. We want to destroy ISIS. But that`s not a strategy. That`s where you want to end up, but he hasn`t laid out the points about how we get there. He hasn`t talked about the financial implications, the diplomatic implications, how we get the other nations in the neighborhood, get their soldiers, get their -- you know, get their lives engaged and involved because they have the most to lose. That`s what a strategy includes, and quite honestly, we haven`t seen that from the president on the greater issue of terrorism, of ISIS, or on Syria, which is right next door. What happens when we`re done with ISIS and we end up in Syria with Assad? What`s the plan? MATTHEWS: And you`re a military man, right? PERRY: I served in Iraq, yes, sir. MATTHEWS: I know that. That`s why I wanted you to say so. Thank you for your service, sir. Anyway... PERRY: Thank you, sir. MATTHEWS: ... United States Congressman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Coming up, the horror of what happened to American hostage Kayla Mueller raises a critical debate, and it`s a hot one. Should we pay ransom for prisoners? Should people be allowed to pay it? President Obama says there`s nothing harder than telling a parent we, the United States, will do everything possible to bring your child home short of paying ransom. Plus, David Axelrod, who was President Obama`s top strategist says there were 12 days during the 2012 presidential campaign when he was actually worried -- catch this, this is the news -- about Sarah Palin and her amazing electoral ability at the time. Axelrod`s joining us tonight with An inside look at both Obama campaigns, `08 and `12. Plus, we`re going to look ahead to `16 and some of the early stumbles by the big names in the race. And that`s happening already. The big announcement that shocked our world will have a huge impact on late-night comedy. Jon Stewart is stepping down from "The Daily Show." Boy, news out there. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with the president`s call for Congress to back military action against ISIS. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Late today, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Keystone pipeline bill. The vote was 270 to 152, with 29 Democrats joining all but one Republican in favor of the pipeline bill. The bill will now head to the White House, where President Obama is expected to veto it. We`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. President Obama in an interview with Buzzfeed talked about the anguish of talking to the parents and family members of hostages and telling them that the United States will do everything possible to secure their release except pay ransom. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My immediate reaction is heartbreak. You know, I have been in touch with Kayla`s family. She was an outstanding young woman, had a great spirit, and I think that spirit will live on. The one thing that we have held to is a policy of not paying ransoms with an organization like ISIL. And the reason is, is that once we start doing that, not only are we financing their slaughter of innocent people and strengthening their organization, but we`re actually making Americans even greater targets for future kidnappings. So you know, it`s -- it`s as tough as anything that I do, having a conversation with parents, who understandably want, by any means necessary, for their children to be safe. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: The president went on to point out that paying ransom actually makes Americans less safe. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The one thing that we have held to is a policy of not paying ransoms with an organization like ISIL. And the reason is, is that once we start doing that, not only are we financing their slaughter of innocent people and strengthening their organization, but we`re actually making Americans even greater targets for future kidnappings. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: But is paying ransom to terrorists always wrong? Joining me right now is "The Atlantic`s" Steve Clemons and Maryland U.S. Congresswoman Donna Edwards. Steve, you first because you take a position which is not common. Tell me what you think about the appropriateness of an individual or an organization that has one of their members or family members taken captive by an ISIS-type organization. What should they do if they have -- if they`re called upon to pay ransom? STEVE CLEMONS, "THE ATLANTIC": I think if families have the resources, if they have the ability to move in ways that save their loved ones, I don`t think government should be impeding that process. This is too dire a process if (ph) there. I feel that government should stay out of it. But the fact is, lots of governments do pay ransoms. And so you have, essentially, conflict between European governments and America in not paying them. I think they all not to pay them (sic), but we ought to remove the restrictions on families doing whatever they can to save their loved ones. I know it sounds like -- you know, I have any (ph) conflict with myself, but I just don`t see it is right that the United States government says it may prosecute families if they proceed in getting ransom money paid for their loved ones. MATTHEWS: Congresswoman, where are -- Congresswoman, where are you on private families with the wealth to do it? Should they be giving the money to the ISIS forces to use as they will? They are not going to use it to pay for food and children. They`re going to use it for guns and bullets and torture. But do they think they should be doing that, morally, or politically or whatever? REP. DONNA EDWARDS (D), MARYLAND: Well, I think, as the president has described, it`s a heart-wrenching choice for families. But I agree with the United States policy. I think it unfortunately, frankly, that some of our allies are indeed paying ransom. And I think that`s upped the ante for terrorists to continue their kidnapping and hostage-taking and to continue to finance their destruction. And so, as sad as it is, I think the government policy is the correct one. And my heart just breaks for families like Kayla`s, a wonderful young woman who was just trying to do good in the world. But I do think it`s the right policy for the United States. MATTHEWS: Well, let me go back to that question to you, Steve. What about the use of the money? It`s a two-way street. You give a couple million bucks or whatever the current price is, 20 million bucks. You may have the family or you may have a corporation behind you that`s willing to dip into their treasury for that. That 20 million bucks or $2 million, whatever, goes towards the assets of a horrible, inhuman crowd. How do you justify that? CLEMONS: I mean, absolutely, it`s not a justifiable thing, absolutely. If you give money to terror organizations, it enhances the market for taking them. I think governments ought to do everything they can to stop that market from growing, except for the fact if a family member or someone was taken, I think that we ought to impede it. And we`re inconsistent. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: How? Just a minute. I think you have a problem here. (CROSSTALK) CLEMONS: I happen to know in the case of David Rohde of "The New York Times," "The New York Times" offered a ransom, and the U.S. government didn`t threaten "The New York Times." MATTHEWS: Well, what happens if you give somebody a lot of money? Are they likely to take another capture, another hostage and ask for more money? It seems to me that would be human nature. CLEMONS: Of course they are. But -- yes, but, Chris, I agree with that -- what you said last night. I think that there are other elements of power to go down and track, kill, try, bring to justice those people that kidnap people. And that ought not to be a pressure that is borne by the family of James Foley, Kayla Mueller and others. MATTHEWS: OK. Last word to the congresswoman. What would you say to a friend of yours who may be a person of great means, who has a lot of money in the bank, and their young son or daughter is grabbed? What would you say to them when they came to you for counsel? What would you do? EDWARDS: You know what? If my son were grabbed, I would want to do everything possible to free him, including reach out to anybody I know who is wealthy to do that. I mean, that is the inequality in all of this, the inequity in it. But I do think that our policy is the right one. And I think that we have an obligation to try to pursue these terrorists and to, you know, stop the terror. But I would hate for us to change our policy. I do think that it has kept us and our citizens actually safer, knowing that there is not this point of negotiation. MATTHEWS: OK. EDWARDS: And I really do worry about our citizens around the world who might be subject to hostage-taking if they knew that there was a great ransom at stake. MATTHEWS: Well said. Thank you so much, Steve Clemons, my friend. Thank you very much, U.S. Congresswoman Donna Edwards, also my friend. Up next: What got David Axelrod worried before Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential race? You will be astounded by the news. It`s in his book. Axelrod is coming here in a minute. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, this is going to be candy. And welcome back to HARDBALL. David Axelrod has been the chief strategist and political adviser to President Obama`s successful Senate and two presidential campaigns. he served as a senior adviser to the president in the White House as well, coaching him through debates. He remains a close friend. As a preeminent Chicago-based political consultant, he`s led dozens of local and statewide candidates to victory out there and also across the country. He`s now the director of the University of Chicago`s Institute of Politics and the author of a great new book, "Believer: My Forty Years in Politics." David Axelrod joins me now. I don`t read every book I have on this show, but I am reading this one. And I have read a lot of it. And let`s start with the first big surprise in the book. Sarah Palin, she is an issue of dispute in our production staff almost every day. DAVID AXELROD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. Yes. MATTHEWS: Some people are true believers in her as a political product. They just think she is something. You were worried from the time of her great acceptance speech, where she just dazzled the country, up until the Lehman Brothers crash, which was only 12 days, September 3, 2008, to September 15. In those 12 days in this book, it`s amazing what you were concerned about, her potential. AXELROD: Well, there`s no doubt that she was that little bit of energy drink for the McCain campaign that badly needed it. And it shook things up, and it shook things up because she provided this sense of change and newness and assault on the Washington establishment, which was really undermining our message. So, you know, by the time the -- the day before the Lehman Brothers crash, we were getting together because our poll had us one point ahead in that race. And it was largely because of the energy that Palin had inserted into the McCain campaign. MATTHEWS: Here`s my favorite -- I love the way you write. You`re a good writer, by the way. AXELROD: Thank you. MATTHEWS: You don`t have any ghosts out there. AXELROD: Thank you. MATTHEWS: "The East Coast establishment might disdain her as unlettered and ill-prepared, but that would only make her more appealing to millions of Americans who felt that they had been getting the raw end of the deal." That -- you understand that the way that Carville understands it, that there`s a lot of working-class regular good Democrats who vote Republican once in a while because of the culture thing and the attitude towards the elite. They don`t like the elite. AXELROD: See, that was the mistake people made. When she was picked, people focused on the fact that she was a woman. The fact that she was a woman wasn`t the key. The fact that she had this cultural affinity for these disaffected working-class Americans was what made her potent. MATTHEWS: Yes. She was wasn`t Yale. She wasn`t Seven Sisters. She wasn`t elite. She went to five colleges, like a lot of people, and finally got a degree. (CROSSTALK) AXELROD: Yes. And she spoke to them. And when she spoke at the convention and really kind of thumbed her nose at the establishment, she found a responsive chord. That speech was well-received. MATTHEWS: Yes. Anyway, you also write that you -- I was going to say she`s very attractive as a candidate by any standard, since Jack Kennedy. I don`t think anybody looks as good as her. Anyway, the trouble early... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Go ahead. You want... AXELROD: One thing I wanted to say about this, though, Obama had a really interesting reaction when we heard that she had been picked. MATTHEWS: Yes. AXELROD: He said, that`s really -- I understand why he`s doing it, he said, but this is really tough, this national thing. It took me six months to be a good candidate. He said, she may be the greatest politician since Ronald Reagan, that she should could come out of Alaska after a year of being governor and handle this, he said, but give this three weeks, four weeks. Let`s see how it settles. And the truth is, she ran into some problems. MATTHEWS: Well, Katie Couric. AXELROD: Exactly. MATTHEWS: Katie Couric. Anyway, she asked her what she reads, which you could say was a snarky question, except it isn`t. It`s a reasonable question. She didn`t want to answer it. AXELROD: Yes. MATTHEWS: Anyway, you saw -- let`s talk about the 2012 election, which turned out to be much closer. You talk about the early trouble in that first debate with Mitt Romney, the one I went crazy about on television. I think you were watching me. (CROSSTALK) AXELROD: Yes. Yes. I didn`t need a TV to hear you, Chris. MATTHEWS: Here`s the beginning of that first debate which jumped out of my head, that one. Go ahead. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are a lot of points I want to make tonight, but the most important one is that, 20 years ago, I became the luckiest man on earth, because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me. And so I just want to wish, sweetie, you happy anniversary and let you know that, a year from now, we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people. (LAUGHTER) MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary. I`m sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine here -- here with me. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: See, what you wrote about that is great. AXELROD: Yes. No, I... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: The president was phony, and the challenger seemed authentic. AXELROD: And, clearly, he was -- in baseball parlance, he was laying on the pitch. Romney -- they sniffed out that we might do something on the anniversary, and he knew exactly what he was going to do, and he looked completely natural doing it. Obama looked force in doing it. It was painful, and it was just the beginning of the pain. It was a very tough night for us. MATTHEWS: Explain to me, because I, like everybody else, went crazy out here watching it and I go, why didn`t he fight, why didn`t he fight? And then I looked at Romney. He had all of the traits I despise, aloofness, elitism. He seemed like, I`m the white guy against the black guy. I`m the Mormon, well-educated, prep school guy against the guy who is not. I have got all these advantages over him. I don`t know what mix it was, in fairness to Romney. But there was a sense of superiority that really bugged me, and yet it worked for him. You call it comfort. You said charm. I don`t know about charm. (CROSSTALK) AXELROD: No, I actually thought he was very well prepared for that debate and he handled himself well in that first debate. You see, he understood what Obama resisted, he knew, but he resisted, which is debates aren`t a free exchange of ideas. Debates are performances. You practice your lines, you know what you`re going to do when you hear a question. And if your team has practiced with you, prepared well, they know what you are going to say. Romney knew exactly what he was going to say on every question in that first debate. He practiced. He delivered. And he did really well. And our guy just didn`t. He wasn`t prepared. He didn`t want to prepare. MATTHEWS: OK. I know. He didn`t want to have knee-jerk reactions that you prepared him with. Now, here `s -- but you get deeper into this. It`s almost like a Woody Allen movie, because you`re getting into the head being wrong. What did the Romney do to the president that got him wrong-footed? And what did you have to fix? You had all these prep sessions trying to retrain the president on how to debate, how to debate. It wasn`t working until he finally said something out of "Tin Cup," out of movie, where he said, I finally got my head around this right. (CROSSTALK) AXELROD: Yes. MATTHEWS: What was that about? AXELROD: Well, he had done poorly in the first debate. And we were really worried about that first debate for -- because presidents tend to do poorly in the first... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: They all lose. AXELROD: They all do. MATTHEWS: All incumbents lose first debates. AXELROD: And so -- and we tried to avoid that. And we didn`t avoid it. So the second debate became important, because we didn`t want Chris Matthews going nuts twice in a row. MATTHEWS: No, you couldn`t predict that. (CROSSTALK) AXELROD: No, no, but what happened was, he had a bad debate prep 36 hours before the second debate. And we`re freaking out. And we do an intervention. And he says -- and he talks about the movie "Tin Cup," when Cheech was -- who was the star? Was it Kevin Costner? MATTHEWS: Costner. It was Costner. AXELROD: Yes. And he says, OK, here`s what you do. He`s trying to... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Put your hat on backwards. AXELROD: Put your hat on backwards. Do this, do that. MATTHEWS: You put your tees in your left pocket. AXELROD: Your left pocket. And he said -- and he swung and he hit the -- and he said, that`s it. It`s in my head. I have got to -- and so we worked it through and we did give him a golf tee to put into his pocket going into that debate. MATTHEWS: Yes. It`s so interesting the role that -- and this is what you have got to write more about, is the role of guys like you in getting a president, a guy you know is smart, but he needs to get help sometimes. Everybody needs help. Anyway, you write in the book that President Obama reflected on Mitt Romney, saying: "He represents the America of the 1950s and believes the country does well when guys like him are in charge." OK. HARDBALL question, "guys like him." AXELROD: I think he meant the corporate elite, the prep school elite. He meant the sort of... MATTHEWS: The guy that thinks he is, and is. AXELROD: Yes, exactly. And, you know, he was very focused on the fact that the country had changed dramatically, that it was a more diverse country. MATTHEWS: Yes. AXELROD: And he represented that diversity and he represented a different kind of America where people could work their way up, and you didn`t have to come from the ruling elite to be president of the United States. MATTHEWS: What makes you -- I only have a minute here, but I`m impressed because it`s not in the book really yet. I haven`t found the part. What has made you devote a lot of your years as a political pro to helping black candidates, per se, black guys? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Harold Washington, people like that? AXELROD: Part of it is that I was raised by this woman who took care of me when my mother was at work, an African-American woman. She was the one who took me to see John F. Kennedy when I was 5 years old. And I think she instilled in me a sense of a kind of yearning for justice. I always think about her because I wonder what she would think about the kid she... (CROSSTALK) AXELROD: ... to see Kennedy. MATTHEWS: And this is what has driven you to help African-American candidates especially? AXELROD: I think that`s part of it. And I was raised in a family where civil rights was a value. But I always -- I believe in an America where there are no barriers, where you can go as far as your talents take you. And I want to fight for that kind of country. MATTHEWS: Well, do you think the president has gotten a raw deal because of his ethnicity by some people? AXELROD: I always resisted this question, Chris, when I was working for him because I never wanted to give people a chance to say we were using race as an excuse. But there`s no question that he has been treated differently by some people because of that. No one else has been shouted down in the Congress during a speech, "You lie." No one else has been consistently... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Huckabee did it this week. Huckabee is still out there saying he`s pro-Islamic and anti-Christian and Jewish. AXELROD: Yes, well, and persistently challenging his citizenship. MATTHEWS: Yes. AXELROD: These are reflections of race. And I don`t think there`s any way to deny that. MATTHEWS: Please explain Donald Trump to me some day, will you? (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: He is a smart guy. What is he up to? Anyway, thank you. This book, political junkies, read this book. It`s not one of these books that somebody writes for somebody, by the way, which I know about. It happens out there, believe it or not. This is David Axelrod, his true story, with lots of inside stuff like this. I wish I had hours with him. The book is called "Believer: My Forty Years in Politics." David Axelrod is staying with us. He will be in our roundtable tonight, which everybody wants to be in to. We`re going to talk about 2016 and the early stumbles by the likes of Christie, Bush and, yes, Hillary Clinton. They`re making some mistakes. Plus, Jon Stewart`s amazing announcement last night that he`s stepping down from "The Daily Show." That caught everybody off guard. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. A candlelight vigil is taking place right now in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. It`s in honor of the three Muslim students allegedly murdered by a neighbor. Investigators say a dispute over parking spaces may have led to the shootings, but some are wondering if the students` race or religion may have played a role. And after being called off twice due to bad weather, SpaceX tonight launched a new deep space weather satellite from Cape Canaveral. It will track storms on Earth from more than a million miles away -- back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, the candidates for 2016 aren`t even out of the gate yet, but the would-be campaigns run to some stumbling blocks this week, big ones. Among Republicans, Chris Christie appears to be toning down his bombastic style. He was in Iowa on Monday. And as "The Washington Post" reported, "Gone were the bluster and bravado that have made Chris Christie a long- touted contender for the White House. The new Chris Christie was serious, earnest and calmly gesturing as he spoke. The reception to Christie`s soft pitch, however, was decidedly mixed." Which always means now. Meanwhile, the newly-hired chief executive or technology officer of Jeb Bush`s political action committee resigned yesterday after "BuzzFeed" unearthed degrading comments that he had made about women on Twitter. Former Governor Bush who prides himself of being tech-savvy also failed to vet the thousands of emails from his time in office that he made public yesterday, ultimately the unredacted private email addresses of many Florida residents were dumped out, along with the content of the e-mail themselves. The address was there. Everybody knows. There was discord on the other side of the aisle when the absence of a formal announcements from Hillary Clinton, frictions between various pro- Clinton groups have boiled over into a territorial spat. It`s the kind of drama that any campaign would want to keep out of the public eye. The questions are, are these examples of campaign growing pains or do they foreshadow larger problems to come? We`re joined by right now the roundtable: Huffington Post`s" Sabrina Siddiqui, and Jeremy Peters of "The New York Times", and our special guest tonight, David Axelrod, former senior strategist to President Obama and author of the new book "Believer: My 40 Years in Politics." Sabrina, what do you make of these crumbling walls of -- let`s start with Jeb Bush. He gets a pretty good ride from the press. Is he really so competent that he puts out all e-mails that people wrote to him as governor and spills their addresses and everything else in their worlds? SABRINA SIDDIQUI, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Well, I think, first and foremost, none of these candidates are playing to their strengths. So, that`s a major problem -- MATTHEWS: His being confidence? SIDDIQUI: His being confidence and knowing how to manage and wants to look like the most tech-savvy Republican candidate and he`s forgetting just the basic 101 of how to do that. And not only that he did not vet these e- mails for personal information and dumping the constituents` information online, but also, I think that politicians need to understand the role that social media plays. You cannot hire anyone anymore for your campaign without checking the social media. MATTHEWS: By the way, he`s getting sucky numbers in New Hampshire among independent. I can`t believe how low. The dog doesn`t read the label on the peanut butter jar, the dog food jar. Just because you say he`s Bush doesn`t mean people are going to like him. I can`t believe the low regard so far for him in this campaign. Let me ask you about the other guy, about Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has -- it was always the dog fighting in that campaign before. Now you`ve got already David Brock, who`s sort of an outrider, a watchdog for her, and then you got the fighting with the Messina operation. It`s like a drug war is going on. That`s my turf, no, that`s your turf, trying to raise -- and it`s all out in public on "The New York Times." Your paper, front page, you write about it. JEREMY PETERS, THE NEW YORK TIMES: That`s right. My colleague Nick Confessore broke that story. MATTHEWS: Front page. PETERS: Fantastic job. But I think part of the problem is they -- these operatives and strategists and donors don`t have anywhere else to go, so they are all fighting over a very large pie but it`s only one pie. So -- MATTHEWS: And some people are raising a lot of money making this money, 15 percent. PETERS: Yes, that`s absolutely, millions of dollars. MATTHEWS: Isn`t that a lot of money? PETERS: I want that kind of job. MATTHEWS: So, that`s why -- now, let`s go over to you with the bad guy from New Jersey. What is wrong with him? I should say -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: -- losing weight. DAVID AXELROD, AUTHOR, "BELIEVER": Flipping people off may be charming in Vail (ph) but not in Keokuk. He`s finally discovered that. But he is who he is and so the question is whether he`s -- he comes across as authentic when he`s bridling his authentic self. I think without authenticity, it`s very hard to go far in a presidential process. MATTHEWS: We like it when he said, none of your business. None of your business, Emily, when he asked about where his kids were going to school because it did seem to be a private matter, but in every public occasion before, his selling piece is, I`m pretty obnoxious. PETERS: Right. It`s a big part of his persona. I think people love this irreverence about him. They love the bravado. Is it real? Maybe he was just tired on Monday? I don`t know. MATTHEWS: So, who`s the real Chris Christie? (CROSSTALK) PETERS: But I think one of the things we need to remember is, the Republicans last time ran a candidate who tried to scrub away who he really was and it didn`t work. So, is Chris Christie really going to run a campaign where he`s trying to hide what has made him so appealing to our voters? AXELROD: Giving the pressures of presidential campaigns, if you`re irascible, you`re going to be irascible. PETERS: Right. AXELROD: Because there are so many provocations. I don`t think he`s too far away from telling people to sit down and shut up again. I think it`s going to happen and I think that`s a problem for him. MATTHEWS: Do you think that`s one of the good things about campaigns, it rubs all the cover off? AXELROD: You know, it`s a ridiculous process but it`s the harder test and gets harder as you move along, and it should be because you`re auditioning for the toughest job on the planet. MATTHEWS: I love the mistakes that people make, like your candidate, who I`ve always liked, and that`s Obama, when he said things like she`s likable enough. Terrible line as you put in your book. AXELROD: It was a bad moment. MATTHEWS: You can`t protect people against -- AXELROD: People are going to make mistakes. The question is, do the mistakes reveal something that voters take away from it or are they glitches? You know, the Bush thing, at the end of the day, doesn`t strike me as something that is going to characterize him. But some of these other things are -- the problem is, John Podesta has to get control of the Clinton operation and I think that`s part of his job over there. MATTHEWS: One thing I like about Joe Biden is all the gaffes he`s made in history, and none of them ever have hurt anybody, it`s really true. Even the shylock line, which is stupid, it didn`t really hurt anybody. I think he`s amazing. People like him and he`s a nice guy and he makes mistake. Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. And up next, we think we know it was coming but we didn`t. Jon Stewart, for whatever reason, says he`s leaving "The Daily Show", the most successful comic of our time probably. David Axelrod was there when it happened in the Green Room. We`re going to get the actual story when the story broke to this fella. We`ll be right back, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder today awarded the Medal of Valor to 22 public safety officers. Among them, two police officers from Watertown, Massachusetts, who confronted the Tsarnaev brothers at a gun battle after the Boston marathon bombing last year. Also honored were two officers who responded to the August 2012 shooting at a sheikh temple in Wisconsin. We`ll be right back after this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW: I don`t have any specific plans. Got a lot of ideas. I`ve got a lot of things in my head. I`m going to have dinner on a school night, with my family, who I have heard from multiple sources are lovely people. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: So funny guy. We`re back and that was Jon Stewart in his good-bye last night. After 17 years on the job, he will be stepping aside as anchor of "The Daily Show". A pioneer in his field, Stewart has earned his reputation as the leading voice of political satire, providing much-needed levity to the national debate on a nightly basis. We`re back now with our roundtable, Sabrina, Jeremy and David, who is there in the Green Room. AXELROD: Yes, it was kind of stunning. I came in, Jon Stewart came in and said, listen, I`m going to make an announcement tonight and you need to have a heads-up. It`s going to make some news. He says, I`m done, I`m leaving. And I was there, my wife was there, and some of my staff and we were stunned. There was this weight of history, because this guy has had an enormous impact on our politics and on society in some ways. MATTHEWS: Yes. AXELROD: He`s that big a figure. What interested me, Chris, was that in the coverage, we had the Brian Williams story yesterday. And in some ways, Stewart leaving superseded that story. MATTHEWS: Double-barreled with the big papers, double-barreled. AXELROD: Yes, which tells you how much -- this is the same day the president gave an interview on "BuzzFeed". MATTHEWS: The generation of my daughter, three New Hampshires ago, I think it was, I has had a kid joining me in New Hampshire when I covered New Hampshire, and the only person, all these big-shots, my daughter wanted to meet this guy named Jon Stewart who I never heard of. He was grabbing the young people very early on. SIDDIQUI: And he was. I think the younger generation, he really has shaped the political attitude. MATTHEWS: Is that like the froth on the beer? What is it that he delivers? All the kids in the audience, they seem to know all the political references, they know all the political references, they know all the news references, and yet they don`t read the paper. How do they know that stuff, to know when to laugh? PETERS: Well, I think that`s a good point and it`s why -- MATTHEWS: What is the answer to that question? PETERS: It`s why politicians treat him as a news man, not as a comedian or an entertainer. I was on Capitol Hill all day today, actually asking lawmakers -- MATTHEWS: I saw you up there. PETERS: Yes, that`s right. I bumped to you in the hallway. Asking them what it was about Stewart`s program that was so appealing. And one after the other, they called him a news man. There was no qualifier, no entertainer, no foe, nothing like that. They said, without a doubt, the first show they want to go to reach especially the younger voters is Jon Stewart. (CROSSTALK) SIDDIQUI: Younger people do go to him to get their news. MATTHEWS: How do you get the news with these quick setups? I think you need to have the setup to know how the punch line works. Don`t you have to know what he`s talking about? SIDDIQUI: I think one of the things you need people to do, though, was build trust. And I think that younger -- MATTHEWS: You`re not answering my question. SIDDIQUI: None of us know -- MATTHEWS: I almost seem to know what he`s talking about. How`s that work? AXELROD: I think the reason he connected with young people is he persistently called out hypocrisy, and lack of authenticity. That`s what kids hate about politics. They hate the inauthenticity. They hate all the game-playing. And he stripped it bare, ridiculed it. Young people reacted to that. You know, I think it was very, very powerful. MATTHEWS: He`s got some guts, too. He has guts. PETERS: Yes, he really does. He also -- there`s a -- I wouldn`t undersell how much young people read either. I think that -- MATTHEWS: "The Times"? PETERS: Yes, "The Times". AXELROD: Hope springs eternal. PETERS: Exactly. But we`re getting by somehow. So, no, I mean, if you just think about how people consume news now, I think it`s differently that how, you know, I grew up consuming news. MATTHEWS: OK. You get on the subway right now. You`re (INAUDIBLE) out in California, they`re reading paperbacks if anything. How do they read your paper? PETERS: On their phones. MATTHEWS: On their phones. And you can do that now. I`m just kidding. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Thank you, Sabrina Siddiqui. Thank you, Jeremy Peters. I was pulling your leg there, sir. David Axelrod, good luck with the book. I mean it. This is the kind of book people should read, real books written by real people who know their stuff. "Believer", David Axelrod. When we return, let me finish with the president`s call for Congress to back military action against ISIS. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this. What I hear tonight is the president of the United States blowing the bugle, calling for the U.S. Congress to back military action against ISIS. What I see tonight are members of Congress left and right heading for the tall grass. The question of backing war or opposing, it is not for lawyers to answer, but for citizens and their representatives. It`s basic, do we as a country do what we can militarily to destroy this terrorist regime that looks for Americans to capture, frighten and ultimately kill with the maximum amount of public humiliation? Do we? Or do we simply agree to sit and watch the pictures coming in? Does anyone among the doves truly fear that President Obama is going to transform before our eyes into George Patton roaring tanks across the desert in the pursuit of the ISIS leaders? Do they honestly question he will let this thing get out of hand? Or are they simply unwilling to put their hand to any document that might be used against them in the primary? Same on the right, what are they afraid? Does the declaration of the president`s asking the Congress for will tie his hands? What sense does that make if he intended to lead a ground war against ISIS, why would he put language of this authorization to specifically rule out, quote, "enduring offensive ground operations". People don`t ask people to stop them from doing what they intend to do. What seems to be going on here is a vast desire of politicians to protect themselves, and the safest place to hide is in the tall grass, where the other people are hiding. Not up there with the president, called the Congress to do its duty. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021101cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 50 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 11, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 11, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Toure, Seema Iyer, Faith Jenkins GUESTS: Jonathan Capehart, Jackie Speier, Brian Wice, Stephanie Miller, Jimmy Williams, Michelle Bernard SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6587 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama officially asked Congress for new authorization to use military force against ISIS. Police say their best information at this point is a parking dispute led to the triple shooting Tuesday evening. And that it doesn`t appear related to the victim`s faith. Though authorities are looking at the suspect`s computer and email and interviewing neighbors. Prosecutors say Ralph gunned down both men at Texas gun range. They had taken him there as part of a way to help with the PTSD he got after serving in the marines. Jon Stewart is retiring from "The Daily Show." For 16 years he redefined political satire and changed the way Americans consume news. Finally, another cheating controversy hits the world of sports, except this time it`s pants size, pint-size, little league size, little league baseball stripped to cargo base, Jackie Robinson West of its title, suspended its coach for using players who live outside of the area that the team represents. Twenty five years ago today, the world stopped and watched as Nelson Mandela was finally released from prison, walking out a free man. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Breaking news tonight, destroying ISIS without dragging us into another endless war. That`s the strategy from President Obama who today officially asked Congress for new authorization to use military force against ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The resolution we submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. This resolution repeals the 2002 authorize of force for the invasion of Iraq and limits this new authorization to three years. I do not believe America`s interests are served by endless war. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The president doesn`t want ground troops. He doesn`t want endless war, but he is putting forward a strategy to stop ISIS and he does want Congress to go On the Record about this fight. Already some Republicans are blasting his request, claiming it doesn`t go far enough while others claim he doesn`t understand the threat. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: The words radical Islamic terrorism do not come out of the president`s mouth. The word jihad does not come out of the president`s mouth. If you are not aware of what you`re fighting, you`re not going to defeat it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The president has been fighting terrorist groups since he took office. He`s fully aware of the threat. But some Republicans seem unclear about what side he`s on? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not only did he vilify Christianity, but he actually made a case to defend radical Islam. REP. RANDY WEBER (R), TEXAS: I was at Israeli function and AIPAC function couple weekends ago and one of our great friends there said, Congressman Weber, we`re not sure the president has Israel`s back. And I looked at him dead center and said, friend, we`re not sure he`s got America`s back. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: These Republicans questioned whether he wants to protect America that even accused him of defending ISIS. There is no place for that kind of talk. It`s ugly and a distraction from the issues that really matter, including taking out this brutal group. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: This is a difficult mission and it will remain difficult for some time. It`s going to take time to dislodge these terrorists, especially from urban areas. But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIL is on the defensive and ISIL is going to lose. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now is Congressman Jackie Speier, Democrat of California. She served on the House armed services committee and "the Washington Post" Jonathan Capehart. Thank you both for being here. JONATHAN CAPEHART, OPINION WRITER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thanks, Rev. REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA: Hello, Rev. SHARPTON: Congresswoman, the president says ISIS is going to lose. Can we beat them under the strategy he sent you today? SPEIER: Well, first of all, he needs to be applauded for sending an authorization for the use of military force to the Congress. There are some of us on the democratic side that while we applaud him are concerned about the open-ended nature of the proposal. So, yes, we can defeat ISIL. We will defeat ISIL. But I`m not going to be one who supports putting troops back on the ground. And while the president has said and has made it clear that we are not going to have enduring offensive ground troops, the question really is, aren`t we going to have troops on the ground? And we already have 3300 on the ground. SHARPTON: Right. SPEIER: So there`s still much that needs to be worked out with the war powers resolution, the authorization that he has sent to Congress. SHARPTON: That`s very interesting, Congresswoman, saying some Democrats are considered that it`s too open-ended because Republicans are criticizing him saying it`s not open-ended enough. SPEIER: Well, it`s really very clear. You could put ground troops on the ground in Iraq even in Syria in this proposal as long as it`s for defensive purposes or you could put offensive troops on the ground as long as it is not enduring. So I would disagree with the Republicans that they think it`s not giving the president enough latitude to work within. It gives him a great deal of latitude. SHARPTON: Jonathan, the Republicans are squabbling about the president`s request but will they vote against it? CAPEHART: You know, that`s a very good question. Speaker Boehner has said there will be hearings on this and it`s a good thing that there will be debate on Capitol Hill about the president`s request. But the idea that we`re in this fight against ISIS or, as the president calls it, ISIL, and that the United States Congress would not give the president the authority to go after these people who have killed Americans, who have killed Japanese, who have killed other citizens from around the world, I think it would be a stunning dereliction of duty. SHARPTON: You know, Congresswoman, we`ve learned that there are 20,000 foreign fighters who have gone to join ISIS and other extremist groups. That includes at least 3400 from western nations and 150 Americans. I mean, these numbers, Congresswoman, are staggering. How long will it take to destroy is? SPEIER: Well, I think the president and certainly General Dempsey and others have said this is not a short-term engagement. This will take two to three years. And while we all are very interested in making sure that we move swiftly to degrade ISIL, it is not happening overnight even though we have already bombed over 2300 sites alone by U.S. forces in the region. Jordan has now joined forces with us as well. We really need to make sure this coalition stays intact and that there are ground troops from other countries engaged as well. SHARPTON: Now, Jonathan, a lot of Republicans say the president put too many limits on his request. Here`s Speaker Boehner. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I believe that if we`re going to authorize the use of military force, the president should have all the tools necessary to win the fight that we are in. (END VIDEO CLIP) And then Alabama Congresswoman Mel Brooks, he said quote "I hate to think that this president is favoring another Vietnam-like action." Jonathan, I mean, what do Republicans want? Do they want ground troops but they just won`t say it? CAPEHART: You know, that`s what it sounds like. As the congresswoman said, the president`s request of Congress says that there could be troops on the ground for rescue operations, for -- I might have this wrong, correct me if I have this wrong, Congresswoman, you know, sort of forward offenses. So is there a problem with what the president wants is that he put a three-year time limit on it. You know, Democrats -- some Democrats I`ve seen have criticized the president`s request because it`s too broad. They see it as too open-ended. So the two sides are going to have to come together and recognize that, you know, the president is trying to thread a very fine line here. He is leading a war-weary nation but he has to still continue to fight this war against people who are not only threatening our national security but are destabilizing a very important region of the world. SHARPTON: Congresswoman, I mean, let me cut to the chase. Do Republicans want boots on the ground? Do they want another Iraq war? SPEIER: There`s no question they want boots on the ground. They just don`t want to say it. And, you know, in some respects, I have not seen a war engagement that they haven`t wanted to be in. You know, just a couple of years ago they wanted us to go fully into Syria. They want us to go into Libya. I think they are very interested in seeing us engage in many hot spots around the world. We don`t have the bandwidth to be in every hot spot around the world and we have to be very clear at what is, in fact, at risk for our nation. When our homeland is being threatened, then we absolutely need to protect it. When we are trying to be the police force for the entire world, we have to think twice. SHARPTON: Jonathan, we`ve heard that there could be weeks, even months of debate on this issue. Here`s what the president said about that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the fought for and dignified debate that this moment demands. And I`m optimistic that it can win strong bipartisan support and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Jonathan, do you think we can have a dignified debate on this? CAPEHART: You know, it pass its pro-log (ph). The answer is no. But I always believe in hope that when it comes to matters war, of national security, of putting men and women of the armed forces in harm`s way, especially against in a new fight against a new enemy, that will put aside the mindless bickering of the last six years and be very sober about the conversation that they are going to have on Capitol Hill. SHARPTON: Well, it`s a huge, huge issue, huge situation that affects us all. We`re going to really stay on top of it. Congresswoman Jackie Speier, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both for your time tonight. CAPEHART: Thanks, Rev. SPEIER: Thank you for the invitation. SHARPTON: Coming up, dramatic moments in the "American Sniper" murder trial. What Chris Kyle text about his killer moments before his death? Plus, how Jeb Bush is fighting inequality while charging $100,000 a plate at a fundraiser. And saying good-bye to Jon Stewart. What his amazing run has meant to comedy and TV news. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was not elected to serve one party. JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: You were not elected. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: All that, plus 25 years since Nelson Mandela walked out of prison and into history. Stay with us. SHARPTON: We`re tracking breaking news after shooting of three Muslim students open the University of North Carolina campus. Police say their best information at this point is a parking dispute led to the triple shooting Tuesday evening. And that it doesn`t appear related to the victim`s faith. Though authorities are looking at the suspect`s computer and email and interviewing neighbors. That suspect, 46-year-old Craig Steven Hicks is being held without bond. He appeared in court today charged with three counts of first-degree murder. This afternoon, his wife said the victim`s faith played no role. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAREN HICKS, SHOOTING SUSPECT`S WIFE: I can`t say absolutely with this incident had nothing to do with religion or victims` faith, but are fact was related to the long-standing parking disputes. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But family members of the victims say they want the shootings to be investigated as a hate crime. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUZANNE BARAKAT, SHOOTING VICTIM`S SISTER: We are still in a state of shock and will never be able to make sense of this horrendous tragedy. We ask that the authorities investigate these heinous murders as a hate crime. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The shootings today inspiring an outpouring of support for the victims on social media, including this trending image, a blue ribbon with the #Muslimlivesmatter. Yes, they do. We`ll be following this story. SHARPTON: Developing news tonight, opening statements in the "American Sniper" murder trial. Eddie Ray Routh is accused of killing Chris Kyle, the real-life sniper from the hit film. And along with that he was accused of killing his friend Chad Littlefield in 2013. Prosecutors say Ralph gunned down both men at Texas gun range. They had taken him there as part of a way to help with the PTSD he got after serving in the marines. Today, prosecutors say Ralph used two guns to shoot the men more than a dozen times and that he used drugs earlier that day. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALAN NASH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY: He used this wet marijuana that morning and he drank whiskey with it. And he admits that he murdered these two men, that he took drugs and he drank whiskey with it. But he admits that he murdered these two men, that he used drugs and alcohol that morning, and that he knew what he was doing wrong. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But his defense says he`s suffering from a severe mental disease. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TIM MOORE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: When he took their lives, he was in the grip of a psychosis, a psychosis so severe at that point in time that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. He thought he had to take their lives because he was in danger. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now a jury will decide whether Ralph knew right from wrong when he pulled the trigger. Joining me now, our Texas criminal defense attorney Brian Wice and former prosecutor and host of "Judge Faith," judge Faith herself, Judge Faith Jenkins. Thank you both for being here. FAITH JENKINS, FORMER CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Judge Faith, based on their opening statements, how will prosecutors try to show that Ralph knew what he was doing? JENKINS: Well, they are going to go forward with the evidence. You can tell in their opening statements, they are getting out ahead of the game on the mental illness defense that the defense attorneys are trying to put forward here. And they address it head-on. They said, even if he suffered from mental illness, he knew what he was doing was wrong. And so, they are going to look at the facts and they are going to argue the facts. Look what he did, look at the crime that he committed, look at what he did afterwards. He ran away. A person who knows when they`ve done something wrong, what do they do? They often run. They try to hide. He went to his relatives. He did tell his relatives that he killed someone but he didn`t go to the police. He didn`t stay at the scene. So they are going to use those factors to say, yes, he committed a terrible crime. Yes, he may suffered from mental illness, but knew what he did was wrong. SHARPTON: Brian, this is a tall order for the defense. What`s the main argument they want the jury to hear? BRIAN WICE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think, Rev., they`ve got to craft a narrative that this small town Texas jury can understand. And they`ve got to tell this jury that while every crime is a tragedy, every tragedy is not a crime. And that when their client acted in a moment of madness and ended the lives of these two men, he was simply incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong and that our judicial heritage is rich in the notion that no matter how heinous the crime, we don`t convict people who are insane at the time that they engage in that conduct. SHARPTON: Faith, the defense introduced text messages that Kyle and Littlefield sent each other after they met Ralph. Kyle wrote, quote "this dude is straight up nuts." And Littlefield replied, he`s right behind me. Watch my six. That`s military jargon for watch my back. How will the defense use those messages to makes this case? JENKINS: Those text messages were sent when the three were together going to the shooting range. Ralph`s state of mind hit the key moment when his state of mind is really an issue in this case is when he committed the crime. So there you have Chris Kyle and his friend talking about this guy being nuts just moments before Ralph kills them. So they are saying -- which helps the defense, that he was so -- he was suffering from some type of psychosis, so much so that even Kyle comments on it right before they get to the shooting range. SHARPTON: Brian, we want to play part of the 911 call made by Ralph sister and her husband. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was recently diagnosed with PTSD. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With what? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: PTSD. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: PTSD? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, post-traumatic stress disorder. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. OK. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he`s been acting little weird from that. He just got out of a mental hospital, actually. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, prosecutors mentioned this call today. How will it play into their argument, Brian? WICE: Well, you know, Rev., there`s going to be testimony of this defendant`s repeated stays in psychiatric facilities in this psychiatric back story that would seem to suggest that he could insane. But what this jury is going to be instructed on is that doesn`t make any difference. His voluntary intoxication, his decision to drink and to take drugs is not a defense to the ultimate prosecution. And the fact that he may have had the psychiatric back story, well, like they say in west Texas, Rev., mashed potatoes don`t mean gravy. Anybody who is ever watched a lone order repeat is fond of hearing Jack McCoy say, you can form intent in an instant and if at the time this defendant pulled the trigger he could understand the difference between right and wrong, then there`s only one verdict and that`s guilty of capital murder. SHARPTON: Faith, the movie "American Sniper" didn`t come up in opening statements. Did that surprise you? JENKINS: No, it shouldn`t come up. And I would imagine, Rev., that when they selected the jury, they probably selected people who had not seen the movie and had not read the book because you don`t want jurors forming an opinion about the case based on facts they`ve heard outside of the testimony in the courtroom. So this movie should not come up in the trial. SHARPTON: The defense talked about Ralph`s drug and alcohol use. Does that make a difference here, Brian? WICE: Well, again, it provides context, if you will, Rev., but this jury was told during jury selection, they will be instructed again at the close of the evidence from the court`s instructions, that this defendant`s voluntary intoxication is not a defense to capital murder. And while it may provide context, it is not going to be a legitimate legal defense. The only way that this defendant avoids conviction for capital murder is a jury believing the defense narrative that at the moment he pulled the trigger and ended the lives, again, of an American hero and his friend, that he was incapable of distinguishing between what was right and what was wrong, Rev. SHARPTON: Now, you mention a small town. This trial is happening in Erath County. The population is less than 40,000. You know this area well. What`s it like to try a case in a small Texas county town? WICE: Well, Rev., there`s good news and bad news. The good news is, you`re always going to be able to find a parking spot and a great place to eat in the courthouse square. The bad news is, and I guarantee you, that district attorney Alan Nash knew a bunch of the jurors who came in on that initial jury panel. Why? Because in a small town like Stevensville and a small county like Erath, their kids play little league together. They go to church together. They go to Walmart together. And the home court advantage that any prosecutor has in any criminal case becomes that much more dramatic in a small town and small county. SHARPTON: I`m going to have to leave it there. Don`t forget, Faith, mashed potatoes don`t mean gravy. Brian Wice and Faith Jenkins, thank you for your time tonight. JENKINS: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Coming up, would you pay $100,000 to have dinner with Jeb Bush? Even some on Wall Street are shaking their heads. And did this really happen? Did that really happen? Sadly, it did. Jon Stewart is leaving "the Daily Show." His cultural impact on politics, entertainment and journalism is ahead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: How many times a week does Biden show up in a wet bathing suit to a meeting? Just ballpark figure? OBAMA: I had to put out a presidential directive on that. We have to stop that. STEWART: You have to put towels down. OBAMA: I have to say, though, he looks pretty good. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Today, a group of the country`s bravest public service officers were honored by vice president Biden and attorney general Holder with the medals of valor, the nation`s highest award for courage. Among the recipients, seven police and firefighters who helped save lives in the aftermath of the 2013 Boston bombing. Two police officers who responded to the 2012 shooting at the sheik temple in Wisconsin and 13 other law enforcement officers. The attorney general and vice president talked about what this award really means. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Each of these awards citations serve as a straight testament and a fitting remainder the time when this country is grappling with deep challenges involving public safety, law enforcement and community engagement, that the work being done by those who guard our neighborhoods and protect our nation is exceptional, essential, and it is extraordinary. JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You`re a rare breed. You`re all crazy. We love you for it. We need you. You are the best thing we have going for us. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: As we debate policing in this country, we have to remember all those officers across America who are putting their lives on the line to do their duty is not police versus community, it`s police and community. And we should all remember that. SHARPTON: Say it ain`t so, Jon. It`s really happening. Jon Stewart is retiring from "The Daily Show." For 16 years he redefine political satire and changed the way Americans consume news. No politician or party was off limits. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FMR. PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH (R), UNITED STATES: I was not elected to serve one party. JON STEWART, "THE DAILY SHOW": You were not elected. (LAUGHTER) PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: We do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM. STEWART: What? Did you just threaten us? That if we don`t change our ways, we`re going to get a multibillion dollar bailout? Gram. Why can`t you take no war for an answer? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The reason I wanted to strike Assad was to punish him. STEWART: I wanted to see him squirm. (LAUGHTER) Yes. Apparently the HealthCare.org website has 99 problems but a glitch is all of them. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: He made us laugh but when the occasion called for it, he knew how to comfort us, too. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: I wanted to tell you why I grieve. But why I don`t despair. If comedy is tragedy plus time, I need more time but I would really settle for (bleep) less tragedy to be honest with you. I know very few people who go into comedy, you know, as an act of courage, mainly because it shouldn`t have to be that. It shouldn`t be an act of courage. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: More than anything else, Jon Stewart is a brilliant comedian and his no holds bar style is what had us all laughing for nearly two decades. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: There concern is a six foot pole made out of beer cans. It`s Florida. You`re lucky there`s not a stripper named Christmas swinging on it. I apologize. I apologize. No disrespect. I apologize. Let`s continue with the meeting. Are you (bleep), a (bleep) fork? Ah! No! By the way, math you do as a republican to make yourself feel better? (LAUGHTER) Is a much better slogan for FOX than the one they have now. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Jon, we already miss you. Joining me now are radio host Stephanie Miller, and whose comedy album just came out today on iTunes. And MSNBC`s Toure. Thank you both for being here. TOURE, MSNBC HOST: Thank you. STEPHANIE MILLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Stephanie, what`s your reaction to the big news? MILLER: Well, number one, you are right, he is irreplaceable. And number two, all I know is that I made a list of top seven replacements for Jon Stewart at The Daily Banter. So, if you don`t mind, I will just take this moment to thread on his not even cold body for a shameless plug. SHARPTON: All right. MILLER: But no, I really do think he is irreplaceable, he is brilliant and it will be interesting to see what direction "The Daily Show" goes. SHARPTON: Toure, were you as shocked as I was? TOURE: Yes. Well, I don`t know how shocked you were I was definitely extraordinarily shocked to think about all that this man has brought in terms of bringing the news to a lot of Gen Xers and millennials. He was a "prime news" source for a lot of them. When you think about all the folks that he brought into comedy and brought to our attention, you know, from John Oliver, to Michael Chay and on and on and on, you think about the sort of muscular liberalism that be brought. SHARPTON: Yes. TOURE: I mean, he was a proud liberal, you know, unapologetic, you didn`t see a lot of that on television, especially outside of this place. And the thing that I love about him is that he loved to attack politicians but even more than that he was a media critic and sort of the most interesting media critic -- SHARPTON: I mean, he always had fun with politicians and newsmakers. Let`s watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: Do you have a favorite shape for that home office? (LAUGHTER) Do you like that -- would you like that office -- would you like that corner or would you like that not to have corners? HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: You know, I think that the world is so complicated, the fewer corners -- STEWART: I know your father is backstage and he`s very proud of you. But would he be mad if I adopted you? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: We would both very much like Bruce Springsteen to hug us. STEWART: Yes. CHRISTIE: And he did hug me recently. STEWART: Did he really? CHRISTIE: Yes. STEWART: How many times a week does Biden show up in a wet bathing suit to a meeting? Just a ballpark figure. OBAMA: I had to put out a presidential directive on that, we have to stop that. I have to say though, he looks pretty good. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That`s what you were talking about, Toure. TOURE: Yes, all of that stuff. I mean, who else could talk to Christie and Malala and Obama and the conversations that he had with Bill O`Reilly, those are legendary that no one will ever forget what he did on "Crossfire," over on CNN back before the early iteration of that show, which destroyed that show and changed cable news. SHARPTON: Now Stephanie, it`s remarkable that on the same day the news came of Brian Williams being suspended and Jon Stewart retiring, two of the biggest names on the news won`t be in air. In Brian`s case, at least for a while. That`s pretty amazing, don`t you think, Stephanie? MILLER: You know, Reverend, I think that my favorite comment, ironically, on the Brian Williams thing came from Jon Stewart, who said, oh finally someone is being held to account for a lie about Iraq. I mean, when, you know, I`m fine with him being suspended as soon as Bush and Cheney go to the Hague in my opinion. You know, when Brian Williams is responsible for the death unnecessarily of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis over lies about weapons of mass destruction, then we can talk. SHARPTON: Yes. MILLER: And that`s the nerve that Jon Stewart is always able to hit. Toure is absolutely right and for a younger generation, I think more people trusted Jon Stewart than a lot of news anchors. So it`s ironic, isn`t it? And you know, we can do a whole show Toure on clips but as a native New Yorker I think one mucking Donald Trump for taking Sarah Palin to pizza in New York is one of the best things I`ve seen. Check this out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: Donald, I don`t want to say anybody, but if you`re taking an esteemed visitor to get real New York pizza, Familia`s in it. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Dinner was great. Wasn`t that good? That was real New York pizza. STEWART: No, no, it`s not. Unless a real authentic New York pizza can also be found in terminal four of the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. I apologize. I apologize. No disrespect. I apologize. Let`s continue with the meeting. Are you eating with a fork? I want to see your long-form birth certificate. I don`t think you were really born in New York. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, you can`t beat that. That is priceless. TOURE: Now, that stuff is incredible. But also I love his impression of Lindsey Graham as a turtle and the way that he would do that. Oh, Mitch McConnell as a turtle. Lindsey Graham he did as a whole -- thing, and when Lindsey Graham declare he`s going to run for president, oh, we`re going to have a year of Jon Stewart -- SHARPTON: Yes. TOURE: Wreck wrecking Lindsey Graham. I couldn`t wait for that. We have to go to 2016 without Jon Stewart. SHARPTON: And Stephanie, you never knew what it was. I mean I enjoyed doing the show. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: First of all, let me say this, hunger strikes agree with you. You look magnificent. SHARPTON: Well, they didn`t give me any of the barbecue sauce, we were boycotting -- STEWART: But here`s the thing though. You never won any election. How can you go from there to president? SHARPTON: That`s exactly why you should vote for me, because I`m not responsible for the mess you`re in. (LAUGHTER) STEWART: You shouldn`t have to be objective. SHARPTON: That`s exactly right. I`m Jon Stewart and -- (END VIDEO CLIP) TOURE: That doesn`t look like you. SHARPTON: And you`ve had to try to do a give -- you`ve had to try to do a give and take step -- but you knew you were going to lose. MILLER: You know, what? I have never seen you more cuddly and I already consider you very, very cuddly. And also, can I say, it takes a rare talent to make Sarah Palin look even dumber than she actually is. He is a genius. He shall be missed. SHARPTON: I won`t judge that one. Stephanie Miller and Toure, thank you both for your time tonight. Make sure you catch Toure on "THE CYCLE" weekdays at 3:00 p.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC. Still ahead, the sad news about the little league team that won our hearts. Should the kids be punished for the adults` mistake? Also, Jeb Bush follows up his new focus on poverty by charging $100,000 a plate. And the terror scare you didn`t know about at President Obama`s first inauguration. "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: Time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, host of "THE DOCKET" on Shift MSNBC Seema Iyer, Democratic strategist Jimmy Williams and president of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics and Public Policy, Michelle Bernard. Thank you all for being here. SEEMA IYER, MSNBC HOST, "THE DOCKET": Thanks, Rev. MICHELLE BERNARD, PRESIDENT, BERNARD CENTER FOR WOMEN, POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY: Thank you. JIMMY WILLIAMS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you. SHARPTON: How much would you pay to have dinner with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush? Well, if you`re heading to the Park Avenue home of private equity mogul Henry Kravis, tonight you`re shelling out $100,000 a plate for that honor. One invited Wall Street executive reportedly said, quote, "I shook my head when I heard the number." People close to the former governor say the goal is to eventually reach between $100,000. Jimmy, $100,000 a plate. I mean, is this just getting out of control? WILLIAMS: You know, I`ve actually worked for billionaire, I don`t think I ever ate anything that caused $100,000 at his dinner table. And the other great irony of this is, it shouldn`t be lost on anyone that Governor Bush is doing this on Wall Street, he`s not doing it in Des Moines, he`s not doing it in national New Hampshire, he`s not doing it here in South Carolina. Those are called early primary states. If he tried to charge anyone $100,000 at a fund-raiser, I`m pretty sure it won`t go over so well. So hey, if we`re going to have conversations about economic populism and economic patriotism, what better place to do that than on Wall Street. SHARPTON: But Michelle, if we`re raising $100,000 per person on Wall Street, aside from the fact that the figure is certainly something that is -- makes you take a double take, does it affect the policies that he will in fact advocate since he`s clearly getting money from people that have their own theories about income inequality and other economic issues. BERNARD: Well, I mean, here`s the two things that this impacts. Number one, if you`re giving a $100,000 to a perspective candidate for the president. Not only does it mean that you believe that their chances of winning are reasonable but it is reasonable to expect that that person who is giving the money is going to make demands that affect public policy to their benefit. IYER: Absolutely. Right. BERNARD: And the other thing is, if you are the person who lives in section 8 housing. SHARPTON: Right. BERNARD: That lives in a neighborhood where their schools are awful, where you have no grocery stores and where you have very little ability to take care of yourself, let alone your children, no one, you can`t pay to go to a fund-raiser and there is no politician out there, at least as far as I can see right now that is running for on the republican ticket, that is going to hear your voice and hear what it means to be a member of the working poor in this country. IYER: Rev, I just want to point out that Kravis` is private equity firm, his fourth quarter profits fell 94 percent and that`s from 2014. So, it`s just alluding back to what you said earlier, Reverend is that there is this quid pro-quo. And of course it`s going to affect what a policy decisions Jeb Bush makes. And also, I`d love to remind everyone how Jimmy used to be a republican strategist. So I definitely take everything that Jimmy says on this topic. SHARPTON: All right. Now to a scary terror revelation. On President Obama`s first inauguration in his book, David Axelrod reveals serious concern about a group for Somalis. The President had a statement to read, if terrorists struck the inauguration, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked him to write the statement telling Axelrod, quote, "Meet him right before the ceremonies in the speaker`s office and give it to him. He`ll put it in his pocket in case it`s needed." Thankfully it was a false alarm. But what a fascinating look inside the presidency. Michelle, imagine the President in that moment with that letter, a fascinating revelation, right? BERNARD: You know, Reverend, I read the excerpt from the book and, frankly, it just sent chills up my spine. We -- it is a reminder that in this post- 9/11 world, we are never safe. You know, many of us were so worried on inauguration day 2009, that our newly elected in our first African-American president in history might be in danger because of domestic terrorism and now we`re realizing that not only was that fear plausible but it was also plausible that we could have been subject to another act, a foreign terrorism and it`s just frightening and sad. SHARPTON: But Seema, it also occurs to me, because I remember watching him that day and it was freezing out there. IYER: Right. SHARPTON: And how cool and calm he delivered the inaugural address. We had no idea he had a letter in his pocket -- IYER: Exactly. Right. SHARPTON: -- to make a statement and had been warned of a possible terrorist attack. IYER: That is our President, Rev. He`s always cool and calm. But could you imagine what kind of message that would have sent on the inauguration of our first black president, that instead of giving the inauguration speech, he would have had to have read that letter, possibly putting millions of people, including himself and his staff in danger and what message does that send to the world of the leader of the United States? SHARPTON: Yes. Jimmy, and you know, Axelrod didn`t write in the book what was written on the note. WILLIAMS: Right. SHARPTON: Maybe the President will reveal that. If he writes a book once he leaves office. WILLIAMS: Which I hope he does. That would be very interesting about all of the meetings he had in the White House with the republicans that didn`t go so well. But back to what Michelle said, I was in the capital complex on 9/11 working as a Senate staffer and I knew in that moment that our lives had changed forever. The idea that we could just walk freely through the capital even as staff, that that was going to change. Fast forward to 2009, a very different world, a very different president. But the system to keep him safe and everyone around him, it was in place and it worked and I`m very proud of that. SHARPTON: Finally, another cheating controversy hits the world of sports, except this time it`s pants size, pint-size, little league size, little league baseball stripped to cargo base, Jackie Robinson West of its title, suspended its coach for using players who live outside of the area that the team represents. The organization found team officials went to neighboring districts to scope out players and build a so-called super team. Today, the catcher for the team made a statement. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRANDON GREEN, CATCHER, JACKIE ROBINSON WEST: Me and my teammates, we work hard all year long and we went down there to play baseball and we weren`t involved in anything that could have caused us to be stripped of our championship but we do know that, we know that we are champions, our parents know that we are champions and the team knows we`re champions and Chicago knows we`re champions. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: This is an incredibly disappointing story. But should the kids pay for the adults` mistakes? IYER: No, but they are in essence, right Rev? They are going to have to pay for their mistakes by not being able to move forward with their team. However Rev, this is a tiny lesson in their large lives and they will move past this and their talent and their skill will see them through. SHARPTON: Seema, Jimmy and Michelle, I`m going to have to leave it there. We`re out of time. Thank you for joining "Conversation Nation." Make sure you watch "THE DOCKET" on shift by MSNBC on Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. Eastern. When we come back, 25 years after Nelson Mandela`s long walk to Freedom. SHARPTON: Twenty five years ago today, Nelson Mandela took a giant step in his long walk to freedom leaving prison and giving his first public speech in nearly three decades. It was a moving and emotional day that we can all still learn a lot from. That`s next. SHARPTON: Twenty five years ago today, the world stopped and watched as Nelson Mandela was finally released from prison, walking out a free man. The entire country of South Africa rejoiced and poured out into the streets. In Cape Town they sang and danced and cried tears of joy. After 27 years, Mandela was free and he had a message of reconciliation, not revenge. He had one clear goal above all, end apartheid. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NELSON MANDELA, FORMER SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT: Our struggle has reached a decisive moment. We call on our people to seize this moment so that the process towards democracy is rapid and uninterrupted. We have waited too long for our freedom. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: He was a freedom fighter, peacekeeper and a visionary, never bitter or warning the settle scores for the decades he lost in prison. Mandela received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 and in 1994 he became the first black president in country`s history. I was in South Africa to observe that election and I had the honor to meet Mandela on a number of occasions. As I thought about this 25th anniversary today, I thought of my American civil rights hero, Reverend Joseph Lowry. He always said to me, Sharpton, there`s a difference between the infamous and great. To be great is how you use your fame. If you`re good, you can get famous. But if you seek to be great is what you use your fame for. Nelson Mandela used his fame to transform a nation, rise not only about his enemies but rise above the enmity. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021101cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 51 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 11, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 11, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes, Aliyah Frumin GUESTS: Chris Van Hollen, Kate Nocera SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7344 words HIGHLIGHT: The president asked Congress to vote for war six months after it started. Interview with U.S. Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. A community mourns after three people are murdered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL. HAYES: The president asked Congress to vote for war six months after it started. OBAMA: ISIL is going to lose. HAYES: A community mourns after three people are murdered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was an execution style, this was a hate crime from a neighbor our children spoke about. HAYES: Plus, Mitt Romney saves Staples. Find out why President Obama is putting the office superstore on Front Street. OBAMA: Shame on them. HAYES: And 16 years of Zen. A look at how "The Daily Show" changed the political and the world we live in. JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW: Look at the ovals of progressive folly. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from Houston. I`m Chris Hayes. Six months after beginning combat operations against ISIS, President Obama formally requested war powers from Congress today, sending a draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, to Capitol Hill for a vote. The president laid out its goals in an address this afternoon. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL. It supports the comprehensive strategy that we`ve been pursuing with our allies and our partners, a systemic and sustained campaign of air strikes again ISIL in Iraq and Syria, support and training for local forces on the ground including the moderate Syrian opposition, preventing ISIL attacks in the region and beyond, including by foreign terrorist fighters who try to threaten our countries. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Today, we also got a first look at the actual language of this draft, whose authority would expire after three years unless reauthorized. It authorizes the president to use military force against ISIS and associated forces, which are defined as, quote, "individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely related successor entity in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners." It sets out no geographic imitations for the battlefield. It also rules out, quote, "The use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations." When a reporter asked the White House press secretary about that language, which he accurately described as fuzzy, this was the response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Intentionally so. And the intent is -- REPORTER: Intentionally so? Intentionally fuzzy? EARNEST: Yes, Jim, because we believe it`s important that there aren`t overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander-in- chief, who needs the flexibility to be able to respond to contingencies that emerge in a chaotic military conflict like this. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In his address this afternoon, President Obama elaborated on the intent behind that provision. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The resolution we`ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. For example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of ISIL leaders, and our partners didn`t have the capacity to get them, I would be prepared to order our Special Forces to take action, because I will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Congress will now take up the proposed resolution and it`s already becoming clear the language on ground troops is going to be the major sticking point. Several Democrats voiced concerns today about the open-endedness of that provision, including two of the most vocal advocates for congressional authorization. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TIM KAINE (D), VIRGINIA: I`m concerned about the breadth and vagueness of the ground troop -- of the ground troop language. REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: The language pertaining to ground troops, which is very broad, very ambiguous. None of us really knows what an "enduring offensive combat operations" means. And deliberately, I think drafted to be ambiguous. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: On the other side of the aisle, however, there are fears the prohibition on "enduring offensive ground combat operations" is far too restrictive to get the job done. Here`s House Speaker John Boehner. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I believe if we`re going to authorize military use of force, the president should have all the tools necessary to win the fight that we`re in. And so, as you`ve heard me say over the last number of months, I`m not sure that`s a strategy that`s been outlined will accomplish the mission that the president says he must accomplish. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: So, now, the question is, can this new congress, which has already shown remarkable dysfunction under Republican leadership, actually get this thing passed? You can bet President Obama who originally said he didn`t need congressional authority, is not going to wait for them to continue military operations against ISIS. Joining me now, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Democrat from Maryland. Congressman, let`s begin with this. It`s sort of a remarkable constitutional moment right now in which the executive is saying they don`t need this resolution, but the language they are offering would constrain them in some ways, and members of Congress, the Article I branch, from largely the Republican Party, saying, we do not want the executive constrained. What`s your reaction to that? REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: You`re right. The arguments seem upside down, Chris. Look, the Congress should have acted months ago, back in August and September. We shouldn`t have waited for the president to submit a draft proposal. After all, the Congress has congressional authority and responsibility to take action. I think the responsible action to take is to authorize the ongoing operations the president of the United States and our allies are conducting against ISIL, but to place very clear parameters on it so that we do not get dragged into another ground war in the Middle East. The Iraq war was a big mistake and we should learn our lessons from that mistake. HAYES: So, here`s part of the issue as well. This would, as proposed, replace the 2002 Iraq war resolution. There`s also the issue of what role this plays in the global war on terror, as the Bush administration called it. I want to play this sound from a hearing today, this exchange. Republican congressman talking about the broader perspective here. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JEFF DUNCAN (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Al Qaeda, they`re still alive and well, right? They`re still a threat to freedom -- global freedom? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir, they pose a significant terrorist threat. DUNCAN: In fact, I would say that al Qaeda, ISIS, al Qaeda and all of its elements, AQAP, AQIM, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, Abu Sayyaf, all these terror groups are still active, right? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir. DUNCAN: We shouldn`t take our eye off the ball with just focusing on ISIS, and think of this globally, and not get hung up on the 50 shades of terrorism. Talk about terrorism about terrorism. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: What I thought was so interesting about that exchange, Congressman, is that the "50 shades of terrorism", as Congressman Duncan called them, they are already covered by the 2001 AUMF -- in fact, as this ISIS, according to the White House. So what`s the issue here? VAN HOLLEN: Well, that`s exactly right. One of the concerns that Adam Schiff, who you quoted earlier, and I and others share is the fact that under this proposal, the 2001 AUMF will remain on the books forever. It`s an indefinite authorization, a blank check authorization to the executive branch. As you say, it is the authorization the president`s currently claiming to conduct these operations. And the president himself in 2013 at a speech at the National Defense University said we need to begin to rein in that 2001 authority. And so, the question is, if not now, when? I mean, this is the time we need to do it. And it`s a little puzzling to have Congress talking about how we`re going to establish responsible boundaries around the ISIL authority, when you`re leaving wide open the 2001 AUMF. It`s like, you know, trying to make sure you plan your front door just right while leaving the back door wide open. So, that is a big issue, along with the issue you raised in the beginning here with respect to the very broad grant of authority for U.S. ground combat forces. HAYES: OK. But here`s the -- where the rubber hits the road politically. If I am advising the president on this legislative, you know, the legislative strategy, I`m going to tell him that, when push comes to shove, you`re going to call the Democrats and they`ll vote for whatever it is in it. I mean, are Democrats going to vote against an authorization to use the military force from the president of their party? I`m not saying they shouldn`t, I`m just skeptical that they will. VAN HOLLEN: Well, this is one of those cases, Chris, where every member of Congress has to really, you know, search their soul, and look at what he or she believes their responsibilities as members of Congress are. This is something we will be living with for years to come, in terms of the ISIL authorization. And even more years in terms of the missed opportunity to begin to put some boundaries at least around the 2001 AUMF. So, the two concerns I`ve expressed are the ones that you`ve been focused on. One is the scope of authority, fresh authority, to put U.S. ground combat forces into Iraq, or Syria, or anywhere else where ISIL associates may pop up. And the fact that we`re leaving in place this wide-open 2001 blank check. So, from my perspective, we`re going to have to address those issues in a responsible way. And I would certainly support a grant of authority that meets the current mission in Iraq and Syria against ISIL, but not one that creates the potential for mission creep, and ends up with more U.S. ground combat forces in those countries. HAYES: Thank you, Congressman Chris Van Hollen. VAN HOLLEN: Thank you. HAYES: The resolution President Obama sent to Congress today would repeal the 2002 AUMF, which gave us the Iraq war. And it was Hillary Clinton`s vote in favor of that 2002 AUMF which gave us this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), THEN-U.S. SENATOR: It is absolutely unfair to say that the vote, as Chuck Hagel, who was one of the architects of the resolution has said, was a vote for war. It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That vote was an albatross around Clinton`s neck throughout her campaign for president in 2008. It arguably cost her the primary, which she lost to the anti-war candidate in that race, Barack Obama. This time around, there`s a handful of sitting senators who may be on the verge of running for president -- Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, perhaps Ted Cruz, perhaps others. They`re going to have to vote on President Obama threat for authority, the fight against ISIS, and go on the record with where they stand. They better hope it doesn`t come back to bite them. Joining me now, Kate Nocera. She`s senior congressional reporter for "BuzzFeed" news. Kate, where do you see this shaking out among Republican 2016 candidates? This is the first time they`re going to have to go very concretely on the record on a matter of war and peace. KATE NOCERA, BUZZFEED NEWS: Well, today, the -- Marco Rubio came to the Senate floor and said the only authorization that we need is the president, we`re going to authorize the president to go attack and destroy ISIS. So, he`s clearly taking one position. You see Rand Paul, you see Ted Cruz sort of going into more libertarian/dovish, we don`t need -- we want to see a more concrete plan from the president. They`re already really staking out their positions. I think that the lessons from 2008 are going to sort of weigh heavily on them. How is this going to affect me? Obviously, this is going to be a thing everyone talks about going into the primary. And the authorization the president is asking for is three years. So, that means the next president in their first year is going to have to start talking about reauthorization. So, obviously, that`s going to be a part of this conversation. HAYES: Here`s my read on the kind of pulse of politics in the conservative base. I think there was a real intense war weariness around 2010 or so. Particularly I think there was a real kind of, let`s get the heck out strain. I think Rand Paul represented that. You saw sort of high watermark criticism of the drone program. I think the kind of coverage of ISIS in the last six months has probably reinvigorated this kind of desire for more aggressive military action among the Republican base. Is that -- is that your read, at least, in how the political professionals understand where their primary voters are? NOCERA: I don`t think that there is anyone with voters who look at ISIS and says, we don`t want to destroy them. I think the question really remains, you know, how do we do that? How do we go? How do we -- how do we get them? And no one in sort of the Rand Paul camp wants this open- ended war, like we saw with the -- what the congressman was talking about with the 2001 AUMF. I think that`s going to be a real sticking point heading into the primary. HAYES: It`s interesting you say that, because precisely on the kind of playing the politics of this, reading them, ISIS is so monstrous and sort of aggressively monstrous in how they perform their atrocities. That I think you`re right in terms of how voters react to it. Of course, if you have two years from now a horrible quagmire that has developed in Iraq with ground forces, something largely unpopular, that`s blown back, you could find yourself in that Hillary Clinton on "Meet the Press" position trying to talk about the fine granularity of why you made the vote you made. NOCERA: Yes. I think that`s right. And I think that -- but I think that, you know, Rubio has allies on the Hill, and John McCain, Lindsey Graham and that sort of camp of hawkish Republicans who don`t want to limit the -- they just see it as a bad precedent. They`ll say they don`t want sort of an endless ground war. HAYES: Right. NOCERA: But they don`t want the press didn`t of having to constrain the president at all. I think it`s an interesting -- I`m interested to sort of see where Hillary Clinton is on all of this. They`re starting on the Hill this sort of percolating progressive senators who want to talk more about foreign policy, and maybe move her to the left a little bit more. So, I think that that`s another element of the 2016 piece of this. HAYES: Yes, that will be interesting as well. Kate Nocera, thank you very much. NOCERA: Thank you. HAYES: Was the man who allegedly murdered three Muslim-Americans in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, motivated by prejudice or a parking dispute? That story is ahead. HAYES: Some of you have been asking why we`ve been doing the show from the great state of Texas this week. Well, I`m here with a dedicated of producers working on the next installment of "All In America" series a story that took me to the Allan B. Polunsky Unit, a prison in Livingston, Texas, to interview a death row inmate this afternoon. Here`s a quick look at the conversation I had with my producers as we drove away from the prison. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: There`s just something so bizarre about the bureaucracy of death. Bureaucracy of death in the state of Texas, the procedures that have been built up around it, the paperwork, the rules, the granularity with which every little thing is regulated, and attended to, all of it as if it were, you know, a zoning department or a regulatory agency when the thing at issue is the taking of a life. It`s strange. It`s real strange. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You can find a longer version of that video, a sort of road diary of my first thoughts on my interview on our Facebook page, Facebook.com/AllInWithChris. HAYES: Three Muslim-Americans were murdered yesterday at the condominium complex where they lived near the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. And today, the suspect, a neighbor, made his first court appearance charged with three counts of first-degree murder. You`re looking at an organized vigil that has been growing over the past couple of hours -- thousands of people by the estimate of the student newspaper, mourning these three students and expressing their support for the community at large. A central unanswered question is whether the suspect was motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment, and already family members of the victims as well as the wife of the suspect are voicing strong opinions on the subject. About 5:00 p.m. yesterday evening, police were called to Finley Forest condominiums in Durham County. According to 911 callers, multiple shots had been fired. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 911 CALLER: I heard screams. I heard it right when it was happening, I was walking right by it. All I heard was, I was walking, minding my business. I heard about eight shots all of a sudden go off and I hid behind a car. And then I waited and was going to keep walking, and I`ve never heard gunshots before like that. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The victims were Deah Barakat, 23, a dental student at the University of North Carolina School of Dentistry. His wife, Yusor Abu- Salha, 21, who was going to enroll in the same school in fall, and her sister, Razan Abu-Salha, 19, a student, architecture and design major at North Carolina State University. All three were found dead at the scene. All three reportedly shot in the head. Craig Steven Hicks, 46, subsequently surrendered himself to authorities, has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder. Today, he made his first court appearance, and is being held without bond. Chapel Hill police say the preliminary investigation indicates the killing may have been the result of an ongoing parking dispute. FBI officials tell NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams there is not yet a separate federal investigation. However, police are cognizant of concerns about the possibility it was a hate crime, and their investigation is ongoing. The father of the two sisters who were murdered said they had described to him the problem they were having with their neighbor, Mr. Hicks. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MOHAMMAD ABU-SALHA, FATHER OF TWO VICTIMS: He came to that apartment twice before, at least with a gun in his belt. And she told us, my daughter honest to God said, rest her soul, she said, daddy, we have a neighbor who is hateful. We don`t like him. He`s very hateful. He hates how we look and how we are. The police told us that they were shot in the head all of them, and was very fast. They said there was no struggle. We believe this was execution. That could not be a random fight. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The wife of suspect Craig Hicks offered a differing opinion. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAREN HICKS, WIFE OF SHOOTING SUSPECT: I can say with my absolute belief that this incident had nothing to do with religion or victims faith, but are in fact was related to the long-standing parking disputes. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: One of the victims, Deah Barakat, planned a trip this summer to help Syrian refugees. (BEGIN VIDED CLIP) DEAH BARAKAT, VICTIM: My name is Deah Baraka. I`m a dental student at UNC. And I need your help. Have you ever felt helpless about the situation in Syria and felt like you can`t do anything about it? Well, this is your opportunity to help. This summer, I`m embarking on a trip to Turkey with ten dentists to help Syrian refugees in need of urgent dental care. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me on the phone from Chapel Hill is Aliyah Frumin. She`s MSNBC national reporter at the vigil tonight. Aliyah, it was an amazing, moving scene from the photos I saw. What was it like? ALIYAH FRUMIN, MSNBC NATIONAL REPORTER (via telephone): Right. I mean, more than 1,000 students, faculty, members and even family members gathered for a vigil, just under an hour ago. And there was a lot of sadness, and some anger. Mostly just bewilderment at how this could have happened. As you mentioned, these were three promising young individuals, all in school, or going to school. There`s a lot of shock and sadness right now. HAYES: I know that some of the family members spoke, I know there`s been a feeling at least coming from social media, from folks that are there, this -- the perception of people close to it, this was indeed motivated by the faith of the three victims. Was that the prevailing sentiment you felt at that vigil? It seems like it`s really struck a nerve. FRUMIN: Right. The family members certainly think so. And members of the community have expressed that sentiment. Before the vigil, we spoke to Haras Barakat (ph), the brother Deah, one of the victims, and he told us that he does believe that race played an issue. He told us that he had met the neighbor and the alleged gunman Craig Steven Hicks in the past. And Yusor, the wife Deah, who is also the victim, had expressed to him that she was afraid of him, that she was uncomfortable, that she felt threatened. He would come to the door several times. And complained their friends were leaving the apartment too loudly, and the parking spot that was mentioned before. In fact, one time, he even came over, opened up his jacket and showed his gun. So, the couple was clearly uncomfortable, and threatened, according to the brother that spoke with us. HAYES: Part of what`s strange in the fallout from this as we`re learning more details, and obviously the court appearance by Mr. Hicks today, is that his wife addressing the cameras in the wake of an alleged murder of three people, not to protest that her husband is innocent, not to protest that he didn`t do this, but to refer the incident and to protest about what the nature of the incident was. I was kind of reeling from that. That is not something you normally see. FRUMIN: Right. And we were quite surprised by that interview as well. She spoke to media, and expressed that it wasn`t a matter of hate crime. While the family is saying, what other crime could this be other than hate? So interesting. HAYES: Aliyah Frumin in Chapel Hill this morning, thank you very much. FRUMIN: Thank you. HAYES: You can go look at Deah Barakat`s Twitter page, which is still up, it`s absolutely heartbreaking. He`s a basketball fan. He describes himself as an aspiring Splash Brother, reference to Golden State Warriors. It`s very, very sad. All right. Who is the president talking about here? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: There is no reason for an employer who is not currently providing health care to their workers to discourage them from either getting health insurance on the job, or being able to avail themselves of the Affordable Care Act. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: I`ll tell you, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MITT ROMNEY, FRM. GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: Now let`s see. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was easy. ROMNEY: Yeah, that`s nice. You heard those before? Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was easy. ROMNEY: Don`t I wish it were that easy, huh? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That was Mitt Romney during a 2008 campaign stop at Staples, a company that Romney`s Bain Capital helped launch and whose success Romney held up a symbol of his private sector acumen. On Monday, Buzzfeed News reported that Staples was cutting hours of part-time staffers and threatening to fire those who worked more than 25 hours a week, citing recent changes that have necessitated a strong stance on part-time associates. The recent changes in question would appear to be the phasing in of an Obamacare provision requiring that companies offer health insurance to employees working 30 hours per week or more, or face a possible fine of up to $3,000 per employee. Yesterday President Obama sat down for an interview with Buzzfeed news and was asked what he would say to the Staples CEO about that policy. He didn`t hold back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I haven`t looked at Staples` stock lately, or what the compensation of the CEO is, but I suspect that they could well afford to treat their workers favorably and give them some basic financial security. And if they can`t, then they should be willing to allow those workers to get the Affordable Care Act without cutting wages. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The CEO of Staples is named Ronald Sergeant. And while his company has struggled as online shopping has taken hold, Staples still reported $707 million in profits last year. As for Sergeant, he turned down a $31,000 raise in January, but he still brought home $10.8 million in total compensation last year. Today Staples declined an interview with All In saying no one was available. They did send us a statement responding to the president`s comments. Staples maintains that its policy on part-time workers was long- standing, said the president did not have all the facts. Quote, "it`s unfortunate the president is attacking a company that provides more than 85,000 jobs and is a major taxpayer," a Staples spokesperson said. And his comments to Buzzfeed yesterday, the president made a point of differentiation between mom and pop stores, and large companies like Staples. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: When I hear large corporations that make billions of dollars in profits, trying to blame our interest in providing health insurance as an excuse for cutting back workers` wages, shame on them. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: It was the latest aggressive stance from a president who ever since the midterms has made clear over and over, time and time again, he is not going to spend the rest of his time in office playing nice. HAYES: Yesterday the conservative attack machine set its sights on Hillary Clinton, with the Drudge Report bannering a claim that the likely 2016 presidential candidate has been, quote, in hiding. Drudge linked to a story about a Republican National Committee press release claiming that while potential Republican presidential candidates are out in public speaking to voters and sharing their ideas, Hillary Clinton is nowhere to be found. I`m not sure Americans are particularly upset they aren`t seeing or hearing more from Hillary Clinton, or any other potential presidential candidate for that matter, seeing as we are still 21 months from election day with a grand total of zero candidates formally in the race. But while Clinton actually seems to be doing a pretty good job in managing her personal persona, at least one poll last month showed her with double-digit leads over some potential GOP presidential rivals, there are signs of possible trouble behind the scenes, which exploding into the open this week. And at the center of it, David Brock, the former self-described right- wing hit man who`s reporting initially prompted Paula Jones to file a sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton in 1994. Brock went through a political conversion in the late 1990s, wrote a book about it. And he`s transformed himself into a very powerful Democratic operative and the leader of prominent liberal independent groups, including pro-Clinton the super PAC American Bridge, and the watchdog media group, Media Matters, as well as a new group called Correct the Record, which defends Clinton against her critics. On Monday, Brock abruptly resigned from the board of another powerful pro-Clinton group, the super PAC Priorities USA Action, accusing priorities officials of planting an orchestrated political hit job against the groups that Brock leads. The alleged hit job appears to be this piece in The New York Times by Nick Confessore addressing the shadowy world of paid political fund- raisers, which detailed how Brock`s groups and other pro-Clinton groups have paid a consulting firm more than $6 million to help them cultivate wealthy donors and raise money. Brock contended in his resignation letter The Times story was driven by current and former priorities officials and said it could severely damage critical funding for his groups, quote, "while presumably enhancing Priority`s own funding raising." But then just hours after that spat erupted in public, both Brock and Priorities USA Action signaled they`re willing to hug it out. With Priorities saying they take Brock`s concerns seriously. Brock saying he`s open to returning to the Priority board. But there is without question a very serious battle taking place right now over who will hold the backstage power and influence in Clinton`s likely presidential campaign. It`s a fight that Clinton, whose 2008 presidential campaign was beset by reports of infighting and backstabbing behind the scenes, presumably wants to see resolved as quickly as possible. The core issue appears to be a struggle for power between former strategist for President Obama, who have moved into the Clinton orbit, including Jim Mesina, who co-chair`s Priorities USA Action and was the president`s 2012 campaign manager and longtime Clinton allies, including Brock, who reportedly fear being pushed aside. The battle is fierce. In the Times yesterday, one Mesina ally, fund-raiser John Morgan, described Brock on the record as, quote, "a cancer who is unwilling to do what`s best for Clinton and the nation." Morgan added speaking of Brock`s resignation, "if you care about your party and your country, you just do what you`re asked. If you care about yourself, you take your toys and go home." Joining me is someone who has been all over this story and wrote the piece that blew out in the open, Nick Confessore, political reporter for The New York Times. OK, first of all, what is going on? So is this a war between these two PACs, between Priorities and America Bridge, between two camps? What`s going on? NICK CONFESSORE, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, you know, in the olden days, Chris, back in the pre-Citizens days, a person like me would have to wait months, or even a year from now to see this kind of infighting in a non-campaign. There is no campaign, there is just these groups that have tried to stake out a piece of a role of her future campaign for president, a collection of super PACs with overlapping boards and an overlapping need for money. And what this partly comes down to is the fact that there`s only so many large donors on the left who can pony up for these kinds of groups, and these groups are all kind of careening, and kind of competing for the same money to get off the ground, and kind of own a piece of the future Clinton campaign, and the apparatus that she will assemble and put into place after she declares. HAYES: OK. Was -- so that piece you wrote about the world of fund-raising consultants, which was eye opening, at one level it seemed kind of shady, insofar as you`ve got the consultants act as kind of middle people that take a cut of every check you write. At the same time I guess there`s people that do that in all walks of life, so maybe it`s not that out of the ordinary. Was that a hit job planted by David Brock`s political enemies? CONFESSORE: Absolutely not. It actually arose out of complaints I heard from donors. I cover fund-raising a lot for The New York Times. I heard over and over again from donors on the right and the left about this issue of donor advisers and fund-raising consultants. You can imagine if you`re a donor and you`re writing a seven-figure check to a group and then you find out later that a for-profit consultant has been handed a 12.5 percent cut or a 5 percent or a 10 percent cut of it, you`re outraged. People were really angry about this. And some of the donors I spoke to for that story had no idea, or even been lied to by the fund-raising consultants who were setting up meetings between the donors and groups that needed their money. HAYES: Nick Confessore of The New York Times, continues to be the must-read reporter on the money in politics beat. Thank you so much. CONFESSORE: Thank you, Chris. HAYES: The year before Jon Stewart took over the desk of the Daily Show, the faux newscast was described as, quote, precocious, but empty. I`m pretty sure it hasn`t been described that way since. How Jon Stewart turned the show around and became the most trusted man, not just in fake news, but real news, too, ahead. (BEIGN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: All right, Josh Barro. JOSH BARRO: I`m going to take number 25. HAYES: Josh Barro, just for people scoring at home, Josh has had a rough go of it so far. Right now you have Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina. BARRO: You know, I think that`s going to be a three-person ticket. They`re going to be like a triumvirate. HAYES: 25, does Josh Barro`s luck turn around with good old number 25. No, it doesn`t. Bob Corcker. ANNOUNCER: Bob Corker, one of just three Bobs currently serving in the United States senate. And he`d be the first Bob to hold the office of president. He`s Tennessee Senator Bob Corker. HAYES: You sure know how to pick them. Josh Barro, you`ve got a nose. BARRO: Is Bob Corker even aware that anybody`s talking about the idea that Bob Corker might run for president? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: It`s time for another update to our All In Fantasy 2016 Candidate Draft. The last time we did one of these it was Sam Seder who lost Mitt Romney and I wondered if that would improve Josh Barro`s chances. But, no, it doesn`t, because Bob Corker, it looks like not going to run for president. So it`s still not looking good for Josh Barro. But stay tuned, his luck could turn around. Although, with picks like that, I highly doubt it. We`ll continue to monitor all the latest developments to see how the rest of our players fare with their draft picks as the race for 2016 heat up. For now, you can check in on everyone`s picks at our Facebook page Facebook.com/allinwithchris. That page is so chock-full of goodness, I think it deserves a like or two. So show it some love during a commercial break. (BEGIN VIDE CLIP) JON STEWART, HOST, THE DAILY SHOW: And now, the continued comprehensive coverage of the final blow. You`re out of order, he`s out of order, this whole trial is -- sexy. President Clinton`s historic impeachment trial begins Thursday. And the most important issue facing the United States Senate is how can it take a pointless, tawdry trial whose outcome has already been decided and make it last six hilarious humiliating months. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Way back in 1999, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart -- god he looks young there -- was born into a moment of peak absurdity in American politics and quickly it went from being something novel and quirky and even niche to something we couldn`t live without. At a time when the U.S. Supreme Court was helping to settle President Elections, when you`re being misled and manipulated into going to war in Iraq, just about everywhere you look the media appeared to be doing everything it could not to get to the bottom of things. And here came the Daily Show to remind night in, night out that, well, the emperor had no clothes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: With New York City secure, the stage was set for day one of the Republican National Convention. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: No American alive today will ever forget what happened on the morning of September 11th. STEWART: I know. But in case you did forget, it was featured in speeches throughout the evening. In fact, they even used it as a back drop. So, those working out on the StairMaster at your health club could share in the remembrance. JOHN EDWARDS, FRM. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I`m a candidate for president of the united states. STEWART: We`re a fake show. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat`s manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief. STEWARD: How dare the Democratic Party field a candidate and in an election year. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And indeed, the Daily Show focused more and more on politics and criticizing the media. People tuned in to see every night the emperor sitting there naked. In other words, people turned to the Daily Show for the actual news. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD RUMSFELD, FRM. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: It could last, you know, six days, six weeks, I doubt six months. STEWART: Missed it by... (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: By this time, Jon Stewart himself had become incredibly influential figure in the media landscape. Here he`s on CNN`s show crossfire in October 2004. I remember huddled around a television watching this that year. The show would be canceled about three months after his appearance. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: Right now, you`re helping the politicians, and the corporations. And we`re left out there to mow our lawns. PAUL BEGALA, FRM. HOST, CNN`S CROSSFIRE: You just said we`re too rough on them when they make mistakes. STEWART: No, no, no, you`re not too rough on them, you`re part of their strategies. Your partisan, what do you call it, hacks. You`re doing theater when you should be doing debate, which would be great. It`s not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I`ll tell you why I know... TUCKER CARLSON, FRM. HOST, CNN`S CROSFIRE: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you`re accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely. CARLSON: You`ve got to be kidding, man. STEWART: You`re on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: It was that appearance that made a lot of people wake up and take notice of what Jon Stewart was doing, trying to get us to think critically about the world and the media that covers. The president of CNN actually cited Stewart`s criticism when he announced Crossfire was being canceled. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart started as a fake news show, but by distilling something essential about the times in which we live, it became an iconic cultural product of its era for 16 years. And when appropriate, Jon Stewart has made us laugh while speaking truth to power. Because of this, he will be missed. And although the Daily Show was, well, around before Jon Stewart, that does not mean it will exist in its current form after he`s gone. We`ll look back on the show and debate what`s next, after this break. HAYES: Joining me now Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at Media Matters; and Sam Seder, host of the Majority Report. All right. So, Sam, I want you to react to my thesis, which is basically, I wrote this book called "Twilight of the Elites," which is about basically this crisis of authority, this era in which all our institutions have lost trust to people and that somehow Jon Stewart Daily Show, a satirical nightly news show, became the iconic product of that era, because basically people thought everything was bull, like they didn`t believe anything being said by anyone and so his kind of satirical mode became the perfect source of authority in that authority-less era. SAM SEDER, MAJORITY REPORT: Yeah, I think there`s something to that. And I also would add to that, too, that the sort of the lack of pretense that we saw particularly in the context of the news, I mean, in that respect, you almost see a reflection of that on YouTube, too, at some level. Like there`s just simply less pretense and less pretending that`s going on. But yeah, I think part of it was a function of the, you know, of the emperor having no clothes. But that moment that you showed with him on Crossfire, I mean, that was really the seminal moment, right, when he went in and said, you two guys, you`re just actors on some level. And I am actually more or less an actor. And what are you doing? HAYES: And I wonder, Eric, if you feel like -- we said this last night, that in some ways as someone who hosts a cable news show, which basically is the feed stock for the Daily Show, sometimes -- sometimes that`s all we`re good for, basically, creating stuff that they can cut up into Daily Show segments. But as someone who does that, I`m very aware that like they will call foul if we screw something up. Do you think they made media better? Or did it all just -- did the absurdity sort of just give them something to run with? ERIC BOEHLERT, MEDIA MATTERS: No, they made it better. And they reinvented media criticism. I mean, media criticism was never funny, it was never interesting, it was never compelling. It was important and people did important work. And when you wrote 2,000 or 3,000 words and you documented what the media was doing wrong in the narratives and who`s being a lapdog for who, that`s important. But they made it funny, him and Stephen Colbert. I mean, they created this whole voice. And they made people really stand up, sit up and say, wait a minute, why is the news being put together this way? Why are we seeing these false equivalencies? And what on Earth is Fox News doing? I mean, let`s face it, Jon Stewart -- and again, I give Colbert credit, I mean, they were incredibly important and incredibly effective in terms of pushing back on the insanity, a, of say, a Bush war, and then the insanity of a news organization that decided to go into the propaganda business. HAYES: Yeah, there is something about the era in which it exploded in popularity, which was that, Sam, that era -- you know, when you back at 2004, the Zell Miller speech, this sense that like the media -- I remember you, you were on Air America at that point. I remember listening to your show and just feeling -- and watching the Daily Show and feeling like there`s just a very small number of people who are just saying what I feel, which is that this is madness, all of this is complete madness. SEDER: Yeah. I mean, I agree. I mean, I think there was -- at that time there was very little outlets for any type of dissent, any type of criticism that was going on. I mean, remember I think it was a couple years earlier, the show that was there before the Daily Show was Politically Incorrect. And Bill Maher took that from Comedy Central to ABC and then lost it off of ABC because of what he said in the wake of 9/11. And so the idea -- and he wasn`t particularly -- his critique was not particularly left per se. And so there was very little dissent at all for what was going on. And I think Jon Stewart was there to basically at the very least not -- at that point, he wasn`t as political I think as the show ultimately became, but he was basically saying the media is farcical. We`re not getting the truth on some level. And you know, I`d add not only do I think that he -- that the show impacted the media, but also impacted comedy. You know, at that time, to do political comedy in this country was very, very dangerous and just looked down upon by the entertainment industry. And there`s a lot more of that that happens today. I don`t know if it`s necessarily because of Stewart, but it`s certainly a part of it. HAYES: That is a great point. Eric, there is a piece in Slate I thought was interesting which basically said that in some ways the idea of a nightly satire show now feels uncomfortably wedged between the breakneck pace of social media and the relatively leisureliness of the weekly format Oliver has mastered. Passing the torch just doesn`t make sense. After one last Moment of Zen it`s time to put the Daily Show to bed. Do you -- what do you think of that idea? BOEHLERT: No, I disagree. I mean, we don`t know what it is going to be when Jon leaves, but I think he has shown this is incredibly important. It`s important to look at the politics in our media, in a refreshing and interesting and honest way. Again, Sam was saying, you go back to 2003, 2004, half of the liberal media pundits in America supported the war. So, it`s important to have that voice. HAYES: Eric Boehlert and Sam Seder, thanks guys. All right, that is All In for this evening from Houston, Texas. The Rachel Maddow show starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021101cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 52 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 11, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 11, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Andrea Mitchell GUESTS: Chris Murphy, Mark Kleinschmidt SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7568 words HIGHLIGHT: On day one of Jeb Bush`s roll-out as the e-governor, he picked the chief technology officer who wrote online about ugly sluts and how terrible black people are, and on day two, he accidently doxxed a significant portion of the population of Florida, and he had to fire or accept the resignation of the technology officer who he had hired on day one. The White House is putting out a statement from the National Security Council debunking and denying anonymous reports that have been aired by other news outlets basically insinuating that Kayla Mueller may not have been an unwilling hostage with ISIS. President Obama at the White House today made a formal request to Congress that they retroactively authorize a war that we`ve already been fighting for more than six months now against ISIS. Interview with U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: All right. That is "ALL IN" for this evening from Houston, Texas. THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, my friend. And thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. This is Henry Kravis. Henry Kravis is a very, very, very wealthy man. Right now, there are only 99 people in the United States who are known to be richer than him. He`s worth like 5 billion with B dollars, nothing wrong with that. Just saying that`s why you might have heard of him if you have. Henry Kravis tonight is hosting a dinner at his home. I`m sure his home is lovely. But in order to get into the dinner into his home, in order to buy a ticket, you just need one simple thing. You need $1 times 100,000. And you have to want to give your $100,000 to Jeb Bush. To the Jeb Bush for President super PAC -- $100,000 per person for a fund-raiser. That ticket price is shocking, even by Wall Street standards. But it turns out that the shock is part of the tactic here. This in part is Jeb Bush showing off to the other would-be candidates for president in 2016, that he can get people to shell out $100,000 per person for a chicken dinner for him at this stage of the race. They call it shock and awe fund-raising. And it is aimed, yes, at raising a lot of money. But it`s also aimed at the other candidates in the race to make them believe it is futile to try to compete. I mean, Jeb Bush is doing it now in his run for the presidency. But the all-time undisputed king of this tactic, the guy who basically invented it in modern politics is Jeb Bush`s older brother, George. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM BROKAW, NBC NEWS: Of course, cash is king in a race for a presidency. When it comes to filling the war chest, George W. Bush rules. We continue in-depth. Here`s NBC`s Lisa Myers. LISA MYERS, NBC NEWS: To win the presidency, the Bush campaign needs to suck up cash like a Texas twister. And so far, it`s on track. Other candidates complain Bush has turned the Republican Party into his personal ATM, leaving everyone else starved for cash. By the end of this month, Bush`s war chest may top $20 million, more than the rest of the field combined. Opponents complain Bush`s strategy is to overwhelm everyone else and drive them out of the race. UNIDENTIFEID FEMALE: His critics may say George W. Bush lacks depth when it comes to his policy positions, but now, there`s fresh evidence of the incredible depth of his financial support. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By all accounts the numbers are staggering and unprecedented. The question now is, can other candidates survive? (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The other candidates did not survive. George W. Bush locked up basically all the money in the race on the Republican side in 1999 and 2000, locked up all that money, really early. And with that, intimidating, some say even prohibitive fund-raising advantage, he forced out of the race the people who were best placed to compete with him for the nomination for president in 2000. That`s how he won the nomination. And then he won the presidency. And now, W.`s younger brother, Jeb, is showing he`s mindful of his brother`s legacy, as he mounts his own run, apparently in much the same way -- $100,000 a ticket to go to this dinner tonight. But you know, if you are the third Bush trying to win the presidency in less than 30 years, you can`t just be mindful of the time your brother ran. You also have to be mindful of how your father did it as well. George H.W. Bush, Poppy Bush, running for the first time in 1988, I have to admit less than exciting. He had been Ronald Reagan`s vice president, he basically ran as Ronald Reagan`s vice president, sort of a four more years kind of thing. The more searing experience for Poppy Bush was when he ran for a second term. When he ran for reelection in 1992, he did not win. Bill Clinton beat him. And for all the indelible moments over the years of things going wrong for candidates while they were running for president, you know, Gary Bauer falling backwards off a stage while flipping pancakes at a Bisquick photo-op, our Howard Dean screaming into the microphone, don`t do it! And whoever told Michael Dukakis that it would be a good idea to put that tiny person in that giant tank. I mean, for all of the indelible presidential campaigns, bad moments over the years, John Kerry reborn -- the most indelible presidential campaign moment, that happens not just to candidates, but to a serving president who was running for reelection, one of these indelible moments that happened to a serving president was what happened to George H.W. Bush, when he was running for reelection in 1992. He had this remarkable staged for the press moment in Florida, involving a carton of milk, an apple, and his own wide-eyed amazement. "The New York Times" headline after this after this happened was, "Bush encounters the supermarket amazed." Quote, "He grabbed a quart of milk, a light bulb and candy and ran them over the scanner. The look of wonder flickered across his face, as he saw the item and price registered on the cash register screen." Quote, "This is for checking out?" he said. "Amazed by some of the technology." In the years since that happened, that story has sort of taken on a life of its own. Some people had tried to do debunk it. Of course, Poppy Bush had been in a supermarket before. Of course, he was aware that supermarkets had been using electronic scanners. He just said he was amazed by it, because it`s still amazing all those years later, right? They come up with a way to try to debunk it. But even with all the pushback, that story stuck. It did not help Poppy Bush in his reelection effort, that he looked like an out-of-touch super-rich guys who didn`t know the fundamentals of peasant life, like how you pay for stuff in a store. And you would think that that story looms large in the Bush family psyche of things that can go wrong when you are running for president. And it might. But now, we are faced with the apparent inevitable candidacy of one of Poppy Bush`s son, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. And the challenge that he`s got that nobody else has, is that he has to define himself as a third kind of Bush. Right? We had Poppy Bush, and we had George Bush, now, we`ve got Jeb and he has to differentiate himself from those two previous presidents from his own nuclear family. And what he appears to have settled on, what we have learned this week, is that he wants to be the Tech Bush. E-Bush, if you will. Now, here`s the first problem. It is hard to seem like a tech-savvy candidate for president if you never thought to buy the Web site address JebBushforpresident.com. But that web address actually belongs to two adorable burly bears who were a couple in Oregon. They bought it several years ago for $8. And they`re now busy turning JebBushforpresident.com, into a gay rights Web site, because they can, because they own it, because Jeb Bush, the Tech Bush, the E-Bush, he never thought he might need that address, and so they got it. This week, though, the Jeb Bush for president campaign, rolling him out as the tech guy, they did start a big public buildup to some new Jeb Bush for president Web site they were launching. We knew it would not be at the obvious URL, jebbushforpresident.com because, again, the beardy gay guys in Oregon own that, but the Jeb folks did a big conference call with reporters, publicizing that they were going to launch a new site. They said it was going to go online at midnight on Tuesday, right? Midnight launch, that`s kind of a dramatic choice. They said it was going to be a Web site with unprecedented transparency about this campaign, unprecedented online release of Jeb Bush related information. Stay tuned for midnight. And when it went live at midnight, we found out what it was. The Web site is jebbushemails.com. You type that into your browser. This pops up as the splash page. Sort of a strained happy face from Governor Bush. And the Web site is all about how much he loves the e-mail. E-mail kept me connected to Floridians and focused on the mission of being their governor. He talks about just how many e-mails he got when he was governor, millions of emails. He wants you to know that his nickname when he was governor was that they called him the e-governor. But the launch of e-governor, e-Jeb, e-Bush, this is big tech coming out. It has now run into another significant problem. Have you ever heard of the phenomenon of doxxing? Sometimes it`s d-o-x-i-n-g, more frequently it`s d-o-x-x-i-n-g. Basically means somebody`s decided to hurt you, to maliciously go after you on purpose by posting online your real personal information, your private personal information. So that could mean something as simple as your full name and your personal e-mail address, maybe also your date of birth, your physical address. In extreme doxxing attacks, it could also mean your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, your medical information, your Social Security number. All your private stuff posted online for anybody to see. That`s doxxing. This is the headline at Gizmodo about Jeb Bush`s new I was the e- governor Web site. Quote, "Jeb Bush basically just doxxed thousands of Floridians." What Jeb Bush just published as part of his big campaign rollout this week, what he just published at jebbushemails.com were not just e-mails that he wrote to people in Florida, when he was the governor of Florida, it wasn`t like a publication of his own correspondence, what he published are the e-mails that people sent to him, hundreds of thousands of them. He published them indiscriminately, including people`s specific identifying information, personal information, real names, real addresses - - the personal medical information of this child listed by name, including his diagnosis, and what medications he was using for his treatment. Full names, full addresses, real working phone numbers for people who wrote to Jeb Bush with all sorts of long, involved emotional personal stories, because he was their governor and they wanted help. Medical diagnoses, problems with the law, work related issues. Honestly, going through this stuff, I was surprised how much medical stuff there was specifically. But it`s all there, published by Jeb Bush online, including people`s real names with nothing blacked out. And at least in a couple instances, this Jeb Bush document dump yet includes people`s full legal names, along with their full Social Security numbers. We blurred them out here, but they were not blurred out in what Jeb Bush posted online yesterday. I mean, even if you set aside the Social Security numbers and phone numbers and addresses and full names and medical information and personal stories that he published online yesterday, there`s also just the matter of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of personal e-mail addresses that he posted online yesterday from these poor people who had the bad luck to write to him, even people who thought ahead about that, and wrote things like this, in their e-mails to Jeb Bush. Look, this person wrote this big long personal e-mail and added on to the end of it, look -- please do not make this e-mail public to anybody. I do not want my privacy violated especially by the media. And then Jeb Bush posted that, that whole e-mail at JebBushemails.com. Doxxing. After doing that, Jeb Bush then had to face reporters about this, about whether he even understood what he had just done to all these people. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: You released a bunch of emails, with a lot of Social Security numbers released, a lot of personal information, some folks are upset. JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Well, that was a matter of public record in the department of state, so we just released what the government gave us. REPORTER: If you could do it differently, would you? BUSH: Yes, if we have private information that`s out there, we would take -- we`re going to take it off, for sure. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: You did that hundreds of thousands of times. Jeb Bush and the Jeb Bush for president folks initially did try to defend the release of those e-mails saying all of that personal information wasn`t technically a secret. Anyone could have requested it with the formal open records request to the Florida state government. And that is the way the law works in Florida. But, you know, it`s one thing to obtain somebody`s personal e-mail address, you know, personal information because you were trying to get it from the state of Florida by way of an open records request for old personal e-mails that people sent to the former governor of the state, if you thought to do that. It`s another thing for that governor to create a flashy new Web site that invites you to read all of these personal unredacted e-mails, so you can appreciate his tech-savvy brilliance as the e-governor who perhaps somebody could be our e-president. After initially defending what they had done, the Jeb Bush folks later in the day they said they had started doing after-the-fact redactions of the stuff that they never bothered to check before they posted these documents. Presumably, they will start with the Social Security numbers and make a case by case determination about whether or not your story about your sick child deserves you having your name blacked out, and your address and your child`s name, and the list of medications your child takes. I mean, it`s already up there now, but maybe they`ll take it down later, they`ll get to it eventually. All this tech stuff is hard. So, that has been the rollout of Jeb Bush as the electronic Bush, as the tech- savvy guy among the Republican candidates. I will say, though, that was only day two of the rollout of e-Bush, the tech Republican. You might remember that day one started with Jeb Bush announcing the hiring of a new young hip chief technology officer, to run the technology for his presidential campaign PAC. The guy they hired was a co-founder of hipster.com. Hipster.com was supposed to be kind of like Instagram, but different once upon a time. In 2012, hipster.com got famous because they had to apologize publicly. Once people started to notice that if you signed up for their hipster.com app, they would upload your entire address book off your phone without your permission and take all of your contacts. They were doing that without telling people they were doing that. So, they had to apologize. A month after apologizing, AOL bought hipster.com. And then a year later, AOL shut the thing down, so now, hipster.com just goes to AOL. The hipster.com founder is who Jeb Bush tapped to be his chief technology officer. But when the Jeb Bush folks announced they hired him this week on Monday to start this rollout of Jeb Bush the tech candidate, that hiring announcement started this long awkward afternoon of the new guy they just hired of having to delete parts of his Twitter history -- because it included tweets like this: "Most people don`t know that Halloween is German for night that girls with low self-esteem dress like sluts." Or this one, quote, "New study confirms old belief, college female art majors are sluts. Science majoring are also sluts, but uglier." So, he seemed nice. The Jeb Bush campaign folks, I don`t know where they found him, but they initially put out a statement saying that while they believe those comments were inappropriate, basically no big deal. They said they were inappropriate. They didn`t approve of those comments. They wanted them taken down, but, quote, "Ethan is a great talent in the tech world and we`re very excited to have him onboard." But while Jeb Bush was still very excited about his new hire, even after reading his online musings about which sluts are uglier, turns out the ugly slut stuff was just a taste. That was just amuse-bouche of that was just the chief technology`s record of strongly worded opinions which he expressed online for, oh, say, seven years or so before he was hand-picked to run technology for Jeb Bush without anybody apparently ever noticing this about him before they hit "send" on the, look who we just hired e- mail. It turns outs the ugly slut time of his life didn`t get into the stuff that he previously had written about the blacks, and MLK, and how Africans learned differently than whites. Yes. Jeb Bush`s new chief technology officer tried to apologize via Twitter for the slut stuff and the other twice, #learning, #maturing. That did not save him in the end. Late last night, that guy resigned. Jeb Bush`s PAC put out a statement saying that those regrettable and insensitive comments do not reflect the views of Governor Bush. So, just to recap. On day one of Jeb Bush`s roll-out as the e- governor, he picked the chief technology officer who wrote online about ugly sluts and how terrible black people are. On day two, he accidently doxxed a significant portion of the population of Florida, and he had to fire -- I mean, accept the resignation of the technology officer who he had hired on day one. But this is how he`s going to run, apparently, not just as a former governor, but as the former e-governor. He`s also not going to write a book to run for president. He`s going to write an e-book. You want to know what his e-book is about? It`s based on his e-mails. And part of the rollout of his e-tech savvy-ness, he also made clear yesterday he not only knows what Twitter is, he knows how Twitter sounds. You would be surprised, turns out Twitter sounds remarkably like a turkey. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: That will like up the Twitter -- the Twitter universe, there`s some heads exploding right now. I can feel it. Like -- (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Twitter turns out gobbles like a turkey. The beep, beep, boop, boop thing in the supermarket counts your milks. And running for president is harder than it looks, even when everyone else in your nuclear family has already done it. MADDOW: There`s late breaking news tonight from the White House. The story has just been developing now. It concerns the hostage Kayla Mueller who was killed while being held in Syria by ISIS. The White House just released some new information about her time as a hostage. NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell is going to join us live in just a moment for a live report on this breaking news story. We`re getting Andrea right now. We`re going to have her report right after this. Please stay with us. MADDOW: We have breaking news from the White House. This is just happening within the last hour. It concerns the family of Kayla Mueller, the young American hostage whose death in Syria was confirmed this week. Tonight, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News has new reporting about the efforts that Kayla Mueller`s family made as they tried to win her freedom from ISIS. But also about her family`s continuing effort tonight to try to set the record straight, now with new help from the White House about what their daughter actually experienced personally, during her time as an ISIS hostage. There`s been a flurry of anonymously sourced news reports about this tonight, about what might have happened to Kayla Mueller while she was in custody -- the family and White House basically pushing back on that tonight. Joining us with the latest is Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News. Andrea, thanks very much for being here on short notice. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEW CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You bet. MADDOW: So, can -- (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: Please, just go right ahead. MITCHELL: The issue is that the family is distressed. And because of that distress, they persuaded the White House to put out a statement tonight which does involve declassifying some intelligence, things that the White House does not usually do. The National Security Council issued a statement debunking and denying reports that have been published widely. They`ve been on other networks. We have not published these reports that Kayla during her captivity was under the protection of an ISIS commander. There were all sorts of implications, it`s very distressing for the family, it had been denied, denied to me by intelligence officials, denied, and sort of -- you know, not confirmed at all by the State Department or the White House. But at this stage, they`re putting this statement out tonight just to try to reassure people, and to try to protect the family from these continuously anonymous circulating reports. Which I think did originate with a foreign intelligence service, but nothing that to the best of my knowledge has been confirmed by any of the U.S. intelligence agencies. MADDOW: And just to be clear, I do not want to further the information that the family and White House said is incomplete. And just to be clear in terms of what is being debunked here, essentially the implication of what`s being unanimously reported out there is that she somehow was in cahoots with her captors, that being described as a hostage isn`t fair, that she somehow was willingly associated with at least one man who was a fighter in ISIS. And that is what -- that is what the National Security Council is saying they want people to not believe. MITCHELL: And normally, they would not deny these things, because it would involve intelligence. But what they`re saying now is, this is too important, this family has suffered enough. These reports are simply not true. MADDOW: In terms of the National Security Council spokesperson, Bernadette Meehan, I`ll just read you part of the statement, so people know exactly what they`re putting out. "Out of respect for Kayla`s family, we haven`t shared details of her time in ISIL captivity. In addition, as we have consistently made clear in the past, we don`t discuss intelligence. At this time, given the distress that anonymous sourced reports regarding her time in captivity are causing her family, we are providing this comment with the Mueller family`s consent. Reports that have been published by certain news outlets regarding her time in captivity are speculative and unproven at this time. The U.S. government continues to analyze any information regarding her captivity but has not corroborated any of the multiple theories regarding the conditions throughout the duration of her captivity." Basically, as far as you know, Andrea, does the family have a direct line to the White House, that they were able to ask for this personally? That`s how this happened? MITCHELL: Yes. It`s Lisa Monaco and others in the National Security Council have been working with them for 18 months. That is partly how, with ISIS threatening to kill their daughter, they persuaded hundreds of news organizations and reporters, including myself, not to report her name, not to report her identity until, as you know, she was outed by ISIS itself. They do confirm -- people have confirmed to me that the -- at one point, the family was so desperate with a 30-day execution warning from ISIS, that they did ask the president to commute the sentence of a very powerful and prominent terrorist who`s been -- a woman who has been in a Texas prison, Siddiqui, an al Qaeda terrorist, and convicted woman, and the White House did not do that. And that 30-day period elapsed and they got proof of life, so they knew that that threat evaporated. They have done everybody to try to save their daughter, and with the cooperation of the media. But since her death, it`s been widely reported - - I mean, just all sorts of rumors and reports that, frankly, I was aware of before she was outed, before she died, and we have not reported any of this. And other people have. And it`s very distressing to a grieving family. MADDOW: NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell -- Andrea, thank you for being here tonight -- MITCHELL: Sure thing. MADDOW: -- to help us explain. It`s really important stuff. I appreciate it. MITCHELL: You bet. MADDOW: Again, breaking news tonight, the White House putting out a statement tonight from the National Security Council, declassifying information related to intelligence they would not otherwise have declassified, and they did it out of respect for Kayla Mueller`s family who was very distressed that anonymously reports that have been aired, not by MSNBC or NBC, but by other news outlets, basically insinuating that Kayla Mueller may not have been an unwilling hostage with ISIS. Those reports again described as very distressing to Kayla Mueller`s family. The National Security Council saying they are speculative and unproven at this time. Andrea further reporting tonight that in addition to the ransom demands that ISIS made for her, that at one point they demanded a prisoner exchange. And that request was furthered by Kayla Mueller`s family, they asked the White House to go ahead with the prisoner exchange. The White House did not for all the reasons they do not do it under other circumstances as well. All right. We`ve got lots more ahead. Please do stay with us. MADDOW: You should know that this is the thing that happened today. And now, here`s the thing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUBTITLE: And now, here`s the thing -- Today, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker became the latest 2016 hopeful to take his campaign to London. (Note to 2016 hopefuls: beware of London!) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I finish with a question? I assume it`s a tradition now to ask visiting -- particularly Republicans -- senior Republicans to come to London. And it`s not about cheese. And it`s not about foreign affairs. It`s actually about evolution. Do you -- are you comfortable with the idea of Evolution? Do you believe it? Do you accept it? GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: For me, I`m going to punt on that one as well. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Really? WALKER: That`s a question a politician shouldn`t be involved in one way or another. I`m going to leave that up to you -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any British politician, right or left wing, they would love -- and say, yes, of course, evolution is true. WALKER: To me, I said, it`s one of those I`m here to talk about trade, not pontificate on other issues. SUBTITLE: Governor Scott Walker "punts" on whether evolution is true. London audience laughs out loud, in disbelief. And that is a thing that happened. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Bobby Jindal on Muslim only no-go zones that he made up. Chris Christie on vaccines. Now, Scott Walker on evolution. "I`m going to punt on that." 2016 candidates, London is quicksand. Danger, Republicans, danger. Think twice about that trip. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Make no mistake: this is a difficult mission. And it will remain difficult for some time. It`s going to take time to dislodge these terrorists, especially from urban areas. But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Obama at the White House today making a formal request to Congress that they retroactively authorize a war that we`ve already been fighting for more than six months now. It`s awkward. They`ve been relying on the congressional vote that was taken right after 9/11, which authorized the U.S. military to fight the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks. That`s been the authorization until now. The down side of using that vote from 2001 as legal justification for what we`re doing now in 2015 is obviously what we`re doing now in 2015 has nothing to do with 2001 and 9/11 and Osama bin Laden and all the other things that Congress meant when they passed that resolution 14 years ago. That`s the down side. The upside, however, is that that thing is still laying around, available to be used. If it feels like we`re always at war somewhere, but we never talk about it anymore, it`s because we are. Once Congress decided to go to war after 9/11, they made no plan for ever stopping that war. And so, the authorization for post-9/11 use of military force, that has morphed indefinitely over the years to effectively authorize military force anywhere, anytime, indefinitely. Today, President Obama announced that he would like, finally, for the first time in more than a decade, for Congress to take another vote on authorizing military force, this time, specifically against is. And this time, he wants to do it a little differently. Most importantly, this time the authorization won`t just go on indefinitely forever. The authorization for military force that President Obama proposed today comes in with a built-in expiration date. It expires in three years. If as a country we decide we want to keep fighting after that three-year period, we certainly can. But Congress would have to take another vote. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: So, this resolution will give our armed forces and our coalition the continuity we need for the next three years. It is not a timetable. It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period. What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president`s term. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: If the case is compelling enough, that men and women from America`s armed forces should be put in harm`s way, in a war context, because the case is so compelling that we need to be doing that, then it shouldn`t be that big of a problem to win a vote in Congress for them to do that. That`s the way it`s set up, right? But the timing that president decided there, the three-year timetable, that would be awkward. If the Congress passes this resolution that President Obama proposed today, to give legal authority to fight the war against ISIS, it would expire 2015, plus three, carry -- it would expire in 2018. And, you know, maybe everything will be over in 2018. Maybe that will be longer than what the military needs to complete this fight. Maybe it will be all over by then. But if it`s not, that means that three years from now, in 2018, with the new president starting his or her second year in office, there will be a Congress ramping up toward the 2018 midterm elections. You know, it would be awkward. Obviously, a vote at that time on war, would be a politically awkward thing. Very politically difficult for lots of members of Congress taking a vote like that in an election year. But that is a feature, not a bug. Congress is supposed to vote on war. And it`s not supposed to be easy. Congress hasn`t voted on war in more than a decade. And while they`ve not said beep, we`ve been fighting wars for more than a decade, and the country hasn`t much noticed, except for members of the military and their families have watched as the civilian population has drifted further and further and further from the wars that are supposedly fought in our names. But it is supposed to be Congress` decision. It is supposed to be a hard call for Congress. It`s cooked into the Constitution that way, so we don`t remain a country constantly at war. Fighting a war is hard enough for American service members. Fighting politically about whether or not we ought to have a war is also supposed to be difficult. And that hard political fight finally belatedly just started today. Joining us now, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, ranking member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Murphy, it`s nice to see you. Thank you for being here. SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Thanks for having me. MADDOW: So, you have been outspoken for the need for basically a national progressive approach to foreign policy, and to national security. You`ve argued that the hawks essentially so define our national security range of debate, that progressives, people on the left side of the spectrum, ought to speak out more firmly on these issues and decide more, essentially who the progressives are on this issue. Is this part of that? Does this authorization for the use of military force fit into your argument on that? MURPHY: Well, I think this debate is the defining moment for progressives. I would argue it`s even worse than what you laid out. The fact is, the only interesting foreign policy debate that`s been happening in Congress over the past five years, has been between John McCain and his interventionalists, and Rand Paul and his isolationists. And there are a lot of us who are progressives, but are also internationalists. We want America to play a role in the world. We just want to make sure that we learn from the mistakes of the last ten years. And the biggest mistake was thinking that the massive deployment of American ground troops inside the Middle East was going to cure a problem that was really a local, political and economic problem. We created more terrorists than we actually killed during the ten years that we were in Iraq. So, this is a defining moment, which is why many of us want to proceed with this authorization. But make sure that it limits us in a way that makes sure that we don`t repeat the mistakes of the past, i.e., that we don`t put another 100,000 ground troops inside the Middle East to fight ISIS, which won`t make this country any safer. That`s going to be a defining moment for progressives who want to be present on foreign policy debates, and want to shape some ground for ourselves having learned the lessons of the last decade. MADDOW: What do you think about the specific language that the president included in this draft today, that he says is meant to preclude any authorization of a large-scale ground force of the kind you`re describing? What do you think about his language? MURPHY: Well, to start with, I think it`s remarkable that the president is submitting authorization language to Congress that actually binds him, that restricts his powers. That is probably unprecedented in the post-World War II era. That being said, I think we`re going to have to finesse the language that he`s given us. He has two limiting factors in his draft. He said the troops can`t be enduring, and that they can only be defensive. Well, there`s absolutely no precedence built up around those two words. Enduring might be a year, but to John McCain, it might be 10 years. The Department of Defense is by its nature offensive in its operations. So, these are terms that we`re going to have to work with. But I think the president has made it clear, he`s not going to put major combat troops on the ground. So, we just want to make sure we have an authorization that holds true to the promise he`s made to the American people. MADDOW: This authorization language proposed by the president today would sunset the Iraq war authorization from back in 2002. It would leave the post-9/11 authorization in place which has been used to justify all sorts of things that have nothing to do with 9/11, all sorts of fight that have nothing to do with al Qaeda over the years. (A), that will be kept in place. Is that on the table in terms of the debate? And is the proposal from the president duplicating some of the problems from that 2001 authorization by defining not just ISIS, but ISIS and associated persons or forces? Is this another kind of authorization that could essentially justify wars all over the place? MURPHY: Yes, this is a huge issue. We`ve got to make sure we get the definition of the enemy right here, because what we`re seeing is that all sorts of terrorist groups in other parts of the world are now flying the ISIS banner. And if by simple affiliation with ISIS, the United States is now at war with those organizations in those countries, then it opens up a Pandora`s box. Not for this president, because I trust him, but for the next president who`s going to get the authorization for at least a year. So, we`ve got to get that definition right. And here`s what we can do with the 2001 AUMF, Rachel. We can sunset it after three years, just like we can sunset this authorization. So, maybe we can`t figure it out right now, what should replace the 2001 authorization, but we can at least put a sunset on it so it forces us to come back in one, two, or three years to get that authorization right for the first and final time hopefully. MADDOW: Senator Chris Murphy, speaking very clearly about this, but also really broadening the discussion. I think energizing a lot of people who usually felt alienated from this as a subject. Thanks for being here tonight. It`s always a pleasure to have you here, sir. Thank you. MURPHY: Great. Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: All right. We`ve got much more ahead. Please do stay with us. MADDOW: So, we have some more breaking news to report tonight. This is really awful news, very sad news -- having to do with a hugely respected veteran reporter in the news industry. It`s just been confirmed moments ago that longtime CBS News "60 Minutes" correspondent Bob Simon has died in a car crash tonight here on New York City`s west side. A vehicle that Bob Simon was riding in is reported to have rear-ended another vehicle on the road and run into a median along the highway op the west side. Both the driver of the vehicle that he was in and Bob Simon himself were removed from the car. Mr. Simon later died at a nearby hospital. We currently do not know the status of the driver of that car. But, again, Bob Simon, longtime correspondent for "60 Minutes," has been killed in this car crash. Bob Simon was a longtime foreign correspondent for CBS News. He covered the war in Vietnam. He`s recently the unrest in the Middle East, including in Iraq and Egypt. Bob Simon won more than 20 Emmy Awards for his work over the course of his career, as well as a Peabody Award and a host of other highly esteemed awards for his reporting over the years, on the decades. But again, this very sad news breaking just within the last few minutes, is that Bob Simon, CBS correspondent, has died tonight at the age of 73. I`ll be right back. MADDOW: Last night at around 5:00 p.m., a quiet apartment complex near the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, there was a burst of gunfire. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, CHAPEL HILL 911 CALL) CALLER: I just heard gunshots. I don`t know what building it came from, but I heard kids screaming. 911 OPERATOR: OK. How long did you hear it? CALLER: How long? Probably 30 seconds ago. 911 OPERATOR: How many shots did you hear? CALLER: Multiple. I mean, at least between 5 and 10, I would say. (END AUDIO CLIP) MADDOW: Shortly after police arrived on the scene, they found the bodies of three young people: 23-year-old Deah Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu- Salha, age 21, and her younger sister Razan, who is 19 years old. Mr. Barakat was a doctoral student at UNC`s dentistry school. His wife Yusor planned to enroll there in the fall. These two were just married in December. Yusor`s younger sister was visiting from Raleigh. She was studying architecture at North Carolina State, all three of them were excellent students, all three of them were Muslim, all three of Arab descent. The two sisters commonly wore head scarves. And in addition to the grief of the loss of these three super- promising young people in North Carolina, that fact about their ethnicity and religion and the visible nature of the religious observance of the two sisters that has led to concern and suspicion that they could have been targeted and killed because of their religion. Police have now arrested their upstairs neighbor as the only suspect in the crime, 46-year-old Craig Steven Hicks. Mr. Hicks has been charged with three counts of first degree murder. The father of the two young women who were killed told the "Raleigh News Observer" today that there had been friction between Craig Hicks and his daughter and her husband before. He said Mr. Hicks had worn a gun visibly during past confrontation, quote, he said, "This man had picked on my daughter and her husband a couple times before and he talked with them with his gun in his belt. They were uncomfortable, but they did not know he would go this far." Chapel Hill police chief today put out a statement saying, "We understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate motivated. We will exhaust every lead to determine if that is the case." That said, the Chapel Hill police put out a statement saying that their preliminary investigation indicates the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking at the apartment complex. Parking? Maybe that does start to explain what happened, an everyday argument over where to park the car, taken by one party to some awful level of violence and three murders. But the families of the victims say they are not convinced. Again, here`s the father of the two young women who were just killed. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. MOHAMMAD ABU-SALHA, VICTIMS` FATHER: We heard from the media, not from the media, from the police that each one of these children had a bullet in the head. This was an execution-style, this was a hate crime from a neighbor our children spoke about. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Police say they are investigating that possibility it could have been a hate crime. It`s not clear what the motive was at this point. As for what it`s worth, the suspect`s wife told reporters today in a live statement that she is convinced this had nothing to do with religion. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAREN HICKS, WIFE OF CRAIG HICKS: I can say with my absolute belief that this incident had nothing to do with religion or the victim`s faith, but in fact, was related to the long-standing parking disputes that my husband had with the neighbors. And our neighbors are various religions, races, and creeds. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Whatever turns out to have been the motive for these killings in Chapel Hill, look at this. Thousands of people have gathered at UNC for a vigil to honor the victims. Joining us now is Mark Kleinschmidt. He`s the mayor of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Mayor Kleinschmidt, thank you for taking time to talk with us tonight. I know this is a difficult time for your city. MAYOR MARK KLEINSCHMIDT (D), CHAEPL HILL, NC: Yes, it has. All our hearts are hurt tonight, as we`re just trying to find ways to comfort ourselves in the face of just unspeakable and a very difficult to understand event that happened in the last 24 hours. MADDOW: Can you tell us how the investigation is being handled? And what`s the status of these efforts that obviously a lot of people are very concerned with beyond their grief at the crime about whether or not this may have been a biased related crime that targeted these young people because they were Muslim? KLEINSCHMIDT: You know, I actually was just earlier this evening at a table sitting with our police chief, members of the community, including the council on -- the Council on American and Islamic Relations. And we were discussing just that, how should this investigation continue? Our police chief was very clear -- everything is on the table. We are committing every resource and every relationship with every other jurisdiction, including the federal government, to investigate what could have motivated this man to act in this really irrational or impossible to understand way. The earlier statements that were released recounted the initial -- the initial reasons that were provided. But I know, and I`m sure you and your viewers know, that there is a lot that needs to be learned. I expect that we will learn a lot. And we`ve also received the confidence of the community and those I was meeting with tonight, that they believe our law enforcement officers are doing everything they can. And I will continue to insist tonight. MADDOW: Imagine you`re heartened tonight at this vigil. A ton of people out there tonight. KLEINSCHMIDT: Yes, it was an extraordinary event. I stood on the stage and looked out and could not see the edge of the crowd. It was perfectly reflected of what kind of community we have here at Chapel Hill. You know, we have a well-earned tradition of being considerate, welcoming, compassionate, and peace-loving community. And while the events of last night are a jarring contrast to that reputation, what occurred tonight in that vigil truly represented what the values of this community are. Tonight, the people of Chapel Hill, the student body at the university are committing to living up to those values and we`re standing with each other to provide that compassion that`s needed to get through these very difficult times. MADDOW: Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, thank you so much for your time tonight, sir. Good luck to you. KLEINSCHMIDT: Thank you for having me, Rachel. MADDOW: We appreciate it. All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us. MADDOW: Tonight, Congress teed up President Obama for his first veto since 2010 and the first veto on a big thing in forever. By a vote of 270- 152, the House voted tonight to force approval of the construction of the Keystone pipeline. The president has promised to veto this legislation and House Speaker John Boehner says that means that the president is, quote, "standing with a bunch of left fringe extremists and anarchists." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We build pipelines around America every single day. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Yes, yes, we do. We build pipelines all the time. And as we await the first substantial veto of the Obama presidency, we`ve got ourselves a little scoop about how that`s going. And that will be here tomorrow night. And I will see you then, because now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 12, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021101cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 53 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 11, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 11, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Patrick Murphy, Dafna Linzer GUESTS: Phyllis Bennis, Michael Weiss, Gus Rosendale, Dianna Hunt, Michael Snipes, Seema Iyer, Dianna Hunt, Patrick Murphy, Michael Snipes, Gavin Behrman SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7102 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama is asking Congress to formally authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State. CBS News tonight has announced the death of long-time correspondent Bob Simon, whose career spanned five decades. Bob Simon was killed in a car accident here in New York City. A jury in Texas began hearing evidence in the murder of real American sniper Chris Kyle. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel. Thank you for joining me over here last night during the show. That was really fun. RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: It was really fun. Thank you for having me. I`m sorry that you could see that I was wearing jeans under the table. Next time, I`ll wear fancier pants. O`DONNELL: I didn`t know that was big news that you wear jeans under the table. MADDOW: Big news at my house. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: President Obama is asking Congress to formally authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State. A jury in Texas began hearing evidence in the murder of real American sniper Chris Kyle. And Rush Limbaugh offers a not so fond farewell to Jon Stewart. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our coalition is on the offensive. ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I believe that if we`re going to authorize the use of military force, the president should have all the tools necessary to win. JEH JOHNSON, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Homeland security is not free. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: We have 17 days until the expiration of the short-term funding of Homeland Security. REP. STEVE SCALISE (R), LOUISIANA: There are some people are saying, how are we going to get the Department of Homeland Security funded? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Powerball fever sweeping the nation. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Half a billion is up for grabs in tonight`s drawing. SCALISE: The way to do it is for the Senate to do the job that the House already did. BOEHNER: The House has done its job. Why don`t you go ask the Senate Democrats when they`re going to get off their ass and do something? PELOSI: I hope they don`t play politics with that. DAVID AXELROD: My job was to tell them what the politics of it were. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His new book is called "Believer: My 40 Years in Politics." AXELROD: Someone said, why is the president focused on climate change? It`s at the bottom of "The Wall Street Journal"/NBC poll. JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW: The Falcon takes flight, propelling the deep space climate observatory on a million-mile journey to protect our planet Earth. AXELROD: But that`s how Washington thinks. STEWART: You`re a -- you`re a dark dude. JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: As others have noted, this is probably not the last we`ve heard of Jon Stewart. STEWART: This show doesn`t even deserve an even slightly restless host and neither do you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The murder trial of Eddie Ray Routh is taking place in Stephenville, in Erath County. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The trial of the man accused of murdering Chris Kyle. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kyle`s widow Taya took the stand first. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The former Navy SEAL who inspired a hit movie "American Sniper." OBAMA: ISIL is on the defensive and ISIL is going to lose. SCALISE: How are we going to get the Department of Homeland Security funded? STEWART: Doug Herzog and Michele Ganeless of Comedy Central gave me an incredible opportunity. It is time for someone else to have that opportunity. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: The president has asked Congress for authorization for use of force against the Islamic State, even though the president apparently doesn`t think he needs one. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EARNEST: The president and his lawyers have concluded that he already has the authority that he needs to order military action against ISIL. But he does believe it would be a powerful symbol for the Congress to send to the American people, to our allies and even to our enemies, that the United States of America is united behind the strategy that the president laid out to destroy ISIL. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Phyllis Bennis, does the president need this legal authority? PHYLLIS BENNIS, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: You know, he did need this legal authority, and the Congress should take the opportunity to consider this authority and vote no. The problem isn`t the details of the authority, the problem is that this is authorizing at least three more years of war, and potentially a lot more, because one of the other authorizations remains in place. This is a recipe for continuing war, and President Obama needs to decide whether he wants to be the president who ends wars or the president who makes wars endless. O`DONNELL: Patrick Murphy, Iraq vet, former member of Congress, do you see it as he needs this legal authority? And if you were there now, would you vote for it? PATRICK MURPHY, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I do agree he needs the authority. Congress has not debated an AUMF in over a decade, (INAUDIBLE) at ball, American military at war. Would I vote for it? I would vote to give him authorization against ISIS, because it`s not for enduring combat operations. It`s for limited strikes. It`s clear that it`s very limited and there`s a sunset in three years, Lawrence. I don`t say that lightly. I thought the Iraq war was the wrong war, I lost 19 paratroopers when I served over there. But the fact is this, is that there`s about 20 million Sunnis between Damascus and Baghdad that are in play, and what we really need is not just an American military might, Lawrence, what we need is a diplomatic surge. Thank goodness there`s a new prime minister in Iraq. But the fact is, is that to get those moderate Sunnis to fight against ISIS, we need to give them encouragement and their own government. O`DONNELL: John McCain is not happy. He says, "I have deep concerns about the aspects of this proposed authorization, including limitations placed on constitutional authority of the commander-in-chief, the failure to articulate an objective for the use of military force and a narrow definition of strategy that seeks to separate the fight against ISIL from the underlying conflict in Syria, and the Assad regime`s responsibility for this growing threat. This is a receipt for failure." Michael Weiss, your reaction to John McCain`s -- MICHAEL WEISS, FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE: I actually agree with that. I think the strategy as it`s currently conceived as a purely counterterrorism one is not going to work for the reasons actually Patrick just gave. Sunnis in Syria and Iraq, what they see now, and the reason ISIS` propaganda is succeeding, and failing to foment another awakening. Sunnis think that the United States does not care about them. They did not -- we did not intervene, Obama did not enforce the red line on chemical weapons use in Syria, the Assad regime is no longer a priority. They have dropped Scud missiles, barrel bombs, chlorine gas, on the heads of mostly Sunnis in Syria. The propaganda that ISIS is playing up is that essentially the United States is now in league with Iran to commit murder, ethnic cleansing and the dispossession of Sunnis. This narrative goes back a decade, right? This began when we toppled Saddam. Sunnis felt that their patrimony, that their privilege had been completely taken away. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of al Qaeda in Iraq, which is today ISIS, essentially this is part of his grim vision. We`ve been at war with ISIS for 11 years. This is not a newfangled phenomenon. We are going to be at war with them probably for another 11 at least. O`DONNELL: Dafna Linzer, this is not being enthusiastically received by Republican leadership in the Senate and in the House. And they are the ones who have to bring this to the floor of the Senate or bring it to the floor of the House for a vote. They have to do it. So, do we get into some kind of negotiation on wording now before they do this? DAFNA LINZER, MSNBC DIGITAL MANAGING EDITOR: I think it`s open. And I think that -- you know, to me when I hear the John McCain comments, I wonder do they want to make it broader? Do they want, you know, take away the three years? O`DONNELL: He does. LINZER: Do they want to be at war all over the place? Supposed of saying, do they want to actually extend the 2001 AUMF? Would that be better in going after ISIS with that? That opens up a whole can of worms that makes the Democrats, even the Democrats worried about it, even more worried about where it`s going to go. O`DONNELL: How does -- go ahead, Patrick. MURPHY: Yes, first of all, (INAUDIBLE), a Democrat, came out and said he would vote against it. Mike McCaul, a Republican, said it`s not going far enough, it`s kind of John McCain kind. The bottom line is this, the most sacred duty of the Congress of the United States is when to send American men and women in harm`s way, and they don`t want to tackle this. They said they were going to tackle this after the summer recess. They said after the elections. They don`t want to touch this. And that`s a shame on Congress. That is their duty. They just can`t outsource this to the president of the United States. He needs constitutional authority to go forward. And, you know, when you asked a question, would I vote on it? Only if it`s coupled with a diplomatic surge, because we can`t do it ourselves. It must be an Arab-led effort, which some of it has been. But really, it`s the hearts and minds in the Middle East. It`s not the military might. That`s what we need to see in the next several weeks, but at least we`re debating, after we`ve lost men and women already over there. O`DONNELL: Phyllis Bennis, go ahead. BENNIS: You know, I think the problem is what Patrick just said is exactly what`s needed and exactly what`s not happening. There is no debate going on about whether or not we should be using force, whether or not we should be authorizing war. The only debate is on the margins. Should there be a three-year sunset? Would it be one year? Should there be no sunset clause? Nobody is actually saying right now there should not be a military component, despite what we`ve learned from the years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone war in Somalia and Pakistan and Yemen and elsewhere, that have all failed. The air war in Libya, they all failed. They`re not going to win this time. You cannot bomb extremism. You can bomb people, you can bomb some extremists and kill them, but that doesn`t wipe out the problem. It just means that it spreads. We were told in Afghanistan in the last few years of the war when we had up to 100,000 American troops there and another 40,000 or so NATO troops, that there was somewhere between 50 and 100 al Qaeda members left. And yet those 100,000 troops could not eliminate al Qaeda. It still exists. It`s still a threat to people there, not to us, but to people there. That`s what we get when we use air war as this kind of imaginary way of destroying extremism. Extremism grows out of political and economic and social conditions. And without changing those conditions, it`s only going to get worse with an air war, not better. O`DONNELL: I`m going to turn quickly to what has become the Netanyahu circus, and that`s according to Abe Foxman. That`s what`s he`s calling it, with the Anti-Defamation League. He told "The Forward", "It`s a tragedy of unintended consequences, a circus. It has been hijacked by politics. Now is the time to recalibrate, restart and find a new platform and a new timing to take away the destructions." And, Dafna Linzer, you have brought to our attention a little bit of precedent for this breaking out in Israeli politics where one Israeli politician is accusing another of using America as campaign device. Tell us about that. LINZER: Sure. When I was an "A.P." correspondent in Jerusalem in 1996, Netanyahu was making his first attempt to be prime minister. Rabin had been assassinated. Yitzhak Rabin, who has started this historic peace process. His successor was sworn in, who was running against Netanyahu. Shimon Peres, he came to Washington, and was going to meet with Clinton, not at the White House, but meet with Clinton. And sure enough, Netanyahu went nuts in Jerusalem, said this was a cynical ploy and nobody else would ever pull such a stunt. O`DONNELL: Do you mind if I read his exact words, which I happened to find in your 1996 article. He said, this is Netanyahu, 1996, "I can`t find an example of previous Israeli government whose prime minister on the eve of elections made a cynical attempt to use relations between Israel and United States a party advertisement." LINZER: He said it just like that. O`DONNELL: Yes, exactly. Yes. LINZER: We have Senator Patrick Leahy coming up saying I`m not going. He`s not making any excuse, no travel excuse. He said, I`m not going to go because of the political manipulation going on here with Netanyahu and John Boehner. What do you think the attendance is going to be like in the House of Representatives that day on the floor? MURPHY: I think there are going to have excuse absences. Some will have a courage to say why they`re not there. Others will make another excuse. In the end of the day, we`re all Americans, and that`s what the American people want to see. You know, whether you`re Democrat or Republican, we go to the president of the United States to speak in one voice. And to see the end around, what happened in the Congress, to bring him on the eve of his own election, we don`t meddle in other foreign elections, and it`s just a really bad precedent what happened. I was hoping that it would be delayed until after the election, have him come to the Congress. I would like to hear what Netanyahu has to say, but after his election, not before. BENNIS: You know -- O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Phyllis, quickly. BENNIS: I was just going to say, I think there`s a problem here. This isn`t only about electioneering and the cynical ploy of politics, this is also about a life and death issue about the Iran negotiation. We shouldn`t forget that in the midst of the politics. This is about the fact that Iran is at the center of this debate about the nuclear negotiations that are under way. Israel and the United States have different views of where those negotiations should be. And what Netanyahu has said explicitly is that he`s coming to Congress to convince them to vote against their own president. That`s what we`re dealing with here. And the Israeli lobby here, some of the spokesmen have come out and said isn`t this outrageous that, given the choice between voting for Israel -- not voting for but supporting Israel and Netanyahu versus President Obama, members of Congress are choosing President Obama as if that was something to be ashamed of. It`s an astonishing thing. But we have to keep in mind this is about the politics of the negotiation. LINZER: I think what`s too bad here is that it makes Israel and the United States look really far apart. If they had a much more unified sense with these talks going on, it would be better for them, and Iran just sees that there`s a split here and it makes them stronger actually. O`DONNELL: That`s going to have to be the last word on this one. Thank you all. Coming up next, opening statements in the American sniper trial. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he took their lives, he was under the grip psychosis. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mental illness does not take away your ability to know right from wrong. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We have breaking news tonight here in New York City. Very sad news. CBS News tonight has announced the death of long-time correspondent Bob Simon, whose career spanned five decades. Bob Simon was killed in a car accident here in New York City. Reporter Gus Rosendale of WNBC TV is on the scene of the accident now. Gus, what do we know about this accident? GUS ROSENDALE, WNBC REPORTER (via telephone): Lawrence, police are here on scene trying to piece together what happened. What we`re hearing from law enforcement sources is that Simon was riding in the back of a Lincoln town car. Apparently that car sideswiped another vehicle, a Mercedes. The town car lost control and smashed into a number of pilings in the middle of the road here protecting people on the cross walk. We understand that firefighters had to cut the roof of the town car open to get access to the driver and to Simon. The 73-year-old correspondent was rushed to St. Luke`s hospital, where he was initially going to be treated for his injuries and he passed away soon after that. O`DONNELL: Gus, thank you very much. Again, long-time CBS News correspondent Bob Simon has died tonight in an automobile accident on the West Side Highway. Bob Simon got started at CBS in 1967. He covered the Vietnam War. He went on to cover stories all over the world for CBS and for "60 Minutes." Bob Simon was 73. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They found Chris Kyle shot five times in the back and side and on one time in the side of the head. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now is Dianna Hunt, reporter for "The Dallas Morning News", who`s covering the trial of Eddie Ray Routh. Also joining us now from Texas, Michael Snipes, he`s a former Dallas County judge and criminal defense lawyer. Dianna, in the courtroom today, we had opening statements and then some witnesses. The prosecutor making the case that this is a simple murder and that the defendant, who is going to be claiming insanity, knew right from wrong, and that`s the only test he`s got to clear to get a simple murder conviction here. DIANNA HUNT, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS: That`s right. It was very -- the prosecution was very focused in its case that he fled the scene, that he bragged about the truck and the guns that he had, and that he admitted to investigators that he knew somewhat he had done was wrong. But then the defense stepped in and presented suggestions that he had a series of mental health issues, that they talked about schizophrenia, psychosis, personality disorders, and he clearly was in a downward spiral of psychosis at the time this happened, that he believed he had to kill them before they killed him. I think it`s going to be a very tough case for the jurors. O`DONNELL: The prosecutor told the jurors that the defendant intentionally caused the death of Chris Kyle. He did so, did that in that criminal transaction. Let`s listen to what the prosecutor said about the so-called narrow path that the defense has to find to get -- to plead the insanity defense. Let`s listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got to decide, has the defense proved to you that when he did that, when he intentionally caused these men`s deaths, he had severe mental disease and defect to cause him to not know that what he was doing was wrong. That is a very, very narrow door that they have to thread. That is a heavy burden to meet that they must meet for him to get away with these murders. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Michael Snipes, is that, in your mind, an accurate description of the burden? MICHAEL SNIPES, FORMER JUDGE, DALLAS COUNTY: It`s absolutely correct. The defense has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the offense. O`DONNELL: And so, it doesn`t really get into -- necessarily into clinical psychiatric findings, it`s simply that right and wrong test in Texas, that`s all it is? SNIPES: Yes, and the jury is going to have to make that decision. Now, from the defense perspective, keep in mind there`s probably going to be evidence in this case that one of the victims, Chad Littlefield, apparently texted Chris Kyle on the way out to the shooting range words to the effect of, "This dude is crazy." So, there is evidence on the defense side from their perspective. It`s not a hopeless case. O`DONNELL: Yes, there definitely is. We`ll get to more of that. And, Patrick Murphy, prosecutor, as well as a combat veteran, experienced both those things. It`s very interesting that the prosecutor described the defendant`s mother`s approach to Chris Kyle this way, he simply said -- he simply characterized it saying, would you spend time with him, would you befriend him? And what we`re going to hear on the other side of the case, the defense side of case, is much bigger problems than that were described to Chris Kyle. That he is -- this guy is in serious mental trouble. MURPHY: This is Chris Kyle`s own words. His last text message was, this dude is straight up nuts. He said that to Chad, his buddy, right, who is sitting right behind -- right next to him and he said, hey, and then Chad responds, watch my six, watch my back, because that`s Eddie Routh was sitting. Listen, they had an arsenal in that truck going out to that range. I mean, if this guy was going to kill them, he could have done it in the hour and 40-minute drive. Today, I had one of my gunner in Iraq, (INAUDIBLE) was there, he`s a Texas A&M law student. He watched the whole trial today. His words were, when Chad Littlefield`s mother testified, she said today would be Chad`s 38th birthday and she lost her son. He said about four of the women on the jury -- nine of the 12 jurors are women and they started crying when they saw the picture and when they heard that. At the end of the day, though, Eddie Routh went at least four times to the V.A. for mental issues. He was psychotic. Chris Kyle said, "This guy`s nuts." I mean, it breaks your heart. This guy had two deployments. It was the Iraq deployment and the Haiti deployment. People forget we sent marines, including this young man, to Haiti. There was up to 100,000 to 250,000 Haitians that were killed in that earthquake in 2010. That`s what people like Eddie had to deal with. And he came back home and it really screwed with him. O`DONNELL: Seema, as a former prosecutor, how do you read this jury? Ten women, two men, that`s an unusual composition. SEEMA IYER, FORMER PROSECUTOR: It is, t is. O`DONNELL: Is that fundamentally favorable to one side or the other? IYER: I don`t know at this point, because I think that the crux of the defense is insanity. And I don`t think that`s a gender issue, where you`ll get more favor from either side. I think that there is a chance that the defense can succeed, because PTSD has been successful when the defendant has a history of it, as he does here. There is corroborative evidence. There is collateral in the sense that there are people who witnessed him having the flashbacks, having the mood swings, having this hyper vigilant attitude. And look at the incident. At that moment in time, they were in some type of combat scenario. And, Patrick, love to hear what you always think. MURPHY: I wouldn`t say -- they weren`t getting shot at. But it was -- it was a rifle range. IYER: And noises can trigger flashbacks. So he`s within that moment again, in that PTSD. O`DONNELL: We`re going to take a quick break. Before we do, Judge Snipes, I wanted to ask you about that jury composition, ten women. In your experience with this sort of thing, do you think that that is something that the defense feels offers more opportunity for sympathy for the argument that they are going to make? SNIPES: I do not. I have presided over 320 jury trials and have found my juries to be totally gender neutral. Sometimes the women are more in favor of guilt, sometimes the men are. It`s completely gender neutral. O`DONNELL: All right. We`re going to come back with more of this, including a closer look at the defense. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he took their lives, he was in the grip of a psychosis. A psychosis at that point in time that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We`re going to show you now a presentation by the defense counsel in the -- in the trial today in Texas of the murder of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. He makes the case that his client has been diagnosed psychotic. Let`s listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TIM MOORE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The VA Hospital over in Dallas admitted him and their diagnosis was psychosis. Psychosis, a severe mental disorder. In fact at that time, you will find that Eddie thought he had a tapeworm. He was convinced he had a tapeworm living inside of him. So they take him to the VA Hospital in July of 2011 and they not only determine that he has a psychosis, he`s crying uncontrollably. They put him on anti-psychosis medication. A doctor in the VA Hospital puts him on anti-psychotic medication. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Dianna Hunt, you`re in the courtroom during the testimony today, first witness being Chris Kyle`s widow. Tell us what the feelings were like in the courtroom today and how you think her testimony landed. DIANNA HUNT, DALLAS MORNING NEWS: She was in tears before she really had ever gotten any words out, and several of the jurors were also in tears in just the first few words of her testimony. She was very effective. She was forceful. She was -- she smiled at jurors. She told one "bless you" after he or she sneezed. But she was very emotional talking about her husband and the loss was very fresh, you could tell. She also sat in the courtroom afterward wearing his dog tags as she watched the rest of the testimony. O`DONNELL: And, Patrick Murphy, at the defense table, all you can really do is sit and watch testimony like that. PATRICK MURPHY (D), FORMER PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE: You have to be respectful. I mean, this Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield, they`re two heroes. They were helping another Marine who`s going through problems. And the question in this whole trial is, you know, Eddie is going away. He`s either going to a mental institution or a he`s going to prison for the rest of his life. Now the defense hopes he goes to a mental institution to get the help that he needs and -- and elsewhere. But I will tell you that the folks in that courtroom, between Chris Kyle`s widow and Chad`s mother, on the day that he would have turned 30 years of age, got everyone in that courtroom today in tears. It was powerful. DAFNA LINZER, MSNBC DIGITAL MANAGING EDITOR: Can we just acknowledge, though, that the prosecution may have timed this trial to go when the movie is in the theaters? Do you not recognize the possibility? It does -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: Well, Judge Snipes, Judge Snipes, what`s your reaction to that, the timing of the trial? MICHAEL SNIPES, FORMER JUDGE, DALLAS COUNTY: I think that`s inaccurate. The judge, after all, makes the decision as to whether or not the case is going to be continued or not. And at the end of the day, the judge has to decide whether the jurors that are selected for the trial can fairly and impartially evaluate the evidence and not consider any kind of media publicity, and certainly that`s the decision that he`s made in this case. Regardless of how long out this case was tried, the Chris Kyle story is always going to be fresh in the minds of every American. O`DONNELL: Now let`s go to what was described as the bombshell in the courtroom today. You`ve made reference to it, Patrick. We`re going to hear the defense attorney explaining how we know the thoughts of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield as they were driving along for an hour and a half, two hours, in that pickup truck with Eddie in the back seat behind them. Let`s listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MOORE: We know this. About an hour and a half, into the drive, Chris Kyle was sitting in the driver seat on his telephone and he texts, Chad Littlefield who`s sitting right next to him, he texts him, "This dude is straight up nuts. This dude is straight up nuts." This is about an hour and a half into the drive. And Chad Littlefield texts Chris Kyle back, "He`s right behind me, watch my six." So while we don`t know what the conversation was, we do know what Chris Kyle was thinking at the time that he was in that truck with Eddie Routh. And we know what Chad Littlefield was thinking. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Dianna Hunt, was that news to everyone in the courtroom today? HUNT: I believe it was. There had been very little detail released about what had happened, what kind of interchanges there had been between those, and to have captured it on cell phone fairly well summed up the defense`s case, I believe. That they -- the question is, why did they go on to the firing range and continue? But that`s something they`ll have to get into. O`DONNELL: Patrick Murphy, speculate about that. I mean, they`ve dealt with the guys troubled before, but they`re making a judgment, this one is really bad. And so much so that we`re now physically worried in this vehicle with him. But these are two really able bodied guys. You know, they -- I`m sure they firmly believe if he tries anything, we`ve got this covered. MURPHY: Right. Listen, Lawrence, in the military, we have a motto, leave no one behind. They didn`t want to leave this (INAUDIBLE) who`s going through so much behind. O`DONNELL: Yes. MURPHY: Even though they knew that potentially they could be in danger. I mean, to talk about that thing, watch my six, this is a Navy SEAL, this is a Marine. I mean, it just -- it just breaks your heart to know now what was going on. If they would have known this guy was going to turn on them, they wouldn`t have done what they`ve done. But maybe, you know, I know for me, you know, those three were Marines, you give them some confidence again. Now they probably didn`t know that this guy was just smoking pot that morning. O`DONNELL: Right. MURPHY: That he was, you know, drinking alcohol, that he was telling his girlfriend -- O`DONNELL: Kicked his girlfriend up that morning. MURPHY: Kicked his -- and before that, don`t talk to me that loud, write me notes, because he thought people were watching him, he thought earlier. O`DONNELL: Right. He`s hearing voices. Yes. MURPHY: Right. I mean, four times he goes to the VA. I mean. O`DONNELL: Yes. MURPHY: They don`t know that. The VA still use a Marine ME. O`DONNELL: That`s going to have to be the LAST WORD on it tonight. Judge Snipes and Dianna Hunt in Texas, thank you both very much for joining us from down there. Thank you all very much for that. We`re going to be back with more about the Jon Stewart you don`t know. O`DONNELL: It`s being called the "50 Shades" effect. And it`s an international sort of thing. According to "The Telegraph," British hardware store chain B&Q is preparing for a sudden increase in demand for rope, cable ties, and tape because of the movie "50 Shades of Grey." "The Telegraph" published what it says is a leaked memo sent to B&Q`s nearly 21,000 employees. Quote, "All staff are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the content of `50 Shades of Grey` by reading the novel or watching the film upon its release. Copies of the book will be delivered to each store and can be lent to staff on a one-week basis. Understanding the story line and how some products that B&Q stock feature in the film will better prepare staff for incoming queries." OK. Well, if you think reading a book is enough to prepare the staff for that, OK. Up next, more on Jon Stewart`s departure from "The Daily Show." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": You know, I -- I -- I`m not going to be here and try and sum up what this place has meant to me over the years. But I couldn`t do that, and we have plenty of time and I`ve got a myriad of people to thank and we`ll get to that over time. I`m not going anywhere tomorrow. But this show doesn`t deserve an even slightly restless host and neither do you. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Jon Stewart was restless enough at the anchor desk to take the summer off to direct the film "Rosewater." Let`s listen to what he said on Terry Gross` radio show about that experience. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: We`ve never shot a film before, yes, but I never did standup comedy before. You just kind of go out and do it. The best part about this is, as opposed to standup comedy, you can surround yourself by people with great expertise and talent who can support your -- you know, not to sound too Rumsfeld-ian, but I didn`t know what I didn`t know. And I was very clear with them at the outset, you`re going to have to raise flags early and often if I seem to be going off the rails here. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We are joined now from Los Angeles by Gavin Behrman, who is the production supervisor on "Rosewater." Jon Stewart`s first and only film. And, Gavin, I find it remarkable that this first-time director, first-time feature film screen writer, because it was his script, did the job that he did. I thought -- I thought it was a beautifully and really inventively created -- directed film among other things. GAVIN BEHRMAN, "ROSEWATER" PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR: Yes. Thanks, Lawrence, again, for having me. First of all, Jon is an incredibly talented guy. I think, you know, his talents go way beyond what he`s been doing with "The Daily Show." He proved day in and day out in really brutal conditions in Amman that he could rise above and put together a beautiful piece of art, and he had a positive attitude and was just a wonderful person to be working with while we were there. O`DONNELL: And, Gavin, a director, if he`s doing it well, she`s doing it well, has to be a leader, a real leader. And it`s a large group of people. It`s a big army. And some of them are working just for days, some of them are working for weeks. They`re coming and going. There`s a spirit that has to be maintained. And on the sets I`ve been on it all keys off the director. BEHRMAN: Absolutely. And, you know, I`ve done over probably 20 or 30 feature films in my career, and Jon would stand up and cheer everybody and tell everybody what he was looking for that day and how great of a job he did or didn`t do the day before and how we improve or we can, you know, do better. He`s -- you know, he`s a natural. O`DONNELL: Gavin, every production meeting I`ve ever been in, preproduction, has always been chaired by a director who`s been in this business for decades. I`ve never actually been around an inexperienced director, and so it`s really hard for me to imagine what that room is like. This is all before we get to the set, what that room is like when all the marching orders are being formed, with someone who`s actually never sat in that chair before at that table. BEHRMAN: Yes, you know, I think he drew from a lot of experience with daily meetings on "The Daily Show." He would explain that, you know, he had prep meetings for those. This of course is very different because we do one big prep meeting, and then go into, you know, 20 or so days of shooting. Really it`s like 26. So slightly different. We would break off and have other meetings throughout the production. But, you know, he really was very clear with what he wanted and he had, you know, a lot of us around him to support him in helping him, you know, make that happen. O`DONNELL: Let`s take a look at a scene in the movie, this interrogation scene. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s not a spy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s not a spy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s not. It`s a show. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a show? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A comedy show. It`s stupid. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s really stupid, yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s a comedian pretending to be a spy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So can you tell me why an American pretending to be a spy had chosen to interview you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And why would a real spy have a TV show? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you tell this man that America and Iran has something in common? (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Gavin, on the set, did you get the feeling that Jon Stewart`s restlessness was really being rewarded, and did you get the feeling he`s going to be back? He`s going to be doing this again? BEHRMAN: Yes, I think so. I think he really enjoyed the process and that it was something fresh and new. I think, you know, anyone that`s doing anything for as long as he`s been doing it, and he`s at the top of his game, you know, probably is thinking, you know, maybe I`m really great at this and I want to try something different. And you know, that`s what he did. And he did it with style, with grace, and we were very, very appreciative to be working with him on the project. O`DONNELL: You came from working on a $100 million budget on the movie prior to this one, down to $5 million for "Rosewater." BEHRMAN: Yes. O`DONNELL: And I`m amazed at what you guys got on the screen. There`s no way you can sit in the audience and say -- and think you`re looking at a $5 million movie. Let`s take a look at one more scene of the movie. BEHRMAN: Sure. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her name was Maria. She was my heart. I followed her to every film, museum and concert she would take me to. In 1980, she was arrested by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Six years in prison for being a communist. Six years. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Gavin, that was early in the movie. And I remember seeing the theater being really kind of thrilled by that because here`s a directorial choice that I had never seen before. The way he used those shop windows as part of his story telling, illustrating where his story was -- had been, and where it was going I thought was really quite brilliant. BEHRMAN: Yes, that`s the beauty of visual effects. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: All right. We`re going to take a quick break and we`re going to be back with more about our continuing farewell to Jon Stewart. O`DONNELL: Rush Limbaugh took a parting shot at Jon Stewart today. We will have that next. We will be back after this look at Jon Stewart, the actor, with Robin Williams. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: You`re broke. You`ve got nothing left. ROBIN WILLIAMS, ACTOR: Exactly. That`s what I`m trying to tell you, bud. What`s this? STEWART: Rainforest Benefit freebie bag. Disposable cameras, Kahlua flavored peanuts, hand lotion, no animal tested. Don`t ever contact me again, Randy. Get out of the car. WILLIAMS: You know what to do with the hand lotion, jerk-off. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Rush Limbaugh, of course, took a parting shot at Jon Stewart today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Jon Stewart has helped to polarize the country by poisoning the Republican brand. Oh, yes, he`s had a very clear role in that. Stewart is a funny guy, but he lacks an appreciation of federalism, and he lacks an understanding of the harm caused by Obama`s cult of personality that also sucked him in. Jon Stewart is not alone, but Jon Stewart helped grease the tracks for the most destructive presidency in many of our lifetimes. And because he was able to make some people laugh while all this destruction took place. He`s hailed as a political genius and a great journalist. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Definitely, it would be hard to compose a more bitter and more incorrect farewell to Jon Stewart. LINZER: It would be really, really hard, yes. You know, Jon Stewart, for all the great things that he is, too, it`s like, he`s clearly an artist. I mean, this is a guy who loved films. O`DONNELL: Yes. LINZER: This is a guy who liked to act and who loved politics, but also loved books. One of the great things about that show and what made that show very different and makes it different still is the fact that he brings on authors, that he wants to -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: The book business is terrified with him leaving. LINZER: I`m sure. O`DONNELL: Yes. LINZER: They should be. O`DONNELL: Patrick, and he also did everything he could for troops at every chance. MURPHY: You know, I -- O`DONNELL: And still will, I`m sure. MURPHY: No doubt. O`DONNELL: He`ll be answering your call. MURPHY: Yes. O`DONNELL: Yes. MURPHY: I mean, he actually hires veterans to work on his show. O`DONNELL: Yes. MURPHY: He doesn`t want anybody to know about it. I talked to him when I first turned off here. He couldn`t be more gracious. And you know, it`s interesting. You know, Rush can`t help himself. He just wants (INAUDIBLE). O`DONNELL: Right. MURPHY: We all know that. But, you know, Jon had -- you know, John McCain, they had a very good dialogue for many times. He had Republicans on there. O`DONNELL: Sure. MURPHY: And he would challenge Democrats. He`s the kind of guy that spoke to our generation, that would speak to people to give them to care about politics and public service. O`DONNELL: And Gavin, on the set, did Jon get into much political chat and joking around about politics? BEHRMAN: You know, not really at all. The only time I really saw it is, you know, after work when we get to dinner and he`d get mobbed there in the hotel lobby, when he`d get mobbed. Everyone wanted to talk to him about his views. And that`s really where it came out but when we were working, we`re working. O`DONNELL: I`ll bet, Gavin, he just really enjoyed the vacation from all that stuff. BEHRMAN: Definitely. O`DONNELL: Yes. BEHRMAN: He absolutely did. O`DONNELL: Yes. And as they said, I`m actually talking to a publisher today, who is terrified about -- there`s no way the next host of "The Daily Show" will build the show on books, which Jon Stewart did, including really obscure books. It wasn`t necessarily best-sellers that he was promoting. LINZER: Right. Absolutely. I mean, yes -- O`DONNELL: And they always skyrocketed on Amazon. LINZER: Yes. I mean he had power like nobody else has to really kind of get those books going. But you`re right, medicine, health, science, obscure books. And I think, you know, it`s been a pleasure kind of watch a whole audience connect with a world of great nonfiction. O`DONNELL: All right. Let`s see him do his stuff one more time, let`s see him talking about a couple of favorites, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEWART: If you`re taking an esteemed visitor to get real New York pizza, familiars ain`t it. But let`s continue with the meeting. Are you eating it with a fork? A (EXPLETIVE DELETED) fork. No. No. No. When you invite an important visitor to our house, to our town, and eat your pizza with a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) fork right in front of us, who the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) do you think you are? You know what? Hey, why don`t you take your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) LaGuardia`s hat and feed it to Joe DiMaggio`s crying ghost on Liberty Island, you son of a bitch. You son of a bitch. Watch and learn, watch and learn, for god`s sakes. Watch and (EXPLETIVE DELETED) learn. (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Gavin, the great actors, the great performers leave you incapable of imagining anyone else doing what you just saw them do, and that was one of those moments. BEHRMAN: I know, and it`s funny, because, you know, I wasn`t an avid watcher of the show, I`d catch it every now and then. And then working with him, he was so reserved and mellow and then I turn the show on, as soon as we got back to see what he had to say about the filming, and it was like, you know, completely a different guy is performing. O`DONNELL: Yes. Yes. Gavin Behrman, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Dafna Linzer, Patrick Murphy, thanks for staying with us all the way through. Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021101cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: BREAKING NEWS PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 54 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 12, 2015 Thursday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST Congress and the ISIS AUMF; Dems Pick Philly for 2016 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Ed Rendell GUESTS: Sen. Angus King, Sen. Johnny Isakson, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Mayor Michael Nutter, Sen. Bob Casey, Boris Johnson, Nia-Malika Henderson, Wesley Lowery SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8325 words HIGHLIGHT: Doves on the left don`t want foot soldiers in the war against ISIS, but hawks on the right don`t want to rule them out. The Democratic National Committee announces it will hold its 2016 national convention in Philadelphia. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: A war without soldiers? Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. President Obama`s got recruitment problems. Doves on the left don`t want foot soldiers in the war against ISIS. Hawks on the right don`t want to rule them out. Can we go to war with an enemy America hates with American politicians refusing even to sign on? And the Democrats pick Philadelphia, the city of this country`s founding, to meet in 2016. Can they regain (ph) not just the flag but what it stands for, equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? We start tonight at the political war front, Capitol Hill, where the president charges like the light brigade, with cannons on the left of him and cannons on the right of him. Senator Angus King is an independent from Maine. Senator, can you support the president`s call for an authorization of military force to fight ISIS? Can you support it? SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Yes. I want to see the final language, Chris. There are a lot of issues. It hasn`t gone before the Foreign Relations Committee, but I think it`s entirely appropriate that the president has come to us for this authorizations. And you know, you put your finger on it in the introduction. It`s a fascinating flipping of the parties, where the Republicans are pushing for more open-ended authority for the president to act unilaterally, and the Democrats are calling for more controls. And I think the White House has tried to define it down the middle with this phrase, "enduring offensive ground combat operations." MATTHEWS: Right. KING: They`re trying to try to find that middle ground, but it`s a fascinating debate. MATTHEWS: Well, could it also be that politicians on both sides don`t like to be tied to what could turn out to be a bloody war? They just don`t want to have their hands on it. KING: Well... MATTHEWS: Isn`t it a safer position to vote against, no matter what the war is, a safer -- let me ask you about this... (CROSSTALK) KING: You`re right. You`re right about that. MATTHEWS: But do you really think the left, the Democratic, dovish left -- there`s some right-wing left, too -- dovish side, too, like Rand Paul. But they really think that Obama is a secret hawk, that he`s going to take this authority and run with it and start a major land war against ISIS? Do they really believe that Barack Obama is a secret hawk? KING: I don`t know... MATTHEWS: I don`t buy that. I don`t believe they think that. KING: Listen, within an hour yesterday, I heard both sides of that debate. I heard Democrats saying the authority he was asking for was too broad, and a half hour later, Republicans saying it was too narrow. It was like going down the rabbit hole. But I think maybe you`re right, Chris, on one point, and that is I think Congress is much more adept at criticizing and second-guessing than it is for taking responsibility. And that`s why guys like Tim Kaine and I have been pushing since last August that this is a constitutional responsibility. We`re supposed to take this responsibility. The framers of the Constitution did not want... MATTHEWS: OK... KING: ... presidents to unilaterally have the power to take us into war. MATTHEWS: What word do you want changed, "enduring," "combat," what? Which words? Because that seems to be where it`s hitting (ph), that phrase. What don`t you like about the word "enduring"? And it seems to be the problem of the Democrats. KING: Well, "enduring" -- you know, is it enduring for a week, two weeks or six months? I`m not necessarily uncomfortable with the phrase, but it needs to be defined. Usually, when terms are used in statutory language, there`s a history of court cases or prior statutes. This is a brand-new phrase... MATTHEWS: Yes. KING: ... and I think it`s got to be defined through legislative history and the committee process. MATTHEWS: Well, here`s the conundrum. The last time the president was in a situation, he wanted or troops out of Afghanistan by a date certain, out of Iraq, and he was beat to hell for saying a date. You`re telling the enemy what day we`re leaving! Now the Congress is saying... KING: No. MATTHEWS: ... tell us when we`re going in, when we`re coming out. We don`t like the word "enduring." We want a date. KING: Yes, no, and I agree with you. I... MATTHEWS: Isn`t that an irony? KING: It is an irony, and I don`t think he should have put the date on the end of the Afghanistan. I think that is a mistake. But in this case, they`ve got a day. It says three years. But it says "unless extended by Congress." So it`s not really a final date in that sense. If it were, you know, we`re going to do this in three years and it`s over, I wouldn`t -- I wouldn`t buy that for a minute. But the fact is, it`s a renewable authorization, if you will, so Congress has to play its constitutional, responsible role of making these decisions. MATTHEWS: Well, a brand-new NBC poll just out, a Marist poll, of course, Senator, finds that 54 percent of the American people want Congress to back President Obama`s authorization against ISIS. What do you make -- what do you think of polls in this case on wars? Do they endure? I wonder, do they endure? KING: Well, they change from -- you know, there was a, I don`t know, 60, 70 percent against any involvement, and then we had the beheadings last summer, and it jumped up to 70, 75 percent. So I think they vary from -- according to what`s going on in the field. But I think, fundamentally, the issue here is, A, do we want to take these guys on? I think most people agree that we should, that we have to, that they`re a danger to us and to the entire world. Number two is, should the president get some kind of congressional authorization to do so? The answer is yes, in part because it makes the whole enterprise stronger if it`s... (CROSSTALK) KING: ... the whole of the United States government, if it`s not just the president acting unilaterally. MATTHEWS: Well, the Democratic critics out there are saying they are concerned, as you are, about the restrictions. They aren`t strong enough. Here was Senator Joe Manchin yesterday here on HARDBALL. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA: The bottom line is I`m not going to vote for anything that has the interpretation, we can have combat ground forces on the front line fighting someone else`s war. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And just to showcase this, there on the right, critics worry the language will limit the military too much in the fight against ISIS. Here`s Orrin Hatch of Utah yesterday. Let`s listen to the senator. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: Here we have the president coming up with this -- I think it`s kind of a stupid proposal! And he`s binding the next president also with really stupid language. Most importantly, get -- the president should be asking for the authorization that would not impose any artificial and unnecessary limitations, such as those based on time, geography and type of force. (END AUDIO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, I don`t know about the language -- I don`t understand how senators call presidents stupid now. I mean, I`m sorry, Senator Hatch. I got no problem with you personally, but you got to stop talking about a president like that. He`s stupid, OK? KING: But -- but... MATTHEWS: What -- what is this about the new way we talk about Obama that we don`t talk about previous presidents? Your thoughts, Senator. (INAUDIBLE) go on here. How do you get the language together, to reconcile it? The duty of the Senate is to deliberate. How does the effort -- deliberations of the world`s greatest deliberative body achieve a coalescing between the right concern there`s too much language restricting in there, and the liberal concern that it better damn well be tougher? KING: Well, I think... MATTHEWS: More restrictive. KING: I think what you`re going to see is a fascinating hearing and a fascinating debate at the Foreign Affairs Committee. You`ve got people like Bob Menendez and Bob Corker, Tim Kaine, very thoughtful people. And I know that they`re working on that language. And you know, I disagree a little bit -- I mean, Manchin is right, but maybe for different reasons. I don`t think the public will support ground troops. But the reality is, ground troops from America aren`t going to win this war. It`s got to be Arabs and Muslims taking on Arabs and Muslims. If we go in there, that`s exactly what ISIS wants. MATTHEWS: Yes. KING: In other words, it won`t be effective. But you know, I got to say, don`t you find it ironic, Chris -- you`ve been watching this for a long time -- to see Republicans arguing that this president should take broader, unlimited authority? I mean, that isn`t what I`ve been hearing around here for the last two years. I think -- I think Congress has to take this responsibility. It`s exactly what the framers intended for us to do. And I think we can work out some language that`ll meet everybody`s requirements. I certainly hope so. MATTHEWS: OK, thank you so much, Senator Angus Kaine -- King, of course... KING: King! MATTHEWS: ... of Maine for coming on. Let`s bring on Senator Johnny Isakson. He`s a Republican from Georgia. Senator, thank you for joining us. What do you -- how do you -- this is like -- it`s like a mathematical explosive model, where one side says, We want more restrictions in the weeks ahead, and the other side says, We want less in the weeks ahead. They`re going away from each other, rather than coalescing. How do we get a deal? SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON (R), GEORGIA: I think Angus... MATTHEWS: (INAUDIBLE) bill to pass. ISAKSON: I think Angus is right. The Foreign Relations Committee will do this. Bob Corker and Bob Menendez are deliberative. We`ve already had conversations about it. We definitely need to fill in some of the blanks, and I think the Foreign Relations Committee will do that. But rest assured, a lot of us want to make sure we do this right because getting it wrong will not be good for America and not be good for American interests. MATTHEWS: Do you think it`s fair to say that this is for the next president? I mean, won`t you have the opportunity if -- well, we`ll have a new president, this president`s term-limited -- sometime in the late part of next year, you could write a whole new resolution for the next president. So this wouldn`t really be governing the next president, would it? ISAKSON: Well, it would end at the beginning of the next president`s term. But look, here`s the way I see it. The president has demonstrated less than the necessary appetite, in my opinion, to go after ISIL. MATTHEWS: Yes. ISAKSON: And I think this resolution is going to protract (ph) what`s gone on in that part of the world. American people are tired of seeing young folks like Ms. Mueller, burned like pilot from Jordan... MATTHEWS: I agree. ISAKSON: ... Jordan burned and beheadings. You can`t negotiate with people or use diplomacy with people that`ll kill you that way. You`ve got to kill them in return. And we need a commitment to do exactly what the president has said he wants to do, and that is destroy ISIL. And the only way you do that is with military action. MATTHEWS: Do you think the language of this authorization can make the president more aggressive? ISAKSON: I think it needs to make the presidents more specific. We need to know what we`re getting into. If the goal is to degrade and then destroy, we need to give him the ability to destroy. If he does not want to use that ability or if he limits it by rules of engagement or time or whatever, then we`ve got a problem on our hands. MATTHEWS: Do you see -- you`ve obviously thought about this, Senator. Have you thought about how we, using the ability of the tools we have -- air power, we`ve got special forces, we`ve got the Kurds, who are great fighters -- what else we got? We got certainly now the Jordanian air force, which is gung-ho since they had their guy burned alive. We don`t really have a hell of a decent, even a reasonably decent uncorrupt Iraqi government or army. What -- who`s going to do this fighting when it comes down to taking territory and holding it? Who`s going to do that? ISAKSON: Well, if it were my choice alone, first of all I`d put a no- fly zone over Syria to protect the people we trained in Syria to go after the Assad regime. That`s number one. Number two, I`d give our military ground forces the opportunity to do what they have to do. We already have 5,200 on the ground in Iraq right now supporting the air war. It may take a few more, primarily in terms of special forces. We ought to do that. We need to degrade and destroy ISIL, and eventually, it ultimately is going to take a coordinated effort between the air, between the ground and between all military units and the Arab countries that surround us. MATTHEWS: But who takes the land? Who takes back that part of Iraq and that part of Syria from the bad guys, the ISIS forces, and turns it over to whom? Who gets the new land we`re taking back from the bad guys? That`s what I -- that part of that, that critical part, doesn`t seem clear to me in the strategy. ISAKSON: well, that`s a very perceptive question because if you replace Assad, who do you replace him with? We`re, first of all, trying to train a Syrian army that can go in and to fight the old Syrian army and run Assad out. And then that -- that, of course, is going to pique the interest of the Iranians, which is a whole `nother issue in that part of the region. MATTHEWS: I know. ISAKSON: But doing nothing, not going after them, not deciding we are going to destroy ISIL is not a good policy for America or... MATTHEWS: I agree. I agree. One thing I agree on, Senator -- it may not be important what I think, but it does matter to me. I don`t see a strategy for victory against ISIS yet anywhere. Thank you so much for joining us, Senator... ISAKSON: Good to be with you, Chris. MATTHEWS: Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia. Coming up -- the Democrats have picked their convention city, and yes, it`s Philly. And what better place for the Democrats to lay claim not just to the flag but for everything it stands for, liberty, equality, of course, all men are created equal, the pursuit of happiness, about gay couples, all this -- it`s so much that they can say from the Declaration of Independence from Independence Hall, from the Liberty Bell. It all stands there as a statement of what they believe. Plus, what happens to Republicans when they go to London? What`s wrong with the air over there? Chris Christie botched the question of vaccines. Scott Walker ducked the question on evolution, which makes no sense. We`re going to ask London`s mayor, Boris Johnson, what`s in the air over there that`s making Republicans so confused. Their brains get foggy in foggy London! And Reince Priebus vows the Republican Party will make gains with African-American voters in 2016. But let`s compare Reince`s words with his party`s big-time efforts to suppress the black vote across America. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with this switch by the party of Abraham Lincoln, and under Reince Priebus, to massive resistance against equal voting rights. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, another Republican is testing the 2016 waters. Ohio governor John Kasich is heading to South Carolina next week. It`s Kasich`s first trip to one of the early primary states, and it`s raising eyebrows. Kasich won reelection last year by a big margin. If he doesn`t run for president, he`s likely to be on the short list for VP next year. I like the guy. We`ll be right back. (VIDEO CLIP FROM "ROCKY") MATTHEWS: Means a lot in my home city. Today, the Democratic National Committee announced that the city of Rocky, my hometown of Philadelphia, has been selected to host the Democratic national convention in July of 2016. Philly beat out rivals Brooklyn and Columbus, Ohio. The Democrats last convened in Philly in 1948. In their convention, Democrats will highlight the values of the Declaration of Independence, I assume, and the role Philadelphia has played in our nation`s founding. The DNC released this video on Facebook earlier today, soon after the decision was made. Here it is. (VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Oh, it`s Philadelphia! Anyway, joining me right now -- it`s very dramatic, Deborah! Very dramatic! The Democrats... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... bringing their convention to Philadelphia. The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, the current mayor of Philadelphia, a great one, Michael Nutter, and Pennsylvania`s senior U.S. senator, Bob Casey. I want to start -- everybody -- don`t take all the time because (INAUDIBLE) to talk here. Let me ask you, Congresswoman, the choice of Philadelphia -- how much was it about the symbolic history of the city? REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL), DNC CHAIR: Well, the main three reasons that we focused on for any of the cities, when we decided on Philadelphia, was resources, logistics and security. But Philadelphia is the cradle of democracy, Chris, as you`ve said, you know, many times during this review. And the opportunity to nominate the next president of the United States in Philadelphia with the backdrop of the birth of our nation, and to showcase the Democratic Party`s values of inclusion and empowerment and creating more opportunities for people to succeed -- that`s what it`s all about. And we`re thrilled to be coming to Philadelphia, and I was so excited to able to call Mayor Nutter, Governor Rendell and Senator Casey this morning. We`re all very excited. MATTHEWS: Well, I`m so happy for you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for coming on tonight. MAYOR MICHAEL NUTTER (D), PHILADELPHIA: Thank you, Chris. MATTHEWS: And congratulations. What a great way to end your tour, your terms as mayor of Philadelphia. You`ve been clean as a whistle, which is a big deal in Philadelphia, to be completely clean, like Eddie Rendell was! (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: We love that! But not only are you completely clear, but you`re productive. You brought the pope. NUTTER: Well... MATTHEWS: And you`re not even Catholic anymore. You brought the... (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Even though you went to St. Joe`s, you`re not even Catholic. You brought the pope, and now you bring the Dems in, and you`re going to make it even -- now even more important. What are you going to do here? Tell us why it happened. What did you do right? NUTTER: Well, Chris, thank you very much. What we did right is we made sure that everyone had a role to play, played their role properly. And as Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz laid out, we stayed focused on the fundamentals of resources, security and logistics. Having Governor Rendell with his previous experience as mayor and a party chair, Philly having hosted the 2000 Republican convention, a convention, of course, nonetheless, and all the things that go with that, having Senator Casey and the work that he has contributed, his relationship, of course, not only with the party but with the White House, Congressman Bob Brady, the leader of our party here, and the person who has really been pushing this idea for some time. We weren`t ready -- we didn`t think we were ready, I didn`t think we were ready for `12, but I knew we could be ready go 2016. We can raise the money. We have the logistics under hand. And security is our big thing here in Philadelphia. The enthusiasm about this -- Chris, you know Philly. MATTHEWS: I know it. NUTTER: Is off the charts. People are really excited in the streets of Philadelphia. And, again, I want to say thank you to the chair for picking Philly. MATTHEWS: I want to ask the governor. Governor Rendell, you gave us a great boost of morale in Philly when you came on. You are a great booster fort city. I think you`re the spirit of the city in many ways over the years. What`s this going to mean in terms of recognition? Finally, Philly is going to be the center of our country for at least a couple weeks. ED RENDELL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, we got a tremendous boost from the Republican Convention. People saw Philadelphia and couldn`t believe the changes that had occurred. As Mayor Nutter pointed out today, all the good things that were in place in 2000, those things have just progressed under Mayor Street and Mayor Nutter. The city has gotten better. It`s a hotbed for millennials. It`s -- according to "Bon Appetit," it`s one of the best restaurant cities in America. It`s a great cultural city. Conde Nast named us the best cultural city. So, it`s a great city for donor experience, the delegate experience. Logistically, we proved in 2000 -- I think that is considered, Chris, to be the best-run convention on either party in the last 20, 25 years. And the good news is the team that ran it at the Wells Fargo Center, the police team, the transportation team, that team is all intact, ready to go, and to do as flawless a job in 2016 as we did in 2000. But I think, in the end -- and Debbie is right about the three criteria that they applied -- but, in the end, the ability to do this and to nominate maybe the first woman who`s nominated for the presidency in the history of the country, to do that with a backdrop of Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, the Constitution Center, I think that was compelling. MATTHEWS: Has Secretary Clinton got a room at the Ritz-Carlton yet? Are you all set on that? (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Because my wife can help. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, I`m just kidding. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: She has a great suite coming. Let me go to Bob Casey, senator, senior. This is a big deal for Pennsylvania. You have got a woman we just mentioned there, Secretary Clinton, whose family comes out Scranton. We also have a vice president who still hasn`t said whether he is running or not, and he comes from Scranton, and you`re from Scranton, as your dad was from Scranton. This is a big week for Scranton, I guess, too, although they do root for the Yankees, and we`re not very happy about that, but just a thought. (LAUGHTER) RENDELL: Not all of them. MATTHEWS: Governor. Senator, go ahead. (CROSSTALK) SEN. BOB CASEY (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Yes. I would say it`s a great day for Philadelphia, for sure, and for the region, Southeastern Pennsylvania. It`s also a great day for the commonwealth. We have got great support, as Governor Rendell and Mayor Nutter know, from all across the state. The state united behind Philadelphia`s bid. So it was a great effort to accentuate the city that`s the birthplace of America, and I think we will chart a course for the future. Chris, I want to make one footnote here, though. MATTHEWS: Go ahead. CASEY: We`re grateful for the chairwoman`s work. She did great work But you do not want to be on a witness stand when she`s cross- examining you, like she cross-examined the three of us. (LAUGHTER) CASEY: She was tough. MATTHEWS: OK. I want to thank -- we have got to thank Bobby Brady, the chairman of the city committee, too, of course. CASEY: Absolutely. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: By the way, dare I say it, U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I will now say it in more simple American language. Thank you, Debbie, for Philadelphia. Such a great thing you have done here. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: You`re welcome. You`re welcome. MATTHEWS: Thanks so much. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We`re thrilled. MATTHEWS: Governor Rendell -- Governor Rendell, Mayor Michael Nutter, and Senator Bob Casey, senior senator, thank you all, gentlemen. Thank you, Congresswoman. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Up next: Why do Republican presidential candidates keep getting tripped in their obligatory trips to London? First, it was Chris Christie. Now it`s Scott Walker. London`s Mayor Boris Johnson is coming to sit right here all the way across the pond. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, we have seen an odd trend lately of Republican candidates embarrassing themselves while in London. On a trade mission last week, Chris Christie of New Jersey ignited a firestorm when he suggested that parents should have more choice about whether to vaccinate their children. And now while on his own trade mission to London, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has refused to even answer any questions that might jeopardize his own White House ambitions. Take a look at how he dodged a question yesterday about evolution. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) QUESTION: Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do believe in it? Do you accept it? GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: For me, I`m going to -- I`m going to punt that as well. QUESTION: No? Really? WALKER: That`s a question a politician shouldn`t be involved in one way or the other on. So, I`m going to leave that up to you. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Any British politician, right or left wing, would say -- would laugh and say, yes, of course, evolution is true. But you... WALKER: To me, I said it`s just one of those I`m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate on other issues. I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin. (LAUGHTER) WALKER: It is going well, and I would like to see an even bigger evolution as well. (END VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: We will talk about that craziness. Then, in a similar trip last month, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal suggested to CNN that there are so-called no-go zones in London that are unsafe for non-Muslims. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: There are people here in London that will tell you there are neighborhoods where the women don`t feel safe walking -- walking through those neighborhoods without veils. There are neighborhoods where the police are less likely to go. That`s a dangerous thing. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And, of course, back in 2012, then candidate for president Mitt Romney offended many in Great Britain when he said that London might not be ready to host the Summer Olympics. That`s a nice way to visit the country. Shortly thereafter, London`s mayor, who is sitting with me, Boris Johnson, shot back and ridiculed Romney for his comments in front of 60,000 people. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BORIS JOHNSON, MAYOR OF LONDON: There are some people who are coming from around the world who don`t yet know about all the preparations we have done to get London ready in the last seven years. I hear there`s a guy -- there`s a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether -- whether we are ready. He wants to know whether we`re ready. Are we ready? (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) JOHNSON: Are we ready? (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: What a cheerleader, London Mayor Boris Yeltsin -- not Yeltsin. Boris Johnson joins me. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: There aren`t too many Borises. He happens to be on his own trade mission. JOHNSON: We Borises need to stick together. MATTHEWS: Did you know there was a cartoon character in this country, Boris and Natasha? JOHNSON: I know. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That silly moose. It was all we ever talked -- Boris, darling, let`s kill that silly moose. JOHNSON: No, no. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: None of that? How did you get a Russian name, by the way? JOHNSON: I have got a Russian -- well, I have got a Russian name because there was a guy who was actually an American called Boris Litvin (ph) when my parents were students in New York in 196... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Yes? By the way, you`re eligible for run for president. JOHNSON: Yes. Yes. That`s right. I pay taxes. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You were born here. JOHNSON: I was born in New York. Anyway, this guy called Boris told my mother -- she was going to take a Greyhound bus, a bus from Mexico back to New York City. He said that was no good, and he would pay for her plane fare. And she said, in gratitude, I will call my child Boris. MATTHEWS: Right. JOHNSON: So, there you go. It`s because of generosity of this country towards my indigent student parent. MATTHEWS: What a politician. Let me ask you about something. You`re a Tory. You`re a conservative. Why do you -- what do you make of an American who won`t just -- like in that show we just saw. What is Scott Walker, who I thought was a pretty OK guy... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Why is he afraid of saying, I believe in science? JOHNSON: I felt he`s a great guy. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, in your party. (CROSSTALK) JOHNSON: Totally, totally, totally bizarre. MATTHEWS: What is he afraid of? JOHNSON: The theory of evolution, as you know, was propounded and posited... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: It`s not a theory. JOHNSON: ... in London. MATTHEWS: It`s not a theory. JOHNSON: It was when Charles Darwin came up with it. MATTHEWS: OK. JOHNSON: And where was he? He was in Bromley. Come to London. Come to Bromley. I advise everybody to come to London and see the people of Bromley and understand why Charles Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. It`s all there. MATTHEWS: Why do they think -- why do the people who hope believe in -- understand why we experiment on animals and experiments on all these different kind of creatures because they`re somewhat related to us. Otherwise, it would make no sense to experiment on them. JOHNSON: Look, it`s not for -- I`m an evolutionist. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. I`m Roman Catholic. And we were taught evolution from day one in school. (CROSSTALK) JOHNSON: ... obvious. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about leadership today and the paucity, I think that`s a good English word, of leaders, of people like -- Thatcher was looked up to. Reagan was looked up to. Kennedy certainly was. It`s getting pretty shallow out there for leaders. JOHNSON: But maybe that`s a good thing, Mr. Matthews. MATTHEWS: I`m listening. Chris. JOHNSON: Chris. forgive me. Maybe what it shows is actually that, in many of our countries, the world does not require the kind of critical leadership that Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan provided during the period when we had to face down the Russians in the Cold War, doesn`t require the kind of courage that Winston Churchill had to display during the absolutely existential moment in 1940. And maybe we live in a blander, softer kind of age. MATTHEWS: Yes. But we live in a television age that Churchill didn`t have to face, where we can watch a flyer, a pilot, a courageous pilot for the Jordanians who is on our side get burned alive by gasoline in front of us. JOHNSON: Yes. MATTHEWS: We can watch -- or we can hear that a young woman who is a goodwill person over there helping people who are desperate get killed. We have to watch that and live it. I just wonder, as much as I don`t have a plan to win this war against ISIS, how can we be a manly, conscious, moral country and watch one person after another be publicly and humiliatingly executed? JOHNSON: We can`t. We can`t. We can`t. And, actually, a couple of weeks ago, I was in Kurdistan. And I saw the one set of guys who are really sticking it to those ISIL people, those ISIS guys, are the Kurdish Peshmerga. MATTHEWS: Yes, they are. JOHNSON: And we should be backing them. MATTHEWS: Maybe we should give them a country. Let them have a country. That`s what they want. JOHNSON: Well, they claim that they would be happy with Kurdistan in Northern Iraq, but obviously there are difficulties with Turkish Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan and all the rest of it. What they certainly deserve is the kit and the support and the training to blam those ISIS guys. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Mr. Mayor, you and I have something in common, which is we both have a hero. And I happen to have got a copy of this book. And I`ll tell you, this guy is America`s greatest hero. This guy. Churchill, you meet more men and women and this country who say -- what was it about him that made us across the pond, besides his American mother, what made him the guy we looked to and say, you know, damn it, that`s what we need? JOHNSON: Because, in May 1940, if he hadn`t stuck out against Hitler, if he hadn`t refused to do that deal, then I think Britain would almost certainly have... MATTHEWS: Buckled? JOHNSON: Have bent the knee in one way or the other. And it would have been an epoch of unparalleled gloom and misery for Europe and for civilization. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: And your country had... JOHNSON: And that was the first thing he did. And the second thing he did, he spent the next two years or however long it was, virtually two years, working on America. With FDR, he worked on America to get her, to get America to come in and pull our chestnuts out of the fire. And that made all the difference. MATTHEWS: It`s great to have you on. Thank you so much. JOHNSON: Thank you. MATTHEWS: Good look with your book. And that -- you didn`t come here for that reason. JOHNSON: I didn`t. But I`m honored that you brought up my -- I`m honored that you brought up my book. MATTHEWS: You asked not to -- you asked not to talk about it, and I pitched you into it. And I don`t mind saying that. Boris Johnson, a great man here. And I think I`m going to root for you. You`re my kind of Tory. Up next: Republican Party chair Reince Priebus -- he`s not my kind of chair -- says the party will make gains with African-Americans. Good luck, Reince. And this after the party worked to keep minorities from actually being able to vote. How about letting people vote before you asked them to vote Republican? Might be a consistency there, Reince. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. A new cease-fire deal with Ukraine and Russia goes into effect on Saturday. European Union members warn if this deal doesn`t stick, Russia could face more sanctions. Thousands said goodbye to three Muslim students gunned down near the University of North Carolina in a crime the family says was hate-based. Police charged a neighbor and say he was motivated by a fight over parking. And four workers at the site of a new highway tunnel in Seattle were rescued after an elevator shaft collapsed, dropping them 25 feet -- back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. RNC chair Reince Priebus wants black votes. That`s a mighty tall order, when your party also suppresses black votes. Yet, yesterday at the third annual RNC Black Trailblazers luncheon, the party reached out to African-Americans. Priebus himself said -- quote -- "I want to see us increase the numbers of Republican votes in the black community, so that increase actually has a clear impact on the outcome of the election." Well, given that Republicans in nearly three dozen states passed laws in the past two years to suppress the voting rights of minorities and young people, that might be hard. Some Republicans at the local level aren`t shy about the political motivations, by the way, behind those efforts. Before the 2012 election, Pennsylvania`s Republican leader, Mike Turzai, said their voter I.D. law would give the election to Romney. Here he Turzai. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE TURZAI (R), PENNSYLVANIA STATEHOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Voter I.D., which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Done. And then the state`s Republican Party chair gloated about how those laws took away votes from President Obama. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) QUESTION: Do you think all the attention drawn to voter I.D. affected last year`s elections? ROBERT GLEASON, PENNSYLVANIA REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think a little bit. I think we probably had a better election. Think about this. We cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big, you know. A lot of people lost sight of that. He won, he beat McCain by 10 percent. He only beat Romney by 5 percent. I think that probably photo I.D. had a -- helped a bit in that. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And then there`s this whopper, North Carolina Republican precinct chair Don Yelton, who said this to "The Daily Show" -- "Daily Show" back in October about his state`s new voters suppression laws. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART") DON YELTON, NORTH CAROLINA GOP PRECINCT CHAIRMAN: The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that wants to have the government give them everything, so be it. AASIF MANDVI, "THE DAILY SHOW": And it just so happens that a lot of those people vote Democrat. YELTON: Gee. (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Well, a sarcastic son of a whatever, but I`ll tell you, he says what he thinks. Yelton later resigned. Joining me right now is former RNC chair, Michael Steele, a very much different cut than the other fella. "The Washington Post`s" Nia-Malika Henderson, and Wesley Lowery, also of "The Washington Post". He wrote about yesterday`s luncheon. Wesley, thanks for what do you make of this two-faced thing going on, the effort to sort of make the deal with the demographic changes in the country, by one way, which is making it harder to vote for older people and urban people who live in row houses that don`t have cars, don`t have driver licenses, instead of bringing it slowly, like the 25-year-olds need the cards, 83 years old, give me your card. You know, I just think it`s an effort to screw the voters. Your thoughts? WESLEY LOWERY, THE WASHINGTON POST: I think that when you look -- especially when you talk to Democratic operatives about this GOP push to bring in some black voters, with you things they obvious race is they make the argument that more people voting, good for Democrats, fewer people voting, good for Republicans. They point that to a level of inconsistency or hypocrisy. The Republican, RNC right now, Priebus, is not talking about winning 25 percent of the black vote, or 50 percent of the black vote. Not competing for the black vote as large, but talking about getting the 11 percent that George W. Bush got in 2004 versus the 6 percent of the black vote that Mitt Romney -- MATTHEWS: Where do you get this 23 percent figure we heard? LOWERY: John Kasich, in the midterm elections this round won 23 percent -- MATTHEWS: He`s a pretty good candidate. The guy`s a pretty good candidate, let`s be honest. LOWERY: Well, that`s what a lot of Democrats in Cleveland, my hometown point to often. They`ll make the argument you can get Democrats to make the argument that black Democrats vote against Fitzgerald because he was such a bad candidate. Kasich was also a relatively -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Look, let me try Nia on this one. I know you`re a reporter straight, but it seems to me the logic of this thing, they`re obviously going for better off people who are minority, I mean, middle class people, more entrepreneurial perhaps, they can see themselves with Republican values, they say those are my values, not the down-and-out person. But doesn`t everybody in the black community know that this voter suppression thing is going on? NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, THE WASHINGTON POST: Yes, they know. It`s targeted at them. There is a pretty I think widespread perception among African-Americans, they feel like this is voter suppression. It`s not a voter ID law, it`s about voter suppression, and if you look at a recent study out of the GAO over the summer, some of the stats suggest that it does actually suppress some of the vote anywhere from 2 percent to 4 percent. If you look at the states of Kansas and Tennessee, there was a drop- off from 2008 to 2012, particularly among young voters and particularly among African-Americans. So, there is some suggestion and some proof that this is actually working to keep African-Americans and young folks away from the polls. MATTHEWS: Is there a sense -- and I grew up in the city, but far end of the city, it wasn`t exactly urban, but it was northeast Philly, greater northeast Philly. I think there is a perception in the suburbs that in the inner city, there`s cheating on voting. They say all we`re doing is trying to cut out the cheating. We`re not at it to screw the black vote. What do you think? You worked for the Republican Party. You led it. Is there a real perception there`s cheating, substantial enough that justifies the bad PR? Enough cheating to justify the pr, which is terrible? STEELE: There is a perception, there is some evidence of it. I mean, look, we don`t have to go around the country, we can just stick right here in our own backyard of Maryland in the `94 election with Ellen Sauerbrey, and the fact that, you know, she was winning at 11:00, and lost it by 1:00 a.m., on finding 11,000 ballots, you know, in a locked classroom in Baltimore City. MATTHEWS: Like "The Good Wife." (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) STEELE: So, there is that aspect of it that drives a lot of this, but I think the more important point in any effort to have a conversation with the black community really goes to where Nia left off. That`s the perception and the reality have merged. And whether or not there`s actual or perceived efforts to block my access to the ballot box, that`s what I`m thinking and feeling. For all the lunches that you want to have, for all of the efforts of outreach, which I hate that term. I banned it when I was RNC chairman, because it means nothing. At the end of the day, you have to stand in the well of the community and address those concerns. When you have the voting rights act sitting on the floor of a Republican Congress and the party which was the arbiter, the part of making this law reality is doing nothing to address that, that continues the perception that you really don`t care about what`s fundamentally important to us. MATTHEWS: Do you think there`s a perception that the Republican Party, although it may offend the black community and liberals are offended about it, they`re getting the backlash vote anyway? There`s also going to be people that said, oh, that`s the party of black interest, that`s the party of welfare, that`s the party, they don`t care about us working class whites in southwestern Pennsylvania. They figure they can always offset it, always offset the black vote with an angry white vote. They must be thinking that, because it makes no sense otherwise. It`s not suicidal. LOWERY: You certainly some of that perception no matter what, and you certainly are going to have -- there are going to be demographics within both parties that are going to show up, no matter what, no matter what you say, for whatever questionable or potentially bigoted reasons on any side. And the Republicans know they can take advantage of that, they know they can take advantage. They know that one of their largest pathways to victory is through white voters, no matter what the motivations of those white voters are. But there is a real question here of on the margins with Hispanic voters, and the margins with black voters. Again, that seems unlikely Republicans in our lifetimes are ever going to win eight out of 10 black voters, but can they win two? Can they win three? Can they win four? MATTHEWS: In my lifetime, my friend. I got to you, until `60, with Kennedy writing the letter to Mrs. King, they didn`t act, even Jackie Robinson who was Republican, said, act, here`s your chance, side with Martin Luther King. He didn`t on do it because he thought he could carry the whites in the South, if he -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: He took his chances on that theory, because he went to a lunchtime rally in Georgia and all the white guys working downtown are all waving at him. HENDERSON: I mean, Nixon did relatively well. Nixon got 18 percent of the black vote -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: But guys like Eisenhower were getting like a third. STEELE: But those are definitional moments, like you describe. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know. They say in movies, plot points. STEELE: Plot points. MATTHEWS: When you move. Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. Up next, why is President Obama breaking out to the selfie stick in a new "BuzzFeed" video? You know, I don`t even know what I`m talking about. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Pressure is growing on the four-term governor of Oregon. Governor John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, is facing calls to resign amid allegations his fiancee used his office to land contracts for her consulting business. People close to the governor saying he actually decided to resign, but later reversed course, now is vowing to stay on the job. Oregon`s attorney general has launched a criminal investigation. We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Seconds left in the game, down by one, he gets it! Mr. President? BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Can I live? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You do you. Yolo, man. All right. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: A two handed set for the president. We`re back. That`s part of a video released by BuzzFeed, the theme of which is that President Obama, just like all of us, does things he doesn`t talk about -- like pretend to make a basketball shot at the buzzer. And there is a real message in this entertaining video. Sign up for health care. Here is the president practicing that pitch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The deadline for signing up for health insurance is February - - UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not like any other Wednesday. OBAMA: That`s not right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wed-nes-day. OBAMA: February -- man. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wednesday. OBAMA: February 15th. February 15th. In many cases, you can get health insurance for less than $100 a month. Just go to healthcare.gov to figure out how to sign up. February 15th. (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MTTEHWS: I`ll say this is original stuff. In just the past few weeks, President Obama has done interviews with YouTube stars including Glozell who wore green lipstick. Of course, you remember that. With outlets named Vox and BuzzFeed. And he did a PSA that aired during the Grammys. President Obama`s social media outreach to young voters has been relentless. Is he changing the game for future presidents? We`re back with the roundtable, Michael, Nia and Welsey. I don`t know what the argument is here, I don`t think there is one. You two are the youngest, so what does this mean? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Who are the people that watch this show, I`ll forgive them, they`re young and they`re busy. They have social lives. These people, this is a way to get to them. That is apparently why he is doing it. To get your crowd, kids, young people, to sign up for Obamacare. He will go anywhere to find you. LOWERY: Yes, as the ambassador of the youth -- MATTHEWS: It`s generational. Chris Cuomo once said -- I said, Chris, what are you doing? He said, I`m a generational spokesman. That was before he started journalism. Are you a generational spokesman? LOWERY: Maybe after this (INAUDIBLE), we`ll see. MATTHEWS: OK. LOWERY: I think that, you know, we`re seeing this with other politicians, not quite to this level. We have never seen the president handle quite this way. But what we are seeing now with Rand Paul and some other politicians trying to use Snapchat, trying to use these other -- both mobile apps, and meeting people with this kind of nontraditional media outlets. "BuzzFeed" is a place that will do hard investigative journalism, but will also produce a comical video. MATTHEWS: Who will watch him looking at the mirror practicing words - - (CROSSTALK) LOWERY: A bunch of people. MATTHEWS: Who comes up with that? Did that guy come up with the idea of people having a hard time, because local accents, you don`t say the "R." February. February. (CROSSTALK) HENDERSON: I mean, it`s just funny. It`s memorable. And so, I think it`s -- who knows who wrote the script? I think it was -- you know, it`s been very well-viewed so far. I think the last time I checked, something like three or four million people -- MATTHEWS: Are you one of the kids? (CROSSTALK) HENDERSON: I`m in between these guys here. STEELE: It will drive Republicans nuts. MATTHEWS: How`s Orrin Hatch in some of the stiffer parts of your party doing this? I can`t see Orrin Hatch doing this. STEELE: At a certain level, all of this is beneath the office of the president. HENDERSON: Totally. STEELE: But it is opening a new landscape for communication. You have a segment -- a growing segment of our voting age population that is increasingly disconnected, and as you want to find a way -- and both parties need a find a way to connect them. So, I think you`re right. The Rand Pauls of the world, the Marco Rubios, the next generation of Republican leaders are going to -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Here is part of the "BuzzFeed" video that mocks the president`s seeming ability to be blamed for everything that goes wrong in this world. It`s a good point here, let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh -- thanks, Obama. OBAMA: Thanks, Obama. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Blaming himself. Thank you, Michael Steele, Nia-Malika Henderson, and Wesley Lowery. When we return, let me finish with this switch by the party of Abraham Lincoln to massive resistance. And I mean it. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with the Republican Party`s official plan to remain competitive with the Democrats even as the demographics of this country shift. The plan is to quite nakedly reduce the votes of those groups who tend to vote Democratic, minorities, poor, older people, to do it by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID card when they arrive at the voting station. If they don`t show such a card, they don`t get to vote. You would think the Republican effort is too blatant, that no political party would want to be seen putting up obstacles to voting, that no party would want to be seen as the declared enemy of a large voting group. The astounding fact is that in dozen of states, the GOP has proven itself quite willing to be seen this way. It`s made no bones about standing up for voter ID requirements that it a special burden precisely on a groups, minorities, older, poor people that largely votes for the other party. Well, the person leading this partisan move to kill the vote, especially the minorities, is someone named Reince Priebus. He is the reason the Republican talk of recruiting minority voters is so deep in deceit. As we heard tonight, the party of Abraham Lincoln is now the party of massive resistance. That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021201cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 55 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 12, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 12, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Hampton Pearson, David Corn GUESTS: Joe Sestak, Michael O`Hanlon, Tom Colicchio, Peter DeFazio, Heidi Harris, Lou Desmond SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7592 words HIGHLIGHT: Vladimir Putin, facing mounting economic problems at home, agrees to a deal to end the violence in eastern Ukraine. A group of Democrats introduce legislation to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Big oil gives about ten times more money to senators voting for the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Republican Congress repealing of Obamacare. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker takes his shadow campaign for president to London but dodges questions on evolution and foreign policy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, Putin blinks. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a team that seems unlike. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s been an agreement to the (ph) and meant to implement a ceasefire. PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON, UNITED KINGDOM: What matters most of all is actually actions on the ground. SCHULTZ: But the world is skeptical. CAMERON: Rather than just words on a piece of paper. SCHULTZ: And later, what`s in your food. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why does the left hate GMO? REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN, (R) TENNESSEE: It all has been genetically modified. SCHULTZ: The national appetite grows for GMO labeling. BLACKBURN: We don`t have that federal standard. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But they got nothing on GMO`s. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why we add that GMO? SCHULTZ: Plus, the dark horse, everyone`s talking about for 2016. REP. STEVE KING, (R) IOWA: Scott Walker... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Scott Walker wows them in Iowa. FRM. GOV. HOWARD DEAN, (D) VERMONT: If he`d become president would be the first president in many generation who did not have a college degree. REP. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: I`m going to punt on that one as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching. We start with major news out of Ukraine. Vladimir Putin has agreed to a ceasefire to end violence in Eastern Ukraine. So far the conflict has claimed over 5,000 lives. The truce was announced by world leaders earlier today after marathon negotiations. Leaders from Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany were all involved in the deal. Details of the agreement were posted on Kremlin website. They include a full pardon for rebel fighters, a full prisoner exchange and the removal of all foreign forces and mercenaries from Ukraine. Local elections will be held in rebel held areas to give more power to local leaders. The ceasefire begins Saturday at midnight. Earlier today, Prime Minister David Cameron said he was optimistic about the deal, but he had some stern words for Vladimir Putin. (END VIDEO CLIP) CAMERON: If this is a genuine ceasefire then of course that would be welcomed. But what matters most of all is actually actions on the ground rather just word on a piece of paper. And I think we should be very clear that Vladimir Putin needs to know that unless his behavior changes the sanctions we have in place won`t be altered. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHUTLZ: Things have already escalated since the deal was reached. The White House said today, it was concern about the escalation of fighting today but world leaders still remain hopeful. There`s not doubt sanctions played a role in this agreement. Standard & Poor`s recently drop Russia`s credit rating to junk status. In the past seven months, the Ruble has dropped a shocking 51 percent. Dropping oil prices have crushed the Russian economy. Russia draws 45 percent of their tax revenue from oil taxes. All this has caused inflation and force the Russians to drive up interest rates. Today`s announcement comes as the International Monitory Fund said it would give $40 billion to bailout the Ukrainian government. Putin`s war of choice is devastated the Russian economy. In the face of growing economic problems he was forced into the ceasefire at least that`s how it appears. President Obama`s strategy of sanctions certainly had an impact. As of now, the conflict is not 100 percent over but we are seeing significant progress. Meanwhile, the President`s request for use of military force is meeting resistance on Capitol Hill. But Republicans and Democrats are shaky on the request. Speaker Boehner thinks it doesn`t go far enough. Here`s what the House Speaker had to say today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: I do have concerns about the President`s submission. I want to give our military commanders the flexibility and the authority that they need to defeat our enemies. And the White House readily admits that the authorization that they`re seeking is more restrictive than what they already have in place. If we`re going to defeat our enemy and win this fight, we need a strong robust strategy and a strong robust authorization. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Robust means, what? More war, troops on the ground? That`s Republican talk, no doubt that`s where they`re. Some Republicans want the option to use ground forces against ISIS. We should note Boehner hasn`t outright rejected the President`s request. On the flip side Democrats think the President`s request is too broad, on the use of ground troops. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he would not support the force authorization. Sanders says there are need to be clear limitations on the role of U.S. ground troops. Progressive are upset the President`s request does not repeal the 2001 force authorization. Moveon.org released a statement today saying, "President Obama`s proposed authorization for use of military force is a recipe for endless and costly-war. It does not repeal the sleeping 2001 AUMF, which 14 years later is still being used to justify ongoing military action." President Obama`s request for military force is being labeled by many liberal as political theater, unnecessary. Well, get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Did President Obama`s sanctions strategy worked against Russia?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can leave a comment at our blog at ed.msnbc.com and we`ll bring you the results later on in the show. For more let me bring in Admiral Joe Sestak, Former Congressman from Pennsylvania. Admiral, always a pleasure to have you with us. FMR. REP.JOE SESTAK, (D) PENNSYLVANIA: Good to be with you, Ed. SCHULTZ: Your take, was Putin force into doing this, did he have a lot of options left? SESTAK: Well, I think Putin feels he probably accomplished what he wanted to and that is, he doesn`t want a strong neighbor. He wants a very weak vassal state. And frankly, Ed, that`s what he has. He`s dismembered parts or Ukraine. But I think the sanction had a part but I also think if hadn`t been for the plummeting of the gas, a lean prices. You may not see Putin saying I`ve done enough. I think for right now, we`ve got to look at this and I would I actually say even apply more sanction against this thug. SCHULTZ: So this is economically driven as far as Putin is concern. SESTAK: Without a question. I think the concern I also have is some of our sanctions have loopholes in them. Look, if a bank is 50 percent owned by some of the cronies of Putin, all they have to do is sold a few of the shares, get it below 50 percent and they have -- got a loophole. They`re no longer in the sanctions. So I think that this man, Putin, has invaded a sovereign country. He should not be left off the hook at all by either European Union or by us. SCHULTZ: So, isn`t it interesting how the Republicans want ground troops against ISIS. But they aren`t willing to really push to the firewall to make sure that we arm the Ukraines. What do make of that? SESTAK: Well, I -- my concern about Congress is that they may not understand modern warfare. This isn`t like the old days, Vietnam era, where it just conventional force against conventional force. I mean, ISIS is asymmetric threat and I wonder how many in Congress really understand that it`s not talking tough, its understanding modern warfare. I think to put group troops like the President said, we`re not going to do the types of companies, battalions, brigades into Syria or Iraq is foolish. We can do this with the right coalition and doing it from the air and perhaps a special force that take a laser pointed a specific target and have that laser be appropriately guided there. We don`t want to give that laser to a Sunni who might turn it on a Shia even though they`re fighting on the same side in Iraq. This is the smart way to do it. SCHULTZ: OK. So you believe that the President does have a strategy, that this is a game plan that he has been following all a long in dealing both what`s going on and with the Russians, the separatist... SESTAK: Ed. SCHULTZ: ... and also what`s dealing with ISIS. SESTAK: Ed, I think that you and I have had discussion in the last three years that he has been slow to respond to ISIS, and yet when he has it`s been the right strategy. A year ago they were 60 miles from Baghdad, I believe however, that now we`ve got the right strategy, it`s a little harder to do because if we`ve given arms to those more moderate rebels three years ago, we might not be in a tough situation we are. But right now, to have the Arabs who have finally seen one of their own and -- Jordanian pilot burned alive in a cage, all of a sudden he say, wait a moment, they`re against us. And so I think mobilizing them with us from the air with some select Special Forces to do the targeting and things like that is the right strategy, it would be foolish to putting companies, brigades, and think that we`re going to do another occupation of either Iraq or Syria. SCHULTZ: And, Joe, back to the Russian situation. Do you think the ceasefire will last? What would Putin`s motivation be to break the ceasefire? SESTAK: I think he`s motivation would be if Ukraine begins to ever look like it`s going to become more western leading to be much more sovereign, and to be much more willing to be integrated into the west. And yet, that exactly what we want. Ed, this is an economic warfare situation you`re right. It`s the economy that kind of says to Putin, wait a moment here. I`ve said before that they`re nothing but a gas station. And now their oil fields are running out in Western Siberia, they need our technology develop new oil field in the East. We`ve got to tighten down on this and I believe we have to be able to demonstrate by putting a presence in like the Baltic`s that we standby Article 5 of NATO that we will stand strong against such a man who will violate someone else -- other country`s sovereignty. SCHULTZ: All right. Former Congressman Joe Sestak, former Admiral, great to have you with us tonight, sir. SESTAK: Good to be with you, Ed. Thank you. SCHULTZ: I appreciate it. Let`s turn out to Michael O`Hanlon who`s a senior fellow and Director of Research of Brookings Institute. Michael, your thoughts. Did they -- how much of a play do you these sanction had in all of this? MICHAEL O`HANLON, BROOKINGS INTITUTION: I think they definitely have had an effect and it`s good to hear my friend Admiral Sestak and his analysis. I think that he`s also right though to caution that the uncertainty about what happens next is huge. And everything from a possible recovery of oil prices to greater use by Russians of loopholes and the existing sanctions could in fact lead to less pressure. And on top of that, I think Putin is sort of in his element when he`s in this kind of a sparring match with us. I think he has figured out that he cares more about Eastern Ukraine than we do. I think that`s actually an inevitable. We shouldn`t pretend otherwise. But he`s so irrational about this that he`s willing to see if there amount of economic damage to his country, as long as he can claims some kind of a broader strategic win. So I`m afraid we`re going to have to contain with them for a while, and I actually think we need to get beyond the immediate debate about arms and think about a broader European security deal that could try to reduce the odds that Putin will stoke this kind of thing up again. SCHULTZ: Prime Minister Cameron, he didn`t sound too confident that this was going to hold, what was your take on his reaction? O`HANLON: Like Admiral Sestak, he is Putin. And I think, you know, we`ve got to give it a try. I mean, it was negotiated by good allies of ours and involved Ukraine itself and their President. You know, it doesn`t make any sense to assume it will work and we need a lot of verification and monitoring but the alternatives are poor. The only thing I would say is, you have to calibrate the pace at which you let sanctions in accordance with the verifiable reduction in Russian activity in that region. And as long as you careful on that front, I think you can hope that this deal works and get it a shot. SCHULTZ: What about the authorization to use military force in the way this is politically playing out on Capitol Hill, how big of a flight is this going to be? First of all, do you think it`s going to pass or the Republican is going to hold the line on this and expect more latitude when it comes to ground troops? O`HANLON: Well, I`m not very happy about that today because I don`t see it helping us. You know, I don`t usually agree with moveon.org and even in this issue I don`t agree with them on the substance. But I think they have a point that as long as the 2001 authorization remains intact, much of this debate doesn`t really matter. It`s almost like we`re looking for an opportunity to revive old arguments and there`s not going to be much productive benefit regardless of how the legislation turns out. So I`d rather see the debates about specific policies towards the three countries that I`m most concerned about and there are more than three obviously but Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, there`s plenty to debate on each on. I`d rather see Congress turns its attention to those specifics rather than what I see as a theoretical debate. It`s not going to really matter. SCHULTZ: You know, Michael, what we don`t hear is military leaders, American military leaders telling us that they believe they can defeat ISIS with what we`re doing right now? Now, they`re not critical of the President but there doesn`t seem to be a real confident word coming from our military that we are doing the right thing. And I find that rather interesting, is the President doing this because the American people don`t have an appetite for it or does the President really believe the strategy that we have per se against ISIS is eventually going to work. O`HANLON: Well, I think it will work or at least it has a good chance in Iraq. I think it has a very poor chance in Syria. My read of the President, I don`t know him personally, I haven`t spoken to him about this issue. But my reading of him is that, he knows the Syria policy is flopping right now but at least it`s not getting Americans killed. At least it`s not becoming the third big war in the Middle East. And until he is confident that he sees a very better approach that has limits on how far it might escalate he prefers to see a bad policy rather than have a potentially disastrous alternative. Now, I don`t totally agree with the way he is choosing his approaches here but I can see his point, that there`s a certain strategic wisdom and restraint even though you may not be successful. And now over time, I think we got to do better in Syria. It`s just too important to the country. ISIS is too dangerous to live it there but the President hasn`t yet heard a policy approach that he think is very promising so he sort of, you know, keeping it (inaudible). SCHULTZ: Sure. All right, Michael O`Hanlon, always a pleasure. Good to have you with us tonight. Thank you so much. Remember to answer tonight`s question there are the bottom of the screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow and like us on Facebook. We always want to know what you`re thinking. I appreciate your comments. Coming up, food for thought. The fight to let the American people know just how much genetically modified food we are consuming. Big talk from Republicans on their so-called, "New American Congress", we`ll see exactly how this is all working out for them, a spirited discussion coming up with our friends on the right. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. A food fight is shaping up in Washington D.C. Earlier today, a group of Democrats introduced legislation requiring the Food and Drug Administration to clearly label genetically modified foods. The food industry has tried to squash labeling efforts for years. They don`t want it. It`s estimated at least 80 percent of the food of the United State`s grocery store shelves contains bioengineered ingredients. Now the movement of Americans who want to know what`s exactly in their food certainly is gaining in popularity. In fact, on Associated Press poll finds 66 percent of respondents were in favor of requiring food manufacturers to put labels on products with genetically modified ingredients. This of course would include food grown from seeds engineered in laboratories. Three states, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont, currently have mandatory G.E. labeling laws. More than 70 bills have been introduced across the country in more than 30 states trying to require labeling. The Food Right to Know Act is aiming to make a federal requirement that companies would have to let consumers know exactly what`s in the box they`re purchasing. For more let me bring in Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon, also with us tonight, Chef Tom Colicchio, five times James Beard Award winner, Food Policy Action Board Member and host and judge of the new Bravo series, "Best New Restaurant." Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. REP. PETER DEFAZIO, (D) OREGON: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: Congressman, give me the upside of this. Why is it that the Democrats are -- and I say Democrats because I think I also saw one Republican, I believe it was from Arkansas in the House who was in favor of this, what is the upside there and why is it necessary? DEFAZIO: Well, responding to our constituents, I`ve seen much higher consistently higher polling numbers on the fact that people want to know what`s in their foods and making in form of decision. That`s all we`re asking, let me make a decision and put that on the label. 64 countries around the world require this including the entire European Union. Earlier today, I had a Hershey bar wrapper with me. I didn`t bring it tonight which says made in the USA Hershey and then it says contains genetically modified organisms from sugar bits and corn. But we`re hearing that it`s impossible to do that or it will be incredibly expensive to do that. No, there is no additional expense. In fact, a reasonably estimate is, it would cost an average family for this change in labeling two-thirds of a cent a day for year. You know, that`s, you know, I mean, the industry puts out the scary numbers in my state. We have the most expensive initiative in the history of the state where we just wanted to require the disclosure in labeling. The industry spent $21 million against it, far more than any other initiative in the history of the state. All money from outside the state, they won by 800 votes by lying to people and telling them that there are -- that that`s (ph) going to cost them $600 to $800 a year. That`s an out in outline. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Tom Colicchio, it works in other countries. Why wouldn`t it work here? I mean, why are we behind the curve here? TOM COLICCHIO, FOOD POLICY ACTION BOARD MEMBER: Well, we`re behind the curve because for a long time Congress has supported companies as opposed to people. People who are actually demanding label and want labeling, just want clear transparency. And so they`re protecting these companies. They`re actually using the science. Now I`m not anti-science Ed, but they`re using the science as a business model to sell inputs to farmers. And, you know, these companies did a great job 15 years ago selling this technology to farmers but they never had to sell it to the American public. And so, I suggest that perhaps they, you know, they`re out there spending a hundreds and million dollars on lobbying and in fact, they should probably just a hire a few publicist and sell the American public on the benefits of genetically modified materials. They should... SCHULTZ: Well, that the Republicans are saying that, you know, and of course the people in the ag community are saying that this is the future. Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn said this about genetically engineered food. This was back in December when the conversation was going on. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BLACKBURN: It all has been genetically modified. If you want to go back and eat original wheat or barley, it`s not going to give you very much of a yield. And it`s not going to be the desirable product that you`re looking for today. So we have to realize that as a part of this debate. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Well, what did we do before GMO? Is the food lousy in America or what? Your response to that, Congressman. DEFAZIO: You know, look, Ed, she is saying that it`s all been genetically modified, it hasn`t. And people would like to be informed and make a decision. Secondly, you know, they say all this happens in nature. No. There`s a new corn that was just approved by the FDA that they`re going to dump the essential ingredients of Agent Orange unto that corn because they have given that corn resistance to 2,4-D. And, you know, you`re going to tell they aren`t can be residuals and we know there are certainly going to be secondary harm to the environment. In fact, monarch butterflies are becoming an extinct because of this sort of dumping of -- huge increase in pesticides use because of this modified organism. SCHULTZ: Tom, is food safety an issue here? COLICCHIO: Well, not necessarily food safety because there is really no science behind the fact that GMO products are harmful to ingest. I have more of an issue with the environmental effects of it. Again, most of these crops are meant -- are engineered to withstand glyphosate around up and now 2,4-D. And so, what we`re finding now is glyphosate is now in our water supply. We`re seeing it show up in a breast milk of nursing mothers. And so I think from the environmental standpoint, there is a real risk involved here. SCHULTZ: OK. Big business is going to be on the Capitol Hill. I`d imagine Congressman DeFazio cash-whipping a lot of people to stop this thing from going through. Are you going to get any Republican supported at all and where do you think it would play in the Senate? DEFAZIO: Well, Ed, you know, I passed a National Organic Standards more than 20 years ago here in Congress from zero because of a massive nationwide citizen movement and that`s what we need here. Moms, dads, people are attentive to their diets, chefs like Tom, they want to know. Some major food, you know, retailers, the whole food is moving in that direction. They want people to know. I believe ultimately market forces or the American public can demand these changes and will be it to he or she who`s in an elected official that says, no, I don`t think you should have that information, we don`t trust you with it. SCHULTZ: Tom, would this be interest to your industry? COLICCHIO: Not to mine at all, no. In fact, in my restaurants we are about 99 percent GMO-free at this point but no, we`re using all fresh food. We got to realize, there`s only about nine crops that are genetically engineered and most of them are commodity crops with the exception of some zucchini and some papaya. So no, this really doesn`t affect me. This more -- it affects package goods. SCHULTZ: OK. COLICCHIO: And it really doesn`t affect them at all. Again, most of these companies are already dealing with our trade partners and they already have labeling on their package to deal with European trade partners and Asian trade partners. So, it shouldn`t make much of a difference. SCHULTZ: Chef Tom Colicchio, great to have you with us. Congressman Peter Defazio, I appreciate your time as well. Thank you so much. Coming up. John Boehner`s latest rant shows how desperate the Republican majority really is. Plus, the two-minute drill, Tiger. He says his game not good enough. He`s going to take a break. We`ll be right back. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. On Wednesday, the House passed the Keystone Pipeline Bill by vote of 270 to 152. Slam dunk, right? Not really. Now, the bill heads to the President`s desk. President Obama has made it clear that he plans to veto it. There`s a new report shedding some light on just how much cash sweeping goes on with votes like this. MapLight is a non-partisan research organization which tracks the influence of money in politics. The group found the oil and gas industry gave nearly $250,000 to each of the 62 senators who voted in favor of Keystone. On average, senators who voted yes got $236,544. Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota who sponsored the bill received about $275,000 from the industry. Republican Senator from Texas, John Cornyn, he received more than $1 million from the industry. The oil and gas winner among Democrats, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia with $200,000 from the industry. In the House, the oil and gas industry gave about $45,000 on average to the 270 members who voted in favor of the Keystone Pipeline. That`s 13 times the amount of campaign contributions of those who voted against it. In other Keystone news today, there was court action down in the state of Nebraska. District court in that state put a hold on TransCanada`s eminent domain takings of Nebraska`s land owner property. What it means? Well, it means that private land in the Nebraska will temporarily be protected from being taken by TransCanada to build the pipeline, which is what we have reported repeatedly on this program. It is now property right issue. It still hang-up in the court in Nebraska no matter how much the United States Senate or the House does under Republican rule. Plus, the President says he`s going to veto it. He may wait to see exactly what they do in Nebraska. Stick around Rapid Response Panel is next. HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC Market Wrap. Investors apparently feeling good today about news of a Ukraine ceasefire, the Dow jumping 110 point, the S&P up 19, the NASDAQ climbing by 56 points. It was a tough day for American Express though, the car company fell 6 percent, amid news that Costco will stop accepting AmEx card in the U.S. this spring. And two giants and online travel are joining forces Expedia buying Orbitz for over billion dollars. Both stocks soared on the news. That`s it from CNCB, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Republicans have had control of a Congress for five weeks now. So far they have accomplished very little as I see it. House Speaker John Boehner is already playing the blame game with the Homeland Security Bill. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: Why you don`t go ask the Senate Democrats when they`re going to get off their ass and do something other than to vote no? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, your party controls the chamber there so... BOEHNER: The House has done its job. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the kind of coordination you envisioned between you and McConnell and Senate Republicans? BOEHNER: Listen, the issue here is not Senate Republicans. The issue here is Senate Democrats. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re calling you to send the bill. BOEHNER: Seven of them criticized the President`s executive overreached on immigration and yet, they continue to block consideration of bill. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: McConnell says it`s up to you. BOEHNER: I love Mitch. He has tough job to do and so do I. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: But he is just not getting anything done. Joining me tonight on a Rapid Response Panel we`ve got Heidi Harris it was host of Heidi Harris Show, also with us tonight radio talk show host Lou Desmond. Great to have both of you with us. Heidi, what`s happening? Where`s the Healthcare Bill? We`ve heard the Republicans and the conservatives take a part Obamacare but they got no game then how come there`s nothing on the table? HEIDI HARRIS, RADIO SHOW HOST: You know what? I`m going to say something that might surprise you, Ed. I had predicted for a long time that nothings going to happen with Obamacare repeal. I`m going to tell you why. It`s purposely complicated like the IRS, like the tax code. And the reason for that is, they`re already talking about making specific allowances for people who manufacture particular medical instruments and those kinds of things. So it`s becoming like the tax code. We`re not going to really repeal with wink, wink but we`re going to give you all kind of benefits. And Republicans, I don`t know believe are going to repeal Obamacare. They have a chance. I don`t think their going to do it. I wish they were but their not going to. SCHULTZ: Why have they focused the country on making us believe that they`ve got something better when they really don`t? HARRIS: Well, you know, the problem is they like to talk a good game and both sides do this all the time. They make promises but it comes down to it. There -- I guess better serve by leading it the way it is because the argument is if you try to repeal it now... SCHULTZ: Well... HARRIS: ... it`s going to be too expensive and too complicated. So, I don`t agree with that of course... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HARRIS: ... I want complete repeal. But I don`t see them having the will to do it and it`s very disappointing to me, I got to tell you. SCHULTZ: Well, on this subject the Democrats promised to pass health care and they did and millions of Americans are being covered because of it. And rates are coming down and more people are covered and we`re getting better outcomes. But they`ve been ripping apart Obamacare but they`ve got nothing on the table. Lou, is it too much to expect that maybe we would see them followup on what they`ve been complaining about? LOU DESMOND, CONSERVATIVE RADIO SHOW HOST: Well Ed, I can only speak from my experience as a small business owner, as a person who runs his business. My health care has been terribly affected where on our third or fourth policy still trying to find it. People like me that self-insured had been nothing but hurt by Obamacare. I`d like to see the whole thing repealed but of course we only have one piece of the government apparatus. SCHULTZ: How been you`ve been hurt? DESMOND: Because I use to have insurance that I liked, we had the doctors group that my wife and the kids were born to and that had always been gone to -- and we have not been able to go back to that same doctors group because they keep dropping the insurances that we get, because the government keeps cutting the reimbursement. So, I did not get to keep my doctor. I did not get to keep my plan. That was a lie to people like me who have to self-insure. SCHULTZ: Well, but you`re not being denied. That`s the big thing, you just to pay a little bit more that`s all. DESMOND: Well its... SCHULTZ: I mean nobody in America and one of your kids get sick you`re still going to get insured. So, I`m not quite sure, I mean, if we look at the previous years, health care, we`ve seen double digit increases. So, where is the hurt? I mean it`s not going to be perfect world, you can still get insurance. DESMOND: Ed, it was called the Affordable Care Act. SCHULTZ: Yeah. DESMOND: And I was promise and millions of other people are promise that we could keep our doctor and we could keep our plan. That simply wasn`t true for a large majority -- a large population sector that has to self- insure. SCHULTZ: So you`re in favor of junk insurance that was out there, because there are now standards in the industry that have wipeout a lot of policies that didn`t do consumers any good. DESMOND: Ed, call it junk insurance if he want, I had insurance that I was happy with. SCHULTZ: OK. DESMOND: I like... SCHULTZ: All right, fair enough. Fair enough. But the fact is that we have federal standards just like we have standards on a lot of things in this country. I want to play a clip from John Boehner earlier today talking about Keystone. Here`s one thing that they have done. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: Yesterday, the House acted in a bipartisan way to approve the Keystone pipeline. This will create tens of thousands of jobs or at least 42,000 according to the President`s own state department. More than 20 of our nation`s governors this morning send a letter to the White House asking the President to consider signing this important bill. There is no good reason, none whatsoever for the President to veto this jobs bill. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Well, I can certainly thinking about a dozen right off the top of my head. Heidi, why do the Republicans get so excited about part-time jobs when they want to give the President any credit for helping create 11 million over the last six years? HARRIS: Listen, anything that`s going to benefit us in any way and help our partnership with Canada and help us to become more energy independent interest me. And I`m telling you something, Ed, maybe I sound paranoid here but I find it fascinating that every time we start really talking about energy independence suddenly miraculously the price of gas gets very affordable. And I do believe that it`s done on purpose so that we`ve drop the Keystone, go back to being more energy dependent on OPEC and then it`s going to go right back up to $4, $5 a gallon, you can`t get complacent. SCHULTZ: But they have tried to sell Keystone as a jobs bill. At the end of the day, it`s going to be 35 permanent jobs even the head of TransCanada had said that, that it`s not going to be a big jobs bill even through the number out there 42,000 give or take, 5 or 10 either way they`re part- time... HARRIS: Yeah but... SCHULTZ: These are part -- these are not sustainable jobs yet the Republicans are selling it to the American people as a jobs package. HARRIS: But it`s the same thing Ed, with people who want to push roads and bridges and all the infrastructure. Those aren`t permanent jobs. They build the road if they`re going to the next stretch of road. There are no permanent jobs that all created by expanding that. SCHULTZ: Well, you know, they would last more than a decade with -- that how much work we`ve got to do. HARRIS: Yeah, when they come back and do it again, right. SCHULTZ: Why do we -- Lou, why do we need this oil coming over our aquifer? DESMOND: Because we`re not always going to have the exact the same situation we have now where we have abundant world supply. And I don`t know about you, Ed, but I`m with Heidi, I don`t want to be dependent on people that hate us for us to have to get our oil from them. I don`t want to be forced to get oil from Venezuela, from Russia, from the Middle East. I`d rather be producing it here and getting it from a partner who is a friend of ours like Canada. SCHULTZ: Well, it`s going to be -- the oil would be put on the world market. It would not guarantee our price is going down and we`re drilling more now than we ever have. In fact, we`re doing more fracking than we`ve ever done. In fact, the oil and gas industry has gotten damn near everything they wanted under this president. HARRIS: Perfect. I love it. DESMOND: Yes. (CROSSTALK) SCHULTZ: So we don`t need this oil. We don`t need this... HARRIS: Yes. SCHULTZ: ... toxic oil being brought to market. We -- prices are what they are right now. It`s not going to affected it all. Let me look at this jobs market. Can`t -- Lou, do you think when you see this job chart that shows that we have added 11 million jobs. This is the grid. 59 months of private sector job growth, do you think the Republicans can take any credit for this economic recovery? DESMOND: You know, Ed, I don`t think there really has been a broad based economic recovery. Come to where I live in Inland Empire, there`s still way too many stores that are closed that were opened 8, 10 years ago. There`s still way too many people underemployed and unemployed. We have a record number of people outside the workforce, record number of people on food stamps, record number of people on disability. Everybody keeps talking about this great economic recovery. From where I`m sitting, I don`t see it. SCHULTZ: You`re not in the market? HARRIS: Yes, I am either. SCHULTZ: I mean, if you gotten to the market in March of 2009, obviously we`re adding jobs. We`re not losing 400,000, 500,000, 600,000 jobs a month and this is a historic recovery in terms of numbers. We`ve never seen this kind of growth before but then, again, we had never had a recession that way we had before but the -- do you think the Republicans, Lou, have done anything to help this? DESMOND: The Republicans are doing what they can to curb the worst impulses of one of the most liberal presidents in the history and I will take that as a win. SCHULTZ: All right, Lou Desmond, great to have you with us for the first time on MSNBC, also Heidi Harris, good to see you again... HARRIS: Thanks. SCHULTZ: Great to have a conversation. I appreciate it. Coming up, the new buzz on Scott Walker, his extremist roots are starting, well, to show on the national state. And he`s got a fan club. I got to tell you that. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And in tonight`s two-minute drill, Tiger`s time out. Once upon a time Tiger Woods was the number one golfer in the world. Nobody can touch him. Well, in his first tournament this year, Tiger shot a career worst round of 82 and he missed the cut of the Phoenix open. Woods blamed an undisclosed injury. Now, the 14-time major champion is putting himself on the pension until he recovers. Woods took to his website on Wednesday to share the news writing, "Right now, I need a lot of work on my game and to spend time with the people that are important to me. I enter a tournament to compete at the highest level, and when I think I`m ready, I`ll be back." Next up. LeBron James, King of Kia, the official automotive partner of the NBA is trying to boost sales of their luxury K900 Sedan. How about this for a plan? In October, Kia tapped NBA superstar LeBron James as their first ever luxury ambassador. That`s right. He`s an ambassador now. Now, the king is getting his own car. On Tuesday, LeBron James posted this image on his Facebook page teasing a special King James edition of the K900. The caption reads, "We`re just getting started." And finally, Bill Belichick gets late night treatment on deflate-gate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID LETTERMAN, LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN HOST: I know you know exactly what happened, you know I know you know. And what it was, was some kind of horseplay, am I right? BILL BELICHICK, PATRIOTS HEAD COACH: No. LETTERMAN: I heard that the guy intercepts the pass and he takes the ball over, hands it to his guy. He deflates it and then they say, hey look at this ball. It`s got no air in it. Is that what happened? BELICHICK: We`re going to bring you in to testify when we get the investigation next time. LETTERMAN: I`m ready. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: It sounds like we can look forward to a deflate-gate investigative report in March. We got a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: And after three elections for governor and four years in a state that hasn`t gone Republican since 1984 for president, I wouldn`t bet against me on anything. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Scott Walker with a little strut (ph) going on. Welcome back to the Ed Show. And finally tonight, the 2016 Republicans stage is crowded. We got a frontrunner. Potential candidate moving on the spotlight is Scott Walker`s badger bounce which I started -- it really after his appearance at the Iowa Freedom Summit. Now the Washington Post reports his fiery speech got people talking, mention of Scott Walker on Facebook, I mean, they went up. They surged in the days following his speech. In terms of Facebook buzz, he`s beating up top contender Jeb Bush. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh is leading the Scott Walker bandwagon on the right-wing radio show. The national journal report said Limbaugh mentioned Wisconsin Governor more than 200 times in the days following the Iowa Freedom Summit. There is no doubt Scott Walker could be a contender in 2016. But while his speeches are inspiring, he is lacking answers when he faces the press. While on a trade mission in London, the Wisconsin Governor spoke to a British think tank. He wasn`t very forth coming. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JUSTIN WEBB, BBC JOURNALIST: Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it? Do you accept it? WALKER: For me, I`m going to punt on that one as well. WEBB: No. WALKER: That`s a... WEBB: Really? WALKER: That`s a question that politician shouldn`t be involved one way or the other. So I`m going to leave that up to you and... WEBB: With any British politician, right or left-wing, they would laugh and say, yes, of course, evolution is true but... WALKER: To me, I said, it`s just one of those -- I`m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate on that and other issues. I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin... WEBB: Yeah, all right. WALKER: ... and I`d like to see an even bigger evolution. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Walker`s punt might play on the icy tundra but voters across the country are certainly going to demand more answers. Walker later responded on Twitter, "Both science and my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith and science are compatible, and go hand in hand." Joining me tonight, David Corn, MSNBC Political Analyst and Washington Bureau Chief of Mother Jones. Great to have you with us David. What`s this Walker buzz all about? How do you read it? DAVID CORN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, he is not Jeb Bush and he`s not Mitt Romney. He is a guy who appeals to the Tea Party. He part of the party without being really a Tea Party extremist to be polite about it. So in that way, you know, as you know -- well know Ed, you were there. There was a bit recall battle over his attempts to break the public sector unions in Wisconsin. And for that, I think he won the hearts of people and the Koch brother, donor`s network and other libertarians and then people within the business community across America. So he does play certain amount of constituencies. Now, the real question is whether he`ll play to voters beyond Wisconsin and whether he can sort of take this game which is maybe AAA league and bring it to the big league. And we`ve seen in his outing to London and in some recent national shows that he`s just not very good at talking about other things beyond cheese and Scott Walker. So when he`s asked about foreign policy by Martha Raddatz on ABC This Week about two-three weeks ago. He essential punted there, had nothing interesting to say and he can`t even answer straight question about evolution... SCHULTZ: Yes. CORN: ... or talking about foreign policy when he`s overseas. And, David, your take on this and I don`t mean this to be a cheap shot because there are a lot of successful people in America who do not have a college degree. Does that matter? People are starting to talk about that, he has not graduated from college, some people will think it`s important, some people won`t. What do you think? Does it matter? CORN: I don`t think it makes a difference. I almost didn`t graduate from college because like Scott Walker I found other things to do while I was in college that were more interesting to me than college itself. So, if he hasn`t lied about it or misrepresented his college degree and so forth, I don`t see any indication that he has. Then, I don`t think it`s really a big issue. I mean he`s been a governor, he`s been through -- as he says over a year, I think over 10 campaigns. There`s enough stuff in the real-time and he`s real positions to evaluate him... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CORN: ... as a presidential candidate. I mean... SCHULTZ: He`s not a veteran of the military but he is a veteran of campaigns. I think... CORN: Yes. SCHULTZ: ... we`d be hard pressed to find somebody who has run 14 campaigns in 25 years. The guy knows how to get on stage and talk it over... CORN: You know... SCHULTZ: And maybe this is -- I think this is invaluable experience. Your thoughts. CORN: I think that`s right too. And I do think, you know, he just run one reelection in the last campaign, in the last two elections. And, you know, people might remember that he run ads that kind of gave the impression that he was in favor of a woman`s right to choose an abortion when in fact he doesn`t and he`s been very, you know, when pressed he`s been astonishingly anti-abortion. So this is a guy who can be weasily (ph) and I`ll say that not in a pejorative way... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CORN: ... but when it comes to winning campaigns and figuring out what he has to do to win. So I think he is very smart and clever in a political way. But again, big question whether that will... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CORN: ... that can translate to a higher level of place. SCHULTZ: The Rush Limbaugh love affair, what its mean? CORN: Listen, I think it`s going to help. I mean, everyone talks about the money, primary and now, you know, Jeb Bush is out there trying to raise a $100 million in the first three months. I think there`s a lot of money in the Republican side but only a couple of candidates will be able tap into that. He`s done well because of the recall effort in getting out of the state money from Koch brothers and other sorts of big campaign donors, big fat cats and such. So, having Rush Limbaugh talking in that way will help him with small donors and may actually help him if he tries to start putting together a grassroots operation in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire which he really has to start doing yesterday. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well, I think there`s part of the choir that probably doesn`t know who Scott Walker is... CORN: Right. SCHULTZ: ... I don`t think Limbaugh can hurt him with that crowd. David Corn, always a pleasure. Good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much. And that`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. "PoliticsNation" with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021201cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 56 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 12, 2015 Thursday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 12, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Aliyah Frumin, Joe Madison GUESTS: Eugene O`Donnell, Liz Plank, John Burns, Tara Dowell, Dana Milbank; Karen Bass SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6552 words HIGHLIGHT: Right now that`s what North Carolina authorities are investigating in the murder of three Muslim American students near the University of North Carolina Campus. Tonight for a second straight day people are gathering at a vigil at North Carolina State, just hours after the victims` families, friends and supporters laid them to rest. The legendary "60 Minutes" correspondent who died last night in a car accident here in New York City. Bob is remembered for his humor, courage and grace. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Thanks to you for tuning in. I`m live tonight from the fake Galapagos Island. Happy Darwin day. Two hundred and six years ago Charles Darwin was born. He would develop his theory of evolution from what he saw right here in Galapagos islands. Yes, we have gone back in time tonight all the way back to 1835 when Darwin discovered the animals that led to his famous theory. Hey look, there`s the famous Galapagos seals. But back in reality people all over the world are celebrating Darwin`s birthday today. There are over 100 parties across the globe. In Ohio, they`re wearing Darwin beards, and do 24-hour readings of the "the origin of species." In North Dakota, you can hang out with a life-sized cutout of the guy. In Portugal, you can even go speed dating with evolutionary biologists. But one guy who hasn`t RSVP to the parties, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who was asked if he believed in evolution. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE MODERATOR: Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it? Do you accept it? GOV. SCOTT WALKER, WISCONSIN: For me I`m going to punt on that as well. UNIDENTIFIED MALE MODERATOR: No. Really? WALKER: That`s a question a politician shouldn`t be involved in one way or the other. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: So the new GOP star, the guy Rush Limbaugh is gushing over, can`t answer a question on evolution? He tried to clarify it. Quote "both science and my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith and science are compatible and go hand in hand. But 98 percent of scientists believe that humans evolved over time. There`s a growing problem with the GOP and science. We all know about this image, the evolution of man, but there`s the evolution of the GOP, it looks like it hasn`t evolved on policy issues from healthcare to women`s rights to economic fairness to immigration. The world is changing. It`s about time the GOP starts evolves, and a good way we could start -- answering simple questions on evolution. They shouldn`t need this fake vest, or be in the fake Galapagos islands to do it. Joining me now is congresswoman Karen Bass, Democrat of California, and Dana Milbank of "the Washington Post." Thank you both for being here. DANA MILBANK, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Looking sharp, Reverend. KAREN BASS (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you. SHARPTON: Congresswoman, first of all, happy Darwin day to you. BASS: Thank you, same to you. SHARPTON: How do you explain Scott Walker? BASS: Well, I will say that Scott Walker was auditioning to run for president, and I think he failed on his first audition. There`s no explanation for that and there`s no excuse to dodge such a fundamental question as that. SHARPTON: And there`s no contradiction of having faith and science. But Dana, Scott Walker has been kind of the flavor of the week lately in the GOP, but if you can`t answer a question on how he feels about evolution, how can he survive a presidential primary? MILBANK: Yes, I wonder about that, Reverend. And what is it about every time a Republican goes over to London, they wander down some blind alley and end up in the 19th century. So just a week ago yet Chris Christie disparaging vaccination when he was over in Britain, and now you have this on evolution. I would say that the -- at the rate that Republicans are evolving right now, I think you`ll see a blue hydrangea evolve into a bald eagle before you see this party evolve into a modern political party. SHARPTON: Well Congresswoman, talking about how the GOP is evolving, what would you like to see your Republican colleagues evolve on? BASS: Just I could go down a long list, but we do have to acknowledge that they are consistent. Because they also don`t believe in global warming, because there`s a lot of snow in Boston. They haven`t evolved when it comes to the question of women`s health, and some people believe that women have magical powers. So I think we see this consistently. And then what they`re doing here in Congress, we voted for the 56th time to repeal Obamacare, so we really could call this the cut-and-paste Congress. We are literally doing the exact same thing we did last session and just repeating it this session. It`s a ritual that we have to do every few months. I guess that`s the way they satisfy their base. SHARPTON: Dana, another thing Republicans haven`t evolved on is funding the government. The department of homeland security could be headed for a shutdown, because Republicans keep passing bills that defund the president`s executive action on immigration. And Democrats won`t vote for them. Here`s Senator Ted Cruz on the situation to date. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: We are in a time of growing threats at home and abroad, and for Senate Democrats in a partisan vote to filibuster funding for the department of homeland security is both reckless and irresponsible. The answer is for Senate Democrats not to be obstructionists. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But "the Hill" reports that one senior GOP senator whispered to "the Hill" reporter, quote "of course, Republicans will get blamed for a shutdown." So if there`s a shutdown at homeland security, who will get the blame, Dana? MILBANK: Well, of course the Congress, which is controlled by Republicans will get the blame for this. BASS: Right. MILBANK: And you can hear people already complaining privately, Republicans complaining privately that Ted Cruz has done this to them again. Look, since taking over Congress, you know, a month or so ago, they`ve been slipping on one banana peel after another, whether it`s been with abortion, whether it`s been with immigration, the keystone pipeline and now this homeland security thing that Ted Cruz served up. And they, just as he did to them in the fall of 2013, they seem to have no way out of this thing other than climbing down in humiliation, or forcing a shutdown that they`re bound to lose. SHARPTON: Congresswoman, I heard you kind of making noise. You want to weigh in on that same question? BASS: Yes, I certainly do because think of the irony. You have the Republicans who want to go to war. The president has asked for the authorization of the use of force. He really wants to have it tailored and have it narrowed. The Republicans want it to be more expanded, but yet they`re not going to fund the homeland? So we will be prepared to have a war, but yet TSA and the other things we they`d to protect our own country here, that`s what they`re holding up. You can`t say that the Democrats are responsible for shutdown if it happens. They control everything now. They control the Senate, they control the house. The whole enchilada is in their lap. SHARPTON: You know, Dana, the Republicans are criticizing the president`s request authorizing military action against ISIL, as you said. But listen to this from the crew over at FOX. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seems that it comes with a ton of restrictions, restricting the war-fighting discretion of the president there, specific limits seem to be put in the language of this agreement here on ground troops. A limited time, really saying this is going to be done in three years. What does it say to the enemy? Pretty much outlining all the things we won`t do. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell us what we`re going to do and stop telling us for what we`re not going to do. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It seems the president has caught up in 2008. He`s not George Bush. He wants to tell us every other day. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Or tell the enemy every day how long they need to wait us out. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, the president doesn`t want endless war. How can they criticize that, Dana? MILBANK: But think about the hypocrisy here. Like every other day you tune into "FOX & friends" and they call the president a dictator who`s seizing power. So here, he`s come forwards with a narrow force resolution that`s asking Congress to limit his powers, saying no, we want to give him way more power than he wants to accept here. So basically whatever this president is proposing, they`re opposed to it regardless of what the American --. BASS: Exactly. SHARPTON: Congresswoman, some Republicans have gone even further than that. One member said he`s not sure he should vote for the military authorization, because the president might help ISIS. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. SCOTT PERRY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: We have a commander in-chief who seems, not only not really, not unwilling, but really working collaboratively with what I would say is the enemy of freedom and of individual freedom and liberty and western civilization and modernity. In that context, how do you vote to give this commander in-chief the authority and the power to take action? He actually might use it to further their cause in what seems to be his cause and just drag you as a complicitor in it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Congresswoman, this is outrageous. The president working with an enemy? I mean, how can a sitting member of Congress get away with it? BASS: I mean, that was so garbled. I`m not sure what they were saying. But I will tell you that, you know, they say he`s overextended his power. He is gone beyond his power. He is coming to Congress asking us to give the authorization. And so, now there is a problem with that. So on a daily basis, you can see it doesn`t matter what the president says, they`re going to be against it, even if they were to have written the bill, if he puts his name on it and says he supports it, they will be against it. SHARPTON: Congresswoman Karen Bass and Dana Milbank, thanks for your time tonight and happy Darwin day. BASS: Same to you, Rev. MILBANK: You too, Rev. SHARPTON: Coming up, FBI director James Comey speaks out in a very candid way about hard troops and racial bias in policing today. Much more on that speech ahead. Plus, was it a hate crime? Developing news tonight on the triple murder of three Muslim Americans. Plus, why are GOP senators delaying Loretta Lynch`s attorney general nomination vote? Democrats are not holding back today. And President Obama`s viral video that has everyone talking today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President? BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Can I live? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You do you. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Social media has been on fire over this new BuzzFeed video with President Obama. It features the. Like we`ve never seen him before -- posing with a selfie stick, making funny faces. Shirley wrote on our facebook wall, loved it, but couldn`t help thinking that I wish they would have cleaned that mirror. Good eye, Shirley. Robert said oh, boy, can`t wait for the conservative backlash on this. Doesn`t he have anything better to do et cetera, et cetera. It`s great. Well, Robert, the wait is over. It`s happening more on that with our panel ahead. But first, please keep the conversation going on our facebook page or tweet us @politicsnation. SHARPTON: Developing now, President Obama`s pick to be the next defense secretary is ready to be sworn in. The Senate easily confirmed Ashton Carter today. No drama, no delays. And he should take over at the Pentagon sometime next week. This moved fast, and it highlight a clear difference in the Republican handling of another Obama nominee. Loretta Lynch for attorney general. Republicans have been slow-walking her nomination, and just pushed back on a key vote on Lynch to the end of the month at the earliest. Look at the numbers. It took Ash Carter 67 days to get from nomination to past the committee. Now look at Loretta Lynch. We`re at 96 days and counting since the president announced she was the one for the job. Today, Senate Democrats said it`s not right. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: I think that Loretta Lynch is being held to a double standard, and her nomination is listed on the agenda. Her nomination has been pending longer than any modern attorney general nominee. SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: Clearly, she`s been treated differently, I guess because she`s a woman. What I object to is she is singled out. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: People want to vote no, that`s fine. That`s your right, but let`s just vote. I don`t believe there`s any excuse to delay the confirmation of such an exceptional nominee. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: So what`s the holdup to a vote on a woman praised by both parties as a great pick for the job? Joining me now is Sirius XM radio host Joe Madison. Joe, thank you for being here. JOE MADISON, HOST, MORNINGS WITH MADISON: Thank you, Reverend. SHARPTON: Joe, Lynch has a lot of support for both sides. What do Republicans have to gain by dragging their feet? MADISON: I think two things. One, they get a chance to profile in front of their constituents. They`re bringing up the whole issue of immigration as a way of delaying it. Number two, they seem to be confused. You know, we all don`t look alike, and we all don`t think alike. And they somehow want to -- I think dig one last dig at Eric Holder. He`s probably been mentioned more in these hearings than she has been mentioned. And I think that`s really the reason. This seems to be an opportunity to take a last- minute dig at Eric Holder. SHARPTON: Now, you know, when Democrats raise concerns that we played earlier, Republicans seemed caught off-guard today. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m just a little surprised at the argument. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, this is a case of faux outrage, if I ever saw one. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it`s a bogus argument to try and make big fuzz out of this. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, they call it bogus? What about this outrage do they think is fake, Joe? MADISON: I mean, I don`t know. I mean, I absolutely don`t know. You have some of the most senior members of -- Republican members of the committee that already are in support of her. And I don`t know what this outrage is. Now, you know, I`ll just say it outright. They could be -- it could be a double standard, as you ahead, because she`s a woman. There also could be a double standard because she`s got two problems -- not a problem, but in their mind a problem, that she`s a woman, and she`s African-American. And we might as well put that on the table also. But what is the outrage? The reality is, as the senators said, look, we know who`s going to vote against her. They`ve already done the arithmetic. Just go ahead and take the darn vote, because now we will be looking at March before a full vote is even taken in the Senate, and, you know -- SHARPTON: Absolutely. But I want to press on this, because today Senator Feinstein laid out how long it took to confirm the last five attorney generals. Lynch hasn`t been approved yet, and the process is by far the longest. MADISON: The longest, that`s right. SHARPTON: Why is she being treated differently, is the question? MADISON: And let`s just be straight up. Maybe she has, in their mind, two strikes against her, one she`s a woman, she`s African-American, and they want to make sure she`s not Eric Holder. Well, take a look. She is not Eric Holder. And a matter of fact, she may turn out to be even better than Eric Holder as attorney general. She`s her own woman. And that`s one of the reasons that President Obama nominated her and they need to move forward. SHARPTON: Joe Madison, thank you for your time tonight. MADISON: And thank you. SHARPTON: Still ahead, breaking news as thousands gather to remember the three Muslim students gunned down in North Carolina. Was it a hate crime? Also a political announcement today that could have a big impact on Hillary Clinton`s future. Bus first, Karl Rove is dancing his way back into tonight`s got you. SHARPTON: Here is not a news flash. Karl Rove is criticizing President Obama. In today`s "Wall Street Journal," the right-wing pundit slammed the president on foreign policy, calling him blind to consequences and delusional. The newspaper gave it the headline "the dangers of make- believe foreign policy." Wait a second, if anyone knows about make-believe foreign policy is Karl Rove, Bush`s brain in the White House that led us to a disastrous war in Iraq, and he`s continued to defend that war long after. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I do believe that the Iraq war was the right thing to do and the world is a safer place to having Hussein gone. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But foreign police isn`t the only make believe Karl Rove has bought into over the years. I seem to recall he had a little trouble believing the math behind President Obama`s reelection victory. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe that Ohio has been settled? ROVE: No, I don`t. And look, if we are calling this on the basis of 74 percent of the vote being in, and when 77 percent is in, secretary of state Web site, I have the director of the Ohio campaign for Romney on the other end of the line -- (END VIDEO CLIP) Here`s something else that`s settled. When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. Rove should just keep quiet. Until then, nice try. But you can`t make this up, because we got you. SHARPTON: Was it a hate crime? Right now that`s what North Carolina authorities are investigating in the murder of three Muslim American students near the University of North Carolina Campus. Tonight for a second straight day people are gathering at a vigil at North Carolina State, just hours after the victims` families, friends and supporters laid them to rest. More than 5500 people attended. Tomorrow the families, along with the coalition of Muslim groups, are planning to deliver a letter to the Department of Justice, calling for a hate crime investigation. So far police say their preliminary investigation shows the suspect, 46-year- old Craig Stephen Hicks, was motivated by a parking dispute, and that the shootings were not related to the victims` faith. Hicks` wife has spoken out, saying she agrees with that. But today the father of two of the victims said his previous encounters with his daughter indicate the killings were motivated by hate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MOHAMMAD ABU-SALHA, VICTIM`S FATHER: He came to their apartment with his gun two or three times before the murder, on different occasions. My daughter claimed and she told us that she felt that man hated them for the way they looked and the Muslim garb they wore. I would call on the Chapel Hill police, UNC, and President Obama, churches, mosques, synagogues, and the American nation, if this is not a hate crime, what is a hate crime? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining mess now at the vigil in Raleigh is NBC.com`s Aliyah Frumin. Aliyah, you`ve been there all day. What`s the mood in the community today? ALIYAH FRUMIN, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, here at North Carolina State University, there are literally hundreds of people behind me, here to memorialize the three American-Muslims who were shot to death on Tuesday. The feeling here is just an outpouring of grief and sadness and most of all shock that such a tragedy could happen here in the community. The youngest victim was a student here studying architecture, and many of them are here today to memorial lies that victim Razan, just a feeling of anger, sadness, and a desire for justice. SHARPTON: The family wants this to be investigated as a hate crime. What are people saying? FRUMIN: Right, well, we have spoken to several people here at the vigil who have also expressed that sentiment. Earlier today there was a funeral in Raleigh. And the father of two of the victims, who you mentioned before, got up and stage said, quote, "this has hate crime written all over it." And he called on President Obama, federal and state authorities to investigate this as a hate crime, and we`re hearing some of the same sentiment here at the vigil as well. SHARPTON: Aliyah Frumin, thank you for your time tonight. Now, I want to bring in Eugene O`Donnell, professor of law and police study at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Thank you for being here, Eugene. EUGENE O`DONNELL, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: If you were on this case, what are you doing today trying to see if hate motivated this? O`DONNELL: Well, that`s really what it is. It`s clearly it`s a criminal act, a horrific criminal act. The issue really is going to be could the prove beyond a reasonable doubt it is hate motivated. So it`s very much parsing these interactions, these, some of the victims did wear distinctive clothing that identified them, their religion. There were some Facebook posts. I think this guy is a self-proclaimed atheist, so he`s not unaware of religion, he`s made some elliptical references to the Middle East. It`s a fairly high standards far, the attorney says they`re not there, I believe the lead folks are still the local people but the FBI is monitoring this. And the world is watching, so I hope that they`re giving it a full-court press. SHARPTON: Let me press you on that. Because the suspect posted Facebook messages, as you referred to, that referenced religion. Like one that read, quote, "People are saying nothing can solve the Middle East problem. Not mediation, not arms, not financial aid. I say there is something. Atheism." And his wife spoke about his Facebook page. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAREN HICKS, WIFE OF SHOOTING SUSPECT: He often champions on his Facebook page for the rights of many individuals, um, for same-sex marriages, um, abortion, uh, race. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, how important could the suspect`s social media posts be in this case, Eugene? O`DONNELL: It could be very important, obviously. It`s a high threshold, so you`re not quite there yet. I don`t think on what`s publicly known, but again he`s not unmindful of religion, he`s interested in the Middle East. These victims were distinctively clothed, which is one of the criteria the FBI uses, but it would very much be a full-court press, I hope search warrants will be executed, they`ll go to any kind of social media references, neighbors, to see if he`s referenced this. Obviously whether or not the case is ultimately brought, there is a deterrent effect to having federal agents watching this, should anybody likeminded out there be watching, they should be aware that law enforcement will be brought to bear in these situations. SHARPTON: A local prosecutor`s office reluctant to bring about hate crime prosecutions? O`DONNELL: Well, here you`ve got very serious charges, so you have -- you have capital or certainly first-degree murder charges, but the truth is, it is a reality if you`ve been around for these cases, the local people, including in a city, you go to New York in a neighborhood sometimes when you have an event, people try to downplay it. They try to say everybody gets along, there`s no trouble here, so it`s important I think to have a separate set of eyes. And it`s good that the federal government is monitoring it. It doesn`t mean they`re ultimately going to jump in, but at least they`re monitoring, so there won`t be a temptation to just pave over the reality. SHARPTON: You were an assistant district attorney. What`s the standard for a hate crime? O`DONNELL: It`s a pretty high standard. General on a state level, it`s really been -- issue, so you have a crime and then you look to see whether there was a motivation that had to do with one of the protected classes, but it really only allows you to get more serious. The rub here is that the charges on their own, the state charges, the murder charges, this is the guy will never see the light of day on those grounds, but there is this deterrent issue. You do have to be mindful of not only the impact on going after this guy, but anybody who would target people because of these protected classes, as the law -- as the law sets forth. SHARPTON: Well, we are going to be watching this. This is a very important case. A lot of people have a lot of questions. A lot of legitimate concerns. Eugene O`Donnell, thank you for your time tonight. O`DONNELL: Sure. SHARPTON: Coming up, extraordinary words from the FBI director. Candidly speaking about racial bias in policing today. Much more on that speech ahead. Plus, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks out on gay marriage. And President Obama doing what everyone does, but doesn`t talk about. It`s must see, and it`s next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Oh, thanks Obama. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Thanks, Obama. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining us tonight, senior editor at Mic.com, Liz Plank. Legal analyst John Burns, and democratic strategist Tara Dowdell. Thank you for being here tonight. LIZ PLANK, MIC.COM SENIOR EDITOR: Thank you, Rev. JOHN BURNS, LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you, Rev. TARA DOWDELL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: First up, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks Americans are ready for gay marriage. In a new interview, Ginsburg says, people are more accepting now than ever before. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I think that as more and more people came out and said this is who I am, and the rest of us recognize that they are one of us. I think it would not take a large adjustment. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Want to know what she`s talking about? Check out this video on Facebook that`s gone viral of one Alabama resident doing a tongue in cheek report of all the changes he`s seen since gay marriage was legalized in his state. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: This pile of brush is still here, and there are no homosexuals laying on top of it doing homosexual things. We`re not going to be subjected to any kind of plagues of homosexuals falling from the sky. Everything is pretty much still the same. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: You know, Tara, a funny way to make a point. The sky is not falling. The issue has moved so quickly in our politics, but is the justice right, what she says? DOWDELL: The notorious RBG is absolutely correct. I believe most Americans -- SHARPTON: The notorious RBG. DOWDELL: That`s right. That`s right. She is absolutely correct, America is ready and has demonstrated that we are ready for gay marriage. Now, are their people who are hate-riots? Who still oppose that yes, but they are getting fewer and farther in between these days. SHARPTON: John? BURNS: Well, I totally agree with Tara. I she`s absolutely right. I think it`s time for the Supreme Court to come out and legalize gay marriage. I think it`s important for him to come out and say, it`s constitutional because we have to guarantee rights for everyone for same- sex couples under the equal protection clause of the constitution. I think it`s vital. SHARPTON: Liz? PLANK: I mean, notorious RBG might be 81 years old. SHARPTON: And hate-riots. PLANK: Yes. You should copyright that. But the fact, you know, she`s 81- years-old and yet he`s so in touch with what`s happening. Right? And who is powering the future right now. SHARPTON: Absolutely. PLANK: And if you look at the numbers, I mean, 71 percent of millennials are for gay marriage. We know that love doesn`t belong to one religion or to one party. It belongs to everyone. SHARPTON: Yes. PLANK: So it`s really nice to see her. SHARPTON: And even some of the older people, even in Alabama, where there`s resistance, have openly claimed to move toward a let people be people and have equal rights. DOWDELL: Absolutely. And I think when we see more and more prominent people coming forward and saying, this is who I am, I think that`s also help to fuel it. And I think that the LBGT community also pushing legislatively pushing the issue in the various states, I mean, that made a difference. And I`m glad to see they did a state-by-state strategy. SHARPTON: Right. DOWDELL: Because sometimes if you can`t get it at the federal level immediately, he can`t get it at the Supreme Court level immediately, state by state is a good way to do it. And that was a smart strategy. SHARPTON: All right. Thanks on that. Let me go tonight to tributes pouring in for Bob Simon. The legendary "60 Minutes" correspondent who died last night in a car accident here in New York City. Bob is remembered for his humor, courage and grace. Reporting some of the most dangerous war zones in the world. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOB SIMON, FORMER CBS CORRESPONDENT: This is Israel`s most advanced position on the southern front. Lebanese officers in the hill say they needed the ceasefire. And the steps are being wheeled up to a plane bearing the words "The Arab Republic of Egypt." Will miracles never cease? After 27 years, his head was high and his fist was clenched. Nelson walked out of a victor first step prison today like a chief of state. On January 21st, four CBS newsmen disappeared in the Saudi Arabian desert near the Kuwaiti border. This is a story that could have ended another way, but it`s had a happy ending. A lot of people are spending a lot of money underwater in a cage and hope to get a good look at a shark. This pygmy possum couldn`t get enough camera time. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Bridge still honors the grand dragon of the KKK. SIMON: What do you think of that? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It`s a great pleasure in directing scenes on the streets. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: John, the irony is here`s a man who reported literally from some of the most dangerous zones, dangerous stories in the world, and himself was in danger, yet he died a few blocks from his house in a car accident. And there was no one who seems to not have liked him a lot. BURNS: Yes. You know, it`s incredibly ironic. This man, as you`ve mentioned that was in the most dangerous place across the world. Probably one of the most dangerous places in terms of modern history as -- has gone into and survived in the come back and down the streets in New York. It`s just kind of ironic, but I think he was such a pioneer in his field but he was also an individual that told just compelling stories of the human spirit. SHARPTON: Yes. BURNS: And I think it`s really, really befitting that his last interview was Ava DuVernay who is of itself is a testament to the human spirit. SHARPTON: Who did the -- BURNS: And it showcases into Martin Luther King who is an essential figure in terms of overcoming obstacles in the spirit of just someone who can do anything. SHARPTON: Tara? DOWDELL: I mean, what an icon. I mean, he was even tortured. That`s something that we haven`t heard much about, but he was tortured. SHARPTON: Himself. DOWDELL: Tortured himself. SHARPTON: Right. DOWDELL: This is a journalist who showed courage. They don`t make many journalists like this anymore. This is actually a loss because -- SHARPTON: They didn`t make any then. DOWDELL: Yes, exactly. And they certainly are making very meaning now. SHARPTON: Right. DOWDELL: So, seeing him. Losing him is a real loss to journalism. Because he was there for some of the most historic moments of our time around the world. BURNS: Around the world. DOWDELL: And he covered the story honestly, with candor, and with sensitivity. SHARPTON: Liz? PLANK: Yes, I mean, as a young person in journalism, I mean, I looked up to him on a lot of things. And I think what`s great about his work is that it`s out there for all of us to watch and see. So, I`m hoping that a lot of people will spend of time, spend the weekend watching the incredible reporting. SHARPTON: Well, he left a high bar and a really great journalist. Everyone stay with me. We`ll be right back with the democrats` choice for the 2016 convention. And Obama video everyone is talking about. SHARPTON: We`re back with our panel, Liz, John and Tara. Next up, there`s going to be a lot of democrats eating cheesesteaks next year. Philadelphia has been picked as the site of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the city of brotherly love, home of the liberty bell, independence hall, and of course cheesesteaks. The other finalists were Columbus, Ohio, and my hometown, Brooklyn, New York. Tara, I have a biased opinion here, but what do you think of the choice? DOWDELL: I`m shocked you have a biased opinion. (LAUGHTER) DOWDELL: I think that Philly was a great choice. Because number one, both Mayor Nutter, the mayor of Philadelphia, as well as the governor of Pennsylvania, have been very key President Obama supporters. And remember, the governor campaigned with President Obama when many other democrats were running from him. Also, point two, Pennsylvania is still considered somewhat of a swing state, and republicans still think that they can at some point get Pennsylvania and win Pennsylvania. SHARPTON: Liz, does it matter where the convention is? PLANK: Well, I think it matters where the best food is. I mean, let`s be honest. No, obviously it would have been awesome for it to be New York. SHARPTON: Brooklyn. Be specific. PLANK: Brooklyn, it`s true. Very different. Oh, why not? Oh my God! I`m not sure a New Yorker. I think it will be great and as you say, just want to say, we want to make sure together. SHARPTON: Now, John, everybody is asking me on social media, when I ran for president, did I eat cheesesteaks -- BURNS: Right. SHARPTON: In Philadelphia. BURNS: Yes. SHARPTON: Let me show you how everybody did when they ran. BURNS: Okay. SHARPTON: There`s Kerry. There`s Hillary Clinton. There`s President Obama. DOWDELL: Yes, going to town on that too. SHARPTON: There`s Joe Biden, who also ran for president. He`s from Scranton, digging in there. As I said, John Kerry. The question is, did I eat cheesesteak? I ate everything back then. (LAUGHTER) BURNS: Me too. Me too. SHARPTON: By the size, look at -- I mean, there`s going to be a lot of politicians not running for president, but holding office eating cheesesteak next year in Philly. BURNS: Yes. Yes. And to your point, Rev. Philly is a perfect city, too because it`s logistical with all the restaurants, the hotels, transportation centrally located, so people can really convene and be that community Phil which is so important with conventions. SHARPTON: All right. Let me go to the final story tonight. The video getting all the buzz online today. President Obama`s featured in a BuzzFeed video called things everyone does, but doesn`t talk about, like taking selfies and talking in the mirror. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Deadline for signing up for health insurance is February-rue. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Not like any other Wednesday. OBAMA: That`s not right. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Wed-nes-day. OBAMA: February. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Wednesday. OBAMA: February 15th. February 15th. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Thanks, Obama. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Thanks, Obama. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Mr. President? OBAMA: Can I live? Yolo, man. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The young man in the video was the BuzzFeed reporter, but Liz, some say this video demeans his office, but isn`t this an effective way to reach young people? PLANK: It`s a historic way of reaching young people. I`ve never seen the President do something like that before. And it doesn`t even come off as contrived. He`s just so relatable in that video. I mean, I just want to watch it over and over again. He`s serious. SHARPTON: John? BURNS: You know, absolutely. I completely agree with Liz. He`s a human being. And so, I`m very guilty of doing all those same things, too. It`s good to see the President step away from the President from the executive and be a human being. SHARPTON: Why did you go to Liz first? I`m young, too. I`m also young. (LAUGHTER) BURNS: All right. SHARPTON: Wow. DOWDELL: No, I think that the President -- first of all health care reform is important. And we want to get people to sign up for it. PLANK: Yes. DOWDELL: So, whatever we have to do to reach people, I think we do it. And this video has millions of millions of hits, so clearly it`s reaching people. PLANK: Yes. SHARPTON: Well, Liz, John and Tara, my young panel tonight -- (LAUGHTER) BURNS: Yes. Very young panel. SHARPTON: Thanks for your time tonight. We`ll be right back with a history-making speech from the head of the FBI. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: We simply must speak to each other honestly about all these hard truths. In the words of Dr. King, we must learn to live together as brothers or we will perish together as fools. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That`s the FBI Director James Comey earlier today in what`s being called the most candid speech on race and policing ever given by the head of the FBI. Remember the FBI wiretapped Dr. Martin Luther Jing, Jr. and repeatedly and shamefully branded civil rights activists as communist. Comey said he keeps a copy of the order to wiretap Dr. King in his office to remind himself every day of the bureau`s past mistakes. Decades later, Comey said we must recognize the long history of injustice in the country, and the problems that still exist today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: There is a disconnect between police agencies and the citizens they serve, predominantly in communities of color. Serious debates are taking place about how law enforcement personnel relate to the communities they serve, about the appropriate use of force. Many people in our white majority culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black fate. In fact, we all, white and black, carry various biases around with us. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That`s true, and recognizing and overcoming this bias is the challenge we all face. Comey talked about his personal experience growing up as a descendant of Irish immigrants. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: I am descended from Irish immigrants. A century ago the Irish knew well how American society and law enforcement viewed them, as drunks, ruffians and criminals. Law enforcement biased view of the Irish lives on in the nickname we still use for the vehicles we use to transport groups of prisoners. It is, after all, the paddy wagon. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Comey said, police must understand that the criminal justice system has been brutally unfair to certain communities, but he also said residents must appreciate that most police officers are good people, putting their lives on the line to do the right thing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: Racial bias isn`t epidemic in law enforcement any more than its epidemic in academia or the arts. In fact, I believe law enforcement overwhelmingly attracts people who want to do good for a living, people who risk their lives, because they want to help other people, and they do some of the hardest, most dangerous policing to protect communities of color. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: He`s right, and it`s important we point that out. The FBI director said we`re at a cross roads in how we deal with race and policing, and to move forward we have to be willing to talk about these hard truths. And yes, I`m sure that he will be attacked by some, and many that have had the courage to address this, have been castigated and demonized. I often wonder why there`s such a visceral reaction when we raise this issue, and maybe the discomfort shows that we have not solved it. And that it is still something that someone will want to run away from. He`s right. We have to deal with hard truths and make hard decisions to change things that can no longer remain the way they are, and maybe of leaders like him stand up and at least bring the conversation up, we can get to that change by having the real hard conversations. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton, "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021201cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 57 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 12, 2015 Thursday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 12, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes GUESTS: Farris Barakat, Farhana Khera, Phillip Atiba Goff, Bob Sears, Corey Hebert, Jason Collins SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7701 words HIGHLIGHT: Chapel Hill murders discussed. Examining Texas and the death penalty. After a federal struck down Alabama`s ban on same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court refused to block that ruling -- meaning it was going to go into effect -- Roy Moore, the chief justice of Alabama`s Supreme Court, the state court, took matters into his own hands. A discussion of the 2015 measles outbreaks and the anti-vaccination mindset behind it. CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on All In. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. MOHAMMAD ALBU-SALHA: She told us that she felt that man hated them for the way they look and the Muslim garb they wore. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A Trayvon Martin moment for Muslim-Americans. The family of three slain Muslim students now directly appealing to the President for a hate crime investigation. We`ll have the latest from North Carolina. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: Everyone is a little bit racist. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A historic speech from the Director of the FBI on race in police. Plus, a major measle scare in Silicon Valley. My interview with the best selling author and pediatrician who thinks it`s OK to delay vaccines. And on the eve of the All-Star Game, my interview with the NBA`s first openly gay player. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JASON COLLINS, CENTER, BROOKLY NETS: I don`t have time to really think about history. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: All In starts right now. Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight, mourners have gathered around the country concluding at a vigil at Raleigh, North Carolina to honor the three young Muslim-Americans shot to death Tuesday night in their apartment at a campus in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This has been a day of mourning. Earlier, thousands gathered for a funeral service for the three slain students, dental student Deah Barakat, his wife, Yusor Abu-Salha and his 19 -- and her 19-year-old sister Razan. Police have charged this man, Craig Stephen Hicks, who lived in the same apartment complex as the victims with the murders. The police say their preliminary investigation indicated the crime was motivated by anger over perceived parking infractions by the victims. The father of the slain sisters told MSNBC today, he considers the murder as a hate crime, driven by anti-Muslim biased. And in conjunction with major Muslim groups, the victim`s family and members plan to send a letter to the Department of Justice, calling for a formal hate-crime investigation. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALBU-SALHA: Even though the murderer can say that it was a parking dispute, whatever he was picking on, he came to their apartment with his gun two or three times before the murder, on different occasions. My daughter Yusor complained and she told us that she felt that man hated them for the way they looked and the Muslim garb they wore. She felt the heat has risen after she moved into the apartment. And her friends came to visit in Muslim -- and wear our Muslim attire. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Tonight, a News & Observers reporting, the FBI has now opened a parallel inquiry to killings to determine whether or not any federal laws were violated. Earlier today, StoryCorp posts a recording of comments made by one of the victim, Yusor Albu-Salha when she visited the StoryCorp booth with her former elementary school teacher last summer. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) YUSOR ALBU-SALHA: Growing up in America has been such a blessing and, you know, although in some ways I do stand out, such as, you know, the Hijab I wear on my head, the head covering, there are still so many ways that I feel so embedded in the fabric that is, you know, our culture. And that`s the beautiful thing here is that it doesn`t matter where you come from. There`s so many different people from so many different places, of different backgrounds and religions, but here we`re all one. (END AUDIO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now from Raleigh, North Carolina tonight is Deah Barakat`s brother, Farris Barakat. Farris, I just want to thank you for joining me and start out by saying we are all just horribly heartbroken and sorry for your loss. FARRIS BARAKAT, BROTHER OF DEAH BARAKAT: Thank you for honoring me and it`s really good to hear Yusor`s voice again, actually. Thank you for that. HAYES: How are you feeling today? I can`t imagine the grief your family is going through. And also at the same time, there has been such a remarkable outpouring. You`ve been so embraced. There are so many people across the country thinking of you, praying for you. How are you feeling at this moment? BARAKAT: Honestly, I just speak on my behalf and on behalf of my life and the Albu-Salha family. Grief is not something we feel right now. The support has been tremendous and honestly we are -- we have hugged each other. I told him congratulations. I`ve hugged my mom and told her congratulations because your son is now in paradise, the highest level. So honestly, we don`t feel grief. We are happy for them. And we`re going to miss them soon. But right now, we`re related and we`re so happy that God felt like we`re strong enough to handle this. And we rely on His wisdom for this plan. And we look forward to what`s happening because no one can make sense of this but we`re strong in our faith. And trust me, it is not grief that we`re feeling. HAYES: What do you want people to know about your brother and his wife and her sister? What should we know about what kind of people they were? BARAKAT: I was asked this earlier and I wasn`t able to answer because I didn`t want to answer and not give the chance to give the thousands of other people that Yusor and my brother helped answer that as well with me. There are so much to talk about my brother and my sister-in-law and there`s an -- my brother was kind and gentle but big and competitive and on the basketball court and off and Yusor was such the passive, kind, peaceful, soft-spoken type and Razan was such the able designer and she was very -- she was always was creative with her ideas and always is willing to use her talent for others. And as many times, I wanted to resort to her and say, hey Razan I wanted to work on this project and I want to resort to her on this occasion but sadly I`ve come to realize that I couldn`t. HAYES: I saw -- there had been some recording about the person who was accused of committing this horrible crime, this crime adding post in the Facebook things that his own beliefs, militant, atheism I believe you know that, not having a believe in God and sort of looking down on those who do. And I saw a statement that was posted by one group of atheist, American atheist, sort of condemning the killings in a kind of ritualized way that has come to be expected of essentially random Muslims in the wake of some killing by -- someone who is a Muslim, even if it`s halfway across the world. And I wonder what`s your response to that was? BARAKAT: Many people actually have tried to condemn this act and for atheist I think that they need to condemn this act is kind of -- would be hypocritical for me to expect because, as a Muslim, I know that one act of the violence does not represent all Muslims and this act does not represent all atheists. And to me, I tell to the community, we know that this does not represent any sane and loving and human being as atheist can be. So, that is my response and thank you for everything. HAYES: Finally I wanted to ask you if you have a message for the President of the United States, there is a wave of grief happening across this country. A feeling like, this is some kind of important galvanizing moment for the way Muslim-Americans relate to America and feel protected and embraced or marginalized and I wonder if there`s something you want to say to the President? BARAKAT: I guess this message goes to the President but every citizen of this democratic country, I hope that we can use this tragedy to -- as much as it`s a grave tragedy, I think we can all agree that so much good has come out of it, if we continue to do that, if we can continue to see the great blessing that it is. And to hopefully, you know, the only -- it doesn`t change anything that this is classified as a hate-crime or not, but you know the idea is, if we classify it as a hate-crime, and maybe people will start understanding that, you know, Islamophobia or hate or ignorance can kill, it can affect people`s lives and can take away three citizens from this wonderful country and even more. And my message is, let`s fight ignorance despite hate together and let`s use this as an excuse to do so. HAYES: Farris Barakat, I have to say, you and you`re entire family showed tremendous grace and again, our deepest condolences. Thank you very much for taking time tonight, I know it`s hard. BARAKAT: Thank you, thank you. HAYES: This unfathomable tragedy has become a rallying point both across the world with Palestinians protesting the killings outside U.N. headquarters in Gaza City today and here at home with an outpouring of support for the three promising young Muslim-Americans who were both observant and proud about their religion and in a million ways, just utterly American. Deah Barakat was a basketball fanatic who posted this absolutely adorable and now heartbreaking vine (ph) of Yusor Alba-Salha with the caption, she gets buckets. Donations to his project to bring dental care to Syrian refugees have now hit more than $250,000, the goal was just $20,000. On Twitter, the hashtag, Muslim lives matter and our three winners have become a rallying cry for so many people and it feels to me, that someone observing this, admittedly from the outside, like a galvanizing moment for Muslim- Americans. A Trayvon Martin moment, a Michael Brown moment for Muslim-Americans, though obviously very different in the context and specific sets of facts in history, likely killing of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the senseless deaths of these three young people has struck such a profound nerve and mobilized so many because millions of people who look like those victims are fed up with the routine stereotyping, the marginalization and mainstream media representations and the vilification by political leaders seeking to score cheap political points. Whatever the motivations for this horrendous slaughter, it takes place in the context where subtle, persistent anti-Muslim bias is a part of American life, and this feels like a wake-up call. Joining me now is Farhana Khera. She `s President and Executive Director of Muslim Advocates. And Farhana, I want to ask you about a letter that I understand you and other organizations are planning to send to the White House tomorrow. FARHANA KHERA, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MUSLIM ADVOCATES: Yeah. Chris, first of all, I want to extend my deepest condolences to the families of the victims. Frankly, their strength and courage these last few days has been inspiring. And my thoughts and prayers are with them. You know, like you were just saying Chris, the level of the way in which the strategy is being felt across the American-Muslim community, I haven`t seen anything like this since the tragic events of September 11 frankly. I can`t tell you how many messages I`ve read this week of mothers hugging their children tightly and hoping that these brutal murders are not the future for Muslims in America. But we know this Chris, that unfortunately this was not an isolated incident. We know that in the last five years, there`s been a disturbing uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry and hate crimes. And that is why we are calling on the President and the Attorney General to act. They have been silent. We need them to address these murders in clear and unconditional terms. And we want the Attorney General to open a full and rigorous federal investigation to ensure that this does not happen again. It is -- Absolutely important for the nations to up law enforcement officer to send a clear message to people not only in North Carolina, but across this country. HAYES: I should know, we do have just before it went on air, one report from News & Observer local paper that that`s -- it appears such a parallel inquiry may have already been initiated by the federal government. What do you say to people that say, "We don`t know the motivations," the wife of the person who was alleged of committed this murder says it was about -- in the police`s words, a parking dispute which is a very weird phrase in a context of killing three people? But, you know, you don`t know what`s going through his head and you shouldn`t be making this into something that it isn`t necessarily? KHERA: Well, I think given the environment of -- in which this took place, Chris, and especially in the last -- even in the last several weeks where we`ve seen politicians from state houses to Governor Bobby Jindal make anti-Muslim comments, where we`ve seen frankly just threatening messages on social media particularly after the release of the Hollywood movie "American Sniper." There`s a certain environment taking place and I might add you mentioned that the FBI has started a preliminary inquiry, we think that`s a good step but preliminary inquiries don`t always result in full investigations and so we`re seeking a full and open rigorous investigation. And we think that is what`s needed because of this climate of hate because it`s not just taking place in North Carolina, Chris, it`s taking place across the country. HAYES: Farhana Khera, thank you very much. Before we leave this, I want to just show some statistics on hate crimes against Muslims in this country. And you`ll notice something pretty stunning. They were very low before 2001, September 11th. They went skyrocketed that year and they have remain quite and disturbingly high since then, something to think about the context of what happened down in Chapel Hill, all right. As same-sex marriage licenses get mandated in Mobile, Alabama. I`ll be joined here in studio by NBA veteran Jason Collins, the first major pro- sport athlete to come out. But first, an astonishing speech from an expected quarter (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: Many people in our white majority culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black face. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The current head of the FBI unflinching on the subject of race and police. That`s next. HAYES: This week I travel to Texas, home of the most active death chamber in the country and our next installment of the All In America`s series brought me to death row in Livingstone, Texas. Yesterday, I sat down with the man who is scheduled to be executed in just three weeks. Rodney Reed convicted in the 1996 rape and murder of a woman named Stacey Stites maintains his innocence to this day. I talked with him not only about the case, about what living on death row from nearly two decades has been like. Relationships, he told me, are difficult to develop. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Do you have friendships that have been born here? RODNEY REED, TEXAS DEATH ROW INMATE: I don`t use that word loosely, friends, you know what I`m saying. Friendship, I mean, I have guys that I associate with because when you go as far as making a friend, I mean, there`s feelings there that if you know what a true friend is, you know, what I`m saying, you know what I`m saying and you, the next thing, you know, the state`s gonna take them. It`s more likely the friend that is, you know, the state`s gonna kill him. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You`ll hear more of what Rodney Reed told me about life on death row in our Facebook page, facebook.com/allinwithchris. HAYES: Something remarkable happened in Washington today. One of the nation`s top law enforcement official, the man who spent most of his career in law enforcement and who`s a Bush appointee to the Justice Department, this man right here. FBI Director James Comey delivered some brazing hard truths on racial justice and policing in America. The speech today at Georgetown University Comey spoke unsparingly about law enforcement`s role in this country`s legacy of racism. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: All of us in law enforcement must be honest enough to acknowledge that much of our history is not pretty. At many points in American history, law enforcement enforced the status quo. A status quo that was often brutally unfair to disfavored groups. Little compares to the experience on our soil of black Americans. That experience should be part of every American`s consciousness, and law enforcement`s role in that experience including in recent times must be remembered. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: His speech was explicitly framed around events since the death of Michael Brown and Eric Garner a little more than six months ago, the idea of this kind of talk coming from the Director of the FBI, the Irish- American grandson of a cop, would have seemed inconceivable. The same time Comey also sought to defend law enforcement and focus on the long complicated antecedents to the encounters between cops and people with collar in neighborhoods across the country. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: Law enforcement is not the root cause of the problems in our hardest hit neighborhoods. Police officers, people of enormous courage and integrity in the overwhelming main (ph) are in those neighborhoods, risking their lives, to protect folks from offenders who are a product of problems that will not be solved by body cameras. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now, Phillip Atiba Goff, co-founder and president of the Center for Policing Equity. Well, Phillip, I thought this is a pretty amazing speech. What was your take on it? PHILLIP ATIBA GOFF, CENTER FOR POLICING EQUITY: I was gobsmacked. I felt exactly the way that you felt. You`re not expecting to see the Director of the least trusted body in the federal government within black communities come out and say everyone is a little bit racist. That was sort of mind blowing. And I`m so glad that you`re covering this because I think it shows the incremental changes that give people so much hope that we can be doing something better with race and law enforcement than what we`ve been doing up until now. HAYES: Yeah. There`s a part where he quotes the musical avenue queue that is a song everybody is a little bit racist to talk about unconscious. I thought that was key because I think what ends up happening often in these conversations that members of law enforcement police officers feel -- get into a defensive crouch. Is your calling me a racist and this point that every person even African-Americans as demonstrated in a lots of laboratory environments have anti-black bias that that is just part of what underlies anyone doing their job in law enforcement or elsewhere. GOFF: Yeah. And what I found to be even more -- maybe sort of radical in what he was saying is he said it`s easy to localize this problem within the character of law enforcement. And his concern was that`s too easy. HAYES: Yeah. GOFF: But the problem is bigger than that and we all need to take ownership of those bigger problems. This speech was sort of the power of honesty, but even more it`s the power of historical literacy. So the point he was making were profound from any director of the FBI. But beyond that he got specific, he mentioned the fact that he sit at the desk where the order was received five lines to go ahead and wiretap Martin Luther King. Saying that out loud where people could hear him is it`s a brand new day for every FBI`s relationship with these kinds of communities. HAYES: And in fact he talks about keeping and there`s a long portion of the speech where he talks about why he keeps a copy of that approval of the wiretap request at his desk as a reminder of what the history the FBI is. And I mean, we were not even getting into the Black Panthers and (inaudible) and all sorts of other stuff they do. This is just on King, but I mean this is an agency that has done some pretty narrowly things to black activist through the decades. And for him to just acknowledge that, that itself I thought was pretty striking. GOFF: Yeah, it`s absolute. Again it was phenomenal. And, you know, so my phone was buzzing off the hook as soon as the text of it was released because there were a lot of folks in law enforcement who have felt this way, who have been waiting for leadership to come out and say it. And that he ends the speech talking about data which he knows good and well that major city law enforcement has been calling for a national database not just on police-involved shootings but on all police behavior that were now putting together for the first time. It was a phenomenal speech. It was -- and not just a work of amazing politics but incredible honesty and something -- a good news race story at the time when we can really use one. HAYES: Yeah, he said at one point it is ridiculous I cannot tell you how many Americans were shot by police last year which is I think uncontroversially true. Phillip Atiba Goff, always a pleasure. Thank you. GOFF: Thank you. HAYES: Of all the top questions of potential presidential contenders face, I don`t think this should be one of them (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it? Do you accept it? SCOTT WALKER, GOV. (R) WISCONSIN: For me I`m going to punt on that one as well. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Really? WALKER: That`s a question a politician should be involved in one way or the other. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Happy 206th birthday Charles Darwin, we`ll present some advise for presidential aspirants based on that question, ahead. HAYES: It`s the common presidential hopeful`s rite of passage. Travel (ph) London extensively to beef up your economic informed policy credentials and stepping it. Yesterday Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was the latest Republican who follow in that grand tradition, in a question and answer session at Chatham House, yesterday this happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I finish with the question that I always assume as the tradition now to ask visiting particularly Republican, senior Republicans who come to London and it`s not about cheese and it`s not about foreign affairs. It`s actually about evolution. Do you -- Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it? Do you accept it? WALKER: For me, I`m going to punt on that one as well... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Really? WALKER: That`s a question a politician should be involved in one way or the other. So I`m going to leave that up to you and. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: . with any British politician right or left wing would say would love and say yes of course evolution is true. But. WALKER: To me I said it`s just one of those where I`m here to talk about trade not to pontificate that. Another should. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Walker went on to tweet, "Both science and my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith and science are compatible, and go hand in hand." It`s unfortunate the media chose to politicize this issue during our trade mission to foster investment in Wisconsin. So over the last 30 days we`ve gaffer (ph) a new cycle about vaccines yes or no to crusades maybe not so bad to evolution, is it real. And out of all that madness there`s still something in particular about Walker`s answer that`s stands out. First as a politician you`re never suppose to actually say, "I`m going to punt on that one." That is supposed to be the subtext, the text is just your non-responsive answer. Saying, "I`m going to punt" is like saying, "I am evasive and untrustworthy." Second Scott Walker, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie and anyone else there who is thinking of running for president, I have three words of advice just say yes -- should kids be vaccinated, yes. Did people commit horrible acts in the name of Christianity during the crusades, yes. Should kids be taught evolution because it`s real, yes. Next question. HAYES: So the process of getting a marriage license in the state of Alabama has been in chaos in recent days. After a federal struck down the state`s ban on same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court refused to block that ruling -- meaning it was going to go into effect -- Roy Moore, the chief justice of Alabama`s Supreme Court, the state court, took matters into his own hands. He instructed local judges to ignore the federal court ruling and the Supreme Court and still refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now, as you might imagine, complete disarray followed with judges in some counties following the federal court`s order and issuing the licenses while others refused licenses to same-sex couples and some just shut down the entire marriage license operation altogether. But today, another ruling which might provide some clarity to local judges who aren`t sure what to do. Earlier today a federal judge ruled that officials in Mobile should go ahead and let same-sex couples get married, basically telling them to stop ignoring her original ruling from a few weeks ago when she declared, in so uncertain terms that Alabama`s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Today`s ruling was part of a lawsuit intended to clear things up between the conflicting federal and state rulings. And in some ways, what is most remarkable about this fight in Alabama right now, this constitutional crisis, is that it hasn`t happening earlier. I mean, in state after state after state opponents of same-sex marriage have basically waved the white flag of surrender, which is partly a sign of the evolution in public opinion on this matter. As recently as 2003, according to Pew Research, just 33 percent of the country supported same-sex marriage. Ten years later, half of the country favored same-sex marriage. And that was the year that Jason Collins became the first active male player in any of the big four American pro sports leagues to come out as gay. Writing at the time, quote, "I`m glad I`m coming out in 2013 rather than 2003. The climate has shifted. Public opinion has shifted. And yet we still have so much farther to go." And joining me now is Jason Collins. Great to have you here. I wanted to talk to you for awhile. Thank you for being here. JASON COLLINS, RETIRED NBA PLAYER: Thank you for having me. HAYES: So, when you see what`s going on with this -- you know, we`ve got the marriage case that`s going to come before the Supreme Court, this Alabama fight that`s happening, what is your feeling about where we are in this sort of trajectory of progress? COLLINS: It is a little frustrating when you see people fighting against change. And some people are digging in their heels, and trying to find ways around it, but I think ultimately marriage equality is going to be a fact in this country in all 50 states and slowly we`re on that path and obviously with the Supreme Court case that is coming up later, in a couple months, we`re looking forward to the outcome of that. HAYES: Did you -- do you -- I mean, when you made the decision to do what you did, how did that alter the trajectory of your life? COLLINS: My life is exponentially better in so many ways. I was able to go out and play on the court. There is a picture here from my game, playing at Denver, I think that was my third game back in the league. But just being able to after the game is over, not having to hide who I am. In some of the games, especially here in New York and Brooklyn, my boyfriend was here waiting in the family room just like everyone else`s loved one. And that`s how it should be. It`s -- you are able to have your private life and not feel like you have to hide anything and then you`re able to go out there and you know do your job and play your sport. HAYES: Did things change much? It seemed to me like it was largely was srot a nonissue. Maybe that`s the wrong perception. From your standpoint, how did if feel? COLLINS: Well, it was a great -- a huge issue for some of my teammates. One of my team mates in particular took time, especially in that first week that I came back to pull me aside and just say this is going to be huge for the country, it`s a great sports moment, and just how proud he was of me and how happy he was I was back in the league and that I was his team mate. And moments like that are incredible, especially now, you know, I have seen it now for Robbie Rogers for the L.A. Galaxy in the soccer and then in college with Derrick Gordon at UMass and more and more male athletes -- because for so long -- a long time women were taking the lead. We had Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova. And I`m so grateful and thankful for every athlete, male or female, who came out. We`re all on the same team and making it easier or better for the next generation. HAYES: Are there -- I wondered this as soon as you came out -- are there closeted male athletes in this country who reach out to Jason Collins to say what should I do? COLLINS: Well, I don`t know -- not what should I do, but just -- yeah, just talk. And that`s sort of been my role when I was -- later in my career I was a mentor. And it`s just shifted, instead of mentoring young centers about like OK... HAYES: How to give a foul? COLLINS: Yeah, this is how you give a foul, this is how you take a charge, this is how you flop -- now it`s like, OK, these are some good people, good resources to know, a good support system. And again, we can all -- you know, we talk about sports, talk about basketball but then we also talk about their private lives and just how they`re doing, trying to offer another level of support for them. HAYES: You know, it has always struck me that being, you know, 22-years- old, under tremendous pressure, with millions of dollars, and trying to have any thing resembling a normal private romantic life regardless of whether you`re straight or gay is hard enough. COLLINS: Yeah, especially for a basketball player, because typically we are taller. So, you know, take myself for instance. I`m seven feet. HAYES: You stand out... COLLINS: I do not blend in unless I`m out there on a basketball court, that`s where I blend in. But, you know, it is important for people to feel comfortable in their own skill and live their authentic life because it will alleviate stress. HAYES: Could we just talk for a second about how great this NBA season has been? COLLINS: Yeah, it`s been incredible. HAYES: Yeah, I mean, it`s a fantastic season? COLLINS: Yeah, and plus I`m a little partial to the Golden State Warrior, my twin brother Jerin is an assistant coach with the Warriors. So he will -- he`s actually in town now. So, I`m looking forward to catching up with him this weekend. HAYES: They are -- there is nothing -- I mean, if you love basketball, there is nothing more beautiful, it`s like listening to like a Tchaikovsky symphony or something, to watch the Golden State Warrior when they are turning it up, when they are firing on all cylinders. COLLINS: Yeah, it`s amazing. It`s like a -- to those who play video game, it`s like NBA Jam when the guy is on fire, like some of the shots that STeph Curry out there, and Clay Thompson too, and they have so many shooters. And then, you`ve got the Cleveland Cavaliers who are playing really well. And then you have the addition of Pau Gasol in Chicago, and that combination that seems to be finally clicking with Derek Rose. So it`ll be fun to watch. And then how scary is this that you could have Oklahoma City or maybe even San Antonio as an eight seed maybe or a seven seed. And it`s just like, you know, who wants to play against them in the first round. HAYES: Do you think they should go -- there has been some interesting talk about going to the best 16 teams as opposed to the best eight from each conference, because you end up -- it`s been so lopsided in the west for so long. COLLINS: I actually -- I`m a little bit mixed on this, because I played in the Eastern Conference for all my 13 years in the NBA. HAYES: Probably on some on the bubble teams. COLLINS: Yeah. There is one Nets team, we were about .500 and we ended up going to the playoffs, and -- I actually am in favor of just having the best teams, because I think it`ll make the playoffs even better. HAYES: Jason Collins, it`s really, really a pleasure. This is the most important question, right. COLLINS: Yes, let`s here it. HAYES: Can you get me tickets to the all-star game? COLLINS: I know a guy who knows a guy. HAYES: All right, really a pleasure, man. Thank you very much. Great to see you. All right -- basketball game this weekend, in fact. All right, there is parents who do vaccinate their kids, they`re parents who don`t vaccinate their kids, and then there parents who delay vaccinating their kids and one of the doctors who helps justify doing he is going to join me ahead. Stick around for that. HAYES: Tonight there`s yet another case of adult measles, a person in the Bay Area in Contra Costa County has contracted measles, that`s according to the patient`s employer LinkedIn. Officials at the professional social networking site say they are cooperating with local health officials. In fact, a person may have exposed fellow passengers on the BART rail service when the patient traveled in and out of San Francisco between February 4 and February 6 according to health officials. Meanwhile, Wired.com has published this alarming chart from the California Department of Public health showing the measles vaccination rates at children of workers at various Silicon Valley companies. Those red lines show day cares affiliated with Bay Area companies where less than 90 percent of children have had up to date vaccines. The day care centers that fall below this crucial herd immunity level of 90 percent include some affiliated with Google, Cisco Systems, IBM, and Pixar. Now here`s the thing, up to date is a key phrase in this story, because delaying vaccines is the real undercovered story of this measles outbreak. We`ll have much more on that next. HAYES: Since the onset of the recent measles outbreak in this country, attention has largely focused on anti-vaccers, parents who don`t get their kids vaccinated at all, because of scientifically baseless fears. That is a tiny part of the population. There is a far larger group that includes thow who are delaying vaccines for their children, because of shoddy non-scientific notions about, for example, the danger of vaccines in combinations or in close succession, or the effect of possible toxins. At a recent congressional hearing, Senator Elizabeth Warren posed a series of questions to Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the National Center for Immunization at the CDC. After dispensing with many of the concerns of outright antivaxxers, specifically point out the lack of scientific evidence linking vaccines to autism, mental disorders, allergies or autoimmune disorders, they moved on to some of the concerns more widely shared of vaccine delayers. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Are there additives or preservatives in vaccines that can be toxic to kids? DR. ANNE SCHUCHAT, CDC: Not in the amounts that are in vaccines. WARREN; Is there any scientific evidence that giving kids their vaccines further apart or spacing them differently is healthier for kids? SCHUCHAT; No, it actually increases the risk period for children. WARREN: So it adds to the danger. Is there any scientific evidence that kids can develop immunity to these diseases on their own simply by eating nutritious foods or being active? SCHUCHAT: No. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And yet one of the bestselling on children`s health on Amazon right now is this: "The Vaccine Book," which includes, quote, common sense sounding admonitions like, quote, "vaccination isn`t an all or nothing decision." And, quote, "it is my goal to give you a balanced look, the pros and cons vaccination that you can make an educated decision." In his book, Dr. Bob Sears offers up an alternative vaccine schedule where some shots are delayed. Dr. Sears has argued that, quote, "spreading the shots out reduces the risk of having a severe reaction and avoids overloading babies with too many chemical ingredients at one time." But most doctors and scientists, including as you heard, top immunization officials at the CDC, say there is no science behind the delayed schedule. And delaying vaccines is actually dangerous. I`m going to ask the author of The Vaccine Book, Dr. Bob Sears, why he is pushing a program that is so widely condemned among his peers, next. HAYES: Joining me now the author of The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child pediatrician Dr. Bob Sears. Doctor, thank you. I just wanted to be first about -- talk about sort of your qualifications here. I mean, you`re a pediatrician, obviously, but you don`t publish in immunology, or vaccines. You don`t research it, and you don`t study this professionally. DR. BOB SEARS, PEDIATRICIAN: Well, I give vaccines every day in my office, Chris, so I have a lot of experience with them, certainly. And I spent years, even decades even, researching medical journals. This all started back in medical school. I just hit the library and went from journal to journal trying to learn everything I could about vaccines. HAYES: Right, but you`re not publishing peer-reviewed work in this area? SEARS; No, I`m a full-time practicing pediatrician. I work every day in my office, so no, I`m not a researcher, Chris. HAYES: So, where is the published peer-reviewed evidence to support the notion of a, quote, overload if you follow the CDC recommended schedule? Where does that exist? SEARS: Chris, I don`t think there is any such research, and I actually never claimed there was. I certainly have put out there very clearly in my writings that my precautions on spreading out vaccines are theoretical. It`s a theoretical benefit to kids and it`s a choice that I think a lot of parents feel more comfortable about and might bring more parents to vaccinate if they can spread the shots out more than the regular schedule. HAYES: So, I`ve watched a number of your interviews. I`m sort of always confused about whether you`re saying you`re doing this to make parents more comfortable or you actually think there is something to it. And the most cynical interpretation is you`ve spotted a market opportunity to be the kind of sensible middle in the, quote, vaccine debate where you can sell a lot of books to people by basically telling them they have their cake and eat it too. You`re not crazy for thinking this. Just delay. You can have the best of both worlds. SEARS: Well, Chris, if you look back in the 80s when we were giving vaccines to children, we gave about eight vaccines back then. And I think almost all parents complied. We felt it was really safe and you didn`t see a lot of reactions. And then the `90s and 2000s, and now, Chris, that number has moved from eight vaccines to 54 vaccines throughout all of childhood... HAYES: Right, within the first two years. SEARS: Some of these parents are simply just trying to question is this escalation too much for their little babies to handle. And they want to spread it out. HAYES: But what you`re saying there -- this is the thing I think I find, if you`ll excuse me, somewhat maddening about this is that throwing out these numbers and saying they`re little babies reifies some notion that they have to be scared of it when we have science for a reason. We have peer-reviewed research for a reason. We know we can conduct peer-reviewed research on this. We have longitudinal studies about the effects of these things. If none of that turning up negative effects, aren`t you just feeding into those fears? Isn`t this superstition? SEARS: Well, Chris, let`s look at data. Let`s look at Centers for Diseae Control data. As you may already know, about 2,000 severe reactions are reported to the Centers for Disease Control every year from vaccines, you know, reactions that land someone in the hospital, create a permanent disability or even death: 2,000, Chris. Now, I will also say that these are not proven reactions to the vaccines, these are simply reported reactions. And what does the medical community do with that? They simply ignore those reactions, because we can`t prove that the vaccines cause these, we`re just going to set them aside and ignore them. And I think that`s dangerous and it does a disservice. HAYES: Why is that dangerous? First of all, we`re talking about a cohort roughly every year of about 10 million kids, right. So 2,000 about of 10 million kids, it`s 2,000 out of 2,500. Second of all, if this is the concern, right, it seems to me that the precautionary principle here is to get your kids vaccinated along the schedule that is supported by the best most current medical research evidence published and peer-reviewed, and then push for additional research in other areas. And if they additional researches turns something back, then deviate from that. But to tell people to delay their vaccines opens up to real harm that we are now seeing happen across this country. SEARS: Well, Chris, in my office I definitely don`t tell people delay any vaccines that pose a direct threat to their babies or their communities. You know, I vaccinate for whopping cough on time, rotavirus. I delay the meningitis vaccines by only one month, one month, Chris. I don`t think that`s much of a delay. And I also recommend the measles vaccine at one year and five years just as the CDC does. So, I don`t delay anything that poses a direct threat. I delay some of the vaccines that don`t make sense, like Hepatitis b. That`s a sexually transmitted infection. American babies don`t catch that. And when parents hear that my schedule is a little bit more logical and I`m not forcing a vaccine that makes no sense down their throats, they tend to listen to me and then want to follow that advice. HAYES: Let me just say on the Hepatitis B, there`s been a lot of sort of I think muddying the waters -- the CDC changed the Hepatitis B recommendation because they found that day care centers were a site of transmission of the disease precisely because there were larger populations of people that were not vaccinated in those areas. But Dr. Bob Sears, thank you for coming on the show. I really do appreciate you coming on. SEARS: All right. Thanks for having me on, Chris. HAYES: Let`s turn to Dr. Corey Hebert, assistant professor at the Louisiana State health sciences center in Tulane University, also CEO of community health TV. And Dr. Hebert, I know you do do some research and work in this area. This idea -- I mean, there is an intuitive appeal of delay meningitis by a month. So what`s so bad about that? DR. COREY HEBERT, LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER: Well, there are a couple of things here. And what we must always realize is that this is based on preferences. Dr. Sears is a great guy. And -- but it`s all based on preferences. So when we think about parental preferences, we`re -- they`re based on emotion and they`re based on science. So, really, bogus scientific data has no place in evidence-based medicine in the United States. We know that of 4 million kids will get combination vaccines this year alone, and it`s 1.1 in 1 million will have a serious adverse event or vaccine injury. Now let`s think about this very clearly, because the odds of you taking an aspirin and having an intercerbral hemorrhage are much greater than a vaccine injury. And we mentioned -- Dr. Sears mentioned the fact that there is a registry. It`s called VARS (ph). And people can report vaccine injury and vaccine adverse reactions to this. Not only can doctors do it, but parents can do it, teachers can do it and there is really no cause and effect, because if I get a flu vaccine, and then I walk out onto the street and get hit by a car, that is listed in that VARS (ph) system. So, that didn`t mean anything. HAYES: Let me tell you about VARS (ph), I`ll give you an honest moment. My first daughter -- we took her to some set of shots. And sure, it`s upsetting to watch your little infant kid get shots. And she was sort of acting kind of like -- she was in a bad mood afterwards and the thought totally 100 percent flitted across my mind, because all this stuff out there, like oh, man, was it the vaccine? Was it the shot? And I can imagine if she got sick, self reporting that even if there is absolutely no possible provable scientific connection between the two. HEBERT: Exactly. And what happens is everybody wants the best for their kids. So, let`s just think about this. When is the last time a 25 to 35-year-old man or woman saw someone limping around America because they got polio. When the last time somebody saw that? So, they don`t know the scourge of illness. Without vaccination and sanitation America would not even be here. So, let`s talk about that. Because we know that the delayed vaccination thing, let`s -- you can`t base your whole livelihood on bogus science. We know that Dr. Andrew Wakefield produced this study in 1998. And I`m talking to you right now as a parent, and as a doctor, and as a researcher. When I was in training when that came out in 1998 and I had a newborn kid. So, I was like, man, what do I do? But what did I do? I looked at the data and I saw that this was bogus. This dude got $600,000 from lawyers to sue the vaccine manufacturers. So, that is the only guy that ever came out with that. So, and then you have got Jenny McCarthy coming out saying that. And so she got her degree at Playboy University. So, you can`t even justify her coming out writing three books on this thin. So, I`m trying to disparage anybody here, Chris, but what I am telling you is that we must keep this in proportion. And I want to say one more thing about this measles, mumps, rubella shot. Everybody is freaking out about the measles, but let`s think about MMR stands for measles, mumps and rubella. If a boy does not get the shot, and he gets the mumps, he can get orchitis which can cause him to be sterile and not be able to have children. Also, if a lady does not have her rubella shot, then she can have stillborn child if she gets rubella. So, the point is that this is much bigger than just the measles, this is a far -- has much broader implications here. HAYES: And there is also a collection action problem here, just to end on this note, which is that if you think, well, these diseases basically don`t affect anyone anymore, and individually I can make the freerider decision because I feel kind of icky about it, well, enough people do that and you you know what you get, you measles at Disneyland. Dr. Corey Hebert, thank you very much HEBERT: There you go. Thank you. HAYES: All right, that is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021201cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 58 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 12, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 12, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: Paul Rieckhoff, Diane Rosenbaum SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7570 words HIGHLIGHT: At the exact moment that President Obama was saying that today at the White House that our combat mission in Afghanistan is over and the veterans are coming home, "The New York Times" was posting online for the first time about how combat operations in Afghanistan actually are back on and in kind of a big way. President Obama signed today the Clay Hunt Save Act into law. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC ANCHOR: -- this hour. So governors almost never quit. Being a governor is a really good gig, why would you quit if you were governor? That main question, just -- how hard it is to imagine why somebody would give up that particular job. That was one of the challenges for the news media when Alaska governor and former Republican Party vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, decided to quit in the middle of her first gubernatorial term in Alaska. There just didn`t seem to be any good reason for her to quit as Alaska governor. She was not under any real pressure to quit. Nobody expected her to quit and then when she announced that she was quitting, for a long time into her speech, nobody could quite figure out what she was saying about whether she really was quitting, and if she was, why she was. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: If I`ve learned one thing is that life is about choices. And one chooses how to react to circumstances, you can choose to engage in things that tear down or that build up, and I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and for productivity. I choose not to tear down and waste precious time but to build up this state and our great country. It may be tempting and more comfortable to just kind of keep your head down and plot along and appease those who are demanding, hey, just sit down and shut up, but that`s the worthless easy task out. That`s the quitter`s way out. Only dead fish go with the flow. No productive fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts choosing too wisely utilize precious time to build up. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: And so I quit. That`s the quitter`s way. I quit it. Quitting is a weird way to recommit yourself to the work of being governor of Alaska, right. But that is how Governor Palin explained why she was quitting. It was very confusing even very deep into her speech. More typically governors have quit in modern times because of romantic entanglements. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. ELIOT SPITZER (D), NEW YORK: I`m deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me. To every New Yorker and to all those who believe in what I tried to stand for, I sincerely apologize. GOV. JIM MCGREEVEY (D), NEW JERSEY: Given the circumstances surrounding the affair and its likely impact upon my family and my ability to govern, I have decided the right course of action is to resign. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Governors very rarely resign. It is big news whenever a governor resigns. But the one that we might be in the midst of right now, the one that may be happening right now, tonight, in the country, is sort of somewhere between the romantic entanglement kind of un-quitting that we saw from Jim McGreevey and Eliot Spitzer. It`s somewhere between romantic entanglement quitting and to the Sarah Palin version of quitting which is more like, huh, what`s going on here, I don`t understand. Here`s my best understanding of what`s going on right now. But I have to tell you, this story is still unfolding right now. So events may have overtaken the story even by the time I get to the end of it. But basically, as far as I can tell, here is what`s going on. All right. There`s something called the National Association of Secretaries of State. Secretary of State is the person who runs elections in most states. Usually a state wide elected office. Almost every state has one. And everything national association for those folks. One of the secretaries of state from around the country is the president of that organization that served as president for a one-year term. This week in Washington the National Association of Secretaries of State has been having their annual winter meeting in Washington, D.C. I know it`s not the highest profile event in the world but still it ends up being really important. Stay with me here. The current president of the National Association of Secretaries of State is named Kate Brown. She is the Secretary of State of the great state of Oregon. And on Tuesday, in the middle of their winter meeting in D.C. for this organization that she runs as president this year, she got a call in Washington, a personal, direct one-on-one phone call from the governor of her state, from the Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon. And in that phone call on Tuesday, she says he asked her personally to please fly back to Oregon immediately for a one-on-one meeting with him. Leave this meeting that she`s chairing in Washington, come home, you need to meet with me face-to-face right now. Now Oregon doesn`t have a lieutenant governor. If the governor is forced out of office or dies or has to resign for whatever reason, the next person in the line of succession in the state is the secretary of state. John Kitzhaber, the governor of Oregon, has been hit by an escalating series of scandals over the past few months, almost all of those scandals concern his girlfriend. Basically, the main allegations against him are pay-to-play corruption allegations about his girlfriend, specifically whether she was paid by various interest group to advocate for specific policies in the Kitzhaber administration or even to try to implement those policies herself in her unofficial role as first lady. So there is an ongoing ethics investigation into Kitzhaber over these allegations about his girlfriend. There had been report that there is an open FBI investigation into the same allegations. There`s been plenty of public pressure for him to resign over these allegations including from the state`s largest newspaper, "The Oregonian." There had been headlines like this in the local papers this week. Rumors swirling that the governor is about to resign. And so with all of that going on, that call from him personally to the secretary of state, to the person who would take over and become governor if he did resign, that call from him on Tuesday that she needed to leave D.C. and race home to Oregon to meet with him face-to-face that was a dramatic and portentous moment. He made the call, she said, yes, sir. She told the National Association of Secretaries of State, "I know I`m the president of this group and we`re having our winter meeting but I`m sorry, I`ve got to go, emergency at home in my state, I might have to become the governor." So she flew home to Oregon on the first available flight. She was due to arrive at 4:00 p.m.-esh yesterday. And then I will let her explain it because she has now put out a statement explaining what happened. And if I put it in my words, you might not believe it. Because it is so unimaginably weird, it can`t possibly have happened. But this is what she says happened. This is her official statement, look. Quote, "Late Tuesday afternoon, I received a call from the governor while I was in Washington D.C. at a Secretaries of State Conference. He asked me to come back to Oregon as soon as possible to speak with him in person and alone. I got on a plane yesterday morning and arrived at 3:40 in the afternoon. I was escorted directly into a meeting with the governor. It was a brief meeting. He asked me, why I came back early from Washington D.C." Wait. Huh? Governor calls her and says you need to come back early from D.C. She says yes, sir. She comes back early from D.C., she walks into his office, and he says, "What`s are you doing back early from D.C.?" This is really weird, right? But wait, it gets weirder. Back to her statement. OK. So, "He asked me why I came back early from Washington D.C.," comma, "which I found strange." (LAUGHTER) "I asked him what he wanted to talk about, the governor told me he was not resigning," comma, "After which he began a discussion about transition." Now I guess transition can mean a lot of things? In this case it sounds like he asked her to come back early from D.C. and then he said, why did you come back early from D.C. And then he said I`m not resigning and then he said let`s talk about what happens after I resign. He told her he`s not resigning and then start to talking about what it`s going to be like when the transition happens. When she becomes governor because he is no longer a governor. There`s only one last line of the statement from this beleaguered and confused secretary of state. The last line of her statement is, quote, "This is clearly a bizarre and unprecedented situation." Yes, no kidding. So the secretary of state had her drama yesterday with the governor, even though he apparently did talk to her about transition in state government. The governor then told reporters yesterday afternoon that he definitely wasn`t resigning. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Have you been considering resigning? GOV. JOHN KITZHABER (D), OREGON: No, I have not. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: It hasn`t crossed your mind at all? KITZHABER: Nope. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So Tuesday he tells his would-be successor rush back home. Then he pleads ignorance when she gets there. Yesterday he says he won`t resign. Today the secretary of state put out her statement explaining what happened there. And now the Democratic leaders of the Senate and the House, both came forward -- John Kitzhaber is a Democrat, Oregon is a blue state. The Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate both came forward early today and said not only do they believe that Governor Kitzhaber should resign, but they said they told him that to his face. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Senator, did you meet with the governor this morning? And if so, what was discussed? STATE SEN. PETER COURTNEY (D), OREGON SENATE PRESIDENT: I met with the governor this morning, and the speaker and I both met with him, and I asked him for his resignation, and the speaker asked him for his resignation. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: What did the governor say? Will he resign? COURTNEY: He was struggling. He -- it`s unclear to me whether he will or not. He met with me in this office on Tuesday and led me to believe he was going to resign. He wanted to do it over have a transition period with the secretary of state. I supported that. He noted me to come earlier in the week. So I was ready to go, I even had a statement prepared, and so it was going to take care of itself. And then I could not tell anybody because he swore secrecy. I told my wife late that night, what do I do. And next thing I know a bombshell happened yesterday. What happened? What`s going on? The secretary of state is coming back, I don`t know. And then all of a sudden, I`m not going to resign. And I just said I can`t put --- I don`t know. I can`t fix this. I can`t fix it, I can`t make it better. I can`t save anybody. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That was the Democratic president of the state Senate in Oregon. Democratic speaker of the House also says she asked Governor Kitzhaber to resign this morning. These two leaders in the state legislature, in the same party as governor, they made their request publicly, they also asked the governor face to face if he would please resign. The treasurer of the state, who`s the next highest elected official in the state, also a statewide elected official, he also came out publicly today, he also said Governor Kitzhaber should resign. And all of those calls for the governor to resign today happened before the next bombshell about Governor Kitzhaber landed in the press. Specifically in the "Willamette Week," look, look at the headline. "Governor John Kitzhaber`s Office Sought to Destroy Thousands of His E- mails." This happened after all those calls for his resignation today. It`s a heck of a scoop. According to the "Willamette Week," one week ago today, the governor`s executive assistant sent an e-mail, which has now been obtained by the "Willamette Week," asking the tech folks in Oregon state government to please destroy the governor`s e-mails. The governor uses both his official e-mail account and his personal e-mail account to do state business. That`s been revealed in previous documents from his administration but this written request last week was to delete, quote, "anything in the personal e-mail account from the state`s archives." Remember, at this point the governor is already under an ethics investigation, he is reportedly under an FBI investigation. And the day after his office sent this request to the state government to destroy all the governor`s personal e-mails and take him off the state servers, the very next day is when the Oregon attorney general announced a state level criminal investigation into the allegations against the governor. But here`s the good news. Here`s the good news, Oregon. The governor`s office sent that request one week ago today. "Please destroy my e-mails while I`m in the midst of all these criminal investigations of my behavior. You want to know what the good news this year? The guys in the tech department of state government who received that request to destroy the governor`s e-mails, they said no. So congratulations, Oregon, you have some conscientious public servants, including the field tech who got the request to destroy the governor`s e- mails. He did not act on it and instead asked his supervisor what he should do. You also have a conscientious public servant in that man`s supervisor who also didn`t act on the request and asked his supervisor what to do. You also have conscientious public servant in that guy`s supervisor who also did not act on the request. Quote, "Take no action at this time." Ultimately, the manager of the department in state government saying, quote, "I am not willing to make the call, to delete information out of the e-mail archive." And so the e-mails were not destroyed. The e-mail survived and the investigations go forward, and you should know that there`s no provision in Oregon state government to impeach a governor. If he goes, he`s going to have to go on his own terms. It seemed at one point, like he already was in the process of quitting but then he took backsies (ph) in a way that most people did not understand. And the reporting keeps flying out of the Oregon press, not only about the allegations against Governor Kitzhaber but the bizarre way that they are now being handled. And the weirdest gubernatorial scandal in a very long time continues to be totally unsettled as of tonight, at least it was when I started talking. Let`s see if it still is. Joining us now is Oregon state senator and Senate majority leader Diane Rosenbaum. Miss Rosenbaum, this is very difficult time in your state, thank you for being here to help us understand. SEN. DIANE ROSENBAUM (D), OREGON: Thank you for having me, Rachel. MADDOW: My impression as a total outsider to Oregon politics is that Governor Kitzhaber by and large has been a very well respected public servant. He`s been a public servant in the state Senate, an unprecedented four terms as governor. He was just reelected in November. Even the people who are criticizing him now seems to really care for him and think he is a good a public servant. What do you believe is going on with him? ROSENBAUM: Well, absolutely, I have the utmost respect for the governor. Not only has he done remarkably great things for the state of Oregon, but he`s a national leader on health care, and is seen as I think one of the foremost experts around the country. I think he is struggling, it`s a very difficult time for our state and for him personally. He`s got a difficult decision to make, and it can`t be easy for him, both in terms of his legacy, the work he has done for the state. The fact that we`ve just started a new legislative session and then on a personal level as well. MADDOW: In terms of the calls for his resignation, you know, there`s a lot of it you have to expect as politic noise, but it was striking today to see the state treasurer come out, the Senate president, the speaker of the House, Democrats all come out and say, all of them with pretty obviously heavy hearts that he really has to go. It had seemed this week like he was planning to go, certainly the state Senate president seems to have said that`s what the governor indicated to him. What`s pulling in the other direction? Who is telling him not to resign? ROSENBAUM: I can`t really answer that. I know that it`s been a very difficult time for all of us. I think for those leaders that you just mentioned, no one wants this to be the situation we`re facing and certainly they didn`t come lightly to the decision to ask for his resignation. MADDOW: You haven`t called for his resignation, and I can -- I can hear that you`re not doing that now. I do have to ask if the "Willamette Week" scoop today is born up, that the governor did ask for his personal e-mails to be deleted off of all state servers, and he did it a week ago today, in the midst of all these inquiries into his behavior. Would that change your feelings about whether or not he might be able to stay in office and be effective? ROSENBAUM: Well, I think we just learned that information late this afternoon. And it`s -- we`ve got a very strong public records law here in Oregon and a process to deal with that. I don`t want to rush to judgment but, you know, it certainly sounds like a serious matter. MADDOW: Well, Democrat -- Democratic Senate -- excuse me -- Democratic Senator Diane Rosenbaum, Senate Majority Leader in Oregon. I know this is a difficult time. I do feel like things are moving very fast in the state. Keep us apprised as best you can. I`m not sure why we`re more interested in it than the rest of the national news media at this point, if he does resign there`s going to be a huge scrum, but thank you for helping us understand what`s going on right now. I appreciate it. ROSENBAUM: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: I should also tell you that if you want proof that I`m a total outsider to Oregon politics, it`s apparently "Willamette Week," instead of not "Willamette Week." That`s how outsider I am to this story. All right. Lot`s more ahead, including House Republicans stomping on the brakes on confirming President Obama`s nominee to be the new attorney general. Plus, President Obama putting his pen collection to good use today. And later in the show "Fifty Shades of Grey." Those words apparently just came out of my mount. Please stay with us. MADDOW: Look at this. Look. This is not -- look. This is not what you want to see in front of you when you`re driving to work in the morning. But this is what the sky looked like in several small Spanish towns northwest of Barcelona today. That terrifying apricot colored plume of smoke was caused by an explosion at a chemical plant. Apparently two chemicals being delivered to a chemical storage warehouse somehow got mixed together and exploded, and it created that huge toxic, orangey, giant cloud. Three people who worked at the plant were injured in the explosion. Sixty thousand local residents were told to shut their windows and stay inside while the toxic smoke dissipated. Nobody meant for this -- look at that. Nobody meant for that thing to happen today. This was not an attack. This was an accident. But things go wrong all the time. Even with really dangerous and toxic stuff. Hold that thought. MADDOW: There was a bill signing today at the White House. I know, this is the rarest of all endangered species in Washington but it happens. Today President Obama signed into law the Clay Hunt Veteran Suicide Prevention Act. We`re going to have more on this later in the show tonight but President Obama, when he was signing the bill today, he did that thing that presidents often do when they sign a new piece of legislation. He used many, many, many pens. He signs a little tiny piece of his name with a pen, puts the pen back in the holder and he takes another, then he takes another, then he takes another. Looks like he has maybe a dozen pens there. And that so he can then give those pens as mementos to people involved in or affected by the passage of the bill. Here is a pen that was used to sign that legislation. Usually, those folks who get the pens are the people who are standing around him as he signs. The presidential pen is about to get a real workout even beyond that because today it was that bill signing. But next, President Obama is gearing up for his first presidential veto of major legislation. He`s going to veto the bill that would force approval of the Keystone Pipeline. That bill got final approval from Congress yesterday. It`s not clear exactly when President Obama will veto it. Republicans in Congress want to make as big a deal as possible about the fact that he`s going to veto it. So they`re going to draw this out as long as possible even though they have already technically passed the bill. Once they do decide the president -- do decide to send it to President Obama, and he does veto it as promised, Republicans now say they`re just going to pass it again after the veto. And they say they`re going to pass it again after the veto, and then if he vetoes that they`re just going to pass it again and again and again and again and again. Just like that. Repeal Obamacare bill that they`ve now passed at least 56 times. The pipeline bill`s chief sponsor Senator John Hoeven said maybe what they`ll do next after the veto is they`ll attach the Keystone thing to some other bill, or maybe they`ll put it into a must-pass appropriations bill, or maybe they`ll put Keystone into every single bill in Congress from here on out, who knows. So this is going to start with President Obama`s veto, but then it`s going to get really fun, so says Senator John Hoeven. And Senator John Hoeven knows from pipeline, his home state of North Dakota has thousands of miles of crude oil pipelines. That`s thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines. They also have 20,000 miles of small pipelines called gathering pipeline that served as the connectors between all those other pipelines and the drilling sites where the stuff comes from. Last month a drilling company discovered that one of its small gathering pipelines near the town of Williston, North Dakota, had burst open. This was a little pipeline. It`s only a four-inch pipeline. But when it burst, it caused the state`s largest ever spill of toxic drilling brine. Three million gallons of brine that`s 10 times as salty as seawater, full of toxic gunk, and heavy metals and as crude oil mixed into it. Three million gallons of it all dumped into a creek that feeds into the Missouri River. The biggest ever spill of that kind. Here`s the thing, though. That pipeline was less than a year old when it burst. State-of-the-art pipeline, and it also never been inspected. And now we know why. At the time that pipeline burst for all those 20,000 miles of pipeline in that state, the state of North Dakota had precisely zero pipeline inspectors. Zero. The legislature approved funding for three inspector jobs for those kind of pipelines but as of January when that one burst, all of the pipeline jobs were vacant. Now we covered this on the show last month after that giant brine spill. And then we decided to try to find out who, if anyone, had applied for these inspector jobs that the state has on the books but nobody was actually in them. We made a formal request to the state to see the applications of people who applied for those jobs. And it was some very friendly, very helpful North Dakota officials who provided those applications to us under their state`s Open Records Law. Here`s what we learned. Between July and January, a total of 21 people applied for those jobs. Twenty-one people applied for one of these three pipeline inspector jobs listed by the state of North Dakota. Just last month, they did fill one of the three jobs. So there`s now one inspector for those 20,000 miles of gathering pipeline. As for the other two positions, the states says they just have not found enough qualified candidates. Now I obviously am no expert on what makes a qualified pipeline inspector. There do seem to be some lovely hard-working folks with nice resumes among the applicants that we have reviewed. There`s 21 applicants, come on, North Dakota. State officials did decline to offer us their thoughts on why they`re having trouble finding the right candidates even as people are applying for the jobs. But consider this, the department that oversees the state`s larger pipelines, they have explained what`s going on with their vacant inspector jobs. They say they have trouble keeping inspectors for the larger pipelines in the state because every time they get somebody into the job, that person leaves for a better paying job in the oil industry. That larger pipeline inspector position, that one is also open right now. That job pays up to $96,000 a year. The one for the smaller pipelines, that one pays $51,000 a year. $51,000 a year is good money, right? But when you`re competing with the most profitable industry the earth has ever known, yes, maybe $51 K isn`t enough to hold on to people. Yes. You might have to pay a little more. On that point on one North Dakota official told us, quote, "The pipeline industry is a competitive industry. We have and will continue to work to make the positions` salaries as competitive as possible." But as of tonight, there are still these two open positions. And if there are any experienced or aspiring pipeline inspectors out there, North Dakota says they would like to know. From the job listing, do you have excellent written and verbal communication skills, individual initiative, ability to work effectively with diverse groups of people? Are you adaptable to the northern plains climate? Any relevant pipeline experience? If so we have posted the application at MADDOW blog. Seriously, North Dakota needs you, the country needs you. But that`s basically the state- of-the-art for how we deal with pipeline safety in this county right now in 2015. Keystone, by the way, that`s a 36-inch pipeline. The one with the three million gallon brine spill, that was four inches. But on the Keystone matter, looks like a veto is on the way. MADDOW: So, we don`t usually cover movie premieres, but one movie coming out tonight, I`m told it is called "50 Shades of Grey." This movie has caused a little bit of a stir all across the country, particularly it turns out in the American South, where ticket sales are outpacing the rest of the country, states like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and other Deep South states. Really? The Deep South in particular is really psyched for this movie. Which has led to awkwardness for one of the most powerful organizations in conservative American politics. This amazing story is coming up right at the end of the show. Please stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: After 13 years, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over and a new generation of veterans is coming home. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: How is this for timing? At the exact moment that President Obama was saying that today at the White House, while he was saying that our combat mission in Afghanistan is over and the veterans are coming home, at the exact same time he was making those remarks, the "New York Times" was posting online for the first time this story about how combat operations in Afghanistan actually are back on and in kind of a big way. The hook for their new story is a laptop that Special Operations forces were able to obtain in October somewhere in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border when they raided the home of an al Qaeda suspect. Apparently, that laptop has been a treasure-trove of information on al Qaeda in that part of the world. Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives and other militants who work with them in that part of the world. And according to "The New York Times," based on that trove of intelligence found on that single laptop, the U.S. war in Afghanistan, going after these militant groups, specifically, is apparently back in full swing. Quoting from "The Times", "The spike in raids is at odds with policy declarations in Washington where the Obama administration has deemed the American role in the war essentially over." Quote, "The raids appeared to have targeted a broad cross section of Islamist militants. They have hit both al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, going beyond the narrow counterterrorism mission that Obama administration officials had said would continue after the formal end of American-led combat operations last December." The tempo of operations in Afghanistan right now according to one military official who talked to "The Times" is, quote, "unprecedented for this time of year." It`s also unprecedented for a war that supposedly no longer exists, right? So, that is awkward to be talking about the war being over in the midst of this very detailed new reporting coming out simultaneously talking about how the war is not at all over, in fact it is kicking way back up. The other thing that happened while the "New York Times" was breaking that story and while the president was mentioning the war being over, literally in the same half-hour period, we also got a new secretary of defense, Ashton Carter. Ash Carter, Rhodes scholar, physicist, lifetime Pentagon wonk, he was confirmed in the Senate today 93-5. Because there was such overwhelming support for Ash Carter`s nomination to be defense secretary, his confirmation process, honestly, was not really the occasion for any significant debate in Washington either about him or about broader issues regarding national security, and the wars, and what military is doing right now. I mean, that debate about the military fight against ISIS is only just starting now in Congress more than six months and more than 2,000 airstrikes into the ongoing military campaign that U.S. troops are waging against ISIS. That debate is just now starting in Congress in the last 48 hours with President Obama sending over his proposed language to authorize that military force that we have been using for months. That debate, I believe, is long overdue, already though, even though it`s just started, it`s already quickly become sort of unpredictable and therefore interesting. Lawmakers from both parties already are coming down on the president`s request for authorization to use military force in some surprising and partisan -- surprising and unpredictable ways, at least unpredictable in partisan terms. Today, for example, we learned that Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton, who`s a very high profile brand new member of the House from Massachusetts, he`s a Marine Corps veteran who served four tours of duty in Iraq, Congressman Seth Moulton signaled today that he will not support President Obama`s request for military force. At least not the way it`s written right now. Seth Moulton said today that the American strategy to beat ISIS should be lead by political efforts and diplomatic efforts locally in the Middle East, in the region, and that American troops should be supporting those efforts, not leading them. Interesting, right? From a decorated combat veteran, one who is in the president`s own party. Super interesting. So, we are finally having a debate. Now, it does seem like that debate ought to include at least some mention of what`s really going on in Afghanistan where 10,000 troops are supposedly still there and it is supposedly not a war. But it does not at all appear that the war has wound down and combat operations are over even if they have changed the name of what we`re doing over there. I mean, clearly, the war in Afghanistan, at least in one level, is still very much on. That may require further debate, maybe further legal authorization as well, I don`t know. Now, a little sunshiny ray of hope right here, the one reason to be optimistic that maybe we as a country are capable of a real debate and real decision making on any of these issues, one reason to be cheerful about that prospect is these guys -- Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. IAVA today proved that politics is still possible. In a Congress in which nothing gets done, and everything is partisan to the point of stupidity, and there can be substantive problem-solving whatsoever that does not get subsumed into some dumb, divisive, obstructionist smoking pit of failure, see for example the fact that the Homeland Security Department is about to shut down and no one knows why -- in a Congress where nothing gets done, in a Washington where nothing is possible, IAVA and the family of Marine Corporal Clay Hunt, who took his own life after coming home from two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, they did the impossible today. They actually made politics work. And today, they were at the White House today for the president to sign into law a small, direct, constructive little piece of legislation that is aimed at preventing veteran suicide. These guys were able to muscle this through, this terrible dysfunctional Congress. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: And just to be clear about the bipartisanship here -- this is one of those areas where we can`t have an argument. Now, Clay`s parents are Texas Republicans. You know, I mean that is not just run-of-the-mill Republican. And they worked with this entire spectrum, conservatives, liberals. And that`s just a reminder of what we can accomplish when we take a break from the partisan bickering that so often dominates this town and focus on what matters to the American people. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Joining us now is Paul Rieckhoff, founder and president of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, one of the key advocates behind today`s passage of the Clay Hunt Act. He was at the bill-signing today at the White House just over the president`s shoulder there. Paul, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Congratulations, man. PAUL RIECKHOFF, IAVA: My pleasure, Rachel. And thank you. I just came from where all of the vets are celebrating with Susan and Richard, at a barbecue place here in D.C. and she asked me to pass thanks to you personally for staying focused on this. And to all your viewers around the country and around the world, who stood with us on this fight. This is a real team win and we appreciate all the support that you and everybody watching gave us. MADDOW: I just been covering what you are doing and watching in amazement as anything gets done in Washington, but also watching with real admiration for the tenacity it took to get this done on the part of Clay`s family and you guys. I mean, you`re a good advocate for your cause. I have seen you pass stuff when I didn`t think anything could pass before. What is the lesson learned here about how you did it? RIECKHOFF: A total team effort. You know, bringing together people from all different backgrounds and all across the country. Most of all this is people power. If the people lead, the politicians will follow. All the politicians were up there on stage but the real leaders were in the audience. We had 40 veterans or so from around the country who are every day people who took up this fight and kept pushing forward, and what we learned overseas was asymmetrical warfare. What we`re applying back here at home is asymmetrical advocacy and asymmetrical activism. We`re using the media -- I mean, we`re on Fox and MSNBC. We`re using social media extensively. We`re partnering with folks ranging from Lady Gaga to Linkin Park, to Keil Connelly (ph), a NASCAR race driver. But most of all, we`ve got people on the ground, around the country in every city who are fighting for change and we`re sick of Washington being broken. So, this is a win, it`s a big win, but it`s a first step. We`ve got a long way to go. But we hope this is a shot in the arm to Washington, but also gives people hope that things can get done if we stick together, we work as a team and we stay focused on what matters. And that`s principles, not politics. MADDOW: Well, that`s honestly as an observer of politics, and a reporter on politics, that`s sort of what I`m trying to figure out -- whether or not you guys can do this stuff because you`re veterans, because of your skills in getting it done, but also people feel about veterans in a way that can - - is powerful enough to transcend politics, whether or not there is anything that can transcend your issue area of focus and whether or not this can work for other stuff. Do you feel like it could? RIECKHOFF: We hope so. I mean, when I was standing up there today, I was between Senator Blumenthal and Senator McCain. You probably won`t see them stand together on a stage together again this year. MADDOW: Yes. RIECKHOFF: And if we can be the one issue that brings them together, that`s outstanding. But I think we`re ready to lead across this country. And I think it`s also important to know, we`re leading outside of Washington. We`re not going to wait for Washington because Washington has been so dysfunctional. So, this is really grassroots power. This is Mr. and Mrs. Smith going to Washington. Susan Selke is a powerful advocate because she`s honest, and truthful and she`s from outside the Beltway. And she is tough. There`s an old saying that the only thing tougher than a marine is a marine`s mom. And that`s what we saw tonight. She`s been so selfless and such a true leader. She`s what this country is all about and I think she personally has inspired people from all across the country to get involved. MADDOW: Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, celebrating tonight with IAVA and the Selkes -- Paul, congratulations. Thanks for being here tonight, man. REICKHOFF: Thank you, Rachel. We appreciate it so much. MADDOW: All right. Much more ahead. Please stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Amid unimaginable grief, Clay`s family, Jake, and his fellow veterans, made it their mission to spare any more families the pain they endured. So, they shared Clay`s story far and wide. They reached out to members of Congress. And they lobbied and they testified and made personal appeals. And thanks to their tireless efforts, we are particularly grateful to Clay`s family, for being able to transform grief into action. Today, I will sign the Clay Hunt Save Act into law. MADDOW: A week ago tonight on this show, I made a very specific offer to the good city of Salem, Oregon, and then this happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TV ANCHOR: Salem is taking a step to help protect people from angry owls. This hazard sign started as a gag on "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW," but now, the city is actually going to install them in city parks. There have been four instances where an owl has attacked joggers. Just last week, an owl swooped down and stole a hat right off a man`s head. The city has identified the birds as barn owls and that park goers should be especially careful from dusk to dawn. The new signs are expected to be installed by Friday. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: It turns out they didn`t wait until Friday. The Salem Parks Department really did take us up on our offer, and today, they -- look. Behold. It actually happened. Look. Our suggested beware of angry owls sign is now the official "Beware of Angry Owl" sign in Bush`s Pasture Park in Salem, Oregon. You know what? Write my obituary right now. If we have accomplished nothing else on television, let this be the legacy of THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW, simply the coolest thing that ever happened to this show. Thank you, Salem, Oregon. MADDOW: OK. Just because you get there first doesn`t mean you get in first. At least that`s not how it works in the United States Senate. Just because Loretta Lynch was nominated to be attorney general nearly a month before Ash Carter was nominated to be defense secretary doesn`t mean she will get a confirmation vote before he does. Loretta Lynch sailed through her confirmation hearings in the Senate. Nobody laid a glove on Loretta Lynch. Because they couldn`t lay a glove on her, the hearings ended up basically being about the current attorney general instead of about her. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: You`re not Eric Holder, are you? LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: No, I`m not, sir. CORNYN: So, no one is suggesting that you are, but of course, Attorney General Holder`s record is heavy on our minds now. (END VIDEO CLI) MADDOW: Loretta Lynch, just like Ash Carter, she aced her confirmation hearings in the Senate. But today, it was Ash Carter confirmed to become the next secretary of defense, even though his nomination went up a month later. Loretta lynch, apparently, Senate Republicans are having second thoughts about her. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote on her nomination but at the last minute, they decided not to do it. Why the change of heart? Nobody is saying. Now, they`re not planning on giving her a final vote until March, until five weeks after her confirmation hearings. There`s no indication before now that she was going to have any trouble. I usually would finish a report by saying, watch the space. In this case, really, watch this space, with this Loretta Lynch confirmation delay, this really feels like an outbreak of shenanigans is imminent. MADDOW: Elvis was from Tupelo, Mississippi. The great swiveling pelvis of rock and roll built his Graceland in Memphis, yes, but he was born and raised in Tupelo, Mississippi. The electronic music genius Diplo was also born in Tupelo. He grew up in Miami but he`s apparently a Tupelo native. Former WNBA star Tamika Whitmore, she was also born and raised in Tupelo, Mississippi. The guy on the right here was not born in Tupelo, Mississippi. He was from Chattanooga. But he moved to Tupelo. His name was Frank Raines, and he was a simultaneous talker. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He has the ability, Carol, to no matter what I say, talk right along with me, and can do it in any language, even though he may not know the language in which the person is speaking. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He doesn`t even have to look at me to know that he`s doing this. And (INAUDIBLE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He gets in your mind so you can`t talk after a while. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Frank Raines, the simultaneous talker. And Elvis, Diplo and Tamika Whitmore, they are all from mighty Tupelo, Mississippi. Also from Tupelo, Mississippi, these guys. The American Family Association, our new favorite far right religious activist group, with the guy who blames Hitler on the gays and says Jewish immigrants to America should be forced to convert as a condition of coming to this country. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRYAN FISCHER, AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION: Number one, those who came to our shores would be expected to adopt our religious values and our traditions. That would mean Christianity. The religion of their homeland and the god of their homeland, they would leave them behind. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: From their home base in Tupelo, Mississippi, the folks at the American Family Association have figured out how to make a real wonderful living with running radio shows and leading crusades against Sponge Bob and boycotting skinny model who is eat hamburgers in Super Bowl ads. They reportedly also have been hauling leaders of the Republican Party around on an expenses paid trip to Israel. After news got around that Republicans, the National Republican Party convention was being hosted by this Mississippi on that trip, both the Republican Party and the American Family Association stopped talking about it. We`ve been asking for weeks now whether Republicans went ahead with that trip, by their own schedule, they should have gone and returned already. But still, the Republican Party won`t answer our questions about that trip to Israel, neither will the American Family Association in Tupelo. That said, I`m sure they have plenty to work on besides answering questions from liberal TV ladies. Por ejemplo, this is now being unleashed by Satan on Cineplexs everywhere. From their headquarters in Tupelo, Mississippi, the American Family Association has been busy this week fulminating against "50 Shades of Grey", telling you and your mother and everybody else why they must not see this movie. Quote, "A more apt title would be 50 shades of evil." Now, it`s not for me to say whether you should see this movie or object to it on whatever grounds you find convincing. But I can tell you that the American Family Association, from its Tupelo, Mississippi headquarters, most certainly wants you to not buy a ticket for "50 Shades of Grey." But when they open their Mississippi newspaper in the Mississippi morning, this is the news they`re seeing. "Mississippi, the most eager state in the country to see `Fifty Shades of Grey"." Nowhere in this country are people so hot to see this movie as the people of Mississippi. Advanced tickets for this devil show have been selling there four times faster than the national average. In the home state of the American Family Association, which is very busy telling everybody not to buy a ticket. The first theater in the country to sell out for this movie, every ticket gone, is in Tupelo, Mississippi! The actual backyard of the American Family Association. Tonight in Tupelo, Mississippi, the first three shows of "Fifty Shades of Grey" are completely sold out. Yes, American Family Association, your town really wants to see "Fifty Shades of Grey" and they really don`t care what you say about it. But, we`d still like to hear your answers to our questions about that trip you took with the Republican Party. So please check your inbox. Thank you. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 14, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021201cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 59 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 12, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 12, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Eugene Robinson, Krystal Ball, David Corn, Dorian Warren, Charles Hadlock GUESTS: Brian Wice, Alfredo Duran, Sylvia Wilhelm, Sebastian Arcos SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 6738 words HIGHLIGHT: Senator Rand Paul falls in line with the other Republican presidential candidates, with Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, co- sponsoring a Senate resolution welcoming Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress. A dramatic dash cam video is shown in court today in the American sniper trial. The Democratic Party announced today the site of the 2016 Democratic National Convention. The Convention is to be held in the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: There is a new part-time member of the Republican congressional leadership. His day job is prime minister of another country. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: This is not a personal disagreement between President Obama and me. SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: One of America`s strongest allies and its very existence is under attack. NETANYAHU: I`m going to the United States, not because I seek a confrontation with the president. RUBIO: So, he gets chosen to come before the Congress and I`m glad that he`s accepted that invitation. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), MINORITY LEADER: I would hope we could find common ground to have bipartisan support. But that takes work. It`s called legislating. BOEHNER: I do have concerns about the president`s submission. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are many questions, I think, that need to be asked. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Should you trade your liberty for security? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let`s talk about Rand Paul, because he was out today and playing coy. PAUL: I`m not promoting any change to vaccine law. So to those who jumped all over me for this need to stand up and say what they`re for. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And Wisconsin Scott Walker dodged a question whether he believes in evolution. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: For me, I`m going to punt that one as well. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, really? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right now, one of the highest profile cases in recent memory is under way in Stephenville. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And a major ruling in appeals court will hear arguments in a motion to move the marathon bombing trial out of Boston. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The FBI Director James Comey`s painfully honest delivery. JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: Many people in our white culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black face. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The hard truth about policing and race relations. COMEY: Without complete and accurate data, we are left with ideological thunder bolts. DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Vladimir Putin needs to know that unless his behavior changes, the sanctions we have in place won`t be altered. JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There`s nothing special about foreign policy. All foreign policy is, is the logical extension of personal relationships. There are a lot less information going. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Democrats, they have chosen Philadelphia as their site for their 2016 convention. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The City of Brotherly Love will host the Democratic National Convention in 2016. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Philly, bo billy, banana bo billy, Philly. Ha! UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think by now, you`ve probably figured out we`re pretty excited. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President? BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Can I live? JON STEWART, DAILY SHOW: I guess my question to you, did I die? (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: So, if you`re Senator Rand Paul, and you`re running for president, what do you do when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a breach of protocol, is invited by the Republican speaker of the house to address a joint meeting of Congress? You could check with your father, who served in Congress for 22 years and ran for president three times. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MODERATOR: Congressman Paul, would you cut aid to Israel? THEN-REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally and fairly. And I don`t think aid to Israel actually helps them. I think it teaches them to be dependent. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Rand Paul could follow his father`s lead and strike out very boldly where no other presidential candidate would dare go, or, or he could fall in line with the other Republican presidential candidates, with Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, co-sponsoring a Senate resolution welcoming Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress. Rand Paul jumped at the chance of co-sponsoring that resolution himself, and all but extinguished the hope that we would hear any bold foreign policy statements from the next Paul for president campaign. Joining me now, David Corn, the Washington bureau chief for "Mother Jones" and an MSNBC political analyst, Krystal Ball, co-host of MSNBC`s "THE CYCLE", Eugene Robinson, columnist for "The Washington Post" and MSNBC political analyst, and Dorian Warren, Columbia University professor and MSNBC contributor. Gene Robinson, gone are the days of those exciting Paul for president pronouncements on foreign policy. EUGENE ROBINSON, THE WASHINGTON POST: That`s done for. I think it`s going to be rather tame this time around. You know, this is a guy who puts electability ahead of principle, apparently, or certainly ahead of his father`s principles. So, he`s going to fall in line. O`DONNELL: And, Krystal Ball, here we are seeing more respect shown to the leader of another country than the president of the United States. KRYSTAL BALL, THE CYCLE: Yes, that`s absolutely right, which is a very sad state of affairs, and I think fortunately has backfired on both the Republicans who invited Bibi Netanyahu here to address Congress, and also on Netanyahu himself. But on Rand Paul, this is the biggest question in terms of the Republican primary that they have for him. Can we stomach your views on foreign policy? And as you`re pointing out, he`s been very quick to move to a place that he feels the Republican primary electorate will be comfortable with, contrary to some of his previous statements. O`DONNELL: And, Dorian Warren, they don`t have all the Republicans co- sponsoring this yet in the Senate. It`s an interestingly, actually slow start for it. DORIAN WARREN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Very slow start, because it`s unprecedented. And it`s been interesting to watch the interaction between the president and the vice president. Vice President Biden is going to be away, the president obviously is going to be away. So, it`s been interesting to watch the interaction between the White House and the Senate Republicans, who are slowly moving along in terms of this invitation. We`ll see how this plays out, especially in the debates for the primary in 2016. O`DONNELL: David Corn, the polling in Israel makes it look like a bad thing politically for Bibi Netanyahu in Israel, his challenge to the president. That`s what it`s being perceived as. DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Well, the prime minister of Israel has two responsibilities. The first, of course, is to protect Israel. The second is to protect Israel`s relationship with the United States, which is part of the first priority. And by challenging Obama while he is still in office and still has a lot of discretion when it comes to helping or not helping Israel in all sorts of manners, has really, to put it technically, freaked out a lot of Israelis about what Netanyahu is doing, in the middle of an election campaign where he`s fighting for his life, his wife got involved in a scandal about returning bottles and getting deposits back, even though they belonged to the state. And so, he`s in big trouble. It`s backfired on him, backfired on Boehner. O`DONNELL: Gene Robinson, is Hillary Clinton feeling lucky she`s not still a senator and has to make up her mind about whether she`s going to attend Netanyahu`s speech? (LAUGHTER) ROBINSON: You bet. She can -- you know, she can spend that day, gee, off giving a paid speech if she wants. She can spend it however she wants. She doesn`t have to make that decision, and in fact, she is the happiest -- she`s got to be the happiest politician in America right now, because the strategy of kind of waiting and waiting and waiting and not announcing has worked wonderfully for her. She`s still the de facto nominee, and she hasn`t had to come out and state a position on really much of anything. So, you know, good on her. O`DONNELL: Yes. And reporters respect finding opportunities to chase her down, because she`s not out there in the streets of New Hampshire or Iowa. BALL: That`s right. O`DONNELL: Let`s take a look at the latest poll from New Hampshire, a Bloomberg poll, where Hillary Clinton is doing very well against potential Republican opponents in a general election this. There`s Hillary Clinton at 50, versus Jeb Bush at 36 in the state of New Hampshire which Barack Obama won twice. Hillary Clinton 50 percent, Walker at 37 percent, pretty much the same as Bush. Rand Paul doing a little bit better against Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire in a general election. A general election he`ll probably never get to. BALL: Yes. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: At 48-41. And, Krystal, so look, I don`t think there`s any arguing with Hillary Clinton`s strategy so far. BALL: Yes, I think that`s right. I mean, she`s not one to really go out on a limb typically in terms of her policy position. She likes to be tried sort of threaded carefully and faithfully as she can. So this strategy is very much in line with that strategy. In terms of the primary, right now, she doesn`t have a real serious contender, so she doesn`t feel like she needs to get on the record to appease any liberal base because there aren`t any real alternatives, that allows her to set herself up for where she wants to be in the general election. I would say, though, one note of caution to my Democratic friends and allies out there -- those polls can change very quickly and voters don`t like complacency. They don`t like a inauguration. So, we have to see, they don`t like, you know, a coronation rather. So, we have to see that she has a real reason for running, and that she doesn`t have the same sort of entitlement that voters sensed from her in 2008. O`DONNELL: She does not have any declared contenders certainly, but she does have Joe Biden in Iowa today. Let`s listen to what Joe Biden said today about running for president. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BIDEN: That`s a family personal decision that I`m going to make some time at the end of the summer. I`ve been here a lot. I have a lot of friends. I`m going to see some of my friends who are still in the legislature that are here today. But, no, I`m not doing any organization, if that`s what you mean. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: David Corn, he`s just visiting his friends in the legislature in Iowa, as every vice president does. BALL: Nothing to see here. CORN: I was going to do that next week, as well. That`s all he`s doing. It`s amazing how many friends politicians tend to have in New Hampshire and Iowa, a few in South Carolina, as well. I mean, I think -- you know, I hate handicapping these things, but I would be surprised if he runs. I know people have been part of the Biden operation in the past. He`s right. He`s not doing anything organizationally with donors and such. I think he likes to stay in the mix, though. Who wouldn`t want to stay in the mix? So, why say he`s not going to do it if he gets cameras following him in Iowa. O`DONNELL: Scott Walker, Governor Scott Walker, the latest rising star in Republican presidential hopes, turns out to be not ready for primetime, at least London primetime. Let`s take a look at how he gets laughed at for his handling of a question about evolution. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you accept it? GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: For me, I`m going to -- I`m going to punt on that one as well. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, really? WALKER: That`s a question a politician shouldn`t be involved in one way or the other. So, I`m going to leave that up to you -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any British politician, right or left wing, they would love -- and say, yes, of course, evolution is true. WALKER: To me, I said, it`s one of those I`m here to talk about trade, not pontificate on other issues. I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin. (END VIDEO CLIP) BALL: Oh, my God. O`DONNELL: Dorian, Governor Walker is a college dropout. So it may be that he didn`t quite get to that course yet before he dropped out. WARREN: Well, he kind of listened to Kanye West "College Dropout" album actually and got some advice on how to talk about this. This question is going to come up again in the Republican primary. Already, his campaign put out a statement saying that he believes faith and science are compatible and they`re not against each other. Well, he better massage that real quickly, as he`s going to get repeatedly asked that question, and along with the other Republican presidential contenders. BALL: Lawrence, you`ve got to come up -- when you don`t want to answer a question, there`s going to be lots of questions you don`t want to answer as a politician. You have to come up with something better than "I`m going to punt on that." (LAUGHTER) BALL: That`s the worst possible answer you can give. ROBINSON: In this case, the answer would have been yes, I believe in evolution. (CROSSTALK) CORN: Listen, I`ve done that -- that was refreshing to hear a politician to say, yes, I`m going to punt it, because I have no idea what to say. But when he says that evolution is not an issue for politicians, he`s wrong, though, because we have fights in states throughout this country about teaching evolution or not, and who gets to decide that? The politicians. So, I don`t know where he`s going with that one. He`s trying to absolve himself of having to have an idea on this important issue. O`DONNELL: David Corn gets the last word on that one. Thanks, guys. BALL: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Coming up, we have dramatic dash cam video shown in court today in the American sniper trial. That`s next. O`DONNELL: The most, the most obstructionist member of the United States Senate, the reigning king of the fake time wasting filibuster, the man who, until now, has believed it was his job to just say no said today that he has finally figured out the riddle of how to make the United States Senate function as a legislative body. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: The answer is for Senate Democrats not to be obstructionists. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Obstructionists. Coming up, a dramatic video in court today on day two of the American sniper trial. O`DONNELL: Today was day two of the murder trial of Eddie Ray Routh, the man accused of killing the real American sniper Chris Kyle and Chris Kyle`s friend, Chad Littlefield. Texas Ranger Michael Adcock responded to the gun range where Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield were killed. And today, with gloved hands, picked through boxed evidence during his testimony. Reuters quoted Ranger Adcock saying, "The only weapons on the scene loaded were two 1911 style hand guns." Adcock reportedly said the guns were on Kyle`s and Littlefield`s bodies, and both had their safeties on. Then the jury watched a dash cam video that began at Eddie Ray Routh`s home after about 20 or 30 minute-standoff with police there. That video was recorded by one of the responding officers and ends in Eddie Ray Routh`s arrest. Eddie Ray Routh took a series of fast turns seemingly trying to evade police in the first minute, then just sped along several residential streets. Less than three minutes into that chase, a second police car rammed Eddie Ray Routh as he turns a corner on a four-lane road. The two vehicles produce black smoke as they continue to scrape up against each other. Moments later, Eddie Ray Routh leads officers onto a highway and through high speed traffic. Police say Eddie Ray Routh was rammed for a second time. Something the dash cam did not clearly capture. And then the pickup truck slows down. Eddie Ray Routh finally stopped and simply got out of the truck, with his hands up. Officers ran toward him with their guns drawn, as he laid down on the pavement. He remained on the pavement for several minutes until the tape stopped playing in that courtroom today. Joining me now is NBC`s Charles Hadlock who monitored testimony for us at Stephenville, Texas. Also joining us, Brian Wice, a defense attorney in Dallas. Charles, the testimony today was just of the officers who responded? CHARLES HADLOCK, NBC NEWS: Pretty much. A lot of the day was taken up by the Texas ranger this morning who walked the jurors through what he saw at the crime scene, at the shooting range, the different caliber weapons, the bullet shells, the bullet casings, where the bodies were placed. And he also revealed that both men had their side arms still in their waist bands with the safeties on. So, they didn`t see this attack coming. Chris Kyle was shot six times it was revealed today, and Chad Littlefield was shot seven times. The medical examiner revealed today that any one of those single bullets would have been fatal to the men -- Lawrence. O`DONNELL: And the "Dallas Morning News" has an account about a second video that was shown in court, and that has apparently audio on it, and the suspect, Eddie Ray Routh, talked about hell, voodoo, and the apocalypse, everything is just happening so fast, I don`t know if I`m going insane. Routh can be heard telling a police officer this in his driveway, the conversation was recorded on a body cam one of the officers was wearing and through the driver`s window that evening, Routh talked to Lancaster police Detective Jesse Chevara, who was also his neighbor for about 25 minutes. Chevara tried to coax him out of the pickup truck, repeatedly reminding him of his parents, his safety and everybody goes through hard times. Brian Wice, what -- what is the defense burden here in establishing this insanity defense. You know, you have this testimony that will presumably come into the court of him talking about hell and voodoo in that situation. BRIAN WICE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Lawrence, because everybody is presumed to be sane, it`s the defense`s burden when they get the ball, probably in day or two, to show by a preponderance of the evidence, is it more likely than not that at the time of this incident, the defendant didn`t know the difference between right and wrong? And they`re going to do this. We`ve seen a little bit of it through the state`s case, that now famous text that Chris Kyle sent describing the defendant as just flat out nuts. We`re also going to see that burden subsumed by at least one defense expert who will testify in his or her expert opinion that this defendant didn`t know the difference between right and wrong. But right now, Lawrence, the defense is literally playing defense. The prosecution has the burden of proof, they get to open and close. And right now, all the defense can do is to minimize the damage the prosecution`s case in chief is inflicting on it so far. O`DONNELL: And, Brian, in an insanity defense, does the jury in Texas have any idea what will happen to the defendant if they find the defendant insane? WICE: No, and that`s a great question, Lawrence. The short answer is they do not. This jury can only surmise instructed in the court`s instructions that that`s really none of their business. But they will not know that this defendant, if he`s acquitted like any other defendant, does not get to catch the elevator with the jury when it`s over. That he will be transported to a locked down facility where he will remain until such time as this judge, who retains jurisdiction over that case, decides that he`s no longer a danger to himself or others. O`DONNELL: And, Charles Hadlock, I heard in the opening, the prosecutor`s opening statement, listening to the audio of it, which is the only audio we`ll probably have in the trial, he repeatedly said if he gets away with this -- he kept using phrases like that in his opening statement. The defense will have to prove this for him to get away with this, that kind of phrase. It was clearly designed to make the jury think, as Brian just said, that if you find him insane, he will walk out of this building with his lawyer. HADLOCK: That`s right. And as Brian said, that won`t happen. In fact, he will likely spend perhaps the rest of his life in a mental institution if he`s found not guilty by reason of insanity. But a couple of things have to happen, I`ll let Brian explain that. But one of them being he has to know right from wrong. That`s what they`re trying to determine right now, the jury is, as they hear this evidence. Basically, the conversations that they heard today on that body cam were all over the place. In fact, Routh would not roll down the window of the truck to talk to the detective because he said he wanted to keep his soul on this side of the glass. That`s the kind of conversation they were having for 20 or 30 minutes that night, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Well, that`s going to have to be the last word on it tonight. Thank you very much for joining me. Coming up, the biggest lie the American government tells about Cuba. O`DONNELL: President Obama is the surprising star of a new BuzzFeed video entitled "Things Everybody Does But Doesn`t Talk About." (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) (MUSIC) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The deadline for signing up for -- the deadline for signing up for health insurance is February -- Febru -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not like any other Wednesday. OBAMA: That`s not right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wednesday. OBAMA: February -- man. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wednesday. OBAMA: February 15th. February 15th. In many cases, you can get health insurance for less than $100 a month. Just go to healthcare.gov to figure out how to sign up. February 15th. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, Obama. OBAMA: Thanks, Obama. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s pretty good. OBAMA: That`s pretty good. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Seconds left in the game, down by one. He gets it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President? OBAMA: Can I live? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You do you. OBAMA: Yolo, man. All right. (END VIDEO CLIP) ILNYCKYJ: All right. O`DONNELL: Coming up, Netflix is coming to Cuba. Now, all the Cuban people need is enough bandwidth to actually use it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: "Axis of evil" was just a phrase, a dramatist`s touch for a speech. State Sponsor of Terrorism is an official status. It is a condemnation the United States puts in writing against other countries, and it does so very, very rarely. Iraq used to be on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, but not anymore. So, too, with North Korea, which President Bush removed from the list in 2008. We are left now with only four State Sponsors of Terrorism in the entire world, according to the United States government. Iran is one, Syria is another, Sudan is the third. And the fourth and final member of this very elite group, this group that is so hard to get into, should be the country that financed al Qaeda`s successful attacks on the United States on 9/11. Fifteen of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. "The New York Times" recently revealed that the official Congressional Intelligence Committee`s investigation into the 9/11 attacks found that Saudi Arabia was the principal financier of the attacks. That information resides in a section of the report that remains classified. But former Florida Senator Bob Graham insists that the 9/11 attacks, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden, who himself was a Saudi, were financed by Saudi Arabia. Former Senator Graham said this about the classified section of his report -- "The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11. And they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier." But that wasn`t enough to get Saudi Arabia on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. That`s how hard it is to get on that list. Financing 9/11 isn`t good enough to get you on that list. So, presidents of the United States of both parties, continue to treat the Saudi royal family as if they are not a family of dictators, and as if the 9/11 hijackers being Saudi was just a coincidence. And instead of putting Saudi Arabia where it belongs on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, the fourth and final slot on that list, the United States government simply tells the world a lie by putting Cuba in that slot. No major power has ever been uniformly admired by the membership of the United Nations. The United States does command some respect and admiration on many issues at the United Nations. But it has, for decades, been a worldwide laughing stock for its preposterous and completely unjustifiable embargo against Cuba. President Obama is the first American president to even begin to behave like an adult toward Cuba by working toward normalizing relations. But every word President Obama says to the world about terrorism, every attempt he makes to enlist world support in the effort against terrorism is undercut by keeping Cuba on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. It is simply a lie. And the world knows it`s a lie. Cuba should be removed from that list immediately, not as a concession to Cuba in negotiations to normalize relations. Cuba should be removed because it is a lie. The most important lesson that the American presidency should have learned by now about conducting a war on terror is that the worst thing, the very worst thing the United States can do is lie about who the enemy is and where the enemy is. President Obama, for his part, seems determined to stop the big lie about Cuba. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I`ve instructed Secretary Kerry to review Cuba`s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. This review will be guided by the facts and the law. Terrorism has changed in the last several decades. At a time when we are focused on threats from al Qaeda to ISIL, a nation that meets our conditions and renounces the use of terrorism should not face this sanction. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Alfredo Duran, who participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961 and was a prisoner of war in Cuba for 18 months. He is the former President of the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association. Also with us is Silvia Wilhelm, who arrived here in Florida from Cuba as an unaccompanied child in January of 1961 as part of an operation by a Catholic charity, which took thousands of children out of Cuba. Silvia Wilhelm is the President of CubaPuentes, which organizes travel to Cuba, consistent with current regulations. Alfredo, I want to get to the current situation involving U.S. and Cuba. But, as someone who participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion, it is just fascinating for us to just imagine what that was like. What was your role in it. And what was your hope for the invasion. ALFREDO DURAN, PARTICIPATED IN BAY OF PIGS INVASION: Well, my role in it was I was essentially a foot soldier. Then our expectations were that we`re going to win. O`DONNELL: Did you hit the beach. DURAN: Yes, I hit the beach and we fought for three days until we run out of ammunition, and I was captured after spending about 20 days running in the swamps, and spend 18 months in jail. The -- like I said, the expectation was we were going to win. But after three days, we ran out of ammunition or we couldn`t get ammunition -- O`DONNELL: And winning would be what. DURAN: Winning would be, have the plan being -- it was a great plan. It just didn`t work out. Had the plan had gone through, we were expecting that the underground in Cuba would, first of all, blow the bridges on the way to the front, to the Bay of Pigs. Secondly, that there would be an uprising of a sort in every city in Cuba, which was -- and thirdly, that we would march on to Havana from the Bay of Pigs -- O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. DURAN: -- without much opposition. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. DURAN: It didn`t turn out that way. First, after three days in the swamp, we ran out of ammunition. We had one ammunition drop, and they sent us bullets for an M1 rifle. And we didn`t have M1 rifle. We had Springfield rifles. So, it was complete debacle from the very beginning. O`DONNELL: And with the triumphant arrival in Havana, Castro would disappear? DURAN: You know, if I had to do it all over again, -- (LAUGHTER) -- I probably would not have done it. O`DONNELL: Is that right. (LAUGHTER) DURAN: At that time, we were sure that we were going to be received as conquering heroes by a population who wanted to get rid of Communism. Remember, we were in the middle of the Cold War. A lot of people -- that confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union was the thing that was running the world. And many of us just thought that the people would not stand for a Communist government, and that our arrival there would be the key to an uprising that would liberate Cuba from the Communist. O`DONNELL: And what`s your reaction to the normalization of relations that President Obama wants to do. DURAN: I think that, for the first time in 55 years, we have a foreign policy towards Cuba. Up until now, it`s been an electoral policy towards Cuba. It`s been the electoral votes of New Jersey and Florida, and the monetary contribution. For the first time, we have a policy that is -- you can consider foreign policy towards Cuba. It`s about time that it happened. You have to have a communication because things will be changing in Cuba. You only have the -- of the historicals, you only have two or three that are walking around. In very few years, you`re going to have a new generation taking over. And the United States should, by now, start having communications with these people. O`DONNELL: So, get an ambassador, get an embassy, get rid of the embargo, normalize. DURAN: Absolutely. The embargo is a failed policy and hasn`t worked in 55 years. O`DONNELL: When did you turn on the embargo. Bay of Pigs Invader, you turned on the embargo at what point. DURAN: When the Soviet Union disappeared, while we had that conflict -- it ended in `91 or `92, when the Soviet Union disappeared. I thought it was about time that we process -- a process of trying to bring about change with dialogue, with conversations in a peaceful manner, something that would be good for Cuba and good for the United States also. O`DONNELL: Sylvia, you came here to Florida as a child, fleeing that regime and here we are at this point with the President trying to normalize. What`s your reaction to them. SYLVIA WILHELM, CUBAPUENTES PRESDIENT: Absolutely delighted. And my congratulations to the Obama administration for having the guts and the vision to do like a -- O`DONNELL: Have you evolved on this issue like Alfredo has. WILHELM: I have evolved on the issue. I started evolving on the issue when I went to Cuba for the first time in 1994. When I went to Cuba, I realized that our policy was totally counterproductive and actually was cruel towards the Cuban people. And I started getting really deeper into the section. Alfredo actually is one of the people that convinced me actually to move in the direction of normalization. He`s been ahead of the game in the community for years and years and years. My congratulations to him. So, you know, this is incredible that we are finally doing what we`re supposed to do. O`DONNELL: You now organize legal trips to Cuba within the regulations. What is your impression of the community here in Miami, the Cuban community`s view of it now. For many years, decades, and the rest of the country, I think people looked here and thought, "Well, they`re kind of uniform against any kinds of dealings with Cuba at all." WILHELM: We have never been a monolithic community. That`s the bottom line. And I think, if you really pay attention to the polls right now, you will realize that the majority of Cuban-Americans are for normalizing relations with Cuba, for traveling to the Island, for doing something different than we have done for the last 54 years, which has been a total failure. O`DONNELL: We`re going to take a quick break and come back to this. And there could be some disagreement when we come back. We will be right back. We`re joined now by Sebastian Arcos, CSD Associate Director of the Cuban Research Institute. Sebastian was born in Havana, Cuba in 1961, who joined the Cuban Committee for Human Rights, the first independent Cuban human rights organization, and was then held as a political prisoner for nearly a year. In 1992, he was allowed to leave Cuba for the United States. Sebastian Arcos, what is your reaction to President Obama`s attempt to normalize relations with Cuba. SEBASTIAN ARCOS, FORMER POLITICAL PRISONER IN CUBA: I believe it`s a mistake. I believe the President is rushing into changing an outstanding policy without taking into consideration the nature of the regime and the reality on the ground. And I think that mistake is going to cost, perhaps, that the Cuban transition to democracy that we`re all hoping for might be delayed more than what we would like to. O`DONNELL: And how do you distinguish between the United States` relations with Cuba and, say, its relations with Saudi Arabia, which is a much harsher dictatorship than Cuba is now certainly. How does Cuba get special and unique status in our diplomatic relations. ARCOS: Well, you have to look at the history of the conflict between the two countries. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. policy is rooted on Castro`s -- Fidel Castro`s hostility against the United States and the confiscation of all U.S. properties on the island in 1961 over a billion dollars at the time. The policy solidified after the 1962 missile crisis, when Cuba became a satellite of the Soviet Union and it remained in place for most of the last 50 years because Cuba continued behaving as part of the Soviet satellite. And, actually, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba has continued to be a country that is very hostile to U.S. policy, not only in Latin America, where it`s hidden guerrilla movements all over the continent, but also in other parts of the world. O`DONNELL: And do you think it should be on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. ARCOS: Absolutely, it should be. Cuba supported terrorists all over Latin America as I explained before. It supported terrorists from Europe. And just less than two years ago, Cuba committed the worst violation to the arms embargo against North Korea with a shipment of arms that was intercepted in Panama. So, they`re still at it. O`DONNELL: Silvia, how would you respond to that. WILHELM: Well, I think Sebastian is still frozen in time. I think we`ve seen a different rhetoric coming from the government of Cuba, as we have seen a different rhetoric coming from the government of the United States. This is a new moment. I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and see if, by renewing diplomatic relations, we could get to a better place -- relations between the two governments. O`DONNELL: You know, Alfredo, when I hear Sebastian and others say, "Well, you have to look at the history of the relationship with Cuba," I think of -- well, how about the history of our relationship with Germany or Japan, where we actually went to war or, more recently, Vietnam, where 55,000 Americans were lost at war. We went to war with Vietnam during the Cuban embargo, where we never went to war Cuba. We got over that pretty quickly, the war with Vietnam. DURAN: Listen, the reality is exactly that -- that countries behave in what is their best interest at time. The Cuba policy has never functioned that way. Cuba policy has been the embargo policy, which has always been domestically, politically-orientated -- electoral votes, like I said before in New Jersey and Florida. For the past 55 years, we`ve been supporting a policy that has not worked. If we continue on that policy, we`re going to spend another 55 years with a policy that will not work. So, therefore, some changes have to be brought about. O`DONNELL: Sebastian Arcos, what`s your response to that. I`m sure you`ve heard many times people saying the embargo in the policy hasn`t worked for over 50 years. ARCOS: Well, it`s simply blaming the policy for something that it was not designed to do. The embargo was not designed for regime change. The embargo was a policy to contain Cuba. The same way had a policy of containment against the Soviet Union that lasted for about 45 years before it worked. So, criticizing the embargo for not toppling the regime of Fidel Castro is like criticizing the Apollo program for not landing on Mars. It was not designed for that. It was designed for a different purpose. Now, the rhetoric coming out of the Cuban regime has changed a little. But listen now to what they say, look at what they do. They continue to behave in exactly the same way that they have behaved before, particularly against the Cuban people inside the island. When we look at Vietnam, it was Vietnam that approached the United States with an interest of improving relations. And there is, of course, a strategic interest for the United States to normalize relations with Vietnam, Vietnam and China are traditional enemies. So, there is a solid reason there. Vietnam had made tremendous advances economically by reforming the economy. They have not, however, made any important political reforms. But, yet, when we look at Cuba and compare the two countries -- Cuba and Vietnam, the Cuban regime has not made even a fraction of the reforms, the economic -- again, reforms that the Vietnamese have made. O`DONNELL: Silvia, how do you respond to that, especially the question of "Look at Cuba. Look what they do as opposed to what they say." When you look at what they do, what Raul Castro has been doing over the last few years, what are the positive signs that you see in what they`re doing. WILHELM: Well, I travel to Cuba on a regular basis. I was just back from Cuba Monday. And I can just state absolutely, emphatically, that there isn`t a person in Cuba that I have met -- and I`m talking -- I talk to all kinds of people in Cuba, all right, that are not enthusiastic about this new moment, enthusiastic about Obama`s new approach to a policy with Cuba. And there has been enormous changes in economic reforms in Cuba. Look at all the people that are now in private industries in Cuba -- from the paladares, the taxi drivers, the bread and breakfasts. Every time I go, more and more people are involved in private entrepreneurship. I think, 40 percent of Cuban economy now is driven by private enterprise. So, I think, we definitely are seeing a change on the ground in Cuba towards a more less government-run economic model, and more driven by private enterprise. Give it time. It will get nothing but bigger and bigger. O`DONNELL: That will have to be the last word on it tonight. Silvia Wilhelm, Alfredo Duran, Sebastian Arcos, thank you all very much for joining me tonight. ARCOS: Thank you. O`DONNELL: We`ll be right back. The Democratic Party announced today the site of the 2016 Democratic National Convention. It is the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, which will feel more like the City of Sisterly Love when Hillary Clinton accepts the Democratic presidential nomination there on July 28th, 2016. The last nominating convention held in Philadelphia produced this general election winner. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: We are now the party of ideas and innovation, the party of idealism and inclusion, the party of a simple and powerful hope. My fellow citizens, we can begin again. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Up next, how Lorne Michaels convinced NBC to do "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" 40 years ago. O`DONNELL: This weekend, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" will celebrate its 40th anniversary in a special -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- Sunday night version of "SNL." In an exclusive interview, the "TODAY SHOW`s" Matt Lauer asked "SNL" Creator and Executive Producer Lorne Michaels how he convinced NBC to do the show. MATT LAUER, NBC HOST: Do you remember the original pitch meeting for this show. LORNE MICHAELS, SNL CREATOR AND EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: There was no original pitch meeting. (LAUGHTER) LAUER: There was no pitch? You didn`t have to go to the network and say, "Let me tell you what I`m thinking about." MICHAELS: Yes, but everybody used the word, "bold" and "experimental" and, you know, "new." And, you know, no one knew what it was going to be because I had never done live. And they hadn`t done live here since the early `60s. LAUER: Why did they trust you. MICHAELS: I think they -- (LAUGHTER) -- I don`t know why they trusted me. LAUER: One of the other things that people say about you all the time, -- MICHAELS: Uh-huh. LAUER: -- you have a brilliant eye for talent. MICHAELS: Yes. LAUER: As it always been thus? MICHAELS: The criteria I used when I was hiring people is, if it was 2:00 o`clock in the morning and I was walking down the hall and I saw them, would I want to duck -- (LAUGHTER) -- into another office. (END VIDEO CLIP) LOAD-DATE: February 13, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021201cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 60 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 13, 2015 Friday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 13, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Julia Boorstin GUESTS: John Nichols, Larry Cohen, William Barber, Michael Brune, Jane Kleeb, John Fugelsang SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7432 words HIGHLIGHT: Senator Marco Rubio is attempting to make up ground in the presidential polls by taking a page out of Governor Scott Walker`s playbook. Inspiration from the big screen reignites a powerful movement for equality in the South. Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber announced he`s resigning following allegations of ethics violations involving his fiancee. He`ll be replaced by Secretary of State Kate Brown, who will become America`s first openly bisexual Governor. A new study indicates the American Southwest and Great Plains will face a mega-drought during the second half of the century. ED SCHULT, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show Live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tonight, Marco Rubio does his best Scott Walker impersonation. GOV. SCOTT WALKER, (R) WISCONSIN: Marco is a great guy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The guys who were showing stuff right now are Scott Walker... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... and Marco Rubio. (OFF-MIKE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He took on the unions and he survived. SCHULTZ: The race is on to become the most anti-union candidate for 2016. (OFF-MIKE) SCHULTZ: And later, North Carolina becomes the new Selma. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We must not... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m glad to see us standing for what`s right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It will take a massive demonstration of our moral (inaudible). SCHULTZ: Plus, mega-drought. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The record-breaking drought. SCHULTZ: The scientists say it`s on the way. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If climate change continues (inaudible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It might not be anything like we`ve seen in a thousand years. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. So the question for the 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls is who could be the best union buster in the bunch. I`ll tell you what. These presidential hopefuls are trying harder than ever to position themselves with the right-wingers so they`ll get the victory. Senator Marco Rubio is in deep trouble, falling way behind in recent polls. Now his solution is a legislative attack on unions trying to sell it as good for wages. Scott Walker is leading the polls in Iowa among Republican caucus-goers at 16 percent. Florida Senator Marco Rubio is in a distant 9th place with 4 percent. So what he going to do? Well, Rubio is trying to makeup those points by taking a page out of Walker`s playbook and that`s exactly what he`s doing. On Thursday, Rubio released his, Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees Act. Now the bill is cosponsored by a Republican Congressman out of Indiana, Todd Rokita. Now, their bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act. So if it gets to the Senate, if it goes this far, all the righties are going to be onboard with this. This is red meat to Lamar Alexander because they`ve never like the National Labor Relations Board anyway. Now, overall, this would affect 7.6 million unionized workers in this country. The bill would allow employers to give merit-based wage increases to individual employees. That really sounds good, doesn`t it? Rubio`s website says that that RAISE Act would essentially make wages set in union contracts a minimum floor while giving employers the flexibility to reward diligent employees for their hard work. That`s where it really sounds good. But let`s get into the devil of the detail here. The bill sounds great on paper but it is a union buster and that`s what they loved to do. The legislation is designed to corrupt the collective bargaining process. This creates a climate in the workplace that sets the table for, I believe discrimination. I thought we passed all that. This would give companies the template for undercutting any collective bargaining agreement and cash sweeping any employee to go against the unions the next time around. Unions work because there is a solid agreement between all employees and their employer, and don`t forget there`s a vote. You got to unratify union contract. This bill drives a wedge between union management and union workers because workers are going to sit and say, well, gosh, do I really need to do this? And allow employers to pick and choose favorites. Think about that. What if the boss finds out what your politics is all about or what your situation is personally? What if you`re a gay American? What if there`s some discrimination (inaudible)? Well I`m going to give this person a raise. I really don`t like that person. Discrimination is written right into this bill. It creates multiple classes of workers, pitting workers against each other. What`s fair what isn`t? The bill could create a multiple tiered collective bargaining system which is just going to muddy the waters. The bill does nothing but mangle and undermine the relationship between unions and employees. That`s going to hurt workers in a long run as a whole. Now, the Congressman from Indiana, Rokita, is already trying to tie this bogus bill to the minimum wage discussion. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TODD ROKITA, (R) INDIANA: It`s also perhaps not direct answer to, but certainly a pivot for this whole idea about minimum wage which we know doesn`t work. I want employers to hire more people not less. And of course, as we know raising the minimum wage does the opposite of that. But what a great answer this could be to that discussion, whether it`s at the dinner table or talking across the country or even in the world in a forum like this. Answer to the minimum wage, yes. The way to put more money in people`s pocket is through something like the RAISE Act. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Did you hear that folks? He says, minimum wage doesn`t work, really? I don`t know where these Republicans come up with these business theories that it`s bad to put money in a worker`s pocket. And what do they have against workers? This bill that they`re talking about, that Rubio and this guy from Indiana has come up where there`s no substitute for federal minimum wage increase. But of course don`t let Republicans fool you. In the end, the RAISE Act will potentially weaken union. That is the mission here. It will end up lowering wages in the long run. It will pick and choose, it will set discrimination guidelines and this is what Republicans have wanted all along. They want dysfunction in the workplace. I mean if they are for this, how could they be against raising the minimum wage? This is government intrusion into the workplace where all employees aren`t going to be represented. It takes fairness and throws it right off the back door. Gets your cellphones out, I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Is Senator Marco Rubio trying to destroy unions?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com and we`ll bring you the results later on in this show. I`ve just never seen so many Republicans all of the sudden be so concern about collective bargaining. For more, let me bring in John Nichols with us tonight from the Nation Magazine. Also with us this evening is Larry Cohen, President of the Communication Workers of America. Gentlemen, great to have you with us... JOHN NICHOLS, THE NATION MAGAZINE: Pleasure. SCHULTZ: Larry, you first. Where is the merit here? What am I missing? What`s good about what you`re hearing? LARRY COHEN, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA: Nothing. It`s an outrage. 80 percent of American workers haven`t had a raise in 30 years including their predecessors in their jobs when you take into account inflation. Productivity has soared in that time and none of that has shared with the workers. So he`s concerned about the 6 percent of American workers that have collective bargaining not the 94 percent that haven`t seen a raise in years and years. Now, within the union contracts, we have 2,000 employers in our union alone. There are dozens of examples of productivity-based pay increases. The basic pay rates sets a floor and then production can determine how much individual workers get. And in many areas, the discretion goes beyond that but its objective and there`s a process for it instead of this willy-nilly. But the idea that he would argue, that he`s going to help American workers by focusing on 6 percent when the other 94 percent haven`t had raises in decades. It`s an outrage. SCHULTZ: Pretty amazing. Now, one more question, Mr. Cohen, on this. Doesn`t this set the table for discrimination? Doesn`t this set the table for playing favorites that if the boss likes you, you`re going to get the raise, if the whole department as working we`re going to, you know, make it look good and isn`t this a union busting tool here? COHEN: I think he thinks it will be union busting tool. But again, the problem that he runs into is that the other 90 -- more than 90 percent of American workers in the private sector don`t have collective bargaining. And this is in fact, how the do get paid. And in fact, when they even discuss pay with each other, they can be reprimanded and even fired for doing it. So if he is really concerned about American workers, he should be doing that. But yes, his intent is clearly solely to put the focus on those 6 percent and to try to bust the unions that we do have. The lowest percentage... SCHULTZ: Johnny... COHEN: ... of any democracy in the world. SCHULTZ: And that is an amazing statement in it self. John Nichols, what`s the political play here for Marco Rubio? Why now? NICHOLS: Well, Marco Rubio has a book out. He is busily trying to position himself for his presidential race or his hope for presidential race. The problem is he is way behind in the polls nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire. The interesting thing is that Marco Rubio didn`t count on Scott Walker coming in so strong and really pulling a lot of those people looking for a new face. So Rubio is doing the old political trick which is trying to steal a page from somebody who is ahead of him. In this case though, I think it`s important to see this not just as presidential politics, it`s that but it is increasingly a part of the Republican template for 2016. They are making assaults on labor rights. A major part of their campaign, a major part of their message, you`re seeing happening in Ohio, you`re seeing happening in Wisconsin again, you`re seeing right-to-work battle all over. And here is the -- or I should say right-to-work for the less. And here is the really vital, the vital final component of this. What`s going on in the presidential race is a sort of Orwellian rewrite of the language, a suggestion that minimum wage doesn`t work and -- but some how messing with union contracts for people who get paid more will work. It`s reversing the... SCHULTZ: Yeah. NICHOLS: ... entire order of the discussion. SCHULTZ: Well, if they`re so concerned about minimum wage, Mr. Cohen, why don`t they do something about it? COHEN: Yeah. That`s exactly what they should be doing and that would give a pay raise to at least 5 million Americans. And again, the whole world has minimum wages. This idea that somehow we want to go back to 19th century economics with the invisible hand, I don`t think most of Americans want to go back to 1800s. We want 21st century labor policy and Americans even in red states voted for minimum wages in referendum after referendum even in the last election. SCHULTZ: John, they`ve made no bones about the fact that they want to get rid of the national labor relation board. And so, it seems to me that this is just chip away, chip away, chip away. Your thoughts on that, I mean, this is an orchestrated all out effort in this campaign coming up isn`t it? NICHOLS: I think so. I think their trying to make it a real sort of core issue for the Republicans. And frankly, a suggestion that somehow you`re going to get a more prosperous American by getting rid of labor law, getting rid of labor protections. Now, this is a real change for the Republican Party. I can tell you as somebody who`s working on history the Republican Party that there was a time not that long ago where Republicans senators like Jacob Javits and other and even President Eisenhower we`re bragging about helping unions and being favorable and friendly to unions. Now, we end up in a situation where the groups that actually do, do a lot to raise peoples` wages to improve condition in the work place are under assault by one of our parties. It really is a harmful politics. SCHULTZ: Well, it`s going to pit workers against workers and it`s going to create situations. I mean, if this bill were to past, if it wasn`t filibustered. It probably going to pass to House, you know, and it`s probably going to get move in the Senate and it may have to, you know, their going to some conservative Democrats that might look at this thing. I think this could end as a filibuster and I think that the President is going to end up having to weigh in on this. And it might bring us back to a real focus on minimum wages. But it also shows me that Marco Rubio doesn`t know his rear-end from third base when comes to business. Does he even know what climate is like in a union shop, what a union worker suppose to do? Break rank and go into the boss and say, "Hey, I`m doing a better job everybody else you going to give me a raise". Does -- we just doesn`t understand the function of the whole thing. Larry, what about that? COHEN: You nailed it, he doesn`t understand it. I don`t think he cares as John said in the last platform. They basically -- the Republican Party at their last convention with Romney basically said, let`s get rid of collective bargaining. Yet in 1976, the last time the National Labor Relation Act was extended to hospital workers, Gerald Ford Championed it, signed the bill and Republicans voted for it. So what we see is an ideology from the right-wing talking over that party. And we will fight it on the shop floor and in the offices, and we`ll fight it politically as well. SCHULTZ: And I would just want to go back to your original comment Mr. Cohen saying that there are opportunities for contracted, collected bargained employees to do better than what they`re doing right now. And I would venture to say that Rubio probably doesn`t been know that. COHEN: That`s right. And almost all of our contracts that does kinds of things exist. SCHULTZ: I`d like to know how many paychecks he`s ever written out for workers. I think we got to the fundamental of this. How much does he really know about business? John, I don`t believe he has a record of business, does he? NICHOLS: Well, like awfully lot of these Republican candidates, he has a record in politics. Aside from Scott Walker, he`s one of the longest political careerists in this race. He was a legislator before he became a senator and, you know, look public service can be very, very honorable. But the fact to the matter is that we got a lot of people running around saying they want to run government like a business, they want to do things in more... SCHULTZ: Yeah. NICHOLS: ... efficient ways. But messing with labor contracts from above and from outside, that`s not something that make sense in a business setting and it certainly not something that make sense for raising wages and improving the condition of American workers. SCHULTZ: Gentlemen, good to have you with us. John Nichols of the Nation Magazine, Larry Cohen President of the Communication Workers of American. Keep up the fight my friends. Thanks so much. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen, share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us on Facebook. You can follow us @WeGotEd as well. We always want to know what you think and we appreciate your comments. Coming up. Inspiration from the big screen reignites a powerful movement for equality in the south, Reverend William Barber joins us. Plus, Dire new warnings about climate change and a mega-drought like nothing we`ve even seen as what scientist are talking about. The stories` coming up. Stay with us we`ll right back at the Ed Show. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thousands of activists have a date in Raleigh, North Carolina this Valentines Day. At this year`s Moral March -- for love and justice, the march kicks off a new year of activism and protest for the Moral Monday Movement. Moral Monday activists have spent years fighting the people whose rights have come under attack by North Carolina`s Republican controlled legislature. This year particularly important for the movement, this fall North Carolina`s Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis defeated incumbent Democratic Kay Hagan for the United States Senate seat. Tillis is responsible for some of the states most extreme right-wing policies. The Governor of Raleigh, -- Pat McCrory is also for reelection in 2016. North Carolina is set to be pivotal battleground state this election cycle. And make no mistake it isn`t just about North Carolina. This movement speaks to Americans across the Nation. Last year, somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 people from 32 states turned out to have their voices heard. This year`s march will focus on issues ranging from voting rights, to the need to expand Medicaid and of course dealing with minimum wage. Joining me tonight is Reverend William Barbar. He is the President of the North Carolina NAACP. Reverend, always great to have you with us. I want to ask you first about the movie Selma and in what impact this has had? You have been quoted in saying that North Carolina is the new Selma. Are things coming together and emotions being sparked with the touch of history in a real reminder about what the Civil Rights Movement was all about? What about that? REV. WILLIAM BARBER, NORTH CAROLINA NACCP: Well, no doubt. Yeah. And first, thank you for having us. You know, when we look at the extreme turn here in North Carolina and we look at what has happened and we look at the fact that North Carolina, we have the first case after the Shelby decision. On July the 6th, we`ll be in federal court, 30 days exactly to the date when the Voting Rights Act was signed. We must win this case and we`re fighting to win this case, but when we see people coming together more about 180 organizations now, thousands of people who are fighting back against the regressive tide that this legislation has denied Medicaid expansion. They denied raising the minimum wage. They denied earned income tax credit. They cut money for public education and they passed the worst voter suppression laws we`ve seen since the 1960. This is a battle and Selma for us is not just a movie, this is our Selma. We have to stay and we have to fight back now. SCHULTZ: So what`s going to be different between -- in this election cycle as opposed to the last one? Are you going to be able to get more people involved? BARBER: No doubt. One of the things we learned from this election is, you know, Thom Tillis didn`t win the Senate but think about it. He won 49 percent of the vote, 51 percent of voted against him. We are the only state where incumbent Tea Party members of the State General Assembly actually lost because there`s a movement here. We`re saying to progressives, we don`t endorse candidate but you got to run. You can`t run away from your record and you have to stand. We also found -- we also see ourselves where they`ve passed the worst voter suppression. They threw $100 million at us and the best they could do is a 1.3 percent victory, 30 votes per precinct. That`s how we run the state, people are not discouraged. They`re saying we`re going to register. We`re going to organize. We`re going to fight. We`re going to be in the courts. We`re going to be in the street. We`re going to mobilize. In 2016, we will be a major battle right here in North Carolina and I don`t see people wanted to turn back at all. Thousands of people will turn out tomorrow. We`ve been in the legislature everyday this week, everyday this week. Young people, culture artist, people had a die-in yesterday over Medicaid expansion. We`re fighting to raise the minimum wage. We, in fact, we said to Republic, you put much (ph) amendment on the ballot. Put money amendment on the ballot and let the people vote on raising the minimum wage and indexing it with inflation. We are in this for the long haul. We are not in this for just a moment. We`re in this for a -- movement. SCHULTZ: How many people are you expecting tomorrow, Reverend? BARBER: Well I can tell you, we already have more busses lined up than we had last year. Last year, it was 80,000 to 100,000 people, but Ed, we`re also doing something else. We`ve had 200 events around the state since 2013 all around the state. We`re organizing. We had -- in 60 counties now in North Carolina, so it`s not only the people that show up tomorrow which I believe will be in the thousands. We are building local power. We are going into the districts of the new speaker and Senate Leader Verga (ph) who is anti-labor, anti, you know, programs that help the poor. We`re going to be organizing right in their districts but I can tell you, I`m hearing the people that coming from all over the state. They are all different colors, races, creeds, sexuality. I`m on my way now to in a religious, interfaith ecumenical group with Muslims and Christians and Jewish, people -- and Hindu coming together. SCHULTZ: Yeah. BARBER: People are standing up. They recognize, this is the moment. This is the moment. 50 years after Selma, this is the moment and this is the moment right here in North Carolina and we are committed not to lose this battle. SCHULTZ: Reverend, describe the Republicans, their attitude in North Carolina, do you communicate with them? Do you go visit with Republican lawmakers? What do they say to you? How abstinent are they? Are they movable? Are they workable on any of these issues you`re concerned about? BARBER: Well some of them they`re not, some of them we`re going to have bit them in the court, some of them who we`re going to have to shift the consciousness. You know, the state is changing because of this movement. When we started, only 40 percent of North Carolinians versus one at (ph) Medicaid expansion now over 58 percent want it. When we started, people didn`t want to raise taxes in order to fund teachers but now a 61 some percent of North Carolinians said they would be willing to raise taxes in order to pay teachers. So we are seeing a shift and people want a minimum increase, but they`re -- Ed, the problem is that not Republicans. Now, we have a Republican Mayor in Belhaven who is working with us on Medicaid expansion at Sadar (ph) Hospital, but what we have in North Carolina are extremists, they`re not Eisenhower Republicans, they are not Teddy Roosevelt that Republican, they`re not Lincoln Republican. They are extremists. They are against everything except giving tax cuts to the wealthy, making sure people can get a gun easy than they can -- than register to vote. That seems to be their entire platform. SCHULTZ: Sure. BARBER: The rest of it Ed, is deny, deny, deny. Deny Republican case, deny labor rights, deny immigrant rights, deny Medicaid expansion. It makes no sense and people are beginning to see how it`s detrimental to all people. SCHULTZ: All right. Reverend William Barber, it`s always great to have you with us. Great work, keep it up. We`ll follow these marches and see what kind of impact they have and I know they will. Thank you Reverend. I appreciate your time tonight on the Ed Show. Coming up, the link between climate change and a mega-drought, it`s in the forecast. Plus, look at the NBC All-Stars or should I say, yeah, the NBC, not just the NBA All-Stars in the two-minute drill. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. And there`s other news tonight. Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber announced today that he is resigning from his position. The Governor has been plagued by an ethics scandal involving his wife. Oregon first lady Cylvia Hayes was guiding state employees on the implementation of a new policy while allegedly doing private consulting work for a group pushing the same policy. Kitzhaber has been under increasing pressure to resign even from Democrats. He said in the statement today that he was sad a person could be tried and convicted in the media. Kitzhaber went on to say, "I understand that I have become a liability to the very institutions and policies to which I have dedicated my career and, indeed, my entire adult life." Kitzhaber has served as Oregon`s Governor since 2011. His successor will be Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown. Brown will be the nation`s first openly bisexual Governor. Stick around, Rapid Response Panel coming up. We`re right back on the Ed Show. JULIA BOORSTIN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Julia Boorstin with your CNBC Market Wrap. Market ending higher from back to back weekly gain. Dow closed about 18,000 for the first time this year, while the S&P jump 8 points to hit an all-time high. The NASDAQ was up 36 points in matching a ties from DoCoMo New data shows the eight remaining casinos in Atlantic City saw a nearly 19 percent increase in revenue last month. The overall revenue from internet gaming slot machines and table games came in on over $197 million. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We`ve got two stories in this blog tonight about climate change and they are related. A new study shows southwestern portion of the United States is on course for a mega-drought unless we make some changes. The study release by Science Advances says a mega-drought will last for decades or longer. It says mega-droughts should be considered a natural hazard on par with earthquakes and hurricanes. They are caused primarily by human induced global warming. Scientists, those who know, say reducing greenhouse gas emissions lowers the risk of a mega-drought. Now, with a business as usual scenario where worldwide greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course, the risk of a mega-drought goes up 80 percent between the years 2050 and 2100. Conservative lawmakers seemed to be extremely comfortable with business as usual no matter what science you throw to them. Now, they`re getting their pockets lined by the oil and gas industry. Republicans in Congress voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline to be built while denying its potential negative environmental impacts. In the State Department, study was flawed. On Wednesday, the House passed the Keystone XL bill with vote of 270-152. President Obama made it clear that he plans to veto the doggone thing. And it`s really political theatre in a big ways to taxpayer of dollars at this point because there`s other issues around it. The pipeline`s progress is being held up on a local level. Nebraska landowners got a big winning court on Thursday. A Nebraska judge issued a temporary injunction barring TransCanada from using eminent domain of taking the land. The landowners will not be forced to sell rights to TransCanada for construction of the pipeline. This pipeline can`t be build unless those landowners say, come into my land and do it, or if they exercise their right to keep them out. Now think about this. You`ve got the House and the Senate that have put a lot of energy into passing this and they finally got it done. You got all kinds of money, of special interest money floating around. Mitch McConnell talks about a lot of crazy special interest out there want the Keystone Pipeline stopped, yet all of these senators are taking a quarter of million dollars from the oil and gas industry. Is that not special interest? Joining me now in our Rapid Response Panel Michael Brune, he is the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, also with us tonight, Jane Kleeb, Executive Director of Bold Nebraska. You know, in some strange way, I`m really glad that this has gotten to this point that it`s going to the President`s desk that the House of the Senate has passed it. Because now a lot of people in the country think, well, I guess we`re going to get Keystone and then they wake up to this. Well, wait a minute, there`s a property rights issue in Nebraska, not so fast. And this may draw a lot of people into the conversation and pay more attention to it because people when they have property they value it. Jane, what`s your reaction to this injunction and give us a time table at this point. JANE KLEEB, EXEC. DIR. BOLD NEBRASKA: Yeah. So we actually had a lot of happy landowners yesterday when a judge told TransCanada they cannot use eminent domain in our state which was very good news. Because if the President were to have granted a permit to TransCanada on the federal level that means -- or rejected a permit on the federal level, that means TransCanada could have literally turned around, Ed, and sold those easements to any pipeline company. Could have been a pipeline company in Iran, China, wherever. So it`s a huge state of property rights. And so, the time table now is the President is essentially is going to get a bill on his desk from Congress, maybe on the 23rd or 24th of February. He`ll have 10 days to veto that bill which we are confident he will do. The question mark that we have is, will he veto the bill and also reject the presidential permit because he has to do both of those things at the same time. So we`re not sure about that piece. But we could have a decision really at the end of February or early March. What`s the next legal step, Jane, for those who want the pipeline now that this judge has made the ruling? KLEEB: For Nebraska, this essentially is now headed back to the Supreme Court. Really the only reason we lost in the Supreme Court was on a technicality reason. Meaning that, the landowners didn`t have standing. They weren`t injured yet by TransCanada. TransCanada hadn`t yet invoked eminent domain on them. Now that they have, this case is going back to the Supreme Court. We feel very confident we`re going to win there which means TransCanada is back to square one. They will not have a route in Nebraska and they will not have eminent domain rights. And so, you`re looking at a two to three-year process here in Nebraska if TransCanada wants to try to get a permit. SCHULTZ: OK. Mike, what do you make of the oil and gas industry cash sweeping these U.S. Senators? I mean, this is special interest as it gets, isn`t it? MICHAEL BRUNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SIERRA CLUB: Yeah. You know, what we`re seeing is we`re seeing some of the riches companies, riches industries in the history of the world who are trying to buy policies and policy makers at the same time. Now, what is happening is that you have almost the entire party that is voting against the interest of their constituents, against their own economic interest of their constituents and against where we want to go to in this country. You know, the other piece of news that we`ve seen this week is a jobs report coming from solar industry that says that 21 time -- the solar industry is creating 21 times the amount of jobs that -- compared to the rest of the economy. So, we need to move beyond Keystone, we need to move beyond this particular pipeline. SCHULTZ: Yeah. BURNE: This pipeline is not in the interest of Nebraska landowners. It`s not in our national interest. We going to get the beyond this and address the bigger concerns that this study comes out about the threat of droughts, the threat of wildfires and the threats of climate disruption around the world. SCHULTZ: Here`s what Speaker Boehner said about Keystone pipeline earlier this week. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: Keystone has been reviewed and approved numerous times. Even the president`s own State Department will say that it creates 42,000 new jobs. But instead of listening to the people, the president is standing with a bunch of left-fringe extremists and anarchists. The President needs to listen to the American people and say "Yes. Let`s build the Keystone pipeline". (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Mike is the Sierra Club filled with anarchist? BRUNE: No. You know, we`re filled with scientist and teachers and neighbors just people who live down the street, you know, and I`m not an anarchist, I`m not an extremist, I`m a father of young children and I believe that our country should be powered with energy that is safe and secure and sustainable and that we can do this, we can actually put more people to work and clean up our air and our water and stabilize our climate with the same set of clean energy solutions. But what you hear from Boehner, what you see coming from the Koch brothers and the Tea Party is taking us in the opposite direction. Anytime that you can get Nebraska ranchers and farmers together with scientist from around the world together with teachers, and the student, and activist, and investors, all around to setup solutions, you know, you`ve got something that`s compelling and we know that we`re going to be successful it`s only a matter of time. SCHULTZ: This report that has come out from Science Advances just makes me think about this situation. This was the scene 80 years go this April. It`s famously known as the "Dirty `30s", a dustfall drought extended from South Dakota and one all the way across the country of the east coast, agricultural prices dropped and American fell on hard times economically. Jane, when you hear that we`re going to have massive droughts in this kind of conversation is coming from scientist. How does that ring you ears? I mean, that just to make your fight even that much greater doesn`t it. JANE KLEEB, EXEC. DIR. BOLD NEBRASKA: No questions. So we have a lot of old timers who will tell stories of their grandparents and the great grandparents struggling without water and the Ogallala Aquifer is critical resource which the Keystone XL puts directly at risk. The University of Nebraska came out with a climate change report also and essentially said if we keep ongoing down the status quote path of this old dirty outdated energy, 30 percent of our crops are going to be at risk. And so, if you -- if farmers and ranchers who`re already living on the edge of kind of making sure that they`re making a profit on their small family farm and ranchers. If you take out 30 percent of their profits they`re done. And they`re only thing that`s holding up Nebraska economy. So our Governor, our members of Congress have got to start getting on the path. We know what the problem is. SCHULTZ: Yeah. KLEEB: The problem is fossil fuels. So let`s start to come up with more solutions. SCHULTZ: Michael -- Absolutely. Michael, your reaction to this report I mean, we haven`t heard things like this before. BRUNE: Well, the thing is that we`re living through this. This isn`t something that`s going to happen in the future, for a front page article in California today was how the current job that we`re suffering through could be lasting 30-40 years. Front page story in the New York Times today was how the drought in Pakistan is creating a severe water crisis there. We are seeing extreme weather that`s happening right now. This isn`t something that, well, might take place in 2040 or 2060 when our kids or grandkids or our great grandkids are our age, this is something that`s happening right now. And the only thing -- the reason why I focus on this, the only thing that`s more tragic than on all that, is that we have the solutions to meet this crisis that are available today. Clean energy solutions, you got solar panels on the roof of your house Ed, I`ve got solar panels on the roof of my house, Jane in Bold Nebraska have created a solar barn to talk about the advantages of clean energy. We can fight this. SCHULTZ: But you got... BRUNE: We can create more jobs. We got a... SCHULTZ: You got deniers in the Senate. BRUNE: Yeah, we do. We do. SCHULTZ: You`ve got deniers who`re in the legislative power. We`re not going to have anything done for two years on this until the next election. Great to have both of you with us. I... BRUNE: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: ... appreciate it. Michael Brune and Jane Kleeb, thanks so much. BRUNE: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Plus, celebrating 40 years of biding (ph) satire that change the political landscape. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mrs. Clinton asked us not to let you into any fast food places. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I just want to mingle with American people, talk with some real folks. Maybe get Diet Coke or something. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, fine. But please, don`t tell Mrs. Clinton. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, let me tell you something. There`s going to be a whole bunch of things we don`t tell Mrs. Clinton. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tonight in the two minute drill. It`s going to be All-Star weekend on the Big Apple. 2015 NBA All-Star game is schedule for Sunday at New York`s Square Madison Garden. You know, what I say? Heck with the game, I want to see the slam dunk contest. And we got something cool this year, as virtual reality cameras are going to worn by some of the players, we`re going to get some neat angles, no doubt. Next up, a Ravens` remorse Former Baltimore Ravens Running Back Ray Rice was suspended last session by the NFL after video service of him hitting his then fiancee in a hotel elevator. He issued an apology to the city of Baltimore and the Ravens fans this morning. In a letter printed by the Baltimore Sun he wrote, "I`m truly sorry for letting you down, but I hope it`s helped you learn that one bad decision can turn your dream into a nightmare. There is no excuse for domestic violence, and I apologize for the horrible mistake I made." And finally you`ll get kick out of this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (END VIDEO CLIP) You got it a California high school athlete scored that amazing quick long range goal from half field -- is that what they call it in soccer? I don`t know. I was never a soccer player. Lots more coming up with the Ed Show, stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Live from New York. For the last 40 years, one show has mastered the art of political satire. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, it just occurred to me. What if something should happen to you? You`re the only who knows what`s going on. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that`s the way it`s going to stay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, Barack and Michelle. Hey, before you would say no, there`s a new dance club that my friend, cockroach, and I just want through. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will instead ask each candidate to sum up in a single word the best argument for his candidacy. Governor Bush? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Strategery. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, I will ask the legislatives to pass then I (inaudible) and I... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m now from the home of the Attorney General of the United States it`s time for Janet Reno`s Dance Party. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mrs. Clinton asked us not to let you in any more fast food places. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I just want to mingle with the American people, talk with some real folks and maybe get a Diet Coke or something. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fine. But please, don`t tell Mrs. Clinton. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, let me tell you something. There`s going to be a whole bunch of things we don`t tell Mrs. Clinton. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know I`m not a crook, Henry (ph). You know that I`m innocent. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know. TINA FEY, ACT AS SARAH PALIN: You know Hillary and I don`t agree on everything... AMY POEHLER, ACT AS HILLARY CLINTON: Anything. I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy. FEY: And I can see Russia from my house. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Saturday Night Live celebrates their 40th Anniversary this weekend. Every cast member and host has been invited back for the commemorative show. Yes, Sarah Palin will be part of it all. We can`t wait, right? Joining me now John Fugelsang a Liberal Commentator and Comedian and also radio talk show host. I want to ask you, who do you think is the most talented person that`s ever been on Saturday Night Live, John, there`s one for you. JOHN FUGELSANG, LIBERAL COMMENTATOR: Well, a lot of these guys are friends of mine, Ed, but, you know, my vote goes for Darrell Hammond. I think he is one of the greatest impersonators in all of standup and all of SNL history. And I love Deena Carty and I love Phil Hartman but I do think that Darrell had really channels people like Dick Cheney, of course, he did Al Gore, he did Bill Clinton and he famously did John McCain and he is just -- he is a natural born genius. SCHULTZ: You know, the way the show evolved over the decades, it`s become very important. Saturday Night Live`s political critique has really now part of the American consciousness, isn`t it? FUGELSANG: Yeah. Its have been flowed. I mean when the show first began in the early Belushi days with Aykroyd and Chevy and Garrett Morris, it was really almost deconstructionist. It wasn`t just taking on politics. It was taking on society and how we viewed T.V. They would have sketches that just ended and went nowhere. And that was the point of the sketch. It was really revolutionary stuff and as the show has grown and become more establishments, sometimes they play it safe and sometimes they really go for the jugular (ph). I mean, I`m someone who became a political comedian in part because Denise Miller before the fall meant so much to me and I think he is great joke writer and, you know, I really missed the Denise Miller era of just that the weekend update, the anchor desk being a place for escaping political commentary. SCHULTZ: It`s become a necessary stuff for candidate, hasn`t it? I mean, this is the show that you kind to got to get on and it connects some special way. It gives a candidate a chance to open up and see a page of your life and maybe somebody isn`t going to see in a regular newscast. FUGELSANG: Yeah. I agree. I mean it`s one of the shows. I think that all began when Nixon first that you`re going to Laugh-In which was considered quite shocking at the time. Look at Steve Forbes, he is guy who got more good P.R. from his one appearance guest hosting on SNL than from running for President twice. We got to see a likable playful side of Forbes that a lot of folks haven`t seen before and I like that. I like seeing how, you know, these politicians do and how they think on their feet in the movement of life T.V. working with artist. It tells you a lot about how stiff they are and how witted (ph) they are. I think Kennedy would have been with SNL. SCHULTZ: Nobody -- yeah. Nobody is off-limits, are they? FUGELSANG: No. Not really and that`s kind of what I respect. I mean, you played the clip the Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. If you want to have an example of how effective SNL is and ridicule and ridicule is a very important component of good satire. And lot of times when SNL does it is Satire, a lot of it this disparity but, you know, U.S. people about Sarah Palin, they all say the same thing. I can see Russia from my house and that`s of course something Sarah Palin never actually said but everyone thinks she did because Tina Fey`s performance in that sketch was so iconic. It really influenced the whole culture and the political landscape. SCHULTZ: What`s it do for somebody`s career to be a part of Saturday Night Live`s Cast. FUGELSANG: You`re asking if I can never got to beyond. Well, I mean... SCHULTZ: Well, I think you ought on... FUGELSANG: Well, thank you. SCHULTZ: ... I mean, that`s the really the gold standard early in a career, isn`t it? FUGELSANG: Well, it`s a great showcase for actors and for sketch comedians and for stand ups as well. I mean, you know, I think that we`ll someday see an actor get a dramatic Oscar for -- who was launched on SNL. I mean, Eddie Murphy is someone who has a terrific actor, a very underrated actor and I hope that in his 50s, he does a lot more interesting roles because, you know, he really showed at a very young age on SNL how deep he could go, how intense he could go into a character and how fearless he could be. Obviously, there`s great, great actors who been on SNL and they didn`t go on to film stardom. But, I mean, look, Bill Murray alone is a reason to be thankful for Saturday Night Live. He`s given us a lot of great laughs and a lot of great artist. SCHULTZ: How would John Fugelsang do on Saturday Night Live, I mean... FUGELSANG: Let me tell you... SCHULTZ: ... I`m all about you getting on there. What would you do? What would you do? Will you do -- could you host it and come out and knock our shocks off? FUGELSANG: I mean, you know, that`s the only show my name hasn`t embedded (ph) about for this week. I got to say, I got Michael McCain on my radio show yesterday and when he went on the show, he was 46-years-old. He was the oldest actor they ever hired as a newbie on that program. I would love to go on that show somebody because I`d like to make weekend update the thing that took on the two-party system and then really got more into the satire. But for now I`m happy with the show as it is and I can`t wait to see it on Sunday. SCHULTZ: All right. John Fugelsang, always great to have you with us. Thanks. FUGELSANG: Good to see you. SCHULTZ: Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 14, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021301cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 61 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 13, 2015 Friday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST Kirby`s View; Ambivalence and Confusion on ISIS BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Richard Engel, Howard Fineman, Eugene Robinson GUESTS: Rear Adm. John Kirby, Matthew Rosenberg, Dana Milbank, Danny Vargas SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8103 words HIGHLIGHT: Interview With Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral James Kirby; In a recent poll, the American people appear to be expressing the same ambivalence and confusion about fighting ISIS as the politicians on Capitol Hill. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: ISIS on the attack. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. And as the U.S. Congress shows bipartisan hesitation over President Obama`s request for war powers, the enemy shows new strength. ISIS forces recently attacked in Anbar province, attempting to overrun a city there, Al Baghdadi, and today 25 ISIS fighters nearly penetrated an Iraqi military base containing about 400 U.S. Marines. The ISIS fighters were killed. No Americans or Iraqis were killed. However, the question -- who`s winning this war that Congress is being asked to wage? I`m joined right now by Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press spokesman. Admiral, thank you for joining us. And that`s my question. It looks to me, and it`s based upon your statements today, that ISIS is still on the offensive. REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: No, I don`t know that I`d say that, Chris. They certainly have been on the offensive the last couple of days, but our assessment is that, strategically, they`re very much still in a defensive crouch. I think we need to keep this in perspective. Al Baghdadi, the town near the base at Al Asad, is actually contested right now. We don`t assess that it`s completely fully in their control. And this attack never really got beyond the perimeter, the extreme perimeter of a base that`s roughly the size of Boulder, Colorado. So I`m not saying we`re not taking it seriously, but I don`t know that I`d say that -- I can go as far to say that ISIL`s now back on the offensive. MATTHEWS: Who`s -- who took that land back? Who took that territory back from the offensive -- from the -- assailant (ph) by -- by ISIS forces? Who... KIRBY: Iraqis... MATTHEWS: Americans took the forces (sic) back or Iraqi forces it back? KIRBY: Iraqi security forces have been battling with ISIL in al Anbar. And again, I think would describe the situation still as very contested. I don`t want to call it one way or the other. But it`s Iraqi security forces that have been doing the fighting there in al Anbar. MATTHEWS: So here`s my question to you, and I know it`s a terrible question, but every -- most Americans are angry beyond -- every day they see these -- a guy being burnt to death with gasoline, a real soldier, for no other reason than sadism and theater of some sick kind. You see a young American killed, and we don`t know how she was killed, but she was killed because she was there. And it`s very personal with us as we watch this because of television. And yet -- and we don`t want this side to win. Yet we don`t see how - - if you look at the map and the countries of Iraq and Syria, you don`t see how anybody can close in on them. We don`t have much faith in the Iraqi army. Of course, we hear about the Free Syrian Army being trained at some point. We see about the good fighting being done by the Kurds, and we see the great air force work, the air attacks being done by the Jordanians. But how do you kill ISIS at this point? Who`s doing the killing? KIRBY: Well, that`s a great question, Chris. I`d say that, first of all, this isn`t just about killing them, it`s about degrading and destroying their capabilities, about shrinking their ability to govern and to control area, assessed area, important area, population centers. And the air strikes are having a dramatic effect on them. What you didn`t see -- you know, when they lost Khobani -- they just happened to time the loss of Khobani with videos of the execution of those two Japanese hostages because they knew it was a big strategic defeat for them, and they didn`t want to admit that. But they got kicked out of Khobani. In Iraq, they`ve lost hundreds of square kilometers of territory, and it gets -- shrinks a little bit more every month. They don`t have the same influence that they once had. The other thing, Chris, that we`ve said is this is going to take a long time. This is not something that we`re going to achieve in just a matter of months. You have to remember we`ve only been at this for about eight months now of just kinetic air strikes. MATTHEWS: Yes. KIRBY: It`s going to take a while. MATTHEWS: OK, thank you so much, Rear Admiral John Kirby. Thank you for your service to the country. KIRBY: Thank you. MATTHEWS: I`m joined right now by NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who`s over in northern Iraq. Richard, thank you. My same question to you, looking at it from your vantage point right now. How is this war going? Are we winning, or are they where they`ve always been, in control of that territory? RICHARD ENGEL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think the admiral was right on many points. The ISIS is being harmed by the air strikes. They are losing territory. The air strikes have forced them to change their communications. Some of the top leaders have gone underground. They`re not using Skype and the Internet the way they used to be. But the problem is much bigger than just fighting the militants and killing their leaders. ISIS has grown up and established control in the very big cracks of many unresolved conflicts. They are growing up in the space where the Iraqi Kurds and the government of Baghdad don`t get along. They are getting in the space between the Free Syrian Army and the government of Bashar al Assad. So until these big questions are settled -- this region where I am now, northern Iraq -- does this become an independent state? Does Assad get to stay, or is there really a rebel movement that the U.S. is backing? Until these questions are unanswered -- or until they are answered, ISIS will still find a way to operate, it seems. MATTHEWS: Well, a quick yes or no. Does the United States have a strategy for answering those questions, the future of Assad and the future of the Kurds, et cetera? Do we have a policy? ENGEL: Most people I speak to say absolutely not, no. Most people I speak to are incredibly frustrated, that they say there is a military plan in action. They are very happy with the air strikes. They are happy that ISIS leaders are being bombed. But they don`t see at all a clear political vision of what Iraq is supposed to look like at the end of this. Right now, the U.S. is backing three different forces in Iraq. It`s backing the Iraqi army and it`s backing the Peshmerga, the Kurdish forces where I am now, and it`s backing some Sunni tribes in Anbar and other places. It`s backing three different sides who all hate each other and want different things for the future of Iraq. So I don`t see exactly how that is going to lead to a peaceful and stable outcome. MATTHEWS: You`ve been reporting on the atrocities committed by ISIS against the Yazidi women. Let`s watch a bit of it, and then you`ll be on. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ENGEL (voice-over): The U.S. started bombing ISIS to stop an atrocity, the systematic slaughter of a small religious minority called the Yazidis, who were trapped in the Sinjar mountains of northern Iraq. But not all of the Yazidis were saved. Thousands of men have been killed, and Yazidi women by the thousands, too, were taken as slaves. We met 12-year-old Huada (ph) and 19-year-old Farida (ph) in Dohuk in northern Iraq. They had been bought and sold, raped and beaten for months before escaping from their tormentors. Farida didn`t want to show her face but told us her painful story. "What did you say to them," I asked her. "We said we are human beings," she said. They said, "You are our property." They said, "You are infidels, and we will do what we want with you." (END VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: What -- is this what goes on in war, in the most basic kind of war where you win and you take the other side`s women and rape them? It seems so -- barbaric`s an old word, but what is it? This is pretty... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... basic stuff. ENGEL: It doesn`t -- it doesn`t happen in modern war, frankly. MATTHEWS: Right, obviously. ENGEL: It is not the kind of thing that has been happening for -- in I would call in the civilized world or in a lot of places for a very long time. This group, ISIS, is proudly reviving an ancient practice of... MATTHEWS: Yes, that`s what I mean. ENGEL: ... enslaving the enemies, taking infidels as bride, as booty of war, and carrying out absolute atrocities against them. This is not an isolated case of two young women, one of them just a girl, who were captured. The village that those two girls were from was entirely taken. The men were marched out into the fields and gunned down, around 500 men killed execution-style, made to lay on their bellies when they were machine gunning their backs. And then the women, hundreds of women, were taken back, to Raqqa mostly, which is the ISIS stronghold in eastern Syria, and then distributed in an open auction among the men. And ISIS is very proud of this practice. And then once the men have taken possession of these women, there is an internal market. They sell them from one to the next to the next and make them wash their clothing, make them clean their quarters. And if they put up any kind of resistance, they`re locked in ISIS jails. They are beaten. The older woman, the 19-year-old girl who we spoke to, that you just saw that clip of -- she tried to kill herself seven times while she was in ISIS hands before she quite amazingly managed to escape, crossing the desert on foot for hours and hours until she found a safer place and someone was able to pick her up. MATTHEWS: Well, thank you. NBC`s Richard Engel who is over in Dohuk, Iraq. Thank you, sir. Meanwhile, back here in Washington, the prospects for passing an authorization for military action against ISIS seems to be running into roadblocks on Capitol Hill. There are strong critics both on the left and the right. I`m joined by "Washington Post" columnist Eugene Robinson and global editorial director for the HuffingtonPost Howard Fineman. Both are, of course, MSNBC political analysts. Horrible. I -- I -- you`re better at some of these words. Basic, I was trying to get at, sort of Cro Magnon is the word I... (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: The sort of the basic barbarity of -- of the booty of war being the women. And grab the treasure, grab the women, kill the men, rape the women. I mean... EUGENE ROBINSON, "WASHINGTON POST," MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: No, it`s just horrible, atavistic, awful, primitive... MATTHEWS: Yes, primitive. ROBINSON: ... horrible -- it`s just awful. And it so enrages the conscience... MATTHEWS: Yes. ROBINSON: ... of -- of -- of any human being that... MATTHEWS: Is this because they`re a different religion, the Yazidis? We don`t know Yazidis here in this country, but... ROBINSON: They`re... MATTHEWS: ... is it because they`re a different religion? ROBINSON: I believe so. They`re infidels and they`re unworthy, and therefore, you know, they`re -- you can treat them that way, I suppose. MATTHEWS: Well, let`s try to figure ourselves out. According to the latest NBC Marist poll, when given the details of what the president is asking for in terms of authority for war, a majority of Americans say they want Congress to vote -- this is interesting -- in support of the president`s authorization for military force in that resolution. Two thirds of Americans also expressed confidence the United States and its allies will be able to defeat ISIS. And the country is open to U.S. troops on the ground. Only about a quarter say they`d support sending a large number of U.S. ground forces. Four in ten Americans say they`re open to sending a limited number of U.S. troops. Only 26 percent say they`re against sending any. Howard, that`s kind of hard to read, and these things are very mobile. These numbers move... HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTON POST MEDIA GROUP, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, they are. MATTHEWS: ... the minute there are casualties, the minute something goes wrong, the game`s over. FINEMAN: Well, the American people are often more sensible than the people they choose to lead them here. I think in this case, they`re expressing the ambivalence and the confusion that you see here in Washington. On the one hand, when they see the pictures and hear the reporting of people like Richard Engel, they say, We`ve got to do something. Yes, we support the idea of use of military force. Yes, we`re crossing our fingers, and we think it can work, maybe, military force maybe. But when you also ask them, you know, Do you support or oppose the current plan, do you think the current plan will work, they`re confused about it. They`re hesitant about it. And that very ambivalence and confusion is embodied in the proposal that the president is putting forth. ROBINSON: Right. FINEMAN: This proposed authorization for the use of military force lays out the horrors that Richard Engel was describing in graphic detail. But then what it says is, OK, we`re going to go there only for three years. We`re not going to have enduring offensive ground combat operations. We don`t think that large-scale American military involvement is the right way to do it. So the president is expressing, I think, a lot of the ambivalence that the American people have. ROBINSON: And then -- so you look at that, which is -- and you go through that, and you say, OK, what is going on here? What are we doing? And then the backdrop is what`s actually happened -- happening. So you listen to Richard Engel, and in Iraq, we`re supporting three different groups that hate each other, right, that have different -- totally different visions... (CROSSTALK) ROBINSON: That`s in Iraq. That`s the place where it`s going better, OK? In Syria, the people we`re supporting, the Free Syrian Army, the moderate rebels, we`re -- our policy is such that they`re getting clobbered, right, by ISIS, the people we hate, the people we`re trying to defeat, and Assad, the dictator, who`s equally horrible, who we say has to go. FINEMAN: By the way... ROBINSON: They`re the ones who are thriving. FINEMAN: By the way, what Gene just described is a microcosm of what we`re doing in the entire region. We`re supporting Sunni, Shia and Kurds throughout the region. The Saudis are our close allies, the ultimate Sunnis. We`re trying to make a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons. They`re the ultimate Shias. This whole region is a hall of mirrors. This authorization proposal reflects that. The views of the American people... MATTHEWS: OK, let me... FINEMAN: ... reflect that. MATTHEWS: ... pull back the macro here, the macro analysis here. It`s confounding. How about a micro analysis. You`ve got a boy over there, a son over there, or a husband. How can you -- as John Kerry once said, how can you ask them to be the last person to fight for a war? How do you even know what the war is and if there`s any chance? ROBINSON: Yes. MATTHEWS: What are you fighting for, just to show we`re fighting? ROBINSON: No, it`s got to be better defined. It`s got to be better defined now. And I think that`s why -- you know, it`s interesting on the Hill. Look, I think this Hill debate is -- is -- is great. I don`t know if it`s going to go anywhere, but it needs to be had, right? And the initial reaction is -- you know, there`s concern from the left, there`s concern from the right, as there should be, totally different reactions. And so maybe we`ll get someplace. And they ought to -- they`ve got to ask these questions. MATTHEWS: I`m afraid... ROBINSON: There`s got to be -- there`s got to be a narrative here. There`s got to be... MATTHEWS: Here`s the explosive model in math, where they`re going different directions. One wants more restrictions, one wants no restrictions. They`re not coming together. The right and the left are... (CROSSTALK) ROBINSON: No, it could happen. FINEMAN: And by the way, I`m not convinced that there will, in the end, be a positive vote in favor of this authorization... MATTHEWS: Yes. How`s he... (CROSSTALK) FINEMAN: ... that explosive math... MATTHEWS: Can the president support... (CROSSTALK) FINEMAN: He says in the letter that accompanies this proposal, although existing statutes provide me with the authority that I need to take these actions. MATTHEWS: 2001. FINEMAN: That one. That one. MATTHEWS: Hey, guys, you`re the best, and you can`t solve it. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: It`s not your job to solve it, to understand it... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... to understand the darn thing. Anyway, thank you, Gene -- and it does get down to our fighting men and women over there and what they can conceivably achieve. It can`t be a war of attrition against ISIS. Anyway, Howard Fineman, Gene Robinson. Coming up -- as America debates a new war with ISIS, the war in Afghanistan we thought was over is escalating, but under the radar. We`ve got the cloak-and-dagger story of how U.S. and Afghan troops are using an al Qaeda leader`s laptop they captured to attack militants in secret night raids. Plus, is 2016 still in the cards for Chris Christie? More and more Republican insiders say they just don`t think the Jersey governor can win their party`s nomination. And this weekend marks the 40th anniversary of "Saturday Night Live." We`re going to look at some very funny intersection of comedy and politics and how comedy can destroy a politician like Gerry Ford. I`m going to finish with the profound sense of loss we felt this week. Three guys died this week. The older you get, the more you know them. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, Oregon governor John Kitzhaber has now resigned. The four-term Democrat quit this afternoon. He`s been embroiled in an ethics scandal fueled by allegations that his fiancee used his office to land contracts for her consulting business. Kitzhaber had resisted calls to resign and vowed to stay on the job. At one point this week, he had decided to resign but then changed his mind. In recent days, he lost the support of the state`s top Democrats. Oregon secretary of state Kate Brown will assume the office. She`ll be the first openly bisexual governor. And we`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. President Obama ran as the president to ends wars. In a 2012 campaign stop, the president gave a timetable for getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This November, you get to decide the future of the Afghanistan war. You know, Governor Romney had nothing to say about Afghanistan last week. Yes, he hasn`t offered a plan for the 33,000 troops who will have come home from this war by the end of this month. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) OBAMA: He said that ending the war in Iraq was tragic. I think it was the right thing to do, and I said I would do it and we did. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) OBAMA: I said we`d take out bin Laden, and we did. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) OBAMA: We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan, and I set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, then in May of 2014, the president gave a new timetable for the Afghanistan drawdown. The plan would bring the U.S. force there to 5,500 by the end of 2015 and bring all U.S. troops home by the time he leaves office in early 2017. Well, now the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan wants some leeway. General John Campbell is reported to want to keep more than 5,500 troops into 2016 to keep training centers open longer than currently planned, but to still end the military mission in Afghanistan entirely in 2017. Part of the reason for slowing the Afghanistan withdrawal may be this news reported by "The New York Times" today, headline, data from seized computer fuels a surge in U.S. raids on al Qaeda. In this excerpt: It`s all in the shadows now, said a former Afghan security official who informally advises his former colleagues. The official war for the Americans -- the part of the war that you could go see -- that`s over. It`s only the secret war that`s still going. But it`s going hard." Will President Obama agree to slow the Afghan withdrawal? Joining me right now is Matthew Rosenberg of "The New York Times." You wrote the article I mentioned. And Laith Alkhouri, who is terrorism analyst at Flashpoint Global and an MSNBC terrorism analyst. Gentlemen. Let me start with you, Matthew -- Matt, rather. How does it all fit together, the fact they found this laptop, they know the plans of the al Qaeda group there? Does that mean we see an opportunity that`s worth waiting around for? MATTHEW ROSENBERG, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": I think they do see an opportunity. I think they always planned on keeping some guys there to keep going after the remnants, they would say, of al Qaeda. But our understand is there`s been quite a jump in the number of kind of black special operations, and who exactly are these targets? The White House has always kind of drawn out, we`re going after al Qaeda. The Taliban, that is an Afghan problem now. But there`s a lot of gray area there. And they seem to be going after a lot of guys who maybe aren`t strictly al Qaeda. It`s a broad thing and there`s no clear line there and that`s kind of what we see here. There`s still a lot of action. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, isn`t it impressive when you read -- maybe it was your article that I was reading today there`s a lot more casualties on the Afghan army side, that they`re getting a lot of hits from al Qaeda or the Taliban. Who`s hitting them? ROSENBERG: The Taliban. And that`s one of the problems and probably why General Campbell wants to keep guys there, is the Afghan army is a work in process. The war is not over. Maybe the large American part of it is, but the Afghan army, its logistics is troublesome, it can`t fly at night, its air support really isn`t there, its medevac really isn`t there. And the Americans still have a lot of work to do before they can say this military is ready to stand on its own. MATTHEWS: Well, let me go to Laith on this, Mr. Alkhouri. This whole question of Americans, we thought we were getting out of Afghanistan because maybe it`s like we thought we were getting out of Vietnam, because we had Vietnamization. Is there an Afghanization problem, that we thought we could have an army that would replace us when we left and is that not the case? LAITH ALKHOURI, MSNBC ANALYST: Well, this is the problem. The problem, this is our longest war and we still yet cannot decide on a very specific date on when we`re going to withdraw. But I think al Qaeda`s problem remains a problem and the Taliban`s problem remains even a bigger problem, because al Qaeda operatives are integrated into the Taliban ranks. But even to add to that, the Taliban are really strong today. They`re not actually being weakened. They`re very strong in eastern Afghanistan and they have been carrying operations against Afghan security forces. And Afghan security forces remain pretty weak. And they need U.S. airpower at least to conduct successful operations. But I think they also need U.S. intelligence gathering that would lead to more precision targeting to take out a lot of those shakers and movers. In the case of taking out taking out Abu Barack al-Kuwaiti, who had the treasure trove of intelligence on his laptop, this is extremely important because this kind of data could include locations and names of operatives, possible plans for attacks in the future and so on and so forth. So it`s really extremely important that we take a step back and look at the withdrawal date with more flexibility. MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about the opportunity we talked about there. We have a laptop we captured. The laptop tells us about the network of enemies. Al Qaeda wasn`t there when we went to Afghanistan the first time, right, in 2001? ROSENBERG: It was there. They were fleeing already. And they moved -- a lot of them moved into Pakistan and they have kind of filtered back. You know, that border is really porous, so guys are moving back and forth constantly. I think when guys are in Afghanistan, the Americans actually prefer it because they can actually send special forces guys with the Afghans out after them, rather than drone strikes and the Pakistanis. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: What are we doing, going around, finding the bad guys and killing them? Is that what we`re doing? ROSENBERG: Basically, yes. And it has worked when it comes to the Taliban. The Taliban has had a kind of turn in their middle ranks. It`s created opportunities to gather more intel, more turncoats. But that`s basically what one of the successes has been for years, going out and whacking guys every night. MATTHEWS: Laith, can we tell now about the, what`s the word, durability of the Afghanistan government if we just pulled out completely? If we just got out of there, would they have much of a life ahead of us or would it be Taliban control within a matter of months or years? Months? ALKHOURI: I don`t believe they have much durability if we completely withdraw right now. In a sense, you know, the Taliban is extremely integrated and it`s mixed with the tribes in eastern Afghanistan, eastern, southeastern Afghanistan. So it`s really important if you want to marginalize the Taliban and, you know, eliminate al Qaeda`s forces, we would have to really integrate the Taliban into the society and get the tribes to be on the side of the Afghan government and not exactly support the Taliban in their insurgency. MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a fundamental question, Laith, because you`re an expert. I have always been skeptical of these occupations of Third World countries, other countries, because, except for the British, who were able over 200 years to establish or to share, if you will, to put it generously, the idea of democracy and a form of government with the Indian people, and they did accept it because it fit their culture, the idea of the congress, party, and the challenge to that. But if you`re going to leave a country eventually, what can you really do there while you`re there? Eventually, you leave Afghanistan and it goes back to the status quo ante. The same thing with Iraq. Why would a country be changed fundamentally by the presence of a bunch of Americans, even if they do, some of them, learn the language? ALKHOURI: I mean, it`s a process that could even take generations. You know, an entire -- and a society so defiant like Afghanistan that`s been through occupation by three major world powers is not going to be, you know, changed overnight. It`s going to take generations. But it`s really important that, when we leave Afghanistan, we don`t leave it completely destroyed and in shambles. MATTHEWS: I know. ALKHOURI: We don`t leave the security forces incompetent. We need to make sure at least some of the peace remains before the Taliban end up taking over Helmand or another province and establishing yet another emirate, so it`s really important. MATTHEWS: Yes. The trouble is the American people are not good colonizers. They want to come home. ALKHOURI: Indeed. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: The British like to go to Third World countries, remote places, and live for a couple generations. You say generations, the Americans are waiting for the movies to arrive and then they`re waiting to get home. Anyway, thank you, Matthew Rothenberg -- Rosenberg -- it`s a lot less complicated than that. Laith Alkhouri, thank you, sir, for your expertise. ALKHOURI: Thank you. MATTHEWS: Up next -- I read "The Times," by the way, every day. Up next, a special "Saturday Night Live" edition of the "Sideshow" with the most memorable skits from the past 40 years. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL and time now for the "Sideshow." "Saturday Night Live" is celebrating its 40th year on air this weekend. And this Sunday night, NBC will air a three-and-a-half anniversary special starting at 8:00 p.m. As a preview, here`s a look back at some of "SNL"`s leading cast members playing American presidents, starting with Dana Carvey as George Herbert Walker Bush in a debate against Michael Dukakis, who is played by Jon Lovitz. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE") DANA CARVEY, ACTOR: All I can say is, we are on the track. We`re getting the job done. We can do more, but let`s stay the course, 1,000 points of light. (LAUGHTER) CARVEY: Well, unfortunately, I see my time is up. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Mr. Vice President, you still have a minute and 20. CARVEY: What? Well, no, I must have spoken for at least two minutes. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Governor Dukakis, rebuttal? JON LOVITZ, ACTOR: I can`t believe I`m losing to this guy. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: In 1992, the late Phil Hartman stepped into the role of Bill Clinton. In his most classic sketch, he explained foreign policy while making a pit stop at McDonald`s. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE") UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Do you favor the decision to send military forces to Somalia? PHIL HARTMAN, ACTOR: That`s a good question. Yes, I do, and let me tell you why. You see, right now, we`re sending food to Somalia. But it`s not getting to the people who need it because it`s being intercepted by warlords. Filet of Fish sandwich, aid from Italy, warlord. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, the role of George W. Bush was a perfect match for Will Ferrell. Here`s Bush explaining his regrets with Vice President Cheney, played by Darrell Hammond, just before they left the White House in 2009. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE") WILL FERRELL, ACTOR: Here is my regret, that I didn`t have me a vice president like Joe Biden. I mean, look at those two going out for burgers, laughing it up. (LAUGHTER) FERRELL: I needed that kind of V.P., the kind that did dumb stuff to make me look smarter. (LAUGHTER) FERRELL: You know? Instead, I got the one guy that scares me more than my dad. (LAUGHTER) DARRELL HAMMOND, ACTOR: We had a different chemistry, sir. FERRELL: Yes, the chemistry of acid in the face. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, perhaps the most celebrated political parody in recent memory was Tina Fey as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Here she is with Hillary Clinton played by Amy Poehler at a joint press conference. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TINA FEY, ACTRESS: You know, Hillary and I don`t agree on everything. AMY POEHLER, ACTRESS: Anything. (LAUGHTER) POEHLER: I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy. FEY: And I can see Russia from my house. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) POEHLER: I believe global warming is caused by man. FEY: And I believe it`s just God hugging us closer. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) POEHLER: I don`t agree with the Bush doctrine. FEY: And I don`t know what that is. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: We will be talking more about the legacy of "Saturday Night Live" later in the show. Up next: Are Republicans already giving up on Chris Christie? The roundtable is next, and you`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hello. I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. The FBI said it will look at evidence in the case against Craig Stephen Hicks. He is the man charged with murdering three young Muslims in North Carolina. However, the FBI has not launched a formal investigation into those murders. New England is preparing for another blizzard this weekend. Along with high winds, parts of the region could see up to two feet of snow. And Gary Owens, the announcer for "Rowan & Martin`s Laugh-In," has away. He was 80 years old -- now back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, does Chris Christie still have a path or a prayer to the presidency? Many Republicans doubt that the New Jersey governor can win the GOP nomination in the wake of the bridge scandal and his general public demeanor. The conservative "Weekly Standard" is the latest to cast skepticism over Christie and says he should just pack it in. Andrew Ferguson writes: "A thin skin has been a feature of Chris Christie`s public life as well and over the last several weeks it has been much in evidence. In London, he didn`t appear a hardworking public servant losing patience with a bleating reporters. He had the air of a plutocrat irked that the little people weren`t doing what they were told." Governor Christie`s bad publicity comes as polling shows 52 percent of New Jersey voters disapprove of his job performance. Only 37 percent have a favorable view of him. Joining the roundtable tonight, Dana Milbank, an opinion writer with "The Washington Post." Michelle Bernard is president of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics and Public Policy. And Danny Vargas is former chair of the Republican National Hispanic National Assembly. Great. Diversity reigns. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: OK. We were a little slow on that in the beginning of the show, but I always like to keep it going here. But, here, Dana, is this guy -- it`s almost like Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. There`s never going to be a middle level for this guy. He`s either going to be up here or down there. DANA MILBANK, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Yes. No, on the presidential rubber chicken circuit, this guy is just being eaten for lunch. MATTHEWS: Is that what he`s eating? Is that what he dines on? (CROSSTALK) MILBANK: Not enough rubber chicken. (CROSSTALK) MILBANK: That`s your line, not mine. MATTHEWS: Just skip the French fries. (CROSSTALK) MILBANK: Not to be persnickety, but I don`t think we can even say that he`s in the top tier anymore. The polling numbers you were citing... MATTHEWS: Where in Iowa would you have to go to find someone of his cut, sort of a snarky, big city guy, little attitude? MILBANK: You can`t find him. And that`s why, instead of being his thin-skinned self, he`s trying to be subdued and speak to the Iowans. And guess what? They find him flat and boring. The shtick doesn`t work. MICHELLE BERNARD, FOUNDER, BERNARD CENTER FOR WOMEN, POLITICS AND POLICY: I think it`s -- I think we`re being really premature. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You think he can be president of the United States? (CROSSTALK) BERNARD: I think he can be president of the United States. MATTHEWS: Really? BERNARD: I really do. MATTHEWS: Well, again to my question: Where in Iowa are you going to find a Chris Christie? (CROSSTALK) BERNARD: Well, look, I don`t -- but it`s not just Iowa. I mean, what really is going to happen -- what happens to Chris Christie is going to depend largely on what happens with Bush and whether the two of them -- how they do in polling... MATTHEWS: OK. Suppose... BERNARD: ... and whether he`s up in 2016. MATTHEWS: Let me give you the ideal scenario. Bush falters because nobody goes for him. They don`t care about the label, the dog doesn`t like the dog food. The voters up in New Hampshire don`t go for him. Christie doesn`t get touched by the indictments if there are any. It doesn`t get touched anywhere near him. Do you think he can still get out there with his personality and sell it? BERNARD: Yes, here -- this is why I think Chris Christie is the misunderstood secret bullet of the Republican Party. He wins in a state that is a blue state. He overwhelmingly won women by like 55 percent of the vote. MATTHEWS: Have you seen his numbers? BERNARD: I`ve seen his numbers right now but you just said it, he`s up and he`s down. In 2016, we don`t know where he`s going to be. But what we do know is that in two elections back-to-back he is a Republican who got women to vote for him even though he`s not pro-choice, he`s pro-life. He got African-Americans to vote for him, he got Latinos to vote for him. He got Democrats -- 64 percent of independents voted for him in the last election. MATTHEWS: I know a Latino guy pretty close at hand sir. Tell us, I don`t think he had a big number among minorities except for governor, it`s always better to get a vote than you do a Senate race. BERNARD: He`s the only Republican that knows how to get them to vote for him. DANNY VARGAS, FORMER CHAIR, REPUBLICAN NATL. HISPANIC ASSEMBLY: He did get a material portion of the black and Hispanic vote. I`m from New York city originally so his style of politics works really well in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Boston, that sort of rough and tumble attitude works really well. Does it work well in Iowa? Probably not. MATTHEWS: How about New Hampshire? VARGAS: It may, it may. But I think a lot of it depends on what we see happening between now and 2016. If foreign policy becomes -- MATTHEWS: You have a radio voice, you know that? I envy that voice. I love that voice. VARGAS: If foreign policy becomes a stinkey wicket and what the American people see and they need. MATTHEWS: I think it`s sticky wicket and not stinky wicket. VARGAS: If what they see is they need somebody that`s going to be tough on the international stage and be able to stand up toe to toe, nose to nose against some of these really tough dictators that we have out there on the foreign stage, then maybe his brand of politics might play well and he`s been going out there on the Internet -- (CROSSTALK) DANA MILBANK, THE WASHINGTON POST: There`s a lot that has to happen. He has to get around Jeb Bush. He has to get around Scott Walker. He`s got to get around Marco Rubio. MATTHEWS: Well, the U.S. attorney, too. MILBANK: He`s got to get around that, too. But there are a lot of other possible people vying for the mainstream who aren`t so tainted. MATTHEWS: Well, I got to go back to you because, Michelle, he does believe he can win. BERNARD: Yes. MATTHEWS: So what`s he thinking about that gives him that upward zest to keep going? Because he`s not pulling back. BERNARD: He`s not polling well right now, but we`ve seen that before with him so it doesn`t really matter. He could be up in 2016. There are two establishment candidates that can win the, quote/unquote, "Reagan Democrat", people in the middle. We`re not talking about what you have to do in the primaries, but once somebody gets the actual nomination, it`s going to be -- it`s either going to be Christie or it`s going to be Bush. I think he`s waiting and he`s saying to himself is this going to be a McCain/Giuliani scenario and maybe Bush will implode? Maybe he will be able to raise more money? Or maybe, just maybe Bush ends up not winning. Is the United States after a Republican primary really going to vote for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? VARGAS: His path is not going to be the path of sort of conforming himself to sort of the stereo typical what the pundits, what the consultants are trying to get him to be. His path is to be himself. If I were to advise him, I`d say Governor Christie, be yourself. If you want to be a tough guy, be a tough guy. He`s gone to Israel and said I`m going to stand strong with our ally in the Middle East, that`s the attitude he needs to portray. He can`t be the squishy -- BERNARD: He`s got to be himself but I`ll tell you, I think on foreign policy, that`s the one -- and I`m a big fan of Chris Christie`s. MILBANK: Clearly. BERNARD: But foreign policy is an area that bothers me because I say to myself is this really the person who I want to see trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East and losing his mind and saying, you know, kind of screw you -- MATTHEWS: The more moderate Republicans always have to offset their centrism with a hawkish foreign policy. They feel they have to do that. You may like the hawkish foreign policy but it`s tricky in the middle, for the suburban guy, the suburban housewife who may be in the middle politically. My mom always was. You don`t know how they`re going to vote. They never tell you how they`re going to vote. You can`t rely on party vote. VARGAS: His problem is the same problem Giuliani had. I supported Giuliani early on, is the fact that the conservative base does not trust Chris Christie in terms of being a conservative. They don`t think that he`s a conservative on social issues -- BERNARD: But they don`t trust bush either. MILBANK: At the very least he`ll be more interesting to cover than Jeb Bush. MATTHEWS: When we come back, our favorite "Saturday Night Live" cast members. We`ll have a little competition here and the presidents they portrayed, the roundtable. Stay with us. MATTHEWS: Virginia was reliably Republican until Barack Obama came along, but new polling suggests Hillary Clinton can keep it in the Democrats` column. Let`s check the HARDBALL scoreboard. According to a new poll from Christopher Newport University, Hillary Clinton leads Jeb Bush in Virginia by five points, 48-43. Secretary Clinton`s lead grows to seven against Chris Christie. It`s Clinton 49, Christie 42. Against Rand Paul, Clinton leads by 10, Clinton 52, Paul 42. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: We are back. Well, "Saturday Night Live" turns 40 this weekend, and to celebrate, "Rolling Stone" magazine has ranked all 141 cast members from best to worst, God help that guy or woman. These are their top six selections, however. Bill Murray came in sixth place, Dan Akroyd is fifth. Then Mike Myers at fourth, Tina Fey at third, Eddie Murphy at second, and the first, of course, John Belushi. That`s a subjected ranking, of course, by them. There`s no question who holds the top spot when it comes to my personal favorite. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome back to HARDBALL, I`m Chris Matthews. Man, oh man. You didn`t just drink the Kool-Aid, you went back for seconds. Zip it, go back to Fraggle Rock, let the grownups talk about politics. Man oh man, there`s more testosterone in the Pentagon right now than in Mike Tyson`s urine. Brady, I`ve seen more natural looking smiles on pumpkins. Paul Begalia, your lab experiment gone wrong, anything let to say for yourself. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The next time, I come I`m going to have that you keep the insults to a minimum. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shut up. Frere Jacques, Frere Jacques, shut your hole, shut your hole. Stick around I`m going to watch a videotape of myself, you`re watching HARDBALL. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Ha! OK, (INAUDIBLE) the golden years. Anyway, of course, we`re back now with our roundtable: Danny, Michelle, and Dana. Who wants to go first? We`re going to do this chronologically. So, let`s go -- BERNARD: Me. MATTHEWS: No, no. (CROSSTALK) MILBANK: Chevy Chase. MATTHEWS: You like Chevy Chase the most and he destroyed Jerry Ford? MILBANK: For political reasons, as a political comedian, I like him the most. And it`s not even that he was the best at it, he wasn`t particularly a good likeness of Ford, but without him, he was the pioneer that made it OK to laugh at politicians. You don`t have Dana Carvey. You don`t have Will Ferrell doing George W. And you wouldn`t have, you know, whoever is going to do Mike Huckabee eating Twinkies this time. He made it possible -- MATTHEWS: Was the pratfall which he did over and over again, did that bring down Jerry Ford, make him look like a -- MILBANK: I think Jerry Ford brought down Jerry Ford because he was the accidental president. But Chevy Chase turned him into the accident- prone president and made him a national laughingstock. To his credit, Ford played along, I think that played well, but it helped demystify the presidency after Watergate. So, it wasn`t all bad for Ford. He was going down anyway. MATTHEWS: It was good. Your thoughts? Your favorite? BERNARD: My favorite, Dana Carvey. Hats down. I first love him for the church lady. MATTHEWS: Can you do the church lady? BERNARD: Can I do the church lady? MATTHEWS: Please? BERNARD: No, I can`t do church lady. MATTHEWS: Isn`t that special? (LAUGHTER) BERNARD: I won`t even endeavored to do it. But then his impressions of Bush one, you know, in his impersonations, he said things that the public was thinking like -- I can remember watching the debates, being interested in politics and thinking to myself, he`s a nice guy but how is he winning this election? How is this happening? He`s sort -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Did he look a little prissy the way that Carvey play him, to put it lightly? Prissy? BERNARD: Well, I wouldn`t use prissy. He looked sort of particular about things I think is a better way to say it. And, you know, things like the thousand points of light which I actually like, but there were people who started saying, what is that? Is the Republican Party trying to be a nice party that believes in people and that we saw that iteration come down in his son a few years later. MATTHEWS: It splashes over because when George Senior was asked if he wants coffee, he would say just a splash. Who is your favorite? VARGAS: Phil Hartman, I`ve got to say Phil Hartman was a fantastic. He was a straight man, he was a funny, he did characters. He did the cave man lawyer which was hilarious. He did Frank Sinatra that was just impeccable. But when he did Bill Clinton that brought down the house. There is not too many people that can do both, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. He had a great skit with Ronald Reagan where Ronald Reagan was playing sort of a dopey guy, and then when people left the room, they would bring in his staff, and he was leader and defining military strategy. It was just hilarious. Phil Hartman was fantastic. MATTHEWS: You know, with the loss of Robin Williams not too long ago, Jonathan Winters, these are troubled guys, a lot of these geniuses. BERNARD: Yes. MILBANK: Chevy Chase wound up at the Betty Ford Clinic. I mean, the genius goes -- MATTHEWS: Belushi, of course. The troubled nature, and the reason they resort to drugs, is there is something in them that is not together. VARGAS: And Phil Hartman died tragically. I mean, his wife killed him. MATTHEWS: Yes. BERNARD: And Robin Williams interview after interview talked about -- I think a lot of comedians will tell you that they use comedy because it is a different way -- completely different way than actually how they feel. MILBANK: The real source of so much humor is pain, and that`s why some of these pain characters who are very much. MATTHEWS: That`s why the Jewish comics were the best over the years, they had so much pain. No growing up, they (INAUDIBLE). So, Jackie Gleason was the great artist exception because he could actually show pain, those bulging eyes -- BERNARD: People like Richard Pryor, showing pain. VARGAS: The longevity of "SNL" over 40 years is just impressive. They have done through ups and downs, it would have been canceled so many years, it hadn`t had the legacy -- MATTHEWS: But the pearls to Sunday night. You know, great writers, by the way, don`t write all great novels, but they`re remembered by their great ones. Clint Eastwood is going to be remembered by the good stuff, you know? And you can talk about the chair all you want, but in the end, it`s going to be trouble -- "Trouble with the Curve" is going to be remembered. Anyway, thank you, Dana Milbank, Michelle Bernard and Dana Vargas. And we`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a statement of loss. The older you get, the more attention you pay to who dies. The reason is obvious, we know more of them. And when we pick up the newspaper in the morning, either you and your spouse will greet each other with the news. Dean Smith died last weekend after years of dementia. Bob Simon died in a car accident this week on the West Side Highway. David Carr died last night in "The New York Times" newsroom. We read they`re gone, we read how they died, and then we realize, yes, they are truly gone. Coach K of Duke spoke for all of us when he said he could never imagine Dean Smith dying, the coach of the University of North Carolina`s men basketball team. He just didn`t see vulnerable to mortal reality. It`s precisely what I thought when I got the news. Could there be a greater model on the college campus or in life than Coach Smith. I had dinner once with Bob Simon over Jerusalem and found him that evening a quite courtly gentleman of the old school. He`s the kind of guy who makes you want to be humble in his presence because that`s how he is. And you see how well it suits him and suits the man. I met David Carr after a Broadway opening one night and couldn`t believe that this low key, again, regular guy, could be the literary wonder he is in print. You don`t think of great writers being low key regular guys. Anyway, enough said. Next week`s news will be filled with more losses, it always seems this is the time of year that the flurry comes. We, of course, are thought by someone who knows that we know not the day or the hour. And we the living carry on. After all, we call it the Irish sports page for a reason. But the one good thing to come when someone`s times is to think quietly and humbly ourselves about the good and loss people who now finally grab our attention and wonder, perhaps, of all the others, of their cut, who deserve our notice as they continue to walk among us. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 14, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021301cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 62 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 13, 2015 Friday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST Politics Nation for February 13, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton GUESTS: Jim McDermott, Marq Claxton, Kendall Coffey, Mohammed Abu-Salha, Zerlina Maxwell, Eric Guster, Victoria Defrancesco-Soto, Kenan Thompson SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6473 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama officially asked Congress for new authorization to use military force against ISIS. Police say their best information at this point is a parking dispute led to the triple shooting Tuesday evening. And that it doesn`t appear related to the victim`s faith. Though authorities are looking at the suspect`s computer and email and interviewing neighbors. Prosecutors say Ralph gunned down both men at Texas gun range. They had taken him there as part of a way to help with the PTSD he got after serving in the Marines. Talking SNL with Kenan Thompson. Justice Ginsburg`s confession examined. President Obama`s web appearance dissected. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Breaking news tonight on the investigation into the triple murder of three Muslim students in North Carolina. Right now investigators are trying to figure out if hate was the motive. New on this case tonight, a loud call for a federal hate crime investigation. A new FBI inquiry and words of comfort from the president. All three victims were shot in the head at their apartment complex Tuesday. Chapel Hill police say this man, Craig Hicks, pulled the trigger because of a fight over a parking spot. But now the FBI has a separate inquiry to see whether any federal laws were broken. Also today, close to 150 civil rights groups say murder charges do not go far enough. Sending a letter to attorney general Eric Holder asking for a federal investigation into the murders. Quote "the circumstances surrounding this incident, previous threats by Mr. Hicks, combined with the sentiment expressed in Mr. Hicks` social media posts warrant a federal hate crime investigation." One victim`s sister said she will fight for justice. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. SUZANNE BARAKAT, SISTER OF VICTIM: I think it`s absolutely insulting, insensitive and outrageous that the first thing they come out and say and issue a statement that this is a parking dispute. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: This is a case gripping the nation with an outpouring of support for the victims` family. Joining me now is the father of the two women killed, Dr. Mohammed Abu- Salha. First of all, doctor, my condolences to you and your entire family. DR. MOHAMMED ABU-SALHA, FATHER OF SISTERS KILLED: Thank you, Reverend. SHARPTON: And first, how are you and the rest holding up? How are you feeling? How are you doing? ABU-SALHA: I`m OK. We`re patient and we`re enduring and we are submitting to God`s will. We`re in severe pain. Gut-wrenching primal fear that we had to face and we will live through it. SHARPTON: How do you want the world to remember your daughters? ABU-SALHA: My daughters and my son-in-law, they have told the world how to remember them already. I don`t have to say much. Yes, we raised them, me and their mother, but they taught us a lot. They proved to the world that this is a great country where they can grow up with diversity, as the president quoted my older daughter who`s deceased now and where they felt comfortable being with everybody else and being all one, with all colors and shades of skin and belief and faith and ethnicity. We`re all American. Excuse me, we`re all American. Excuse me for beginning to lose my voice, I`ve been fatigued with interviews all the time. I just -- I just want to remember that my daughters have lived for peace. They have loved everybody. They would not even allow us to backbite if we`re angry with anyone. That is forbidden in our faith. They celebrated the American dream. They did all kinds of charities for all kinds of people. They fed the hungry and the homeless downtown Raleigh many times, cooking in our kitchen at home and taking loads of containers of food. They volunteered at the missions of mercy clinics for treating the indigent and uninsured and providing aid to dentists who volunteered there. They also volunteered overseas at refugee camps and carried on with a lot of activism here and fund-raising activities for all kinds of causes that are humanitarian. SHARPTON: Wow. You`ve been outspoken, doctor, that this is a hate crime. What leads you to that conclusion? ABU-SALHA: Sir, when somebody`s children die, it is not time to fake anything or pretend or tell any lies. It is a time of truth, at least what I owe my children and the world. Our oldest (INAUDIBLE) came to us two or three weeks before the murder and shared with us that she felt that Steven Hicks was a man who hated them for how they looked and the way they were. I`m not quick to point fingers, and I would like to think this was an outrage over a silly dispute and somebody who lost his mind, but that was not the case. This man has lived at the complex for years and he had an issue with parking for years. I was told to where towing companies even abandoned that area to tow any cars. And he never the any issue with my son-in-law who lived there a year and a half. Deah was 6`3", all white, the average looking American kid. Nobody would tell what Deah`s ethnicity was. He just fitted in, and he always wore sport clothes and was athletic. So Mr. Hicks did not figure out what Deah was and did not have a major issue for him for the one year and a half that he lived in that apartment until my daughter got married to him December 27, 2014. And I danced at her wedding in this suit I`m wearing now, and she moved in. And then Mr. Hicks lost his mind when she moved in. SHARPTON: So he didn`t have a problem until this young man married your daughter? ABU-SALHA: I -- I don`t know that he ever had any issue. They never complained of him before, until he got married and my daughter moved in one week after her wedding and her honeymoon and then trouble began. And he did make it clear to her that he didn`t like her and didn`t like her friends. And he picked up not just on the parking but sometimes because there was noise, because she had five or six friends. And our Muslim kids do not party, they do not drink, they do not make noise, they do not play music loud, so he was really zoning in on certain victims. And he never hurt anybody before, though he picked on parking before for years. So why now, and why execution style? Why bullets in the back of the heads? If you`re angry with somebody and you get enraged, you shoot them in the face, in the chest, in the leg, and then you run away or flee. But that was execution, sir. SHARPTON: The president spoke out on this. What did that mean to you, doctor? ABU-SALHA: That means a lot. President Obama and Miss Michelle Obama and their condolences to us help us bring this nation together. We`re not here to divide this country. We belong here. We have blended our blood with the soil. We raised our children to honor any country they live in and to be loyal to it and to their community. President Obama, by acknowledging our pain and calling us, assures us for what he stood and what this country stands for. And this is really an honor to show our families where we came from and the world that we were not wrong when we came here and we believed in this country. SHARPTON: Dr. Abu-Salha, thank you, first of all, for being here tonight. And you again have our condolences. We all give our deep condolences for your terrible loss and your seeking of justice has our full prayers to you and your family. ABU-SALHA: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. SHARPTON: Joining me now are Marq Claxton, former New York police officer and director of black law enforcement alliance and former U.S. attorney, Kendall Coffey. Thank you both for being here. KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Thanks, Reverend. MARQ CLAXTON, DIRECTOR, BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: We just heard from the victims` father say that this is a hate crime. Marq, what do you think? CLAXTON: Well, there obviously was a tremendous amount of hate. And he spoke briefly about the number of shots into the victims, the manner in which these victims were shot, et cetera. SHARPTON: Shot from behind, back of the head, execution style. CLAXTON: Absolutely. The challenge that the prosecutors will face and part of the ongoing investigation will have to, you know, will have to deal with what was the direct motivation for the crime, whether or not it was as it was simplified initially about a parking spot or whether there was some animus regarding any kind of religious, cultural, ethnic reason. So there is a challenge when establishing some type of a hate crime, but I think the investigation will clearly show that there is enough to proceed with that avenue. SHARPTON: Kendall, was it a hate crime? COFFEY: Well, there`s certainly many reasons to be glad the FBI are investigating it. It doesn`t look like road rage. The execution-style killing, the obvious circumstances, and there`s a lot more that`s going to come out. Hate leaves a trail. The FBI is going to be looking at his email, the kind of things he communicated with texts, speaking to co- workers, speaking to neighbors. They`re going to collect a lot of information, but it doesn`t look like some kind of angry guy who had been just a ticking time bomb for years and then just happened to stumble into these folks. It looks like a thought- out, hateful killing. And it has to be proven beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt to maintain a federal charge for a hate crime but I think that`s something that`s being very, very seriously looked at and for good reason. SHARPTON: Here`s what we know about the suspect. Warrants say police found 12 guns and ammo in his apartment. His favorite movie is "Falling Down" about a shooting rampage and he posted against religion on facebook. We are learning about little by little. What will his background mean for this case and investigation, Marq Claxton? CLAXTON: It will be very significant. I think all of these things are relevant. You mentioned social media, all of the communications they can access, the emails, et cetera. Even the previous contact with these victims or other neighbors from the area, I think it can be very telling a lot of times. Hate does leave a trail and it`s the job of the investigators really to go back and piecemeal it and find out and, you know, follow the bread crumbs if you will to determine if it was a clear motivating factor. If this person was guided and led and acted based on hatred of ethnicity, religion, color, whatever it is. But that investigation will be extensive and it will reveal a lot of details, intimate details about this individual, the perpetrator, and perhaps the motivation for this crime. SHARPTON: Neighbors say, Kendall, that they felt threatened by hicks. Listen to one describe him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAMANTHA MANESS, SUSPECT`S NEIGHBOR: He was aggressive when it came to things like parking and noise. I`ve seen and heard him be very unfriendly to a lot of people in this community. Equal opportunity anger. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: She says he was angry at everybody. How does that play into this investigation, Kendall? COFFEY: Well, it certainly doesn`t make him anything more of a sympathetic character. The key thing is he didn`t shoot anybody else. And instead, as the father, and it was very, very heart wrenching to hear his comments on your show, Reverend. But as the father explained, there wasn`t really a problem until the wife moved in and she`s there with her sister wearing traditional Muslim head scarves. And that seems to be something that was a catalyst for this killing. So he might have been a bad guy to begin with, but nothing prompted him to take a gun and shoot people in the back of the head until he was looking at these three individuals who are undeniably people of Middle Eastern ancestry and people of a different faith. SHARPTON: Well, it`s an important story and we`re going to keep following it. Marq Claxton, Kendall Coffey, thank you both for your time tonight. COFFEY: Thanks, Reverend. CLAXTON: Thanks. SHARPTON: Well, coming up, we`ll tell you why this photo is the saddest picture in Washington today. Also, you just knew it was coming. You knew it was coming. The GOP freak out over president Obama`s BuzzFeed video. Plus 40 years of "Saturday Night Live," who`s coming out and who`s not for the big reunion party this weekend. I`ll talk about it with SNL star, Keenan Thompson. I`ll also have a few questions for him about this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All over the country there are protests. And for the first time in my life, everyone agrees with me. Folks are high fiving with me, inviting me places. This must be what it feels like to be Beyonce. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That`s right, Rev. meets Rev., coming up. SHARPTON: Republicans have big plans for the big Congress but they have run smack into reality. We`ll talk about that next. SHARPTON: Republicans promised to knock our socks off in this new Congress. They were going to amaze and astound us with their conservative agenda. Instead, we`re getting scenes like this. Speaker John Boehner held a sad little signing ceremony today for a bill that President Obama has already said he`ll veto. It`s just kind of pitiful. They`re going nowhere fast, and it continues the string of GOP failures in 2015. Stall the tax on affordable care act, the Dodd-Frank bank reform law and now the president`s immigration actions. Right now Republicans are holding funding for homeland security hostage to roll back the president`s executive actions on immigration, but it`s back fired and turned into a political hot potato. On Tuesday, Senate Republicans told House Republicans to take care of it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: And so the next move, obviously, is up to the house. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But two days later, house Republicans said don`t look to them for action. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: House Republicans have passed a bill, we`ve done our job. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Somebody in the GOP better do their job, and fast. The clock is ticking. There are just two weeks to go before homeland security funding runs out. 2015 has been a big disappointment for the GOP, but they shouldn`t drag the country down with them. Joining me now is Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington. Thank you for being here. REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Good to be here, Rev. SHARPTON: Congressman, Republicans finally control both houses of congress, so have things so wrong for them, how has this happened? MCDERMOTT: Well, you know, Rev., my mother said to me always be careful what you wish for. And Mitch McConnell has been wishing for control of the House and Senate, and now he`s got it and he`s painted himself into a corner. He can`t get the Republicans to come to a resolution on a bill that has to pass. He`s only got four legislative days left. We`re going to be gone all next week, back in our districts, and then we`re going to come back for three days and we will have no homeland security department funding and the 27th or 28th of February. SHARPTON: So by the 27th, 28th, we don`t have any homeland funding. And you know Republican Congressman Charlie Dent is calling on his party to stop playing around with homeland security funding. Listen to this, Congressman. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. CHARLIE DENT (R), PENNSYLVANIA: At some point we, the house Republicans, must be the adults in the room and come, you know, February 24th or 25th, we`re going to have to send over another bill to the Senate. The bottom line is we do have to pull the bandage off the scab. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean do Republicans, do your colleagues in the Republican party realize the risk they`re running by playing these games, Congressman? MCDERMOTT: Well, it`s pretty clear that there`s a large majority of them who are not in touch with reality. There are some guys like Charlie Dent and others who recognize that the job of the majority is to govern. You have to make decisions. You have to make compromise. You won`t get everything you want. But there`s still isn`t people in the back saying yes, we can do all we want and we`ll just sit there and we will force the president. Well, they`re going to find out that he`s tough and this is not something he`s going to give in on. And I think it`s going to be a learning lesson for this Congress, for these new people, that you can`t use these kind of bullying tactics to try and get legislation through. It never works. SHARPTON: We are talking about bullying tactics, leading the charge is Senator Ted Cruz once again, just like he did in the last shutdown in 2013. Here he is then and now. Listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Ask if Harry Reid and President Obama are willing to try to shut the government down in order to insist that Obamacare be fully funded now. For Senate Democrats in a partisan vote to filibuster funding for the department of homeland security is both reckless and irresponsible. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean he blamed the Democrats then, he`s blaming the Democrats now. I mean it would be funny if it wasn`t so serious what they`re doing here. But I mean how do the Republicans think they can get away with this? MCDERMOTT: Well, I think, Rev., that they think the American people aren`t watching and the people aren`t paying any attention. But everybody is worried about our national security. We counting on the department of homeland security to give us that security. There are fence against what`s coming in from the outside. And if we simply open the gate and say, well, we`re going to go home and we`re not going to pay the people, and then you`re leaving us open to the kind of things that people are worried about. They`re making a terrible mistake in thinking the American people aren`t watching what`s going on here. SHARPTON: Congressman Jim McDermott, thank you for your time tonight. Have a great weekend. MCDERMOTT: You`re welcome. SHARPTON: Coming up, file this one under least surprising things. The right wing attacking President Obama`s viral video. Plus the legend of the notorious RBG. Why the Supreme Court justice says she wasn`t 100 percent sober at the state of the union. And tonight 30 rock is electric, gearing up for SNL`s big 40th anniversary show this weekend. Tonight Keenan Thompson stops by, and you might see this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All Republicans want to do is spout conspiracy -- I`m sorry? Oh, I`m sorry. Excuse me. Conspiracy theories. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I`ll go one on one with Keenan Thompson ahead of "Saturday Night Live`s" 40th anniversary show. That`s right, Rev. is meeting Rev. You don`t want to miss this. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST, "POLITICS NATION": Time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, Zerlina Maxwell, Eric Guster and Victoria Defrancesco Soto. Thank you all for being here. ZERLINA MAXWELL, ESSENCE: Thanks, Rev. ERIC GUSTER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thanks for having us. VICTORIA DEFRANCESCO SOTO, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: We start with a right-wing buzz kill. President Obama did a surprise BuzzFeed video called things everyone does but doesn`t talk about, and it was an instant web hit. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Oh. Thanks, Obama. PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: Thanks, Obama. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Mr. President? OBAMA: Can I live? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yolo, man. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The video was aimed at young people, encouraging them to sign up for health care before the deadline this weekend. But the right is on the war path, calling the President tone deaf. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We need to focus on the trouble over there, and what is the President of the United States doing? He`s making crazy videos for BuzzFeed. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It just shows you how frivolous he is in executing his office. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It`s just so tone deaf and like bad taste. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Victoria, is there anything wrong with the President doing this? SOTO: He is not frivolous and he is not tone deaf. The office of the presidency by its nature is one of multi-tasking. He`s juggling dozens of issues a day, domestic and foreign. And in this case he was turning to the domestic policy that the public cares about that affects us tangibly. And when I saw that BuzzFeed video, that was the Obama that the country fell in love with in 2008. It was that fun, hip, cool President Obama that we need to harness in order to get folks to sign up for health care because, as we know, health care does not sell itself. SHARPTON: Eric? GUSTER: I agree. President Obama went to where the people are, and there is a quote in the movie "Gladiator" that says "win the crowd" and he wins the crowd. He goes where they are, on their social media websites, and reaches them about health care. And President Obama is doing a great job getting his message out. And that`s why he`s two terms because he`s reaching out to people that are totally ignored. And everyone does that. I saw Kenan going to your set, Reverend Al, and I caught a selfie with him because I`m so impressed with this guy and everyone does this type of thing. SHARPTON: Zerlina, I see you nodding your head. MAXWELL: Yes. I mean, I think that this was a smart move by the White House. I think that they looked back at the video that they made with Zach Galifianakis, the between two ferns video and the success of that video. It went viral and the seven million people signed up for healthcare. Young people signed up for healthcare at that time and so why not do it again. What we`re talking about here is something the opposite of frivolous, we`re talking about life and death. We`re talking about people`s ability to get health insurance for their kids, for themselves, so that they don`t have to go bankrupt instead of being able to go to the doctor. So there`s nothing frivolous about trying to get young people to sign up in droves, and they have. SHARPTON: The right wing just doesn`t get it, but next, the growing legend of the notorious RBG. That`s right. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been getting internet fame for her spirited dissents and snappy interviews. Earlier this year a photo of Justice Ginsburg apparently asleep at the State of the Union went viral. And yesterday she revealed what was going on. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT: The audience for the most part is awake because they`re bobbing up and down all the time. And we sit there stone faced, the sober judges. But we`re not -- but at least I wasn`t 100 percent sober because before we went to the State of the Union, we had dinner together and I vowed this year just sparkling water, stay away from the wine, but in the end the dinner was so delicious, it needed wine to accompany it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Zerlina, what do you think of RBG`s confession? MAXWELL: I mean, I think it`s great and it`s very humanizing. And I think that they call her notorious RBG because of moments like this where she`s being so candid. And one of the things I think this points out is that, you know, Jeff Toobin has spoken about the Supreme Court, talked about the Supreme Court justices are really a mystery. There are sort of an enigma to the American people and that really can`t be the case because they`re deciding things that tangibly impact our lives and are crucially important. And so if you have a moment where a justice of the Supreme Court, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who I mean her career tackling gender discrimination and issues like that, reproductive rights, is humanized and you can be -- she`s relatable to people. I think that goes a long way to making the court not something that is too high off for regular people to be able to understand and relate to. SHARPTON: Eric, you`ve faced a lot of judges. What do you think? GUSTER: I`ve faced a lot of judges and they`re human. They`re human just like us. And a lot of people don`t realize that. They think they`re the stone-faced, god behind a robe and so many people don`t realize these people are human. They love wine with their dinner. Wine will make you fine and I guess she had a little bit. So, it was a very good moment for her to tell people, look, I had wine with my dinner. SHARPTON: Victoria, what do you think? SOTO: Well, I heard that the enabler was actually Justice Kennedy, that he was the one that produced the wine going on here but when I heard this, I said god bless her. You know, she can enjoy life and live life, have a great dinner and some wine. And who doesn`t have a big dinner and some wine and nod off. You know, 9:00 was when the State of the Union was. I`m asleep by that time. So I don`t think there`s anything much here. There`s been some criticism that Justice Ginsburg is too old to be serving on the court. I completely disagree. She is sharp as a tack, and if she takes a nap, who cares. SHARPTON: Zerlina, Eric and Victoria, thank you for your time tonight. Have a great weekend and a wonderful Valentine`s Day. GUSTER: Thank you. SOTO: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Still ahead, 40 years of "Saturday Night Live." The biggest stars, the biggest laughs, and what to expect at the show everybody is going to watch. I`ll talk about it with SNL star Kenan Thompson. Hey, that guy looks familiar. We`ll talk about that too. SHARPTON: Live from New York, it`s Saturday Night. The iconic line opening every episode of "Saturday Night Live" since 1975. But this weekend, it will be live from New York on Sunday night for a star-studded party that we haven`t seen before. The SNL 40th anniversary special will air live on NBC. For over four decades the show has become engrained in American culture and given us moments that live forever. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We are two wild and crazy guys. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Look, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger. (LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Jane, you ignorant slut. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Well, isn`t that special. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Wayne`s world! UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I got to fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. (LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We may never know how many people perished. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You want to celebrate the fourth of July in style, New York`s hottest club is hello. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The star power will be shining Sunday. Everyone from old cast members to favorite hosts to musical icons are coming together for the special, and one of those taking the stage will be Kenan Thompson. The longest running member of the present cast, for 11 seasons Kenan has been making America laugh with his hysterical celebrity impressions, including one I know pretty well. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KENAN THOMPSON, AS AL SHARPTON: Now, Jim, those in the GOP want to talk about helping people. What, the wrong camera? Well, which one is it. The red light? There`s red lights everywhere. On the top. Okay, so this one? Now wait, you just switched it on me now. No, that`s what I need to be asking you. Have you ever been on TV before? (LAUGHTER) Good evening, I`m Al Sharpton. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) Republicans are mad because the Tea Party has been targeted by the earth. I`m sorry, what? Excuse me, the IRS. All over the country there are protests. And for the first time in my life, everyone agrees with me. Folks are high fiving with me, inviting me places. This must be what it feels like to be Beyonce. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now is Kenan Thompson, or should I say Reverend Al. THOMPSON: Yes. SHARPTON: Kenan, it`s a pleasure to have you here tonight. THOMPSON: It`s my pleasure, man, thank you for having me. SHARPTON: We`re going to get to Reverend Al but tell us about the epic show plan for Sunday. What are we going to see? THOMPSON: It`s getting crazy, man. I think you`re going to see a lot of like every, you know, the favorite sketches that you`ve ever seen on the show, pretty much some version of it. And all the hitters are coming back, you know, from the original seven, everybody that can make it all the way up to the present day, everybody is going to be there, along with like kind of athletes and people that have just been around the show, musical people. So, it`s going to be crazy. SHARPTON: Who are you most excited to see? THOMPSON: I mean, I keep saying Eddie Murphy because that`s the bigger story for me, you know what I mean, growing up and watching the show and him never having come back. SHARPTON: That`s the first time he`s coming back. THOMPSON: Yes. So I think that`s huge. SHARPTON: Yes. Now this is a celebration of 40 years of history. Forget pop culture, SNL is a part of American culture. What is it like being a part of this, Kenan? THOMPSON: It`s really surreal. Like I was upstairs just now rehearsing with Martin Short and Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd and like, I had, you know, they implemented, you know, what`s up with that into something that they`re doing, like a best of, you know, a bunch of sketches. And just to be, you know, be involved in that is crazy to me, you know what I mean? SHARPTON: Well, who are idols growing up? THOMPSON: I mean, comically it was like Cosby and Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock and Chris Tucker. You know, all those people. Dave Chappelle was my favorite, so. SHARPTON: Political satire was basically born in studio 8H. THOMPSON: Yes. SHARPTON: The show truly impacts the political process. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: If I don`t win, I will continue to run in the primaries, even if there are none. And now for my second announcement. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Remember Mr. Hussein, the venom of the American cobra spits far and true. Not spitting yet, wouldn`t be prudent. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: What`s your name, sweetheart? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Her name is Shakira. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Shakira, that means African princess, doesn`t it? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Oh, like, yes. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Well, she certainly is beautiful enough to be a princess. Say, are you going to finish these fries? (LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I`m the president of the United States and I need a straight answer. Am I going to get the spy plane back? TINA FEY, AS SARAH PALIN: I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: And I can see Russia from my house. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Did you have a favorite political impression? THOMPSON: That I do is you. You`re my favorite, man. SHARPTON: Well, it`s become a must stop for politicians themselves. Let`s watch that. THOMPSON: Yes, they have to. SHARPTON: Yes, they have got to do it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Who is that under there? (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) FEY: So you dressed as yourself? OBAMA: Well, you know, Hillary, I have nothing to hide. I enjoy being myself. I`m not going to change who I am just because it`s Halloween. FEY: Well, that`s -- that`s great. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Look, would I rather be on three major networks? Of course. But I`m a true maverick, a republican without money. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I really wish that that had been you. FEY: No, Loren, you know, I just didn`t think it was a realistic depiction of the way my press conferences would have gone. (LAUGHTER) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Do I really laugh like that? Yes, well -- (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Who was the best politician to do the show? THOMPSON: That`s tough because there`s been so many. But I think the most epic one was Sarah "Tina Fey" Palin. SHARPTON: Yes. THOMPSON: Honestly. SHARPTON: When I hosted a show and that was the year you started, it amazes me how hard we work all week to get there. THOMPSON: Right. You remember that. SHARPTON: I remember that. And going over scripts and all that. And I remember you were saying y`all don`t give him nothing to make him cuss, he`s a preacher. THOMPSON: Yes. SHARPTON: I`m going back and forth, I remember that. THOMPSON: Yes. SHARPTON: I helped start you, boy. THOMPSON: I give you all the credit. I give you all the credit. You know my impression is out of love, you`ve got to know that. SHARPTON: Well, we`ll get to that. You`re the senior cast member. THOMPSON: Yes. SHARPTON: You`ve been with the show since 2003. What do you love most about working with SNL? THOMPSON: It`s just a group of amazing people, man. The people that write that show are brilliant. You know? So to be around such brilliance and to try to splice in what you might think is funny is like a real pleasure, you know what I`m saying? I didn`t really necessarily go to Harvard like that but there`s a lot of Harvard cats I get to hang out with and call my friends. You know, I mean, I think that`s really cool. SHARPTON: Kenan, stay with me. When we come back, your impression, Reverend Al meets Reverend Al. Are you ready? THOMPSON: I`m ready. SHARPTON: You don`t want to miss this one. SHARPTON: We`re back with SNL`s Kenan Thompson. Ahead of SNL`s 40th anniversary show, we`re about to get to you doing me, but you actually hold the record for the most celebrity impressions on the show. Let`s take a look at some of them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) THOMPSON: People got all kind of phobias. Ain`t no reason to judge anybody. You see I got this thing where I`m scared that after I fall asleep, my mustache going to slide down my throat and choke me to death. And it`s a beautiful day in most of the country. We`re looking at afternoon temperatures in the 60s and 70s. The original goal of the 999 plan was to get me a show on FOX News. At 9:00. But if America is looking for catchy, unworkable solutions to complicated problems, Herman Cain will keep them going. I don`t know even hold a mirror. The last time I looked in the mirror, I gave myself one of these. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Who is your favorite celebrity impression? THOMPSON: I mean you`re definitely up there. If it was between one and two, it would be you and probably Whoopi. Whoopi is definitely another one of my favorites. SHARPTON: All right. Let`s get down to business. You`ve been doing me for over three years now. THOMPSON: I`d say longer than that. SHARPTON: Okay. I guess we have to roll it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) THOMPSON: Joining me tonight are Kelly O`Donnell, an MSNBC analyst here in our studio. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Nice to be here. THOMPSON: And Jim Vandehei of Politico.com. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hello, Reverend. It`s Vandehei. THOMPSON: And a big Vandehei back to you. This Eric Garner decision has upset me so much that in three days I have gained over 100 pounds. (LAUGHTER) THOMPSON: Excuse me, www.healthcare.gov is now capable of handling 800,000 folks a day. All republicans want to do is spout conspiracy the owe rise. Oh, I`m sorry, excuse me. Conspiracy theories. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: How did it start, was it your idea or a writer or Loren Michaels? How did this started? THOMPSON: No, I saw that you had a show. And I was like, well, this is, you know, good for us because you know, that`s the thing that they do is talk shows like really well, and it`s good for me because it gives me a character to do on the show. You know what I mean, it would be good for like cold opens and you get to say live from New York and stuff like that. SHARPTON: Give me the art of you doing your impersonation of Sharpton. How do you get yourself -- THOMPSON: It`s just in my ears. It`s what I hear from you. I hear that boisterousness. You know, you talk with such a gruff and it`s kind of a thing. I don`t know, it`s embedded in you. And it`s like just little twangs. SHARPTON: You`ve got to get a little gruffer than that. THOMPSON: Well, when I`m really doing it, yes, I feel you, though. SHARPTON: See, you`ve got to lose a little more weight so you can have more hair. THOMPSON: I know, Rev. Yes, I`m weighing on myself. SHARPTON: I don`t want you -- you know, how many hours, did you watch any tape? What did you do? THOMPSON: I watch the show. You`re on like every night, so I watch. SHARPTON: So you watch the show? THOMPSON: Yes. You`re a black leader, so like I pay attention to what you have to say. SHARPTON: Okay. So you`re more than a comedian? THOMPSON: Yes. SHARPTON: Well, you know, we`re cool. I mean, we know each other now for 12 years or so, worked on the thing. But do you ever worry about mocking people if you have to see them after you impersonate them and they may not take it well? THOMPSON: For sure, I was really scared about running into Star Jones back in the day. I saw her in traffic and I was in the cab and I like ducked down in the seat when she was crossing the street. And yes, she`s a larger lady so I didn`t want to have any problems with her back then, you know what I`m saying. But honestly like everybody is pretty cool because we just, you know, have fun. It`s not like I`m doing anything to be mean, you know what I`m saying, it`s just all out of fun, so. SHARPTON: No, but let me tell you, people ask me and I think it`s nothing but fun if you can`t laugh at yourself and it`s flattering. And let me tell you something, all jokes aside. I was reading the other day -- you about me. If I`m going to be impersonated, I`m very honored to be impersonated by one of the best in the business. THOMPSON: I appreciate that, man. You know, it comes out of respect, honestly. You have to like make an impression with somebody for them to do an impression of you, you know what I`m saying, so you`ve definitely done that. SHARPTON: Well, I thank you for that and I`m looking forward to the anniversary. I`m going to be there. THOMPSON: Yes. SHARPTON: I`m missing the all-star game to be with y`all that night. THOMPSON: We`re going to represent, man. SHARPTON: All right. You`ve got to represent. So I want everybody to be there and root for my main -- I`m glad to have you on. Kenan Thomas -- oh, Kenan Thompson? Thanks so much for doing this. SNL 40th anniversary special, live Sunday 8:00 p.m. Okay, Kenan, or should I say Reverend Al, you take us away. THOMPSON: I can do that. Which one is my camera? Am I over here or -- I`m right here? Which one is it? It`s this one? That one. Okay. Coming right up, we`re going to be talking about something, just stay tuned for it, coming back from commercial. SHARPTON: We`ll be right back. THOMPSON: We`ll be right back. SHARPTON: Kenan Thomas, Kenan Thompson -- Kenan. THOMPSON: Reverend Sharpton. SHARPTON: It`s time to say Happy Valentine`s Day to everyone out in POLITICS NATION. Or should I say Revallentine`s Day. That`s right, it`s time to hand out our own version of Valentine`s Day cards, so let`s get right into it. Our first card goes to Alabama chief Justice Roy Moore. We`re hoping this valentine will warm his cold heart on gay marriage. It`s the season for love, not for trying to block it. Our next card goes to Chris Christie. It`s just our way of trying to heal the heartache of the governor hitting his all-time low in approval ratings in New Jersey. This year we`re also looking at Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell. They have had a tough time lately. Their relationship has been on the rocks. Maybe a revalentine will patch things up. And our biggest valentine goes to Jon Stewart. We had 16 good years together, Jon. I know your heart is not in it anymore and it`s time for you to find someone else. As always, our last revalentine goes to you. All of our viewers out there in POLITICS NATION. This relationship just gets better as it gets older. So Happy Valentine`s Day to all of you. Spend a good day with someone you care about, and an even better day with somebody that cares about you. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. Have a great weekend. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 16, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021301cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 63 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 13, 2015 Friday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 13, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes, Howard Dean GUESTS: Tim Carney, Andrij Dobriansky, Jamila Bey, Dean Obedallah, Evan Moore SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 8023 words HIGHLIGHT: Only 38 days into the 114th Congress, the era of unity and productivity promised under Republican leadership has completely fallen apart. Remembering David Carr of "The New York Times". Little League World champions Jackie Robinson West stripped of their title for recruiting violations. President Obama today weighed in on the murder of three young Muslim Americas in North Carolina (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN -- SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: Let me make it clear: There will be no government shutdown. HAYES: A high-stakes game of chicken leaves Mitch in a box, as Republicans officially turned on each other after running Congress for a month. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t think Mitch McConnell should let the Senate rules trump the Constitution. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where is our Republican Senate leadership? HAYES: Then, as the president weighs in on the Chapel Hill shootings, should atheists have to denounce the murder of three Muslim students? Plus, the true story behind the rise and fall of a champion Little League team. And saying goodbye to a legendary journalist. DAVID CARR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: If you`re going to get a job that`s a little bit of a caper. That should be hard to do. No wonder everybody is lined up trying to get into it. It beats working. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Only 38 days into the 114th Congress, the era of unity and productivity we were promised under Republican leadership has completely fallen apart. The GOP`s state of disarray centers on what has been a colossally failed strategy to rebuke President Obama over his executive action protecting millions of people from deportation. Now, the president announced that action and it was met with outrage on the right, and vows to do whatever it took to block his so-called executive amnesty. The plan Republicans said once they assumed control of Congress was to pass a bill to pay for the Department of Homeland Security which included provisions that would have gutted the president`s executive actions on immigration. This was done with the goal of setting up a dramatic moment which the president of the United States would be forced to veto the bill, thereby singlehandedly shutting down the Department of Homeland Security and getting egg all over his face. The House passed the DHS funding bill on January 14th. But then they ran into a completely foreseeable problem. Republicans can`t get it out of the Senate. You see, there is a little thing called math standing in the way. Republicans may be in the majority now but they only hold 54 seats, and thanks to the routine abuse of the filibuster by Mitch McConnell pioneered by Mitch McConnell when he was in the minority oh just months ago, that 54 votes are not enough to get a bill through the Senate. You need 60 votes to pass a cloture motion, the procedure use to break a filibuster. Observe the rate of cloture motions in the past few sessions of Congress, which is pretty much the best way to gauge the frequency of filibusters, you`ll see something pretty remarkable. They shot up quite a bit under none other than Mitch McConnell`s leadership. Despite his history, McConnell has been willing, trying to will himself past the simple math he himself should know better than anyone. But alas, that math has prevailed, with Senate Democrats filibustering three attempts to debate the House bill. Homeland security runs out of funding on February 27th. And as the clock ticks down, House Republicans have been watching the prospect of sticking it to the president grow dim. And then this week, things started to get crazy. On Wednesday, Congressman Mo Brooks, conservative Republican from Alabama, took to the House floor to blast Senate leadership for failing to follow Harry Reid`s example and use the nuclear option. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: Where is our Republican Senate leadership and why aren`t they doing the same thing. We have 54 Republican senators. Mitch McConnell, the last time I checked is the Senate Republican majority leader. Why don`t they do the same thing in respect to bills that we have to pass to prevent government shut downs, bills dealing with spending matters, say only 51 votes is need. No longer can a minority with a filibuster shut down the United States government. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Interesting proposal. That idea seems to have caught on for House conservatives, pleading for filibuster reform to put an end to Senate gridlock. At the Heritage Foundation`s monthly conversations with conservative event yesterday, several congressman called for a change to Senate rules. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. RAUL LABRADOR (R), IDAHO: This is important enough for Mitch McConnell to change the rules of the Senate. We had the Democrats do the nuclear option for low level appointments, for a bunch of other things. We`re talking about a constitutional crisis. REP. TIM HUELSKAMP (R), KANSAS: I don`t think Mitch McConnell should let the Senate rules trump the Constitution. That`s the issue here. REP. MICK MULVANEY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: The rule is not constitutional. The rule is by tradition, right? And the rule that is in place now has not been sacrosanct since the beginning. The rules have been changed from time to time. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: They were even joined by a spokesman for none other than John Boehner, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, who said on the tweet, "The best way to move forward is to end Senate Democrats` undemocratic and senseless filibuster." And you know what? I think House Republicans are 100 percent right. Joining me now, Tim Carney, senior political columnist of "The Washington Examiner". Tim, there`s nothing we love more than process hypocrisy. I love nothing more than hearing the arguments that they have been making for years, (INAUDIBLE) conservatives, it`s not in the Constitution, this is crazy, this is undemocratic. I 100 percent agree, are we going to get conservatives on board with this? TIM CARNEY, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I don`t think you`re going to get that many conservatives on board because getting rid of the filibuster and the nuclear option that Harry Reid did last Senate, last Congress, is very un-conservative. Whether you count it democratic or not democratic, it`s very unconservative to change the Senate rules with 51 votes. That`s a first step. He had to say the rules are not rules the rules are what the majority says. That`s the first step to the nuclear option. That is an incredibly unconservative thing. That ends the idea of the Senate all together. And then, the filibuster itself, I think there should be a national consensus before we change a law. That`s why I think having the ability to block a final vote on the bill in the Senate, unless you get to at least 60, I think there`s a real virtue to that. HAYES: I like you saying this, because I think this actually is deeply clarifying. I think that the filibuster actually is a conservative institution. I think it`s not in conservatives` interest to get rid of it. I think it`s in conservatives` interest to maintain the filibuster. It`s part of the reason that I want to see it done away with it. But my question is do you -- this is -- we`re only 38 days in. You`ve already got some people are calling for the end of this. This is going to be, I`m telling you, I`ve been there, we have all been there for the last few years, this is going to be what it looks like when you have 54 votes in the Senate. It`s going to be a lot of this time and time again. There is no way to turn back the clock to not using the filibuster all of the time. Do you see pressure mounting whether you think it`s a good idea or not? CARNEY: Well, yes, and the question is what does Mitch McConnell in his heart of hearts want to do? I think he would want to do away with it. I think that most of the Republican senators don`t feel that way. Ted Cruz has said, I don`t want to do this. Ted Cruz is not known for somebody to sort of abide by longstanding traditions just because they`re there in the Senate. But he sees it as a valuable tool. So, what we had that`s really different, Chris, I think is that the parties are fully aligned ideologically. Back in the day, there were conservative Democrats or liberal Republicans. And so, to get a procedurally unanimity that you need to hold a filibuster wasn`t as easy. But now, it`s more easy for a party leader to just say, look, you`ve got to stick with us on all of this, you`ve got to hold the line and that makes it possible. So, the ideological alignment of the parties has made the world completely different than it was like in 1950, 1960. HAYES: What`s interesting here is I watch this dynamic play out on the left among Democrats, in which you had an activist base, particularly back in 2009, 2010, that were saying, look, this is ridiculous, the way the filibuster is being used. This is not constitutionally -- this is not part of the Constitution. The Founders were very specific about when they wanted super majorities. All these arguments, right? There was an elite leadership that didn`t want to do it. I mean, Harry Reid stood in the way of this for a very long time, finally gave in. I wonder if you end up seeing a dynamic like that, particularly because Harry Reid just gave you guys the precedent. CARNEY: Well, yes, the Harry Reid -- again, the biggest difference, and I want to emphasize this, the biggest deal is that Harry Reid said, you can change any Senate rule with 51 votes. I would say that makes is that there are no rules, then. It is Calvin ball. It is like whatever team ahead in baseball can change the rules. There are no rules. And so, if that precedent -- that was a giant dam that was broken down by Harry Reid. It wasn`t that he got rid of filibusters on nomination. It was a rules change. And so, with that weapon in his pocket, you could see Mitch McConnell bucking the party. The reason I don`t think it`s worth it is you still have the veto pen. You can`t nuclear option the veto pen out of the way. HAYES: That`s right. CARNEY: So, until they have two-thirds, they can`t actually pass laws by nuking something. HAYES: You have identified the thing that what will stop them from blowing (ph) the filibuster is the knowledge that all that will then do is be able to send bills to the president to be vetoed, and I think they understand the seismic importance of it, such that they`re not going to do that if all it means is sending stuff to the president to be vetoed. Tim Carney, thank you very much. CARNEY: Thank you. HAYES: All right. In Barack Obama`s video for BuzzFeed this week, which has gotten more than 26 million views, we got a glimpse of what he does when no one is looking. Today on Capitol Hill, we may have gotten a window into what John Boehner does when no one is looking, which is to pretend he`s the president of the United States. This morning, he performed one of the most bizarre feats of political theater I have ever seen. What you`re seeing there in front of you is a pretend signing of the Keystone pipeline bill which was just passed out of Congress, in which President Obama has already vowed to veto. This bill is not becoming law because the person signing that, that wasn`t the president. This appears to be the Republicans` favorite new method of showing everyone how productive they`re being and I`m willing to vet it comes from the same PR geniuses who brought you this photo tweeted up by Eric Cantor during the government shutdown, showing House Republicans on one side of an empty table ready to negotiate. I`m joined now by MSNBC contributor Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, and former DNC chair. Howard, I love that -- (LAUGHTER) I love the optic (ph) of John Boehner there with the pen, as if -- implicit in that I guess is Republicans want to do away with Article 2 of the Constitution and just go full out parliamentary system. HOWARD DEAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: You know, the interesting thing about this, Chris, is actually think there is a part of the Republicans, particularly Boehner and McConnell that are very happy to have the situation they have with the filibuster. HAYES: You`re so right, yes. DEAN: Let`s just suppose for a moment that they actually did do the nuclear option, which I might add was designed by Republicans and threatened previously when the Republicans were in the majority under Bill Clinton. Let`s just suppose they did do the nuclear option and they pass a shut down -- I mean, undoing all of the immigration stuff. They have got to get to 35 percent minimum Hispanic votes in the next presidential election for their nominee to have any shot whatsoever and what kind of chance do you think they`ll do, because I actually think that Boehner and McConnell are secretly thrilled that there`s s a filibuster. HAYES: You`re a -- this isn`t perfect, this is a really important point -- it`s like if you go and try to buy a used car and the salesman says I have to go check with my manager, right? DEAN: Yes. HAYES: Or any other situation where someone says, a customer says, well, I`m sorry, my boss won`t let me, the filibuster is the best excuse as you`re like your phantom goes to boss, if you`re running Senate leadership. I would love to, but we can`t do it. DEAN: This is going to be the real hard part for them because they`ve got to get a bill to the president`s desk for their -- no matter what happens, for whatever reason, if the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, the Republicans are going to get the blame. HAYES: Yes. DEAN: Yes, they`ll spin it because they have done this before. And the American people are not going to believe that it`s Obama, it`s his department, they`re going to believe it`s the Republicans doing it again. So, they`ve got to figure out how to do this and this is going to be really hard with the far right wing, especially in the House. And that`s what Boehner is quaking in his boots about, that`s why he`s thrashing McConnell. He`s got to get along with McConnell, he`s thrashing him, because he hopes that he can placate the 80 or so nut jobs in the House he has to worry about and they will somehow let him go when they fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, which they`re going to do sometime in the next two weeks. HAYES: That is an excellent point, and we should stay here. I mean, one of the kind of subtext to all of this is the way in which the Democratic Party and the president of the United States and the groups that push for this executive action on immigration have as of to now successfully called the bluff of the Republicans who said at the time, don`t do this, it will start a nuclear war between our parties, you don`t what to know what`s coming, don`t do it, don`t do it. Here we are, and they`ve got nothing. I mean, they had nothing other than this kind of ritualized, bringing the bill up, getting it filibustered, hoping that they can pull enough stunts that people turned on the president as having shutdown the DHS. But that does not seem very likely to me. DEAN: Well, I think they were somehow hoping that some of the Democratic senators would lose their nerve, but it`s pretty easy no matter what your constituents think of immigration to vote to stay with your party, particularly after what the Republicans have been doing to the president for the last four years. HAYES: Yes, that is a very good point here too, which is that here we are, 38 days into the Congress, and we`re seeing, you know, the kind of "I learned it from watching you dad" moment that we`re getting from the Democrats, is they -- you know, they saw how effective in certain ways the McConnell system of being in the Senate minority was, which was block, block, block, obstruct, voters are block, voters are block. Keep your people together. You all hang together, or surely, you`re hang separately. And they`re doing that and it`s been pretty effective so far. DEAN: Well, that`s true. They`re positioning themselves for the 2016 elections for sure. You know, the Democrats have a fairly good chance to take back the Senate in 2016, just the way the math works. A huge turnout compared to what we just had, which is the lowest turnout in about 50 years. A lot more blue states and battlegrounds -- excuse me, red states - - excuse me, red senators in blue states is what I`m trying to say, you know, Pat Tomei and people like that up in a presidential year, they didn`t have to run in a presidential year last time. More conservative than his constituency, and there`s a number of senators like that. So, the math works in our favor in 2016, and a lot of this is positioning for that. HAYES: Thank you, Governor Dean. Always a pleasure. DEAN: Thanks. HAYES: All right. The story of Senator James in Inhofe, he gave a right wing publication photos that, well, pretty badly misrepresented the current situation in Ukraine. That`s ahead. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) GOV. JOHN KITZHABER (D), OREGON: I am announcing today that I will resign as Governor of the State of Oregon. It is not in my nature to walk away from a job that I have undertaken -- it is to stand and fight for the cause. And so, I apologize to all those people who gave of their faith, time, energy and resources to elect me to a fourth term last year and who have supported me over the past three decades. (END AUDIO CLIP) HAYES: The Democratic governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber, resigned from office today. There was no press conference, and there were no cameras. Just that statement and a recording of the governor reading it aloud, as you just heard. His resignation is effective on Wednesday, and the move, a bizarre one I would say, comes as he was under growing pressure from all sides to step down amid allegations that his fiancee used her relationship with the governor benefit her consulting business. Those allegations have prompted criminal investigation by the state`s attorney general, who says she will continue the investigation after the governor steps down. Kitzhaber has denied any wrongdoing. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" has been on this story. They`ve been doing incredible reporting it. And Rachel -- and that show will have the whole story for you in 9:00, including what makes the next governor of Oregon so groundbreaking. So, stay tuned for that. (VIDEO CLIP PLAYS) HAYES: The fight that erupted between two members of Ukrainian parliament yesterday fails in comparison to the violence consuming Eastern Ukraine right now. Five and a half thousand people have died since the conflict erupted between Ukrainian government and Russian-backed separatists and even with a new ceasefire agreement scheduled to take effect this Sunday, the shelling and mortar strikes continue this week. It is against this backdrop that the right wing publication, "The Washington Free Beacon" published a big scoop on Tuesday, purporting to show exclusive photos of the Russian army not only aiding Ukrainian separatists but streaming into Ukraine in 10 columns. Look pretty damning. And while many are all but sure that Russia is actually aiding the separatists, these particular photos would appear to provide stunning evidence of the escalating conflict and direct Russian involvement in it. The photos were supplied to "The Washington Free Beacon" by Senator James Inhofe, who just happens to be author of a bill to arm Ukraine with lethal military aid. But we now know there were some issues with these photos and very big issues. As reported by Gawker, this photo on the left, which was published in "The Washington Free Beacon" is apparently the same as the photo on the right from a photo accompanying a 2012 article which looks very similar to other tank photos from 2008. Likewise, this photo on the left as published from "The Washington Free Beacon" is apparently the same as the one on the right from August 2008 of Russian heavy armored vehicles heading towards the Georgian border. And here we go again. The photo on the left published by "The Washington Free Beacon" is apparently the same as the photo on the right from October of last year. Now, it does show Russian separatists in the Luhansk, but that tank movement was already known and monitored by NATO. A few other photos used by "The Washington Free Beacon" haven`t been verified yet one way or the other, but these caches of photos provided "The Washington Free Beacon" by Senator Inhofe were given to him by a delegation consisting of Ukrainian members of parliament, a parliamentary leader, and one Georgetown professor. Senator Inhofe said in a statement, "The Ukrainian parliament members who gave us these photos in print form as if it came directly from a camera really did themselves a disservice. We felt confident to release these photos because the images match the reporting of what is going on in the region. I was furious to learn one of the photos provided now appears to be falsified from an AP photo taken in 2008. This doesn`t change the fact that there is plenty of evidence Russia has made advances into the country with T-72 tanks and that pro-Russian separatists have been killing Ukrainians in cold blood." So, the reason the public saw those photos in that false context, courtesy of Senator Inhofe and "The Free Beacon" is because there are Ukrainian interests lobbying American politicians to arm the Ukrainian army so it can defeat the separatists. And joining me now, Andrij Dobriansky. He`s spokesman for Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, someone I have a lot of respect for, someone who emails me all the time about what is going on, and someone who thinks we should arm -- ANDRIJ DOBRIANSKY, UKRAINIAN CONGRESS COMMITTEE OF AMERICA: Yes, absolutely. HAYES: OK. Let`s start up with this. My general heuristic is that if James Inhofe and "The Washington Free Beacon" are for it, I`m pretty skeptical of it. So, just -- you know, in a sort of calculating, you know, for people probably watching the show, it`s like these are these people, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Inhofe, who want to arm the separatists -- DOBRIANSKY: Chris Murphy, Senator Menendez -- HAYES: So, you`re saying there is bipartisan support. Why should we be arming the Ukrainian army? DOBRIANSKY: What we should be giving them defensive support. A lot of the casualties right now in Eastern Ukraine, especially 70 percent of the casualties specifically, are coming from rocket fire, missile fire. Now, just during this ceasefire period, when it was being signed, 15 new tanks came in, as well as missile launcher systems and the associated missiles. If we were to give Ukraine a counter battery radar system, if we were to give Ukraine early radar protection for these, we could be saving a lot of lives and yet, we`re not doing that. What we could also do is we could be giving basic supplies to the Ukrainian military, which we haven`t done. Even though President Obama speaks that he has given them things, we know through Josh Rogin`s reporting in Bloomberg, that that includes 176 radios, 18 water purification kits, maybe 4,000 blankets. HAYES: OK. So but let`s say we gave them, right, is the ultimate end here a military defeat of a Russian-backed separatists and the reclamation of a unified Ukraine, is it a negotiated political ceasefire? Is a military victory possible? Let`s say we give them weapons and Putin supplies more weapons and the fighting intensifies. DOBRIANSKY: This fighting will go on no matter if there`s a ceasefire now or not. This is going to -- HAYES: OK, thank you for admitting the obvious. DOBRIANSKY: Well, yes, of course, because you can`t trust any deal that the Russians make. They couldn`t even acknowledge in the deal they have their own foreign soldiers. They just mentioned all foreign military will leave, even though that`s only one party here and that`s Russia. So, in terms of what`s going on, the fighting will continue. But what we need to do is acknowledge that we need to be helping these people for the sole reason -- if not anything -- for the sole that the United States -- HAYES: Who are these people? DOBRIANSKY: The Ukrainian army. HAYES: Right, but here is the problem it seems to me, and this is piece from Max Seddon, from BuzzFeed today. And I`ve heard similar reports from people who were there. DOBRIANSKY: OK. HAYES: Ukrainians` bloody and callous attempt to reclaim its eastern provinces has only made locals there hate the central government even more. The problem now is that it has been a very bloody campaign there. There had been many civilians caught in the midst of it. The Ukrainian government, completely understandably, cut off financial support for the breakaway Republic, leaving pensioners having to travel across a border to get their pensions, right? People are not in that region necessarily (INAUDIBLE) be rejoined Ukraine. DOBRIANSKY: But for the most part, the people who were left in that region are the million people who have been displaced. So, I was there in May of last year, and already, I spoke to priests, community leaders, anybody who could be a troublemaker in that area was basically run out of that town. So, what`s left, you have a lot of elderly, you have a lot of people with no money. Now, for the elderly people, they grew up in the town of Donetsk that was called Stalino in that town, named after Stalin who ethically cleansed that area and then colonized it with other people. HAYES: So, there`s a sort of vestigial loyalty there. Right. DOBRIANSKY: Well, there`s a lot of trouble, but the important thing is to close the border. And this ceasefire, for one thing, doesn`t close the border. It says that by the end of the year -- HAYES: Supportive of Russia. DOBRIANSKY: Yes. By the end of the year, Ukraine can have access to the border. HAYES: OK. So, then what`s the end game here. This is what I don`t get. Like what, so is the end game, a Ukrainian military victory over Russia in its eastern provinces? DOBRIANSKY: The end game is to help Ukraine build itself up. Ukraine is in the process of a revolution. It is getting more money to stabilize itself. All civil society institutions are going to be redone, militarily as well, by the end of this conflict -- HAYES: Answer that question. DOBRIANSKY: Yes? HAYES: Is the end game, a Ukrainian military victory over the Russian- backed separatists in its southern territories? DOBRIANSKY: The only way that Ukraine can stabilize itself is to close that border. How that happens, whether it`s a response of other nations or not, has to be with the United States` help, because the only people who were in Minsk, were two countries, France and Germany, that have economic deals with Russia but did not sign the Budapest Memorandum where Ukraine gave over 1,200 nuclear warheads, and that is the United States and Great Britain. HAYES: Andrij Dobriansky, thank you very much. DOBRIANSKY: Thank you, Chris. HAYES: OK, my tribute to the three journalists we lost this week. That`s ahead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID CARR, NEW YORK TIMES: If you`re going to get a job that is a little bit of a caper, that isn`t really a job, that is -- you know you get to, under ideal circumstances leave the building or at least leave your desktop, go out find people more interesting than you, learn about something, come back and tell other people about it, that should be hard to get into. That should be hard to do. No wonder everybody is lined up trying to get into it. It beats working. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: When someone we love or admire is taken from us too quickly, too young, with no preparation, there are really only two small efforts I can think of to be found in their absence. The first is the occasion to bask in the ghostly warmth of stories and tales of the person we lost. Last night in the minutes after it was confirmed that legendary New York Times media columnist David Carr had died at the age of 58, tributes and anecdotes and remembrances poured forth for David Carr was not only admired and respected and envied, he was also loved. His death came as a shock. Just on Tuesday night, he called into this program to discuss Jon Stewart and Brian Williams. Last night he moderated a panel with Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden about the film Citizen Four. Hours later, he collapsed at The Times and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter. Carr meant something very special to all of us in the media. He was a reporters reporter who reported on reporters. I knew him casually, but admired him deeply. And as many have noted, he had this way of making everyone feel like they were his best friend -- not in a disingenuous way of a con artist or politician but in the way of someone who had achieved some elevated spiritual level. And if Carr was operating on a higher plane, he paid deraly to get there. As he recounted in his incredible, indelible memoir "The Night of the Gun," he had been a junky, an abuser of women, and a man who left his twin daughters in a freezing car on a cold Minnesota night to go into his dealer`s house and shoot cocaine. He hurt people. He helped ruin people`s lives. He almost ruined his own. And then he hit rock bottom, found recovery, gained custody of his twin daughters and rebuilt his life centered around a relish for living and being the probably only comes to those who have come this close to losing themselves entirely. Carl wasn`t the only terrible loss journalism suffered this week. The truly great fearless and independent 60 Minutes correspond Bob Simon died in a car accident in New York at the age of 73. And former NBC correspondent Ned Colt who left journalism to devote himself fulltime to professional humanitarian work, he died after suffering a massive stroke. And like Carr, he was also just 58. They are mourned and missed as well. Which brings me to the second comfort one can find in the wake of sudden inexplicable death, which is to learn from the life someone led, to glean clues to the one mystery that stalks us all in every moment we inhabit this earth: how should we live? Watching the love and admiration cascade down my Twitter time line last night for David Carr, I remember a few elementary truths about this work we do. And they are truths that are far too easy to lose a grip on amidst the gales of pressure and stress we face very day. Journalism matters and good journalism is a mission, it`s a privilege, and it`s a joy, it`s not a job. So be honest, and work hard, tell the story, earn the privilege every day that you have been afforded. And if, in our professional lives, we must sometimes be ruthless and hard and tough, in life we will ultimately be judged by how we are to loved ones and strangers alike. And reading testimonial after testimonial of David Carr, I came away with a simple but profound answer to how a person should be: be good, be generous, be kind, and remember to enjoy it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) D.J. BUTLER, JACKIE ROBINSON WEST: It was cool being here. The president, I have to thank him for letting us enjoy coming here to the White House. And it is cool to just explore the White House and get to see what hardly people ever see. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: So, one of the feel good stories of last year, Chicago`s own Jackie Robinson West little league team captivated the country and became the first all black team to win the national title. They later came up short in the little league world championship final against a team from South Korea, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel hailed the kids as, quote, the pride of Chicago and the city threw a huge parade and rally in their honor. A few months later, another public official with Chicago roots welcomed the kids to the White House and gave them a tour of the Oval Office. To see the first all black team to win the U.S. little league title get the same praise the world series winners do is particularly striking considering that black participation in major league baseball has massively declined. In 1984, according to the Society for American Baseball Research, a little more than 18 percent of major leaguers were black. In 2012, the percentage dropped to just over 7 percent. And now Chicago`s Jackie Robinson West, a symbol for African-Americans in sports and baseball has gone from a feel good story to a full-blown controversy. On Wednesday, Little League International stripped the kids of their U.S. title, accusing the coaches of knowingly violating the rules by putting players on the team who lived outside of the team`s residential boundaries. Now, the person who brought this to everyone`s attention is Little League official Chris James from neighboring and rival Evergreen Park Athletic Association who had seen one of his teams demolished by Jackie Robinson West 43-2 last year. And who in October, according to DNA Info Chicago, accused Jackie Robinson West of, quote, manipulating, bending and blatently breaking the rules for the sole purpose of winning at all costs. Little League has now suspended Jackie Robinson West manager, removed their district administrator, and perhaps most heartbreakingly for the kids on the team, who didn`t do anything wrong, invalidated all of Jackie Robinson West wins last season. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRANDON GREEN, JACKIE ROBINSON WEST: We went down there to play baseball and we weren`t involved in anything that could have caused us to be stripped of our championship. We know that we`re champions. Our parents know we`re champions, and the team`s parents know we`re champions and Chicago knows we`re champions. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now is Evan Moore from Redeye Chicago who writes about politics in sports. Evan, I get the sense there is a tremendous amount of anguish and anger in Chicago over the decision to strip these kids of the title and the wins. EVAN MOORE, REDEYE CHICAGO: Yes, you feel the tension everywhere you go. In person, social media, Twitter, Facebook, everyone is talking about it. HAYES: What is the back story here? I mean it seems to me two that things. One the fact that they were basically the whistle was blown on them by a rival neighbor, who if I`m not mistaken had been accused of similar shenanigans earlier. And also the idea that somehow the kids are being punished for the transgressions of adults. MOORE: Well, Evergreen Park and Jackie Robinson West have butted heads for years. Every time they go over there, they get the best of them. And the game we just discussed, they bated around three times in the first inning. So if I was Evergreen Park that would probably make me mad, too. HAYES: So they absolutely slaughtered them. And then Evergreen Park went and said -- and essentially told the officials and said hey do you know those guys had some players on the team who weren`t from the district? MOORE: Yeah, it`s tough. And I can see why people are questioning Chris Jenkin`s timing because this game happened so long ago. HAYES: That`s what is so weird about it. He comes forward in October of last year, after all this has gone down, after they`ve come back triumphant, that`s when he came forward with this information. I don`t quite get the times on it. MOORE: Well, it was tough. And I know a lot of us in Chicago and all over the country to throw race into this. And for more people I`ve spoke to on both sides of the issue at Jackie Robinson West and Evergreen Park, James doesn`t have a racist bone in his body. They just think he`s overcompetitive and he thought something was wrong. HAYES: You also had some reporting that there had been scuttlebutt in neighboring Southside black teams that Jackie Robinson had sort of been pretty lenient with how they considering the geographical area they were taking players from. MOORE: Yes, I`ve talked to former little leaguers and people currently in the sport and they all made those hints. They weren`t shy about it once the news got out. HAYES: So what happens next? It seems like the city is sticking with the team. I think they were at the Blackhawks game tonight. I`d imagine they`re probably actually going to get a heros welcome. MOORE: Well, they should. I mean, they were at the Blackmakes game. And they didn`t do anything wrong. And even though it`s technically they`re not the champions anymore, but they`re still winners and these are kids. They didn`t do anything wrong. They did what they were told. They went out there and played the game the right way, and actually when you think about it they were more than thankful to be there and went out of their way to exude sportsmanship. HAYES: Evan Moore, thanks for joining us. MOORE: Thank you. HAYES: All right, should an atheist or a Muslim, or anyone for that matter have to condemn acts of violence by people who share their beliefs? We`re going to talk about that ahead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are you doing, Charlie Brown? UNIDENTIFEID MALE: I`m waiting for a valentine. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh well, good luck. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. UNIDENTIFEID FEMALE: You`ll need it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You didn`t have to say that. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You know who else is waiting for a valentine? Our Facebook page. I`ll admit, it`s in need of a little liking this Valentine`s Day. Look at all of the things Facebook.com/allinwithchris can bring to a relationship. We give you sneak peeks at things we`re working on, stories we like, some of our favorite moments from the show every night, and opportunities to ask questions of yours truly. Like this Monday at noon eastern, when I`ll be doing a Facebook chat, that`s right, ask me anything. And while you don`t have to like the page to ask a question, it would warm my heart if you did. Back in a moment. HAYES: President Obama today weighed in on the murder of three young Muslim Americas in North Carolina: Deah Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu Salha and her sister Razan saying in a statement, quote, "no one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like or how they worship. Michelle and I offer our condolences to the victims` loved ones." Yesterday, after thousands gathered to remember the victims at funeral services and a vigil where many, including the father of the two slain sisters labeled the killings a hate crime driven by anti-Muslim bias, the FBI announced it has opened a preliminary inquiry into the killings to determine whether federal laws had been violated. Police have charged Craig Steven Hicks who lived in the same complex as the victims with the murders, which Chapel Hill police say their initial investigation indicates were motivated not by anti-Muslim bias, but, quote, "an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking." The New York Times reported today that Hicks was threatening to many in the condominium complex, a disruptive presence with a reputation that prompted residents to hold a meeting about his angry behavior. According to the Wall Street Journal, Hicks had a history of reporting neighbors for parking in spaces that weren`t theirs and creating, quote, a lot of drama. What appears to be Hick`s Facebook page suggests he was also hostile to religion. It`s filled with posts that mock prayer and other religious activity and heaped contempt on believers of all stripes, whether Christian or Muslim. Hicks`s opposition to religion, which he called anti-theism, has prompted some uncomfortable conversations among atheists on Reddit and elsewhere which have included concerned that atheists will be blamed for the attack in much the same way that Muslims are often blamed for violence committed by Muslim extremists. Those concerns are strong enough that the group American Atheist felt compelled to release a statement in response to the killings, which condemned violence in any form including violence against people of faith. Last night on this program, I asked Faris Barakat (ph), the brother of one of the victims what he thought of that statement. (BEGIN VDEO CLIP) FARRAS BARAKAT: For atheists to think that they need to condemn this act is kind of -- would be hypocritical for me to expect, because as a Muslim I know that one act of violence does not represent all Muslims and this act does not represent all athetists. And to me, I tell the community we know that this does not represent any sane and loving human being as atheists can be. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: I`m going to talk about precisely that issue with a practicing Muslims and a practicing atheist next. HAYES: Joining me now Dean Obedallah, Daily Beast columnist, Sirius XM radio host and co-director of the comedy documentary The Muslims are Coming. And Jamila Bey, journalist who has written extensively on issues concerning religion and atheism. Jamila, good to see you. So, Jamila, let`s start with this. I mean, what is your reaction? I thought it was so fascinating that American Atheist put out this statement condemning, because it has become this ritual after ISIS -- after Charlie Hebdo particularly, a bunch of Muslim groups I saw putting out immediate statements we condemn this, we condemn this, we condemn this, we condemn this and this seemed like a logical extension of it, but then I also thought OK have we now created some bizarre new norm where everyone has do condemning? JAMILA BEY, JOURNALIST: first of all, thank you for having me. I need to disclose, I am a board member of American Atheists. We`re the largest first amendment civil rights groups that concerns itself with making America a better place for atheists. And to be honest, yes, there is a bit of a let`s rush to show that we are not those who are being condemned for acts of violence. Any time one is part of a minority group, an oppressed group, a group that is seen as other and violent, and apart from the society that is the dominant one, those folks who are in a similar group to the currently reviled individuals or individual does feel we need to make sure that everyone knows that that is a individual, that is not who we are. And we as atheists, we don`t have dogma or doctrine. It is sort of like everyone who loves a particular music group, one person wearing the shirt of a music group commits an act, there aren`t concerts and all of that. Which does speak to your point why do we need to do it? HAYES: Well, it also just feels like -- it feels like in some ways Dean, like now we`re going -- we`re leveling down as opposed to leveling up. By which I mean to say we need to rather than further the notion that a heinous violent act, committed by a person with a certain ideological profile or belief system, whatever that is, is broadly representative and has to be condemned, we should just instead be interrogating the assumption that makes people feel like they have to condemn. DEAN OBEDALLAH, DAILY BEAST: I`m with you, but unfortunately that is not the world we live in. I mean, what you`re saying is absolutely right. And atheists and Muslims in popularity polls, we`re at the bottom together. HAYES: It`s true. That`s a really good point. OBEDALLAH: In fact when I first saw about the shooting and I saw it was an atheist I tweeted immediately I do not blame atheism on any level for this. And if there`s any hatred of Muslims it`s not because of atheism, I blame ISIS, al Qaeda, and then the political -- the politicians on the right -- and I got a lot of flak on Twitter for saying this, on the right who gin up the hate. I mean, it affects people. It infects even good people. HAYES: OK. But let`s be clear, we have had a national conversation. Bill Maher, Sam Harris, a number of prominent -- Richard Dawkins, Jamila, a number of very prominent atheists have been spending a lot of time in the last several months, particularly since the sort of rise of ISIS, talking about the kind of unique threat that is posed at this moment by violent extreme Islam. I wonder if you feel as a fellow atheist like you have some responsibility to bear creating an atmosphere of Islamaphobia. BEY: Well, as a half Muslim person who is an atheist, as an American -- I know, yeah -- well, my father and all of his family are Musilm -- my name is Jamila, come on. But unfortunately it is shorthand and it is short-sighted. We need to be talking about issues of mental health in this country. We need to talking about issues of easy access to guns. We need to be talking about the fact that there are a lot of alienated people who behave violently and who are known to be violent and the lack of mental health care that is easily accessible in this country is an issue. HAYES: One thing, just to make this point, you will notice that a group that never does the condemning is the NRA, right? They don`t feel the need -- the NRA, and I don`t necessarily think they`re wrong not to do this. I mean, it should not be the case that the NRA has to come forward and condemn every horrible thing done by a person with a gun... BEY: Because they always... HAYES: Right. ut they don`t play the game, one should note. BEY: They don`t play the game, but they do say guns don`t kill people, people kill people. And they target by that statement the individual shooter, or the group of shooters so they don`t need to do that. It is a brilliant strategy. But we, folks who are human beings, who believe that I cannot do well unless my fellow brethen does well, it was a scary time. And it was the most beautiful to hear the brother of one of the shooting victims say of course we know not all atheists are hateful people and what not. The fact that someone is an atheist or the fact that someone is a Christian and does a heinous crime certainly doesn`t implicate us all. HAYES: OK, but let me say this -- and let me press on this, there is a difference, I want to say -- and an important one -- between violence done by someone who happens to have some background, and violence that is explicitly done in the name of that ideology, right? OBEDALLAH: True. HAYES: Right. I mean, when we talk about the wave of terrorism that racked Europe in the 1970s and 80s by leftists, explicitly avowed leftists, right. The Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof, they weren`t just like they happened to be of the left and they were murdering people, it was terrorist violence in the name of that ideology. And there does seem to be something specifically monstrous about that kind of thing that we should be able to name as such, don`t you agree? OBEDALLAH: I think -- it would be great if we could. I think that`s everybody wants. We want to be able to say that if it is Muslims doing it because page 12 of the Koran says it. And that`s what it is about, it`s about a power struggle. It`s about political gain. That`s what these groups want. They slaughter Muslims more than anybody else, but we don`t see that on American televisino. We see... HAYES: Right. You`re saying ISIS, al Qaeda, yeah... OBEDALLAH: ISIS, al Qaeda, slaughter Muslims more than anyone, 85 to 90 percent, on a daily basis... HAYES: Boko Haram as well. OBEDLLAH: Exactly. What we see in America are westerners are killed. I mean, since 9/11, less than 40 Americans have been killed by Muslim terrorists, less than 40. There`s been 190,000 murders since that time, but we don`t talk about the 30 people killed by gun violence every day. It`s easier to talk about the other, the brown person, who is the outside, scary person that gets ratings. It engages people. And it scares people into watching coverage. HAYES: Right. And that gets to the sort of specificity and it gets to this weird kind of psychologyizing, Jamila, we`re all doing with the person at the center of this as if like that we`re going to resolve some -- resolve something grand if it turns out it was parking, or he hated Muslims. Like, the idea that there is some meaning that we could read from the murder -- and I`m not even sure that`s the right way to think of it. BEY: Unfortunately that is how people are thinking. Humans are pattern seeking creatures. If we feel like we can figure out the specific thing that that person was compelled to act in that way, if we figure it out, then it won`t happen again. Unfortunately there is the reason that there is the phrase lone wolf. Sometimes people need help that they`re not getting and they fixate on a group, a person, an idea and they do horrible things in the name of that. And we really need to look out for all of our brothers and sisters to make sure that doesn`t happen. HAYES: This point about lone wolf is interesting, because I think it`s scrambled some of those categories recently. Dean Obedallah, Jamila Bey, thank you both. That is ALL IN for this. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 16, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021301cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 64 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 13, 2015 Friday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 13, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki GUESTS: Reena Khrais, Jim Moore, Robert Costa SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7846 words HIGHLIGHT: Governor of Oregon John Kitzhaber resigned over pay to play corruption allegations. Muslim leaders held the prayer meeting at the U.S. Capitol. As three people in North Carolina were killed execution style in the parking lot, Muslim community is concerned with growing anti-Muslim violence in the U.S. President Obama issued a statement condemning anti- Muslim violence. "The Lexington Herald" newspaper getting its hands on a letter from Rand Paul to the Republican Party in Kentucky, urging them to adopt a caucus system in order to help him on his potential presidential 2016 run. "The Washington Post" reporting today about Jeb Bush and this massive behind the scenes fundraising push. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Good evening to you, Chris. Enjoy your weekend. CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Thank you. You are going to get the latest on the ... KORNACKI: You got it. OK. All the time. HAYES: I`m going to go check it out, all right. KORNACKI: All right. Thanks to you at home for joining us for this hour. Rachel has the night off and there is some big news on the West Coast tonight in the state of Oregon. Something that we have been watching for and something that the Oregon press has been waiting for and today it finally happened. Governor John Kitzhaber giving in and announcing just hours ago that he will resign from office, effective next Wednesday. Kitzhaber didn`t make this announcement on camera. In fact, he made no public appearances at all today. His office instead putting out a written statement as well as an audio file of the governor reading that statement aloud. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JOHN KITZHABER (D) OREGON: I`m announcing today that I will resign as governor of the state of Oregon. It is not in my nature to walk away from a job that I`ve undertaken. It is to stand and fight to the cause. And so, I apologize to all of those people who gave up their face, time, energy and resources to elect to a fourth term last year and who have supported me over the past three decades. I must also say that it`s deeply troubling to me to realize that we have come to a place in the history of this great state art, where a person can be charged, tried and convicted and sentenced by media with no due process and no independent verification of the allegations involved. Nonetheless, I understand that I have become a liability to the very institutions and policies to which I have dedicated my career, and indeed my entire adult life. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Kitzhaber going on to say that he is confident that he has not broken any laws or done anything dishonest. But that reading from his statement here, the escalating media frenzy has clearly reached the point of no return. Kitzhaber says he will step down officially as of next Wednesday morning 10:00 a.m. local time, 10 a.m. in Oregon. John Kitzhaber is 67 years old. He spent what feels like a lifetime in politics in Oregon politics. He was on his way to becoming the second longest serving governor in the history of the United States if he had finished out his current term. That would have been 16 years in office for John Kitzhaber. He`s a Democrat. He was just elected in November for the fourth time in Oregon. On the national stage, he is best known for his work on health reform. In practical terms, the rollout of Obamacare in Oregon was a disaster. As it was in many places, but the ideas that Kitzhaber championed were considered for a time to be a blueprint for other states. For the past several months, though, Kitzhaber has been beset by troubles, mostly concerning his girlfriend and pay to play corruption allegations about her, about her relationship with him, about her relationship with the state of Oregon. And on official level, specifically whether she was paid by interest groups to advocate for policies in Kitzhaber`s administration while she was also serving in an unofficial capacity as the state`s first lady. That situation led to an ethics investigation and a state criminal investigation, then a demand from the state`s largest newspaper that Kitzhaber resigned his job immediately. Until this afternoon, Kitzhaber had been fiercely resisting that demand. Here, for instance, is what he had to say on Wednesday night. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you been considering resigning? JOHN KITZHABER: No, I have not. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It has not crossed your mind at all? KITZHABER: No. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Again, this was Wednesday night, that was just 48 hours ago when John Kitzhaber said that in public. Behind the scenes, though, for these past 48 hours, for these past few weeks, in fact, a very different story has been playing out. And Kitzhaber now joins the likes of other recent governors who have resigned amid political scandal. New York`s Eliot Spitzer and New Jersey`s Jim McGreevey come to mind. Also joins the company of governors who resigned for reasons we still don`t fully understand. And of course, there are also governors who`ve managed to ride out high profile scandals and to remain in office. South Carolina`s Mark Sanford was caught cheating on his wife, but he refused to resign, and now he serves in Congress. In 2013, Bob McDonnell of Virginia apologized for accepting loans and gifts from a powerful CEO while in office. He was, though, able to serve out the remain of his term, but then when that term ended he was officially indicted. He`s since been convicted and sentenced. Texas Governor Rick Perry was also indicted last summer on two controversial felony abuse of power charges. There are even some Democrats, though, who say Perry should not have been charged with any crime. Which probably helps to explain why he had no trouble finishing at his third and final term as governor of Texas. Now Oregon`s constitution does not allow for the impeachment of a governor, so Kitzhaber could technically have stuck around for a while and try and ride this storm out. But the political realities for him have been only getting more dire. The first big domino was last week with more allegations coming about his girlfriend`s role in his administration. The state`s largest newspaper, "The Oregonian" responding to those revelations by calling on the governor to step down. Then yesterday, perhaps the fatal blow. Kitzhaber`s most loyal Democratic supporters including the state treasurer joining the resignation calls turning on their long-time ally. The state Senate president and the House speaker both personally met with Kitzhaber yesterday and told him that it was over, time to go. And they left that meeting convinced that he was, in fact, ready to resign. But then suddenly, as soon as that meeting was over, it seemed like Kitzhaber was making one final play to hang on. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STATE SEN. PETER COURTNEY, (D-OR) SENATE PRESIDENT: He met with me in this office on Tuesday and led me to believe he was going to resign. He wanted to do it over - to have a transition period with the secretary of state. I supported that. He noted me - it would come earlier in the week, so I was ready to go, I even had a statement prepared. And so, it was going to take care of itself. And then, I could not tell you about it, because he swore me to secrecy. I told my wife late that night what I told. And the next thing I know a bombshell happened yesterday. What happened, what`s going on, the secretary of state is coming back, I don`t know. And then all of a sudden, I`m not going to resign. And I just said I can`t - I don`t know. I can`t fix this. I can`t fix it. I can`t make it better. I can`t save anybody. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Now, that was yesterday. Kitzhaber seeming to tell state leaders that he was quitting his job and then backtracking from that. That Kitzhaber did have any chance of surviving, this what you are looking at right now, probably ended it. "The Willamette Week" newspaper reporting that the governor`s office, just last week, tried to have all of his personal e-mails deleted from government servers. That request from the governor`s office so shocking to the techs who would have caught to carry out the request that they refused to do it. Resignation watch gripped Oregon all day on Thursday, all night as well, until this morning, that`s the news breaking that he was ready to resign, this time for real. And there`s no lieutenant governor in Oregon, so when a governor resigns from office, the next in line is actually the secretary of state. The secretary of state right now in Oregon is a Democrat named Kate Brown. And just a few days ago, Brown was in Washington D.C. heading up a conference for the National Association of Secretaries of State. She says that while she was at that conference, the governor called her back to Oregon telling her it was an emergency. So, she got on a plane on Wednesday. But when she got back to Oregon and sat down with Kitzhaber in his office she says "He asked me why I came back early from Washington D.C. Which I found strange. I asked him what he wanted to talk about. The governor told me he was not resigning after which he began a discussion about transition." Continuing from her statement, "This is clearly a bizarre and unprecedented situation. I informed the governor that I am ready and my staff will be ready should he resign." That was Kate Brown, the secretary of state in Oregon. Next in line to be governor. That was her yesterday. Yesterday when confusion and chaos reigned in Oregon state capital. But now in less than a week, Kate Brown is going to become the 38th governor in the history of Oregon. And she will do so with many questions about Kitzhaber still hanging in the air. He is now reportedly the subject of an ongoing FBI probe as well as a probe by the state attorney general. Just in the past hour or so, we`re also getting reports of federal criminal subpoenas delivered after the governor resigned today. Demanding records related to the governor and to his girlfriend. Meanwhile, the governor to be, Kate Brown, is getting ready for her new job. She is an interesting figure in her own right. She served six years as the state`s top election official, the secretary of state, she also served in the Oregon legislature for almost two decades. Becoming the first woman during that time to serve as the state senate majority leader. Also, according to her official bio, her main goals as secretary of state have been to remove barriers for voter registration to promote growth for business and for entrepreneurs. Also, apparently, according to her bio, she likes yoga. It remains to be seen what kind of a governor she will be. Today she made only this brief statement to reporters. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KATE BROWN, (D) OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE: This is truly a sad day for the state of Oregon, but I have confidence that legislatures will come together to move Oregon forward. I know you all have a lot of questions, and I would like to answer those questions as soon as possible. As you can imagine, between now and Wednesday, we have a lot of work to be done and that is what I will go back and do it. Thank you. KORNACKI: And so now, Oregon is going to get a new governor. The old one is stepping down. A new one is taking his place. The state is also becoming something of a national test case. We have seen plenty of scandals take down plenty of governors before. But have we ever seen one like this. Joining us now, his Dr. Jim Moore, the director of Tom McCall Center for Policy Innovation at Pacific University in Oregon. Dr. Moore, thanks for joining us tonight. So, let me just start with this. We played that audio file from the governor, the soon to be ex-governor that was released today, and he said today among other things, that he has been "charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by the media." This all happened very fast. I think people, especially nationally, are still trying to figure this out. Does the governor have a point there? Is there a chance that we don`t fully understand even what he is being accused of? JIM MOORE, PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR: Yes, there`s absolutely that chance. But it is partly his fault. In fact, a lot of it is his fault. The media for the past four months, beginning with - week and then the Oregonian and other newspapers have done a really strong job in uncovering things, has found a lot of things that don`t look right, but they have not looked underneath to see if there is an alternative story of if there is an explanation that makes sense underneath. And the governor during that entire time, during his campaign and then when he became governor again, has basically refused to give a narrative that makes sense out of any of that. So, yes, there`s been a rush to judgment, it looks like a media thing, but the thing is he didn`t act on the other side. He didn`t say no, this is what`s going on, and so we were left with a deafening silence from his side. KORNACKI: And it`s so interesting what you are saying, because Kitzhaber, as we said in that intro, in his fourth term, two different stances, the governor of Oregon. This is the guy who`s been around the block when you`re talking about politics, can you tell us a little bit about his girlfriend? She is I think 20 years younger than him, obviously in the middle of this. Their relationship, their history together. There was some controversy in the fall campaign last year about she`d been part of some green card for cash scheme about 20 years ago. When did she come into his life, and what affects has she had? MOORE: She came into his life in 2002. She was a candidate for a state legislative position. And they met. That is also - that`s the year that he left the governorship. So, he was working with candidates across the states. They met. They have apparently been an item now for ten years. And during that time, she runs her own business. She is basically an energy and environmental consultant, and she was - had clients and things like that. But as the governor looked like he was going to run for a third term, after two terms of someone else, all of a sudden, she started getting different contracts and when she became the first lady, as he called her, the payment for her contracts went up. And so that is what raised red flags. But what has she done for him? You know, his first two terms, he was known as a really reclusive guy. He did not go out and campaign for Democrats who are running for the legislature. He kept to himself, third term comes in eight years later with Silvia Hayes at his side. He was gregarious, he was wanting to talk to people. He wanted to work with the media on things. He had big ideas, it was like a whole different person. And it turns out that person is the reason that he asked to resign. KORNACKI: And so, when did this - again, this has happened so quickly. We had - in England there was something, you know, a little unusual going on last fall. I don`t think anybody at least nationally a measurement was going to lead to this. When was the big break in this thing? At what point in the last few weeks and the last few months did you look at this and say, well, this guy is actually in trouble here? MOORE: Well, the reason the Oregonian ran its editorial last week is a story came out that show that Cylvia Hayes, the governor`s fiancee, had gotten a job because lobbyists who had worked with the governor on various things had gotten her that job. Those lobbyists then were hired by the governor to be on his staff. And at the same time, the job that she was doing was stuff that she was actually advising the governor on what he ought to do on. So, she was being paid to lobby and also being paid and being the first lady to try to decide what the policies were. So, she was working both sides of the door. The Oregonian said that`s a step too far. That`s when they called for his resignation. Even with that, there could have been good excuses for that, but once again, deafening silence from the governor`s side. And so we were left for this whole thing to take the course we`ve seen in the last ten days. KORNACKI: And we have now as we say, a word of the subpoena, a word of the federal investigation potentially. I mean the possibility of this ultimately - some kind of jail time, maybe even for the governor, is that something people are talking about? MOORE: You`ll be - but when you look at it, I`m - you know, I`ve looked at the law really closely. I`ve learned more about the Oregon constitution and this particular set of laws in the last ten days. It is just amazing. It`s hard to see what he has done. Oregon like many states when you get into ethics kinds of things, the laws are purposely left with gray areas. That`s because the legislature passes them, and they have to negotiate to get that done, and also because they can`t anticipate what`s going to come up as they`re looking at things down the road. There is lots of grey area. So, the governor could be liable for things, but it looks more like Cylvia Hayes may be the one who is in trouble. Specifically, it looks like she did not claim all of her income on her income taxes. And so, I don`t know about the FBI, but the IRS is certainly interested in that particular thing. KORNACKI: I imagine they are. Dr. Jim Moore, the director of the Tom McCall Center for Policy Innovation at Pacific University in Oregon, appreciate your time tonight. MOORE: You`re welcome. KORNACKI: All right. Lots ahead in the show tonight, including an update on that triple murder down in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. We have a live report from Chapel Hill, that`s coming up. And one of the most astonishing newspaper corrections that I think we have ever seen, that`s coming up as well. So, stay with us. KORNACKI: So, everybody here at the "RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" loves local newspapers. Likes to celebrate the righters and the editors who do the basic work of covering local issues. So, the readers can be better informed citizens. That basic work includes giving citizens a voice, then making sure that the citizen`s voice is represented accurately. Case in point, this correction to a letter to the editor published this week in the "Lexington Dispatch." That`s a local newspaper in North Carolina. It`s a correction that ironically we discovered on the Internet. But here it is, "Boyd Thomas` letter Saturday contained an error in the headline. He does not believe President Obama is the antichrist who will come after seven kings according to revelations, he thinks Obama could be the seventh king." Do we noted it? And we can`t say enough, subscribe to your local paper. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. ABU SALHA, FATHER OF SISTER`S KILLED: We belong here. We have blended our blood with this soil. We raised our children to honor any country they live in and to be loyal to their community. President Obama by acknowledging our pain and calling us assures us, for what he stood and what this country stands for. And this is really an honor to show our families where we came from and the world that we were not wrong when we came here and we believed in this country. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: It`s Dr. Muhammad Abu Salha, speaking earlier this evening. This is just three days after his two daughters and his son-in-law were murdered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. And for the first time today President Obama spoke out about those killings, issuing a statement that read in part, "no one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship." The president`s words acknowledging the question hanging over this case. Were these three victims, all of them shot execution style, were they targeted because they were Muslims? At yesterday`s funeral for the slain students Dr. Abu Salha told mourners "This has hate crime written all over it." And today, Muslim leaders held the prayer meeting at the U.S. Capitol, then worked the halls pushing for a hate crimes investigation. The FBI hasn`t gone that far yet. But it has now opened a preliminary inquiry, which Attorney General Eric Holder says will determine whether any hate crime laws were broken. Meanwhile, we learned more today about the man charged with these three murders. Craig Stephen Hicks, he`s a neighbor of two of the victims. Police seized a dozen guns from Hicks` apartment. Found four handguns, two shotguns, six rifles, including a military style AR-15. They also found cases of ammunition. Hicks had an additional pistol with him when he turned himself in about an hour after those shootings on Tuesday evening. Local authorities have so far said evidence points to a long-running parking dispute between Hicks and the victims. Other neighbors have described him as angry and abusive towards everyone regardless of religion or ethnicity. Hicks`s wife has hinted at mental health problems. Adding extra poignancy to the tragedy has been a recording of one of the victims that emerged just yesterday. Yusor Abu Salha who died Tuesday with her husband and her sister spoke to the public radio oral history project StoryCorps in Durham, North Carolina, just last summer. And here she is with her former elementary school teacher. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) YUSOR ABU-SALHA: Growing up in America has been such a blessing, and, you know, although in some ways I do stand out, such as, you know, the hijab I wear on my head. The head covering. There are still so many ways that I feel so embedded in the fabric that is, you know, our culture and that`s the beautiful thing here is that - it doesn`t matter where you come from. There is so many different people from so many different places of different backgrounds and religions. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely. ABU-SALHA: But here we are all one. (END VIDEOTAPE) KORNACKI: And joining us now is Reema Khrais, she`s a reporter for WUNC, North Carolina public radio. It was her station that found and posted that StoryCorps interview. You were just hearing, Reema. Thanks for joining us tonight. Well, let me start with this. So, we have parallel investigations going on right now. The local authorities are investigating this, the FBI is looking into this. It is unusual, I think, in any case to have both of them looking into it at the same time. Is there a sense here of any time table for when one of these will produce some kind of an answer to this - this question about whether this was a hate crime. KHRAIS: I thank you first of all for having me. I have not heard any timetable yet. Of course, the Chapel Hill police have been looking into this since it occurred Tuesday night and we heard from the family almost immediately saying that more needs to be done and that the FBI is looking into this a little bit more. And when the Chapel Hill police first looked into it, as you mentioned, they said it was over a parking dispute which the family came out and immediately said, you know, this is insulting, outrageous, and insensitive for you to say that it is over a parking dispute. And now, again, the FBI is stepping in but we do not have any really signal on when that will end or how long that will last. KORNACKI: Yeah, and I`m curious about that. I mean the family obviously has made some very strong statements on this. And I think this is one of those situations where people look at it just on face value and are very suspicious of what led to this and the idea of a parking dispute, I think, strikes people instinctively, maybe as a little suspicious. But besides, you know, there are Facebook postings from this man who turned himself in, where he seems to bash all religion completely. Besides that, are there other sort of specific and concrete reasons to suspect this was more than a parking dispute? KHRAIS: So, I talked with one of the friends of Yusor Abu-Salha. She was a dental - she was going to become a dental student and join her husband in the - she was a newlywed. And so, I talked with one of her friends who said, you know, I have no doubt in my mind that this is a hate crime. I remember when she texted me after she had some friends over, and her neighbor came by, Craig Hicks came by and said your friends are being really disruptive and disrespectful. And as he was saying that, he held his hand over his pocket where there was a gun. And I`ve heard over and again, from different friends who said that Yusor Abu-Salha had told them that she felt like Craig Hicks hated him - hated her. And they`ve said, you know, if my friend says that - that he hated us, then I believe that. And we heard from Suzanne Barakat this morning on "Morning Joe." She - she said that they said it was outrageous for them to call it to say that this was over a parking dispute, them - over a parking dispute. And she said that Deah Barakat who was her brother had even made a map of the different parking spots and had highlighted which ones his friends could not park in because the neighbor had approached him and his wife in the past saying that he was upset over this. KORNACKI: And what - do you have a sense, can you tell us, in the community there how people are thinking about this? The idea of the parking dispute versus the idea of this being something of a lot more value. You know, turns into a hate crime. Do you have a sense from the community where people are - how they are thinking about that? KHRAIS: Yeah, so I went to a vigil Wednesday night, and that was the day after they had been murdered. And they were all taking time to remember Deah Barakat, Yusor Abu Salha, Razan Abu Salha. And they were saying that, I think from the Muslim community, at least, and for different communities, it is a time for them to reflect on how this impacts them. And I know I talked with some Muslims who I think really validated how some of their fears that they feel around being Muslim, and how people perceive them, and I think they`re trying to reflect on that right now. And I know that at one point one of the friends of Yusor Abu-Salha said Muslims lives matter, black lives matter, all lives matter. Sort of echoing the hashtag that we`ve seen, of black lives matter after the shootings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. So, you know, there is definitely a conversation that`s happening right now about that. Lots of people in the Muslim community are just outraged and confused, I think. KORNACKI: All right. Reena Khrais. She`s a reporter for WUNC, North Carolina public radio. Thanks for taking your time tonight. KHRAIS: Thank you for having me. KORNACKI: All right, and still ahead tonight when the vice president of the United States travels the country, it is not necessarily national news, but when this particular vice president travels this country and travels to Iowa specifically, it raises all sorts of alarm bells about 2016. More on that coming up. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC GUEST HOST: Maybe you heard news this week about a peace deal in Ukraine. What you`re about to see, though, is not that. (VIDEO CLIP PLAYS) KORNACKI: We spent a lot of time trying to figure out why these two members of the Ukrainian parliament were punching each other in the face. It turns out it was a political disagreement, but not the one that you`re seeing headlines about between the Ukraine and Russia. That one, the big one, may -- and may is the operative word here -- may actually be on its way toward getting resolved. After months of hardcore fighting between the Ukrainian troops and the pro- Russian separatists who tried to take over parts of Eastern Ukraine, leaders from both countries met this week and hash out an agreement to end the turmoil. The talks went on for 17 hours. And at one point, Russian President Vladimir Putin apparently snapped a pen or pencil in two out of frustration. But eventually, they did hash out conditions for a ceasefire, and that ceasefire is supposed to take effect at midnight on Saturday, just over 34 hours from now, although there is plenty of skepticism that it will last that long. And today ahead of that deadline, Russian activists have been blasting away at a single disputed town in Ukraine, trying to take control over as much territory as they can before that ceasefire begins. At least 26 people have been killed in this new assault. So, it remains to be seen whether this new will actually hold, whether the ceasefire set for this weekend will actually happen, and whether it will last, or whether it will fall apart the way the last ceasefire did. But somehow the sides can make this work. They may have reached a political end or at least a political pause in this long-running conflict. Watch this space. KORNACKI: All right, we have a traffic advisory for you tonight. It`s this: if you find yourself in Des Moines, Iowa, tomorrow, if you`re driving under this pedestrian bridge on Interstate 235, don`t be alarmed if you see a group of very enthusiastic people furiously waving at your car and trying to get you to honk your horn. If you happen to find yourself in that situation, it means that you`re driving past a Honk and Wave rally being organized by a group called Run Warren Run. It`s a group that wants Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to throw her hat in the ring to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. Run Warren Run was created by the liberal group MoveOn.org. And they have already opened up two official offices in Iowa. This despite the fact that Warren has said publicly she isn`t running and that she won`t run. And again, she`d hardly be the first politician to go back on a pledge like that. And so, the Run Warren Run movement lives on. And tomorrow, they will be out on that bridge, in the first in the nation caucus state, pleading their case to anyone who happens to drive by. And, by the way, the high temperature in Des Moines tomorrow, 18 degrees, below 3. Speaking of Iowa, Vice President Joe Biden just left that state. He was there all day yesterday, this in a trip that looked very campaign-ish. The vice president giving a speech and answering questions from the audience. He also had a photo op at a local restaurant. And he had some advice for the next Democratic nominee for president. His advice: don`t distance yourself from President Obama, run on his record. Quote, "Stand for what we have done." That`s what Joe Biden was telling the crowd in Iowa. On the Republican side, the presidential race has been alive and well in Iowa for months now. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham who says he may wage what would be a very long shot campaign for the GOP nomination, he is headed to Iowa next week. And of the candidates who have unofficially been in the race for months, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was also in Iowa this month. He said his New Jersey bluntness will translate to voters in Iowa and across the country. But the reviews from the locales haven`t exactly been dazzling so far. The political director of the Iowa Republican Party writing this week that Christie, quote, "seemed a little flat" during his trip. Just about all of the Republican candidates for president had been in and out of Iowa in recent weeks, although with the notable exception of Jeb Bush, who`s expected to be there for the first time in years next month. Also in Iowa, in the last week, that a seemingly mundane moment that would have huge consequences unfolded on television, in the interview with one of those Republican candidates. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is pretty openly running for president, and during the interview with the NBC station in Iowa, there was one very telling exchange. Watch it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID PRICE, ANCHOR, WHO-TV: You have, I would think, a unique perspective going into these caucuses because you got to watch your dad go through them. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I got to speak at a couple. In fact, my kids got to speak at a couple of the caucuses last time. So, yes -- PRICE: It`s like free training, right? PAUL: We`re trying to copy you. In Kentucky, we may end up having a presidential caucus this year. I don`t know if we`re going to copy Iowa. We`re looking all the different caucuses to see which one works best. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So, Rand Paul is saying there that Kentucky, that his home state of Kentucky might end up having a presidential caucus as opposed today a presidential primary in 2016. Why is that a big deal? Well, it`s a big deal because it could potentially save Rand Paul from having to make what would be a wrenching choice for him -- a choice between keeping his Senate seat or getting to run for president next year. This is all because current Kentucky state law bars a candidate from appearing twice on the same ballot in an election. So, you can`t run for two offices at the same time. You have to pick one of them. Here`s the problem for Rand Paul. His Senate seat is up in 2016. The deadline to file as a candidate for reelection for that race is in January, at the same time that the Republican primary season will just be getting under way. So, under Kentucky law, Rand Paul can`t put his name on the ballot for Senate if it`s also going to be on the ballot for president. He would have to choose one office to run for. Now, Paul had been hoping to get that law changed, but the Democrats who control the Kentucky State House of Representatives, they made it clear they`re not doing that. And so, that`s where the caucus thing comes from, because in caucuses, there are no ballots. Caucuses are public meetings, they are run by parties, they are not secret ballot elections. Remember, the law in Kentucky says you can`t have your name on the ballot for two different offices. But if Kentucky`s Republican Party were to decide to stop holding a primary and instead to hold caucuses, well then Paul`s dilemma would be solved. He can still put his name on ballot for Senate. He could still compete in the caucuses for the Republican presidential race. Only one ballot there with one race with Rand Paul`s name on it. And that explains this -- this week, "The Lexington Herald" newspaper getting its hands on a letter from Rand Paul to the Republican Party in Kentucky, urging them to adopt a caucus system in order to help him. Quote, "You, as a member of the Kentucky Republican Central Committee, will be the one to decide if you want to help me get an equal chance at the nomination." So that explains why Rand Paul was excitedly telling that interviewer they might have state caucuses of their own. You know, if it seems like a really technical issue, well, it probably is, but it`s also, believe it or not, this is also a huge moment and a huge decision for Rand Paul`s presidential hopes. And it`s also a reminder that even though the election is still a long way away, big things are happening right now that will determine who is still standing and who isn`t a year from now. Joining us now is Robert Costa. He`s national political reporter for "The Washington Post". Robert, thanks for taking a few minutes tonight. So, let`s start with this Rand Paul issue here in Kentucky. Is there a sense of looking inside Kentucky that he is going to get his way on this? That the Republicans will cooperate, give him the caucuses, and free him from that decision? ROBERT COSTA, THE WASHINGTON POST: I have spoken with several Rand Paul allies, and, though, this is a majority state that Mitch McConnell won last year, the state has really trended toward Rand Paul politically in the last few years. You have Thomas Massie, a libertarian Republican congressman, you know, elected (ph) Rand Paul in 2010. I think there is an appetite among his base to get this done. And they also know that the Paul family traditionally, Rand Paul and Ron Paul, have done well in these caucus formats were a test of organizational strength. KORNACKI: So, what happens if he doesn`t get his way, though? If the current law stays in place, the current procedure stays in place, and he`s got to make that decision. I think the filing deadline for the Senate in Kentucky next year is the end of January. At that point, only a few states will have voted in presidential race. So, if Rand Paul is at all viable at that point, that`s a brutal decision for him to have to make. COSTA: It`s a very difficult decision. I think at this point, I was just with Rand Paul for two-and-a-half days in Iowa. You get the sense that he wants to run for president. That is his priority. But his father was able to build a political base for decades because he had that perch in the House. I think Rand Paul sees the value of a Senate seat. He doesn`t want to just give it up. KORNACKI: There`s some other news from the Republican presidential race. Again, we`re seeing things happening right now that have huge consequences later. Here is a perfect example, some news that your newspaper, "The Washington Post", reporting today about Jeb Bush and this massive behind the scenes fundraising push that he`s been sort of trying to orchestrate. The paper, your paper reporting that he could be leaving his opponents in the dust in terms of the money that they are bringing in. Could you shed a little light on what`s going on there and the effect that could have? COSTA: So, there`s a major battle for the Republican nomination about to kick off. But there`s also an internal battle for that center right space within the emerging primary, between Christie, Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker was part of it as well. And Bush knows because he has not been on a ballot in over a decade, he needs to make moves financially, because he may not be with the hearts of the conservative base, so he had 100,000 ticket fundraiser in New York this week. He wants to raise close to $100 million through his bundlers, and really push some of his rivals out and make them wonder if they`re even going to run. KORNACKI: In terms of -- I mean, that`s the private end. But I also wonder about the public end of it. I think back to his brother, when George W. was running for president, he also raised ridiculous money that shocked everybody. Clearly, Jeb is trying to do the same thing here. The other thing that George W. had for him was he brought out a lot of major endorsements, a lot of the sort of the governors, the big state governors, he lined up a lot of public support. I`m looking at today`s Republican Party, I`m looking at Jeb Bush, I`m looking at all the suspicion that exists among the base toward him, I`m saying, are there big named Republicans who are going to be willing to come out in the near future and say, Jeb Bush is my guy? COSTA: No, because the field is too big. I was on Capitol Hill all day and you get a sense a lot of Republicans in Congress and in governor`s office, they don`t want to come out endorse Bush. Those who have a deep family relationship with the Bushes, going back to 41 and 43, those donors who became ambassadors, they`re with Jeb right now, but there is not some mass Bush wave like there was in 1999, when everyone was flying down to Austin and signing up for George W. KORNACKI: And we said there in the intro, quickly, Chris Christie, he`s been to Iowa a couple of times now. He spoke at that Steve King event a few weeks. He is back there in the past week. The reviews maybe have not been that encouraging so far. How is Christie being received? COSTA: I was five feet away from him as Governor Christie spoke. Fascinating to watch. This is a guy who made his name in early 2010 yelling at public school teachers and those videos become viral videos on YouTube. The Christie I saw on Monday night, on West Des Moines at the Marriott Hotel -- quiet, somber, going against his usual persona. He was trying to be Iowa nice to a lot of those people who showed up and pay $25 a ticket. It was a different Christie, but it was pretty flat in terms of the reception. Not a lot of applause lines. I think people came in part to be entertained and they weren`t. KORNACKI: I got to tell you, that reminds me so much of Rudy Giuliani when he ran for president. Everybody around Giuliani was so scared of mean, angry Rudy Giuliani having some kind of outburst, and they basically took the personality out of the guy, and he was a boring candidate in 2007. COSTA: It`s the same people running the Christie political operation. Mike DuHaime is Chris Christie`s chief political strategist, was also chief strategist for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. Maria Comella, the spokesman for Chris Christie, was also a spokesman for Giuliani. It`s the same circle. I think Christie feels like she in a better position. He has chairman of the RGA last year, has a lot more financial context. But still, when it comes to his personality because of the bridge episode, because of the New Jersey economy, he seems to be playing himself down and I`m not sure how it`s going to play out. KORNACKI: Yes, Chris Christie without that personality for better or worse. Hard to imagine. Anyway, Robert Costa, national political reporter for "The Washington Post", I really appreciate the time tonight. COSTA: Thank you. KORNACKI: All right. And still ahead tonight -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I can see Russia from my house. (CHEERS) (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Forty years of American politics all through the eyes of "Saturday Night Live." That is coming up. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUBTITLE: Pro tip from police in the Netherlands: "Look in your district to the rooftops. No snow? Possible #cannabis." Guess which of these houses has a pot-growing operation under its roof? (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: A couple of months ago, John Oliver used his new HBO show to perform a public service. The Supreme Court is arguably one of the most important institutions in America, but, of course, news coverage of the court can be tough, because there are no cameras allowed inside. So, John Oliver did this -- re-enactments with dogs. Here you see Supreme Court Justice Scalia, and Justice Samuel Alito. Here`s the newest member on the court, Justice Elena Kagan. Folks over at HBO gave out more than ten minutes worth of this kind of footage on YouTube. And the idea is you can use it to play along with the audio that the Supreme Court releases when they`re holding oral arguments. So, to show you how this works, here is Justice Ginsburg during oral arguments for the land mark marriage equality case the United States v. Windsor. (BEGIO VIDEO CLIP) RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREMER COURT JUSTICE: It`s, as Justice Kennedy said, it affects every area of life. And so, you are really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. You`re saying, you know, states, there`s two kinds of marriage, the full marriage and sort of skim milk marriage. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So that is how that`s supposed to work. You can decide whether that quote is made better with the Chihuahua. The 81-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs little help being interesting these days. In the last few years, she`s crossed over into something of a pop culture cult figure. She has a popular page, the Notorious RBG, devoted to all things RBG. She`d actually fallen asleep at President Obama`s State of the Union address. She`s done that more than once. Yesterday, Justice Ginsburg explaining that this year`s address snooze was caused by a bottle of California wine that fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy had procured for their pre-speech dinner. She admitted she was not, quote, "100 percent sober" during that address. If any of that piques your interest, then I have some good news for you. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is going to be on this show next week. MSNBC`s Irin Carmon interviewed her. THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW is going to air the interview exclusively on Monday night. KORNACKI: Sunday night on NBC, "Saturday Night Live" is going to be celebrating its 40th anniversary. They`re going to be doing that with a 3 1/2-hour special that may be the largest collection of comedic talent in history. It was nearly 40 years ago, back in the fall of 1975, that NBC debuted the not ready for primetime players. Ever since, "SNL" has been at the forefront, not just of comedy and satire, but also music, culture and especially politics. "SNL" has been on the air long enough to spoof, to lampoon and to humanize seven different presidents, starting with -- I`m going to take you on a little tour here -- Gerald Ford, played by Chevy Chase. This is back in the fall of 1975. The first 46 ever Chevy Chase impersonation of Gerald Ford, the first ever "SNL" impersonation of a president. Let`s take a look at what people saw back then. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHEVY CHASE: If I don`t win, I will continue to win in the primaries, even if there are none. And now for my second announcement -- (LAUGHTER) CHASE: Live from New York, it`s Saturday night! (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Gerald Ford had a maybe unfortunate reputation as a clumsy president and Chevy Chase immortalized it by falling down in every skit where he portrayed Gerald Ford. After that, the next president, of course, was Jimmy Carter. But on "Saturday Night Live," the next president was Dan Aykroyd. A little more of a resemblance than you saw with Chevy Chase and Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter president for four years, was then followed by Ronald Reagan. "SNL" had a lot of different people who took a shot at playing Reagan. Joe Piscapo did it for a while. They brought in Robin William at one point. But to me, at least the most memorable Reagan was Phil Hartman, the late great Phil Hartman. And here`s my favorite Phil Hartman as Ronald Reagan sketch from 1986. He portrayed Reagan in a very different light than people were used to seeing him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PHIL HARTMAN: The red countries are the countries we sell arms to. The green countries are the country where is we wash our money. The blue countries -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me, Mr. President, sir. HARTMAN: Yes? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s your 11:30 photo opportunity with the little girl who sold the most Girl Scout cookies. HARTMAN: Damn! OK, let`s get it over with. Anybody, out. Come on, move, move! This is the part of the job I hate! Hello, little girl, what`s your name? GIRL: Lisa. HARTMAN: Lisa, if you`re that good of a sales lady, maybe I could use you on Capitol Hill. Well, it was nice meeting you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, Lisa. Come on. HARTMAN: Bye-bye. GIRL: Bye. HARTMAN: Back to work! (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was truly Reagan as people had they have seen him before. After Reagan, of course, came one of the most famous "SNL" impersonations, Dana Carvey as George Bush Sr., always at war with the English language. Then, of course, Bill Clinton. There were two actors who played Clinton, most famously I think Darrell Hammond for the better part of the decade. But Phil Hartman, the very versatile Phil Hartman, was Bill Clinton for the first two years. I want to show this clip, this was Phil Hartman as Bill Clinton. It`s Jan Hooks as Hillary Clinton, and then, Dan Aykroyd comes back as Bob Dole in this famous sketch ensued. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAN AYKROYD: All right, Hillary, one more word out of you, you`re going to be a stain on that back wall. Do you want to go? JAN HOOKS: Hey, come on. PHIL HARTMAN: Come on, you two. Come on. AYKROYD: You stay out of this, Bill. I`m doing something you could have done a long time ago. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right. And to complete our tour, of curse, Will Farrell, everybody remembers I think Will Farrell as George W. Bush back last decade. And now, Jay Pharoah has really taken over as Barack Obama. It was Fred Armisen before that. Obama maybe has been a little tougher for "SNL" to caricature, for comedians to caricature. But they still have two years to figure that one out. Anyway, that does it for us tonight. And as Rachel would say -- now, it`s time for you to go to prison. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 16, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021301cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 65 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 14, 2015 Saturday SHOW: UP with STEVE KORNACKI 8:00 AM EST UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI for February 14, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Kristen Welker, Perry Bacon, Jr. GUESTS: Michael Kay, Nancy Youssef, Mike Benner, Genevieve Wood, Ana Marie Cox, Peter Bacon, Jr., Reynolds Wolf, Bob Casey, Charlie Dent, April Ryan, Lizz Winstead, Jason Zinoman SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 15340 words HIGHLIGHT: We always hear about Yemen as sort of a haven, a breeding ground for al Qaeda. We have this western embassies that are pulling out of there right now. Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine, Russian-backed separatists undertaking a brutal last-minute assault to gobble up yet more territory, this just hours before tonight`s midnight cease-fire is supposed to take effect, pummeling a strategic railway hub with wave upon wave of shelling. After a week of a bizarre unfolding scandal, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber announcing his resignation late yesterday. And just hours ago, this is how the story was reported this Oregon. Millions of New Englanders are going to spending this weekend riding out yet another winter storm. And if you`d think you have heard the story before it`s because you have. Six months after the United States began bombing ISIS, President Obama asked Congress to authorize the use of force. Interview with U.S. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Interview with U.S. Congressman Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. Jon Stewart, one of the most influential people in American politics, is stepping away from "The Daily Show." STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST, "UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI": ISIS and American troops, their closest encounter yet. And good morning. Thanks for getting UP with us this Saturday morning. If you`re in the northeast in the United States, that means you`re waking up yet again to a blizzard warning. And this time also to arctic temperatures, that could drop as low as 35 degrees in some places, 35 degrees below zero in some places. We`ll have a live report from Boston where they are now running out of places to dump all of that snow. A record shattering amount for the month of February. Of course we`re only halfway through February right now. And if you`re waking up in the Pacific Northwest this morning, more specifically if you are waking up in Oregon, oh what the heck is happening there? The state`s governor abruptly resigning late yesterday. Now the Feds getting involved. A new governor taking over next week. A truly bizarre scandal. We`ll going to take you through it in a live report from out in Oregon for you. And if you`re still a little bit sad about Jon Stewart`s departure from "The Daily Show," well, you`re probably not alone. We`ll get to all of that in a whole lot more throughout this morning. But we begin this morning with chaos spilling across the globe. Violence breaking out now just 150 miles west of Baghdad. ISIS militants waging a suicide attack on an airbase where 400 U.S. troops are positioned. ISIS also seizing control of a town just a few miles away from that base, launching a showdown with Iraqi troops and with American air support. Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine, Russian-backed separatists undertaking a brutal last-minute assault to gobble up yet more territory, this just hours before tonight`s midnight cease-fire is supposed to take effect, pummeling a strategic railway hub with wave upon wave of shelling. This is a last minute grab for territory as we say. That looming cease-fire also a very tenuous one. Will it last at all? That question hangs over all of this. And also meanwhile in Yemen, United Arab Emirates announcing just this morning that it is joining Saudi Arabia, Italy and Germany in shutting down their embassies in the country. This as Yemen`s political structure disintegrates as al Qaeda`s grip on the Arab world`s poorest country is getting stronger before our eyes. And in Afghanistan, night raids by U.S. Special Forces now newly revealed by the New York Times shows Americans are continuing in a combat role in that country calling into question how reel the supposed draw down of troops actually is. But we begin this morning in Iraq. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel with exclusive reporting for us on the horrors that residents on the ground are facing from Islamic State militants. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD ENGEL, NBC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: The U.S. started bombing ISIS to stop an atrocity -- the systematic slaughter of a small religious minority called the Yazidis who trapped in the Sinjar Mountains of Northern Iraq. But not all of the Yazidis were saved. Thousands of men have been killed. And Yazidi women by the thousands too were taken as slaves. We met 12-year-old Hawata and 19-year-old Farida in Duhok in Northern Iraq. They`ve been bought and sold, raped and beaten for months before escaping from their tormenters. Farida didn`t want to show her face but told us her painful story. What did you say to them, I asked her? We said, "We are human beings." They said, "You are our property." They said, "You are infidels and we will do what we want with you." (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right. That was NBC News` Richard Engel reporting from Northern Iraq. And late yesterday, Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby confirming that about two dozen ISIS fighters dressed up like Iraqi soldiers actually reached the perimeter of an airbase in Iraq`s Anbar Province. In that airbase, currently houses 400 U.S. troops. So, the Defense Department claims the Americans were two miles away when that fighting occurred. All of the ISIS fighters were killed by members of the Iraqi army, that`s according to the Pentagon. Some may have detonated suicide vests. I`m joined now at the big board by British Royal Air Force officer and foreign affairs correspondent Michael Kay. Mike, thanks for joining us this morning. MICHAEL KAY, FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning. Good to see you. KORNACKI: So, a few things to take a look at here. This is obviously very scary news to hear that American troops, 400 of them apparently, you know, close, they are saying a couple of miles. But they are in this base that these ISIS militants are attacking. We have sort of an aerial shot of it here. Take us through what we`re looking at and what happened here. KAY: Well, first thing that`s important Steve is to pick up on what Richard was saying about the context of this threat. In terms of the threat to the U.S. troops on the ground on this air base the threat is quite minimal. There is a very good reason for that. We just have to look at the size of this air base. These are the two main runways. It`s pretty standard actually for a Middle Eastern Iraqi air base. But these are about a mile and a half long. So, you can see actually the whole area. You are probably looking at about three miles in diameter. Now, let`s say, that`s a huge amount of area. You have the living quarters which we have up in this area and the air base as well should have a single point of entry. KORNACKI: And this be where the troops are? KAY: I don`t know where the troops actually is situated in the airfield. But the bottom is, is that the attack would more likely have coming up in this region here. And therefore, the troops could be situated down here in hangars or they could be situated anywhere really on this camp when they`re conducting their training. Now the really interesting bit here is I was based in Kandahar Province in Afghanistan for a while. Kandahar is a huge operational base that the Americans and the Brits used. Now, the one thing Kandahar, little area here, you can see this is a built up area. On a -- basis, probably once a week, we used to have mortar fire which used to be incoming into the air base here. Now, the tactics the ISIS are using is very brazen in terms of the suicide vest and actually just launching an all scale attack on the single point of entry. If I was ISIS I would be going for a more sort of longevity approach which is launching mortars into the area and hoping for something that way. KORNACKI: It seems like a bit of a Trojan horse strategy. And I think they have done this before. Dressing up as members of the Iraqi army, maybe being welcomed into this bases in some cases. Oh, you know, they are sort of with us. And then suddenly there are suicide attacks or something occurs inside. We take a look and put this in a little bit more perspective. So, this is al-Baghdadi now. This is a town that ISIS took just on Friday. We should say the red on this map we`re looking at. This is ISIS territory right now. Al-Baghdadi is just a few miles from the base we were just talking about. And now a battle for control. The Iraqi ground forces with air support from the United States, trying to win back that town. Tells us a little bit about that. KAY: Right. So, this is really important. I just want to link back into the point you made about the ISIS insurgents dressing up in Iraqi uniforms. Al-Baghdadi, what ISIS did was they took this village fist. This is really important. Because one of the key ways that we counter ISIS is through intelligence, but it`s not just through intelligence from predators whether it`s the image intelligence or electronic intelligence. It`s all about human intelligence, it`s about having people situated around the area that if they see something, they can pick up the phone and they can call back in. And that`s absolutely important. That is the way that Hezbollah works in South Lebanon. Is through this network. If you got a pair of eyes and you have a phone, you can report anything untoward that you see. And so, human intelligence are maintaining the loyalty of the societies within these local towns. It`s absolutely the key to fighting ISIS. The other thing I would like to point out in terms of the region is the geographic disposition of the forces. And we`ll start with Iraq. What`s really important is, yes, we do have ISIS here. But it`s not all lost. In this region here, this is the Kurdistan region. This is where you have about 110,000 Peshmerga forces. Now, they know the Peshmerga but they came through Turkey into Syria and helped the Syrian Kurds defend against Kobani, these guys were absolutely key in the fight against ISIS. Down here, you got what`s called populares (ph) mobilization forces, very much Shia organizations that are coming in from Iran. The Bader organization, the Hezbollah brigades. But these are also very much opposed to ISIS. And then you`ve got the main governmental forces. You`ve got the Iraqi forces which used to, this in 2009 at the height of the 2009 American equip and train program were up to 200,000. Now, they`re down at about 48,000, you think Iraqi ministry is in Syria forces which is about 38,000. So, all in all about 85,000 Iraqi forces. A hundred thousand Peshmerga and you got about 100,000 down here. Let`s jump into Syria. Three main groups in Syria. You have Jabhat al- Nusra who have just secured the northwest and part of the region. You`ve got ISIS who were trying to maintain territory down into the southeast. And then you`ve got Hezbollah and you`ve got Assad forces trying to hold onto Damascus, they`re the three main protagonists in Syria at the moment. And then the three main protagonist in Iraq. Just to summarize, you have the Peshmerga, Iraqi forces and the popular mobilization brigade. So, it is a complicated beast. KORNACKI: Yes. I know and it looks like 11 dimensional chest almost when you lay it out like that. But here`s a question some people starting to raise. Again, we talk about the American troops on that base. None of them harmed yesterday. But how close these militants were able to get to them and the fact that to defend that base, to defend this town, we are now looking at this combination of ground troops from Iraq but also air power from the United States. There was the potential that they`ve gotten in this base for actual U.S. ground forces to have some kind of skirmish, to get involved. It`s the idea of mission creep. The idea that the United States is over there right now, we are not saying this is a major combat operation, we`re not saying it`s anything like that. But is that something that could inevitably happen because of all these dynamics you`re laying out? KAY: What I think really important is, is that I do think with the latest AUMF that the President briefed last week, I do think that lessons are starting to be learned. And the reason I say that is because we went very an occupation strategy in the whole of Iraq. We had something like 160,000 U.S. coalition troops in 2008. But it didn`t work. And we had the most sophisticated and powerful air power in the world. It didn`t work. So, what I think with the AUMF what`s happening is that the President is trying to go for an attrition strategy, this was very much in an occupy strategy. He`s not going to get for an attrition strategy but using niche forces, Special Forces and I didn`t know from my own sources that there are Special Forces laid out all over this region. And what they are doing is they`re picking off ISIS militants. Reportedly up to about 200 in a month. Now, it`s small but what allows the President and the coalition to do is maintain an enduring presence. Omar from the Afghanistan always said to the west, "you may have the watches but we`ve got the time." So, what we need to do is that we need to have an engagement strategy that uses minimal niche forces that can be employed over 30, 40 years so we can keep on hammering back at these guys. What we don`t need to do is start occupying. KORNACKI: And one thing I want to show, if you just take the pen off there for a second, we can cycle through. This is attitudes in the United States. We`ll have a little bit more on this later. But this was a new poll conducted for NBC News Marist College doing it about U.S. ground troops being sent in to fight ISIS. You see a quarter of the country, 26 percent say they are ready for a large number to be sent over there. A limited number, 40 percent say that. You add those together. That means two-thirds of Americans say at least a limited number of ground forces should be sent over there. None at all, only 26 percent. So, you can see American attitude, you can think of the years after Iraq how hesitantly were to say this, that started to change. That`s something we`re going to visit a little bit later in the show, a fewer number there. But we wanted to get those in for the perspective. But thank you to Michael Kay, for taking us through, a lot of great information there. I really appreciate that. And turning back now to Yemen, that`s where this morning, we are learning more about embassy closures following the United States, United Kingdom and France fleeing as that nation continues to collapse. Yemen`s top U.N. envoy warns the country is now at a point between, quote, "civil war and disintegration." Yemen`s elected president resigning last month after a power struggle with rebels who have since taken over the government and nearly half of Yemen`s provinces. For more we`re now joined by Nancy Youssef, she`s the senior national security correspondent for The Daily Beast. So, Nancy let me just start on the current state of Yemen. We always hear about Yemen as sort of a haven, a breeding ground for al Qaeda. We have this western embassies that are pulling out of there right now. We have reports that this is a country that`s close to disintegration. Does all of this mean that al Qaeda is getting stronger in Yemen as we speak? NANCY YOUSSEF, THE DAILY BEAST: Well, it means that the country is quite fertile ground for groups like al Qaeda to emerge, to establish themselves, to take new territory, to create safe havens. So, it`s stronger, it`s unclear because right now that they are fighting the Houthis who are the rebels who kicked out the government last month. They are trying to establish themselves, working with Sunni militants, they`re attacking Houthis, they are trying to take territory. So, it`s hard to say that they are stronger. But they certainly see an opportunity to take ground and to build and expand their safe haven. KORNACKI: And what would happen? We hear about the idea of Yemen maybe disintegrating. If Yemen did disintegrate as a functional nation. What would happen? We always think back to the example of Afghanistan 20, 25 years ago. YOUSSEF: Well, Yemen has always been a fragile state. And now, we`re seen in the situation that is literally giving worse day by day as these groups fight. You have the Houthis who are reportedly backed by Iran. You have those who supported the ousted President Hadi, those who supported the president before him Ali Saleh was ousted during Arab Spring. And so, in this ongoing battle, if it truly sort of separates in a country that`s 60 percent Sunni. Forty percent Shia, you have another country in the Arab world, the poorest of them no less, that becomes unstable, that becomes divided, that becomes fractious at a time that the region is already quite unstable and for the United States it becomes much, much harder to wage its counterterrorism and counter intelligence campaign that it was engaged in quite heavily in Yemen. KORNACKI: Also that we mentioned earlier the fighting between Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, the cease-fire going into effect just hours from now over there. In the run-up to the cease-fire, all sorts of, you know, heavy brutal action. There is last-second territory grabs. When you look at the cease-fire, do you think there is a chance this one is actually going to hold? YOUSSEF: Well, certainly looking very promising. And frankly, even those who created the cease-fire, France and Germany who led the effort were with quite pessimistic. That said, this was arguably the least of the bad options. Because what the U.S. and western world large confront is ongoing sanctions that so far haven`t stopped Russian involvement and the potential of using or giving the Ukrainians defensive weapons, anti-tanks, missiles, and things like that to try to confront Russia. And there is no guarantee that those weapons would work. And so, if the U.S. and the western world decide that this isn`t going to work and they have to go down that road the question becomes, if these defensive weapons don`t work, do we have an escalation of U.S. involvement to offensive weapons and potentially laying the groundwork for Ukraine to become a proxy war. KORNACKI: All right. My thanks to Nancy Youssef in Washington. I appreciate that. This is a busy weekend in the world. This is a scary time in the world. Much more on the show today throughout the weekend still ahead though on this show today with Jon Stewart making his exit, just who is going to be delivering your daily moment of zen? Is anybody going to be delivering a moment of zen anymore? But next, the Oregonian front page this morning calls Governor John Kitzhaber`s resignation defiant. But why a new headline this morning may spell even bigger trouble for the soon to be ex-governor? We have all the latest from that bizarre political drama that came to ahead yesterday in Oregon. Stay with us. KORNACKI: Huge news to tell you about this morning. After a week of a bizarre unfolding scandal, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber announcing his resignation late yesterday. And just hours ago, this is how the story was reported this Oregon. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: This is KGW News at 11. LAURAL PORTER, KGW NEWS: Good evening. I`m Laural Porter. JOE DONLON, KGW NEWS: And I`m Joe Donlon. Thank you for joining us. By this time next week, we will have a new governor in office. But for John Kitzhaber this is not over. PORTER: Tonight, for the first time, we can tell you without a doubt he and fiance Cylvia Hayes are facing federal scrutiny. We have KGW live team coverage Mike Benner in Salem where it has been anything but business as usual. MIKE BENNER, REPORTER KGW-TV: Following the story so closely. And to say that the last few days have been wild would be an understatement. It`s been an emotional roller coaster, so much so that the halls of the state capitol were a virtual ghost town by late afternoon. A lot of these lawmakers just needed to escape the chaos. But not before weighing in on the big news of the day. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hell of a way to celebrate a state`s birthday, isn`t it? BENNER: In the state capital, volunteers were getting ready for Oregon`s 156th birthday party. The decorations coming just hours after Governor John Kitzhaber announced his resignation. GOV. JOHN KITZHABER (D), OREGON: I understand that I have become a liability to the very institutions and policies to which I have dedicated my career and indeed my entire adult life. BENNER: The governor delivered the news in both an audio clip and a written statement. It was evident the decision to resign wasn`t one the governor took lightly. KITZHABER: It is not in my nature to walk away from a job that I have undertaken. It is to stand and fight for the cause. BENNER: News of the Governor`s resignation spread quickly through the capitol. PETER COURTNEY (D), OREGON SENATE PRESIDENT: I`m torn to pieces over this thing. BENNER: Longtime friend and colleague Senate President Peter Courtney said it would be unfair to let this one moment to define the governor. COURTNEY: I don`t think there`s not been a public servant in Oregon`s history given the length of time, he served in two branches, who`s done more. And I mean that. BENNER: On the other side of the aisle, House Republican Leader Mike McLane said there is nothing delightful about this. MIKE MCLANE (R), OREGON HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: This is a sad day for Oregon. We haven`t had a governor resign under circumstances like this. BENNER: Secretary of State Kate Brown is slated to become Oregon`s next governor. And judging by her brief statement. She`s well aware of what`s at stake. KATE BROWN, OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE: This is truly a sad day for the state of Oregon. And I am confident that legislators will come together to move Oregon forward. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was the 11:00 p.m. Pacific Time newscast of the NBC Station in Portland, Oregon late last night. KGW doing a great wrap-up as only the local news can of stories like these. And as you heard, the latest news in Oregon last night, not only that the governor, John Kitzhaber is resigning but also the delivery of subpoenas unveiling a potentially massive criminal investigation by the FBI into Kitzhaber and his fiance Cylvia Hayes were accused of mixing personal and state business. For the latest on all of this, let`s go to the reporter you just saw in that KGW broadcast, he`s been following the Governor`s every move in Selman, Mike Benner joins us by phone this morning. Mike, thanks for taking a few minutes. I wonder if we could just start with -- if you could sort of thin this down for us. A national audience that had not been following Oregon politics closely until about a week ago suddenly finds out that this governor who has been in office for a long time. This is his fourth term as governor. Seems to be a veteran, Wiley politician is suddenly at the center of a scandal involving his girlfriend or his fiance and mixing state business with their personal business. What exactly is it that he did wrong here? BENNER (on the phone): Well, that`s the million dollar question. Because, you know, we as reporters, we are still asking that question. But every day that passes. Every hour that passes it`s becoming more and more clear that something is going on here. And you have to understand that this all started last year when the governor`s fiance Cylvia Hayes had came out with a couple of very big, first she admitted to a sham marriage to an Ethiopian immigrant. She got then cash, the kid got a green card. Then she admits to buying a pot farm in the state of Washington years and years ago to illegally grow pot. You know, at that point she had our attention, she had the governor`s attention but he was standing by her and he was reelected. And, you know, then the tone changes a bit. And we learn that while an adviser to the governor, there are reports that the fiance was taking consulting jobs with companies that had direct interest in Oregon policy. And at this point it`s unclear if she even reported that income on tax forms. So, that`s why, as you mentioned at the end of my piece there why the Oregon attorney general and federal officials are now investigating both the governor and his fiance. As he was resigning yesterday they are filing criminal subpoena seeking records related to any of this work. KORNACKI: You know, love is love. This is Valentine`s Day, so it`s especially true today. But given the history you are talking about with her. The green card for cash scheme she was involved in, a lot of stuff that`s come out in the last few months. There is some stuff that would be very concerning about her. She came into his life at a later point as I understand. He`s 67-years-old. I think he was in his mid-50s when they first got involved. Here`s somebody who`s covered him for a while. Was there any change? Did you ever notice a change in Kitzhaber when he met her or a change in his life before he met her? It seems like that`s a critical turning point in his political career. BENNER: That`s a good question. But not necessarily. The guy carries himself with a lot of confidence. He used to be an emergency room doctor before getting into politics. He`s well respected, well liked. Nothing really changed when she walked into his life. In fact, he was quoted at some point during this whole thing as saying that he`s in love but he`s not blinded by it. Of course, very fitting on this Valentine`s Day as you`ve mentioned. But just a very bizarre situation as the secretary of state mentioned herself. And I`m not quite sure if your viewers are aware of how that all went down. She was actually at a national conference -- leading a national conference on the east coast earlier this week when she was summoned back to Oregon. So she, of course, hopped on a plane. She was summoned by the governor. She hops on a plane, and gets here and is whisked away to this private meeting. And as soon as she gets into the meeting, she tells us that the governor asks her, what are you doing here? And of course, she`s like, what do you mean what am I doing here? You called me back. He then says he`s not resigning. This is on a Wednesday. And then he proceeds to talk about transition which is the transfer of power. It`s bizarre. KORNACKI: What a crazy week you guys have had in Oregon. You get a new governor next week. It sounds like an investigation into what exactly has been going on with Governor Kitzhaber and his fiance, that may take a while -- in many ways, to be continued. But Mike Benner, reporter for KGW, NBC in Portland, we really appreciate you getting up early and joining us this morning. Thank you. BENNER: You bet. KORNACKI: All right. Still ahead, what happens when Reverend Al Sharpton meets Reverend Al Sharpton, or the SNL version of Reverend Al Sharpton? We`ll going to show you that in a little bit. But next, Ruth Bader Ginsburg tells the not so sober truth about just why she nods off during the State of the Union Address. Stay with us. KORNACKI: All right. There is a lot going on this morning. Time to get caught up on some other headlines making news with today`s panel, we call this our "Catching Up" segment. Sort of a rapid fire look at the headlines around the country, around the world. Things that have people talking today in this weekend. Got them in index card form here. GENEVIEVE WOOD, THE DAILY SIGNAL: Not many. KORNACKI: Here we go. Here`s the first one. This is the Washington Post. The Scalia Ginsburg reality show. A not 100 percent sober friendship. So, this is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked this week about how she falls asleep at the State of the Union Address. She`s been caught on camera doing that. She said, quote, "We sit there stone-faced, sober judges but we`re not. At least I wasn`t 100 percent sober. Because before we went to the State of the Union we had dinner together. And I vowed this year, just sparkling water, stay away from the wine. But in the end, the dinner was so delicious it needed wine to accompany it." So she showed up a little tipsy maybe at the State of the Union and dozed off. It`s easy to doze off at the State of the Union without booze. WOOD: You don`t need a glass of wine to sleep during the State of the Union most of the time. So, I think everybody made a lot of fun of the fact that she fell asleep and I guess her granddaughter even called to say, what`s going on. But the truth is, probably a lot of people watching TV were asleep, too. The camera just wasn`t on them. ANA MARIE COX, THE DAILY BEAST: I`m just shocked that there are people who were sober. I wasn`t aware that was something that went on, that people watched it without having something to drink. I mean, I have a few times now but it`s definitely improved usually by some adult beverages. I think she`s awesome, I do. Like I`m a big fan of notorious RBG. That I have to say that the thing that really troubles me about the story is not that she wasn`t 100 percent sober but apparently that all the, you know, they are like best buds. KORNACKI: It`s a mysterious culture. COX: They travel together. That -- of justice. WOOD: Yes. KORNACKI: And they`re getting a lot. The incident Scalia and maybe his reputation publicly is different -- because they all seem to get along with him. I covered at the State of the Union one year, I was sitting in the front row of the balcony and I remember I got there very early. I didn`t pay much attention to the speech. I paid attention to who do I think was sleeping among the men. There is democratic congressman from California. I will not say his name. Because I`m 99 percent sure, not 100 percent, 99 percent sure that he was asleep for the entire speech but I won`t say his name. PETER BACON, JR. NBC NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: This is the benefit of lifetime tenure. If you can`t get fired from your job, the congressmen stay awake because they might, you know, lose their election. WOOD: The justices aren`t supposed to show agreement or not. You have to sit there. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) KORNACKI: With Howard Dean making news about Scott Walker. Scott Walker suddenly, you know, all the rage in the republican race for president. Here`s what Howard Dean had to say about him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HOWARD DEAN, FORMER VERMONT GOVERNOR: Scott Walker, were he to become president, would be the first president in many generations who didn`t have a college degree. He`s never finished. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Right. DEAN: So, the issue here is not just an issue of dancing around the question of evolution for political reasons. The issue is how well educated is this guy? (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: For the record, Scott Walker attended Marquette University, left before graduating and didn`t return. Also for the record, 31 percent of Americans have a college degree. I don`t think this hurts him. BACON: I don`t think it hurts him. Governor Dean with the same college went to Yale, but I don`t want to be a snob like Governor Dean either and suggest this isn`t a problem for Walker. And I think a lot of Americans went to college for a while, didn`t finish. This is not an unusual story. And I think it`s a perfectly fine and reasonable thing to do. Walker, as far as I can tell, he should have done better. He should answer questions. Evolution, that`s not a great answer. But I think he has plenty of time to show he`s smart enough and up to the job. WOOD: Yes. I think, look, I think this has actually helped him. A lot of Americans are increasingly -- maybe college -- it`s a very expensive price tag. But you don`t necessarily get that pay off once you get out. And the reality is look, a lot of success stories aren`t just politics. John Matthew of Whole Foods didn`t graduate from college. The late Steve Jobs didn`t graduate from college. And when you start looking at whose successes are, it doesn`t always have a college degree next to it. COX: I agree. I think also this hurts the democrats more than it hurts Walker. In the say to have Dean be the face of this argument, it makes people who might want to have other arguments against Scott Walker look a little bit superficial and silly. Because clearly he almost graduated, number one and he left for a job. WOOD: To work for the Red Cross. KORNACKI: This is a sensitive subject for me because when I was graduating many, many years ago, I had no money in college. So, I charged $25 in meal points. My last week of school, graduating next week, I`m hungry, I had five tuna fish sandwiches. That`s how I got through the week. We get to the ceremony. They handed me the diploma, it`s an empty envelope, they say you owe the school $25 and they have been sending ever since, you know, solicitation`s mail, $25, we`ll give you your diploma. And so, I told my mother, collect every single one of them when they come in. And when it costs them more than $25 in postage, then I will send them the $25 and say, give me my diploma. Anyway, I technically graduated they told me so that`s why I do that. All right. We got another one here. NPR has this one. For Valentine`s Day, that`s today. I`m loving the boyfriend I built for myself, it is the $25 app called the invisible boyfriend, it sends you personalized texts. You can add on cards or voicemail based where you customize the name and traits of your dream partner. For example saucy and sarcastic or lovingly nerdy. And you build a virtual relationship with this. COX: Just to be clear it`s also girlfriends. Right. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Probably. COX: Equal opportunity. I`m guessing. I`m not going to say who might be interested. Part of me wonders if it might be boys more than girls. This whole thing is just, whatever, it`s sad. Like one thing I read in that articles was it said it`s supposed to help keep unwanted suitors away like, I have a boyfriend. This strikes me as a really not just passive- aggressive but really an unhealthy way to get out of a potential situation with someone else. I mean, I don`t want to talk to you is a perfectly acceptable thing to say to somebody. This also just strikes me as highly creepy. WOOD: Well, isn`t it also okay to say, I don`t have a boyfriend and I`m okay with that? And I think a lot of people they say we are using the app in this way of like, you know, friends think I`ve got somebody in my life, mom and dad think I have somebody in my life. It`s silly and sad. KORNACKI: If people say that but I wonder sometime on the inside when they`re alone at night, maybe they think differently. WOOD: Maybe the person is real? KORNACKI: It`s just the, you know, it`s just the illusion of, you know -- COX: I think like literally emotional porn. KORNACKI: I have used the service several times. Anyway, that`s not true. Anyway, my panel is staying foot. But still ahead, Massachusetts has seen so much snow this winter. Plows shoveled enough to fill Gillette Stadium, home of the Patriots, 90 times they could fill that. And there`s more snow on the way this weekend. We`ll go live to Boston to see how the city is preparing, if they can prepare. They are even talking about dumping snow in Boston Harbor. But next, she was against Jeb Bush running before she was for it. A flip-flop last night from a very famous woman. KORNACKI: Barbara Bush is giving in. The former first lady made headlines a while back when she poo-poo`d the idea of her son Jeb running for president in 2016, telling NBC`s the "Today" show, quote, "There are other people out there that are very qualified. And we have had enough Bushes." Not exactly a ringing endorsement from mom right there. But now Barbara Bush is pulling a 180, making a surprise video appearance in Florida late last night at an event where Jeb was speaking. And she tried to set the record straight. Jeb, it`s mom, she interjected, according to reports, listen, what do you mean too many Bushes? I changed my mind. By the way, the story until now at least have been that it was Jeb`s father George H.W. Bush who is been the most eager to see his son run. The son he saw going way back as presidential timber more so than George W. Bush. And speaking of George W., his name which couldn`t someway haunt Jeb`s campaign also came up last night. Jeb Bush being asked by a reporter how he would have handled Iraq and Afghanistan differently in replying with this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I won`t talk about the past. I will talk about the future. If I`m in the process of considering the possibility of running it`s not about relitigating anything in the past. It`s about trying to create a set of principles and ideas that help us move forward. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: This comes with the Washington Post reporting last night that Jeb Bush is, quote, "Far outpacing the rest of the republican candidates when it comes to raising money." The Post reporting that Bush`s two fundraising committees are on course to rake in tens of millions of dollars by early spring and the former Florida governor`s overwhelming dominance in the race to line up financial backers has come at a speed that is impressed longtime republican money players who say wealthy party backers have rapidly migrated to Bush since 2012 nominee Mitt Romney decided against another White House run two weeks ago. So, interesting Jeb Bush news this morning. I guess that, look, I get it politically. He doesn`t want to answer any questions about his brother`s presence. His brother left office with a 30 percent approval rating. No mystery there. At the same time I`m picturing, if we got to a Bush-Hillary Clinton race and people are asking Hillary about Bill`s record and they`re asking Jeb about George W.`s record, I imagine that`s something Hillary wants to talk about and Jeb doesn`t. And I wonder if that`s a bad contrast. COX: If they are asking about Iraq and Afghanistan, I don`t know if you notice but those are not the past. WOOD: Right. COX: Those are not issues that are like somehow in the distance past. And those are going to be issues that particular question is irrelevant for both Hillary and Jeb. Not just about past answers and things we have done in the past but what they would do moving forward. So, I think for both of them, neither, I mean, there are reasons that Hillary would like to talk about the past there`s also lots of reasons why she wouldn`t. I`m sure both of them are going to use a line of -- something like that which is to say, no, no, no, we`re going to focus on moving forward. But there are some mistakes and some statements to be held accountable for. And these last names that they are never going to escape. I mean, you can`t run on a last name which both of them are doing and then say but sorry. KORNACKI: I`m my own person. Yes. Can Jeb answer the question though because this will come out I`m sure. You know, was it the right move? Was it the right decision by, it was your brother but was it right decision by this country to invade Iraq in 2003. Can he answer that question? WOOD: He`s going to have to. Maybe he can use the line that Hillary did on Benghazi. Now, what difference does it make? Right. He can throw that kind of thing out. But no, look, both of them, whoever the candidates are are going to have to answer questions about what they would do and what they think of what`s been done in the past. I mean, you can`t completely say, I step in brand new on day one and anything I thought about the past doesn`t matter. He has going to have to answer those questions. COX: Yes. BACON: One thing for Jeb is the advantages that the other candidate answer the question to, no republican really wants to be on the record saying this war was, I think it`s maybe Rand Paul. I suspect a lot of other people. Scott Walker. I think it will be hard for him to say I was opposed to the war. Hillary Clinton of course voted for the war. So, we`re now in a place where Jeb is not necessarily in a bad place. On a fundraising piece, I think it`s really interesting, the couple of things that are happening, one, I would argue Mitt Romney is not running because Jeb has already locked the fundraisers down. He`s done a really good job last month. Also, a lot of these fundraisers are people who are joining Jeb are based around the New York City area. They in theory could be for the governor right near them. And think about this for Chris Christie. It shows people that are in this district in his area right around him are choosing to be - - this is an almost an anti-endorsement as well as endorsement. They are not for Christie. They are for Jeb. It`s not the same for Walker. Christie should be getting more support from people in New York and right now he`s not. KORNACKI: So, this is exactly what the Bush people are going for and what George W. Bush did when he locked up the republican nomination. He`s just monopolize all these big money people, raise an eye bulging amount of money and intimidate everybody else out. I wonder if in today`s Republican Party given the resistance there is to the Bush name in the Republican Party, the rise of the Tea Party. The billionaire-funded super PACs that can, you know, equalize things, can that strategy work? If he comes in with obscene money like we`re hearing, does that have an intimidating effect? WOOD: Well, I think it certainly helps him. But I think that the couple of things going on here. One is I think that you do have different play in terms of who can donate, the rules of the Super PAC and the fact that a lot of people get in with just a few people behind them and they stay in for a while. We`ve seen that in recent elections. But number two, I think you have more qualified candidates getting ready to stand up against Jeb Bush than you did getting ready to stand up against George W. Bush in 2000. And a lot of people are interested in them. So, look, somebody just has to take fire. And the money starts coming in. COX: Right. This is a different world than George W. Bush. This is a different fund-raising environment. And I do think that this is, when you pointed out -- when Perry pointed out, this is New York money and east coast money that`s backing Bush, that`s not necessarily a good thing for a lot of other candidates. They will point to that as a weakness. KORNACKI: Right. COX: Not just because it points a weakness in Christie but because that`s the establishment. You know, those are the people they are backing Bush. Don`t you want something different? This is I mean, in some ways like, you know, Bush and Hillary have a lot to commiserate about if they ever get together. I mean, they faced very similar narratives in conquering them. They face a base that`s not necessarily happy with the choices they have been given. If anything it is, the republican base that feels a little more positive about this. WOOD: I think republicans, they are excited about having a primary. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) And a good primary. Not just, you know, a bunch of people on stage but the bunch of qualified people on stage. But you know, I think democrats wanting some of the same thing. I mean, the fact that Elizabeth Warren is outpolling Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire right now, maybe it`s a blip. KORNACKI: I`m not sure I believe those numbers but yes. WOOD: Wait. Wait. Wait. And I`m not saying people think she can win. KORNACKI: Yes. WOOD: But I think they think a little bit of a primary can be good for somebody. Now, I`m sure, if you go back, Hillary would say, no, because that`s what happened last time. And I may not want it again. KORNACKI: Right. No. And there is a difference between the once in a lifetime primary challenge from Barack Obama or getting, you know, a real race from Martin O`Malley or someone. Certainly a lot of democrats think would be good for her but boy that difference between you poll nationally right now. And Jeb Bush is at that 15 percent. And Hillary is up there at 65 percent. I don`t know she`d rather be in that position. Anyway, thanks to the panel. We`ll going to see you though again in the next hour. And still ahead, Alabama has become the latest focal point in the fight over same-sex marriage. It`s a reminder that there are still many people out there who are opposed to gay marriage. We`ll going to use the big board to show you who exactly and where exactly that gay marriage opposition is coming from these dais. And next, we are going live to Boston, it`s bracing for yet another major winter snowstorm. The fourth to hit New England in as many weeks. KORNACKI: Millions of New Englanders are going to spending this weekend riding out yet another winter storm. And if you`d think you have heard the story before it`s because you have. This is the fourth major storm to hit that region in as many weeks. This is what Boston looked like yesterday, before the latest storm is set to hit. That was bad enough for the city. City officials say, they`ve removed more than 10,000 truckloads of snow this winter. Shaping up to be one of the snowiest so far. I think the snowiest in Boston history. At least for February. The Weather Channel Reynolds Wolf is live for us now in Boston, Reynolds you`re halfway covered with snow. It`s going to be up to your shoulders in a few hours, I think. REYNOLDS WOLF, THE WEATHER CHANNEL: We are getting to the point where this is not weather. This is punishment. This is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I can tell you, stepping off the plane yesterday and chatting with people in the airport at the hotel and certainly the people we have spoken to this morning, people are sick and tired of it. The problem is, we are going to see more of this snowfall coming through over the next 12 hours or so. Now, the amount of snow, the amount of this stuff that we could be dealing with could measure up to a foot. Maybe some locations a bit more. But that`s one factor we are dealing with. The second issue which is nonexistent for the time being is going to be the wind, the wind is going to pick up. So, we`ll going to have blizzard-like conditions. And then along the coast, right there in the center of that storm system, you have winds spinning around, this is going to cause the water to pile up. So, we could have some serious beach erosion and possibly some coastal flooding. So yes, very very nasty stuff on this Valentine`s Day. Now, in terms of travel, all right, traveling by foot is going to be one of the best ways to get around. The streets for now are in pretty good shape. They have done the best job they possibly can. I got to tell you, the main thoroughfares in downtown Boston near Copley Square. You have places where only a car can get through at the time because the snow is piled up so high on both sides of the street. So, with the additional snow that we anticipate, that`s going to be even tougher. Traveling all together is going to be next to impossible as we get tonight. Mass transit, the last subways are going to be operational. We`ll be right at 12:15 this morning. Then after that trollies, ferries, one of the city buses, again not operating. Back to you, guys. KORNACKI: All right. Reynolds Wolf in Boston, proof that God must be a Seahawks fan. That`s my only conclusion. Anyway, still ahead we`ll talk with members of Congress from both parties about President Obama`s military authorization request against ISIS. But next as of this morning two-thirds of Alabama counties are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after a week of legal wars. Who is still against gay marriage in Alabama and everywhere in this country? We`re going to show you, next. KORNACKI: All right. A big news this week. We`ve talked about a lot on MSNBC, Alabama where lots of candidates were refusing to hand that same sex marriage licenses, a few have since changed their mind. And of course, this is a reminder that there are places in the country, where opposition to gay marriage remains very strong or very popular, if you look at it nationally, if you poll this question right now 55 percent of the people say, they support it. Forty two percent say, they oppose it. We are always talking about how gay marriage is becoming more and more popular but that 42 percent is a big number still. And that 42 percent is a lot higher in some states. States like Alabama. So, we said let`s take you through where are will going to find the most opposition to gay marriage. One place you can look is, age, the older you are -- the younger you are, the more likely you are to support it. Fifty six percent of 18 to 49-year- olds. Only 38 percent of those over 50. Here`s another marker. Level of education. If you are a college grad, six out of 10 of them support gay marriage. If you have no college at all, 39 percent support gay marriage. A big gap there. Here`s another gap, it`s ideological, if you call yourself a liberal, overwhelming support. A moderate, pretty strong support. If you call yourself a conservatives, only one if four conservatives supporting gay marriage. Here is another way we can look at it. It`s religion. Among Jews, heavy, heavy support. Three in four support gay marriage, those who have no religion at all, heavy support for it. Catholics just over 50 percent. Protestants lower at 34 percent. Now, there is a reason for that. We can look a little bit closer at Protestants and you can see some gaps here. Among white main line Protestants it is majority support. Fifty two percent. In black churches, you find it`s lower at 35 percent. And in white evangelical or Born Again Christian churches, 19 percent. That is the lowest number you`ll going to find. If you look at a state like Alabama, heavy evangelical population. Now, obviously, that`s one of the reasons the gay marriage is still unpopular in Alabama and all of that stuff you saw this week happening there this week. Anyway, thought we would take a look at that. Much more to come in the next hour including the Congressional reaction to the President`s request for military force against ISIS. KORNACKI: The authorization of force. (MUSIC) KORNACKI: All right. Thanks for staying with us this Saturday morning. We still have a lot to get to today. In a few minutes, we`re going to be talking about the president`s request to define the fight against ISIS with Democratic Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania and Republican Congressman Charlie Dent. If you are chilly this morning, you`re waking up to some of the coldest temperatures in a year all across the country. Also, Jon Stewart, one of the most influential people in American politics. He`s stepping away from "The Daily Show." You probably heard about that this week. But who replaces him now? MSNBC`s "POLITICS NATION" with Al Sharpton gets a surprise visitor ahead of "SNL`s" 40th anniversary spectacular. We`re going to show all the highlights from that very memorable, and very funny appearance on that show yesterday. But we begin this hour at the White House. Six months after the United States began bombing ISIS, President Obama asked Congress to authorize the use of force. He included no geographic limitations in his request. But he did ask that the approval be limited to three years, at which time Congress would have to reauthorize. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I do not believe America`s interests are served by endless war or by remaining on a perpetual war footing. It is not a timetable. It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period. What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president`s term. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And NBC`s Kristen Welker is live at the White House this morning. So, Kristen, they put this proposal together this week. Congress has been sort of pouring over, starting to comment on it. A lot of criticism from the left and right for different reasons. How is the White House handling the criticism it`s heard so far? KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS: You`re absolutely right. Well, the White House is preparing to make a robust push to get this passed. And the reaction, as you point out, Steve, has been mixed. There is bipartisan support for passing the AUMF. There`s agreement about that. But lawmakers are deeply divided about how specifically to do it. In fact, Obama ally, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, acknowledged this week that it would be a, quote, "tough lift", in her words. A lot of the more liberal Democrats say the language is just too open ended specifically when it comes to the issue of ground forces. They want the AUMF to ban the use of ground troops altogether. As it is written right now, the legislation would prevent the use of, quote, "enduring offensive ground combat operations". Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are asking, what does that mean? What does enduring mean? What does offensive mean? This week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the language is intentionally fuzzy to give the president some flexibility. But some Democrats worry that nonspecific language could be the start of mission creep. They`re also criticizing this AUMF for the fact that there are no geographic constraints in the language. The White House argues the president needs to be able to pursue ISIS and its targets wherever they may exist. Meanwhile, Republicans feel as though the AUMF limits the president`s power too much. House Speaker John Boehner earlier this week vowed to work through the issues one day at a time. I am told, Steve, that this could pass by April. But even that may be generous. This is going to be a big fight. A lot of thorny issues to work through -- Steve. KORNACKI: OK, a lot of drama still to play out on that. Thanks as always to Kristen Welker, live at the White for us this morning. Appreciate that. WELKER: You got it. KORNACKI: How does the American public feel about what the president is looking for here? Well, a new NBC News-Marist poll took a look at that, asked how they thought their congressman should vote on the plan the president submitted, 54 percent said they want Congress to vote for it, 32 percent said against. Asked if the United States will defeat ISIS, 66 percent, two-thirds answered that the U.S. will be able to do that. Only 23 percent said they wouldn`t. As we noted last hour, a majority of Americans believe the U.S. should send at least some ground troops to battle ISIS. The plurality, excuse me, 40 percent siding with a limited number. It`s now up to Congress to decide. We are now joined by the senior senator from Pennsylvania, Democrat Bob Casey. He`s a member of the bipartisan national working group. He joins us from Pittston, Pennsylvania. Senator, I appreciate you taking the time this morning. I`ll start with the question raised in that -- SEN. BOB CASEY (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Thanks, Steve. KORNACKI: -- in that report we got from Kristen Welker. She said some of the criticism, some of the concerns raised about what the president is looking for here has to do with an attempt in the language here to limit the use of ground forces. But it says it would prohibit them, quote, "for enduring offensive ground operations". And the concern that`s been raised is that there`s that very fuzzy language. Lots of potential loopholes there. That`s something that this president, or more to the point, a future president, since this runs for three years, could potentially exploit to very much expand the ground presence over there. Is that a concern you share? CASEY: It is a concern I share. I generally think the president, the proposal he`s made is headed in the right direction. But there is no question. And Kristen was right. This will be a big battle. But it should be. This is the grave question of war. We have a national security threat from ISIS. Congress has a duty to debate this, and not for a couple of hours or a few days. We should dedicate a lot of time to this by way of debate and by way, briefings and engage in debates that get at the basic question, because I have a concern about what that means. What does enduring offensive ground combat operations, just five words -- what do they mean? And what does it do by way of a constraint but not a constraint that will disallow or inhibit the president from fulfilling his obligations as commander-in-chief? KORNACKI: So, what`s -- as you look at this, it`s early. This sounds like a process that could play out into, as Kristen was just saying, maybe into April. But as you look at this right now, what do you need to see change? What do you need to see added here that would make you comfortable supporting this? CASEY: Well, first I want to know more about what those five words mean. That`s very, very important because that`s the part of the proposal where there`s a grant of authority. That`s if it`s not the most important thing in the proposal, it`s number two. But I think it is the most important. I do think the fact it has a three-year time horizon is good. That`s what I had suggested in a speech in December. As well as a commitment not in the proposal but in the transmittal letter from the president which said that -- he raised the question of altering or amending and repealing the 2001 authorization in the aftermath of 9/11. That I think that`s hanging over this as well, because a lot of folks are concerned that becomes another way to deploy troops or another way to engage in a broader offensive. KORNACKI: There was -- we put some of those numbers from this new NBC News-Marist poll. I want to show you another one right now. This caught my eye. Americans were asked about the confidence in President Obama`s strategy against ISIS. So, earlier, they support the authorization he`s looking at. But they also say, a plurality say they have not much or no confidence in the president`s strategy, only 45 percent say they have a lot. So, the message I`m getting from this poll, Senator, is people clearly feel we should be doing something proactive here dealing with ISIS. But in terms of when they look to the president, they are not seeing much of a plan right now. Are you? CASEY: Well, Steve, I think he`s laid out a good strategy months ago now. But -- and I showed a lot of forbearance in not criticizing it. Some people criticizing it before the ink was dry. That`s not appropriate to approach it. But he has a strategy and it involves a 60-nation coalition. I don`t think he nor his administration is doing enough to communicate what the strategy is and to do periodic if not almost daily reporting on where things are going well, where things are not. And that part of the problem here. You can`t just have a strategy. You`ve got to communicate it effectively and repeatedly. You have to spend the time. So, that`s a difficult assignment. But I think those who say he doesn`t have a strategy are wrong. But I think they have to be much better at communicating wins and losses, successes and constantly re-evaluate, because even as we debate the authorization we have to continually assess how the strategy is being implemented. Does it need to be changed? Do we have to make adjustments? But that`s why we need a big debate. It should be a long and important debate. KORNACKI: All right. Senator Bob Casey, Democrat for Pennsylvania -- appreciate the time this morning. Thank you very much. CASEY: Thanks, Steve. KORNACKI: All right. Now, to get a view from the other side of the aisle, an about an hour`s drive down Interstate 476, Charlie Dent, Republican from Pennsylvania, he joins us now. So, Congressman, you`ve seen -- I will start where I started with the senator. You have seen the request from the president. You have seen these polls, too. When you look at the request, are you comfortable supporting it right now or what would you need to support it in the future? REP. CHARLIE DENT (R), PENNSYLVANIA: I believe we need an AUMF, an authorization for force, but I`m not comfortable with the one presented. I agree with some things that senator said. Others, I probably take issue with. I don`t think a three-year timeline is particularly a good idea. I think it sends a bad signal to allies, it certainly sends a message to our enemies. It also will handcuff the next president of the United States. That`s a problem. KORNACKI: I`m sorry, sir. Are you saying, do you want no timeline, or just a much longer timeline? DENT: I wouldn`t put a timeline in at all. Not in the authorization for the use of military force. And I think you touch on something, Steve. The public -- and I certainly agree, we need an authorization. However, an authorization to use force is not a strategy. The strategy must be more clearly articulated than it has been up to this point. In my view -- every expert with whom I have spoken said, there needs to be a ground force there in order to defeat ISIS. Air power alone will not do the job. I`m not suggesting there be American ground forces there in massive numbers. It`s not what I`m arguing. But there`s going to have to be a multinational Sunni Arab and Turkish force on the ground to defeat ISIS. And if the goal is -- if the objective is to defeat ISIS, I don`t think we have a strategy that does it. And there are two issues, there is Iraq campaign and there`s a Syria campaign. Iraq, I think there is a much clearer path forward on how to defeat ISIS and Iraq. Syria, much more complex because there is not a Sunni political infrastructure within Syria, and that is very important, because we have to defeat them military. But there`s also a political dimension to this. I understand the path in Iraq because there`s a Sunni political infrastructure that we can work with and develop, but not so in Syria. KORNACKI: What is the mood of your colleagues? I wonder if you`ve got Democrats you`re talking to, I`m curious and Republicans, because hanging over this is the experience with Iraq. The experience of the sort of the last 10 years of American foreign policy, you see how just throughout history how our decisions on war generally decided in rear-view mirrors way. You know, World War I haunted us, haunted this country for years. A lot of people say we should be confronting Hitler, and it was memories of World War I gave the isolationist movement still much power. So, now, we are in a condition where the disaster of what played out this Iraq has caused so much hesitancy to get involved in this, get involved in a big way in something like this going forward. Are you sensing that resistance among the members up there, are you sensing that maybe they are thinking about this is starting to change? DENT: I think -- certainly, my colleagues are sensitive to what happened in 2001 and 2003 in Iraq. There`s no question about it. But at the same time, we realize what happened in Syria one with could argue was in large part due to American disengagement and detachment. We took largely a hands off position on Syria, and now, we have seen hundreds of thousands of deaths. So, I mean, we`re trying to strike the right balance here. I think everybody, there`s a consensus that there should not be a major American ground force in Iraq or Syria. I think we all agree to that point. But the issue becomes we all want to defeat ISIS. We can`t do it without the ground force. So, it really becomes a political challenge for us to get this coalition which I could argue is not particularly -- is half willing in many cases. Not so with the Jordanians and the UAE, but we need the Turks and Saudis much more engaged. And they are looking at this AUMF, too. If they see a three-year timeline, they see that as a lack of resolve on behalf of the United States. So, it`s tricky. It also plays into Assad. You know, there are some on the Sunni side, the Turks in particular, who feel that Assad must be defeated in order to take down ISIS. Now, I think I`m not sure -- I don`t necessarily agree with that position with the Turks, and I don`t think the president does either. But that is something we also have to consider here. Our Sunni, Arab allies and Turks have a different view of how to deal with Assad as we confront ISIS. KORNACKI: Yes, a lot of different moving parts here. A very complex issue, obviously. This is a debate, as we say just at the beginning stages. But, Congressman Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania, appreciate the time this morning. Thank you. DENT: Thank you. KORNACKI: All right. A lot ahead to come this morning, including the battle for the top job in fake news. We are taking a close news at the contenders for Jon Stewart`s chair. (COMMERCIL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: It`s easier to say, no limitations, rather than start naming countries and you`ve let somebody out, giving a roadmap to the al Qaeda as to where they can go because we`re not going. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday making the case for not putting geographic limitations in a resolution battling ISIS. Add that to the latest NBC News-Marist poll numbers showing that Americans are almost split when asked what amount of confidence they have in President Obama`s strategy against ISIS. So, we showed this last block, 45 percent say they have a lot, 48 percent, a plurality, though, saying, they have not much or none. This is a revealing one also from the poll in how President Obama will be remembered for overseas conflicts, 40 percent say he`ll be remembered for ending the war, 44 percent for starting a new one. Back at the table is Genevieve Wood with "The Daily Signal", Ana Marie Cox from "The Daily Beast", and Perry Bacon, Jr. with NBC News. I forgot to introduce them the first time they were on. But I think everybody here recognizes you. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Nobody can -- anyway. So, thank you for putting up with my idiocy on that. So, let`s talk about this. I`ll start with the poll question that I ended on right there because that really jumped out at me. I mean, the whole impetus for Barack Obama`s presidential campaign. The whole reason Democrats rallied around him in 2007 and against Hillary Clinton was the war, it was ending the Iraq war. The war that Hillary Clinton voted for, that Barack Obama was going to get this country out of. And now, more people say he`ll be remembered for starting a new war than for ending one. Do you think he will be? PERRY BACON, JR., NBC NEWS: I think those people have bad memories. I mean, the public is off here. When Obama started we had 100,000 troops in Iraq, we had a lot in Afghanistan as well. We are getting near a small number. It`s hard for me to understand how the public sort of views it that way with. The right critique might be he with drew troops from Iraq too fast. That might be the right way to think about it. But in terms of -- and therefore, we are in a situation where we had to go back in. The notion he`s known more for starting a war than ending them is confusing from the Republican point of view. COX: Yes, I think this is a poorly phrased question. We are in a forever war. That`s just true. I mean, since 9/11 that`s what we have done. Nothing we have done legislatively or tactically has done thinking to either start a new one or end one really. We are just in the midst of a perpetual conflict. I think the AUMF is actually just -- the way we are talking about it even shows that we are unprepared to reconcile with the fact that we cannot even think of these things as wars in a conventional sense. WOOD: Right. COX: This is -- we are fighting an ideology. We are fighting a frame of mind. We`re not fighting a geographic location. There is -- when people talk about, do we need ground troops to defeat ISIS, what does it mean to defeat ISIS? Like there is no definition of it. This is not a country that can wave a white flag. There are no officials that can surrender to us. WOOD: The question is, how do you contain it? And I think any president who gets up and says, we`re going to end a war, or we`re never going to have another war, is just -- that`s bad foot. Let`s go back to Woodrow Wilson, the war to end all wars, World War I. Where we do find ourselves not many years later? World War II. And the reality is, I think the reason you see that poll numbers because people don`t feel as though wars -- I mean, just bringing troops home but still having the chaos going on over there. And Americans feeling their security is at risk says, look, we don`t think this thing is over. They aren`t confident we are doing a good job of containing and fighting it. And I think that`s why you see the president making this move. I think this is a PR move more than anything else. Democrats don`t seem to like it. Most on the right don`t like it. KORNACKI: What`s going to happen with this? Because you got -- traditionally, right, you submit this to Congress. There would be a negotiation on it and there`d be some kind of settlement. But they are moving in opposite directions here. I mean, we just heard it in the last segment. We had the Democrat came on. He says, a three-year window makes perfect sense. The Republican comes on and says, I don`t want a window on it. I want this open ended. So, it`s not like they are moving towards that can compromise in a year or a half or -- COX: Both of them are arguing out of ideology not practical consideration of what it would mean to be engaging in this war. The Democrats are saying that`s what they think Democrats want to hear, and the Republicans are saying, they think that`s what their base wants to hear. When it comes right down to it, Congress has not listened to the military or the intelligence communities when it comes to fighting this war. Right now, we have people in Gitmo that both the military and intelligence community say that they should be able to let go that Congress is considering legislation that would prevent them from being relieved -- WOOD: But you can say the same -- COX: -- out of political motivation. WOOD: But you can say the same thing about the president. Many people will say the president has not listened -- COX: Sure. WOOD: -- to his past secretaries of defense, the current one who is about to leave, or the defense intelligence agency. So, I think the problem here, I do think you have a lot of politics involved. I don`t think there is a doubt about that. But I think many people, including the public are concerned we are not in a good place now. They are very worried something big could happen very shortly. I`m worried, frankly, that that`s why the president is making this move right now. That he knows something the rest of us don`t know and that he`s trying to get a little bit of cover on this. BACON: Just to add, it looks like Congress is converging but are they coming together? They are coming out with positions that I would argue suggest maybe they really don`t want a vote. Maybe they really don`t want to. Maybe they just want the president to go through with it, because if Mario Rubio says, we have to have a no strings attached at all, and Democrats say, we have to have lots of strings, it`s hard to see how a vote comes together right now. I think that might be the intention. A lot of people in Congress -- remember they got to Congress because they replaced someone who with voted for the Iraq war. These guys would love not to be on the record for anything. KORNACKI: You know, you know, it`s presidential campaign season. A number of Republican senators locking to run for president. Maybe, you know, Democratic, too. There is always an opportunity in these sort of things to frame it in a way where, here, I`m going to make a stand for my base that`s being sold out by this. Yes, you could make that from the left, you could make that from the right on this. There is that incentive to disrupt on this. So, we`ll have to keep an eye out for that. That panel is staying put. Before we get back to them we want you up to date on late-breaking developments in that pending cease-fire in Ukraine. Fighting now intensifying in Eastern Ukraine with separatist rebels trying to take control offer more territory before the troop takes hold. The cease-fire is set to begin at midnight in Ukraine, hours from now. Stay with MSNBC and MSNBC.com throughout the day for updates. Still ahead, new developments in the investigation into the shooting deaths of those three Muslim college students in North Carolina. What police say they found in the suspected gunman`s apartment. KORNACKI: We are staying on top of several developing story this is weekend. A blizzard set to pummel New England once again very soon. Also, the investigation into the shooting deaths of the three Muslim college students down in North Carolina. The FBI has opened a preliminary inquiry into that case. And local police now say the man accused of pulling the trigger had at least a dozen firearms in his home. Craig Hicks is charged with three counts of murder. He was the neighbor of the three victims. Police said a dispute over parking led to the shooting. The father of two of the victims says it was because the three students were Muslims. He calls it a hate crime. President Obama weighing in on the killings yesterday, releasing a statement that reads in part, "No one in the United States of America should be targeted because of who they are, what they look like or how they worship." Turning back to politics now, what grade would you give our last three presidents when it comes to race is? We`ll ask the question right after this. And later, with Jon Stewart leaving "The Daily Show", there is a scramble for the chair. Many are asking, will a woman finally get a seat at that table? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Like the rest of America, black America in the aggregate is better off now than it was when I came into office. The gap between income and wealth of white and black America persists. And we`ve got more work to do on that front. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was President Obama responding to a question about the state of black America from senior White House correspondent from American Urban Radio Networks April Ryan. That`s a familiar face to viewers of this show. April Ryan has been covering the White House since 1997. And her book "The Presidency in Black and White" goes behind the scenes to look at how the three administrations she`s covered, the last three administrations have handled race issues. Ryan grades each president on how they definitely they have managed this complicated terrain. George W. Bush brings up the rear with a C minus. Bill Clinton and President Obama both score a B-plus. "New York Times" reporting Ryan originally gave Obama a B but raised his grade due to his handling of the shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Joining me now to discuss all this is the author of that book, and a frequent UP guest, April Ryan. April, thank you for taking a few minutes this morning. And congratulations on the book. So, that`s interesting. Barack Obama, first African-American president in history, you know, shatters all expectations in getting elected. Your instinct was to give Bill Clinton a better grade. APRIL RYAN, AMERICAN URBAN RADIO NETWORKS: Yes. Thanks for having me, Steve. Yes. First term for President Obama is different from the second term. You have to remember this president had to navigate the waters to successfully get a second term. And this second term, particularly in this fourth quarter, you see a much different Barack Obama as it relates to race than you did in the first term. So, the first term, they had to be very strategic. The White House even said, everything will follow him for history`s sake to include politics and race. So, today really had to navigate the waters. They said if there was a subject and it veered off into the issue of race, it would have just changed the subject and that subject would not be, and it would be more about race. So, they really had to be strategic in how they handled the first term. And that`s why I changed the grade. KORNACKI: It`s interesting. I mean, you are talking about the specific policy questions that come up which are hugely important. But I wonder, when you give a grade out to Barack Obama, is there -- is there credit given for just the fact of his victory, the fact of what it says to people about what African-American can do, what it says to young people who had never seen an African-American president before. Does that factor in at all? RYAN: It`s not necessarily that he just became president. Remember, I am a reporter who questions every president that I cover. It`s about what they are doing. It`s the questions of accountability. What have are you done, what are you doing, what do you plan to do? The first term was a little weaker than the second. That`s what it`s more about. And, really, to be honest with you, there could be another book in the making to round out the grade after this administration is over. KORNACKI: That`s interesting. Let me ask you about the other one. George W. Bush with a C minus. RYAN: Yes. KORNACKI: Give us the low light of the administration when it comes to race and what`s the highlight? RYAN: Well, let`s start with the good first. The highlight is his work in Africa. He`s known as the president who did the most for Africa, Sub- Saharan Africa. He established PEPFAR. You even have former President Bill Clinton on the record in the presidency in black and white, my book, talking about the fact that he helped George W. Bush gain that recognition because they were talking on the way to the funeral of Pope John Paul II in 2005 and trying to work out how to get drugs, the much needed drugs at a discount price. And they worked it out and this happened. So, he`s known to have done a lot on HIV/AIDS in Africa, tuberculosis, malaria, mosquito nets, things of that nature. He still goes back to health. Now on the low side, President Bush did get an F for Hurricane Katrina. Any time you have anyone die, that`s bad. That F is for that, as well as the fact that you have a group of people who felt they were not connected in any way to their country. They were disenfranchised. They were left unfortunately to find their own way. If they survived, they survived. If not, they did not. It was a sad time for this country, and for people who lived in the Hurricane Katrina ravaged areas. BACON: April, congratulations on the book. You have done a great job. I wanted to ask you, you have talked to all three of the previous presidents about race. Can you talk us about what they told you about how they view a little bit, a snippet of what you`re talking about, what they - - how they view black American and race in American? RYAN: Well, let`s start with President Clinton. Former President Bill Clinton really believed in moving America forward. One he saw the nation was browning, and we`re going to be a nation that has a majority that will be minority very soon. So, he tried to start a conversation on race in America and it really, it floundered because it was overshadowed by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But he honestly tried. And one thing about that, we had an intense conversation, an interesting and intense conversation about race. We had soulful dinner with the president, off-the-record soulful dinner and we talked about this in this book. And he wanted to find out our thoughts about race. The reporters who covered them and at that time it was more African-American reporters and producers than it has been since then. We don`t have that many now, as you know, Perry. George W. Bush, we talked a lot about race. On the record and off the record. I remember some instances and it`s in the book as well, when just before President Obama`s historic election to the president, we were talking in his limousine about race, the overt and subtle racism that was happening in the country during the time of the election process, in the run-up to the elections and how the nation was divided over this potential -- possible president, over this candidate. Then-Senator Barack Obama and his run for the Oval Office. Then President Obama, we talk about race but it it`s a little bit more than that. It`s more of an instinct of kind of thing that we do, and we deal with it, and off the record and on the record. And all of that`s here in "The Presidency in Black and White". KORNACKI: All right. April Ryan, that`s the title of the new book, check that out, "The Presidency in Black and White". April, thanks for joining us this morning. Appreciate that. RYAN: Thanks for having me, Steve KORNACKI: All right. Up next the leader of the free world gets goofy for a cause. Is this what the presidency looks like a digital age? KORNACKI: All right. We are back with the panel. A lot going on in the news today. Time to get caught up with it in our catching up segment. Got a lot of things making headlines in the country, a lot of things people are talking about, I will pull out the random index card, and let`s see what we got. Here we go. We`ve got -- this is interesting. This is a video that`s been generating a lot of conversation this week. You may have seen it. Let`s play a little bit of it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (MUSIC) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh! Thanks, Obama. OBAMA: Thanks, Obama. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President? OBAMA: Can I live? Yolo, man. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was for BuzzFeed. Now, technically, the justification is the White House is trying to talk about the enrollment deadline for health care. So, they put that video and it was mentioned in there. This starts out when a president acts like a human being, we have the debate over whether he or she maybe is beneath the dignity of the office, which what we`re doing. It used to be time in history when campaigning -- a president campaigning was violating the dignity of the office. I don`t know. I`m hearing that debate here. Anybody think this crosses the line? COX: Stupid. Everyone talks about it whenever president -- any president is inhuman. The other side picks up on it as a reason to criticize. I`m curious about the cleanliness of the White House mirrors. (CROSSTALK) COX: I don`t know who the cleaning staff is there. But it made me as an OCD person want to scrub. But I thought it was a cute video. It probably reached the audience it was supposed to reach. He`s done stuff like this. Every president has done stuff like this, Republican and Democrat. I think Obama carries it off with a certain coolness. I don`t necessarily mean that in a compliment that`s distinctive to him. But -- (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: No, no. COX: He`s got the sunglasses. KORNACKI: You see a little bit of why he can be difficult to caricature on "Saturday Night Live" or something. WOOD: See, I don`t have -- I don`t think it`s demeaning. I mean, I know there are people that do. I wouldn`t put it in that category. I do question again, it`s kind of like playing golf, we had the beheading of an American in the Middle East. This is put together within 24 hours of us losing a young woman over there. Well, I just timing is important. When you think why are Americans concerned we don`t have a strategy, and then they see this going on and being done. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: That`s the other -- COX: Use this video as a way of oh deciding it. WOOD: Two, I think this is also a question for journalists. I mea, BuzzFeed was helping him promote a particular policy. Would MSNBC have gone over to the White House and said we`ll help you promote one of your plans? I think that`s also kind of interesting. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: We have another one of these index cards to get to. This is from BuzzFeed. Speaking of the devil. Arkansas legislature passes a bill allowing LGBT discrimination. The Arkansas legislature approving a bill to block cities and counties from enacting anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBT people. The governor, Asa Hutchinson, said he will let it become law without signing it. This comes the same week of news out of Kansas, where employment discrimination protections for gay state employees were rescinded by the governor out there, Sam Brownback. Interesting when the rights get on the book today don`t get taken away. Now in some places they are. COX: Well, the judgment of history will be harsh on these things. I believe that -- I believe these things will probably -- I mean, this is a roll back. In a way, it`s a wake-up call for some people who have been taking it for granted that the future of gay and lesbian rights was proceeding a pace and the country was behind it. This is a reminder that people -- there are still people who are on the wrong side of history, and that we have not sort of gotten as far as we thought we had. WOOD: Well, I think there is an interesting thing going on here. I mean, the reality is that over 80 percent, 88 percent of Fortune 500 companies are offering benefits on their own. So, you don`t have to have the government to step in and do it. COX: There`s 20 percent that aren`t doing it. WOOD: But hold on. And so, I think people are making the voluntary decisions, a lot of businesses on their own. And I think the concern many people have, especially people with religious convictions, that they believe in religious liberty cases popping up. And we see them happening, and people are concerned about religious freedoms, too. I mean, there`s got to be a balance of rights here. COX: It`s preposterous. WOOD: Well, it`s not preposterous when you`re firing -- when people`s businesses are being shut down because they as religious believers don`t want to participate, for example, in a same-sex wedding. I think people ought to have the right to say, I don`t want to participate in that. KORNACKI: In a way. WOOD: That`s where you are seeing a reaction here. KORNACKI: When the debate turns into should this bakery have to bake a cake for this wedding, it tells you how far the debate has advanced that that`s the level we are at right now, as opposed to should there be a wedding. BACON: And also the big news, Roy Moore is the only person on the country on some level who`s defending -- who`s not supporting -- he feels Roy Moore, even other judges in Alabama went against him. So, he was fighting to stop same-sex marriages. He`s pretty much left alone now. So, that`s where the debate is headed. KORNACKI: All right. And, finally, this is not from an index card, but this happened last night. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KEN THOMPSON: Coming right up, we`re going to be talking about -- something. Just stay tuned for it. Coming back for a commercial. REV. AL SHARPTON, POLITICS NATION: We`ll be right back. We`ll be right back. THOMPSON: We`ll be right back. Kenan Thompson -- SHARPTON: Kenan. THOMPSON: Reverend Sharpton. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Oh, my. Kenan Thompson, Reverend Al Sharpton, the highlight to me of the current "SNL" version are the Reverend Al sketches. They are dead on. That was hilarious to see. Also, if you missed it last night on "HARDBALL", Chris Matthews had a great compilation of old Darrell Hammond as Chris Matthews sketches. That was also fun to watch. Anyway, my thanks to Perry Bacon, Jr., Genevieve Wood, Ana Marie Cox, appreciate you being here today. The guys over "SNL" are not the only ones to skewer media in politics. Jon Stewart has been doing it for 16 years. But this week, he announced that he is done. Can anyone fill his shoes? We`ll talk about that, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW: You get in this business with the idea that maybe you have a point of view and something to express and to (AUDIO GAP) feedback from that is the greatest feeling you can ask for. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That is Jon Stewart Tuesday night, you know the deal -- 16 years as the host of "The Daily Show." Now, he`s stepping aside. Who better to talk about it then two great people here: Lizz Winstead, the co-creator of "The Daily Show." She goes all the way back from the beginning with this. And Jason Zinoman who writes the "On Comedy" column for "The New York Times." Thanks to both of you for being here. Lizz, let me jut start with you, because I remember when Jon Stewart took over "The Daily Show." He talked over from Craig Kilborn and I thought and a lot of people thought at the same time, well, this show is going to go downhill right now. Craig Kilborn made this unique thing. He got picked up by CBS. He`s going to the big leagues. Jon Stewart is going to come in. And what`s Jon Stewart going to do this? Then, it became the go-to political comedy, political satire show really for the last decade and a half. Can it keep being that with a new host or is there a brand new "Daily Show" that comes out of this? LIZZ WINSTEAD, "THE DAILY SHOW" CO-CREATOR: I think it has to be -- I think the tenants that it has to live up to is to have a strong point of view to be sort of this place that cares about the hilarity and cares about the news and, yes, I think it can be. I think that whoever the host is will be able to make it their own. You know, Jon made it a different show than Craig. Anybody who watched it in the early days remember for lack of a better way of putting it, it was more like Colbert in the sense that everybody was staying in on the joke. There was no voice of the person. And Jon came in and transitioned it into he was our voice. So, he surrounded himself with the lunatics that represented our media and then was able to be like, I know what you`re thinking and I`m going to be that voice for you and did it brilliantly. KORNACKI: So, what did you have any sense, Jason, what Comedy Central or Viacom, their thinking right now about how to go forward? Obviously, it`s hugely important show to them, as the Colbert show. It was a big moneymaker for them. But do you have a sense what kind of "Daily Show" they want to have going forward? Any specific sort of musts? JASON ZINOMAN, THE NEW YORK TIMES: No, and the important thing is most people talking about this also don`t know. And I think most of the discussion about who is going to replace Jon Stewart is just fantasy. It`s like talking about Donald Trump running for president. We don`t know who wants it, which is the most important. I think the big question is, do you wanted to go some place in-house, in which there`s several very good candidates, or do you want to look elsewhere? KORNACKI: Who are some of the in-house candidates? ZINOMAN: Aasif Mandvi, Samantha Bee, Jessica Williams has gotten a lot of attention. So, you know, Comedy Central has taken a real blow. They have lost a lot of talent, Oliver, Colbert and Stewart. KORNACKI: That`s an idea I`ve heard, too, is that Jon Oliver went to HBO, but, hey, for the right price, they could just bring him right back. He sat in last summer. Did a good job. Do you think that could happen? WINSTEAD: They ruled it out. It was like, John Oliver has a job. KORNACKI: Yes. WINSTEAD: I think that we have to look -- this is a job that you want to do because you love having a point of view and love the concept of getting information and cutting to the bull out. It`s not a job, I believe, it`s not a job for somebody who is like can be an incredible actor doing a role. You can`t put somebody who`s in there who`s maybe great at executing jokes, it has to come from within you. You have to have a base of historical knowledge. You have to be a news junkie, you have to be funny, you have to be a leader, you have to have courage of conviction, you have to have gravitas. You have to have so much stuff to be in that job. You also -- KORNACKI: Who has it? Who`s got that? WINSTEAD: Who do I think? KORNACKI: Yes. WINSTEAD: I mean, there`s outside the box people, I would say I love Ted Alexandro. For those talking about Ted, I think he`d be great. I love Rachel Maddow. KORNACKI: You`re going to steal our talent. Censor this. No! WINSTEAD: I know. It`s terrible to say, but, you know, when you think of -- like if you want a woman and you want a woman who has comfortability behind the desk, has a great sense of humor, is really smart, could keep that I have faith in the show that I`m going to get information and smartness alive, you know? By the way, I`m sorry, Rachel. (CROSSTALK) ZINOMAN: (INAUDIBLE) always saying, I think I would love to see a woman get this job. We`re at a real great time for women in comedy. And that`s not just true with big names like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, who probably don`t what the jobs. WINSTEAD: Right. ZINOMAN: But the comedy clubs all the time. There`s a huge amount of talent. Not just there, on YouTube, on Twitter. You know, if they want to cast a wider net, which I think they should do because they are not going to find someone with the same skill set. They have to be willing to make the risk to evolve. Even Jon Stewart, if you looked at his early shows, first of all, Lizz deserves a lot of credit for creating "The Daily Show" -- if you look at what Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart took a little while to become the Jon Stewart we know. KORNACKI: Right, I think it`s now illusion. Well, I say Comedy Central open up for Amy Poehler. Get her on there. That would be my dream host for the show. Anyway, thanks to Lizz Winstead. Jason Zinoman, appreciate you guys stopping by. Thank you at home for getting up with us today. In honor of "Saturday Night Live`s" 40th anniversary spectacular, tomorrow, a big roundtable of guests, including former cast members Julia Sweeney and Tim Meadows right here at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow. Before that, you`re going to want to stick around for Melissa Harris-Perry. She is next. See you tomorrow. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 16, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021401cb.450 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 66 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 14, 2015 Saturday SHOW: MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 10:00 AM EST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY for February 14, 2015 BYLINE: Dorian Warren, Raul Reyes, Kelly Cobiella GUESTS: Akhil Reed Amar, Tara Dowdell, Yevgeniy Feyman, Jonathan Metzl, Jill Filipovic, Hilary Hallett, Christina Greer, Mara Brock Akhil, Titus Kaphar, Suzanne Barakat, John Nichols, Richard Cohen SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 14813 words HIGHLIGHT: Three students are killed execution style in North Carolina. Panel discusses if it was a hate crime and talk about raising awareness about growth of anti-Muslim extremism in the United States. Next, panel talks about governors Scott Walker and Bruce Rauner and their effort at limiting union`s power. They also talk about Scott Walker`s answering the question about evolution. Next, panel discusses efforts of Alabama governor to ban same sex marriage in his state. Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case King v. Burwell, the lawsuit funded by the libertarian group Competitive Enterprise Institute are seeking to undo those Obamacare subsidies. There are reports of shots fired in the Danish capital of Copenhagen during a free speech panel featuring a controversial Swedish artist. Precisely because "Fifty Shades of Grey`s` erotic content has been such a huge commercial success, it`s generated a lot of controversy. SORIAN WARREN, MSNBC ANCHOR: This morning my question, will "50 Shades of the Grey" color the way we view sex. Plus the chill down in the Deep South. And why 2016 could prove disastrous for labor in America. But first, how do we define hate? Good morning, I`m Dorian Warren in for Melissa Harris-Perry. It`s been a week of mourning for a university community in North Carolina after three Muslim American students were shot to death Tuesday night at their apartment complex near the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The victims are a 23-year-old Deah Barakat, his wife 21-year old Yusor Abu Salha and her sister, Razan Abu Salha who was 19. The suspect, 46-year old Craig Stephen Hicks turned himself in after the shooting and was charged with three counts of first-degree murder. Hicks had at least a dozen firearms and a large stash of ammunition in his home according to search warrants released yesterday. Police say Hicks shot the three students over an ongoing dispute about parking in the condominium complex where both he and the newlywed couple lived. But the families of the victims and Muslim advocacy groups believe Hicks, an atheist who condemned religion, was motivated by religious hatred and are calling on the FBI to investigate the shooting as a hate crime. The father of the sisters Dr. Mohammad Abu Salha talked about the killings Thursday on Ronan Farrow Daily. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. MOHAMMAD ABU SALHA: Even though the murderer can say that it was a parking dispute, whatever he was picking on, he came to that apartment with his gun two or three times before the murder on different occasions. My daughter Yusor complained and she told us that she felt that man hated them for the way they looked and the Muslim garb they wore. She felt the heat has risen after she moved into the apartment and her friends came to visit. And most of them wore our Muslim attire. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Chapel Hill police have said they will continue pursuing leads to determine if the shooting was hate motivated. And they are getting assistance on the investigation from the FBI, which announced that it opened a parallel preliminary inquiry to determine whether federal laws were violated. Yesterday President Obama responded to the shootings with a statement saying, "No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like or how they worship. Michelle and I offer our condolences to the victims` loved ones. As we saw with the overwhelming presence at the funeral of these young Americans, we are all one American family. Whenever anyone is taken from us before their time, we remember how they lived their lives." The funeral service held Thursday on a field in North Carolina State University drew thousands of mourners to remember the three victims, all of whom grew up in Raleigh, North Carolina, and attended North Carolina State as undergraduates. Razan Abu Salha was a sophomore in North Carolina State where she studied architecture and environmental design. Her sister, Yusor, was going to enroll next fall at University of North Carolina`s Dental School where she would have joined her husband Deah, who was already a doctoral student at the school. The couple had just gotten married in December of last year and had plans to open a dental practice together in the future. Now as the country mourns their loss, this case is raising new questions about when a hateful incident rises to the level of a hate crime. Joining me now is Dr. Jonathan Metzl, director of the Center for Medicine, Health and Society and professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University. Raul Reyes, attorney and contributor for nbcnews.com, Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Christina Greer, assistant professor at Fordham University. Thank you all for joining me this morning. And Raul, I want to start with you and ask you from a legal standpoint, why does it matter whether or not the shooting is classified by the police in North Carolina as a hate crime? And we know the FBI at this point is pursuing an inquiry, but not a full investigation. So, explain to us. RAUL REYES, ATTORNEY: It absolutely matters because with a hate crime, generally charges in a hate crime can be used to bump up penalties from another crime to make them more severe. So, for example, if you`re talking about something murder, vandalism, assault, if there`s an element of bias, that brings in the hate crime charges and can put it to the higher charge. However, in this case, North Carolina does not specifically have a hate crime law. They have a law against ethnic intimidation. But yet at the same time, it`s significant that the FBI has opened the inquiry because when we looked at the level of anti-Muslim bias and hate crimes, it does not occur in a social or political vacuum. I think before 2001 we had something like 20, 30 hate crimes against Muslims a year. In 2001 it spiked. And since - it`s still like five times above average. WARREN: And just a missed point. We do have data to show the spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes, which after, as you said, after 9/11 went up. And then actually never went back down to the levels. REYES: It`s still about five times - the pre 9-11 levels. WARREN: Let me follow up quickly and ask you how would you prove a hate crime in a case like this? REYES: Well, one thing I also think is important to remember in proving a hate crime, it is not necessary to establish that it was motivated or driven by bias against someone for their gender, religion, national origin or even as the perception. It only has to be in part. It does not have to be wholly motivated bias. So, if there`s anything, and I think just on the circumstances, this is ongoing case. There`s something to that. And not necessarily these Facebook posts that we`re hearing about. The fact that as I understand it, that this man, you know, he had problems with many of his neighbors, but he didn`t have problems with the young man when he lived there alone. Problems began with that apartment when the two young women lived there with the hijab. That alone would be a suggest that there is anti-Muslim bias. WARREN: So, John, let me turn to you and ask you other than the legal consequences, what`s the value in the findings of the investigation for this community and the family who have been very clear saying they believe this to be motivated by religious hatred? DR. JONATHAN METZL, CTR. FOR MEDICINE, HEALTH AND SOCIETY, VANDERBILT: Sure. Well, you know, I think I take Raul`s point, thank you very well and I think that, you know, it`s to be seen whether this was a hate crime by the legal definition. But I would just say, in the snippets that we know about the case already, that really the specter of race and racism seem to be all over this for a couple of reasons. Again, just from the preliminary reports. One is that just because it`s a parking dispute doesn`t mean it`s not also a racist interaction. Everyday racism can manifest itself. WARREN: It can be both simultaneously. METZL: Exactly. So, just because it`s the parking dispute, it doesn`t mean that it`s not something else motivated by race. And the second is, you know, for me this is an increasingly problematic public performance of a kind of militant armed threatening white masculinity. And so, this performance of kind of the angry white man with a gun who is, you know, monitoring the parking and he`s the kind of, you know, guardian of the rules and things like that. You know, we`re seeing this increasingly across the country in less benign - in less pernicious forms with, you know, open carry and things like that. But here`s the kind of lethal consequence of this performance of white masculine. WARREN: I want to come back to that point on white - the performance of white masculinity in a second. But Christina, I want to ask you about the ways, in which - in the deaths of Trayvon Martin, more recently the death of Michael Brown and Eric Garner that have sparked social justice movements. And in fact, this week the #Muslimlivesmatter began trending on social media. There`s been outrage both domestically and internationally about these killings in North Carolina. Does this feel like a galvanizing moment for Muslim Americans? CHRISTINA GREER, ASSIST. PROF., FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: I think it could be and I hope it is. I mean in many ways, with Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and so many others, right? So many communities were saying, well, this is just an isolated incident so I don`t really understand why you`re all are so - or so outraged. And what we clearly know is that this is, in some ways, coordinated efforts for some, but, you know, black lives matter is holistic approach, at least trying to become a holistic approach to recognize that these are not sort of random one-offs that happen in small towns and cities across the country. And I think, you know, hopefully this tragedy will actually help so many people recognize that these incidents actually happen more frequently than we know. This one because it`s three individuals and so young and so dedicated to serving others, sort of made national attention. But we know that Trayvon Martin was the first child murdered by a vigilante, right? We know that Mike Brown clearly was not the first child murdered by a police officer. So, when we think about solidarity, what I`m really hoping is, when we think about the Black Lives Matter movement, and the Muslim Lives Matters movement, hopefully somehow these two movements can figure out what they share in common so that the solidarity actually builds. Because we know that these are not isolated incidents for any of these communities. And so, if we can translate this deep hurt, right, that we feel and sort of this moment in this country where there are many white men who feel incredibly desperate. Right? This is their nadir (ph). And so, it`s not for us. And so, we should use it as an opportunity to work together. WARREN: Richard, really quickly. I just want to get you to respond to this question about the difference in the response we have seen to, say, the Boston marathon bombing, the massive and immediate mobilization when the perpetrators of acts of violence at home are Muslim versus when the victims are Muslim. Why do we fail to ask some of the same questions or respond in the same way? RICHARD COHEN, PRES., SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CTR.: That`s a good question. You know, of course, 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of our time and it, you know, it just changed the focus of law enforcement tremendously. All resources going to kind of jihadi terrorism and ignoring domestic non- jihadi terrorism. And the incident in North Carolina, so many other incidents tell us that we have to have a balanced approach to the phenomenon. WARREN: Stay right there. When we come back, we`ll hear from the family of one of the North Carolina victims. WARREN: On Thursday, the oral history project StoryCorps hosted this recording from one of the victims of the North Carolina shootings, Yusor Abu Salha that she made during a conversation with her former teacher for StoryCorps last summer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) YUSOR ABU-SALHA: Growing up in America has been such a blessing and, you know, although in some ways I do stand out, such as, you know, the hijab I wear on my head, the head covering, there`s still so many ways that I feel so embedded in the fabric that is, you know, our culture. And that`s the beautiful thing here is that it doesn`t matter where you come from. There`s so many different people from so many different places of different backgrounds and religions . UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely. ABU-SALHA: But here we`re all one. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Joining me now from Raleigh, North Carolina, is a member of Yusor Abu Salha`s family, her sister-in-law and Deah Barakat sister, Dr. Suzanne Barakat. DR. SUZANNE BARAKAT, SISTER OF DEAH BARAKAT: Thank you for having me. WARREN: First, I want to offer my condolences from the entire MHP crew. And ask you, can you tell me why through your grief it is important for you to be speaking out in this moment? SUZANNE BARAKAT: There`s so many reasons. The first most being that their story needs to be heard. That people need to know who they were and what they stood for. The second being we need to be seeking justice on their behalf and that this is a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. (CROSSTALK) WARREN: Sorry. Please continue. SUZANNE BARAKAT: No, if there`s anything that I can do to help make sure that their deaths were not in vain, then I want to do it. WARREN: Let me ask you what you think about the police`s determination that the cause was a parking dispute. And can you tell us what, if any, information have the police shared with you and your family as they continue their investigation. SUZANNE BARAKAT: It`s really interesting to me that on day, I don`t know how many days after the murder, we`re still calling this a parking dispute. I feel like I have addressed this in every single interview. And I don`t think this is why I`m here. I know this is not why I`m here. This - they were not murdered over a parking dispute. Feel free to reference previous interviews. There was no car parked in this "disputed visitor`s parking spot," which he claimed he owned and belonged to his wife which had been cleared by the apartment complex management as being open to all. No one was parked in that spot. This was premeditated murder. Someone came in to my brother`s home when they were unarmed, murdered them by shooting bullets into their heads execution style. You don`t do that over a parking dispute. WARREN: Dr. Barakat, even if a hate crime designation for first-degree murder in North Carolina doesn`t necessarily carry any added legal penalties, can you tell us what meaning is there for you in the official classification of the act as a hate crime? SUZANNE BARAKAT: I think it`s important regardless of the outcome to call it that because it changes so many things. Because this wasn`t an isolated incident that just happened to my family. We live in a time where today it`s socially acceptable, it`s politically advantageous to demonize Muslims. It`s not OK. In the past week alone aside from three family members being shot in their own home, there was a mosque burnt down in Houston. There was a man shot through his apartment door and killed in Ottawa. There was someone badly beat in Dearborn, Michigan just in this past week. I don`t need to dig far. This is . WARREN: Tell us what, if anything, for you and your family would be an outcome to this case that feels like justice? SUZANNE BARAKAT: As I have said before, justice means this not happening again. Justice means making reforms on local, national, global levels that ensure what we believe in as Americans. This country was built on the principles of freedom of religion. We take pride in the fact that we are the melting pot of the U.S. that mixes colors, races, genders, everything. And to be living in a time when people are being killed because of what they believe in is not who we are. There is -- an immense amount of hatred and prejudice that is weaved into our society against Muslims these days. Chris Kyle, the real American sniper has called Iraqis, has said I hate those damn savages and I don`t give an F what happens to them. A recent presidential candidate has called Muslims infidels and that they deserve to be obliterated. How is it OK, how is it OK to allow a large -- not so much of a minority, but a minority to be etherized (ph) and demonized like this? How do we allow a movie like this to obtain six Academy Awards including best pictures and call him an American hero when he`s calling an entire group savages? All you need to do is look at video games. Look at Hollywood. WARREN: Dr. Barakat, can I ask you very quickly, can you tell us what you want people to know about your brother and your sisters-in-law? SUZANNE BARAKAT: I want people to know that my brother Deah, his bride Yusor, her sister Razan were what a typical American Muslim family looks like. And it is for that reason that people from all over the world are mourning and grieving. I am getting texts and messages in the thousands saying, I love them as if they were my own because it`s as if they were me. It`s as if they were my brother. WARREN: Thank you so much to Dr. Suzanne Barakat in Raleigh, North Carolina. Jonathan, will return later on the program, the rest of my panel is sticking around. And still to come, the Scott Walker effect and the issue that could shake up the 2016 election. But up next, the real story of Valentine`s Day and the connection to what`s happening in Alabama right now. WARREN: If you woke up today to flowers, cards, chocolates or candy hearts, stand for the profession of love, Happy Valentine`s Day for you. If, on the other hand, you are among those for whom this day feels like a forced march through a candy-coded gauntlet, well, happy Saturday. However you feel about February 14th as a designated data to show your love, it meant something very different for the real life Valentine because it was on this date sometime around the year 270 A.D. that he died by execution. During a late third century Valentine was a holy priest in Rome under the rule of Emperor Claudius II. At the time Claudius was having a hard time finding recruits willing to leave home to fight his wars. A problem he attributed to the strong attachment between Roman men and their wives and families. So Claudius, deciding the solution was simply to sever those attachments banned young men from getting engaged or married. Valentine who believed the decree to be unjust defied the law and continued to secretly perform marriages for young Romans in love. But when his actions were discovered, Claudius condemned him to death. Following Valentine`s bloody sentence, beaten to death and then beheaded, he was canonized by the Catholic Church. Today, it`s unclear exactly how the name of St. Valentine became connected over the centuries to the day, on which we now recognize romantic love. But the story of his life still stands as a testament to the defiance of power in the face of perceived injustice and an allegiance with a deeply held belief. And this week it is ironically the same position being taken by an Alabama judge who was also taking a principal stance on marriage, but in a way that would put him at direct odds with the Roman priest because instead of taking a stand for marriage he`s standing in the way. This week that judge Alabama`s chief justice Roy S. Moore put himself in between same-sex couples who want to be married and the state`s recognition of those marriages with an order that defied a federal court. Same-sex marriages were expected to begin on Monday in Alabama after a federal district judge ruled last month that the state`s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. But Sunday night Chief Justice Moore threw a wrench into those plans when he ordered Alabama probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples the next day, a decision he explained in an interview with CNN this week. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROY MOORE, CHIEF JUSTICE, ALABAMA: No judge in the United States or federal district court has the right to invent the definition of marriage, which is not even contained in the United States Constitution. And that`s the problem. We have people going in trying to mandate to the state of Alabama that the sanctity of marriage amendment in our Constitution is wrong. That`s simply not right to do. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: The Chief Justice Moore`s order left Alabama`s 68 probate judges with a quandary. Either comply with the federal court order that indicated an expectation that they issue the marriage licenses or disobey it as instructed by the state`s highest judge who insisted they were not legally bound to follow the federal court`s decision. The result was chaos on Monday in the Alabama court system. Same-sex couples in the state`s largest cities were granted marriage licenses while couples in the vast majority of Alabama counties were denied. Adding to the confusion was a supreme court, which on Monday said they would not block the federal judge`s ruling that overturned Alabama`s same- sex marriage ban. By Thursday that same federal judge began to bring some clarity to the chaos when she ruled that one probate judge in Mobile, Alabama must issue marriage licenses to four couples who he had previously refused. And Alabama`s other probate judges were paying attention. Gay rights group, freedom to marry is reporting that as of yesterday more than half the counties in Alabama were issuing licenses to same sex couples. Putting those judges on the opposite side of history from chief justice Moore who may ultimately find himself at odds with the Supreme Court, which is poised to issue an historic ruling when it considers state`s rights to restrict same-sex marriage during oral arguments this April. Joining my panel now, is Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale University. And Akhil, I want to ask you first, is chief justice Moore standing in the courthouse door? Of course, metaphorically speaking, like George Wallace literally stood in the schoolhouse to Oregon school integration. He seems, of course, to think he has a legitimate legal justification to opposing the federal court. Tell us. Is that true? AKHIL REED AMAR, VISITING ADJUNCT PROF., COLUMBIA LAW: I`m no fan of Judge Moore, and I am hoping and praying for same-sex marriage everywhere as soon as possible, but the Supreme Court of the United States has not yet spoken. And when George Wallace and Orval Faubus are standing in the courthouse door, the Supreme Court had already weighed in with Brown v. Board of Education and we don`t have that yet, so much as I hate to admit it, Moore has a bit of a point technically legally speaking. The federal district judge only sits in the southern district of Alabama. There are other districts, other cities. She doesn`t have, Judge Granade, doesn`t quite have jurisdiction over Birmingham or Montgomery. Only kind of over the Mobile area. So, lawyers in the case didn`t join all the probate judges as defendants as maybe they should have. They didn`t bring a class action. So, here`s the basic point. We`re all hoping and expecting, I think, that the Supreme Court will weigh in on the right side of history, but just hypothetical, suppose, God forbid, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy got the measles next week and they were out for the next two months. Well, now it`s not so clear that it`s going to be 5-4 or 6-3 for the right - so they haven`t weighed in yet. WARREN: We`re going to come back to that point in a minute. But Richard, because you have a little history with this Alabama chief justice, I wanted to ask you what are motivating his actions here? Because he`s giving a legal justification, but he also cited his religious belief. COHEN: Yeah. WARREN: Tell us about it. COHEN: He has a history of that. You know, he brought in a monument to the Ten Commandments when he was elected in 2011. We sued over, it secured an order forcing him to take it out. He refused. He was removed from office by judicial ethics commission. Now this time, and remarkably, he was reelected by the people of Alabama. We have again filed ethics complaints against him because whatever his technical points might be, he has an obligation not to undermine the confidence to the integrity of the judiciary. And when you start saying, well, maybe I`ll follow an order to Supreme Court, maybe I won`t, Judge Granade is lawless, she is a tyrannical person. I mean that obviously undermines the integrity, the public`s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and I hope the officials remove him again before he can cause more trouble. One more point, if I could make. In one opinion, Justice Moore indicated that the state had the power and the obligation to use the power of the sword, including the power of execution in order to protect children from what he called the homosexual lifestyle. The legal citation for that as the professor knows, was Leviticus. WARREN: All right, so I want to come back to the Supreme Court, which Akhil just said, is hearing arguments in April. The rule is summer. It will be, of course, a landmark decision. I want to play video from a Bloomberg video of Justice Ginsburg who sounds optimistic about how the court will rule. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I think it`s doubtful that it wouldn`t be accepted. The change in people`s attitudes on that issue has been enormous. I think that as more and more people came out and said this is who I am and the rest of us recognize that they are one of us. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: OK, I`m thinking about this. And Christina, I want to direct this to you. So, this could be a landmark decision if the court comes down favorably. Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision legalizing abortion, but here we`re four decades later watching as the ongoing fight against reproductive rights are being rolled back. We know about Brown v. Board of Education, landmark decision for school desegregation. It took years for judicial oversight for full compliance and we could argue now schools are just as segregated by race and income as they were 60 years ago. So, Christina, this is a debate a long time debate, especially in political science about the role of courts and social change. Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of same-sex marriage? Is the case closed or should we expect some kind of resistance? GREER: There`s always going to be a resistance. I mean even though we`re in a shared federal system, I mean there`s still always - there`s going to always be a fight about state`s rights. Especially in the South. I don`t think Alabama is an odd state when we think about the one state right now that`s kind of pushing back. I think, you know, it would only help the country if the Supreme Court ruled favorably in favor of not just gay marriage, but really framing it as marriage equity, right? So we can think about it as a constitutional right for all Americans actually to get married. Because it isn`t actually listed in the Constitution that it`s between a man and a woman. So, this is- this would be their clarification. That we know that across the country, there will be smaller venues that push back, but I think for the most part public opinion is changing in the right direction. I would say . WARREN: Public opinion in Alabama? GREER: Public opinion in Alabama is very much against it. But we`re also seeing a change in cohort, so, you know, as younger people grow up and realize and actually have positive interactions, we have seen this, you know, with black and white relations, with sort of catholic, Jewish, Muslim relations on much slower scale, but it`s happening. So it could only work in favor for the marriage equity movement, but I really think that we need to be careful how we frame it for people moving forward so we understand that it`s a personal, but also a political conversation. REYES: Yet, it is moving forward because even in Alabama the leading papers in Alabama, like "The Birmingham News", "The Montgomery Advertiser", they were - they have come out in favor of marriage equality and against the judge. And I think it`s incredibly courageous of these couples in Alabama to come forward in the society that`s still so dominated by a very conservative religion to come forward and have the marriage`s - attempt to have their marriages recognized. So, even out in Alabama, I think we are seeing the progress, we are seeing a sea change in the attitudes. Slowly, but it`s coming. WARREN: So much more to say, but we`re out of time. Akhil will be back in the next hour. Thank you to Richard Cohen, the others are sticking around. Up next, why Scott Walker was deliberately trying to be bland this week. WARREN: He tried to avoid it. Really he did. His strategic approach just don`t say anything. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, like the rest of us, recently watched his fellow governors Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal fall victim to the would-be president goes to London and gets mocked by the press curse. With Governor Christie it was vaccines. With Governor Jindal, it was a non-existing Muslim no go zones. But it all ended the same way. With disastrous headlines of the kind Governor Walker was determined to avoid. He even said outright that he "rather be bland than stupid or moronic." Except, according to "The Daily Beast" (INAUDIBLE) he may have been all three. In large part because of moments like this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UM: Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it? Do you accept it? GOV. SCOTT WALKER, (R) WISCONSIN: For me I`m going to punt on that one as well. Um: No. WALKER: That does you . Um: Really? WALKER: That`s a question a politician shouldn`t be involved in one way or the other. That`s - I`m going to leave that to you . UM: Is there any British politician right or left wing would laugh and say, yes, of course, evolution is true. WALKER: But to me, I said it`s just one of those where I`m here to talk about trade and not find - deprecate another issue. I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Now, Walker later tried to backtrack by tweeting that he believes science and faith are compatible, but live and in that moment, he punted and that was how Governor Scott Walker went from being talked about as the potential 2016 GOP frontrunner to the latest London flub. But even though this week`s national headlines are all about Walker`s punt on evolution, within the Republican Party shuttled presidential primary Governor Walker is telling himself to both the establishment and Tea Party wings of the party as the guy who can take on the unions. Don`t forget it was just four years ago that Walker used his state`s budget negotiations to strip away collective bargaining rights from most of his state`s public sector unions. That prompted massive protests followed by a recall election, which he won. He actually then went on to win another election after that. And that`s why he`s now making his appeal to Iowa Republicans in what looks like a 2016 campaign by touting his repeated victories over his detractors in organized labor. And now, other Republican governors seem to be following his lead. Newly inaugurated Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner made headlines this week when he took an unprecedented unilateral step to dismantle his state`s public sector unions. The governor issued an executive order barring unions from requiring all state workers to pay automatic membership fees. And although some legal scholars have suggested that Governor Rauner doesn`t have the power to make this move, he`s going ahead with it any way. So, even though it was a bad week for Governor Scott Walker the candidate, it was a good week for Governor Scott Walker the movement as the battle against unions heats up again. Which leads me to wonder, is this where the GOP is headed? With Scott Walker as their flag bearer and his playbook as the model for governance, will this upcoming election cycle be the political moment when the GOP tries to once and for all end public sector unions as we know them. When we come back, I`m going to ask my panel just that. WARREN: This week Governor Bruce Rauner of Illinois dealt a huge blow to public sector unions in his state when he unilaterally declared a long standing policy of collecting fees from all state workers unconstitutional. Now if a governor playing the role of Supreme Court justice in interpreting the constitutionality of existing policy sounds a little, let`s call it, brazen, that`s because it is. But there`s a reason why the governor is so emboldened. At the same time that Governor Rauner is making his play against public sector unions, his fellow union basting governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin is making a surprising rise from second tier presidential prospect to the party`s new favorite potential 2016 candidate. Does all that suggest that we`re gearing up for another election cycle and possibly a national one this time where public sector unions are in the Republican Party`s crosshairs? Joining my panel, John Nichols, Washington correspondent for "The Nation" and Yevgeniy Feyman, deputy director of the Manhattan Institute Center for Medical Progress. And John, I want you to explain to us what the heck is going on in my home state of Illinois. JOHN NICHOLS, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, "THE NATION": Well, Illinois had a Republican waive election in 2014 like everybody else just about. And they brought in Bruce Rauner, an incredibly wealthy man who really got his own campaign going self-financed, initially, at least. And got in trouble early on by saying that he had doubts about the minimum wage - you needed a minimum wage. And then got hit hard enough on that that he decided oh wow, now I`m for minimum wage, but he`s still very interested in messing with a lot of the structural underpinnings of not just a living wage or minimum wage movement, but unions themselves. WARREN: Right. NICHOLS: Illinois has very strong unions, as you know, as in Illinois. By background. WARREN: Right. NICHOLS: And - and so what Rauner did was go right at the heart of some of the strongest unions in Illinois, AFSCME . WARREN: The public sector, right. That`s right. NICHOLS: Teachers and others. And he said, look, we`re not going to go all Scott Walker on you. WARREN: Exactly. NICHOLS: We`re not going to take away your collective bargaining rights or undermine them. But we`re going to take the state out of the work of collecting the so called fair share dues. And fair share dues are just - if you don`t want to join the union, you don`t have to, but you have to pay a little bit for that representation. WARREN: In terms of the collective bargaining. NICHOLS: We`re only talking, you know, 5,000 - 6,000 people. I think, you know, roughly a smaller number of folks there. WARREN: And what happens? So he issues an executive order and then tell us what happens next? NICHOLS: Well, this is what gets interesting. Because a lot of people don`t know how to cover labor anymore. Because we don`t have a lot of labor writers in America. But if you do cover labor, you know that there`s many stages of these things. So, everybody said, Rauner took the unions down, it`s over. You know, union, just like - No, because you have an attorney general who is a Democrat, Lisa Madigan. You also have a state comptroller, interesting, a woman who was appointed by Bruce Rauner. WARREN: By Bruce Rauner. NICHOLS: To a vacancy who . WARREN: A Republican. NICHOLS: A Republican who would be up for reelection in 2016, and both of them said I don`t think so. We don`t - It`s Madigan`s interpretation that this isn`t going to work. WARREN: And the comptroller. NICHOLS: Yes. WARREN: Republican comptroller. NICHOLS: So you have a situation now where the governor`s made this order. You have the people who were actually supposed to implement and say they are not going to do it. We`re going to have a legal fight. WARREN: Right. NICHOLS: Now, this is a big deal for one reason and one reason above all others. If you read Supreme Court decisions and you read Samuel Alito`s - and sometimes he`s right in the decision -- sometimes he`s right - what he keeps saying how much he`d really like to (INAUDIBLE) unions. WARREN: Yes. This is in the crosshairs. There`s a Supreme Court case right now that`s pending, focused on . NICHOLS: And this one could go all the way up. WARREN: So, I want to get you in here. Because I find it interesting. Conservatives, GOP, presidential candidates have started to talk more recently about income inequality, about poverty to my surprise. But the decline in union membership when you look empirically, the decline in union membership over the last 30 years tracks, according to this chart, tracks pretty well with the declining share of middle class incomes. So, how do you - there`s a relationship there, relationship between inequality. How do you combat income inequality while fighting unions? YEVGENIY FEYMAN, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS: Well, I think the relationship is much more tenuous in this chart. It actually gives away - and the reality with the CBO, the Commercial Budget Office, is sad. When they analyze tax records for lower class, not even the middle class, they found that once you adjust for tax benefits, once you adjust for things like health benefits, which have increased over the past 34 years, actually middle income families, low income families are doing better. They are not doing as much better as the upper class is. So inequality is increasing. But that chart alone doesn`t tell us that incomes are stagnating. It`s just telling us that the economy is growing faster than incomes are growing, which is a much more nuanced point. And it doesn`t tell the same story. WARREN: So there`s no relationship between unions and income inequality whatsoever? Co-incidence? (LAUGHTER) WARREN: Is it just a coincidence? FEYMAN: I think there`s absolutely a relationship between unions and income inequality. I just wonder whether there`s a relationship between inequality and how well the middle class is doing. And what we`ve seen is that once you take away countries internationally that are very corrupt, third world countries, and you try to find that same correlation, you actually find that lower inequality tends to correlate with higher GDP growth, higher income growth. So things change. WARREN: We are finding research that also suggests that lower rates of inequality are related to higher rates of growth. Whether it`s the IMF, whether it`s - there`s a range of studies. All right. We don`t have enough time to debate this. (LAUGHTER) WARREN: Coming up, it`s not just the GOP thing. The labor battle is brewing with the Dems, the Democratic Party. That`s next. WARREN: As Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner tries to follow the model set by Wisconsin Scott Walker in taking on his stage unions, there`s some surprising differences in the way that battle is playing out in deep blue Illinois. Specifically, it appears that Governor Rauner will not face the same kind of Democratic opposition that helped propel the high stakes union battle in Wisconsin into the national spotlight. As political points out, the most high profile Democrat in the state, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel enjoys a friendly relationship with Rauner. And have a mutual enemy, has a mutual enemy in the Chicago Teachers` Union. Meanwhile, the national level of anti-union Republicans jockey for their party`s presidential nomination, the sitting Democratic president has sometimes angered organized labor as a whole by trying to advance a controversial trade deal. So, if the 2016 election cycle looks to be a year when the right tries to demonize American labor unions, who was left on the left to defend them? And John, when I ask you first, where is the Democratic Party strong defensive organized labor, and especially of public sector unions? NICHOLS: Well, it`s there, you`ll find it in some states and in some people. I was in Iowa last weekend and Bernie Sanders is there this weekend thinking about a presidential race. Whether he gets in or not, I don`t know. But I can tell you that one of the reasons why there are people who take an interest in Bernie Sanders and in Elizabeth Warren is because of a sense that there are other Democrats who are not necessarily so rigidly or passionately pro-union. And so, there at the base, there`s a lot of passion for this. The unfortunate or challenging reality is as you move up the political food chain, you see people like Rahm Emanuel who frankly trying to balance budgets and one of the complexities is that in this country we have so taken - we`ve taken something so off the agenda that you can`t say, you know, we have got some budget problems here we`re going to have to make Bruce Rauner pay a little more taxes, and so you start to look at your public employees as a way to balance budgets. WARREN: OK. Christina, I want to get you in here because you like big cities and you like Philadelphia. And we know the Democratic national convention will be in Philly in 2016. We also know that there`s a divide between the Democratic Party, between those that are in sway of education reform, which takes on public unions and teachers unions not for budget reasons, for ideological reasons. How is this going to play out in the 2016 convention in Philadelphia? GREER: Well, I think we`ll actually have a much more interesting convention than we thought, right? (LAUGHTER) GREER: I mean I think it would do the Democratic Party a great disservice just to coronate Hillary Clinton without a really important conversation. Right? We see New York Governor Cuomo essentially attacking unions in many ways. We know that not all unions are the same. If inequality, however, we`re going to define this, is going to be the central piece for Democrats and Republicans in 2016, I think clearly labor and what we`re going to do with labor has to have, maybe we`ll just have a reckoning moment, right? Because and it may pit city against non-city, right? You know, we have seen the upstate versus down state conversations in New York several times. But, you know, this is also going to be a larger conversation about how we treat teachers and what does the vision of education look like in this country as well, right? So, I was excited for the shenanigans that the Republicans would give us . (LAUGHTER) GREER: But may be, I`m hoping for some really substantive debates from the Democratic Party as well. REYES: Well, I just think that one of the ironic things about this whole discussion about unions and labor and attacking the pension costs and all these different things is that union membership is - nationally is at an all-time low. And in many ways, the weaker unions get, the more Republicans are pushing to curtail them. WARREN: That`s true, but let`s look at some data on this. Because the difference between public and private sector unions. REYES: Right, right. WARREN: So, and the public sector for - is about 1 in 3, it`s about 35 percent. Private sector is less than seven percent. REYES: Right. But for Republicans it`s a winning issue because when you attack unions, you bring in not just - you bring in tremendous outside contributions like Scott Walker who collected something like $22 million from the Koch brothers and people like that. And I think to, you know, to the discredit, some of our Democrats are maybe eyeing those contributions as well as seeing this as a populist issue that, you know, it`s very easy to demonize unions, or certain teachers unions that have received a lot of bad press, and they can get this contributions, and the unions don`t have the strength to fight back. NICHOLS: Well, they do have the strength in some places. And I think this is where . (CROSSTALK) NICHOLS: But let me ask you, this is where we get into a huge conundrum. And it`s a bigger part of what you`re talking about. You said, you know, you mentioned fast track and TPP. REYES: Right. NICHOLS: Democrats have often supported free trade deals that have really kicked the heck out of a lot of industrial cities. Now we have a situation where, yes, public sector workers often have fair contracts with decent pay, decent benefits, may be a small pension. They are under attack through a jealousy politics that says, oh well, now you have lost all these things. We are taking them away from you. WARREN: And the fact that they still have a lot of money to give to Democrats and elections. We`re out of time. Thank you so much to John Nichols. Raul, Yev and Christina, we`ll be back in the next hour. Coming up, a checkup on the Affordable Care Act as a key deadline approaches. And why "50 Shades of Grey" could rake in a whole lot of green this weekend. More "Nerdland" at the top of the hour. WARREN: Welcome back. I`m Dorian Warren, in for Melissa Harris-Perry. Procrastinators, pay attention. Tomorrow is the last day you can sign up for health insurance on the Obamacare online exchanges this year. So far, more than 10 million people have signed up for 2015 coverage. Last year, it was 8 million. Nearly five years after the law was signed, the Affordable Care Act has by many measures been a success. Eleven million people have insurance who didn`t before, 11 million people can now afford to see a doctor who couldn`t before. And the uninsured rate has fallen from 18 percent before the ACA went into effect, for less than 13 percent today. And the change has been highest among the people of color and the poor. Part of that is thanks to federal subsidies that help people buy insurance on the ACA`s online exchanges. After subsidies, the average premium on the exchanges is $105 a month. And most people on the exchanges are eligible for that federal help, 85 percent of exchange policyholders receive subsidies. That means of the 10 million people who are signing up for health insurance, 8.5 million will get subsidies to help them afford it, 6.5 million of those subsidies are going to people using the federally run exchange, which HHS operates in the 34 states that have not set up their own exchanges. But those 6.5 million subsidies are at risk and with them the ACA itself. Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case King v. Burwell. The lawsuit funded by the libertarian group Competitive Enterprise Institute are seeking to undo those subsidies. And the question is why. They claim the billions of dollars in tax credits on the exchanges are illegal. Here`s what`s happening. The ACA called for an online insurance exchange in each state where individuals can buy health insurance with the help of federally funded subsidies in the form of tax credits. Drafters of the bill expected that most states would set up their own exchanges. A federally run exchange would be set up in states that couldn`t or wouldn`t set up their own. Opposition to the ACA was much more virulent and long-lived than the Obama administration expected and HHS ended up running the exchanges in those 34 states. So, as it stands you can get subsidies no matter what kind of exchange your state has whether it`s owned or a federally run exchange. But the lawsuit now that the Supreme Court argues that the federal subsidies were never meant to apply to the federally run exchanges. They quote the legislative text of the ACA that the subsidies would apply to exchanges, quote, "established by the state." The administration maintains that the language encompasses all of the exchanges, that Congress clearly intended the subsidies to apply to both federal and state-run exchanges. In March, the Supreme Court will hear those arguments. If the court sides with the plaintiffs and strikes down the subsidies, nearly 10 million people could lose their health insurance and congressional Republicans would finally get what they wanted. The Affordable Care Act, President Obama`s crowning domestic policy achievement would fall apart. Joining us now, Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale University, Raul Reyes, attorney and NBCNews.com contributor, Yevgeniy Feyman, deputy director of the Manhattan Institute Center for Medical Progress, and Tara Dowdell, president of the Tara Dowdell Group, and a business and political marketing consultant. Tara, I want to ask you first -- what are the stakes here. Give us a sense of what`s at stake here, and how important are these subsidies to people benefitting from the ACA. TARA DOWDELL, TARA DOWDELL GROUP: Well, the stakes are very high. And this is part of an ongoing effort, and as you stated earlier, the Obama administration did underestimate the longevity and the virulence of the attacks against the Affordable Care Act. This is very important because some of the states that have allowed the federal government to set up an exchange are states that probably would not have set up an exchange any way. So, the residents of those states rely on the tax credits and the different subsidies available to them. So, this is critical. That is exactly why this lawsuit has been brought to bare. It`s to break the back of the Affordable Care Act. And let me say this, Dorian, because this is one thing that gets missed in this argument. A big part of the Affordable Care Act is actually changing the delivery of health care in this country. It is making sure that we transition from a system where we pay doctors for services to assist them where we pay them to improve health outcomes of the actual patients. That means we`re trying to make people healthier. And by definition, costs go down. That`s something that`s missed. The Republican plan does not address that. WARREN: Just on cost, Yev, let me ask you -- if the subsidies are struck down and 9.6 million people could lose insurance and premiums would go up 47 percent, according to the Rand Corporation. Am I right in thinking that a ruling by the Supreme Court striking this down would seriously undermine the heart of the Affordable Care Act? YEVGENIY FEYMAN, MANHATTAN INSTITUTES CTR. FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS: Well, what it would do is undermine it in the states. So, you saw the states that did set up their own exchanges. Those states will be fine. Now, Republicans do have an alternative. They had had one last year. They brought another one this year, that according to private scores, would result in cheaper insurance plans and if implemented nationally would result in more people being covered. I think the reason they have brought that out right now is to basically say to the Supreme Court, you know, if you strike down the subsidies, there`s not going to be total chaos in states because we have this alternative ready to go. And then what they`ll do is put that on Democrats, on the president to sign or to veto. Then they could blame the president for taking subsidies away from the people affected by the ruling. WARREN: OK, Professor? AKHIL REED AMAR, PROFESSOR, YALE UNIVERSITY: Go ahead. WARREN: I want to get you first. What will the Supreme Court be looking at here? How does it make a decision about the intent of the law? AMAR: Well, I hope they look at the overall purposes of the statute. Here`s a point about intent. Find me one person, one senator, one representative, one actual Senate staffer or any of the countless journalists watching this law being passed over an entire year, the Ezra Kleins of the world, for example, find me one of them who said this statute means what the critics are now trying to say it means. This is an ex-post facto, clever attempt to try to pull a thread and hope the sleeve falls off but no one said that before. So, that`s one point. And whether we look at the lawmakers themselves, their staffers or the rest of us -- very few laws are passed with the world watching. When the world was watching on this. And also -- (CROSSTALK) WARREN: Help us understand what the courts should be looking at. . AMAR: Well, here`s the second point, look at how the agency of the federal government tasked with actually making it work is understanding it and implementing it. This is a very complicated statute. And maybe if you pull the string, nothing of this thread, nothing happens or maybe the entire thing unravels, even in the other states. We don`t know. I don`t know. With all due respect, you don`t know. And the judges definitely don`t -- you can say a bunch of stuff, but we don`t know. But the agency that was set up by the law to administer the thing says we`re very, very nervous about this reading. This is the wrong reading. It doesn`t make policy sense. WARREN: Raul, I know you want to jump in here. RAUL REYES, ATTORNEY: Right, right. Warren, what -- you did an outstanding explainer of this whole issue, that was a long explainer. But I think, you know, you can even break it down, even further and just say, what`s at issue. You have this 900-page piece of legislation. There are two provisions that are slightly ambiguous and that could be taken either way. So, this is going to the Supreme Court under very questionable grounds. And the thing is, there is precedent for how the Supreme Court should look at this. This is not an issue of constitutionality like we saw before with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. This is a quest of statutory interpretation. On statutory interpretation, the law is clear. First of all, you look to congressional intent. That`s there in the name of the law, the Affordable Care Act. As Tara said, that`s designed to make health care affordable and available to us, many people as possible. Secondly, if there`s any doubt about that, you defer to the agency charged with enforcing it. In this case, that`s the IRS, and the IRS agrees with the government in this case. So, the law is clear on the subject. This should not be before the court. WARREN: OK. So, so much more to say. Don`t go anywhere. Stay right there. Up next, President Obama shames companies who don`t want to provide health insurance. As we go to break, the president recorded a new viral video for BuzzFeed promoting healthcare.gov. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The deadline for signing up -- the deadline for signing up for health insurance is February. Febru -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not like any other Wednesday. OBAMA: That`s not right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wednesday. OBAMA: February. Man -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wednesday. OBAMA: February 15th. February 15th. In many cases, you can get health insurance for less than $100 a month. Just go to healthcare.gov. WARREN: This year, the Affordable Care Act`s employer mandate is going into effect. Businesses with 100 or more employees must offer comprehensive affordable health insurance to their full-time workers. They will face potentially steep penalties if they don`t, and if any of those employees turn to the insurance exchanges instead and get the subsidy. Some critics of the mandate that`s give -- that this gives employers incentives to cut hours below the 30-hour threshold or to layoff or not hire new employees. While it`s too early to engage the effects, there have been stories about employers cutting back. This week, BuzzFeed reported that Staples, the office supply company, is cracking down on part-time employees, threatening to fire them if they worked more than 25 hours a week. Employees said they believe the crackdown was directly related to the ACA. BuzzFeed asked President Obama in an interview what he would say to Staples CEO Ron Sargent. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: When I hear large corporations that make billions of dollars in profits trying to blame our interest in providing health insurance as an excuse for cutting back workers wages, shame on them. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Staples said they have had a 25-hour limit for part-time employees for more than a decade, predating the ACA. The company also shot back at the president, saying in a statement, quote, "It`s unfortunate that the president is attacking a company that provides more than 85,000 jobs and is a major taxpayer." So, before we get to the question of should businesses be shamed for not offering health insurance, I want to go back to one particular legal question that`s really important that we were just discussing. And this is the question of standing. We know that this week there`s been some reports for the plaintiffs in the case may not actually have standing to sue. Two are veterans eligible for care through the V.A. AMAR: Reed. WARREN: One will soon be eligible for Medicare and the fourth may not be required to pay the penalty at all. So, tell us about standing. Why should it matter? AMAR: Courts, federal courts decide cases and controversies involving real facts and real people. You have to have plaintiffs who have actually been injured, legally injured and they have to sue the proper defendant. We were talking about Alabama in an earlier segment. In Alabama, I said technically, it wasn`t clear to me that the plaintiffs sued the right defendants. Well, here the question is whether or not you have the right plaintiffs. If actually none of the four plaintiffs is really going to be covered and required by the individual mandate, then you have the wrong people in court and maybe the lawsuit shouldn`t even be heard. Now, there might be other people later on, but that`s a year down the road at least probably for the Supreme Court. WARREN: Right. AMAR: And in the interim, this law puts down deeper roots. We went from 8 million, you said, to 10 million and maybe next year will be 12. It becomes harder for a judiciary as time passes to yank the thing up by the root and undo it. WARREN: So, just to understand the punch line here, the court could throw the case out on the standing question. AMAR: It absolutely could and even if only one judge thinks the standing is a problem, you add that one judge to four others who might be willing to uphold the government`s position on the merit, that might make five. There are all sorts of interesting coalitional possibilities. REYES: And that lack of understanding speaks to the questionable nature of the case, because a lot of work went into this lawsuit. This is attacking the president`s signature legislation. This is a multimillion dollar lawsuit. These are the best four plaintiffs they could come up with, out of all the people, all the vetting they did? That speaks to the fundamental weakness of this lawsuit. They could have done a class action. They chose not to do that. It speaks to the difficulty of proving that someone had suffered harm from this provision of the Affordable Care Act. WARREN: So, Tara, I want to get you in. DOWDELL: That`s because no one suffered harm. WARREN: So, I want to get back to businesses and the employer mandate. The president said in that clip that Staples should be ashamed of themselves. Should businesses be ashamed for not offering health insurance? DOWDELL: Absolutely because -- WARREN: Why? DOWDELL: -- let`s look at this in a larger context. This is part of an ongoing issue in this country. We have seen people`s wages go down. There`s new data out saying that American families make less than 15 years ago. We have seen after people -- after the great recession, young people coming out of college. They needed health care. They could stay on their family`s plans until they were 26, thanks to this law. That was a lifeline, if you were a young person who couldn`t find a job. And I think what we have right now is we have -- we cannot have a country where we have really, really rich people and really, really poor people. We see that in other countries around the world and that does not work. And so, this is part of a larger trend that needs to be addressed. And remember one of the fastest ways a company can improve its stock value is by laying people off. That`s one of the fastest ways to do that. And so, we incentivize CEOs to do that versus actually improving a company. That`s not merit. That`s not American. WARREN: OK. Yes, let me get you in here. So we were laughing a little bit at the break. There`s an alternative GOP plan. There`s a replacement bill. Tell us -- tell us why -- Raul`s laughing at this. Serious. Tell us why we should eliminate the employer mandate like the bill proposes. Why is that a good idea? FEYMAN: It`s anachronism. It goes back to really, really bad policy from the -- WARREN: From RomneyCare. FEYMAN: From the Great Depression era, actually. We have created tax breaks for businesses to offer health insurance to middle class and very wealthy families. Those are the ones that benefit from these tax breaks. At the same time, we`re telling businesses in 2018, we`re going to impose a Cadillac tax on these very high value insurance. Unions are going to be the first to get hit by that. Then, members are going to get hit. Then, companies are going to hit. So, on the one hand, we`re telling businesses to offer coverage. The other hand, we`re telling business, but we`re going to not let you offer coverage anymore than this. That`s not realistic. Get rid of the employer mandate and focus on the individual market where you have affordable coverage where you have affordable coverage that people can take from job to job. That`s a much better proposition for the American middle class. WARREN: Raul, quickly, the Supreme Court decides not to dismantle the subsidies. Do opponents have anymore legal tricks up their sleeves? REYES: If they decide not to dismantle it, I don`t think so, because as the professor said, the longer we go on, those laws entrenched people depending on it and we see increasing number of people getting coverage. The more time goes by, the more people that would be caused by a attempting to unravel it. WARREN: OK. We have to stop there, unfortunately. Thank you to Akhil Reed Amar and Raul Reyes, Yevgeniy Feyman and Tara Dowdell. I want to say a very happy birthday to our good friend Raul Reyes, who decided that the best place to spend some of his birthday and Valentine`s Day was right here with us in Nerdland. So, thank you. REYES: You`re welcome. WARREN: We have breaking news out of the Danish capital of Copenhagen. There are reports of shots fired during a free speech panel featuring a controversial Swedish artist. Lars Vilks received threats in 2007 after he portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a dog. Since then, strict security has accompanied his public appearances. The Danish national daily paper reports three officers have been injured. We`ll continue to monitor this breaking news on MSNBC. Up next, love it or hate it, people are flocking to it in droves. The "Fifty Shades" phenomenon when we come back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My tastes are very singular. You wouldn`t understand. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Enlighten me then. Why are you trying to change me? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not. It`s you that`s changing me. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: It`s definite live not your typical date movie. "Fifth Shades of Grey", which is based on the series of books by British author, E.L. James opened this weekend. But it`s not just the movie. It`s safe to say it`s more of a phenomenon. Check out these numbers: since 2012, the book series has sold over 100 million copies worldwide. During its peak, 2 copies are being sold every second, according to a V.P. of publisher Random House. And now, the movie of "Fifty Shades of Grey" is primed to break its own share of records. Fandango has reported it`s the fastest selling R-rated movie in 15 years, and that only three movies have ever sold more tickets ahead of opening day. Boxoffice.com predicts the film will bring in $89 million in ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada alone, over the long holiday weekend. "Fifty Shades", which I should mention is distributed by Universal Pictures, a part of NBC Universal, is shaping up to be a cash cow in other ways too. Want to buy some branded wine for $17.99? Or how about an item from the official jewelry line for about $150? And here`s what make this is more stunning. As you have gathered already, the blockbuster franchise is, to put it lightly, very, very racy. In the film, naive college student Anastasia Steele meets a rich CEO Christian Grey whose tastes as he explains are very singular. He wants Anastasia to sign a contract detailing specifically what she will and will not do in the bedroom or his so-called play room. The film features sex that involves domination, riding crops and, well, you get the idea, especially if you have read the book. It`s a far cry from the more traditional romances that typically grace the big screen. Precisely because this erotic content has been such a huge commercial success, it`s generated a lot of controversy. On the one hand, "Fifty Shades" has been deemed a celebration of bad choices by women. Others say it qualifies as an unexpected feminist fantasy. So, joining me now to discuss the movie, Dr. Jonathan Metzl, director for the Center of Medicine, Health and Society and professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University, Jill Filipovic, senior political writer at Cosmopolitan.com, Hilary Hallett, assistant professor at Columbia University, and Christina Greer, assistant professor at Fordham University. And this is an open question, panel. I have to admit for research for this segment, I had to see the movie. But I want to know what you think. (LAUGHTER) WARREN: Is this a feminist fantasy or is it a feminist nightmare? JILL FILIPOVIC, COSMOPOLITAN.COM: I don`t know that it has to necessarily be one or the other. I think it falls somewhere in between. I don`t think this is an overtly feminist film, but I do think it`s a good thing we`re bringing the idea of female sexuality and female sexual pleasure into the national conversation. I don`t know that this film achieves it in the most feminist way possible, but I`m at least glad that we are talking about the fact that women have sex. Women like sex. Women have sexual desires and those kind of run the gamut of, you know, the various tastes. I think that`s a good thing. WARREN: Hillary, tell us, help us understand why this is so popular. HILARY HALLETT, ASSISTANT PROF., COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well, I mean, I think building off of what Jill is saying, I think that it actually contradicts, you know, so many of the images that we see in mainstream media which tend to focus on a presentation of sexuality that`s very much geared towards men. So, we get gorgeous women, you know, having a quick kiss, penetration, instant sexual ecstasy, right? So, in my opinion, you know, the film -- the book, I have not yet seen the movie, but the books any way, I think part of what`s made them so popular is that they present a landscape of sexuality that is very much focused on a much wider gamut of choices, right? I think that what a lot of the commentary is left out is that Christian Grey, like him or hate him, you know, is someone who is skilled in the subject of female sexual pleasure, right? This heroin is having a very good time. And, you know, everything that happens in the film is consensual. And they are adults. CHRISTINA GREER, ASSISTANT PROF., FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: I also think part of what`s going on too is he`s also a billionaire, right? WARREN: If he wasn`t a billionaire -- GREER: I would be curious, right? I mean, if he were a Walmart worker, I wonder if this would be such $100 million selling novel/movie. We wouldn`t have the movie, right? But I don`t think the way the question stood up, it doesn`t necessarily have to be mutually exclusive as Jill said. But I think part of the fantasy is also that this man with his own helicopter, his own business can actually sort of whip this college girl who is sort of explored this new range of sexual fantasy. WARREN: I want to ask you in terms of your medical expertise. DR. JONATHAN METZL, CTR. FOR MEDICINE, HEALTH & SOCIETY, VANDERBILT: Oh, no. WARREN: So, there`s a growing course of groups that say the film is glorifying violence against women. The Conservative American Family Association says, the Centers for Disease Control standards of emotional abuse and sexual violence, including nearly every one of the interactions between the two main characters. Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo wrote a letter saying the movie is a graphic portrayal of a woman agreeing to be abused and degraded in a sexual relationship. There`d even been protesters showing up at theaters in London. OK, Jonathan -- METZL: Oh no. WARREN: -- in your formal expertise, do you agree with this characterization? METZL: Well, you know, I should say, of course, there`s a long history in my profession of psychiatry, in particular in psychoanalysis of pathologizing, particularly what`s now called BDSM sexuality, saying it`s based on some kind of pathology. WARREN: Can you explain BDSM? METZL: Sure, as you know, bondage, domination, submission, and other things, you know? WARREN: OK, thank you. So, for those that didn`t read the book. METZL: Or haven`t been Googling it. I Googled it so much yesterday that I was getting pop up ads for neckties that was really a pretty interesting day for me yesterday. But I would say that there`s a long history of pathologizing BDSM sexuality from Freud on down. Interestingly, people who are proponents of BDSM now say that actually it`s the opposite. There`s something very healthy about certain kinds of role-playing, people who are dominant becoming submissive, et cetera. And I watched the movie yesterday also and what I found interesting was it did seem at times to revert to this much older notion of BDSM sexuality as being pathological. So, in that sense, it wasn`t the movie I was expecting in a certain kind of way. WARREN: But, Jill, I want to get you in really quickly, could this movie in fact, lead to a more expansive view of sexuality in terms of Hollywood film. Just a broader discussion of sexuality? FILIPOVIC: I hope it does. I mean, you brought up the BDSM community. There`s actually been some really interesting critiques coming out of that community specifically about this film. Basically saying that, yes, consent is important and there is technical consent here, but there`s such a huge power differential. It is -- you know, some of what`s portrayed does seem to be coercive. Do this or I`m leaving. You know, is that real consent? When we talk about consent, are we talking about just saying yes or no, or are we also talking about enthusiasm and affirmative consent and being really excited about what you`re doing, even if that involves being submissive and letting someone else take charge? And I think one of the bigger criticisms of this film is it doesn`t really walk that line particularly carefully. WARREN: All right. Hang on before we go. An update on breaking news out of the Danish capital of Copenhagen. We have images of the shooting that happened during a free speech panel. In this photo, you can see bullet holes in the glass door of the cafe. The panel featured controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who received threats in 2007 after he portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a dog. Since then, strict security has accompanied his public appearances. The Danish national daily paper reports three officers have been injured and police are searching for suspects right now. We`ll continue to monitor this breaking news on MSNBC and we`ll be right become. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Grey will see you now. He was really smart, very intense. To what do you owe your success? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have always been good at people. I have a natural instinct for what makes a person tick. Anastasia -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Christian -- (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: It`s opening weekend for the hotly anticipated "Fifty Shades of Grey" and the movie`s erotic storyline is generating plenty of heat. Pushing that temperature higher, Beyonce. The film features a sexy remix of her hit "Crazy in Love" which has also accompanied the official movie trailer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (MUSIC) (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: The public got a completely different vision of the star last weekend at the Grammys when dressed in a long white gown. Beyonce performed a powerful rendition of the hymn "Take My Hand, Precious Lord." Perhaps nothing better illustrates the mixed messages our culture sends about women`s sexuality. The classic ideal of pure and demure, versus the more modern, if you got it, flaunt portrayal of women in the media. And while women themselves may feel more comfortable taking their sexy side public now, there are plenty of people who remain quite uncomfortable with it. People like former Governor Mike Huckabee, who in his book "God, Guns, Grits and Gravy", criticizes Beyonce for dance moves that, quote, "best left for the privacy of her bedroom." And Montana State Representative David Moore introduced a bill this week seeking to strengthen the state`s indecent exposure laws. The bill has been tabled for now, but if Moore had his way, even tight clothes would be a criminal offense. According to Moore, yoga pants should be illegal in public, anyway. Moore later said he was joking, but Montana`s minority House whip says, regardless of Moore`s intention, the text of the bill supports a culture that demeans women. So, I want to come to you, Hilary, and ask you stories like this, the yoga pants ban or controversy surrounding the "Fifty Shades of Grey," suggests in some degree, it`s still very tattoo boo to talk about women`s sexuality in public. HALLETT: Yes. Well, I think that we see that with young women. I mean, I think that, you know, that women have been trained for at least 100, 200 years to feel a lot of shame talking about their sexuality, which is something that I think a book like this, right, one of the positives in my mind, right, is that it represents an opening up of a conversation. An encouragement of dialogue, right, between women and men in this case to talk about what they like and what they don`t like, and I think that has been the pressure first to be purely demure and now the pressure perhaps to be, you know, purely sexy, right, again. There`s a middle ground that needs to be found. That can only be found through conversation, right? That`s what will lead to more happiness and fun for everybody in bed. WARREN: You know, the figure in my head, 100 million books sold is staggering to me. I know, Jonathan, you want to jump in on this. METZL: Well, a couple of points. I take Christina`s points very well, which is, you know, having seen the movie, the true important pornography for me was the pornography of opulence. It`s kind of like, how much money does this guy have? WARREN: Of the 1 percent. METZL: Yes, the 1 percent. It`s kind of like, you know, what we`re fantasizing is the guy who has the custom play room. Everybody else throws it in a box or something somewhere, or something like that. And so, in a way, there was this pornography of consumption that was part of the sexuality. It was almost like the Facebook movie with sex scenes thrown in. I mean, the other point is I keep thinking about other points in time where we have had books like this, that bring taboo into the framework. So, if you think about the `70s with "Fear of Flying", for example, and you know, 1973, that was a book that really changed our idea about -- it was a second wave feminism book that changed our idea about gender roles, women who are, you know, breaking away from marriage, refusing the male-female role system. In a way, what`s interesting about this moment is it seems to be a film at least and a book that doesn`t, in any way, trouble that kind of hetero- normative gender structure. So, we were talking about women`s empowerment. This might be a movie that -- you know, that`s a different kind of women`s empowerment but it`s not one that was a refuting gender roles. WARREN: So, Jill, I`m curious on this in terms of just thinking about how sexuality is portrayed in our culture. It seems to me in the movie, watching the movie, it seems to me, it`s still portrayed through a man`s filter. I`m wondering under what conditions or where might we truly get a look at authentic female sexuality in some ways? FILIPOVIC: That`s a very good question. I wish I had a magic formula for how to image authentic female sexuality, whatever that means. You know, I think that female sexuality has for hundreds of years been filtered through male control, often through male violence, and in popular culture, through, you know, the male gaze and male portrayals and what men see and women are the kind the objects of being seen. So, there`s this film criticism line that men watch and women watch themselves being watched. You know, I think you would have to get to a position where women also got to be the watchers and the agents before you`re really se seeing authentic sexuality. I do think one of the reasons that this film and this story probably resonates with women is because women are so punished for being sexual in public. We`re punished no matter how we do it. So, I having this narrative of this woman who gets to experience sexual pleasure, you know, who gets to have these mind-blowing sexual experiences, but she`s not actually doing anything, so she`s not being bad, it`s being done to her. And she gets to enjoy it, I think that`s a really psychologically safe space for a lot of women who do desire sex and like sex, and want to have sex. But realize there are huge cultural and social consequences for it. WARREN: Hilary, really quickly, I know that you believe there`s a connection between more open conversations about sexuality and the recent activism on college campuses around sexual assault. You think this movie will contribute to the activism? HALLETT: Well, I mean, not in a linear way, but it`s part of making women more comfortable talking more explicitly about sex. And so, for instance, one of these cases that`s happening at Columbia right now, right, I think it`s almost unimaginable to think that even ten years, ago a girl would have felt comfortable saying I was having consensual sex and like that, and then he forced me to have anal sex, right? Can you imagine, right? I think there`s a way that this kind of book, and again, you know, I -- the book gives her us her interior dialogue and her -- WARREN: Right, but the movie does not. HALLET: Right, but the movie does not. So, I think that`s going to be more challenging. But I think that yes, it does contribute to conversations about that break down shame and girl shame, right, about talking about what they like and don`t. WARREN: We`re out of time on this conversation, unfortunately. We could go on and on I`m sure about this. Thank you to Jonathan Metzl, Jill Filipovic, Hilary Hallett and Christina Greer. And, by the way, I think the best part of the movie is the album. Thank you, Beyonce. The creator of "Being Mary Jane" is here with what`s coming up on the hit show. Mara Brock Akil is in Nerdland, next. WARREN: We have new information on breaking news out of the Danish capital of Copenhagen where a shooting happened at a free speech panel. Joining me now from London is NBC News correspondent Kelly Cobiella. Kelly, you have new information from Copenhagen police. KELLY COBIELLA, NBC NEWS: Yes, police have released a brief statement and the information is really limited here. They do acknowledge that a shooting happened at this cafe in Copenhagen this afternoon, that it was a free speech panel, that a very controversial artist was at this panel. You can see from some of the Twitter pictures and the video from local media that there are several shots fired into this glass door. Several reports have as many as 30-bullet holes in this glass door. In the police statement, there`s information about a getaway car and suggestions that there was more than one shooter and they have a description of a car that they are now looking for. What you`re seeing now, this gentleman is the artist, the controversial artist who was at this meeting. He has been targeted several times before. His name is Lars Vilks. He`s faced threats for his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, dating back to 2007. So, we understand that he was not hurt. That two people at least may have been injured. There`s video of a police officer being taken away in a stretcher, but he appears to be conscious and talking and likely not seriously injured. But again, shots fired at this cafe where this controversial artist was hosting a talk. No one killed, and police are looking for the shooters. Back to you. WARREN: Kelly Cobiella in London, thank you. Now, we want to switch gears to a much lighter subject. The creative force behind such TV hits as "Girlfriends", a sitcom about forcing women establishing careers and finding love in L.A., and, of course, the popular football dramedy, "The Game". Fans of these shows know they all have one particular element in common, the production power of writer/producer and businesswoman Mara Brock Akil. Her latest project "Being Mary Jane" launched with a movie lens single episode in 2013 and returned with a successful first season in January 2014. The show, BET`s first original scripted drama about a successful news anchor whose personal life is called beautifully flawed, ended season one with more than 5.8 million viewers tuning in for the finale. This season, viewers are getting more of a glimpse of Mary Jane`s personal life, including her desire for love and a family of her own. And this scene from an upcoming episode, she`s starting fertility treatments. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want to help me, Lisa? Just give me the damned shot. I don`t need a lecture or a diagnosis from you. Just a shot, OK? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to make sure you`re doing this for you and not some one out to David. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know what? Never mind, I`ll do it myself, thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: That`s right. This month, Mary Jane Paul played by Gabrielle Union is back with even more drama as she juggles life, love, family and career. And joining me now, the creator and executive producer of "Being Mary Jane", Mara Brock Akhil. Thank you so much for joining us. MARA BROCK AKHIL, "BEING MARY JANE" CREATOR: Thank you for having me. Nice to be here. WARREN: It`s such a pleasure to get a chance -- I`ve been a fan of all your shows for a long time now. So, I want to ask you, what inspired you to create "Being Mary Jane"? AKHIL: Well, it`s interesting, when I was producing, I think around the fifth or sixth season of "Girlfriends", I started to realize I don`t think Joan would share this with all the rest of the girls. Some of the things we keep to ourselves when we`re not reaching certain goals or certain ideas about who we should be, we start retreating to ourselves and maybe start lying to ourselves and start withdrawing. So, the idea they would sit around the cafe table and share everything all the time was not true. And so, I was looking for that. And the characters started speaking to me. I mean, not to sound schizophrenic or anything, but it`s -- Mary Jane just sort of, this is what I want to say. This is what I want to say. So I just started jotting notes down and I wanted to -- I need a bigger canvas. I need an hour format, I need to go for the emotional moment, and some of the lighter moments, because life is not dramatic and funny all the time. It`s a mixture of both. WARREN: So, in terms of a mixture of both, the tagline for the show is "beautifully flawed." AKHIL: Yes. WARREN: Why that phrase and does it speak to what you described to as the different aspects of life? AKHIL: Well, one of the things that I find, try to do in my work is I find that in creating characters about African-American women, a lot of times, the audience wants positive images, that positive image, because we`re trying to right the wrongs that have done to our image. But I actually think that the positive image can be just as damaging as the negative image, because as human beings, we don`t live in those extremes. Our humanity is in between. So, "beautifully flawed" is about how all of us as human beings are trying to do the right thing. It may not act out that way, but I think our intention is to be happy, to live a fulfilled life and try to follow our dreams. But we stumble along the way. WARREN: So, let me ask you, I mean, I just love the pick of Gabrielle Union, too. And, you know, this is in a text of network and cable shows with powerful black women, from "Scandal," "How to Get Away with Murder", the president on "State of Affairs", what`s your take on this broader context that we`re in or this broader moment in terms of black women being portrayed in these positions of power? AKHIL: Well, we walk the earth in positions of power. It`s about time that we are seen. It`s so often I have had had to experience American culture through the lens of a white woman. Why not it be that we experience American culture, humanity, universal themes of just -- you know, through the lens of a black woman? So I think it`s about time. As I do think it`s for other races. It`s time to show what America looks like. And I think, we have sort of been out of the conversation, so to speak. So, it`s nice that it`s flooding in and it`s getting the validation with the viewers and like we were number one the night we premiered, just like taking over Twitter. Social media, I should say, it`s not just Twitter, but it was -- that`s validating. People want to hear our stories. WARREN: We are, unfortunately, out of time. I have so many more questions. Melissa is going to be jealous she didn`t get to meet you. We`re glad to have you back. AKHIL: Well, then, if I can come back and talk with Melissa, too. WARREN: Indeed. Thank you so much to Mara Brock Akhil. Up next, keeping the mantra "Black Lives Matter" at the forefront through art. WARREN: It`s not your usual portrait of Thomas Jefferson. Rather this one shows the curtain pulled back to reveal a glimpse of our third president`s complicated history. More modern images portray stark commentary and history in the making, even before the books are written. And then, there`s this, an asphalt and chalk portrait combining the faces of Michael Brown and Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, and Trayvon Martin -- all individuals whose stories shared a common them, but all young men whose stories and lives were unique and separate as well. These are the images of our foot soldier of the week. Titus Kaphar is a visual artist whose personal experiences led them to explore issues of race and social justice through art. His work is currently on display at both Jack Shainman Gallery in New York City through February 21st. And I`m pleased to welcome, Titus Kaphar, our foot soldier of the week. Thanks for joining us. TITUS KAPHAR, VISUAL ARTIST: Thank you. WARREN: I`m really struck by all of your pieces. And I want to start with the drawing the blinds collection and the painting that you have of Thomas Jefferson entitled "Behind the Myth of Benevolence". What is the story behind that? KAPHAR: I was having a conversation with a woman who taught high school, American history. And she had been teaching about 30 to 40 years and we were having a conversation about Thomas Jefferson. And to make the long history short, at some point, we got to the issue of slavery. She said, well, yes, but Thomas Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner. I said, I`m not sure I understand what that means. I don`t know that I know what that means. I don`t know if anyone has been called a benevolent kidnapper, benevolent rapist. I don`t know what that means. There are still generations of people that are still learning this strange, strange history. Not the truth. So, I went back to the studio and this is kind of the piece I produced from that. WARREN: The next image shows the Michael Brown, Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, and Trayvon Martin super imposed together. And I want to ask you why you decided to ask them like that and what affect it has. KAPHAR: I started working on that series quite a while ago. And I was working on a series stacked on top of each other. It occurred to me that these men, though they had different lives, were suffering in the same way, and had died in the same way, and what was it about them that made it so difficult to distinguish between one and the other for the folks that are seeing them on their street and taking their lives from them. So, the pieces themselves really became about the inability to distinguish between one black man and another black man. WARREN: I want to bring up this third and final one. The next painting is called yet another fight for remembrance. Tell me about this technique you call white washing. It`s a fascinating, fascinating piece. KAPHAR: This is not the first time I`ve done this, of course. But in this painting, I felt like this has been, maybe the most articulate version for me personally. It`s very much about this idea of being absent and present at the same time. My fear when I was asked to do this piece, commissioned to do this, was that it was going to be a moment where we remember the issues and then it will be erased. It was going to be forgotten. I wanted to depict the image in a way that implied that problem itself, this idea that it could be erased. WARREN: So much more to say. Thank you so very much to Titus Kaphar. And if you`re in New York, you can Titus` art at the Jack Shainman Gallery, now through February 21st. That is our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. I want to wish a happy birthday to Melissa Harris-Perry`s baby girl, AJ Perry, who turned 1-year-old today. I`ll be back tomorrow morning at 10:00 Eastern. And now, it is time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT" -- Alex. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 16, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021401cb.451 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 67 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 15, 2015 Sunday SHOW: UP with STEVE KORNACKI 8:00 AM EST UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI for February 15, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Domenica Davis, Miguel Almaguer GUESTS: Peter Keldorff, Steve Clemons, Sam Champion, Nina Khrushcheva, Julia Ioffe, Keith Carson, Alan Zweibel, Tim Meadows, A. Whitney Brown, Julia Sweeney, Lynn Sweet, Michael Steele, Rick Ungar, Gary Kroeger, Rasmuth Raun Westh, Roger Wicker SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 15546 words HIGHLIGHT: Much of New England in grips of yet another monster winter storm. Day one of a fragile cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine. A terrorist attack in Denmark. A look at the upcoming presidential election. "SNL" alumni panel. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Another attack in Europe. All right. Thanks for getting up with us this Sunday morning. The Sunday, the day after Valentine`s Day. It`s a day that begins with much of New England in the grips of yet another monster storm. We`re seeing record- shattering snowfall totals in some places up there. Still no end in sight to that. We`re going to be live in Boston just moments from now. Also brutal Arctic chills, heavy winds elsewhere in the country. Some other records being set there. We`ll have an update on that as well. Also this morning, it`s day one of that fragile cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine. It`s now under way. Already one pro-Russian leader is renouncing it. Is the violence about to begin again? We`ll have a report on that in just a few minutes. And a very big day in this building. A very big night in this building. Just 12 hours from now, it`s going to be the "Saturday Night Live" 40th anniversary spectacular. And four former performers and writers from that show who will be at that special tonight, they`re going to be here first this morning to watch some classic clips with us, to share their memories, to share their stories. Really looking forward to that segment later in the show today. But first, deadly shootings in Denmark that the country`s prime minister says represents a terrorist attack. Two victims dead after a gunman attacked a cafe where a cartoonist who had satirically depicted the Prophet Mohammed was speaking, and then later a synagogue in Denmark`s capital city of Copenhagen. There are indications that all of this could have actually been much worse. That suspected gunman now dead. Police saying they killed him. No information about his identify is known yet. But the twin attacks do bear an eerie resemblance to the deadly rampage in France just last month, when a magazine that published disparaging cartoons of Mohammed and a kosher grocery store were both targeted by Islamic extremists. Now, all of this happening late Saturday Denmark time, starting at a cafe where a forum with the title, "Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression" was being held. The French ambassador, his country still reeling from last month`s terror attacks, in attendance at the forum Saturday, along with Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who has received multiple death threats from Muslim radicals ever since drawing a cartoon of Mohammed as a dog in 2007. Vilks is under 24-hour police protection. Heavy police protection also stationed outside that cafe yesterday. The gunman trying to force his way through security, force his way into the cafe. Firing about 30 shots in the process, killing one person, wounding three police officers, then escaping without making it into the cafe. Hours later, just after midnight Copenhagen time, a second deadly attack. This time outside the city`s main synagogue. A Jewish man shot and killed, two more police wounded there. That synagogue also heavily protected by police in the wake of the cafe attack earlier in the day. The man who was killed apparently standing guard at the entrance to a building adjacent to that synagogue. A massive overnight manhunt shutting down parts of central Copenhagen. At 5:00 a.m. police identifying a location where they believe the suspect to be. The suspect then opening fire when confronted by police, then shooting -- the police shot the suspect dead. They now say they believe this was the man behind the shootings. Again, no word publicly on his identity, no comments from police yet about possible motives, but the Danish prime minister is saying emphatically that, that quote, "we feel certain now that it was a politically motivated attack, and thereby it was a terrorist attack." Other European leaders as well saying the same thing. The French foreign minister calling the shooting a terrorist attack, saying that France, quote, "remains by the side of the Danish authorities and people in the fight against terrorism." The president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, calling the cafe attack quote, "another brutal terrorist attack targeted at our fundamental values and freedoms, including the freedom of expression." And a columnist for "Charlie Hebdo," that is the magazine in Paris that was targeted by terrorists last month, that columnist saying in response to Saturday`s shootings, quote, "we are all Danish tonight." Peter Keldorff is a journalist based in Copenhagen. He joins us now live on the phone. Peter, thank you for taking a few minutes this morning. Let me just start with this. We`re seeing publicly no information yet about who this suspect is, who this man who was shot and killed by the police is, anything about his background. Are there any indications over there that can clear that up at all? Any information on his identify? PETER KELDORFF, REPORTER, DANISH BROADCASTING: Our intelligence service has just said they know who the man was, and they knew him in advance of the attack, and the police know the identity of the man they shot this morning, but they do not want to reveal his name. So the news is they know who the suspect, the guy they shot this morning, they know who he is, and they knew him in advance. That`s the latest. KORNACKI: All right. We`re having a bit of a problem with the audio there, Peter. I`m going to thank you and let you go, but Peter said if you weren`t able to hear clearly, Peter gave us some interesting information, saying that the authorities in Denmark do know or do think they know who this suspect is, who this man shot dead is. They have his identity, he says, but they are not revealing it publicly right now. That again, coming from Peter Keldorff, who we just spoke to on the phone. Also new comments coming in this morning, new public comments, from the prime minister of Denmark. This just moments ago. Let`s play that for you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HELLE THORNING-SCHMIDT, DANISH PRIME MINISTER: Our thoughts go to the whole of the Jewish community today. They belong in Denmark. They are a strong part of our community, and we will do everything we can to protect the Jewish community in our country. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And those words from the prime minister of Denmark come as the AP is now reporting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for quote, "the massive immigration" of European Jews to Israel following the Danish attacks. Steve Clemons is an international correspondent and Washington editor at large for "The Atlantic," and he joins us now. Steve, thanks for taking a few minutes. Look, we don`t have any public information as we say from the authorities in Denmark about who this is. I haven`t heard, we haven`t seen certainly any claims of responsibility, claims of linkage from any terrorist groups. At the same time, this just has all of the hallmarks of what we saw in France last month. I mean, this started at an event where a cartoonist who had depicted Mohammed in a negative light was speaking, and then it went to a synagogue. And last month it went to a kosher grocery store. So eerie, eerie resemblances here. STEVE CLEMONS, THE ATLANTIC: Absolutely. And Lars Vilks, who has a long line of other attempts on him, and other terrorist attacks in Stockholm and elsewhere, another terror ring arrested in 2010 suspected of trying to kill him at this time. He was also on ISIS`s most wanted list like Stephane Charbonnais of "Charlie Hebdo." It does bear that. And I think the other interesting dimension is if the gentleman just on the phone is correct and they knew who he was, that was also true in the case of France. It also was true in a slightly different case, but importantly in Australia, where there was the attack at the coffee shop. There are within our societies people that are being watched, that have not yet crossed the line, but yet just sort of lurk there with the possibility of doing that in some of these cases who are animated, and we don`t know what animated this individual yet, and certainly the attack on the synagogue is so deeply disconcerting. And it was heartening to hear the prime minister`s words about that. But this is going to open up all of those raw nerves again and insecurities in various communities across Europe. KORNACKI: If you could talk a little bit, we had a conversation last month when this was in France and about the Jewish community in France, relations with the Muslim community, Muslims who are sort of in the country but not necessarily part of the society. That`s a dynamic that also exists in Denmark? CLEMONS: I think it exists across Europe, but what is ISIS and what are its adjutants trying to do? They`re trying to create the impression of a clash of civilizations, a clash of cultures, in which theirs is dominant over others. What I worry about Prime Minister Netanyahu`s comments, though I understand the fear many Jews fear across Europe right now, that they feel as if the integration project, particularly with Muslims in their societies, haven`t leavened that out. So there is tolerance through those societies, that that clash is something people are trying to take advantage of. And Netanyahu, rather than standing by the prime minister and saying we want to belong, lead, be part of that process of inclusion, is saying it`s time to leave Europe, which enhances and actually increases the strain and the sense that there is really a clash of civilizations under way. I find that deeply distressing, and it will really undermine the European project, and I think it will exacerbate this high fear world in which many Jews are living, and I think it`s also unfair, candidly, to hold all Muslims accountable for maybe what some individuals do. We don`t even know if this individual was a Muslim yet, but that tension is something that`s become palpable and very disconcerting and needs to be addressed directly and quickly. KORNACKI: Right. That`s right. And again, to reiterate what we heard from Peter Keldorff in Copenhagen just a few minutes ago, saying that the authorities in Denmark, he says, do know who the suspect is and do know who the man they shot is, are not revealing that publicly right now. As you said, Steve, we don`t know if it`s a Muslim, if it`s not. It could be a deranged person doing a copycat thing from France. So we don`t know that right now. Obviously a lot that we will learn today. We`ll be all over the story on this show throughout the day certainly here on MSNBC. For now my thanks to Steve Clemons for joining us. Really appreciate it. CLEMONS: Thank you. KORNACKI: Turning to the big story at home here in the United States, and that has to do with weather. Some of the coldest temperatures in a generation in treacherous conditions all around out there as heavy snow and blizzard conditions are moving toward New England this weekend. Already in New England. Where dozens of crashes on Valentine`s Day as snow and high wind led to multiple wrecks across central and northern Indiana highways. One pileup counted as many as 20 vehicles. You`re seeing that there along Interstate 90 in Erie County, Pennsylvania. A pileup involving over 100 cars. Only seven people suffered bumps and bruises with no serious injuries miraculously there. Amtrak service between North Station in Boston and Brunswick, Maine, has been canceled for Sunday, this holiday weekend. We have someone who is brave enough to be outside for us right now. The Weather Channel`s Sam Champion is in Boston, where something like 4,000 snowplows have been deployed or at the ready. Sam, it`s snowing there. That`s not the headline, because it`s been snowing there for about three weeks now, I think, but just tell us what life in Boston is like this morning. SAM CHAMPION, WEATHER CHANNEL: Exactly. You know it. This is your area, right? You know Boston pretty well if I`m right. KORNACKI: Yes, although I don`t really recognize it right now. CHAMPION: Yes, it`s been a long time since Boston has had this much snow. Probably, as we`ve said, never as you work on that 80-inch mark and a little above it now in just 23 days. So folks around here are seeing snow piles they just haven`t seen. Everybody`s benchmark is that blizzard of `78. And of course, this has blown way, way, way past that. Two blizzards in this area has never really happened this close together before. We have blizzard conditions in the overnight. Really picked up around midnight until like 3:00, 4:00 in the morning. The worst here seemed to be right around 4:00, 4:30 all the way to about 6:00 in the morning, where we got that thunder snow first starting here in the Boston area. That`s the classic sign of this storm really ramping up. The power of this storm right at about 4:30, through Boston at about 6:00 as we started to look toward Plymouth. I do want to show you where we are. This is Quincy Market, that`s Faneuil Hall. They have their own snow removal teams, and they`ve been out all night. They say they`ll be here until it stops snowing and that will be later on this afternoon, trying to get ahead of the snow. The other thing I kind of want to show you here, without damaging this in any way or piling it, clumping it in any way, I want you to see this. This is going to be a problem later on today. Look how light and fine and powdery that snow is. It`s just unbelievable. It`s lighter than pulled cotton. So whenever the wind picks up here, it just really grabs anything that`s on the ground, anything you put in these snow piles, and just makes whiteout conditions as soon as the wind starts. So even when the snow shuts down, the governor just finished or they`re in their press conference, I can see them in the press conference, and the governor has -- basically what they`ve been saying is give us some time. We need time to get the roads clear. Even if the snow shuts down, don`t just clear out your car and get on the roads. Give us until later on this afternoon because we`ve got a lot to clear. And when that wind -- I`m going to walk this way and show you the snow pile. When that wind picks up, really and truly, even if it`s not snowing, you`re going to think it`s snowing, particularly this close to the snow piles. Now, I`m going to try to stay out of the way of the Bobcat here because these guys are working pretty hard and heavy and have been all night long. But just to give you an idea of how high this snow pile is, gauge me at 6`0. This is just from this area right here we`ve been raking in. I`m going to do it in a couple of tiers. This is the first tier. That`s probably right around four or five feet. I haven`t even tried this yet to get up on top of it. This is level with that first story of the building. So this snow pile about 10, 12 feet high, and we`ve got more coming during the day today. I think we still have another couple of inches left inside this system. So exactly what they`re telling everybody to do, just hang tight, let them get the snow removed. Even when the snow ends, guys, this is going to be a windy one. KORNACKI: We are actually hearing, Sam, while you were doing that, we heard from the city council in Boston. They`re renaming that pile of snow Mount Champion in your honor. So congratulations on that. CHAMPION: This just in. I was going to put a flag on it for you. Just send me a big MSNBC flag, I will run up and stake it for you. KORNACKI: It`s on the way. Thanks for the report there, Sam, and good luck in that storm. Anyway, the biggest part of this for many Americans is arguably the cold temperature, not just the snow on the ground. Some frigid temperatures. MSNBC meteorologist Domenica Davis is here to show us that piece. Thanks for being here. DOMENICA DAVIS, MSNBC METEOROLOGIST: It`s not just the snow. We are going to be dealing with extreme cold, dangerously cold temperatures along with the wind. So power outages are going to be a continued concern, and it`s not only for the New England area but even down into the mid-Atlantic. So here is still the blizzard conditions, the blizzard warnings that we have that go all the way up the coast from Boston up to Bangor, Maine. Wind gusts will be upwards of 70 miles an hour. And that blizzard warning goes until 7:00 in the morning. So this is some serious stuff. We could be looking at winds along the coast, 70 miles per hour, 60 miles per hour right around the Boston area. It gets a little bit better as you get through New York and Philadelphia, but still those are strong winds that will cause power outages for sure. So everybody on the northeast needs to be aware of that today. Here is the current wind gusts right now. We have 32 in D.C. It`s 39 in New York. 28 in Boston. Those winds will pick up as we head through the afternoon and especially this evening. Now, with those winds, it`s the extreme cold, so this is really what we`re talking about, dangerous cold, minus 23 right now for the feels-like temperature in Binghamton. In Boston it feels like five degrees, and that is pretty good, but minus 3 for the feel-like temperature here in New York. Windchills will get as low as minus 15 along much of the northeast. So imagine that, Steve, you lose power, even if it`s just for a few hours, you`re going to feel that. So that`s our big concern today and tomorrow morning as well. KORNACKI: Yes, that`s some scary stuff. We talk about the snow but the cold, too, just as much of a problem, maybe more. Domenica, thank you for that. Really appreciate that. Still ahead in the show, 40 years in the making, the big "Saturday Night Live" anniversary spectacular is tonight. We got a huge all-star table of SNL performers and writers. You won`t want to miss that. That is coming up later. But first, the tenuous cease-fire in Ukraine, is it going to last? Has it already been broken? Details are straight ahead. KORNACKI: We are keeping a close eye this morning on Ukraine. That`s where that delicate cease-fire that European leaders furiously negotiated this week between Russia and Ukraine is now in effect, or is it? The president of Ukraine and the leader of the pro-Russian rebels in the eastern part of that country both declared that fighting had stopped at midnight local time, per the agreement. And there are signs on the ground now that the fighting has, indeed, stopped. But at the same time, another rebel leader is reportedly renouncing the truce, saying it doesn`t apply to the key city of Debaltsevo. That is a rail hub where rebels now have Ukrainian troops surrounded and they apparently don`t want to let up. Intense fighting in and around that city marking the run-up to the truce. It`s a city the rebels would dearly like to take. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has warned that his troops will respond if rebels strike. One Ukrainian lieutenant saying quote, "this cease-fire won`t amount to anything. They`ll have a break and regroup their forces." This is a conflict that`s killed 5,300 people so far and has also been resistant to past cease-fire attempts. Joining me now to talk about it is Nina Khrushcheva. She is the granddaughter of the former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Author of the book, "The Lost Khrushchev: A Journey into the Gulag of the Russian Mind." And Julia Ioffe, contributing writer with the "New York Times" magazine. Nina, let me just start with you. What you`re looking at this morning, big picture, the fighting has stopped. You have this rebel leader saying it doesn`t apply to us over here. Do you think this truce is real and can last? NINA KHRUSHCHEVA, AUTHOR: This truce can last to a certain degree. It cannot last the way we think it should last, that is there would be no flares-up, there would be no fighting, because the fighting has already happened. And I don`t think the rebels are going to give up Debaltsevo. Because what they`re saying they have surrounded the Ukrainian troops, and as long as Petro Poroshenko is not going to recognize it, they are really going to demolish the troops. So in some ways, they are saying that Debaltsevo is ours, and it is up to the president, to the Ukrainian president, to admit it. And if he admits that, we will let them go. KORNACKI: But he`s not going to. KHRUSHCHEVA: He cannot admit it, either, because then Debaltsevo goes de facto to Russia, and that`s what he cannot afford. KORNACKI: So there`s a standstill here. KHRUSHCHEVA: We already have a standstill here. There`s also already also issues about the exchange of prisoners, because the prisoners are going to be exchanged only -- they were unlawfully detained, but what does it mean unlawfully? The whole conflict is unlawful, so I think there`s a lot of sticking points, and I think the best thing we can hope or the best thing that leaders can do is that probably meet again next week to address these sticking points, and maybe agree on those, because if they don`t, these points will continue to exasperate the cease-fire and maybe even unravel it. KORNACKI: Julia, obviously looming over all of this is Vladimir Putin. What does Putin want out of this in the end? Do we have a clear sense of that? JULIA IOFFE, NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: I think, you know, he clearly wants Ukraine to be a failed state and a state that is ineligible to join the European Union and NATO, which it already can`t do, given Crimea. Because if there`s a territorial dispute, it cannot join the EU, it cannot join NATO, which is Putin`s ultimate goal, right? To not have the EU and NATO expanding right up to his border. Past that, I don`t think he -- he`s also cornered himself. I think he has to keep fighting, keep spending, and he doesn`t have -- this is not a man who thinks really long term. This is not a man who thinks of an exit strategy when he starts something, and we`re seeing that here. You know, right now if you look at the map, you have a section of the Lugansk region, a section of the Donetsk region, they have got an airport that`s completely destroyed. They`re trying to get this rail hub and they are trying to get the port of Mariupol, to try to make this land they`ve carved out of Ukraine at least somewhat sustainable, somewhat cohesive and coherent. But past that, what do they want? Do they want this region to be independent? Do they want it to be a hugely autonomous region inside Ukraine? It`s not going to be part of Russia, or is it? You know, part of it is that Putin doesn`t think of an exit strategy, but part of it is also that he likes to keep all options on the table and make sure he can go in any direction at any time. KORNACKI: What do you think of the Putin -- KHRUSHCHEVA: I actually totally agree he likes to keep his options open. He`s a judo master. That`s what they do. But I actually think that as much as we want to say and we do say he`s a tactician, he`s not a strategist, there is some bit of a strategic thinking here, because in Minsk, for example, he was adamant Donetsk was going to remain part of Ukraine. He`s going to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. And I think it is a larger plan here, because as long as Donetsk continues to be part of Ukraine, it`s a very important destabilizing center or -- so Putin can control his rebels or can influence his rebels so they can take more territory or make sure that there is Russian-controlled territory within Ukraine, not independent Ukraine, and that allows it to play out, because it doesn`t have to play out tomorrow. He can play this out in a year. So in this sense, he`s somewhat strategic, but in a very destructive and I think ultimately, as Julia said, he`ll back himself into the corner, ultimately destructive to himself way. KORNACKI: We`ll see how it plays out. Thank you to Julia Ioffe of "New York Times" magazine and Nina Khrushcheva with the New School. Still ahead in the show today, a former "SNL" cast member is trying to be, could be the next Al Franken, making the leap from "SNL" to politics. We`ll tell you who he is and we`ll talk to him. That is coming up. And next, Rand Paul maneuvers for a possible 2016 bid. We will tell you his plan. Stay with us. KORNACKI: This week on the GOP campaign trail, a crafty maneuver by Rand Paul that may, may, free him from facing a wrenching and potentially campaign-killing decision. At issue is this, Kentucky state law forbids a candidate from appearing on the same ballot for two different offices. It`s a problem for Paul, because he wants to run for president next year. He is also up for re-election as a senator in Kentucky next year. The filing deadline for the Senate race will be next January, which happens to be just as the Republican presidential primaries are starting to get under way. So under the law, Paul would then have to choose. He`d have to give up the presidential campaign and file to run for the Senate, or he would have to walk away from the Senate in order to stay in the presidential race. But Paul has a plan to get around this as "The Lexington Herald Leader" newspaper reported this week. He`s written a letter to the Kentucky Republican Central Committee asking the party not to hold a presidential primary next year. Instead, to hold a caucus. The key here is that caucuses are public meetings. They`re not secret ballot elections. They`re run by the party. So if Rand Paul gets his way here, then his dilemma is going to disappear. He will be able to put his name on the ballot for the Senate again; he`ll still be able to compete in Kentucky`s presidential caucuses. If he doesn`t get his way, though, then one of his ambitions is just going to have to give. Joining me to talk about Rand Paul, his plan, his prospects, we have this morning`s panel MSNBC contributor Michael Steele, the former chairman of the RNC and one half of the Sirius XM show "Steele and Ungar." The other half, just so happens to be sitting next to him, Rick Ungar. RICK UNGAR, FORBES: To his left. KORNACKI: He is here as well. To his left. He`s also a senior political contributor to "Forbes." And Lynn Sweet, friend of the show, Washington Bureau chief with "The Chicago Sun-Times." She rounds out our panel this morning. So, it`s Rand Paul question, is interesting to me. There`s a lot I want to talk about Rand. I am curious about this dilemma in his way around it. My read on it is, sort of the grassroots in Kentucky, the rank and file Republicans in Kentucky, love this guy. If he wants them to do this, they`re probably going to do this. So, he`ll probably get his way. Do you agree, Mr. Chairman? MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, basically. This is all inside politics at the lowest possible level. I mean this is grassroots at its best, and at the end of the day the party will likely give him his wish and it`s an upside for the party, too. Because if they go the caucus route then they can move up the line a little bit, for, you know, when they hold their caucus. They don`t have to wait until the back of the line. So, they can actually then as a caucus state much as we see in Iowa play a major -- not a major, but more of a role in who the presidential nomination is going to go to at some point. UNGAR: Very Rand Paulian. Rand Paulian. Remember, this is the same guy who had trouble getting accredited as an ophthalmologist. What did he do? He created his own ophthalmology board that would accredit him. So, I give him points on one respect. If he can`t get to where he wants to get to through the normal system, he`ll just try and ... (CROSSTALK) UNGAR: He will find a way or make a way. STEELE: We look for that creativity in a president. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Well, let`s talk bigger picture about Rand Paul. Because I have had this thought about him for a while. I always think - and I still think he`s a really interesting figure in politics, and the interesting thing to me was he takes a lot of this sort of libertarian ideology of his father and he has the potential to bring it much more into the mainstream than his father did. I think sort of the Achilles` heel of Rand Paul and I think we`ve been seeing this lately is for lack of a better term, sometimes it seems like he`s the guy who believes the forwarded e-mails. And when you listen to him talk about like vaccines or something, when he got in trouble on vaccines, he says sometimes these fringe things that sound like they`re coming from his father`s universe and they`ve seeped into Rand`s campaign. I think it hurts that effort to go mainstream. LYNN SWEET: Well, you say Achilles` heel. How about Achilles foot, leg, arm? (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: I was trying to be polite. SWEET: OK. He has a niche. He can`t get out of it. That`s the problem. There is not a broad enough libertarian movement that could take him to the Republican nomination. I do not see a path. Now, I covered his father`s presidential races and he was along. He knows what it`s like. You start with a good base, they will take you through, he`ll have enough money to travel around the country. But here is another case, Steve, and gentlemen, everything his father said will be part of what he has to talk about. And when you look at the big Jewish donors, when you look at the Adelsons of the world, when you look at his father`s record and statements on Israel, for example, he is just not going to be able to talk his way out of it. STEELE: I don`t necessarily buy all of that. I think that at the end of the day Rand Paul has the same issue that Bush has, I mean and Jeb and Rand are going to distinguish themselves in their own right having made their own separate accomplishments. Look, you`re absolutely right, they`re part of the ... KORNACKI: Well, I mean Jeb`s father ... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: They have those newsletters with all ... (CROSSTALK) STEELE: And, look, to the extent that he has to answer those, he will, but I don`t think they are going to upend any presidential campaign. I think the real sweet spot is going to be in the trouble spot. They kill this foot. It`s going to be moments like vaccinations. I mean if you are going to come out and take those types of positions, then you better be prepared to deal with ... SWEET: But that marginalizes you. I think that`s my point. STEELE: Well, that`s true. That`s true. SWEET: And once you become ... STEELE: But I don`t think it has to relate back to his dad so much as what he does ... SWEET: No, that`s - look, right. So he has enough to shoot himself in the foot. STEELE: Right. Exactly. SWEET: But in case there`s a shortage, there`s a little bit more. (CROSSTALK) UNGAR: You`re right about Jewish donors, they are never going to flock to Paul because of what his father`s history is, but I don`t think that`s going to be his problem. His problem is, I know as a writer, right? For every two columns I write where I criticize him, I will actually write one where I go, well, gee, Rand Paul just did something kind of cool, but that`s not good enough. Because when I`m criticizing him it`s for doing something so uniquely stupid or flipping on a point within 24 hours. It reminds me of some other candidates who I won`t name. KORNACKI: I want to squeeze this in speaking of Rand Paul. And this sort of shows that maybe the two sides of Rand Paul I`m talking about here, how he`s interesting and unique, and you don`t see other politicians do this. He put out yesterday, I guess, a Valentine to Hillary Clinton mocking the idea that Hillary Clinton (INAUDIBLE). Hillary Clinton set up a pincher (ph) for Valentine`s Day. And we can only imagine what it would look like. And this is what he put out there. And on one level it`s sort of human, right? Like you don`t see politicians doing this. On the other hand, you might say .... UNGAR: I think he misses the point of Valentine`s. KORNACKI: Yeah. (LAUGHTER) SWEET: But here is the other point. One of the reasons you have people -- there are a lot of reasons why people run for president. One is if he had sent that and he wasn`t running for president, we might not pay attention. It`s a platform for his ideas. I am not convinced he really is running a campaign to get to the White House as much as he`s running a campaign of his ideas and issues he cares about. KORNACKI: Which explains then why it`s so important for him to be able to run for the Senate and the White House at the same time. SWEET: Always have a fallback. KORNACKI: Get the LBJ rule in Kentucky. Anyway, my panelist staying put, a lot more to talk about with then. Still ahead, you might know him as the ladies` man, but this morning he is going to be on this show. Tim Meadows joins our big all-star "SNL" round table, very excited about that. But next, Joe Biden`s Valentine`s Day message for you. Stay with us. You`re not going to want to miss this one. KORNACKI: All right. There is just a ton going on this morning. So, we`re going to get caught up with some of the other headlines that are making news. Other things people are talking about. I have got my trusty index cards to panel with me to talk about this. So, let`s see what we`ve got. We`ll start with - this is from Politico. It says headline here, "Activists bristle at Hillary Clinton`s fund-raising pleas. There are some activists who are sick of all this "Ready for Hillary" emails they are getting asking for money considering she`s not a candidate yet. Maybe a downside for Clinton`s strategy of staying out of the public eye while her supporters campaign for her. I`ve been wondering about this a little bit. She`s in obviously better political position than we`ve ever seen for a candidate for a major party nomination. So, now right now, I know she`s not in trouble right now. But I wonder, is there going to come a point when it looks like she`s not doing interviews, she`s not doing speeches, she`s not answering questions? When do we get there? STEELE: She`s damned if she does ... (LAUGHTER) STEELE: And she`s damned if she doesn`t. Just let Hillary be a grandmother for the moment. Just let her be a grandmother. KORNACKI: Do you think she only ... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: as a grandmother? And she`s thinking about. STEELE: When we talk about this process, you wonder why the American people are sick of the political process. It`s because of this - all this nitpicking that we go through about these candidates who aren`t even announced. KORNACKI: But she`s meeting ... UNGAR: She`s meeting with all these advisers behind the scenes. The staff is being built up ... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: She`s not just having meetings about being a grandmother. UNGAR: I`m completely cool with Hillary hanging back because there`s nobody challenging her. But there is a problem. I have been talking to my friends from the fundraising world, this is making their lives very hard. And her numbers showed it. STEELE: Why is it so hard for her to raise money? UNGAR: Well, it`s not that - it`s the people who do it. KORNACKI: You`re saying she did not raise what she should have raised. UNGAR: No, she didn`t. STEELE: What is that amount? UNGAR: That - well, I don`t know -- STEELE: What is that amount? UNGAR: They`re not satisfied. STEELE: All these smart people would tell her - tell her what the amount she should be raising then. KORNACKI: When she - when she ... SWEET: I have a little different theory. Quickly on the money and then speaking out. The thing is, there`s a lot of - there`s a lot of people who are raising money on her behalf who are also making money off of this, and that`s the subtext here. It`s not so much met her mark or not, because she`s not controlling it. People are getting ... UNGAR: Where is my 15 percent? SWEET: People are making livelihoods on it. And when does she have to announce? Whenever she feels like it. Because this - you just said there is no competition. There was a thought a while back maybe sooner than later, but later is later. KORNACKI: Yeah, no, and I get there`s no pressure. I just wonder if at some point people are going to say wow, all these big issues happen - and we haven`t heard from her. SWEET: No, but actually, filing dates are going to start happening for primaries -- (CROSSTALK) UNGAR: She`s making the media mad, too, because if we can`t see her - we can`t ... KORNACKI: You decoded me. OK. I want to get to this one, too. We got some - I mean Joe Biden has a Valentine`s Day message for you. We can`t not play this for you. Take a look. (LAUGHTER) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.: Hey, folks. Happy Valentine`s Day. This year get someone you love something really special. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Vice President, Valentine`s Day is just a scam by greeting card companies. BIDEN: Well, let me tell you something, who cares. Some piece of advice, man, take it seriously. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Duly noted. (LAUGHTER) BIDEN: I think you are going to find it`s more affordable than your cell phone bill. Kablooey. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: One and only Joe Biden. And you talk about Rand Paul`s greeting card? UNGAR: I`m sorry, that wasn`t even the strangest thing Joe Biden said this week. KORNACKI: No, in Iowa -- UNGAR: That wasn`t even close. I hope I can say it - He said it on TV. When you`re giving a speech and talking about your butt buddy, this isn`t even close. KORNACKI: That`s a direct quote from the vice president talking about a 94-year-old former congressman. UNGAR: Yes. SWEET: A quick point, the White House this week used these very comedic videos, the president did one that was hilarious by BuzzFeed, in order to encourage people to sign up for Obamacare, the deadline is February 15th. I think these are wonderful examples of trying something to reach different audiences and self-deprecating humor is the best political humor when you make mockery of yourself. KORNACKI: That`s right. And you break through to people maybe who wouldn`t ... STEELE: Particularly when the joke is in health care. KORNACKI: There you go. UNGAR: Let`s not go there yet. KORNACKI: Let`s move on to - Let`s move on to the next index card after that. How about this one? This is just a quick one. This is time - Slate puts this up. Their headline is wind chill blows, it`s time to get rid of a meaningless number. They say the wind chill factor. You always hear, you know, it`s nine degrees, but it really feels like negative six. They say it`s trumped up sensationalism. I say that`s crazy. It definitely feels like negative six, and I want to know. STEELE: But do you really care? I mean what`s the ... KORNACKI: Yes. STEELE: Could you smell the difference between negative six and negative seven? KORNACKI: No, but ... STEELE: All right, so then ... KORNACKI: Try the negatives ... STEELE: What`s the point? UNGAR: I have my own words to describe it when it`s this cold, and we`ll let that happen. SWEET: Actually, it does make a difference between thermal underwear or not. KORNACKI: Here you go. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: So tell it to people - but they didn`t take that point. Anyway, panelists - they will be back next hour. And still ahead, an update on the breaking news we`ve been following this morning, those deadly shooting at a Denmark synagogue at a free speech event yesterday. Also, closer to home, another blizzard bearing down on the northeast. Why the snow, why those winds may not be the toughest challenge yet for New Englanders. KORNACKI: All right. We are tracking that blizzard that is pounding New England this weekend. And it could dump more than two feet of snow on parts of Maine. On top of all that snow that`s already there. The snow may not be the most dangerous part of this storm. NBC`s Miguel Almaguer is live for us in Boston where it`s just coming down right now. Miguel, take it away. MIGUEL ALMAGUER, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Steve, good morning. Yeah, blizzard- like conditions overnight and while the snow does look beautiful it could get ugly out here later on today. We`re going to expect to see steady snow for much of the day here in Boston and New England. In the city of Boston, they`ve been dealing with about 80 inches of snow already this winter. Now they can see another foot in places like Maine. They could see two feet and as you mentioned, the big concern not necessarily or not only the snow, but later on the wind. We could see hurricane-force winds up to 75 miles an hour near the cape and it`s also going to be bone chilling cold after much of this storm passes. We`ll have an arctic blast where the wind chill could dip to negative 35 degrees in some areas, so this storm just the beginning of a series of weather makers that`s going to drop the temperatures out here. Certainly a brutal weekend and a brutal holiday. Back to you. KORNACKI: All right. Thanks to NBC`s Miguel Almaguer live in Boston. If you`re in Boston, stay inside, I guess. By the way, opening day at Fenway Park, can you believe this? Look at those scenes we just saw, six weeks away. They are going to have a baseball game apparently. Anyway, we put out the call yesterday on Twitter, on Facebook, on social media. We asked you to send us your snow pictures and your response was tremendous. And we want to have you keep tweeting those at us logging in on Facebook with your snow selfies. And we want to show you some of the best ones that we got in. Take a look at some and guess where they`re from. Tip, for instance, here, this one is from Craig Reposa shoveling out the mailbox. Where is he? I`m going to guess Medway, Massachusetts, because that`s what the screen says. Medway, Mass. There we go. They`d be on up. I like that. Next up, viewer Howard, and if you recognize him, you could probably guess where he is - that is former Vermont Governor Howard Dean yesterday. Lake Champlain up in northern Vermont. He sent that in, and there was another sent in by Twitter user Sherry Voleba, not as much snow on the ground there. What do you think that is? That is the capital city of Ohio, Columbus. Ohio, recently passed over for the Democratic convention. This one is from Barney. Let`s take a closer look at it. Yes, that is former Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank sending us a photo from Maine where he now lives. And this came in Saturday afternoon from a fan named Rachel. She kind of looks a little familiar. I don`t know. You have seen her before. Yes, Rachel Maddow, there she is, in New Hampshire with a fish. What a day for Rachel Maddow. Anyway, still ahead, just how serious is the threat of another government shutdown? And what Congress has to do if it`s going to avoid it if it wants to avoid it? And next, this former "SNL" cast member could be running for Congress. We`re going to ask him all about that right after this. KORNACKI: Tell me if this sounds familiar. A "Saturday Night Live" alum deciding to take a shot at politics. But this time we`re not talking about Al Franken. It`s another former cast member who is now eyeing a move to Capitol Hill. Gary Kroeger, who was on "SNL" during the early 1980s may be running for Congress in Iowa next year. Kroeger is a Democrat. He says he won`t make a decision until the spring. He`s also in town for tonight`s big 40th anniversary "SNL" spectacular and he joins us now. Gary, welcome. GARY KROEGER, FMR. SNL CAST MEMBER: Thank you for having me, Steve. KORNACKI: So, it`s interesting timing here. You`re back here for the 40th anniversary tonight. Al Franken is the example that everybody thinks of. You had said in the press that you wanted to ask him for advice. We actually had Al Franken on our show last week and we said what advice would he give you. And we play his answer and maybe see what you think of it. This is what Al Franken said to us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AL FRANKEN: You`re running for a job that`s a very different job than being a comedian, but a lot of people, you know, young people ask me how do you become a senator because I`m a senator now, and I say do comedy for 40 years and run for the Senate, and so far that has worked every time. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So have you followed the 40-year track? KROEGER: You know, it`s perfect. It`s a perfect answer. And here is the serious answer. Yes, I was in show business for 20 years. I`m now in advertising, creative director of an advertising agency. If you look up politics in a dictionary, I think it says showbiz meets advertising. It - I was the satirist. A comedian, an actor, but I think, you know, any artist tends to look at the world through a different lens. They see the inequities, they see what`s different, the ironies, they see the abstractions. And when you think that way to communicate, I think the politics is perfect. I think that`s why a guy like Al Franken actually looks deeply into issues. KORNACKI: I will ask you this, though, as Franken has been so interesting to watch. And he made kind of a wry joke as you see in interview last week, but basically, Al Franken from 2008 when he got elected to the present day is very different publicly than the Al Franken that America new for decades and he seems to have made a very intentional calculation that he basically doesn`t want to be funny in public. He wants to cultivate a very serious reputation. He doesn`t want to have any of his opponents be able to say he`s just a lightweight comedian. You have to ignore him. And it feels to me at least, I don`t know him but it feels to me from afar - he`s basically had to give up a chunk of his personality to get into politics. Do you feel that way? KROEGER: Well, I would go so far as to say he`s the same Al Franken. I`m sure at the party tonight he`s - I don`t know. But I`ll bet at home he`s Al Franken. I`ll bet he`s funny, I`ll bet he`s a satirist. I`ll bet he`s the same person. I`m the same person. I`ve always been serious about politics. I have always been serious about the human condition. I have always been a serious liberal. I like to say progressive because it implies action. I have always been serious, but I fell into comedy and I`m marginally funny. It was just my job. But it didn`t mean that I went home and said, hey, everything is funny. My son is here. I don`t tell him, hey, make fun of everything. No, absolutely not. It`s a different discipline. KORNACKI: You are - I mean you`re back in town for the special tonight. Your era had some personalities, Eddie Murphy was part of ... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Then Joe Piscopo ... KROEGER: I`m a fan tonight, because I`m a footnote in the "SNL" book, right? I`m a fan tonight. I get to see these people and say hi and show my son, there`s Will Ferrell. I mean this is .... KORNACKI: Who was your favorite to work with back that day? KROEGER: Well, you know, when I got there, Eddie Murphy`s career exploded. We got there, we were the new kids, me, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Brad Hall and "48 Hours" came out and suddenly, there was a star of such magnitude on the show - on a show that wasn`t about creating stars , per se, it was on - and suddenly it was like being on the Lucy show. Eddie would come out and the whole audience would stop and applaud. We`d kind of wait for the applause. (LAUGHTER) KROEGER: I mean it was phenomenal. But here is a 19-year-old, 20-year-old kid. I never in my life saw anyone more talented than Eddie Murphy. His ear was so in tune with everything. KORNACKI: And he`s - and he`s back there tonight. Final questions, you played Walter Mondale in 1984. KROEGER: Yes, I did. KORNACKI: Mondale is going to campaign for you? KROEGER: Well, I hope that he does and I can honestly say I`ll do the best Walter Mondale, show to Walter in the world. No, those of you out there who have no idea what I`m doing, this is a good Walter Mondale. KORNACKI: It is the best Walter Mondale. Also, I think it`s the only Walter Mondale impersonation, but I love that. That was great. Gary Kroeger, thank you so much for joining us. Good luck to you. KROEGER: Thank you for having me. KORNACKI: And have fun with that show tonight. Another hour of news straight ahead. We`re going to go live to Copenhagen with another update on this morning`s breaking news over there. Stay with us, please. KORNACKI: Another shutdown? All right. And thanks for staying with us this Sunday morning. If you`re just joining us, we want to bring you up to speed on the breaking news we`ve been following all morning. Two deadly shootings in Copenhagen, Denmark, followed by the suspect being killed by police. Denmark`s prime minister calling these attacks an act of terror. Other leaders in Europe echoing that call as well. Police believe the same man is responsible for both shootings, one at a free speech event, another at a synagogue hours later. Officers shot and killed the suspected gun man. They have not yet publicly identified him. Two men were killed, three, including the shooter. Five police officers also wounded during this violence. Joining us now on the phone is Rasmuth Raun Westh, he is a security reporter with the Danish newspaper "Information." Thank you for joining us. I appreciate you are taking a few minutes. Let me just start if there`s any update if you have heard from the police, from any authorities over there. We heard last hour they may know who the suspect is, but they`re not ready to report it publicly. Do we know when that will be that they`re ready to come forward with this information? RASMUTH RAUN WESTH, "INFORMATION" NEWSPAPER: Yeah, hi, it`s good to be with you, Steve. What we know so far is that, as you said, they haven`t published the name of the killer, but he is known to both the police and the intelligence services. What they`re working on right now is trying to establish whether he was a foreign fighter in Syria or in Iraq as in whether he might have fought for, for instance, the Islamic State. Shortly after he was shot at Noerrebro station in the neighborhood near where he allegedly lived, a number of apartments in the nearby neighborhood, one that is known for having a large population of Arab immigrants was searched by the police. KORNACKI: It also sounds, Rasmuth, just reading these - the accounts of what happened yesterday, what strikes me, is a heavy security presence at this free speech event and then after what happened there apparently people at the synagogue requested police presence for their event at night. It sounds to me like this could have potentially been much worse if it hadn`t been for this extra security presence at both of these events. RAUN WESTH: Yeah, undoubtedly it would have. 80 people were attending a girl`s bat mitzvah in the synagogue in the - in Krystalgade, which means Chrystal Street in central Copenhagen. This is the most central mosques for the Jewish community here - here in Copenhagen. And as you said, right after the attack at the free speech event, they requested armed officers to come protect them. As you know, sadly, a 30-something-year-old Jewish man who was defending the synagogue was shot, but he may have avoided a much bigger attack, yes. KORNACKI: All right, Rasmuth Raun Westh on the scene there in Denmark. Appreciate you taking a few minutes this morning. Turning now to that ticking clock here at home. Domestic politics. We get the money running out, Congress stalled, Republicans torn, Democrats thinking they have the advantage. Here we go again, shutdown watch officially on yet again. But now with just five legislative days remaining before the Department of Homeland Security runs out of money, that`s supposed to happen on February 27th. This is the first shutdown impasse since Republicans won full control of Congress in last year`s elections. Now, we haven`t seen this exact dynamic before with Republicans controlling everything on Capitol Hill and Obama in the White House. At issue here is President Obama`s immigration actions deferring deportations for up to 5 million people. Those have made conservatives furious. They passed a bill in the Republican House to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but also simultaneously to undo all of Obama`s immigration executive actions. But Democrats in the Senate are now stalling that bill demanding that Republicans simply pass a clean bill, what they call a clean bill, that provides funding for DHS, no strings attached. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who has promised no more shutdowns, asked Republicans in the House to send over a new bill. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. Mitch MCCONNELL, (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: I`ll tell you, I think it`s clearly stuck in the Senate. We can`t get on it, we can`t offer amendments to it, and the next step is obviously up to the House. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: But John Boehner and House speaker put the ball right back in the Senate`s court. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: The House has done its job. We`ve passed a bill that funds the department and stops the president`s unilateral actions with regard to immigration. It`s up to Senate Democrats now to do their job. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Republican leadership is hearing from a growing chorus of GOP moderates warning against a shutdown, warning that it would hurt the newly in charge party`s image with voters there. Remember what happened the last time around in 2013, but the Tea Party right insists that this time is going to be different. The Democrats will be the ones getting the blame. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R ) TEXAS: And for Senate Democrats in a partisan vote to filibuster funding for the Department of Homeland Security is both reckless and irresponsible. The House of Representatives has done its job. It`s voted on funding for DHS, and Senate Democrats are playing partisan politics with our national security by preventing the Senate from even taking up that funding bill. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, who runs the National Republican Senatorial Committee telling Politico, "I have not been one to wave the bloody shirt very often in my 20 plus years in the Congress, but on this issue Republicans are funding the government and our Democratic colleagues are refusing to even get to the issue, even to show their voters back home where they stand. And joining us now is Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi and also our panel joining us, sitting in for this, we have MSNBC contributor Michael Steele, Rick Ungar a senior political contributor in "Forbes" and Lynn Sweet with "The Chicago Sun-Times." So, Senator Wicker, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. I appreciate it. I wonder what your reaction ... SEN. ROGER WICKER (R ) MISSISSIPPI: Glad to be with you. KORNACKI: I wonder what your reaction is to the sound we played there from your leader in the Senate, from Mitch McConnell, basically saying, hey, look, this bill with the House passed is now stalled in the Senate. McConnell said he doesn`t want any more shutdowns and he says the House should now send something new over. Do you agree with that? WICKER: You know, I think Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are both right. I`m not even sure that what they`ve said is contradictory, but let me say this, Steve. In the time since the top of the hour, I think you`ve said the word shutdown five or six times. There`s no one that seriously thinks the Department of Homeland Security, but the functions will go on. I think it`s fair to the people that worked there, to remove that uncertainty. Here is the situation. The House of Representatives has passed a bill fully funding the Department of Homeland Security. The Senate Democrats will not even vote to take up that bill, and so we`re at an impasse. KORNACKI: But senator, senator, the key ... WICKER: We are going to have to hear from the voters back home and I hope they`re insisting this week to those elected Democrats who said the president was wrong in doing this, I hope they`re telling those senators then the solution is to take up the bill and let the process begin to work. KORNACKI: The key though, as you say, Senator, is, yes, the House has passed a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats` position on this is that they also want a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security, but what they don`t want is what Republicans in the House attached to it and what Republicans in the House attached to it was language that would basically undo all of the executive action that President Obama took on immigration, including what he did back in 2012, which allows certain law-abiding children of the undocumented in this country who have graduated from college, who are in college or served in the military. It allows them to stay in the country. Democrats are saying take all that language out and just fund Homeland Security. We`re fine with that. Why is that not OK? WICKER: Well, there are two things there. You mentioned two executive actions, one is back in 2012, one last November or December. I think that`s an issue that could be discussed. Let`s let the Senators vote on this. The House took the bill up. It was open for amendment in the normal process. The way you get to a resolution in the Senate is, first, to bring the bill up. And so what Democrats have been doing for two weeks now with this filibuster is filibustering a motion to proceed to the bill. We`re willing to have an open amendment process. If there are nuances there or if there are - if there are - if someone wants to strip out all the language that the House of Representatives has put in there, then a Democratic member of the Senate can offer that amendment and the people back home can see how we vote on that. I think the people want Homeland Security funded, but I think they also think that if you`re going to make major changes in immigration law and in executive amnesty, it needs to be done by a bill passing the House, a bill passing the Senate, and signed by the president, and not by unilateral action, and, frankly, many members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate have said as much. KORNACKI: All right, Senator, I want to give ... WICKER: They JUST won`t get on the bill and vote that way. KORNACKI: I want to get our panel in here a little bit. Rick has a question for you. UNGAR: Senator, Rick Ungar here. I mean don`t you find it at least slightly ironic that you have got members of the GOP in the House, it appears Senator Ted Cruz suddenly being absolutely shocked that there are Democrats who would want to filibuster this bill? It was only seven weeks ago where we came to the end of an era where Republicans were filibustering in record amounts. Doesn`t this kind of play a little bit silly to the American public? WICKER: Look, the facts are this, we need to fund the Homeland Security Department. It`s fair to the people that work there. The way to do that is to do what the House has done and pass a funding bill. We can`t get it even to the floor in the United States Senate. It`s really not very complicated. SWEET: Well, actually, Senator, this is Lynn Sweet here. It isn`t simple either. It does seem like you`re looking to force the Democrats to take a roll call hit. Why not just have a fair fight on immigration, take it out of the bill, and then because the Republicans do control the Senate, you can call those immigration provisions up for an up or down vote at will. UNGAR: Exactly. SWEET: Almost at will. WICKER: You know, I think it`s interesting that someone would suggest that it`s not fair for elected members of the United States Senate to take a vote on a very important issue. SWEET: Oh, I didn`t suggest that. I`m just saying ... WICKER: And to take a vote on an issue where they have suggested that the president`s action is not the way to do it. That`s what Claire McCaskill of Missouri said. This is not the way to do it. Senator Manchin of West Virginia said, I disagree with the president`s action there. And somehow the question suggests it`s not fair to make Democratic senators vote on the very policy that they`ve said they disagree with. SWEET: Let me just say really quickly. WICKER: I just find that a very interesting suggestion. SWEET: Well, quick follow-up here. The Republicans have been in charge of the chamber just a few weeks. Why not show that you can govern without having even talk of these showdowns that people hear all the time, as you mentioned in bringing this up. Just try to govern and not create all this drama and take out the contentious part and do it separately. WICKER: Voters gave the Republicans the majority of the United States Senate for the first time in eight years last November, and the question suggests that our response to that should be to do exactly as the Democrats have suggested. I just think that`s an interesting -- that would be an interesting approach, to win the election and then do exactly what the Democrats want. We have a process. Democrats need to get on the bill, then they can offer the amendments and the American people can see where we stand. KORNACKI: And Senator Rick Wicker, let me just end with this. If this process plays out and what Mitch McConnell seemed to be suggesting this week ultimately happens and that is that a bill emerges from the House to the Senate that does not maybe include this immigration language and that does fund the Department of Homeland Security, would you ultimately be comfortable with supporting that? WICKER: You know, I really don`t think that`s going to happen. I come from the House of Representatives. I served there 13 years. You know, we`ve got a math problem in the Senate, a bill has got to get to 60. In the House it`s got to get to 218, and, frankly, I think the John Boehner Republicans are on the high ground there having funded the department, having said that the president`s executive amnesty is not legal and not authorized and we want to make that clear. To me they`re on the high ground and, frankly, I think Mr. Boehner would have a hard time getting 218 votes for what is -- what they`re calling a clean bill. We can do both of these things, but the point is we can fund the Department of Homeland Security and also express ourselves. If we take the position we can`t do riders on executive amnesty, then we`re also saying we can`t do riders on the EPA. We can`t do riders on the Corps of Engineers. And there are riders on almost every funding bill. So to say we`ve got to have clean bills for the next two years or somehow we`re not fulfilling our duties I think is - that`s an argument that`s not going to make it. KORNACKI: Five legislative days, as we say, remaining between now and that deadline. And I think you get a sense of it today. A lot still separating where Republicans are on Capitol Hill, where Democrats are on Capitol Hill. We will see how this plays out. Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi, really appreciate the time this morning. Thank you. WICKER: Thank you. KORNACKI: All right. Still ahead, there are so many memorable moments from "Saturday Night Live`s" 40-year history. In just a few minutes we`re going to be joined live by some of "SNL`s" legendary cast members and writers to talk about some of those moments. And next, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has some choice words for Congress. We`ll bring you the very first look at what the Supreme Court justice told MSNBC in an exclusive new interview. That`s right after this. KORNACKI: All right, time to catch up on some other news making headlines this morning. Panel is back with us, the index card segment. Big stuff on these index cards, though, just handed to me. Hot off the presses. Ladies and gentlemen, three brand new polls, Republican and Democratic presidential race in each of the three critical early primary states. Let us show you these numbers and begin in Iowa with the Republican caucuses. You see Mike Huckabee running in first place. New NBC/Marist poll here. Jeb Bush maybe a little bit unexpected, right behind him. Scott Walker has had a very good few weeks. They are clustered at the top there. Then you see the rest of the names. On the Democratic side in Iowa, Hillary Clinton, the state where she finished third in 2008. She`s near 70 percent. Joe Biden down at 12. Notice, they did not include Elizabeth Warren in this poll. Warren saying that she`s not running. She`s not included. Hillary right now dominate in Iowa. Move to New Hampshire, the Republican race in the first primary state, Jeb Bush, out in front with 18 percent. Again, Scott Walker doing well, Rand Paul, a very libertarian minded electorate in New Hampshire. Chris Christie at 13. Take a look at the Democratic side in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton, 69 percent. Next door Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, he is at 13. Biden falling down to eight right there. South Carolina, first in the South, this one comes with an asterisk. Lindsey Graham on the Republican side, the favorite son included. He says he`s thinking of running for president. A lot of people skeptical he`ll actually will. You put him in his home state, he takes a slight lead right there on the Democratic side in South Carolina. Again, Hillary Clinton very, very strong there. Joe Biden at 20 percent. So talk about some of these early numbers. We always say they`re very early, but I think they`re relevant right now on the Republican side for two reasons. And one is, when we say they`re really early, the only thing that matters is name recognition. But when your name is Bush and these are your numbers, I think that`s a problem. And the second thing is, yes, Scott Walker has been having a good few weeks here. SWEET: All right. I think ... KORNACKI: Go ahead. SWEET: I think that, you know, the polls show who has momentum, and I know that is name recognition but the reason in this period of the preprimary primary, it`s the money primary. That helps with fundraising. Fundraising helps to find who is viable. I want to remind you that when then-Senator Barack Obama first mounted a challenge to Hillary Clinton when he started in `07, it was his first quarter fundraising numbers that were strong and comparable to Hillary Clinton ... KORNACKI: They got the same ... SWEET: ... that made him viable and put him - and vaulted him to the top rank. Jeb Bush is expected to have multiple millions of dollars. He`s going to have an event in Chicago in a few days where he will take out more than $3 million in just one day. KORNACKI: But he just had a $100,000 a head event here in New York. Michael Steele. STEELE: You know, I`m sorry, I`m just not a fan of anyone taking polls right now. This is the most ridiculous science there is at this point because, a, number one, you`re not talking to voters who are actually engaged at this point, who are actually going to be going to the polls and voting in November 2016. KORNACKI: No, no, but the Iowa caucus goers on the Republican side, they`re engaged right now. STEELE: They are not - trust me, they`re not that engaged. They`re not that engaged SWEET: But aren`t the donors engaged? STEELE: But donors - This is a difference between - that this is a poll of donors, that`s a different conversation, then a poll of voters. SWEET: No, no, not a poll of donors. STEELE: But the donors look at the polls of voters -- UNGAR: Why does Michael Steele want to put us all out of work? (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) STEELE: I`m not trying to put people out of work, I`m just trying to bring perspective to this because we create frontrunners that don`t exist. There is no front-runner because no one is nominated. No one ... KORNACKI: But doesn`t it say to you - but Michael, doesn`t it say there is a problem for Jeb Bush? STEELE: No. KORNACKI: With universal name. Well, we always dismiss. STEELE: No. I think he`s doing better. KORNACKI: We dismiss early polls. We say they only measure name recognition. So nobody knows then ... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: When Jeb Bush ... STEELE: When Jeb Bush actually announces he`s running for president of the United States. Let`s see - let`s see ... SWEET: Things don`t wait. STEELE: But that`s going to be coming in two months. SWEET: Well, but so I`m not saying if it was my own money I would commission a poll, but since they exist, the reality is, Mike, we live in the real political world. STEELE: But this isn`t real. SWEET: Hold on. Donors look at these polls. You know that. STEELE: Jeb Bush is not going to lose - (CROSSTALK) STEELE: One dollar on this. UNGAR: I`m just going to say one thing. If I`m Scott Walker, I`m getting copies of what you just showed. I`m framing them, I`m hanging them in my den because he`s not going to see that for long. Scott Walker will fade very ... KORNACKI: We`ll see, but the other thing he`s doing is sending that to every single big dollar donor saying you want an alternative to Jeb, take a look. I got traction. SWEET: Small dollar, too. This is what this is about. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Michael Steele doesn`t like the polls. I do. All right. Next, I got - MSNBC`s Irin Carmon interviewed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just on Friday. Here`s a sneak peak on what she said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) IRIN CARMON, MSNBC REPORTER: I`m wondering how you see the current state of race relations in our country. RUTH BADER GINSBURG: People who think you could wave a magic wand and the legacy of the past will be over are blind. CARMON: Should we be worried that all of those great achievements of the civil rights movement are being rolled back? GINSBURG: Some day we will go back to having the kind of legislature that we should where members, whatever party they belong to, want to make the thing work. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right. That`s just a sneak peek, MSNBC`s Irin Carmon, an exclusive interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The entire interview you can catch it, and you`re not going to want to miss this, Monday night, 9:00 p.m. on "Rachel Maddow Show." You can watch it all there. Make sure to mark your calendar for that. My thanks to our panel for today, Lynn Sweet, "Chicago Sun-Times", Sirius XM`s dynamic duo of Steele and Ungar, we finally got them on camera. And catch their radio show every week. Michael Steele, Rick Ungar, thank you all for joining us. And still ahead, that all-star panel we`ve been talking about all morning of former "SNL"ers talking 40 years of stories, behind the scenes memories, working for Loren. The whole deal of that is coming up next. But before that some of my favorite "SNL" political parodies from over the years. A lot of fun clips for you. Stay tuned. KORNACKI: So we all know there`s been 44 presidents of the United States, but there have only been 7 presidents of "SNL." Seven presidents of "Saturday Night Live." Of course tonight the big 40th anniversary spectacular in this building. Very excited to be watching that tonight. Before that, though, to whet your appetite, we thought we`d take you down, a trip down memory lane, to look at those seven presidents in its 40 years that "SNL" has lampooned, has skewered, has just had a lot of fun with. So let`s take a look. It all began back in 1975, Chevy Chase, no one knew who he was back then as Gerald Ford, the unelected accidental president in the fall of 1975 for the first time ever, "SNL" took aim at a president and this is what it looked like. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHEVY CHASE, COMEDIAN: If I don`t win, I will continue to run in the primaries, even if there are none. And now for my second announcement, live from New York, it`s Saturday night! (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Gerald Ford was a star athlete at the University of Michigan, one of the most physically gifted presidents we ever had. He stumbled a few times coming down airplane steps, and that became the basis for the Chevy Chase caricature that would haunt him for his presidency and for many years after. Let`s take a look at who else we have here. Jimmy Carter was portrayed by Dan Aykroyd. Dan Aykroyd could do a pretty good Southern accent. There were some funny sketches of that through the years. Then you move into Ronald Reagan. This is one of the richest characters, one of the richest presidents SNL had to work with. You see Phil Hartman playing him in the mid 1980s. Others who took a shot at this, Joe Piscopo played him for a bunch of years. Also Robin Williams came in once and played Ronald Reagan. But one of my all-time favorite SNL sketches really, political or otherwise, was Phil Hartman as Ronald Reagan in 1986, this is as the Iran- Contra scandal, remember that, is breaking, everybody had thought of Ronald Reagan as this detached, friendly, soft president, and SNL decided to turn that image around. This is what they did. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PHIL HARTMAN, COMEDIAN: The red countries are the countries we sell arms to. The green countries are the countries where we wash our money. The blue countries -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me, Mr. President, sir. HARTMAN: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s your 11:30 photo opportunity. The little girl who sold the most girl scout cookies. HARTMAN: Damn! Okay. Let`s get it over with. Everybody out. Come on, move, move. This is the part of the job I hate. Well, hello, little girl. What`s your name? (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: I still laugh whenever I watch that. Some great Reagan sketches. Then there was Reagan`s successor, Vice President George H.W. Bush. Dana Carvey as George H.W. Bush. George Bush Sr. of course. A lot of trouble sometimes stringing sentences together. A lot of run-on sentences, thoughts that would kind of start and you wouldn`t know where they would end up. So Dana Carvey had a lot of fun with that through the years. And here he was, this is the fake presidential debate in 1988. Dana Carvey versus Jon Lovitz`s Michael Dukakis. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DANA CARVEY, COMEDIAN: All I can say is, we are on the track, we`re getting the job done. We can do more, but let`s stay the course. A thousand points of light. Well, unfortunately, I see my time is up. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Vice President, you still have 1:20. CARVEY: What? Well, no, Diane, I must have spoken for at least two minutes. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Governor Dukakis, rebuttal. JON LOVITZ, COMEDIAN: I can`t believe I`m losing to this guy. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: But Michael Dukakis did lose to George Bush, Sr. in 1988. Dana Carvey had four years of that presidency, and then Bush Sr. defeated in 1992 by Bill Clinton. And you talk about someone who SNL could have a lot of fun with, comedians could have a lot of fun with. Bill Clinton certainly at the top of that list. We associate I think Darrell Hammond for most of the `90s as the Bill Clinton impersonator. That is the one we most remember. My favorite though for the first couple of years of the Clinton presidency was Phil Hartman, again. Phil Hartman played Reagan, he played Clinton. He was my favorite all-time cast member. Really versatile, really talented. So first two years of the Clinton presidency, here is a great sketch. It`s Phil Hartman as Bill Clinton. Jan Hooks (ph), who had been on the cast before, she comes back to play Hillary Rodham Clinton, and then Dan Aykroyd. He comes back to play Bob Dole, and this is what happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAN AYKROYD, COMEDIAN: All right, Hillary. One more word and you`re going to be a stain on that back wall. Do you want to go, do you? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Come on. HARTMAN: Come on, you two, come on! AYKROYD: You stay out of this, Bill, I`m doing something you should have done a long time ago. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was the Clinton years, and then take a look after Clinton. Of course, George W. Bush. Reagan, Clinton, Bush, a lot of easy juicy characters for SNL to have a lot of fun with. Will Ferrell, this was very iconic. It started even before Bush became president. The 2000 debate, Bush versus Gore. Here is Will Ferrell as Bush in that debate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In fact, we are almost out of time, so instead I will ask each candidate to sum up in a single word the best argument for his candidacy. Governor Bush? WILL FERRELL, COMEDIAN: Strategery. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: In some ways a word that defined the Bush presidency. After George W. Bush, of course that brings us to the seventh and so far final SNL president, Barack Obama, who was played originally by Fred Armisen for a few years. Jay Pharaoh took it over. I have to say in all honesty, this is not an SNL thing, this is I guess a comedy thing, Obama has probably been the toughest president for comedians to have fun with. He just doesn`t lend himself to caricature as much as some of these other guys did. Not quite as over the top. But SNL still has two years I guess to figure that out. Anyway, still ahead in the show today, our big SNL panel, they are here. But before we get to them, a live report from the weekend storm that is slamming the northeast, so stay with us. KORNACKI: It`s been another absolutely brutal weekend for folks in New England. They have been braving yet another winter storm, this the fourth to hit that region in as many weeks. The Weather Channel`s Keith Carson is live for us now in snowy, Portland, Maine. Tell us about what`s going on up there. KEITH CARSON, THE WEATHER CHANNEL: Good morning, Steve. We`ve got a couple of inches of snow so far. We`re here in Casko (ph) Bay, which is right off the Portland waterfront. As far as the snow coming down, it hasn`t been that bad. Winds still picking up out of the north, about 25 or 30 miles an hour. That`s kind of been the story with this storm even down across southern New England, Massachusetts, Cape Cod seeing some really strong wind gusts as that low pressure system, what we call in the weather world bombs out or becomes very strong over the ocean. The winds are trying to wrap into the center of the storm, that`s why they`re coming in out of the north here in Portland. They`re going to continue to get really strong throughout the day. I think the bigger story with the storm, at least in Maine, is that it is extremely cold. When these wind gusts get going, our windchill factor, minus 5, minus 6, and that`s been consistently the case through the morning. So you end up with a light kind of snow. It`s easy to move around for sure. But as the winds crank through the afternoon, we are going to get into the range of windchills where it`s dangerous to be outside. So I think that is the story for a lot of people here. They need to stay inside, and Steve, you know, New England is obviously pretty tough, northern New England pretty tough, but when you get the windchills in the minus 15 to minus 20 range later this afternoon, you are going to want to stay away from that. KORNACKI: Yes, that is even cold by Maine standards, I think. Weather Channel`s Keith Carson live for us in Portland. Appreciate the update this morning. And still ahead in the show, he is one of the biggest stars to come out of SNL in its 40 years. Eddie Murphy is going to be here in this building just hours from now, and so are my next guests, the super star SNL superstar roundtable, they will be here now, and a few hours from now. KORNACKI: All right. As you might have heard once or twice on the show today, we are only hours away from the 40th anniversary Saturday Night Live special. There`s no mistaking, it is a big day in this building. Security is tight. The red carpet is getting rolled out for all the huge names taking part in a 4 1/2 hour event tonight, but right now, before all the festivities, I am very excited to be joined by four SNL alums. We have have with us at the table Julia Sweeney, cast member probably best known for the androgynous character Pat. A. Whitney Brown, was an SNL writer, featured performer, famous for his commentaries at the weekend update deck. Alan Zweibel is one of the original SNL writers who worked closely with Gilda Radner on creating some of her most famous characters, like Roseanne Roseana-Dana, and a familiar face to fans of the show, Tim Meadows, who was in the cast for ten seasons and played the outrageously funny ladies man. So I told you guys in the break, I have been looking forward to this panel all week. I`m guess I`m just curious, you`re back in this building. A few floors up where you actually would do the show, but what`s it like being back? Are you having a lot of memories this week? What`s the feelings right now? ALAN ZWEIBEL, FORMER SNL WRITER: It`s great. It sort of washes over you. You come into the place, and it`s stirring. The building itself is stirring, and I remember the energy I used to feel every single week. You got a rush of it just walking in. KORNACKI: And you are getting it again. Are you guys running into cast members you haven`t seen in a while? A. WHITNEY BROWN, FORMER SNL WRITER AND PERFORMER: My palms started sweating as soon as I saw the building. I started getting anxiety. I was like I`m going to work. I had to convince myself I`m not. But to this day, that closing theme relaxes me, because it means -- JULIA SWEENEY, FORMER SNL CAST MEMBER: The show is over. BROWN: You got a day off. You got 12 hours off. TIM MEADOWS, FORMER SNL CAST MEMBER: I sort -- to me it`s -- the security is so much different here now than it was back when we were here. Like you just would walk in basically and just come upstairs. And now it`s like, you know, picture taken, all this other stuff happening. KORNACKI: That`s all I know. MEADOWS: We used to roam around the halls here, too. Like Tom Davis showed us a place up on the roof where you could go out and see the evening and do stuff. ZWEIBEL: Whoa, whoa. See the evening. MEADOWS: You can look up at the stars and have a couple beers. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Lots of stories through the years about what goes on sort of off the air or after the show. Was it as wild as we have heard? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They actually used to smoke cigarettes in the building. SWEENEY: In the building. That`s probably the most outrageous thing. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: So you guys -- some of you overlapped. Some of you sort of span different eras on this show. I thought one thing I wanted to do is play some of the clips from some of your iconic moments and just to remember them for the audience, but also to see what you think. Julia, I want to start with you. We mentioned the it`s Pat character. This was an absolute sensation. I can`t remember exactly when it started, early `90s, I guess. Let`s play a clip and ask you about it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve got a new member ready for an evaluation, can you handle it? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I was going to go to lunch. Can`t you do it? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think you`d be better with this client. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why? Is he a rich gorgeous hunk? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it`s a hunk of something. SWEENEY: Who is going to evaluate me? (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And, of course, Tim Meadows in that sketch, too. Julia, where did the idea come from? SWEENEY: Well, I was at the Groundling Theater in Los Angeles, which is an improv group, and I was working as an accountant in the day, and there was a couple of people that I was working with that were irritating to me in a very specific way, and one of those people drooled a lot and stood too close. And I was trying to imitate him. That was a guy, but there was also this other girl, and when I tried to do it, I couldn`t really convincingly exactly do a guy, and I decided maybe the joke will be that you can`t tell the difference, but I didn`t think that was going to be the main joke. But then that became, of course, the main joke. KORNACKI: Some of these sketches, I guess, they become instant sensations. SWEENEY: That wasn`t exactly true, because the first time I did it, it was the last sketch of the show. It was Kevin Nealon, it was just he and I. I was just on the show. People didn`t really know who was playing Pat, and I didn`t even think I got a good audience response, but then a couple of weeks later Roseanne Barr was hosting and she had seen that show and wanted to do it again. And then we wrote -- Christine Sander (ph) and I wrote all the Pat sketches. I came out as Pat and got this fabulous entrance applause, which really threw me, and then from then on it was popular. KORNACKI: Roseanne played a role. SWEENEY: Yes. KORNACKI: Interesting there. So, Tim, you also had several -- you had one very iconic character and that`s the ladies man. We want to play a clip from that, but also this is interesting, too. This is where SNL kind of merges with news and with politics. Monica Lewinsky (inaudible), after that scandal, she actually did an appearance on Saturday Night Live and then on the "Ladies Man." Let`s take a look at that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MEADOWS: Will you please welcome my guest, Ms. Monica Lewinsky. Come on, everybody. Yes. Oh, yes. Now, Ms. Lewinsky will be quite helpful to us, because I have been told that when it comes to matters of the heart and her own personal relationships, she`s known for showing very good judgment, is that correct? MONICA LEWINSKY: That`s right, Leon. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: A great line. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: What was that like that day, that night? MEADOWS: It was a weird week. Because we knew -- we were told she was going to be on the show that week or she was available for sketches, and I was not a fan of having her in the sketch, and it was one of the rare times I said, I`m going to be hands off, I`m not going to write. Then Andrew Steele (ph) and Dennis McNicholas (ph) wrote the sketch and I realized how funny it was going to be. So I contributed a couple of things there, but it was a weird moment. It was like literally this person we had been making fun of, she had been in a lot of sketches, and Molly (ph) did her, very funny, the job of doing her, we had her right here in front of me. And I was a little embarrassed. KORNACKI: How was she? MEADOWS: She was very sweet. Actually very nice. I had a little bit more compassion for her after I met her, and then actually I ran into her in L.A. at -- our kids were at a nursery school thing, Mike`s son -- I don`t know, she was nannying or something like that, and we talked, and it was a very friendly talk. And then my ex-wife, I told her about it, and she was like, what, how dare you talk to Monica Lewinsky. It`s like, nothing happened. We just talked. It`s not like we had an affair over the nursery school. KORNACKI: I remember the day she was on, it was kept secret I guess all week, and the word started to leak out. I guess some time Saturday afternoon that this might happen. I was in college at the time, and there was this buzz building all around the school, and everybody that night had to be in front of the TV at 11:30 to see this. We have to squeeze a break in. We have more clips, more memories we want to get to on the other side. We`ll take a quick break, stick around, we will be right back after this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DENNIS MILLER, COMEDIAN: And now with a final comment on the electoral process, here is the man that I look up to most in the entire world, A. Whitney Brown with the big picture. Whitney. BROWN: Well, my friends, over 200 years ago the fathers of our nation created the office of president. I know it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. After all, in those days all you had to do was vote for the man you liked the most. And now finally in 1988, it`s come to the point where you have to vote against the man you dislike the most. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: A. Whitney Brown is a writer and also a commentator on weekend update. Of course you recognize Dennis Miller there. BROWN: As a writer, I got to write all of the intros. Dennis had to say whatever I put up on the teleprompter. It just got more and more hyperbolic as time went on. KORNACKI: Interesting. Dennis had to bite his tongue and-- BROWN: He had to read whatever was there. I don`t even know if he knew what he was saying. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Weekend Update is sort of its own thing within Saturday Night Live, that`s an institution. Before there was "The Daily Show," before there was Colbert, you -- this was the first place to really parody the news like that. BROWN: In a sketch or two, I played a dead body in one of the sketches, and I was in the Reagan mastermind sketch. KORNACKI: Yes, we mentioned that earlier. BROWN: The amazing thing about that, I think that`s a (inaudible) joint. I think it was the first, in the seventh year of his presidency, the very first time anyone had ever satirized him as opposed to parodying him. Everyone played him as dumb. But playing him as a mastermind-- KORNACKI: Going against type, basically. BROWN: Right, satirizing as opposed to parodying. So that was, you know, that`s still one of my favorite sketches. I think that was Frankensmigle (ph) and maybe Downey (ph). KORNACKI: I want to get in to Alan Zweibel, so a writer for the show in going back to some of the classic original cast members, most famous, you had John Belushi, the samurai deli. I want to play a Gilda Radner sketch. This was Roseanne Roseana-Dana, play this for everybody. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GILDA RADNER, COMEDIAN: A Mr. Richard Fanner (ph) from New Jersey writes in and says, dear Roseanne Roseana-Dana, last Thursday I quit smoking, now I`m depressed, I gained weight, my face broke out, I`m noxious, I`m constipated, my feet swelled, my gums are bleeding, my sinuses are clogged, I got (inaudible) and I have gas. What should I do? Mr. Fanner, you sound like a real attractive guy. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So, Al, you start to see the talent there, and so many incredible characters and such talent. What was it like working with her and putting the sketches together like that? ZWEIBEL: It was amazing because my skill set was before I got to the show was joke writing. Here I was with a bunch of improv players like Aykroyd and Belushi and in particular Gilda, and I had never seen that kind of energy come to a sketch before. And it was just great, because anything I would do, they would take it and bring it up to this level. So it was really fun. That character was an amalgam of a couple of different energies. Richard Fanner (ph) from Fort Lee, New Jersey was her brother- in-law, so I just turned him into a national institutional as this dumb guy from Ft. Lee, who would write these stupid letters every week. KORNACKI: It`s interesting to listen to where the inspiration for these come from, sort of everyday living mundane things. I`m curious, you guys, just to go around, you worked with so many of the big names and maybe names that people have forgotten but are still really talented. Who were some of the best characters, the best actors, the funniest people you`ve gotten to work with on this show through the years? BROWN: Phil Hartman. KORNACKI: Phil Hartman, I`ve always said Phil is my all-time favorite. BROWN: Phil, yes, Phil Hartman. MEADOWS: We used to call Phil the glue. Because you couldn`t -- he held everything together, because he could do everything. He could do impressions, he could do voices, he could play the straight man, he could be the funny guy. He taught us -- he taught me how to read cue cards in a sketch. Like, he literally pulled me to the side and said this is how you do it, because I was going back and forth and I was looking nervous. He`s like, no, Meadows, this is what you do, you look at the cue cards and you don`t take your eyes off the cue cards. And then he told me, also, he just goes, and you`ve got to know your joke. Always know the joke in the sketch. So I would learn -- I would do my lines to the cue cards, but I always knew how to do my punch line to the person or to the audience, whatever. I was like, you don`t mess that up, you know. ZWEIBEL: Plus you would write ten jokes into a sketch and he would bring you 12 laughs. He was really good at that. SWEENEY: He always made it better. MEADOWS: One of my favorite sketches that I wrote that I didn`t appear in, you were actually in it, Julia, it was called soap opera digest. SWEENEY: Oh, right. MEADOWS: It was about this actor Alec Baldwin, who just could not read very well, so he would pronounce Yale University like Yaley University. (CROSSTALK) MEADOWS: So Phil Hartman was just a soap opera actor in this sketch, but we would cut to him for these like intense stares, and they got bigger laughs than the actual writing of the sketch. I was with Downey watching it and Downey just goes, you put the glue in there, he`s going to do that. He`s going to make the sketch way better. KORNACKI: I would ask this too, the guest hosts, anybody have a really good or a really bad guest host story? ZWEIBEL: A great guest host was Buck Henry for me. Because I used to write the samurais for Belushi, so it would be easy to have Buck walk into a delicatessen, order a sandwich, not make any mention whatsoever that there was a samurai guy making a sandwich for him, (inaudible) slicing it with a thing, and he would just talk about the Super Bowl the next day. So me as a writer was writing this for a writer, and it was just really cool how he underplayed it and understated everything. KORNACKI: My favorite guest host of all time, we were trying to come up with these the other day, actually was Leslie Nielsen. The guy from the "Naked Gun" movies, came on, and there was just some all-time classics. I wish we could do this for five, ten, 20 more minutes. Unfortunately we are at the very end of the hour. My thanks to the great roundtable. SNL alums Julia Sweeney, A. Whitney Brown, Alan Zweibel and Tim Meadows. Have fun tonight, we are all jealous of you guys getting to go to that thing. And of course the big show airs tonight at 8:00 p.m., on NBC, a red carpet special starting at 7:00. Thank you for getting up with us today. Of course back next weekend Saturday, Sunday, 8:00 a.m. Eastern time. First you are going to watch Melissa Harris-Perry. That is next. Have a great Sunday. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021501cb.450 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 68 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 15, 2015 Sunday SHOW: MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 10:00 AM EST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY for February 15, 2015 BYLINE: Dorian Warren, Adam Reiss GUESTS: Marcus Mabry, Molly O`Toole, Julian Zelizer, Katon Dawson, Barbara Lee, Dominica Davis, Peter Keldorff, Seema Iyer, Monifa Bandele, Cherrell Brown, Julian Salazar, Marquez Claxton, Samantha Jenkins, Michael-John Voss, Dave Zirin, Caroline Clarke SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 14230 words HIGHLIGHT: The shootings yesterday in Copenhagen, the first shooting targeted a freedom of speech event featuring a cartoonist who has depicted and mocked the Prophet Muhammad. One person attending the event was killed and three police officers were injured. The second shooting targeted a Jewish synagogue. One man providing security was killed. Two police officers were wounded, Right now we want to bring you the very latest on the shootings yesterday in Copenhagen that are being described by Danish authorities as a terror attack. The first shooting targeted an event featuring cartoonist who has caricature the Prophet Muhammad. On Thursday, FBI Director James B. Comey delivered a speech at Georgetown University on race and law enforcement that was remarkable as much for its candor as its unconventionality. Comey speech marked the first time the director of the FBI has spoken so openly and directly about race and the police and it was a moment that carried with it the weight of the bureau`s own fraught history with race, a fact that Comey acknowledged in his address. That was Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson on the evidence he presented to a grand jury that on Wednesday, he handed up a six-count indictment against an Officer Peter Liang for the shooting death of 28-year-old Akai Gurley in the stairwell of a Brooklyn housing project last November. Debtors prisons, you might think they`re a relative of the past after all the United States outlawed them nearly 200 years ago. But two new lawsuits filed in Missouri last Sunday claim that jails in the towns of Jennings and Ferguson are essentially modern-day debtors` prisons holding citizens who can`t afford to pay their traffic tickets or fines for other minor violations. DORIAN WARREN, MSNBC GUEST ANCHOR: This morning, my question. Are we seeing the return of the debtor`s prison? Plus the FBI director`s very frank talk about policing and race, and the cost of war. But first, the latest on the deadly terror attack. Good morning. I`m Dorian Warren in for Melissa Harris-Perry. First this morning, we want to bring you on update on the shootings yesterday in Copenhagen. The first shooting targeted a freedom of speech event featuring a cartoonist who has depicted and mocked the Prophet Muhammad. One person attending the event was killed and three police officers were injured. The second shooting targeted a Jewish synagogue. One man providing security was killed. Two police officers were wounded. The prime minister of Denmark spoke earlier today outside the synagogue. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HELLE THORNING-SCHMIDT, PRIME MINISTER OF DENMARK: Our thoughts goes to his family. We are with them today, but our thoughts goes to the whole of the Jewish community today. They belong in Denmark. They are a strong part of our community and we will do everything we can to protect the Jewish community in our country. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Danish police say the person suspected of carrying out these attacks was killed after exchanging fire with authorities. Joining me now on the phone from Copenhagen, Denmark, is Peter Keldorff, a reporter at the Danish Broadcast Corporation. Peter, what do we know about the identity of the suspect? PETER KELDORFF, REPORTER, DANISH BROADCAST CORPORATION (via telephone): The police have told us this afternoon that they know the name of the man that they killed this morning and, as you said, they suspect is the attacker from the two attacks. And they told us that our intelligence agency knew the man in advance. He was on their radar as our chief of intelligence told us. So our intelligence agency knew the man in advance and they know now the name of him, but they don`t want to reveal it to the press and to the public. That`s what we know for now. WARREN: And do police believe the suspect was the only person involved or are they looking for more? KELDORFF: They are for sure looking for more. Right now as we speak, there has been a mass arrest at an internet cafe in the same area in the city where the man was shot and killed last night, this morning, so for sure they are looking for more. But on the other hand they told at the press briefing earlier today that they don`t think there are others working with him. They are keeping their cards pretty close, the police, of course. So we don`t know what`s up and down in this, but of course, they are looking for more. As we speak, as I told you, a mass arrest is going on in the same area where he was killed. WARREN: Peter Keldorff in Copenhagen, thank you. Now we turn to another international story with implications here at home. President Obama this week asked Congress to authorize his war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but the truth is the war began months ago. Three American service members have lost their lives in missions supporting the war. The loss of a human life is immeasurable. While there are many ways to measure the costs of war, the most basic comes down to money and the financial figures we can analyze are mounting. The United States has already spent $1.5 billion in its campaign against ISIS, according to the Pentagon. We are spending an average of $8.4 million every day. For some perspective, the war in Afghanistan cost the U.S. $212 million a day. Together, the past 13 years of war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have cost $1.6 trillion. This war is much cheaper. So-called smart bombs cost $40,000 each. Every hour of flying time for a fighter jet is about $10,000, and the U.S. has launched more than 5,000 air strikes so it`s not pennies, but ground wars are vastly more expensive. In Afghanistan, the U.S. spent more than $1 million per year for every soldier on the ground. Compared to that, the operation against ISIS is a war on the cheap. And that is perhaps why the president is so confident in public and congressional support of this new war known as "Operation Inherent Resolve." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I`m optimistic that it can win strong bipartisan support and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Joining me now, Marcus Mabry, editor-at-large for "The New York Times," Katon Dawson, National Republican consultant and former South Carolina GOP chair, Molly O`Toole, politics reporter for Defense One, and Julian Zelizer, professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University and author of "The Fierce Urgency of Now, Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and The Battle for the Great Society." Thank you all for joining us today. Marcus, I want to start with you because the public appears to be in favor of the president`s actions against ISIS. Does the financial cost factor into public opinion on war? MARCUS MABRY, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": It will. It does, it does. Historically it has. In this case of course -- WARREN: Should it? MABRY: Without a doubt the most tragic cost of any war is loss of human life on both sides. Certainly I think Americans feel it keenly, certainly Americans whose families serve feel it keenly. One problem fortunately or unfortunately is that more and more American families don`t have a service member in their family. So I think fewer and fewer of us are attuned to those costs, but those are the most tragic costs. Economically speaking, the American public generally supports a war, as far as from an economic point of view, as long as we`re in good economic times. We happen to be lucky enough to be headed into what seems like a sustained economic recovery, so when it comes to this war I don`t think there`s going to be a problem. The other fact is because we don`t have boots on the ground and right now there`s no political will to have boots on the ground, it`s a lot easier for the American people to stomach the war. WARREN: On this point I want to bring up the poll data. For war authorization, 54 percent say yes, 32 percent say no. This is an NBC News/Marist poll, but in terms of ground troops, 26 percent support large number of troops on the ground, 40 percent support limited number of troops, only about a quarter supports no troops on the ground so it`s interesting that there is support for sending actual people. MABRY: I think if you actually have boots on the ground, I think those numbers would get much worse quickly. The idea is one thing, but doing it is different. WARREN: Molly, I want to ask you, does cost factor in for members of Congress and how will it in any way factor into Congressional hearings on authorization for the use of military force? MOLLY O`TOOLE, DEFENSE ONE: I don`t think that`s what we see or what we hear. We see a lot of the kind of chest-thumping sort of rhetoric, but really the members of Congress are the ones who have to make these considerations about costs. They are the ones in charge of appropriations, authorization bills. WARREN: Power of the purse. O`TOOLE: Exactly. As we`ve seen with the Islamic State fight and the global war on terror for the past 13 years, the only real power for oversight that Congress has, I mean the war against the Islamic State has been going on for six months without Congress weighing in is that power of the purse. Now, politically they are loathe to be seen as not giving the military what they need in order to be successful. So while they are the ones that are in charge of getting these bills passed that would grant funds to the Department of Defense, what you see publicly is not going to become these back door discussions about costs. They`re very in tune to what the public thinks politically. WARREN: Julian, tell us how past presidents have dealt with the cost of war. JULIAN ZELIZER, PROFESSOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Until World War II they tried to deal with them so they would sell savings bonds where they would raise taxes and dealt explicitly with the moneys as did Congress. Recently we don`t do that. We fund it through deficit spending and borrow. So people don`t feel the effects and Congress has a little leeway, but eventually the costs are known not through taxes, but the deficit rises, other programs start to feel it and that`s where legislators are unhappy. So right now, it all seems easy. The question is what happens if this expands and accelerates and what`s the trade-off that will be necessary. WARREN: Katon, how if at all does cost factor into what stance the 2016 presidential candidates will take? KATON DAWSON, FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA GOP CHAIR: It will have nothing to do with this. You`re already watching the Republican candidates wanting to increase defense spending. You`re never going to lose on defense, especially in a state like South Carolina. Move to Iowa and Nevada. I think one of the things to see in the polling that I do is these beheadings and murders have changed the public opinion, especially of the young lady. And I make note that they didn`t show that one. And that -- that`s been one of the most unifying thing I see at the diner between Republicans and Democrats is they now understand who this enemy is. They don`t understand the scope of it, but they understand we`re going to have to lead. For once this is an unusual president to be asking for these powers. Some of my guys tell me he`s not asking for enough, because the public talks about it now. You know, Marcus, when it gets down to people talking about it at the restaurants and the fear and you feel the fear, the money will come second, politics will come first. WARREN: Marcus, I want to come back to you because you started with this. We hear the president and other congressional leaders saying over and over no ground troops, that this is not going to be a ground war in any way. Should we believe them? MABRY: Sure, right now. For now you can believe them. The reality is we don`t know what`s going to happen going forward. This is going to be a very long struggle, an intractable struggle. Many people argue you can look back to the struggle for Iraq and before Iraq and say this is all part of the same struggle. On left and right, Democrats and Republicans, there`s an interesting debate happening over that issue. About but the fact is look at Copenhagen over the weekend. This is truly a global struggle and a global war. How you carry it out and what means remains to be seen. But I find it hard to believe that somewhere in the world you won`t need ground troops. WARREN: More on the war and the cost of war when we come back, but before we go to break we want to provide an update on winter storm, Neptune, as it barrels down on New England bringing heavy snow and blizzard conditions. This is what Boston looks like this morning. Crews are trying to dig out, while the area could see another foot of snow before the day is done. Hundreds of flights out of Logan Airport have been cancelled this morning and people are being urged to stay off the roads. This storm is a triple threat, snow, high winds and bitter windchills, all in an area still struggling to recover from earlier snowstorms. NBC meteorologist, Dominica Davis, is here with the latest on the blizzard`s timeline. Dominica, is today the worst of it for New England? DOMINICA DAVIS, NBC METEOROLOGIST: It absolutely is going to be. It`s not so much the snow, although they have had plenty of that. The snow is winding down, but the blizzard warning will stay in effect and that`s because the winds and cold will be the extreme conditions today. Here`s a look the at our blizzard warnings. They go up and down the coast going from Massachusetts all the way up to Maine and that will go right through the overnight. And that is because with winds gusting as high as what could be 60, 70 miles per hour, blowing and drifting snow will be -- will be the case throughout the day, which means visibility could be down to zero, making for blizzard conditions. So here`s a look at Doppler radar. Good news because we`re seeing the snow machine wind down. That is great. Parts of Boston have picked up 19 inches with this new storm that has come in since Saturday, still looking at heavy snow bands through south eastern Massachusetts. Other than that really the snow is leaving. It`s the cold and the winds, though, that will be picking up. Here`s where we`re looking at extreme winds. Right along the coast where we have blizzard warnings, 60 to 70 miles per hour through the afternoon and tonight, 50 miles per hour from New York further south. So the whole northeast is in on these strong winds. So everybody from Maine all the way down to D.C., you will see some very gusty winds for today, windchills 31 in Boston. It`s 43 -- I should say wind gusts, 43 miles per hour in Philadelphia. And look at these windchills, this is dangerous cold. We will see some of the coldest air of the season tonight and tomorrow morning. Could be the coldest air we`ve had in a decade. WARREN: NBC meteorologist, Dominica Davis, thank you. Stay right there, we`re going to talk to the only member of Congress to vote no on the 2001 authorization of military force, Representative Barbara Lee and her peace bill, after the break. WARREN: President Obama says he doesn`t even really need Congress to sign off on his military campaign against ISIS. According to the White House, the president has all the legal authority he needs, thanks to a vote Congress took more than 13 years ago. On September 18th, 2001, Congress authorized the president to, quote, "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of military force. In fact, only one member of Congress voted against it. She joins us right now. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, joins us live from Berkeley. Good morning, Congresswoman. REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA LEE (D), CALIFORNIA: Good morning. WARREN: Thirteen years ago you said you were afraid that our use of force might spiral out of control. I want to ask you, is that what you see now happening with the president`s campaign against ISIS? LEE: It`s unfortunate that the resolution I voted against really does allow for a state of perpetual war. I think this is critically important, without any president coming back to Congress. That 2001 resolution served as the basis for the 2002 resolution, which was the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And here we are again now engaged in military action without repealing actually that first resolution. And so I`m worried, frankly, that the 2001 policy is going to stay in place until we repeal it and that it will set the stage for the continuation of military operations throughout the world really without congressional input, debate or authorities. WARREN: Let me just follow up and clarify here. You don`t think it`s enough that the president wants to repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of force, which we know was a justification for the 2003 Iraq war, you want him to also -- you want Congress to also repeal the 2001 authorization of the use of force as well? LEE: Absolutely. I`ve had legislation to do that for many, many years now because if you have a policy in place that allows for endless war and that allows the authorization to go to war any time, any place, anywhere, then you`re really defeating your purpose coming to Congress with a resolution that has not actually included repealing that first one. We need to fast forward to today and the war that we`re engaged in at this moment and not use any legal basis as the 2001 resolution for the continuation of that war. We need to debate a clean authorization. We need it to be debated with regard to repealing the 2001 so that we can actually bring forward now the American people`s views on going to war in this day and time. WARREN: So speaking of debate, Congresswoman Lee, President Obama said this about the upcoming debate in Congress. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT OBAMA: In the days and weeks ahead, we`ll continue to work closely with leaders of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the thoughtful and dignified debate that this moment demands. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: So, Congresswoman, how do members of Congress have that dignified debate? And what questions do you think must be asked? LEE: Sure. I`m really proud and pleased that the president has brought forth this resolution. I hope the speaker will allow us to bring it forth to debate and discuss on the floor. Of course, we`re six months into this war and in many ways this resolution, you know, moves us forward because we are engaged in military action. But I believe that we need to look at all of the options. I have a resolution, HJ Res-30, which does not take military action off the table nor forecloses military action, but it lays out a comprehensive approach so that we can really deal with the underlying causes and really dismantle and degrade ISIS. Many have said, many military experts, even the president has said there`s no military solution only to this very horrible and horrific terrorist organization in terms of dismantling them. And so we need to look at a comprehensive approach. We need to make sure that we address all of the revenue streams, the oil revenue streams that funds ISIL, we need to look at the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria. We need to look at the underlying sectarian and ethnic tensions. And so there are many, many issues that have to be addressed to ensure our only national security and help move forward in the Middle East where we can really disable and dismantle this very terrible organization. So we need to have a debate, but we need to debate all of the options, not only the military options. WARREN: Thank you. Thank you very much to Congresswoman Barbara Lee in Berkeley, California. Still to come, new poll results just released this morning reveal much about the class of 2016 and three very key states. WARREN: President Obama was not shy this week about putting the war against ISIS directly in the 2016 spotlight. Here he is explaining why his authorization for the use of force would expire in three years. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT OBAMA: Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next president`s term. It`s conceivable that the mission is completed earlier, it`s conceivable that after deliberation, debate and evaluation that there are additional tasks to be carried out in this area. And the people`s representatives with a new president should be able to have that discussion. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: OK, Marcus, I saw your eyebrow raised there. How would this affect the 2016 race? MABRY: I couldn`t help but be affected by the president saying it`s conceivable this will be completed in the short time. No. It`s not conceivable to anybody. This is a long struggle. The next president will definitely have to deal with it. As Katon was saying earlier, the Republican field is all on one side of the issue. In the primaries, it will be interesting to see is there a race to see who can be toughest on this issue. WARREN: I want to bring in Senator Ted Cruz`s statement about this and get you to respond, Katon, because he wants to make it more specifically about Islam. Let me read what he said this week. "Congress should strengthen the AUMF by making sure the president is committed to clear objectives and a specific plan to accomplish these goals. That should begin by clearly defining the enemy as radical Islamic terrorists. We will not be able to win the war against radical Islamic terrorism as long as our commander in chief refuses to recognize who it is that we are fighting." Is he right? DAWSON: Ted Cruz is the spokesman for Ted Cruz. That being said in itself, you know, to a point he is, it`s good politics for him right now. It`s red meat stuff. It`s what the president is probably trying to do. Nobody is fooling themselves who this enemy is anymore. I don`t think we have to guess who they are, we see it every night. So at the end of the day -- reasonable I guess in three years with a reasonable person. But this is going to be pontificated the entire time along with defense spending. ZELIZER: I think all the candidates need to be careful, though. While the drums of war will sound appealing in campaign rhetoric and some of it rational, some of it from fear, two things. Iraq still looms large and I think the public maybe in the polls -- WARREN: The polls right now. ZELIZER: I don`t think there`s a huge appetite for a big war right now. And that`s important. And, you know, the second issue is there`s a lot of divisions in both parties that are right beneath the surface within the GOP, among the Democrats with war reauthorization. Any candidate who makes the wrong step dealing with this can bring those rights out and find themselves in a minefield. The economy is still big. Certainly the Democrats are not going to want to shift to war time footing and forget middle class issues are what a lot of Democrats are asking for. WARREN: Let`s hear from one other potential GOP candidate about war, going to war. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SENATOR MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I would say that there is a pretty simple authorization he could ask for and it would read one sentence. And that is we authorize the president to defeat and destroy ISIL, period. And that`s, I think, what we need to do. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: So -- DAWSON: Pretty smart. WARREN: Is that all we need to do? DAWSON: Fairly smart. Certainly Congress is a little deeper than that. I go back to what he said. I remember in 2008 looking at Bush`s poll numbers and looking how war weary the Republican voter was. You know, and that was -- even when we had John McCain, a war hero, but that was -- and you`re right. We`ve got a long time between now and then. This is a political football but there`s a double side to it. MABRY: What Rubio says is certainly smarter than what Cruz said. A war against ISIL, ISIL may have multiple addresses, but it`s not good addresses. A war against radical Islam, what`s the address for that, it`s everywhere. WARREN: Let me get Molly in. Boys, boys, boys, let me get Molly in here because the president says he already has authorization and this can be confusing for some people. He has authorization, but he`s asking Congress for authorization. Why is he doing this and what does it gain him politically? O`TOOLE: I`m pretty skeptical of his argument that he put forth last week and what they have said that they`re relying on the -- his powers as commander-in-chief, they`re relying on the 2001 and 2002 AUMF so they don`t need Congress` support, but they`d like Congress` support because they`d like to show a united front. I think to some extent there is a legitimacy issue here. Obama himself said he wanted to refine and repeal the 2001 AUFM. He wanted to repeal the 2002 AUMF, and then they shift their position saying they`re relying on it. So Obama is a constitutional law scholar. He basically won office against Hillary Clinton because he could force her to own her vote for the 2002 AUMF so I think there`s a legitimacy issue, but I think it`s more political than anything. A lot of Republican critics but a lot of members of Congress can sit back and say we don`t know what the president`s strategy is. Now, if he forces them to own, to share some of the burden politically of the fight by forcing them to take a vote publicly, I think that that gives him some support as well, in particular if it doesn`t go as planned. WARREN: Still to come, new polling on presidential hopefuls. Up next, when the hits just keep coming, retracting the latest in a series of snowstorms pounding the region of the U.S. still struggling to dig out. WARREN: Snow, on top of snow on top of snow. That`s what folks in parts of New England are dealing with this morning as a new winter storm moves through. The area has already been hit with nearly three weeks` worth of record-crushing snowfall and much of it is still on the ground due to a prolonged cold snap. Add to that a sharp drop in temperatures and dangerously low windchills. Joining me from Boston is MSNBC`s Adam Reese. Adam, in what way has this latest snow event just compounded the misery? We`re having some technical problems. Adam, can you hear me? ADAM REESE, MSNBC: I`m not hearing you. WARREN: Adam is not hearing us. He`s in the snowmobile. REESE: I can`t hear. WARREN: Adam, tell us -- tell us what`s happening in Boston, if you can. REESE: I don`t hear. I`m not hearing you. WARREN: Adam, can you hear us yet? I think the cold freeze is chilling the microphone for Adam. We`re going to come back to him later, but up next, $100,000 a plate fundraisers, just how deep do the pockets run among the class of 2016? WARREN: Despite all the posturing and guessing about the potential GOP presidential candidates, the field is wide open. You don`t have to take our word for it, though. In a new NBC News/Marist poll, in three states there are three different frontrunners. In Iowa, if the state`s caucus were held today, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee would edge out former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. According to the poll, if the New Hampshire primary were held today, Jeb Bush would come out on top ahead of Walker and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. And in South Carolina, native son Senator Lindsey Graham tops that crowded field, yes, before even any formal declarations. The GOP presidential race is shaping up to be a close one. Seven different Republicans get double-digit support in at least one of the states. In the race for campaign funds, one potential candidate is pulling way, way ahead. According to "The Washington Post" Jeb Bush is far outpacing his would be rivals and his two political committees are on pace to amass tens of millions of dollars by earl spring. According to "The Post," the former Florida governor`s overwhelming dominance in the race has come at a speed that has impressed long-time Republican money players who say wealthy party backers have rapidly migrated to Bush since Mitt Romney decided against another White House run two weeks ago. When we say wealthy, we mean really, really wealthy, like 1 percent wealthy. At a New York fundraiser last week, about 25 supporters paid a minimum of $100,000 each. It is one of six events for the similar price tag being hosted by Bush`s political action committees. But as the campaign donations pour in, will voters also follow the money? Back at the table to talk cash and the campaign trail, Marcus Mabry, editor-at-large for "The New York Times," Katon Dawson, National Republican consultant, Molly O`Toole, politics reporter for the "Defense One," and Julian Zelizer, professor at Princeton University. Katon, I`ve got to come to you first, of course. At this stage of the game, tell us how important it is to be winning the money race and not the polling race. DAWSON: It`s always important to win the money race, ask Barack Obama. It`s always important to have cash on hand and the ability, but the numbers are what they are today, 18 percent is 18 percent. Mind you 36 percent probably wins you a lot of primaries because most of these primaries aren`t convoluted runoff elections. It`s the guy who gets the most votes out of 14 ends up winning probably the most delegates, certainly in South Carolina and going back to the other states. So my point is it`s early in the race, it`s like NASCAR, they`re swapping paint but never discredit the bush financial expert. WARREN: But the Bush`s money making machine scare off Mitt Romney and is it going to scare off others? DAWSON: I`m not sure it`s going to scare off, there`s going to be about five people that can afford to run for president, as far as the Republican side, five. The rest will have a good time in the debate and there will be some surprises. Everybody catches lightning in a bottle in the Republican primary for a while. When you catch it, you catch it on the outside, the front side and the back side from everybody else. Ambassadorships are out there, it`s a given, he did a great job. Mitt Romney is gone, he took care of that. So we`ll see. WARREN: Marcus, Jeb Bush sounded like a populist recently in Detroit where he said the recovery has been happening everywhere but in the family paycheck. How does he reconcile $100,000 for a plate for a dinner with connecting with middle class and working class families? MABRY: Well, I think we in the media are terribly unfair to politicians. I rarely say this. WARREN: Isn`t that our job? MABRY: We are unfair to politicians. It was so much to have dinner, how can he have that much a person? It costs so much to run for office in America. Whether you`re running for dog catcher is expensive. Running for president is ridiculous. We`re going to have a billion dollar race again. It`s disgusting if you want to have a democracy that you can buy an office this much. That`s shameful. But that`s not Jeb Bush`s fault. That`s all our fault, that`s society`s fault, so that`s a problem. We cannot call the guy out for that. What I`m interested in and the earlier question, I don`t think Mitt Romney was scared off by anybody`s money. I don`t think Mitt Romney is scared of money. He can buy the election himself with his own money without emptying his bank account. So that`s not the issue. What Jeb Bush is trying to do is scare off everybody else with the money. Mitt Romney was scared by the fact that he would have been humiliated again probably and the Republican faithful were saying that so that was an issue. Mrs. Romney certainly didn`t want to run. The issue for Jeb is to scare off everybody else exempt for the four other people who will have the money to be competitive in this race. ZELIZER: Everyone takes money at this point. Both parties take it and you can be wealthy personally and be progressive. Franklin Roosevelt was very wealthy and he`s the most progressive president. The question is what are the Republican policies? Where are they taking the money from, and some would argue they are not sympathetic to policies that will help working class Americans. WARREN: Let me ask you on this in terms of policy. Jeb just released his reformed conservative vision and it sounds a bit familiar. Remember compassionate conservatism that his brother trotted out as his philosophy. What do we know about reform conservatism? ZELIZER: A lot of Republicans are actually bringing that up. It worked for George W. Bush. It actually was important in the 2000 campaign and I don`t think Democrats should take it too lightly. A lot of people feel Democrats have not done a good job dealing with some of these core economic issues. I do believe Republicans in the elections can make a play. There is a disconnect with where Republican policies are, with tax cuts and with economic assistance and where these poverty arguments have been coming from. O`TOOLE: Right. I do think that the compassionate conservatism, this sort of reformed conservatism, however you want to give that name to it. I do think it could be compelling. Obviously the Republicans have suffered in the last few elections from a policy standpoint, also in terms of social issues, in terms of the diversity and how they can appeal to the minority groups of voters who are only going to play a larger and larger role. That`s going to be even bigger in 2016 than it was in 2012, than it was in 2008. I do think what Bush represents in terms of this reformed conservatism. He also has more moderate stances when it comes to things like immigration. And that`s going to be really key to winning over some of those voters that have been lost to the Republican Party for the past several elections. MABRY: You`re talking about the general election campaign. Before you get to run for president, you`ve got to win that primary. I`m not sure those voters will be as enthusiastic about this populist kind of notion of the middle class being left behind as they would be about other economic messages so I`ll be interested to know about that. WARREN: Let me ask all of you. Is it a good or bad thing that there is no front runner in the GOP field? It seems like an open field. But I`m also curious who you think will be the first to flame out. DAWSON: Go ask all the frontrunners from the last two how it felt to be frontrunner. Hillary Clinton. Ask how they felt -- MABRY: She`s not running yet. WARREN: By the way, she`s at the top of the polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. ZELIZER: I actually think it`s a good thing for the party. I think the party uses these primaries sometimes to have a more vibrant and robust debate about what they should be and put more ideas on it. But we do have to remember that fundamentals matter. Back to Jeb Bush raising a lot of money, in the long term I think that`s still a big story. Once you hit the actual season, if you don`t have the kind of money to compete, he`s going to wipe people away. And so I do think the debate is good, but we have to keep our eye on that fundraising. DAWSON: You`re right on it because the calendars are very different. Both moved the conventions up the calendar. It`s about a 28 to 35-day race. Whoever has money t to jump on Super Tuesday first, most of them won`t after they get through South Carolina. WARREN: I want to point out that Governor Bush`s mom, Barbara Bush, has changed her mind. She wouldn`t mind another Bush in the White House. All right, coming up, the political punch lines 40 years in the making, but first, here`s a look at what happened when "Saturday Night Live" cast member, Keenan Thompson met the real rev. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Coming right up, we`re going to be talking about something, just stay tuned for it. Coming back from a commercial. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ll be right back. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keenan Thomas. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keenan Thompson. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Reverend Sharpton. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: The news that Jon Stewart is retiring soon as host of Comedy Central`s "The Daily Show" shook up many fans of smart funny hilarious political commentary. Another show was proving that politics is indeed a laughing matter. Tonight "Saturday Night Live" will celebrate its 40th anniversary with a big three and a half hour primetime special on NBC. Some of its most celebrated cast members will be there, including Chevy Chase, Tina Fey, Dana Carvey and many others who gave us some of the most enduring political impersonations. Here are some of our favorites from over the years. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I don`t win, I will continue to run in the primaries, even if there are none, and now for my second announcement. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Remember, Mr. Hussein, the venom of the American cobra spits far and true. Not spitting yet, wouldn`t be prudent. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s your name, sweetheart? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Her name is Shakira. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shakira, that means African princess, doesn`t it? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why, yes! UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, she certainly is beautiful enough to be a princess. Say, are you going to finish these fries? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m the president of the United States and I need a straight answer. Am I going to get the spy plane back? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I can see Russia from my house. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, America, I know you`re not in love with me anymore, but I want you to know that my heart still beats for you and I can prove it. I`m so in love with you that was fun, right? So do you want that or this -- (END VIDEOTAPE) WARREN: All right, so Julian, tell us how has political humor affected politicians over time? ZELIZER: Well, there`s been the humor that politicians themselves deliver, some like Ronald Reagan have used it very effectively to cut opponents like Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale, one joke in a debate often just puts them under. But then you`ve had shows like "Saturday Night Live" which have been effective. Gerald Ford, his portrayal by Chevy Chase as a Klutz, even though he was a football player and an athlete had an impact on how we thought about it. Many others, the George W. Bush one was very devastating in terms of how people perceived his intelligence. WARREN: And it reminds me of the Al Gore impersonations of 2000, the lockbox. ZELIZER: And those bled into the campaign as did the Sarah Palin. That`s a new, amazing phenomenon where they`re almost indistinguishable who we`re talking about, Tina Fey or Sarah Palin. WARREN: Katon, you advise lots of politicians. What advice would you give to someone who finds him or herself the butt of the late night comedy circuit, the butt of jokes? DAWSON: You`re in a real bad place, man. And politicians nowadays understand there`s a 24-hour news cycle. There`s stuff that catches everything they say. That`s where they all get caught. That`s who flames out first. They make the mistakes, they get comfortable. Jokes work, especially self-depreciating jokes work and they really work on the stump. But when you become the narrative of a show like "Saturday Night Live" with the tremendous audience it has and the ability to run clips and clips again, it`s not a real good day for the guys who work for you. MABRY: Sarah Palin more than anybody, she`s got to -- she felt it more than anyone. I was watching an HBO documentary of her game change on that book and how much Sarah Palin -- the real Sarah Palin and Tina Fey melded together is really clear in that documentary so-called. Because I can`t imagine Sarah Palin thinks it is. But Tina Fey was kind of the most endearing part of Sarah Palin during that campaign, which is kind of sad. WARREN: So Molly, do politicians worry about their comedy critics as much as their news critics? O`TOOLE: I definitely think that they do. We`re sad that Jon Stewart is going off the air, but for a while that`s where a lot of Americans were getting their news. So I think they are more attuned. I think it will play into 2016 even more than it has in the past in era of social media, I think people are very, very attuned to that. I think they have to learn to laugh at themselves. We want to think of politicians as being very smart people with all the ideas, but also very down to earth people that we can relate to so I think you have to laugh. WARREN: I think we recently saw President Obama having fun in a Buzzfeed video encouraging people to sign up for the ACA. How important is it for a president to have a sense of humor? ZELIZER: I think it`s very effective. It`s a good way to go after another candidate without appearing nasty and mean. Reagan was under attack in the 1980s for being too old and he had this famous too old for Walter Mondale. He said I won`t use my opponent`s age against him, his inexperience and youth. That was a very effective line. He did the same with Jimmy Carter back in 1980. Carter gives this long speech about health care and Reagan just goes there you go again and he killed it. So I think you can use humor well, but it can also help you with the problem that you`re talking about. In an age of soft news, humor is the news and you need to respond. WARREN: Let me follow up with you, Julian, specifically as our presidential historian. Who do you think were our most naturally funny presidents and why? ZELIZER: Lyndon Johnson was very funny on the phone. He tells stories, he tells jokes. He can crack you up. I do think Reagan publicly and George W. Bush actually could be pretty funny when they wanted to respond to some of their critics. And then some were unintentionally funny. Gerald Ford became in quintessential case, someone who didn`t mean to be funny as Al Gore was, but was just fodder for the humorist. WARREN: Is there no going back to -- it`s 40 years since "Saturday Night Live." Is there no going back? We`re in an era that this is just the business of politics, of having to respond to impersonations and comedy critics? DAWSON: The air has changed. Everybody has the world in their pocket now and we all have the list now to get there. It`s changed. It`s not as much fun as it used to be. You know, those things mattered, but when you get with politicians and all the mics are off, they`re all pretty funny. They wouldn`t be there if they didn`t have the charisma level, but it is a dangerous part of a campaign. It`s the danger place to be to try to go -- especially a politician who really isn`t funny and tries to be. It is just a real kill. MABRY: And it didn`t work with Palin. WARREN: Well, we can talk about this for the next hour. Thank you to Marcus Mabry, Katon Dawson and Molly O`Toole. Julian will be back in the next hour. Be sure to watch the "Saturday Night Live" special tonight on NBC starting at 8:00/7:00 Central. Coming up next, frank talk from the FBI director on race and policing and the big controversy shaking up Little League Baseball. More nerdland at the top of the hour. WARREN: Welcome back. I`m Dorian Warren in for Melissa Harris-Perry. Right now we want to bring you the very latest on the shootings yesterday in Copenhagen that are being described by Danish authorities as a terror attack. The first shooting targeted an event featuring cartoonist who has caricature the Prophet Muhammad. One person attending the event was killed and three police officers injured. The second targeted a Jewish synagogue. One man providing security for -- was killed. Two police officers were wounded. Danish police now say the person suspected of carrying out these attacks was killed in a shootout with authorities. Joining me now on the phone from Copenhagen, Denmark is Peter Keldorff, a reporter at the Danish Broadcast Corporation. Peter, who exactly was this gunman? PETER KELDORFF, REPORTER, DANISH BROADCAST CORPORATION (on the phone): We don`t know for sure yet. The police are not telling much. What we know is that our -- the Danish Intelligence Agency and the police have told that they knew this man in advance. They are not saying anything specific about him. They don`t want to reveal his name, they told us we know his ID but at this point in the investigation we do not want to tell his name. They are carrying out several operations within the city of Copenhagen right now towards an internet cafe. Several reports about many arrests right now and also earlier today in the area where the first attack happened yesterday, there was also a big police operation earlier today. And the police are just not generally talking that much about it, especially who this guy might be. WARREN: This seems very similar to the attacks in Paris on "Charlie Hebdo" and then the kosher supermarket. Is there any evidence of a connection? KELDORFF: At this point there`s no hard evidence, but the police and the agency -- intelligence agency has said that this looks like the same style of attack as in Paris. It`s the same pattern. And also politicians, Danish politicians and as I said the police and the agency -- intelligence agency has said this looks and could be an attack that had the same pattern as the thing that happened in France. First you attack a cartoonist who has drawn the Prophet Muhammad and then afterwards you go towards a Jewish -- in this case it was a synagogue and Jewish temple. WARREN: And what can you tell us about the context in Denmark in which these shootings happened? Was this something the Danish people expected to happen? KELDORFF: Expected is a hard word. I would go more with fear. But yes, you`re right, the Danish population has been feared, has been expected that this might happen. Denmark has had issues with drawings of Muhammad. It was originally ten years ago the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten that first made the first drawings of the Prophet Muhammad and after that had several threats towards the newspaper. Danish embassies burned down ten, eight, nine, ten years ago, so yes, this has been within the knowing of the population that it was more or less bound to happen at some point, people are feeling here. WARREN: Peter Keldorff in Copenhagen, thank you. Now we turn to a key issue here at home, policing and race. This week the impassioned pleas of the racial justice movement that has demanded recognition and response to the problems of policing of communities in color were joined by an unexpected new voice, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On Thursday, FBI Director James B. Comey delivered a speech at Georgetown University on race and law enforcement that was remarkable as much for its candor as its unconventionality. Comey speech marked the first time the director of the FBI has spoken so openly and directly about race and the police and it was a moment that carried with it the weight of the bureau`s own fraught history with race, a fact that Comey acknowledged in his address. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: There is a reason that I require all new agents and analysts to study the FBI`s interaction with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And to visit his memorial in Washington as part of their training. And there is a reason I keep on my desk a copy of Attorney General Robert Kennedy`s approval of J. Edgar Hoover`s request to wiretap Dr. King. It is a single page. The entire application is five sentences long. It is without fact or substance. And is predicated on the naked assertion that there is, quote, "communist influence in the racial situation." The reason I do those things is to ensure that we remember our mistakes and that we learn from them. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Among those lessons were a series of heart truths Comey said he had to face including the ways people can be misinformed by deeply and grained beliefs and how apparently we can all learn a little something about that from singing puppets. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: Much research points to the widespread existence of unconscious bias. Many people in our white majority culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black face. In fact we all, white and black, carry various biases around with us. I am reminded of the song from the Broadway hit Avenue Q "Everyone`s a Little Bit Racist." (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Comey went on to describe how that bias can form the basis of racial profiling by the police. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: The two young black men on one side of the street looked like so many others that officer has locked up. Two white men on the other side of the street, even in the same clothes, do not. The officer does not make the same association about the two white guys. Whether that officer is white or black. And that drives different behavior. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: He called on law enforcement to not only recognize how their biases inform their behavior but to employ empathy as a way to change it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: Those of us in law enforcement must redouble our efforts to resist bias and prejudice. We must better understand the people we serve and protect by trying to know deep in our gut what it feels like to be a law- abiding young black man walking down the street and encountering law enforcement. We must understand how that young man may see us. We must resist the lazy shortcuts of cynicism and approach him with respect and decency. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Comey concluded with a policy proposal that he said would be a first step in understanding the scope of police bias in communities of color. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: How can we address concerns about use of force? How can we address concerns about officer-involved shootings if we do not have a reliable grasp on the demographic and the circumstances of those incidents? We simply must improve the way we collect and analyze data to see the true nature of what`s happening in our communities. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Director Comey`s call for more data would address the FBI`s challenges in gathering a comprehensive accounting of police shootings from local law enforcement, but numbers don`t stop bullets. And this week communities of color that have never stopped keeping count of the lives that have been lost or threatened by police violence have continued to add more numbers to their tally. Thirty five-year-old Antonio Zambrano Montes, shot and killed Tuesday by police in Washington after he allegedly threw rocks at them. Fifteen-year-old Jamar Nicholson shot in the back by a Los Angeles police officer while he was standing next to a friend who was holding a toy gun. Fifty seven-year-old Sureshbhai Patel who had traveled from India to visit his son in Alabama and he was left partially paralyzed when a police officer slammed him to the ground. A response to a 911 call in which the caller identified Patel as, quote, "a skinny black guy" who he had never seen before walking in the neighborhood. So, while Director Comey speech brought an end to the silence from FBI leadership on race and policing, it`s clear that the effort needed to effect meaningful change has only just begun. Joining me now is Seema Iyer, host of The Docket on Shift by MSNBC and a criminal and civil rights Attorney Monifa Bandele -- excuse me Monifa, Communities for Police Reform. Cherrell Brown, community organizer for Justice League NYC and Julian Salazar, a professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University. And joining me from Columbia, South Carolina, is Marquez Claxton, director of the Black Law Enforcement Alliance and a retired NYPD detective. And I want to start with you, Seema. Because other than the fact that it`s important that the FBI director said these things, Comey really didn`t bring anything new to the discussion. We`ve heard critiques from Attorney General Eric Holder, we`ve heard this same critics from New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so what`s the significance of any this speech? SEEMA IYER, HOST, "THE DOCKET" ON SHIFT MSNBC: For me not much. There is a judge in New York Supreme Court and he says people should not get credit for doing their jobs. And part of his job is recognize his community, the people he serves and the reality. You shouldn`t give him so much credit. And just because you make a speech doesn`t change what`s actually happening in those communities. That needs to be implemented. WARREN: Okay. So speaking of implemented and solutions, I want to play sound of one of the solutions Comey proposed in his speech and get you to respond. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: Let me be transparent about my affection for cops. When you dial 911, whether you are white or black, the cops come. And they come quickly. And they come quickly, whether they are white or black. That`s what cops do. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: So that was -- we were really looking for sound of my brother`s keeper. And so, he says in his speech and I want to get you to respond to this Cherrell. The truth is, what really needs fixing is something only a few like President Obama are willing to speak about perhaps because it`s so daunting task, through the my brother`s keeper initiative, the President is addressing the disproportionate challenges faced by young men of color. Does this make sense in a speech about the tensions between law enforcement and the communities they serve? CHERRELL BROWN, COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, JUSTICE LEAGUE NYC: Well, I believe personally that my brother`s keeper is a myopican scope. You`re taking all of these resources in Obama`s key program around race and applying it to half the community. Black and brown girls are also called extraditionary including transwomen. So I think that it doesn`t reach far enough. And I`m afraid that we`re going to get really excited about embracing this respectability politics. You can come from a good home, you can have a good job, and be educated and still be racially profiled by the police. We saw this with Henry Louis Gates a few years ago. WARREN: So, Marquez, I want to come to you. Because Comey concluded with the need for more data. And I want to ask you, is the policy solution he proposed proportionate to the scope of the problems laid out? And frankly, what if any influence that the FBI have in changing policing policies and local departments? MARQUEZ CLAXTON, BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE: The FBI has significant influence and sway on local policing issues and efforts. And I think Director Comey`s comments were substantive and as yet to seen whether they`ll be significant and as far as implementing some measures to really proactively engage and shift into focus of policing in the country. Let`s be clear about something. Many activists, many individuals around the country have been screaming for criminal justice reform. What Director Comey did and before him Attorney General Eric Holder and even President Obama did was laid out a platform for not just reform, but actual criminal justice reconstruction, which goes much further then. And I think if there is a clear -- clear evidence that there is a need for not just reform but reconstruction based on the comments by Comey and the realities faced by so many people across the nation. WARREN: So we earlier played video of a 911 call. Not video of the call but of Comey saying, hey, when people call 911 the cops come. But if you - - and that`s good if you live in a high crime neighborhood. We`re happy to see police. But as we`ve seen with the case of Mr. Patel in Alabama, a 911 call does not end well for people of color. What should we make of that statement from the FBI director? MONIFA BANDELE, COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR POLICE REFORM: Well, I`m glad you pointed that out because just last week I was sending time with the family of Kenneth Chamberlin who was a retired military person whose 911 was called when his alert went off, medical alert went off and he ended up being shot and killed by the police up in Westchester, New York. And this is just one story and the stories go on and on and on. And the thing that I was listening to when I heard the FBI director`s speech, some of it was what he was talking about but one thing missing to me, which is what is going to be the policy around accountability and justice? We can keep doing a lot of training and we can get data to analyze the problem and we can even put in place policies that will kind of shift things moving forward, but right now Akai Gurley, his family got indictment but it`s not going to bring him back, will they get justice? Will they get accountability? And I think that`s the fifth if you talked about four hard questions to discuss. I think the fifth hard piece is, how are we going to hold police officers accountable? WARREN: Right. BANDELE: He talked about there is no more of an epidemic of racial bias in police officers than there are with academics and artists. Well, none of my college professors carried firearms, so I think this is a critical imperative piece here that accountability and justice also be put in place. WARREN: So, Marquez, I want to get you back in here quickly. The FBI has had a hard time attracting black agents and has actually seen a decline from 5.6 percent in 1997 to 4.7 percent in 2012 in terms of African- American special agents and the director himself said it`s difficult luring potential candidates away from the private sector to work for government. Thoughts on those numbers. CLAXTON: Listen, there are agencies across the nation who claim to have the same difficulty attracting minority or black employees, and in fact what we have to examine is whether there is an actual will to attract those employees, those black into law enforcement. But let`s be clear about something. It is not necessarily change the dynamic that we`re facing here throughout the nation, it`s not the complexion of the force but the climate within the force, the rules, the regulations, you know, the culture that is within the particular agency. So merely changing the complexion will not have significant impact if the rules or the application of the rules remain the same. So we should place less emphasis, although I support increasing representation and diversifying whatever law enforcement we`re talking about, we have to be honest about it and say until we change the climate, until we once again reconstruct the criminal justice system, we`ll face the same issues and the same problems with different complected people. WARREN: Thank you to Marquez Claxton in Columbia, South Carolina. Up next, more details are beginning to emerge about the officer indicted in the shooting death of Akai Gurley. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KEN THOMPSON, BROOKLYN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: After the shot was fired, they could hear people running away. And then this delay for four minutes. And then when they went down the stairs and saw him laying there, the evidence will show that they did not render medical assistance to Mr. Gurley. As they were trained to do in the police academy. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: That was Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson on the evidence he presented to a grand jury that on Wednesday, he handed up a six-count indictment against an Officer Peter Liang for the shooting death of 28- year-old Akai Gurley in the stairwell of a Brooklyn housing project last November. And Seema, I want to come to you first because we`ve seen the recent decisions from juries not to indict in the shootings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, the reluctance of these grand juries to indict police officers. What was different in this case? IYER: He didn`t testify. I think that was a very compelling factor. And full disclosure, I actually represent Akai Gurley`s brother, completely unrelated matter. But I think because he didn`t testify, there was no alternative explanation. I understand his attorney`s decision not to. His hand was on the gun. His finger pulled the trigger. And since the 1990s they have changed the guns` pressure so you need more pressure to pull the trigger and all of these factors contributed to him not testifying. I think if he testified he may not have been indicted for manslaughter but still indicted for the criminally negligent homicide. WARREN: Cherrell, I want to ask you, given the lack of indictments in the previous shooting cases, does this moment feel like justice in any way? BROWN: It doesn`t, because we know that indictments don`t equate to justice. We saw this with Amadou Diallo, we saw this with Sean Bell, we saw this with Ramarley Graham (ph). Unfortunately the bar is set so low and convictions seem so far-fetched that indictments feel like some sort of justice. We know that that`s not the case. Out of nearly 180 NYPD-related shootings, I think four of those came to an indictment, one conviction and no served time. So if history is to believe, I don`t think that justice will be served in this case either. WARREN: Monifa, I want to play more sound from D.A. Thompson. Let`s take a listen. BANDELE: Okay. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) THOMPSON: The police commissioner said that it`s discretionary for an officer to pull out his gun while do on a vertical patrol based on the circumstances. But what the evidence showed in this case is that this police officer put his finger on the trigger of his gun and fired that gun into a darkened stairwell when there was no threat. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Darkened stairwells in the housing projects that have led to other unarmed teenagers as well as police officers being killed during these vertical patrols, as they called them. I`m wondering here in addition to policing practices, does this case also point to a need to revisit public housing policies around safety and lighting, basic as use of lighting in these developments. BANDELE: Yes, all those issues need to be addressed but still at the end of the day when the police officer is patrolling this housing project, it is to protect and serve all of the residents of that project. How can you possibly protect the residents of a building if you`re walking up and down in the staircase with your hand on the trigger? You actually have every man, woman, child, grandparent in danger in that housing project. So, you know, it really calls to question what -- you know, what the ultimate goal is of the way that the housing projects are being policed. And I think that the other piece, you know, I wanted to go back to the indictment briefly, is that Ken Thompson wanted an indictment. And I think that when we look back at the transcript from the grand jury proceedings in Ferguson, in St. Louis County, it`s clear that the prosecutor may or may not have wanted an indictment. IYER: Absolutely. BANDELE: You know, as many of us who have sat and served on grand juries, indictments are not something that are far and few between, only when you`re talking about police officers. So Ken Thompson wanted an indictment and I think that`s why we got it. WARREN: Seema, I saw you chomping at the bit. I want to get Julian -- IYER: Well, I was just agreeing with everything she`s saying but I also do want to point out, I do go to east New York a lot and I have been to the pink houses and it is so unbelievably dangerous and scary, one of the worst areas. It is almost barren and it is so -- it`s like a war zone. And I think that`s a great point that you brought up the lighting, because I go to different projects where there are lit stairwells at night during the day so I think that`s a great point. WARREN: So, I want to -- this is important. So Salt, which is a South Asian advocacy group has issued a list of demand sue the police in response to the police violence in Alabama against Mr. Patel and among them disclose current training procedures that respect to communicating and interacting with limited English proficient and immigrant members of the community. Implement trainings for all police officers to more effectively respond to immigrants and LEP individuals. Cherrell, very quickly, what do we think about how police communicate with the communities they serve? BROWN: I think that`s what`s really interesting about this case in Alabama is that still at the heart of it is anti-blackness. Right? The call was made to the officer because the person described Mr. Patel as a skinny black man. And then the officer came under the premise that this was a black man that he was apprehending. Of course not being able to communicate played a role in that. I think that`s really important that we think about how we train police to interact with communities that they can`t communicate with effectively. Really quickly on the patrol issue, vertical patrolling, it`s akin to broken windows policing. Right? And I think that if the city is worried about the crime or violence that may occur due to subpar conditions, then maybe we should address those conditions rather than criminalizing and surveillance -- the people that live in these conditions. Right? WARREN: Julian, I wanted to get you in but we`ve got to go, unfortunately. Seema is sticking around. Thank you to Monifa Bandele, Cherrell Brown and Julian Salazar. Before we take a break, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg weighed in on the issue of race during a one-on-one interview with an MSNBC Reporter Irin Carmon. Here is some of their conversation. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) IRIN CARMON, MSNBC REPORTER: I`m wondering how you see the current state of race relations in our country. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: People who think you can wave a magic wand and the legacy of the past will be over are blind. CARMON: Should we be worried that all of those great achievements of the civil rights movement are being rolled back? GINSBURG: Some day we will go back to having the kind of legislature that we should, where members, whatever party they belong to, want to make the thing work. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: You can see more of Irin`s interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the "Rachel Maddow Show" tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. Eastern. Up next, blizzard conditions bearing down on Boston. And still to come, they were outlawed before the civil war but new lawsuits alleged modern day debtors prisons are here in the U.S. WARREN: New England might have grown accustomed to record snow this winter but this weekend`s storm could be more dangerous than the previous three storms. Areas like Boston could see less snow but the winds are worse and the temperatures are extremely low. Residents are bracing for whiteout conditions and potential power outages. Joining me now from Boston, Massachusetts -- joining is MSNBC`s Adam Reiss. Adam, have you seen many people outside braving the elements? ADAM REISS, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Very few, Dorian, other than us. Really a few people shoveling, a few people want to take it all in. It is beautiful. But other than that, really not a lot of people. Good morning from a snowy Boston, Dorian. The winter storm just ended about an hour ago. The blizzard-like conditions. Twelve inches of snow here in the city. Take a look outside. I want you to look at this street. We`re in the Back Bay, and 12 inches on top of these cars, 18 inches up north from here and it`s really -- we`ve had thunders now early this morning. Actual lightning during the snowstorm. It`s like a ghost town here in the Back Bay. The National Guard has come out helping people shovel out. Three thousand pieces from the D.O.T., I`m going to ask Kevin to stop here for a minute. I`m going to get out. I just want to show you this street. This is Marlboro Street. We`re here in the Back Bay, and just to give you a sense Dorian of what this is like, these are not just snow mounds, these are actual cars that are covered here. So, again, like I told you, we had maybe 80 inches from three weeks of snowstorms. Now on top of it 12 inches. These cars are basically bury and who knows how long it will take to get all these cars out. Now, the governor said that he wants people to stay at home, stay safe and stay warm and stay out of this. It is beautiful but the roads are very slippery and it`s best if you stay home until all this shoveling can be done, the plows come through and clear this out -- Dorian. WARREN: Thank you, Adam. I`m glad we can hear you this time. And thanks for that action and showing us all about the snow in Boston. Next, jailed for weeks for failure to pay minor fines. The new lawsuits against two cities in Missouri accused of profiting off of poverty. WARREN: Debtors prisons, you might think they`re a relative of the past after all the United States outlawed them nearly 200 years ago. But two new lawsuits filed in Missouri last Sunday claim that jails in the towns of Jennings and Ferguson are essentially modern-day debtors` prisons holding citizens who can`t afford to pay their traffic tickets or fines for other minor violations. When Ferguson erupted in racial unrest following the shooting death of Michael Brown, protesters pointed to the court system as one cause of their anger. And in reading about this new lawsuit, it`s not difficult to see why. Samantha Jenkins, who is the lead plaintiff in this suit against Jennings said she was put on a payment plan when she could not afford to pay her traffic tickets. But when she missed one of those payments, she was promptly put in jail. Her lawsuit says Jenkins along with others in the suit were held indefinitely and not provided with attorneys. It goes on to say that police and jail officials arbitrarily changed the amount of fines owed. To make matters worse, the conditions of the jails themselves were allegedly awful. Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III denied the charges saying in part we believe this lawsuit is disturbing because it contains allegations that are not based on objective facts. There has been no response from the city of Jennings. Samantha Jenkins joins me from St. Louis, Missouri, along with her lawyer, Michael-John Voss of ArchCity Defenders. Good morning to you both. MICHAEL-JOHN VOSS, ARCHCITY DEFENDERS: Good morning, Dorian. SAMANTHA JENKINS, LEAD PLAINTIFF SUING JENNINGS: Good morning. WARREN: Mr. Voss, can you give us a bit more detail on what your clients are alleging happened to them and how did traffic tickets lead to jail time? VOSS: Yes. So our organization, ArchCity Defenders, is a nonprofit law firm in St. Louis. We`re working with equal justice under law in the St. Louis University law clinics in the suit. What we`re alleging basically is that these municipalities are incarcerating individuals because of their inability to pay off debt owed to the city from these unpaid traffic tickets and outstanding fines. And our suit is alleging -- it`s something that`s occurring throughout the nation actually, whether in Montgomery, Alabama, or in Georgia or in Washington State that there is a practice and pattern of incarcerating poor people and predominantly people in communities of color because of outstanding debt that they owe to those municipalities. And that`s what we`re alleging in our suit. Go ahead. WARREN: And clearly, this disproportionately affects those who can least afford it, NPR says it creates a cycle of poverty. VOSS: That`s correct. WARREN: So among other things -- it`s partly a cycle of poverty, but it`s also about the description in this suit of the conditions in the jails. Among other things the cells were overcrowded, prisoners didn`t receive regular showers or even tooth brushes. And they were forced to live and sleep in filthy conditions. And Miss Jenkins, I want to ask you, what was the jail like when you were there? JENKINS: Jennings jail was very horrible to me. It was overcrowded. They have -- the women`s cell has eight -- it bed eight womens, but a lot of times, like the last time I was there at Jennings, it holds eight women but we had like 15 or 16. So, therefore, they had like seven to eight women on the floor with their mats. They run out of spots on the floor to lay their mats. We have two tables in the women`s cell that we eat our breakfast, lunch and dinner on and the women at night have to put their mat on top of the tables that they eat on, they sleep on and we get up in the morning and have to eat at the same table. In the middle of the night while you`re trying to go to the restroom, you have to step over eight, nine bodies to make it to the restroom. We wasn`t allowed toothbrush and toothpaste. The last time I stayed in Jennings, I stayed there approximately over two weeks and I never had a toothbrush or toothpaste to brush my teeth with. We was allowed to take showers, but the showers was very disgusting. You have paint peelings all on the floor. We have no shower curtain. At the time that we take showers, the men COs was allowed to come back while we were taking showers. The only cover-up was the sheet to our bed. We was only able to have one blanket, thin blanket and it`s freezing cold in Jennings. If we asked the COs for an extra blanket, we wasn`t allowed. If we got an extra blanket from a prisoner that was leaving, they would take it away from us. WARREN: Mr. Voss, I want to ask you especially about the fact that cities like Ferguson are making a lot of money from this practice. Our city defenders reports that Ferguson collected $2.6 million in court fines and fees last year, making it the city`s second biggest source of income. Tell us quickly why this is so problematic. VOSS: Well, it`s about a distrust between the community and its government. If we go back to the events of August 9th and the kind of questions as to why there was so much outrage about the shooting death of Michael Brown, what you have in place is a pattern and practice where low income individuals and the residents in the community of color there were being basically harassed with low-level traffic violations by the police and then they were being incarcerated because of their inability to pay. And that pattern and practice has gone on upwards of 40 to 50 years. And therefore, the community itself had such a distrust from the city, when the city was telling them just to be calm and wait, we`re going to do an investigation. There was definitely that trust that you would expect to be there had been eroded, and so therefore you have this huge dynamic that has manifested through looking just at the numbers like you said. The $2.6 million that it brace through its court filing cost, the second largest source of income for that municipality. You have also the fact that Ferguson has a population of 21,000 people but has 33,000 outstanding arrest warrants. That`s 3.6 arrest warrants outstanding for household in the city of Ferguson. Jennings has 2.1 outstanding arrest warrants for people in the city of Jennings. So what you have is a disparity there, a very clear disparity that`s impacting predominantly minorities and people of color. For example the fact that -- WARREN: Mr. Voss, unfortunately we`re out of time but I want to thank you and Samantha Jenkins very much for joining us from St. Louis, Missouri, this morning. And here in New York, thank you to Seema Iyer. Don`t Miss Seema`s show "THE DOCKET" on Shift by MSNBC live on Tuesdays at 11:00 a.m. Eastern and also don`t miss nerding out on Thursdays at 11:00 a.m. Eastern. Up next, the controversy surrounding the little league team stripped of its national title. Why there may be more to the story. WARREN: Last summer I was filled with hometown pride when Chicago-based little league team Jackie Robinson West became the first all African- American team to win the national championship. Baseball has struggled to attract African-American players and fans, so the JRW team gained national attention. Praise for their sportsmanship, they were even invited to the White House by President Obama. But now the story has taken a very disappointing turn. Following an investigation, Little League International has stripped the players of Jackie Robinson west of their title and all their wins. The reason, coaches allegedly falsified boundary maps and recruited players outside their district. It may seem a straightforward if depressing story, another case of the adults ruining it for the kids. But according to my next guest, there`s much more to the story. Dave Zirin, sports editor from The Nation Magazine joins me now from Washington. And Dave, what can you tell me about how gentrification factors in here? DAVE ZIRIN, SPORTS EDITOR, THE NATION MAGAZINE: Well, gentrification is the reality for our cities around the country. And baseball does not go well with gentrification because before gentrification you have disinvestment. And that`s been the story of the south side of Chicago. You have dilapidated fields, you have parents on the team who are subject to eviction, subject to displacement, and even one of the kids on the team dealt with homelessness. So the idea of talking about boundaries when you`re talking about an urban team, I mean, is almost like a grotesque joke compared to the typical teams in Little League International which come from suburban backgrounds. Now, what defines the suburbs? Land, baseball diamonds, space, infrastructure, boys and girls clubs, places so kids can actually learn baseball. The reason why baseball is dying in urban areas is precisely because of disinvestment and gentrification. That`s what made Jackie Robinson West such a remarkable story, and they`re paying for the fact that the boundaries of urban baseball are just, frankly, more fungible than suburban baseball. This whole thing is a catastrophe to me. WARREN: So, Dave, let me ask you this. So talk to us about what you think would lead to coaches recruiting outside their district and specifically is this something that`s widespread in little league sports? ZIRIN: Well, it`s so interesting. First, let`s start with that last one. The people who basically, quote-unquote, "turned Jackie Robinson West in was from nearby Evergreen Park," which is a suburban district. WARREN: Majority white, if I`m not mistaken. ZIRIN: Yes. Yes. Very white and actually it`s very disturbing because in Evergreen Park, that`s a place where if you live on the south side of Chicago, it`s known as a center of racial profiling, harassment by police, et cetera. Evergreen Park play Jackie Robinson West, guess what the final score was. It was something like 42 to three. So Evergreen Park, which has, by the way, also been accused of recruiting out of boundary ironically, people have come forward in the last week and said that they`re the ones who were caught being down drivers` licenses of cars and they reported it to Little League International. A little leaguer international should have figured this out before this even started, before the words even started, not waited six months to then take it away from these kids. Remember, these are children that we`re talking about. And once again, I have to say this. The idea of this team being investigated so thoroughly by Little League International when teams go through this whole process and never get investigated with the same kind of scrutiny, I mean it smacks of a double standard and it smacks of Little League International frankly wanting to have their cake and eat it too, which means that they will celebrate and even monetize the fact that you have this historic all-black team winning the Little League World Series, but then they`ll also give them that extra dollop of scrutiny that other teams are not subject to. WARREN: Dave, you mentioned the kids and the players. I want to ask you, how have the players reacted to having their title taken away? ZIRIN: Actually I was on the radio this morning with the mother of one of the children, and she spoke about it at length. I mean there`s a lot of support in the community saying you guys are still the champions, but you also have a lot of crying kids. You have a lot -- and everyone -- it`s so disgusting as you hear all these people saying on social media, whatever, let these kids learn the lesson that cheaters don`t prosper. They`re actually learning a very different lesson. They`re learning we can be the best on the field but it`s actually an unleveled playing field because we can succeed, but guess what, the team from Nevada that we beat actually now they`re the new champions. And I read this report that the team from Nevada, they heard that they were granted the title and a lot of the kids and parents were celebrating like, yay, we`re the real champs. What kind of lesson does that teach? What kind of lesson that that teach that if you lose to an all-black team from the south side of Chicago, don`t worry because big Little League International will step in and make it all right for you six months later. WARREN: Thank you very much to Dave Zirin in Washington, D.C. Up next, imagine digging into your family history to learn you`re related to music royalty. One woman`s incredible discovery, after the break! WARREN: On this day, exactly 50 years ago we lost a musical great, singer Nat King Cole. Cole made a splash in the music world with hits like nature boy and "Unforgettable" and made history by being the first African- American entertainer to host a variety TV show, "The Nat King Cole Show" on NBC. The jazz musician`s iconic voice has transcended generations and touched millions, including a woman named Caroline Clarke who annoyingly had a special connection to Cole. Clark was adopted as a new born baby. She didn`t seek information about her birth parents until she started a family of her own and want a more information about her family`s medical history. She discovered her grandfather was no other but the music legend Nat King Cole. Since meeting her birth family, Clark has written a memoir called "Postcards from Cookie," which is just been released in paperback and describes her reunion with her birth mother, Carol Cookie Cole. The book details Clark is experienced discovering, meeting, and ultimately befriending her long lost relatives. The author of "Postcards from Cookie," Caroline Clarke joins me now. Thank you so much. CAROLINE CLARKE, AUTHOR, "POSTCARDS FROM COOKIE": Thank you. WARREN: And I was just as I was saying in the break, I was captivated last night reading your book. And I want you to tell us how you happen to discover your biological parents at age 37. CLARKE: You know, it was a series of just completely unforeseen, unexpected things. I went looking for medical information as you said, it was the only thing I knew I was entitled to and you know, that sort of the one frustration every adoptee has that you go the first question the doctor ask is about your medical history and it gets to really be frustrating not having that answer. So, the social worker said, you know, would you like a social history as well? And I thought, you know, what`s there to know? I knew very little about my birth family but anything is worth finding out. Well, she had a seven-page report and she began reading it and she described my birth mother physically which I have never known what she looked like, she detailed we had both been English majors in college. You know, million little things. But the big things that stood out was that she painted a picture of the family of the time I was born. They was clearly very wealthy. There were five children and it was a unique setup. My birth mother was 20 years older than twin sisters. I knew one of those sisters and so -- WARREN: You just happen to know one of them? CLARKE: Well, you know, it turns out that her youngest sister was a dear friend of mine since college. And because I knew the family, I had met everyone except my birth mother. And because I knew them, I just recognized them without any names or geography, you know, it stood out. I mean, you know? WARREN: So, let me ask you this, your adoptive parents were receptive to you reaching out to cookie. How did that help you in this process? CLARKE: It was absolutely key. I don`t think, you know, I always felt I was very lucky and where I was supposed to be. My mother who raised me could not bear children. The only way they were going to have children was to adopt. So, it wasn`t that I wasn`t curious, every adoptee was curious but I was really happy and felt very, very lucky. I think even an added sense of appreciation because I knew I could have had something very different. So, if my parents hadn`t been receptive, encouraging even, I don`t even know that I would have -- that I would have taken it farther. Although, I have to say, the revelation that I had this connection, that I had a friend who turned out was my aunt, to not go ahead and make that call would have taken, you know, incredible restraint that I`m not sure I would have had. WARREN: So, what is the process of meeting your birth family taught you about the adoption process over all? And how do you think cultural perceptions of adoption have changed over the years? CLARKE: You know, it`s interesting because obviously there are many ways to create a family now that didn`t exist when I was born. And adoption although it`s been around forever, I think there is this sort of lingering stigma attached to it. And today when you have fertility treatments and you have surrogacy and you have so many alternatives to create a family, you know, adoption can kind of get last place in that. And that is something that bothers me. Because obviously, it was the best thing to ever happen to me. With all the joy and wonder of meeting Cookie and everything that having this other family has added to my life. WARREN: Right. CLARKE: None of that would have happened if I didn`t have the life I already had. And adoption gets a tough rap. We only hear about it when it goes very wrong, which is actually very rare given the frequency. So there just have to be more good stories out there. WARREN: I have so many questions for you but we`re out of time. But I encourage everybody to read the book, Caroline Clark, thank you so very much for joining us. CLARKE: Thank you. WARREN: Please, please, check out her book. "Postcards from Cookie" out now in paperback. That`s our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. Melissa will be back next weekend. She was off this weekend celebrating her baby daughter AJ`s first birthday, happy birthday to AJ Perry. And tune in to Shift.com MSNBC on Thursdays, there are some show called nerding out, apparently join me at 11:00 a.m. Thursdays and now it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT." Hi, Alex. ALEX WITT, MSNBC HOST, "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT": Our favorite nerd, thank you so much, Dorian. I appreciate that. Everyone, Denmark the day after, still on high alert. I`ll talk with a member of the House Intelligence Committee about the threat to soft targets in the U.S. like that cafe overseas. Game of drones within the past few hours, the FAA released its new rules for commercial drones, there`s one key point that might put a damper on the concept in the U.S. So, who is the greatest not ready for prime time player ever? There`s a new list ranking every single one of them just in time for SNL`s 40th anniversary tonight. Don`t go anywhere. I`ll be right back. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 16, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021501cb.451 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 69 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 16, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 16, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Steve Clemons, Page Hopkins GUESTS: John Garamendi, Jack Jacobs, Bruce Bartlett, Mike Papantonio SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7099 words HIGHLIGHT: Denmark braces after horrific terrorist attacks over the weekend, while Egypt strikes ISIS in Libya after the radical group released a gruesome video. Sarah Palin shows her comedic chops during Saturday Night Live`s 40th Anniversary Special joking about a potential 2016 run. Massive clouds of fire and smoke engulfed a freight train carrying crude oil after the car derailed in Fayette County, West Virginia. Nearly five years after the devastating B.P. Oil Spill, local businesses and fishermen along the gulf coast still feel the lasting impact. More bad news for business owners in the gulf coast after a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking billions in damages from oil, gas and pipeline companies. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We need for unforeseen circumstances. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: To restrain him in our authorization of him taking military action eventually leads to 535 commanders-in-chief. OBAMA: It is our troops who bear the cost of our decisions. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: And later, the gulf today, five years after this bill. KEN PARMER, FORMER RESTAURANT OWNER: Over the last five years, it`s been difficult. ROCCO SCALONE, GULF COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN: The fishing dropped off and everything is dead, barnacle, sea grasses, all dead. That`s a dead wreck. It is not going to come back. BRENT COON, BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATE: They want money, their livelihood, their careers, the heart and soul of everything they built was taken away from them. SCHULTZ: What were you thinking when you saw all these pictures on T.V? SCALONE: Oh, right at the wellhead? SCHULTZ: Yeah. SCALONE: That was almost in tears. That`s where I live. SCHULTZ: Plus, the Palin effect. TINA FEY, ACT AS SARAH PALIN: I can see Russia from my house. FRM. GOV. SARAH PALIN, (R) ALASKA: How much do you think Lorne Michaels would pay me if I were to run in 2016? SCHULTZ: Why a Palin 2016 nomination could be a reality? PALIN: This applies to you too in the 2016 presidential race. (END VIDEO CLIP) ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. It was a weekend of terror around the globe. In Libya, ISIS released a new video showing more blood shed. The video released on Sunday claims to show the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians. Now, the brutal act of violence is clearly a gross display of what ISIS is capable of, what they`re motivated about and what they are really all about. And I think this act of mass murder amounts to a religious war. Now, we all have our own interpretations at this point. This continues to go on. At this point, these people were targeted as I see it and murdered because of their faith. Now, the response from the Egyptian government has been swift and strong. Egypt has launched a series of airstrikes against ISIS in Libya. The strikes hit ISIS camps, training camps and also weapons caches. It`s not immediately clear what damage the airstrikes cost. One thing is clear ISIS is gaining influence in Libya and around the globe. It`s not just in Syria and Iraq anymore. Since Libya`s 2011 uprising, ISIS has filled the leadership gap in some areas on that country. ISIS has control of the Darna where today`s airstrikes were targeted. They also have control in Sirte and -- in Central Libya and there is a strong ISIS presence in major cities like Tripoli and Benghazi. ISIS has spawned a number of radical affiliate groups outside its territory that controls and, of course, ISIS related groups now stretch from Algeria across Africa and Afghanistan. So what`s the analysis here? Clearly, ISIS is growing geographically. Now, this is the biggest jihad that we`ve seen in our lifetime. They are gaining influence. They have a strong social media presence. They are recruiting more and more everyday. Fighters have traveled from around the world to join ISIS and Iraq and Syria. Now, we`re seeing ISIS cells appear around the world, a lone wolf attack certainly is part of the model and because of this ISIS, I think is changing the world and every country security. A lone wolf attacker in Copenhagen, Denmark shot and killed a film director and a Jewish man on Saturday. Now, government officials in Denmark say that they cannot officially connect them to a terrorist cell (ph). The alleged gunman was killed by police after attacking a free-speech debate in a synagogue. Five police officers were wounded in the attacks. Two additional suspects have been arrested for helping the gunman. As I see it, the United States is going to have to have a continual review of its strategy. We can`t seat back here and watch hordes of people get their heads cut off. And why would we tell ISIS that there is no way we would ever put ground troops in combat situations. I think it has reached the point where we really have to have a very strong debate in this country. As I see it, it`s a religious war. What is going to turn back ISIS? Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Do you think we`re headed for a major conflict with ISIS?" Text A for Yes and text B for No to 67622, you can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com and we`ll bring you the results later on the show. For more let me bring in Congressman John Garamendi who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, good to have your time tonight, I appreciate it very much. REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D) CALIFORNIA: Certainly, Ed. SCHULTZ: Does this situation as it unfolded yesterday as grosses it was in Libya. Does that change anything? Does this bring us to any different conclusion or any other method of response as you see it? GARAMENDI: Well, for months, I`ve been saying the same thing. We have to have a different response. We cannot do what we done before. It simply didn`t work. So we need to have a different response, part to that response has to do with the other countries in the area. You saw Egypt very quickly responding to what happened in Libya. They are seriously threatened. You saw Jordan also have responded when their pilot was burned. You`d seen -- the question is, is Turkey also going to get involve. The country surrounding Iraq and Syria and now Libya are at risk and they are going to have to respond. Clearly, this is radical jihad. No doubt about it. And we need to work with those more stable countries, pull them into our work with them and work with them to bring about a proper military solution. But we also have to deal with the underlying social, economic and religious issues that are profoundly operating through out the Middle East and quite possibly around the world. So that needs to be a very comprehensive strategy. We`ve got to understand the religious jihad that`s going on, the Sikhism (ph) that exists in the -- in Islam between the Shia and Sunni. All of those issues. Now, Ed, you said maybe we should put the army back into the Middle East. I respectfully disagree with you. Boots on the ground, a new military adventure with tens of thousands of Americans with armor infantry, artillery, all the rest on the ground is not going to solve this problem. We are going to need to have certain elements. We will have to have Special Forces operating in certain areas when they can be usefully but mostly we need to build the support of the existing countries in that area because they are the ones that are most seriously threatened. Not that we`re not, we clearly are. But they`re the hometown and they are the ones that you`re going to see this first and it`s already happening. SCHULTZ: Congressman, I would personally come to the conclusion as someone who is following the news and seen what`s unfolding here is that what we`re doing isn`t strong enough, isn`t working. Now, whether that means we need to put ground troops and get them involve, I don`t know. I`m not a military expert. But when they`re growing geographically and they`re growing in influence and they are socially connected as they are, I mean, this was almost like a movie production what they released. I mean, it -- they`re in lawless parts of the Middle East, I mean, how do you trot out 21 people with nobody else around and do something like that? It takes organization, it takes protection and I think it`s reached the level right now that where the United States. We might have to have a conversation that special ops and some ground forces might be part of the equation. But basically, we`ve told ISIS, well, that`s not going to happen. We told other countries who are getting hit by this group that we`re not going to put ground troops in. Is there a time... GERAMENDI: Well... SCHULTZ: ... that we would possibly do that as this continues to grow? GARAMENDI: Well, take a look at the total Middle East. If you or anybody thinks that we can control the situation to have a ground troops, we better be prepared to put several 100,000 troops on the ground. You got Libya and Syria. You`ve got problems in Yemen. You clearly have continuing problems in Afghanistan and now in the Libya area. We`re talking about a major confrontation, should we put ground troops -- should we want to put troops on the ground? SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: We need to study this. I would recommend and I`ve asked my colleagues and their Armed Services Committee, let`s have a very serious understanding of what it means to put troops on the ground. Special operations, that`s one thing. SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARAMENDI: You want to put the brigades. You want to put the armory. You want to the artillery back in. What is it mean? What is the cost? What is the human cost to Americans and others? And keep in mind that the countries -- Egypt has a very strong military, Jordan had one that is not be neglected and, clearly, Turkey has a major military operation. All of those countries, they are the ones that have to come to the realization that they are threatened. SCHULTZ: So... GARAMENDI: So we can use that threat to our advantage and to their advantage by working with them, providing certain logistic all and the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance if they don`t have. But, boy, I don`t want to put another division... SCHULTZ: OK. GARAMENDI: ... back on the ground there. SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman John Garamendi, great to have you with us, I appreciate your time... GARAMENDI: Sure. SCHULTZ: ... tonight and insight. Joining me now is Colonel Jack Jacobs, Medal of Honor recipient and MSNBC Political Analyst Steve Clemons also with us tonight MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-large for the Atlantic. Colonel, I start with you first. So we need Turkey, we need Jordan, we need the Iraqis, we need the Egyptians and we hope things hold in Libya. There`s a lot of ifs (ph) on the table. A lot of things got to come together if we`re going to stop ISIS at this point. That`s a lot of game plans. JACK JACOBS, MSNBC POLITCAL ANALYST: Yeah. That`s a lot of game plans and what you need initially, the first order issue is what is our strategy and to be honest with you. I`m pretty sure that we do not have a strategy. We have not started at the end and work backwards. So you`re not going to be able to put a coalition together unless you know what it is you`re trying to accomplish until the American government, the national command authority decides that we`re going to have a strategy. And what it`s going to be? To get back to your discussion about the fact that we actually need to have a discussion at the highest levels about what it is we want to accomplish unless until we do that, we`re not going to be able to accomplish anything. SCHULTZ: Is this all about strategy? We`re not sure about ground troops and how effective they would be and I`m just asking the question or is it about political will? Because the President knows and some Democrats know that we just -- we`re not there yet. Now, I believe and I`m not advocating this, but we can`t sit back and let ISIS continue to grow, these crosses all political lines and do the kinds of atrocities that they`re doing. Now, I`ll say it to you straight, folks. There`s not a whole lot of difference between putting people in ovens (ph) or cutting their head off. It`s just a different method, OK? So if we`re going to sit here and claim to have the moral authority and say, well, you know, you guys got to do all of these. I think we`re at that point of serious discussion. And I do believe that, well, we`ve seen the troops can be effective. It`s the aftermath that is so tough. JACOBS: Yeah. Well, I think Mr. Garamendi was quite correct when he talked about the numbers involved. We have to be prepared to do two things. First of all, make a commitment to assist those who were there including Turkey from whom we`ve heard very little and it was a very, very strong military. Convince them and everybody else in the region that they have a stake in what happens in the Middle East. And second, and just as important. We have to make a commitment that we`re going to be able to assist them. And that means, as Mr. Garamendi has suggested, not ones or twos and maybe a brigade here and there. We`re talking about several hundreds -- 200, 000 to 300,000 troops. We have to make that commitment. And secondly, we have to make the commitment of time. We`re going to have to be there for a while. It`s not enough to the cease the terrain, we have to hold it to. If we`re willing to do that then we will get something accomplished. And I agree with Mr. -- with Senator McCain in this regard. It really doesn`t make any sense whatsoever for the Congress to constrain the President of United States when in the interim, he is trying to accomplish something before we get to a position when we exactly know what we`re doing strategically (ph). SCHULTZ: Steve, there`s been reports out there that, you know, ISIS has got some very sophisticated social techniques and intel techniques that it`s hard for our people to track exactly what they`re going to do. Where does this go from here? STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think that we have incredibly sophisticated intelligence that we don`t often share with the regions. What you`ve been defining essentially through the Middle East, North Africa region, is a series of very weak states that themselves don`t have the resources to deal with this kind of Whack-A-Mole (ph) flexibility and nimbleness of what ISIS has been able to bring the bear. The United States and Europe frankly have formidable intelligence capacity but you need a combination that intelligence capacity was something else. I think -- I understand your emotion and I understand why you think boots on the ground is an answer here. The bigger answer is to draw away the Sunni tribal support for what ISIS is doing. That is an achievable objective and it would begin to choke down the fuel that is driving ISIS because right now ISIS is striving (ph) throughout the region because of cooperation and collusion with major parts of these societies. And it`s making a bet that Jordan and Egypt and those that pretend to be in positions of power in Libya won`t be able to challenge them or take them on or they open up a big crevasse (ph) in their society where ISIS looks like the guarantor of Sunni freedom... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: ... and Sunni right. It`s not the Western wraps (ph) running dogs at the United States. SCHULTZ: The point that to me, very clear. I`m not saying that we take 200,000 troops today and do this. But I do think we need to push the critical conversation. Is this the best way to go telling all of these other countries that we`re counting on, there`s no way that we would get skin in the game with our men and women. I mean, I think if ISIS had a chance to hit America, they probably do it. CLEMONS: I`m going to think that there`s thing that would... SCHULTZ: Can we come to that conclusion, what do you think? CLEMONS: We have troops on the ground in Iraq today. We have 3,000 soldiers inside Iraq. We have special operations that evaporated quietly in Syria and we continue to have series numbers of troops inside Afghanistan. So it`s important to remember that there is a -- not the large scale military footprint but there are military operations and, you know, boots on the ground it supposed non-combat rules but believe me, they are killing thousands of... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: ... ISIS fighters. SCHULTZ: Well, geographically, they`re different and their influence is different today that it was six months ago... CLEMONS: Right. SCHULTZ: Fair estimation? CLEMONS: Fair. I mean, I think that... SCHULTZ: So that brings us to -- OK. And now, what question for the United States. Now what? I mean, clearly, the degrading and destroying and the methods that we`re using don`t seem to be as resourceful as we thought they were going to be. So now, ISIS is doing what they`re doing and... CLEMONS: But we`re -- on this show, in conversations with you, I predicted this was going to be a very long run marathon... SCHULTZ: Yeah. You do. CLEMONS: ... and a very long one marathon not only because bombs wouldn`t drop but because the support in the societies, the financial flows, the private dollars and essentially the emotional and psychological support that ISIS gets from people inside Jordan, inside Egypt, inside Kuwait, inside Bahrain, inside Saudi Arabia, is more substantial than we`re willing to acknowledge. SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: Until we find the way to extinguish that, ISIS will continue to pop up and all these places, that has to be undone. We don`t have a strategy for that... SCHULTZ: OK. CLEMONS: ... despite the military issues. SCHULTZ: Well, and finally, Colonel Jack, do we have resources to do? What we really have to do if that had to get to a military conclusion. JACOBS: Well, that`s a very interesting question. We have the horsepower in terms of launch platforms bombs... SCHULTZ: Yeah. JACOBS: ... intelligence gathering capability and all the rest of that stuff. We have hardware. The question is whether or not we have sufficient political will to increase the size of the military establishment. Beyond what we have, now we`re about to -- ready to have (ph) the smallest army we`ve had since 1940. There has to be a public commitment to the strategy otherwise the Army, NAVY, Air Force, Marine Corps will be too small to man the operation whatever we decide to do. SCHULTZ: Colonel Jack Jacob, Steve Clemons, gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight on the Ed Show. CLEMONS: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: We`ll have a lot more on this as the weeks go on. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow and on Facebook. We want to know what you think. Coming up, Sarah Palin surprise appearance on last night`s SNL Special, we got plenty of laughs. We`ll talk about what it could be for her 2016 ambitions. And later, five years after the spill, how business in the gulfs are recovering from one of the worst disasters the region has ever experienced. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought that, if they would get in contained and cleaned up and life could go on for us. But it seems to go on and go on and go on and oil keep coming and they got worst and worst. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JERRY SEINFELD, ACTOR COMEDIAN: Next question -- yes, Tina. PALIN: Yes -- no, it`s Sarah. SEINFELD: Oh, sorry. Sorry. Oh, my God. It`s Governor Palin, welcome. PALIN: Yeah. I`m just curious, Jerry, how much do you think Lorne Michaels would pay me if I were to run in 2016? SEINFELD: Run for President, Sarah? I don`t think there`s a number too big. PALIN: OK. Just, hypothetically then, what if I were to choose Donald Trump as my running mate. SEINFELD: Sarah, you`re teasing us. That`s not nice. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHUTLZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I`d tell Sarah Palin, yeah, get Donald Trump. That would be really good, but your probably stick to a day job. The half-turn Governor had some fun teasing a 2016 run at Sunday, Saturday Night Live, 40th anniversary special, a Palin-Trump campaign. Oh, would that be a gift to comedy and cable. And you could reverse that too and it will still do the same results. In reality, 2016 is still looking like a free-for-all in the Republican field. The latest NBC news Marist polling asked Republican voters to choice from a selection of 11 potential Republican candidates. Polls were conducted in three key presidential caucus and primary states. Bottom line, a Republican front runner failed to emerged. Mike Huckabee leads among Republicans in Iowa. Jeb Bush came in second close. Jeb Bush leads among Republicans in New Hampshire. Scott Walker trails by three points. Lindsey Graham leads among Republicans in South Carolina where retired Neurosurgeon Ben Carson rounded up the Top 5. It`s important to note the undecided option Garner double digits and broke into the Top 5 in all three states of surveys. These means voters weren`t particularly interested or invested in or satisfied for that matter for any of the 11 candidates. It`s a deep 2016 field from Republicans the inability to rally around the candidate shines a light on the deepening rifts within the GOP. Joining me tonight, Bruce Bartlett, former George H. W. Bush Policy Advisor. Well, Mr. Bartlett, good to have you with us. What do you make of these early polls? There`s nobody jumping out and I guess, you know, whoever can win the media show at this point. What do you make in the field, there`s no front runner at all. BRUCE BARTLETT, FMR. H.W. BUSH ADVISOR: Well, I think the -- my first impression is that, this is terrible news for Jeb Bush, who is trying to run as the establishment candidate, and is obviously not getting traction but then, again neither as anybody else. I think maybe it`s because in our heart of hearts the Republicans know that they`re not going to win in 2016. They don`t have a candidate who could beat Hillary Clinton. And basically, it just a question of who is going to be the sacrificial lamb. SCHULTZ: Watching the Saturday Night Live special last night, obviously, it was all suppose to be a joke. But something, you know, run through my head. She`s seriousness (ph) a heart attack. Sarah Palin, she could not have had a better question in a better role to play in that whole production last night because she had a serious look at one moment about her. What -- does that make you feel comfortable as Republican? BARTLETT: Well, it certainly doesn`t make me comfortable to see people who have absolutely no business being part of -- being considered seriously for the most powerful position in the United States. I mean, Sarah Palin is a joke. Ben Carson is a joke. Chris Christie and Rand Paul can`t makeup their minds whether they believe vaccinations are worthwhile. Scott Walker doesn`t even know that he`s position on evolution is. And Bobby Jindal goes around saying, we -- Republicans have to stop saying stupid things. And then he goes and says stupid things like there are "No-Go Zones" in the city of London which lead the mayor of London to say that he`s complete nincompoop. SCHULTZ: So what are Republicans looking for that obviously Hillary Clinton is the polling juggernaut right now? And of course, you know Podesta leaving the Obama administration to lock-in his position and to be functional with the Clinton campaigns. So we all know what`s coming. So what are the Republicans looking for? BARTLETT: Well, one thing they`re clearly not looking for is actability (ph) that clearly is not a factor in their decision. At least, at this point in time and in fact there wasn`t really a consideration in 2012 either. But I think, obviously, it should be. I think right now there just looking for somebody who makes them feel good, who says what they would say themselves if they had a national platform and a national stage whether it`s religious schism (ph) or rabid anti-Muslims (ph) or a rabid anti- illegal alienism (ph). They`re just looking to feel good and hear somebody who`s says. SCHULTZ: Yeah. BARTLETT: . what they think. SCHUTLZ: I sure seems like Jeb Bush is going to have to thread the needle. And I think that threading the needle between the extreme right-wing and the establishment of Republicans may not be -- that may be quicksand for anybody. I don`t know if that can be done. And with nobody coming out polling strong at anyway she (ph) performed, it seems to me that the money barrens behind the Republican Party as far as Citizens United as concern and all the money floating around. This is really wide open to the point where the special interest may get exactly what they want. You`re read on that. BARTLETT: Well, it certainly true that it`s harder for the establishment or whatever you want to call it, to kind of ease certain candidates out of the race by defunding them because they all have independent sources of money. Everybody`s got their billionaires it seems who will support them. And so, the invisible primary as it sometimes called doesn`t seem to be at least at this point leading anybody out. Although, certainly, at some point somebody`s going to have to cry uncle and throw their support to somebody else or just open things up a little bit more. But we`re still too far away. SCHULTZ: Bruce Bartlett, always a pleasure. Good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much. Still ahead, countless businesses were destroyed after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill five years ago. Coming up, stories from the men and women who`ve had to pick up the broken pieces in the aftermath of that disaster (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What they made to the gulf coast and our community is that they put a lot of people in a standard of living that was far below what they`re accustomed to. And like us now at a (ph) very difficult time trying to recover. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ED SCHULTZ, THE ED SHOW HOST: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We have breaking news. Take a look at these pictures outside Fayette County, West Virginia were a freight train carrying crude oil derailed earlier today. The crash sent (ph) several cars into the nearby river 911 Dispatchers say, a subsequent explosions set at least one home on fire. The area around the derailment is being evacuated by emergency crews. The nearby water treatment plant is shutdown after some reports indicate oil could be leaking into the river. No word yet on the cause of the accident or injuries. We`ll continue to follow the latest out of Fayette County, West Virginia and bring you updates as they coming with us. We`re right back on the Ed show. Stay with us. PAGE HOPKINS, MSNBC ANCHOR: I`m Page Hopkins. Here`s what`s happening, the winter weather that`s been punishing parts of the south has dump a foot of snow in hearts of Kentucky and let thousands without power across the region. That band of severe weather is headed east where is expected to dump snow from the Carolinas to New York. And northeast is already in a deep freeze where temperature is had been near zero in many areas. It`s been a tough time for travelers more than 2000 flights have been canceled and more than 3000 have been delayed. The Ed Show continues in a moment. SCHULTZ: Tonight on the Ed Show, we start a week long series on the gulf today five years after the oil spill. Now, it is virtually impossible to cover every facet of this historic event. Over the next five reports, we hope to give you some sense of what many Americans have experienced, the business devastation, the environmental impact, the health concerns, the restoration projects, and the legal fight to achieve restitution. For some Americans, life will never be the same. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We really had high goals for this restaurant. You know, it was doing 2 million a year. It was great, you know, if you will, mom and pop operation but -- and it was my son and I and we were just having a wonderful time and everything went good and then all of a sudden... SCHULTZ: Five years after the oil disaster, businesses have been lost and lives have changed forever. PARMER: Spill took placed, sales dropped 45 percent, 50 percent, couldn`t make payments to the bank. And the bank, after three or four months, took the property back in December 2010. SCALONE: I`m more upset in my heart that they did what they did to the gulf. Seeing and saw (ph) what I did, because what I put down on the bottom, I could live after generations to fish on. SCHULTZ: People who depended on the gulf as their economic engine, their livelihood, say they are left with nothing but debt, stress and lost dreams. Rocco was a commercial fisherman and a steward of the gulf. Over the years, he constructed what`s known as living wrecks to support fishing, that`s all gone. SCHULTZ: Here`s the Deepwater Horizon... SCALONE: That`s correct. SCHULTZ: ... 54 or 55 miles from where we are now. Where were you operating? SCALONE: I was operating right here in this area. We have a clear waters here, Apalachicola Bay is right here. I concentrated my wrecks in this area here. All these little Xs are where my wrecks are. So I`m down here, I`ve got some over here. Well, we concentrated -- I concentrated them over here because the oil platforms, you`re not allowed to drill in Florida waters. So the oil platforms stop the Florida border, what concentrated much (ph) up over here to build structure for the fish. SCHULTZ: Are there other guys that do -- who do that around the business? SCALONE: Yeah, lot of them, a lot of them. SCHULTZ: That`s it. Just out of the clear water area, out of the one marina (ph) that I looked out of... SCALONE: Four captains just packed in so that`s it -- so the boat packing (inaudible). SCHULTZ: It`s interesting in your commercial fishing operation, you created habitat that drew the fishing in. SCALONE: Exactly. Exactly. SCHULTZ: That`s all gone. SCALONE: Yes. It`s all -- it`s -- the hole is still there... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SCALONE: ... but all the resource is ironic. The little fish, the -- everything that was here is gone, barnacle, sea grasses, urchins, clams, oysters gone. SCHULTZ: It`s almost hard to find the words when a no fault of your own, you`ve lost everything and are left with just memories. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn`t know where to fix out there (ph) it`s everywhere. RUSTY HEFT, FORMER RESTAURANT OWNER: What they did to the gulf coast and our community is that it put a lot of people in a standard of living that was far below what they were accustomed to. And like us, have had a very difficult time trying to recover. People are doing things that they would have never done have their livelihood not been affected by that B.P. spill. SCHULTZ: What are you doing now? SCALONE: I`m retired. I got out of the business. I got -- I retired and move to Jordan, moved up to Atlanta. SCHULTZ: But you didn`t want to retire? SCALONE: No. Oh, no. SCHULTZ: You love what you do. SCALONE: Oh, yeah but (inaudible). I got pictures of me, two months old in a bassinet on Long Island Sound. I got six years in the coast guard, four years on two ships, two stations on Long Island Sound. 1985, I get out. I was here in all of these in 1986 in clear water and I have been here ever since. SCHULTZ: Do you think B.P. has a clue who you are? SCALONE: No. They don`t care. It`s not that they don`t know. They don`t care. SCHULTZ: So you`re living on a hope and a prayer? PARMER: Yes, sir, most definitely. That`s all I`ve got at this point... SCHULTZ: And five years ago, you had no idea this is where you were going to be. PARMER: Not at all. SCHULTZ: And when that oil spill took place within hours, did you know what the future held for you? PARMER: No, sir. I did not. I thought that they would get it contained and cleaned up and life could go on for us but it seem to go on and go on and go on and the oil keep coming and it got worst and worst. SCHULTZ: This wharf in Niceville, Florida was a thriving business. And then the oil spill took place. And almost instantly lives were destroyed, things changed and future dreams just erase. These folks think that life has just played a dirty trick on them. RUSTY HEFT, FORMER RESTAURANT OWNDER: My wife is 75 and still working because our income was affected. I`m 71 and still working because our incomes were affected. Our retirement goals are affected because B.P. hasn`t come to play and fix things. COON: You look at wharf, this place here. They`ve built this -- blood, sweat and tears. 15 years of their lives went in to it and after the spill is all taken away, not that just that they loss money, their livelihood, their careers, the heart and soul of everything they`ve built was taken away from them. SCHULTZ: And what hope do you have that this is all going to be corrected? COON: Very little. SCHULTZ: Very little? COON: Very little. This is never going to be probably corrected. SCHULTZ: What has life been like for you the last five years? Describe what you`ve been through. PARMER: It`s like starting over with a mountain of debt so that you can start over and being in limbo and waiting for B.P. to do the right thing and make us whole, so to speak, so that we can start over. You know, over the last five years it`s been difficult, very difficult. Because before that occurred -- the oil spill, you know, we`d owned this place for 13 years and it`s been open since 1976. So it had a great name and did a great business here in the area. SCHULTZ: Life was good. PARMER: Life was good. SCHULTZ: Ken Parmer and his business partner loss the wharf they operated for 13 years in Niceville, Florida. The oil came to their dock and the rest is history. How immediate was the damage to your business? SCALONE: A week, right afterwards, a fears of like contaminated seafood. You could smell the oil in the air if you`re out here on the deck and it was a very strong toxic oil smell. The guests stop eating seafood because of their worries of the dispersing in the oil contaminating the seafood. SCHULTZ: So, you have moved on in your career and -- but you have this banknote just hanging over your head? PARMER: Yes, sir. I`ve moved on, you know, as a restaurant manager but certainly making, you know, a lot, lot less. And the dream of being your own boss is gone at this point. COON: Whatever money they lost from the spill is much greater than their (inaudible) because they loss their livelihood, they`ve loss their business. SCHULTZ: What is left is irreversible personal damage. What are you thinking when you saw those pictures on T.V.? SCALONE: Oh, when it right at the wellhead? SCHULTZ: Yeah. SCALONE: ... I was almost in tears. I could say I was almost in tears. Because that`s where I lived, it`s not only going to work out there, OK, when offshore for 10 days, that`s where I`m living. So I don`t throw anything over the side, everything goes in a trash can. My friends are all around even on the -- over the horizon but they`re all friends of mine, all fishermen. Somebody gets in trouble -- you need hamburgers, so I`m sure I`ll give you hamburgers but then, come on over, right? Then that happened and within the first two minutes, they`ve dump more oil in the gulp (inaudible) and lifetime (inaudible) anywhere. What we`re going to do is just keep it going so that my kids could have something and now live a life and now I got negative. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Stay tuned all week because each day we`ll have a new story. We`ve got a new look at the effects of the oil spill five years later. And coming in this hour, why Louisiana judge on Friday just came to pass to nearly 100 oil and gas companies who were slowly destroying the gulf coast. That`s ahead. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Tomorrow in part two of our series, "The Gulf Today Five Years After the Spill", the impact of the environment and what residents tell us they are seeing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These all shell fell off right here. There should be shell are going all the way to the bottom. That`s a cancer right here you got. SCHULTZ: That`s a cancer right there. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. SCHULTZ: And you can tell by the color of the shell? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The shell is gone. SCHULTZ: The shell is gone? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, you feel it? Feel it right here. You can see that shell off. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: That`s coming up tomorrow on the Ed Show part two, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After the Spill". And up next, the Louisiana judge is letting big oil companies get off the hook for the damage they may have cause along the gulf coast. Attorney Mike Papantonio weighs in on this big lawsuit. Stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show. SCHUTLZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. And finally tonight, nearly a hundred big oil and gas companies will not pay for decades` worth of damage to the Louisiana coast. On Friday, a federal judge dismissed a controversial lawsuit filed in 2013 by a Louisiana flood board. The lawsuit was seeking billions of dollars in damages from oil and gas pipelines companies. The New York Times called it, "The most ambitious wide-ranging environmental lawsuit in history of the United States". Shell, Chevron and B.P were among the companies named to the lawsuit. The states coastline losses about football field worth land every hour due to erosion. The U.S. geological survey estimates at Louisiana`s wetlands could disappear in this fewest 200 years. The United States Interior Department estimates wells drilled by the oil and gas industry have cause anywhere from 15 percent to 59 percent of the erosion. The lawsuit would have force the industry to help pay for an estimated $50 billion in coastal restoration and protection in the state. Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana praised the judge`s decision. He opposed the lawsuit and signed a bill last year trying to squash it. He`s bill was found unconstitutional. The flood protection authority is expected to appeal the judge`s decision in an effort to get restitution. I`m joined tonight by Mike Papantonio, Ring of Fire Radio host and also American`s Attorney. And as you pointed out that Mike was not involve in this lawsuit, but certainly as qualified beyond to give his thoughts on this. Mike, is this oil and gas getting off the hook big time. How else do you... MIKE PAPANTONIO, HOST OF RING OF FIRE RADIO: Well, Obama is misses and Obama pointed federal judge that gave this industry have pass on a $50 billion lawsuit in an area around Louisiana where land lost as you`ve talked about, It`s is about football field every hour. By the time your show is over, they would have lost another area that large of wetlands, this is wetland coast. It`s an area where the industry pumps more toxic chemicals and carcinogens into the air and water than most places in the world including China, Ed. You could almost compare this, what`s going on there with what`s going on in China. And as they do the states coastal wetlands are disappearing. But what`s gone unreported very important about the story is that, the Obama federal judge Nannette Brown worked a corporate defense lawyer for decades for the same oil industry that she gave the pass to. She was hands-on oil and chemical lawyer for decades who represented industry polluters and some of the ugliest environmental cases in America. It`s interesting that this case started out in state court until the oil industry fought desperately to have the case put in front Nannette Brown, so she could do exactly what she did and that`s make the case disappear. This is a very important part of the story, Ed. It`s part of the story that has to be told because for decades she said in court rooms defending this very people that she gave to pass to. So the net result is that more than 1,900 square miles of coastline has vanished in the last 80 years and an industry is continuing to pollute what`s left. What`s also interest, Ed, is the industry has admitted. There no -- nothing equivocal about this. They admitted that they`re responsible for approximately 40 percent of the wetland lost of the state. They came on said, yes, we did that. So basically what this judge who again worked for the industry, Obama -- by the way, she had a unanimous approval in the Senate, no Democrats asked these questions, no Republicans asked these questions about what his woman`s background was. SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: She was good on social issues, bad on issues like this. SCHULTZ: All right. Now, doesn`t the Federal Rivers and Harbor Act, Clean Water Act to the Coastal Zone Management Act, governing coastal erosion. I mean, there is legislation that deals with coastal erosion. So, how could she come to this conclusion if there`s coastal erosion and it can clearly be attributed to industry that they would not have any responsibility in any kind of restoration or clean up? PAPANTONIO: Well, she comes back, it`s a cop out (ph). You put it back to the legislative body and you say the legislative body has to take action that she doesn`t have the power to take action, that we can`t actually see the real causation that`s work here, the science can`t tell us who`s really responsible, that there are too many companies and we can`t point the finger to any one -- companies. If you read what she had to say, its cop out (ph) right down the line. Again, Ed, this industry basically admitted guilt. They said we did this. We were responsible for 40 percent of the erosion. But oh, by the way we`re going to continue doing business just like we`ve done in this industry captive judge, dismissed the case anywhere, where is -- there is nothing less than. SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: . admission of guilt here. I don`t know how else you could characterize this. SCHULTZ: Later on this weekend in our series, we`re going to have a story on Cat Island, Cat Island what it was before the spill and what it is today. You almost have to see it to believe it. It`s absolutely devastating and that whole area, those islands have gone through just enormous erosion and devastation and to say that the oil companies and the oil and gas industry don`t have any responsibility or whatsoever. It seems amazing to me that a judge could rule that way. But, moving forward the attorneys for the flood authorities say that they are looking at the ruling. What do you think from what you know at this would be the opportunity of an appeal? PAPANTONIO: It`s very difficult to appeal, that this circuit has typically sided it up with the oil companies. The only -- rarely, the B.P cases and exception -- that this circuit has been very, very good on a B.P. case because the devastation has been so incredible and so clear. On this case, this case is going to fit circuit (ph) it`s a real -- it`s a long shot if you want to ask my opinion about it. I think it`s a tough road. And I think this judge knew that in the way that she wrote the opinion and the way that this case is basically going to disappear and that the damage is going to continue for an awful long time. Because they`re not going to change the way they`re doing business. Ed, real quick, there`s a -- there`s an area called cancer ally. SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: It`s even worst in the story we just told, maybe we can talk about it sometimes. SCHULTZ: OK, our series will continue again tomorrow night and throughout the week. Mike Papantonio, I appreciate your time tonight. That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021601cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 70 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 16, 2015 Monday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS for February 16, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Evan Kohlmann, Ron Reagan, Page Hopkins, Sam Stein GUESTS: Marie Harf, Michael Kay, Michael Tomasky, Ruth Marcus, Sam Stein, Charles Ellison SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8398 words HIGHLIGHT: How does the U.S. or the West or anybody else stop the violent extremism of ISIS?; Likely 2016 GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush insists he doesn`t want to talk about the past, but he can`t escape questions about his brother`s wars. "Saturday Night Live" had so many celebrities on its 40th anniversary show that it took almost two minutes for Darrell Hammond to read the name of every guest in the opening credit. CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: The face of evil. And this is HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. At the front of the news tonight, a bigger horror. A group associated with ISIS beheads 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya. They conduct the dramatic executions in broad daylight, broadcasting the pictures to the world. Like previous ISIS videos, the new one is highly produced. It shows the Coptic Christians being led along the Mediterranean shoreline. Eventually, they are forced to kneel by the water and are beheaded. Today, the Egyptian air force responded, carrying out bombing raids against ISIS targets. Italy warned that ISIS is at the door now of Europe. Mari Harf is with the American State Department. Marie, this is getting close. And I think the Italians, you know, who had some land in Northern Africa over the years before, are beginning to feel them at their curbside now. And what do we do as Americans when we look at 21 Christians beheaded for the purposes of humiliating us, the Christian world, the Western world? It`s aimed at us, those pictures. MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT DEPUTY SPOKESWOMAN: Well, I think it just underscores to people that it isn`t just a fight in Iraq and in Syria and that it`s not just a fight about dropping bombs on terrorists. It`s really how we stop the causes that lead to extremism in a place like Libya, the fact that there`s no governance and there`s no opportunity for young people, it lets groups like ISIL grow there and flourish there, which is what you saw with this awful situation with these Egyptians that you just mentioned. But this is a longer fight. It`s fighting them on social media. Like you just said, these videos they produce are very technical. They`re using social media to get converts to their cause and to spread their hatred all over the world. This week, we`re going to have over 60 countries in Washington to talk about how we combat this violent extremism together in the long term, not just in this short-term fight. MATTHEWS: Well, how do we win? How do we stop this? I don`t see it. I see the militias from -- the Shia militias coming out of Baghdad. They (ph) were (ph) all Shia. The Sunnis hate them. The Sunnis are loyal to ISIS rather than going with the Shia. You`ve got the Kurds, the Jordanian air force now, the Egyptian air force. But I don`t see any -- if I were ISIS, I wouldn`t be afraid right now. (INAUDIBLE) figure this -- no existential threat to these people. They can keep finding places where they can hold executions and putting the camerawork together, getting their props ready and killing people for show. And nothing we do right now seems to be directed at stopping this! HARF: Well, I think there`s a few stages here. Right now, what we`re doing is trying to take their leaders and their fighters off the battlefield in Iraq and in Syria. That`s really where they flourish. MATTHEWS: Are we killing enough of them? HARF: We`re killing a lot of them, and we`re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians. So are the Jordanians. They`re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need, in the longer term -- medium and longer term, to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it`s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether-- MATTHEWS: We`re not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime, or 50 lifetimes! There`s always going to be poor people. There`s always going to be poor Muslims. And as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet`s blowing! They`ll join. We can`t stop that, can we? HARF: Well, we can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people. You`re right, there is no easy solution in the long term to preventing and combatting violent extremism, but if we can help countries work at the root causes of this -- what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business? Maybe we can try to chip away at this problem, while at the same time going after the threat, taking on ISIL in Iraq, in Syria, and helping our partners around the world. I mean-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: This sounds like we`re going to get rid of juvenile delinquency in America over time by erasing poverty, improving education. Sure, over time. But the American people, I think, are getting humiliated morally by this. We are seeing these pictures -- what are you supposed to say, I`m going to think about something else? HARF: Not at all. MATTHEWS: What are the American people supposed to do about this right now? HARF: I think -- I think-- MATTHEWS: They`re watching right now. HARF: Yes. MATTHEWS: What are they supposed to do to stop these indecent killing of people, these -- this -- the burning alive of the good pilot, the -- whatever they did to the American woman over there, whatever they did, whatever they`re doing to all these people, beheading them, beheading them -- what are we doing to stop this? It sounds like we can`t stop it. HARF: Well, I thi8nk they should know that the United States military is taking direct action in Iraq and in Syria. We`re taking their leaders out. We`re taking out their financing. We`re talking out their training camps. This is a long fight, Chris. But I also think -- not to take it to politics for a second -- they should tell their elected leaders to support the AUMF that we sent to Congress-- MATTHEWS: Yes, OK. HARF: -- to speak to the world that we are behind this effort. MATTHEWS: I`m with you on that. I`m with you on that, Marie, because I think that there`s a lot of politicians left, right, and center hiding in the bushes right now. They don`t want their fingers on this war because they`re afraid it might not be pleasant. Thank you. HARF: War is never pleasant, Chris. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Marie Harf-- HARF: (INAUDIBLE) MATTHEWS: -- from the State Department. Thank you for joining us. I`m joined now by NBC News terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann and Michael Kay, a former British officer. Let me -- let me go with Evan first. To answer my plaint -- my complaint here -- Americans watch television. They watch it on their computers. They watch it on their iPhones. They get it -- these pictures coming over from ISIS and now from Libya of people being executed, beheaded, burned alive, whatever else -- this is going to continue, and I wonder how the American people will react to this. They don`t want to become passive, useless, morally, you know, somehow compliant in this because if you don`t do anything, I think most Americans say, if we`re not doing anything, we`re part of the problem. Your thoughts. EVAN KOHLMANN, NBC TERRORISM ANALYST: Yes, look, back in 2004, we had a similar problem. We had Fallujah under the control of al Qaeda in Iraq. They took it and they turned it into a slaughterhouse. And it took a lot of U.S. military force to get them out of there. And we ended it. We ended that period of executions. And what we found there was horrifying. You know, I`m not a big advocate of putting American boots on the ground when they`re not absolutely necessary. But I think we have to really carefully weigh our options here. Back in 2005, President Bush said that there were 160,000 Iraqi troops ready for action, many of whom were ready for independent action. That was 10 years ago. There is still no Iraqi army. If we`re relying on the Iraqi army or Syrian rebels to take care of this problem, it will never get fixed. So whatever we choose, whatever strategy we choose, let`s at least choose a strategy that`s not doomed from the start. And anyone that has looked at the last five to ten years of Iraqi history and thinks -- or Syrian history -- and thinks this strategy is going to work is a fool! MATTHEWS: Let me go to Michael Kay on that point, and that is the quality of the Iraqi army. It`s apparently now getting smaller. Ever since they were overrun a while back by ISIS, they haven`t been in a fighting mood and they`ve been replaced, overwhelmed now by the Shia militia, who are the real people fighting ISIS. And that`s a tough one. What side are we on with that one? Are we with the Shia militia or with ISIS? And what are the people on the ground who are Sunni thinking? Would they choose that force led by the Shia against their own religion? Would they? MICHAEL KAY, FORMER BRITISH OFFICER: Well, Chris, just going to your initial point, at the height of the train and equip program in 2008 and 2009, there was over 200,000 in the Iraqi army, which is a significant amount. Today, we see the Iraqi army has around 45,000. The Ministry of Interior forces in Iraq have around 35,000. And then you`ve got these popular mobilization forces, which are Shia-backed, coming up from the south and Iran. And they`re comprised of the Hezbollah brigades and the Bader organization. Let`s go back to Libya. I really want to concentrate on this. Actions have consequences. And there is a very reason why there is a lack of governance in Libya at the moment, Chris, and that`s because of a NATO-led air campaign in 2011 which completely wiped out of all of the governance structures, from the army and the police to Gadhafi, and it basically created this security vacuum. I had the pleasure of interviewing and meeting el Sisi, who`s the Egyptian president, last April in Cairo. And he told me one of his big concerns was that he had on his eastern flank, he had an insurgency brewing on the Sinai, and on his western flank, he had an insurgency brewing in Libya because of these very actions that we took without a rebuilding program post the air strikes. The situation in Libya at the moment, Chris, is very complex. You`ve got two main Islamist groups. You`ve got the Libyan Dawn, which has recently taken over Tripoli, and you`ve got Ansar al Sharia, which has taken over Benghazi. The Libyan Dawn is actually backed by Qatar, and one of the main Islamists from Libya actually hides in Qatar at the moment. It`s complex. You`ve got Islamic groups and then you`ve got the regional backing of Iran, Saudi, Qatar, and the UAE. And so again, going back to this holistic approach, we`re running around like headless chickens at the moment. We`re reactive. What we have to do is take a proactive stance with this. We have to engage politically. And we have to make sure we`re not creating governance vacuums like we did in 2003 in Iraq and 2011 in Libya to start with. MATTHEWS: Well, I want to go back to Evan on that because, you know, we were warned, you know, that we were breaking apart these governments. We broke apart certainly the government of Syria. We`ve been doing that -- or we`re in the process of doing that. We eliminated the government of Iraq, which was a dictatorship, but it held the Sunni and Shia together. We had Gadhafi, who was a bit of a clown, but better a clown than what we have now. We had all those frontline states against Israel that were basically a joke. They were no threat existentially to Israel, nor -- certainly not even a strategic threat. Now we have this hell broken loose. I mean, we can all go back -- and to use the term of Jeb Bush, relitigate it, but what are we going to do now? These countries are broken. KOHLMANN: Yes, I think it`s extremely difficult and it`s very disappointing when you look at Libya, which did show some promise. It looked like some of the fighters there might be pro-American or pro- Western, and I think some of them are. I think part of the problem is, is that in the case of Libya, we did half the job. We bombed targets. But then once Gadhafi crumbled, we disappeared. And we kind of said to the Libyans, You do everything yourself. You`re perfect the way you are. And how we expected people that had no history of democratic governance to suddenly come up with a democratic government overnight that would function perfectly, again, was the ideal of a complete fool. You can`t just bomb people. You have to bomb people and then provide some kind of framework for moving on. It`s the same mistake we made in Iraq back in 2003. We destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, we wiped out the Iraqi army, and then we had no blueprint to move forward. And we cannot do that again. It`s a terrible mistake. MATTHEWS: I want to go back to Marie Harf. You were shaking your head. I want you to have an opportunity to say -- it seems like, you know, Colin Powell was right. He said, You broke it, you bought it. We have broken all these governments from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. We end up with a half of a government, a half-assed government, basically, what`s left in Syria and they`re all broken apart, and now somehow, we`ve become the gendarmes and we`re fighting ISIS which I`ve not heard anybody say isn`t going to be around 20 years from now. ISIS is here! Until we get rid of it, it`s going to be here to stay. And my question is, what`s -- where do we go from here? HARF: Well, I think what everyone was saying was just a little too simplistic. If you take -- Iraq is very different In Libya and in Syria, we supported people who were rising up in their own country to try and get a better future. I remember at the time people saying we were actually too slow to support them. MATTHEWS: (INAUDIBLE) is this, Libya? HARF: In Libya and in Syria. And around the Middle East, when we were talking about the Arab uprising -- this is different than Iraq, completely different -- people were saying America should stand by people in these countries looking for a better future looking to stand up against-- MATTHEWS: Right. HARF: -- people like Muammar Gadhafi. I don`t think anyone thinks we should have stood by him when his people were rising up against him. But you`re right, the question is what we do now. And I can guarantee you there are people at the State Department and across this government working with the Libyans to help them chart a better course. But we cannot do it for them, nor should we. And it is very complex. MATTHEWS: Well, we`re paying the price of their disaster. HARF: And we`re trying to help them. MATTHEWS: Of their inability to form governments. We are paying the price-- KAY: Chris? Chris if I could just-- MATTHEWS: Yes. Go ahead. Certainly, get back there (ph) -- get back, Michael. KAY: Yes, if I can jump in on this, Chris -- I mean, in terms of where we go from the future, having spent a bit of time in Cairo with el Sisi, I think one of the things we need to do is look at Egypt as a strategic pivot both in North Africa and both in the Middle East. Egypt went through a very important revolution recently, which basically turned away an Islamic caliphate proposal which was from Morsi and actually identified themselves as sovereign (ph) base (ph) people. I think that`s incredibly important in the caliphate and the ideology that 4we`re looking to fight at the moment. So I think we need to empower el Sisi and help him with the insurgencies that are happening on the eastern and the western flanks. The other thing we need to do is take away this idea of a centralized governance template, like we`ve tried to implement in Afghanistan for the last 10 years. And what I mean by that is empowering Kabul to outreach to the districts, the provinces and the suras when you`re looking at effectively a country that binds tribal entities that transcend national boundaries. So we need to go back to a decentralized template of governance that recognizes the cultures and the histories of tribal entities that have been in these countries for hundreds and thousands of years. I think that would be a good place to start. MATTHEWS: OK, Marie Harf, thank you. This is not going to end tonight and I`m afraid for months now and years. Evan Kohlmann, Michael Kay, thank you for your -- for your expertise. Coming up -- Jeb Bush doesn`t want to talk about Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republican front-runner is delivering a foreign policy speech this week, but he says he won`t talk about the past. Can Jeb refuse to talk about his brother`s wars? Plus, it`s the best of times and the worst of times for Hillary Clinton. Polls do show she faces no competition for the Democratic nomination, but being so far out front means that every meal ticket in the party is looking to her for a job. And 40 years of "Saturday Night Live" were celebrated in one live, three- and-a-half-hour broadcast last night. The show including appearances by dozens of former cast members. There were also a few surprise guests. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Next question. Yes, Tina? SARAH PALIN (R-AK), FMR. GOV., FMR. VP NOMINEE: Yes. No, it`s Sarah, Sarah Palin. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, sorry! (APPLAUSE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sorry. Oh, my gosh, of course. Governor Palin, welcome. PALIN: Yes, I was just curious, Jerry (ph), how much do you think Lorne Michaels would pay me if I were to run in 2016? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Run for president, Sarah? I don`t think there`s a number too big. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Anyway, we`ll have more of the highlights coming up. That was an odd comment. And "Let Me Finish" tonight with the horror we face on the nearest TV or laptop. It`s ISIS. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, new polls from NBC News and Marist show Hillary Clinton with strong leads over possible competitors for 2016. In Iowa, Secretary Clinton has a 56-point lead over Biden. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders follows close behind these two with 7 percent, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia hanging in there with 1 percent. Hillary Clinton is still on top with 69 percent in New Hampshire, but here Sanders has a slight edge over the VP, Joe Biden, 13 to 8 among those two among registered voters. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. For mainstream Republicans, there`s a battle right now between the old and the new. Jeb Bush is the old. Scott Walker is the new kid on the block. Bush and Walker are the only GOP presidential hopefuls to reach double digits in the first three 2016 contests, including Iowa. The new NBC Marist poll found a similar story in New Hampshire, as well as in South Carolina, making them the front-runners heading into 2016. But Jeb has the baggage of the Bush family name, of course, and an historic record of that. And reminders of W.`s foreign policy are coming back to haunt his younger brother, of course, and that`s the way it should be. In 2013, he was put on the defensive about his older brother`s war in Iraq, and he was his response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FMR. FLORIDA GOVERNOR: A lot of things in history change over time. I think people will respect the resolve that my brother showed both in defending the country and the war in Iraq. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: That sounds like "E "for effort. Anyway, last week, we asked how he would handle -- Jeb would handle Iraq and Afghanistan differently. Well, the former Florida governor said that he won`t -- here`s a new phrase I don`t like -- "relitigate." He`s not even a lawyer. Why is he talking (INAUDIBLE) his brother`s policies? Let`s listen to Jeb. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I won`t talk about the past, I`ll talk about the future. If I`m in the process of considering the possibility of running, it`s not about relitigating anything in the past. It`s about trying to create a set of principles and ideas that will help us move forward. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Jeb also said he won`t look backwards when it comes to foreign policy, but will focus on the future. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: We have some big, hairy, complicated things we need to fix, and one of those is what the role of America is in the world, to protect our safety and security but also to promote security and peace around world, and I think we can be a force for good. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Hairy problems. Anyway, here`s the question. Can Bush hide from Bush`s war? Michael Tomasky is a contributor to The Daily Beast, and Ron Reagan is author and MSNBC analyst. Ron, it`s good to see you back. You got a little tan there. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: I guess you have been somewhere warmer than we are here. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, let me ask you about this name. You have got a famous name, but it`s the same. You have never ran for anything. How can Bush run from Bush`s war? I don`t get it. How does he not talk about it? Hillary has to talk about her positions in the past. Doesn`t he? RON REAGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, he does. It`s amazing. A lot of politicians these days don`t want to talk about certain subjects. Scott Walker, who you mentioned, doesn`t want to talk about evolution. Marco Rubio doesn`t want to talk about how old the Earth is. (LAUGHTER) REAGAN: A lot of people don`t want to talk about climate change. And Jeb Bush doesn`t want to talk about the past. I imagine he`s being a little selective about that, of course. I`m sure he will want to critique the Obama administration, which would be delving into the past. I`m sure he will want to talk about his governorship of Florida, which is also in the past. He doesn`t want to talk about things in the past that are uncomfortable to him, Afghanistan and Iraq. But he won`t be able to avoid that, mostly because we`re still dealing with the fallout from Iraq and Afghanistan. He will get leeway in terms of critiquing his brother personally. I think people understand this is family and that would be very awkward for him. But he won`t be able to distance himself from those wars. He will have to demonstrate that he understands that his brother made mistakes. MATTHEWS: Yes. And he can`t say mistakes were made because the passive voice will not work here. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: It has a direct link. If I were the reporter -- it`s always easy to second-guess how the question is put -- I would just say, what do you think of the U.S. policy toward Iraq starting in 2001? Just ask him about the policy. Don`t even mention his brother`s name. MICHAEL TOMASKY, THE DAILY BEAST: Yes. Sure, just ask him that. But he`s going to say, or he should say, if he`s being honest, I supported it, because he did support it. He signed that PNAC letter, the original PNAC letter, Project for the New American Century. MATTHEWS: Bill Kristol. TOMASKY: Yes, Bill Kristol`s outfit. MATTHEWS: So, he`s a neo. TOMASKY: And he came out for the Iraq war, and he has since spoken in some of the clips that you played in favor of the war. So that`s a position he is absolutely going to have to defend and he`s going to have to talk about all the consequences of the war, including ISIS that you talked about in your first segment. ISIS grew out of that war. MATTHEWS: I think -- Ron, everybody I think who is watching this show, maybe not some people on the very hard left or very pro-Clinton, will say, I don`t want a real contest in 2016. I want the Republicans to put up a joker in the deck, a clown who can`t possibly win, like Barry Goldwater, who can`t -- or McGovern -- who will not win, therefore our favorite candidate will walk into the White House. REAGAN: Right. MATTHEWS: I think the American people deserve a fricking choice for once of two people they think, can imagine as president, and then they watch the debates and make up their mind. But it seems to me that a lot of people like me are hoping that Jeb Bush will turn out to be the guy who is not his brother, more like his father, more like Scowcroft, more of a realist, and less of a crazed ideologue who sits around waiting for Dick Cheney tells him what to do. REAGAN: Well, that may be true, but being a realist, let`s say, and not an ideologue, he`s going to have to grapple with the recent past. He`s going to have deal with the blowback that we have experienced -- ISIS is a perfect example, of course -- from the wars in Iraq and maybe a little less, a bit less so, in Afghanistan. These are realities that he`s going to have to grapple with. MATTHEWS: You mean to tell me that if it hadn`t been for us breaking up Iraq and then almost breaking up Syria, and breaking up Libya, if we hadn`t created that running room for something called ISIS, if we hadn`t turned those generals and all the other officers out of the Iraqi army and sent them out there for nowhere, that there wouldn`t have been a recruitment by the extremes of Islamism and that wouldn`t have happened? You mean it really does have a cause and effect, bad foreign policy leading to worse consequences? Are you arguing that? REAGAN: Eventually, there would have been an ISIS because the situation in the Middle East is what it is. But it might not right be in Iraq or Syria right now. It precipitated that. There was no al Qaeda or ISIS in Iraq before we invaded. That`s simply a fact. MATTHEWS: So, we created the animosity, hostility and also the broken-down government. I look back at this and I think, give me the generals. Compared to this, give me the army in Egypt, like Sadat and those people. They had a history, even Nasser. It was Baathism, but it made some kind of sense. It was nationalistic. It was basically about their country. It wasn`t necessarily something that we had to contend with. Your thoughts? TOMASKY: Well, there aren`t any good choices. there aren`t any good choices, Chris. You had Michael Kay. Michael Kay is really smart. He knows what he`s talking about. He says we should buddy up with Al-Sisi. Well, Al-Sisi is a pretty bad dictator. He`s done more-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You want the Muslim Brotherhood? TOMASKY: He`s made -- no, that`s right. And those are the kinds of choices we have got. But here`s another choice, speaking of choices, that Jeb is going to have to make. So, they bash Obama and they say Obama is weak and Obama is this and Obama is that and Obama is doesn`t really want to defend America. OK, then, what do you do differently? What do you do differently? Forget ISIS for the moment. What do you do differently about the Ukraine? Is it worth stopping what he`s doing in Ukraine? Is American blood worth that? He has to answer that question. MATTHEWS: Well, let me -- here`s W.`s White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer. He recently told Politico -- quote --"It seems as if he, Jeb, will come out of the more muscular peace-through-strength wing of the party." So, there`s Ari Fleischer wishing what I don`t want to be true, Ron. He hopes he`s one of the neos, neocons. REAGAN: Yes. And he may well be. I would argue with the term muscular and peace through strength. I think that Jeb Bush probably appreciates, as his brother and his father did, that having a nice little war going on can be helpful politically and it also helps the military industrial complex as well. So I don`t imagine that he`d be shy about using military force, but, as Michael was saying, to what end? We can`t just bomb our way through the Middle East and expect that everything`s going to turn out hunky-dory there. That won`t happen. At some point, it seems to me the Middle East, the countries in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the rest of them, are going to have to solve these problems for themselves. We can`t do it for them. As Michael said, there are no good options here. MATTHEWS: Yes. Some people, when they get divorced, they keep the spouse`s name, because they like the sound of the name. It`s like that`s what Jeb`s doing. He keeps the name, but he doesn`t want any responsibility. (LAUGHTER) TOMASKY: Yes. Well, that`s not going to last that long. He`s not going to get away with that. MATTHEWS: Anyway, I`m sorry. It`s a human predicament, divorce, but I think he`s trying to divorce his family name from any responsibility. But yet get all the advantages of the name he likes the sound of. By the way, the word Bush has opened doors for this guy his entire life. And now he sees a door in front of him, and he says, well, I don`t want that to be there. TOMASKY: I don`t have to open that. MATTHEWS: I don`t have to deal with that. Thank you. It`s good to see you back, Ron. REAGAN: Thank you. MATTHEWS: And, Michael Tomasky, I love your writing. Up next in the-- TOMASKY: Roundtable. MATTHEWS: In The Daily Beast. TOMASKY: Yes. MATTHEWS: We`re going to get to the "Sideshow" right now and the weather forecast that went viral. Take a look at this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JIM CANTORE, THE WEATHER CHANNEL: Oh, yes! Yes! Yes! We got it, baby! We got it! We got it! Woo! Woo! (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER") BILL MAHER, HOST, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER": The president always trying to sell Obamacare and, you know, trying to reach the young people, he made a goofy video for BuzzFeed where he`s talking to himself in the mirror -- oh, my God -- and taking selfies with a selfie stick, which is -- I think that`s great, because that way he can act like all the other Democrats and distance himself from Obama. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time now for the "Sideshow." That was Bill Maher on the president`s BuzzFeed video from last week, which has now been viewed -- you won`t believe this -- 45 million times. Wow. Next up, the weather phenomenon know as thundersnow. It`s the combination of a thunderstorm and a snowstorm, and it`s so rare that it`s become a white whale as far as meteorologists are concerned. Yet the Weather Channel`s Jim Cantore was able to catch it on camera Sunday morning up in Massachusetts. And this was his reaction. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CANTORE: Oh, yes! Yes! Yes! We got it, baby! We got it! We got it! Woo! Woo! Oh, again! Again! That`s a twofer! That`s a twofer, baby! Yes, yes! Again. That`s a three -- you got to be kidding me. And there`s another one. You can have your $500 million jackpot in Powerball or whatever the heck it was, but I will take this, baby, four, four lightning strikes, four episodes of thundersnow. (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Real thundersnow. Boy, he was working on Howard Dean there, wait a second he? Finally, cold weather was the subject of a tweet by former Congressman Anthony Weiner aimed at New York Governor Andrew Cuomo last week. Weiner was trying to make fun of the governor for closing city subways, as we know, last month in anticipation of a blizzard that never materialized. He wrote -- quote -- "Sunday`s going to be cold. Governor Cuomo will soon be closing the subway." Well -- but when a Cuomo spokesman saw that tweet, he quickly fired back with this -- and I love it -- "Yes, it`s going to be cold, a good reason to keep your pants on." I love it. Up next: New polls show how just much of a front-runner Hillary Clinton really is right now. But that`s not the whole story. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. PAGE HOPKINS, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Page Hopkins. And here`s what`s happening. A winter storm that`s dropped a foot of snow on parts of Kentucky and the South has knocked out power to thousands. The system is headed east, where`s it`s expected to bring snow to the Carolinas and as far as north as New York. A freight train carrying crude oil derailed election in West Virginia, setting one train car into a nearby river and setting off a huge explosion. A 6.9-magnitude earthquake struck northeastern Japan just a short time ago, triggering a tsunami warning. Coastal areas are being evacuated in the vicinity of that quake. And now we`re going to take you back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. It`s the best of times and the worst of times potentially for Hillary Clinton. She`s killing it in the polls. But that means every meal ticket, that means people looking for jobs in the Democratic Party is looking for a job with her, a motley crew of careerists, insiders, joiners, watchdog, sometimes attack dogs. On last week`s roundtable, which included David Axelrod, we talked about the downside of dominance following a conflict between Jim Messina, a smart guy, and David Brock, who is interesting, that broke out into the open. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEREMY PETERS, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Part of the problem is, they -- these operatives and strategists and donors don`t have anywhere else to go. So they`re all fighting over a very large pie, but it`s only one pie. DAVID AXELROD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: John Podesta has to get control of the Clinton operation. And I think that`s part of his job over there. MATTHEWS: Yes, he`s pretty good at that. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Anyway, John Podesta, who David Axelrod mentioned there, is expected to become chairman of the Hillary Clinton operation, the whole presidential campaign. He has got deep roots with the Clintons and more recently President Obama. In a profile today, Peter Baker "The New York Times" described Podesta`s role this way: "It will fall to him to impose discipline on the sprawling and fractious Clinton universe, including the candidate and her famously undisciplined husband. And it will fall to Mr. Podesta to manage relations between a president focusing on his legacy and his would-be successor focusing on the next election." That`s one tall order. I`m joined right now by the roundtable, who together can`t do this probably, The Huffington Post`s Sam Stein, "The Washington Post"`s Ruth Marcus, and Washington correspondent for "The Philadelphia Tribune" Charles Ellison. I want to talk with Sam, start with Sam. SAM STEIN, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Sure. MATTHEWS: How does one guy -- I don`t care how vintage or how heavyweight he is -- John Podesta, make sure Bill Clinton doesn`t do anything embarrassing, either by word or deed -- we all know it`s possible for all of us, without prejudging anybody -- and also keep together the fractious, really, really amazing watchdogs, David Brock, Sid Blumenthal, that really tough crowd that know how to kill the enemy, they know how to do that, keep them in line with the real Clinton close-in friends, Cheryl Mills, people like that, Maggie Williams, that crowd, and then all the new people that are going to come pouring in the door because it is the Democratic Party now? If you want to work in the Democratic Party, you work for Hillary Clinton. STEIN: How does he do it? MATTHEWS: Yes. STEIN: He doesn`t. It`s impossible. This is-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So this is another road show from hell? STEIN: Well, listen, I think it was going to be a road show no matter who was running that ship. It`s just too big a ship. It`s too unwieldy. And like Jeremy Peters said on your show, it`s the only ship in town. And so you are going to attract lifelong characters. You are going to attract new characters. MATTHEWS: Careerists. STEIN: Obviously, you have the former president himself, who in 2008 was a problem at times on the campaign trail. And of course you have to manage what`s happening with the current president, who has his own legacy to look out for. I think it`s an unwieldy task, but, in the end, I also think that we in the press tend to focus too much on it a little bit. And they realize that it doesn`t affect-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Excuse me for living. (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: So you don`t want to talk about that. STEIN: I do. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I`m telling you -- you say it doesn`t matter, but we tend to focus on it. You diminish this question. Ruth, but this is what caused Hillary Clinton -- they did not have a strategy to get delegates. The other guys did. Plouffe and Axelrod figured out, oh, we know how to get delegates in Arkansas, all over the country. We can go to South Dakota. There`s lot of delegates. You don`t have to just do California and Pennsylvania. They figured out what these guys were too busy to do, which is learn how to win. She needs smart people around her to beat the Republican, because this is going to be very touch to stretch the Democratic reign beyond 12 years -- beyond eight years. It`s going to be tough. RUTH MARCUS, "THE WASHINGTON POST": It`s an impossible task, certainly, as you described it. But it`s also -- if there`s anybody who could possibly do this in the Democratic Party, it`s John Podesta. Do not underestimate him. He`s got relationships with Bill Clinton. He`s got a relationship with Hillary Clinton. He`s got a relationship with President Obama. He knows policy, and he knows politics. And he knows how to exert discipline. He did it in the Clinton White House. And -- MATTHEWS: Can you tell Bill Clinton what to do? MARCUS: No one can tell Bill Clinton what to do. But there are certain people that Bill Clinton can hear better than others. And one of them is John Podesta, don`t underestimate him. CHARLES ELLISON, CONTRIBUTOR, THE ROOT: I mean, that`s the great thing about John Podesta, I mean, you can get the best of both worlds. He can sort of balance the Clinton and Obama universes because you`re going to have staffers -- MARCUS: That`s the easier part. ELLISON: That`s probably the easiest part as well. But, you know, at the same time, it`s like I`m agreeing with Sam here in terms of, how`s he going to do it and what makes Hillary 4.0 right now different from Hillary 3.0 back in 2008? I mean, you`re starting to see the same fissures, those same internal factions within her camp, and that was a big liability in 2008 and it`s going to be a big liability in 2016. MATTHEWS: Well, I think the hard part is what we`re watching now. The first guy out of the curtain is Jeb Bush. SAM STEIN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. MATTHEWS: When you first walk out, that`s when you realize you`re hitting the New York media world, you`re hitting the toughest media this side of Britain, and you basically have to say who you are. And he`s having a hard time saying I don`t want to relitigate this, a modern word. I`m not going to -- you are going to relitigate because your brother`s the reason we`re talking about the Iraq war right now. You, brother, and you were with him. So, Hillary Clinton, Secretary Clinton is going to have to come out in the first couple days, she`s going to have to walk out and have a plan about how to talk. That to me, I root for her, because I think that`s the hardest thing in America to re-enter the conversation. STEIN: I agree with you. And you find -- MATTHEWS: It`s not about the structure so much -- STEIN: But it`s always about the pace of the conversation. And it`s much faster and more demanding than it was four, five, six years ago. Look what Chris Christie did in London, he had to stop talking in part because his first answer was so bad on vaccination -- MATTHEWS: What he didn`t want to talk about after that? STEIN: He answered the vaccine question. It was a NATO -- a very bland NATO question. He doesn`t talk. And also, go back to Hillary Clinton`s book tour. The first couple days, a lot of misstatements and oddly sounding things about her own wealth -- she`s going to have to figure out how to phrase those things. And I think it`s telling that a lot of her close aides, Senator Schumer told me this himself, they`re fine with her taking her time, in part to cut down the amount of exposure that she has, which I don`t necessarily think I mean, the strategy don`t because I`m in the media, but I don`t think strategically is the best thing to do because you obviously have to face it at some point. MATTHEWS: Certainly, you got to put your toe in the water and then jump in. And then you`re in the water and there are alligators in there. MARCUS: Whenever you get in the water, there`s going to be alligators, so sometimes you might as well jump. STEIN: Jump in. MATTHEWS: Would you recommend to jump in and make some mistakes? MARCUS: No, I would recommend not making mistakes. (LAUGHTER) STEIN: Make them early, right? MARCUS: Here`s what I mean by that. I would recommend learning from the mistakes that you`ve made. What are the quotes that we remember from Hillary Clinton? I didn`t want to stay home and bake cookies. We were dead broke. OK? When she gets pushed, she -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: What difference does it make? MARCUS: We need to -- we, the Clinton campaign needs to talk to her and say, you need to practice that, you need to make sure that when you get riled up, you don`t -- she does two things when she gets riled up. One is she laughs and tries to laugh it off. And the other thing is she says something that can cause her trouble in the end. She`s got to get more disciplined. But she`s a very disciplined person, so I`m actually assuming -- ELLISON: Let`s say she needs calibrated mistakes, calibrated flaws to look authentic in front of this electorate because that`s the main problem with Clinton that also was a big flaw and a liability in 2008. MATTHEWS: Terry Gross at NPR is not a right-wing crazy person. She`s very -- she`s wonderful at what she does. ELLISON: Yes. MATTHEWS: She asked Hillary Clinton about changing her mind. Like most of us did over same-sex marriage, which we now call marriage equality, which we now call marriage equality. We weren`t calling it that 10 years ago, most of us. We develop -- it is a social thing. You don`t just make up your mind as if you`re in a cave somewhere. You do make it as part of a community. What`s wrong with saying that it`s very hard to answer a question which wasn`t hard to answer, which I`ve evolved, I`ve changed my mind. I didn`t think it was possible, therefore I wasn`t think about it. Now, I realize it is socially possibly. Now, I think somebody could have fought for it and work for it. But I know somebody would have jumped on that, but it would have been honest. ELLISON: Right. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: It isn`t all in a vacuum. Politicians don`t operate in a vacuum. They don`t have secret principles. STEIN: Sometimes they`re too polished. MATTHEWS: That`s right, they have publicly acceptable principles. I mean, Lincoln never explained where he was on slavery. He said no more expansion in the territories. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Roosevelt never said we`re going to war with the Nazis. He wanted to. You don`t tell everybody everything. But when you tell them, you tell them the truth. Anyway, the roundtable is -- that`s my speech tonight -- the roundtable is staying with us. Up next, the highlights in last night`s major "Saturday Night Live" 40th anniversary special, which is all about generations. We`re going to find out from Ruth Marcus. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. (VIDEO CLIP PLAYS) MATTHEWS: A lot of heart there. A loss for the world there in music and us who lived through it, Lesley Gore died. The performer and songwriter was the voice behind chart toppers like 1963`s "It`s My Party," you just heard it there. And "You Don`t Own Me", other biggie. Gore passed away Monday from cancer in New York at Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan. She was just 68, which is not that old. And we`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Talk about a big event on television. "Saturday Night Live" had so many celebrities on its 40th anniversary show last night that it took almost two minutes for Darrell Hammond to read the name of every guest in the opening credit. The three and a half hour event was full of surprises, including the announcement of a potential new presidential ticket for 2016. Not really. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Next question, yes, Tina. SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: No, it`s Sarah, Sarah Palin. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, sorry. Oh, my gosh. Of course, Governor Palin, welcome. PALIN: I`m just curious, Jerry. How much do you think Lorne Michaels would pay me if I were to run in 2016? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Run for president, Sarah, I don`t think there is a number too big. PALIN: OK, just hypothetically then, what if I were to choose Donald Trump as me running mate? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sarah, you`re teasing us, that`s not nice. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: That would be quite a ticket, wouldn`t it? Anyway, former cast members reunited to bring back classic roles from the Blues Brothers to Wayne`s World. Here`s Jane Curtin back behind the weekend update desk, reflecting on the time that`s passed since she was on the show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JANE CURTIN: Times have changed since I first sat behind this disk. For example, I used to be the only pretty blond woman reading the fake news, now there is a whole network devoted to that. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: We`re back with the roundtable, Sam, Ruth and Charles. Ruth, I want to talk to you because you had an intergenerational experience last night, watching this effort. MARCUS: I did, I watched with my 17-year-old daughter. What an amazing thing. "Saturday Night Live" was part of my adolescence, college life, and it now part of my two daughter`s adolescence and college life. Regularly, they tell me on Sunday morning, because it`s too late for me to stay up that late on Saturday. Mom, you got to watch this, you got to watch this clip of "Saturday Night Live". MATTHEWS: Now, you can. MARCUS: And now, I can -- what other show is there in America that has bridged those generations that way. STEIN: HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: I`m only 21 years to this thing. MARCUS: It will, but you know, there`s 19 to go. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I`m going to tell you this, I was looking at the -- how do you square it? What do you think about diversity? I`m asking in political ways. It`s pretty good or not pretty good? (CROSSTALK) ELLISON: For some reason, we were talking about this off set, it just feels like OK, one, "SNL" lost a lot of edge from like the `70s and `80s, going into the `90s, and also lost a lot of its diversity. It`s real weird -- MATTHEWS: Who are the big African-American stars? ELLISON: Eddie Murphy, obviously, Chris Rock, Kenan, I`m trying to remember his last name -- STEIN: Kenan Thompson. ELLISON: Kenan Thompson. But really no one -- (CROSSTALK) ELLISON: Everybody was trying to measure up to Eddie Murphy and no one could really do it. He really kind of just went on the edge. He really pushed the envelope. I could not see anyone doing that in later years. It is hard to watch "Saturday Night Live" on certain Saturday, I mean, I still respect, I still laugh at it. (CROSSTALK) ELLISON: And the diversity, the lack of diversity is where that loss of edge was. MATTHEWS: I`ll tell you, the cold open is always my favorite. It shows -- they take something and you realize in a matter of seconds my God, that is something about this week and they`re tearing it apart, you know? Something we all talked about and they just lampoon it. And I remember watching a show where Darrell Hammond was playing Cheney, and he gets into the character before the camera goes on, before the light goes, before it`s actually 11:30 and he`s prowling around the Oval Office, Darrell Hammond, he is Cheney. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Will Ferrell was playing W. And they`re really putting down something that is real, and they`re making so much fun of it. STEIN: Maybe it is like sort of like a D.C.-centric viewpoint, but I always love the political comedy because it`s just so biting, it`s so satirical and it actually always has an impact. I mean, 2008 election was, you know, those skits with Sarah Palin and Katie Couric were amazing -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I could see Alaska, I think a lot of people think she did say, I could see Alaska from the house. STEIN: Yes, it has become imprinted in our mind. MARCUS: Go back to our view of Gerald Ford, go back to the incredible lampooning of the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Clarence Thomas hearings. No one has done -- ELLISION: I mean, that`s also set standard for folks like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, you know, for those shows. I mean, they set the standard for like comedy central, you kind of say, it was kind of the genesis of the comedy central network. MATTHEWS: And live. ELLISON: Yes, it`s live -- MATTHEWS: We`re live now, but I`ll tell you, live is something else. And how do they do it like in the old days. I mean, every skit had to be write, everything had to be timed. Everything -- if a plot fell down, what would they have done, if somebody missed a line, what would they have done, and yet every single time it`s been on for these 40 years, it`s has been live. Live from New York. I mean, it`s really dramatic. It is like Sid Caesar or something, the old days. You know, you laugh, I used to Sid Caesar. STEIN: Me, too. MATTHEWS: Anyway -- no, you don`t. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: You heard about it. Thank you so much, guys, I think we talked about the important stuff. Roundtable, Sam Stein, right here, Ruth Marcus and Charles Ellison from Philly. When we return, let me finish with the horror we face on New York`s TV or laptop. ISIS is never further away than that, unfortunately. HARDBALL back here in a minute, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with the news. Like many of you I live in conflict over this horror for the Mideast. These 21 beheadings of Coptic Christians is an ancient horror carried out before our eyes, purposely so. Why else is the indecency so carefully videotaped, so well-produced, to hit every screen in our state of the art position. They`re using people other there, the death of people, to demonstrate their devotion, their ruthlessness, their power. They`re killing people in the most disrespectful way so they can be seen doing it by the people they want to recruit, by the people they want to kill. They want to stir up recruit by showing their willingness to go all of the way, to stir anger as well by doing what the hell they decide to do to the people they are committed to destroying, other religions, other countries, other Muslims. And what can we do? Can we do nothing? Can we just look at the pictures, ask what`s for supper? What`s on TV tonight? What`s the weather like tomorrow morning and go on with our lives, warding off the knowledge that these people are being killed in demonstration against us? How about this? Can we content ourselves by doing something which we know right now will not be enough to stop this horror? I know. We all know we need a plan, we need a root that takes us to destroying ISIS, because the alternative is too sick, too un-American, too inhuman. e can`t see people killed like this in our face and simply flip to the supports page, or the financial news, what`s at the movies, or who`s going to win the Oscars, and act like America, our country, is not being morally humiliated, because it is. And with the lives of at least some of these people who must in their last minutes have to be wondering if there`s the chance the people of the United States could be coming to their rescue, because that`s how we were taught that we conduct ourselves. We don`t leave people behind. That`s HARDBAL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021601cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 71 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 16, 2015 Monday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST Politics Nation for February 16, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Irin Carmon GUESTS: James Peterson, Shaun Robinson, Jason Johnson, Victoria Defrancesco Soto, Joan Walsh, Ed Rendell, Jim Arkedis SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 6557 words HIGHLIGHT: Boehner explained why he invited the Israeli prime minister to address Congress without telling President Obama is because wanted to make sure that there was no interference and that he didn`t want them getting in the way and quashing what I he thought was a real opportunity. Discussion of Ginsburg comments on Voting Rights Act and civil rights. A look at a possible Jeb Bush presidential run. Axelrod`s book examined. SNL turns 40. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Tonight`s lead, the GOP`s historic interference with an American president. It`s president`s day. A day to honor all presidents, past and present, regardless of party. And yet on the eve of president`s day, a brazen political attack from Republicans, undermining the commander in-chief. Speaker Boehner explaining why he invited the Israeli prime minister to address Congress without telling President Obama. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I wanted to make sure that there was no interference. There`s no secret here in Washington about the animosity that this White House has for Prime Minister Netanyahu. And I frankly didn`t want them getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Going around the president in a matter of foreign policy. Think about that. It`s disrespectful, and it contradicts what the speaker said earlier. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: You blindsided the White House with that. BOEHNER: We gave them a head`s up that morning. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Inviting a foreign leader to speak to Congress without talking to the president is something new. But it`s been the formula for this Congress. Disrespect and dysfunction. Speaker Boehner also now says he`s prepared to let homeland security funding run out, rather than make a deal with Democrats. And a growing number of conservatives say they`re not sweating a homeland security shutdown, putting politics over people to attack the president. It`s not working for Republicans or the country. Joining me now is former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, DNC former DNC chair as well, Ed Rendell and salon.com`s Joan Walsh. Thank you both for being here. JOAN WALSH, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, SALON.COM: Thanks, Rev. ED RENDELL (D), FORMER GOVERNOR, PENNSYLVANIA: My pleasure, Rev. SHARPTON: Governor, I have to go you with this. Speaker Boehner didn`t want the president to get in the way. I mean, what`s your reaction to that? RENDELL: Well, it`s just abysmal for the speaker to have done this. Look, there can only be one person that conducts United States foreign policy. Congress has its say in advising and consenting on war. But other than that, the administration, whether it`s Republican or Democrat, conducts foreign policy. And America has to speak with one voice. Once we start speaking with two voices, it shatters any attempt we have to conduct a cogent and reasonable foreign policy. The speaker should be ashamed of himself. This is politics at its worst level. I mean, it`s shocking to me. When you think that Ronald Reagan chose Tip O`Neil to go over as an emissary to speak to (INAUDIBLE), think of how far we`ve fallen in those days when Ronald Reagan and Tip O`Neil, two political polar opposites could cooperate in the benefit of the country. SHARPTON: You know, Joan, have you ever seen anything like this? WALSH: No, I can`t think of anything comparable. I mean, Tip O`Neil is a great example, you know. Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi doing something like this to George W. Bush? And the thing that make me feel crazy about, you now have five former Israeli ambassadors to the United States saying, this is a big mistake. SHARPTON: Correct. Five. WALSH: Five. Not just one or two outliers, but five, including the most immediate predecessor. So the idea that this is going around -- and to call it interference, the president can`t interfere, it`s his foreign policy. He runs foreign policy. So condescending and patronizing. SHARPTON: Well, you picked the word that I want to use for this next clip for the governor. He says he`s doing this to help the president. But the president doesn`t realize it. Watch this, talk about condescending, Governor Rendell. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: Frankly, we want to hear what the prime minister of Israel has to say, because what we`re trying to do is strengthen the president`s hand in these negotiations. I understand he says he didn`t want it. He doesn`t quite understand that we`re trying to strengthen his hand. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, he doesn`t understand we`re doing this to strengthen his hand. I mean, there`s nothing I`ve heard more condescending than that. RENDELL: Well, it is condescending and it is flat-out disingenuous. The speaker knows this is going to hurt the president`s ability to conduct foreign policy, not help it. The president speaks to Prime Minister Netanyahu often. He doesn`t need to hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu addressing the Congress. Help like this can be (INAUDIBLE) at all cost. Look, the speaker is smarter than that. He knows it`s just a political attempt to embarrass the president. He`s not trying to help him one iota`s worth. SHARPTON: Now, Joan, since the president has given his war powers request to congress, we`ve heard Republicans say they don`t think the president even wants to destroy ISIS. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t believe that the president really wants to prosecute a war that would truly destroy ISIL. I don`t think he has any intention of doing that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there`s a lot of skepticism about the administration`s commitment to dealing with ISIS or dash or ISIL, or whatever you want to call them. And that creates a lot of concern. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, that is ugly rhetoric, Joan. And keep in mind, 60 percent of Democrats want Congress to approve the president`s request. Fifty one percent of independents support it. Fifty two percent of Republicans support it. I`m trying to figure this out. Is attacking the president just a knee-jerk reaction, or even if it doesn`t make political sense, it`s just they don`t know what else to do, that`s their knee-jerk reaction? WALSH: Well, this too is something that we`ve seen them do, right? They`re calling his loyalty to the country into question, they are calling his competence, but also it`s not just competence. It really is, does he want to, does he somehow or they don`t say this, but there`s an echo thereof, does he have dual loyalties? Is he insufficiently committed to the defeat of our enemies? And it comes up again and again, Rev. Al. I find it really unbelievable that something like senator Cochran would say something like that. We have differences of opinion. I may not agree with the president on all of this, you may not either. But we can have a debate. But to insinuate - - not insinuate -- say he doesn`t want to defeat them is just a level of insult that really has no place in this. SHARPTON: And governor, here`s a president that brought us out of Iraq, a president that got bin Laden, on and on and on, and he doesn`t understand foreign policy, we`re strengthening his hand? And even the Christian science monitor is writing about how the president has returned to political rock star status. Quote, "it`s a curious twist that involves Obama somehow completely turning the tables on Republicans during what was supposed to be their finest hour. And clearly the liberal base that once provided the electricity for Obama`s mega watt stardom is buzzing once again." Governor, you`ve been around and helped to do a lot of things in your career. How do you see this playing out, the last quarter of the president and this Congress? How do you see this playing out? RENDELL: Well, the Congress, the Republicans may feel pretty heady because they used the president to win the congressional election in 2014. But things have turned. And if they do these games and the games are fairly transparent, everyone knows they`re doing this stuff, not to help the president, but to try to tear him down, they`re doing it at some substantial risk to themselves. And, look, these guys are full of hot air. If they want to get ISIS so badly, vote to give the president the power to do what he wants to do with ISIS. There`s no excuse for every Republican not voting. I don`t want to hear one Republican say this president doesn`t want to get ISIS when they won`t vote to authorize the president to do what he wants to do against ISIS. They should shut up until they vote it. SHARPTON: Governor Ed Rendell and Joan Walsh, thank you both for your time tonight. WALSH: Thank you, Rev. RENDELL: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: Coming up, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg`s exclusive interview with MSNBC. What she said about race relations, women`s rights, and her own future on the bench. Jeb Bush won`t talk about the wars his brother started, but can he hide from the past? And my red carpet moment with Sarah Palin. You`ll see the conversation we had. And more of the epic "SNL" show last night. That`s all ahead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Live from New York, it`s Saturday night! UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who is Andre the giant? (LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that an answer to a question? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I was just wondering who he is, Andre the giant. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: We`re back with breaking news out of West Virginia, where a train, hauling crude oil, has derailed, sending a massive fireball into the sky. Two nearby towns have been evacuated. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw a mushroom cloud about as high as those plume is now, like that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ll continue this in a second. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Heavy snow and frigid temperatures are slowing up the clean-up effort. That dangerous freeze is affecting millions of people across the country. Temperatures plunging into single digits across the northeast and mid Atlantic. People in Boston are digging out from a record 62 inches of snow in the past month, causing roofs to collapse across the region. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s just getting really old. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just absolutely brutal. I mean, you can`t even see in front of you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s miserable, but that`s what New England is. We just make the best of it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Off Nantucket, coast guard rescuers have to brave the elements to pull a father and son off a sinking ship. And in Philadelphia, a building on fire, literally froze over as firefighters put out the flames. The storms created some freak weather. Just check out Jim Cantore from the weather channel and his reaction to a rare bout of thunder show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JIM CANTORE, WEATHER CHANNEL: Oh, yes! Yes, yes, yes, we got it! Oh, again! That`s a two-fer! That`s a two-fer, baby! Yes! Yes! Again! That`s a three -- you got to be kidding me! You got to be kidding me! (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, there`s a guy who loves his job. Here`s what it all looks like from space. Lots of white down there. Everybody -- everybody, please stay warm and stay safe. We`ll be right back. SHARPTON: Developing news tonight in the fight against terror. On two continents, that fight we saw today, in Libya, reports that 35 more Egyptians have been kidnapped by ISIS, just hours after this video surfaced, showing 21 other Egyptian Christians beheaded by the terrorist group. Those beheadings prompting Egypt to launch air strikes on ISIS targets today in Libya. It`s a dramatic escalation of the ISIS threat outside its bases in Syria and Iraq. This is all unfolding as Denmark says it looks like Islamic radicalism inspired the suspect in the Copenhagen shootings. Police killed them in a shoot-out yesterday after he allegedly shot and killed two people and injured five others in back-to-back attacks. Police have arrested two people they think helped in the attack. The police have brought them into custody. And now we have a new audio recordings of the moment he started shooting first. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why do we still say but when we -- (GUNFIRE) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now, Jim Arkedis, former defense department terrorism official. Jim, thanks for being here. JIM ARKEDIS, FORMER DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TERRORISM OFFICIAL: Thanks for having me, Rev. SHARPTON: Let`s start with ISIS. First, they anger Egypt, now Egypt. Is provoking Arab powers in the region -- is that really a smart strategy for them? ARKEDIS: Well, it`s fascinating what`s going on in Libya right now. You have this group that is basically they`re a lot of returning fighters who have spent time in Iraq and Syria and then gone to Libya. Libya is an ungoverned territory. ISIS has talked about how it`s fertile ground for them because it is ungoverned. There are a lot of weapons left over from the Gadhafi era and then it has a lot of radicals who have returned from Iraq and Syria. And so this technique, where they`ve kidnapped these captive Christians from Egypt and then brutally executed them is a way where this group that has sought allegiance with ISIS and has receive Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi`s, ISIS` leader`s blessing, has now, it`s almost like they`re trying to show ISIS` headquarters in Iraq and Syria how serious they are. And there`s a good possibility, Reverend, that they are on the verge of trampling on their own message. They`re being so brutal almost in a way that they are trying to attract more radicals, attack more ideologs to join our cause, to show that they`re the new kid on the block. Meanwhile, they`re alienating a lot of average people in the street who ultimately they depend on to tolerate their existence in a place like Libya, which is in the midst of cleaning up after a long civil war. SHARPTON: You know, along those lines, you have militant groups in at least 11 countries, have declared allegiance or support of ISIS. How much of this is real connection? And how much is just local groups trying to piggy back on ISIS` notoriety? ARKEDIS: That`s an excellent point. And it`s probably as much of the latter, that is to say, individuals throughout Europe and North Africa who see that ISIS is the new terrorist network, has sort of displaced Al-Qaeda to a certain degree, and people who have perhaps had some experience fighting in Iraq and Syria now return to their home countries and say, we know some people who were in ISIS, we want to be like them. Meanwhile, I`d hazard a fairly well informed guess that there`s not much formal communication between ISIS leadership and these groups that are trying to pledge allegiance throughout the region. SHARPTON: Now, shifting to Denmark, here`s what we`re learning about the suspect in the Copenhagen shootings. Born in Denmark, he has a criminal record, including violence and weapons arrests and he left prison just two weeks ago. It doesn`t look like he was affiliated with any terror group. Is this kind of lone-Wolf attack the biggest concern for security officials right now, Jim? ARKEDIS: Well, it`s certainly a very important concern, because individuals like this gentleman -- I shouldn`t call him a gentleman -- in Copenhagen can acquire weapons and can identify a target by themselves and then they can approach the target and shoot it up without formal direction from ISIS or from Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or any number of terrorist groups throughout the region. And so, you know, we live in the United States and obviously Copenhagen is in Denmark, in Western Europe, and we have a strong tradition of not living in a police state. And so, oftentimes when we have these long actors who say, you know what, I`m going to go take matters into my own hands, in the media and conduct my own attack. In the media, we often ask question, God, what happened in the security services? How did this guy get through? But ultimately, we don`t want to be east Germany. There`s a balance between security and privacy in all of our countries. And no matter how many resources we dedicate to security services to track these guys who are horrible, horrible folks, the bottom line is that we can`t actually track all of them all the time. SHARPTON: Jim Arkedis, thank you for your time tonight. ARKEDIS: Thank you, Reverend. SHARPTON: Still ahead, Justice Ginsburg and her tough comments on race and this Republican Congress. Also, Jeb`s come down with a severe case of Bush-nesia, why he doesn`t want to talk about his brother`s record. And of course all the highlights from the big "SNL" special. What was happening behind the scenes here at 30 rock? Stay with us. SHARPTON: Comedians and Democrats got the tease of a lifetime last night on the big "SNL" special. Take a look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The next question, yes, Tina. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. No, it`s Sarah, Sarah Palin. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sorry. Sorry. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much do you think Orrin Michaels would pay me if I were to run in 2016? What if I were to choose Donald Trump as my running mate? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sarah, you`re teasing us. That`s not nice. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Jerry`s right, no way we`d be that lucky. But I do have some news about seeing both of them last night and about the man many consider the front-runner, Jeb Bush, what he`s saying about his brother`s legacy. That`s ahead. SHARPTON: As we celebrate black history month, we`re reminded of the progress this country`s made in race relations, but we also are reminded of the major challenges we still face. We`re just weeks away from the 50th anniversary of the march from Selma to Montgomery. And while the House unanimously passed a bill to honor the thousands who marched in 1965, Congress still hasn`t acted to restore the voting rights act, which was gutted by a Supreme Court decision in 2013. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent on that edition. And in a new MSNBC interview, she says members of Congress can`t wish away our country`s history of discrimination. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) IRIN CARMON, MSNBC NATIONAL REPORTER: I`m wondering how you see the current state of race relations in our country. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: People who think you can wave a magic wand and the legacy of the past will be over, are blind. CARMON: Should we be worried that all of those agreement achievements of the civil rights movement are being rolled back? GINSBURG: Some day we will go back to having the kind of legislature that we should, where members, whatever party they belong to, want to make the thing work. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: We need a legislature that wants all Americans to have equal rights. And we need more judges like Justice Ginsburg to speak out when those rights are challenged. Joining me now is MSNBC`s Irin Carmon. Irin Carmon is the one who interviewed Justice Ginsburg and MSNBC`s contributor James Peterson. Thank you both for being here. CARMON: Thanks, Rev. JAMES PETERSON, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Irin, great view. Great job. Justice Ginsburg was very strong in her dissent on voting rights in her opinion that she wrote. What does she say needs to happen now? CARMON: Well, what`s interesting, I think there were two audiences for her comments. One was her fellow justices, the ones who in the majority opinion in the Shelby county voting rights decision, basically said, you know what, this history is over, there`s no more racism. We don`t need the kinds of federal protections that we had to protect voting rights anymore, so she`s saying, you can`t just wave a magic wand. She`s also somebody who really believes in a dialogue with Congress, but as we saw from her comments, she recognizes that Congress is really broken right now, and if you`re sitting around waiting for Congress, you might wait for a long time. SHARPTON: You know, James, a Supreme Court justice really calling the Congress out, is that unusual? PETERSON: It`s not unusual from Justice Ginsburg. I think she believes in the interlocking working relationships between all three branches of government. And I think her experience with the Lily Ledbetter Act shows her that when Congress is working, things can actually happen. And so there has to be that give and take. I think Justice Ginsburg is a great example of how one branch of government can apply pressure on another and to make positive change happen in the United States. SHARPTON: Now Irin, another issue Justice Ginsburg weighed in on was abortion rights. She thinks overturning Roe versus Wade, quote, "Could happen, but I think it`s not a likely scenario and we will never see a day when women of means are not able to get a safe abortion in this country." But the many abortion restrictions passing at the state level have a major impact on lower income women. Is this a warning from the nation`s highest bench? CARMON: I think it is. And again, like her previous comments, I think it`s aimed at multiple people. It`s aimed at her fellow justices to say, here`s a precedent. Women have now for 40-plus years, enjoyed the constitutionally protected right to end a pregnancy. And it`s also a message to the country, saying, look at who these restrictions have an impact on. PETERSON: That`s right. CARMON: And she`s somebody who has really constantly looks at the real-world effects of judicial decisions. She`s an abstract legal thinker but she`s also someone who`s able to say, look, we hand down these kinds of decisions, what`s the real-world impact. SHARPTON: James, some have said Justice Ginsburg should retire while President Obama is in office so he could name her successor. But she says, quote, "I will step down when I feel I can no longer do the job full steam." Is this trying to say the court is above daily politics, James? PETERSON: It is above daily politics. And by the way, Justice Ginsburg has earned her right to step down when she`s ready, Rev. I think Irin`s comments are really important to highlight once again, this is an intersectional moment in politics when you have Justice Ginsburg saying, hey, listen, women of means will still be able to have access to certain kinds of reproductive rights, but poor women and women of color will not. That`s an intersectional moment when Justice Ginsburg is talking about people of color and women in a very, very important moment where these things are being rolled back and I think that is the kind of leadership that we need on the bench, and she has every right Rev to stay there until she`s good and ready to retire. SHARPTON: Irin, when you were talking with her, how does she react to that kind of question? Do you get the sense that she`s not going anywhere or does she`s calculated her steps and just won`t say? What is the sense you got? CARMON: Well, Reverend Al, I happened to know that she can do 20 push-ups. I don`t think she`s going anywhere anytime soon. SHARPTON: She can do 20? CARMON: She can do 20. And she stayed up all night the night before the State of the Union. She told me that that`s why she fell asleep. She had a glass of wine, it`s true. But she`s somebody who loves her job. She said that this is the best job she`s ever had, she doesn`t intend on leaving. And last year by the way, she used the words I`m very optimistic about 2016. So she may be waiting for Hillary Clinton to appoint her successor. SHARPTON: Yes. Now, you know, you talked about the interview. I want to -- does she realize she`s become a hero? I mean, to a lot of younger liberals. I want to play part of your interview where she talks about seeing Ruth Bader Ginsburg tattoos. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARMON: I wonder have you -- GINSBURG: I saw that, and I thought it was a joke. I thought it was something you pasted onto your arm. But I`m a little distressed that people are really doing that. CARMON: Distressed why? GINSBURG: Because why would you make something that can`t be removed on yourself? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, what does she think of all the attention she`s been getting now? CARMON: I mean, I think she had a Jewish grandmother moment just then, she`s like, why do you want to have this forever? But I think in seriousness, she`s very happy to have the kind of reach that a Supreme Court justice doesn`t usually have. And I think she really wants young women to take up with enthusiasm, the same causes that she`s been working for her whole life. SHARPTON: And I got to play this part of the tape where she talked about, she had a little sip of wine before the State of the Union, and that`s why she fell asleep. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARMON: I got to ask you, by the way, everybody`s talking about the State of the Union. GINSBURG: Yes. CARMON: They`re saying, you said yesterday that you were not 100 percent sober. GINSBURG: Oh, what I meant was that I had a glass of wine with dinner. And that, on top of having stayed up all night -- CARMON: So you`re a bit of a lightweight, as we call it? GINSBURG: I said, I thought to myself, don`t stay up all night. But then my pen was hot, and so I couldn`t stop what I was doing. And then I said, just drink sparkling water, no wine. But the dinner was so good, and it needed to be complemented. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: And Irin, this only makes her even more popular and more of notorious RBG. CARMON: Right. I mean, should I say by the way, that "Notorious RBG" is the title of the book that I`m working on which is out on the fall and currently available for preorder. But I think people like that she`s a real person, she talks about her family, she talks about having a glass of wine at dinner. She`s opening up this very secretive court that we don`t see much of. She`s opening up and showing, I`m a real person with real convictions, I look at the impact on the world. I`m more than just somebody in a black robe. SHARPTON: Out of time, but James, what is her impact? PETERSON: Her impact is tremendous. She`ll go down in history as one of the great justices of the Supreme Court. And she`s sort of working on her legacy beyond the Supreme Court here, Rev. And that`s why she`s been more engaged in giving a few more interviews and young people are rallying around her because of that openness. SHARPTON: Irin Carmon, great interview. CARMON: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: And James Peterson, thank you for your time. And Irin forgot to mention, you can preorder the book "Notorious RBG." She didn`t mentioned it. I mean, RBG, I mentioned it. Be sure to watch more of this interview on "RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC. She`s also be back on the last word tonight at 10:00. Straight ahead, Jeb Bush`s W. problem. He doesn`t want to talk about the past. But can he hide? Plus President Obama`s famous rallying cry, "yes we can" almost never made it. And more on this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: There`s only one prescription. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You mean, one cow bell? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Other questions. Hey, Larry David. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hey, how you doing? Look at this! (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It was a star-studded occasion. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Time for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, "Access Hollywood`s" Shaun Robinson, political analyst Jason Johnson, and MSNBC contributor Victoria Defrancesco Soto. Thank you all for being here. SHAUN ROBINSON, HOST, "ACCESS HOLLYWOOD": Thank you, Al. VICTORIA DEFRANCESCO SOTO, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Rev. JASON JOHNSON, POLITICAL ANALYST: Glad to be here, Rev. SHARPTON: We start tonight with Jeb Bush and the past. According to "The Washington Post," the former governor doesn`t want to talk about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan his brother led America into. Quote, I won`t talk about the past. If I`m in the process of considering the possibility of running, it`s not about relitigating anything in the past. Jason, can he get by hiding from the past? JOHNSON: No. Not at all. Especially if he ends up going up against Hillary Clinton. Look, everyone is going to look at his name and look at his past and look at his history. And you can`t tell the audience, don`t look over here, don`t look over there, only look at what I`m saying. So I think George Bush is being very foolish with this strategy and the more he looks like he`s trying to avoid talking about his past, the more people are going to start digging up everything they can in the swamps of Florida. SHARPTON: Shaun? ROBINSON: Well, Rev, you know, I`m going to put an entertainment spin on this. Do you remember Eddie Murphy`s movie "The Distinguished Gentleman?" Where Eddie Murphy played this Florida con man name Thomas Jefferson Johnson and the congressmen in his district had the exact same name, so what he did is he stole all the campaign materials from that congressman and he ran on this campaign slogan of "The name you know," and he ended up winning the election because people were just familiar with the name. I think really when we`re talking about these upcoming election and maybe between the Clintons and the Bushes again, we`re talking about the names you know. And will people, you know, is that something that people are going to be tired of now? Are they going to be looking for some fresh blood, if you will? So I think people will be thinking about that when this presidential campaign comes along. SHARPTON: Uhm, interesting. Victoria? SOTO: He is going to be hanging on to this for dear life with this, let`s just look forward, let`s not look backward. But Rev, where it`s really going to get ugly, is in the GOP primary. It`s the actual GOPers who are running for that nomination, who are going to slaughter Jeb Bush in tying him to his brother`s were. So, I think this is where we really need to look to. And in wanting to say, well, let`s look to the present, let`s refocus, we`ve got to look at ISIS and ISIL, these are legacies of the Iraq invasion. So he`s cornered, he is in an extremely tough spot. SHARPTON: You know, Jason, Victoria raises an interesting point. Because before he gets to the democrats and the general election and worrying about people like those of us that have a public platform, he`s got to deal with some brutal shots that will come through the republican primaries if he runs. JOHNSON: Yes, and I don`t think he`s going to make it through the republican primary. Look, I`ve already put it out there. I`m predicting Scott Walker versus Hillary Clinton. I don`t think Bush can, I think his positions on immigration, I think his positions on common core. And I think his name, if there`s a reason poll by few, the vast majority of republican primary voters are looking for somebody who can win and I think a lot of them really think that George Bush if they do the remix of George Bush versus Hillary Clinton, he is going to lose. So I don`t think he gets to the republican primary. SHARPTON: All right. Let`s move on to the big revelation about the Obama campaign of 2008`s rallying cry. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: Yes, we can. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) Yes, we can. Yes, we can. (AUDIENCE CHANTS "YES WE CAN") OBAMA: Yes, we can. Si, se puede. Yes, we can. We will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people. Yes, we can. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But "yes we can" almost never made it. It was used in Barack Obama`s 2004 Senate campaign. And according to David Axelrod, State Senator Obama didn`t like it. He read through the script once, and after the first take, he said, gee, is that too corny? He turned to Michelle and said, what do you think? She just slowly shook her head from side to side and said "not corny." Shaun, what do you think? Corny or not? ROBINSON: Well, I think, Al, it goes to show you, beside every great man is a great woman. You know, I understand from David Axelrod that Michelle Obama just happened to walk into the first photo shoot for this particular ad campaign. SHARPTON: Yes. Wasn`t even planned. ROBINSON: Right. Not even planned. And when Barack Obama asked her, does this sound too corny, when she shook her head and said no, absolutely not. I think that he had two things going for him. Barack Obama, first of all, a very very smart wife. Because also we know how well she`s done with the "Let`s Move" campaign to fight obesity. But also, Barack Obama was going up against Senator John McCain`s country first slogan. If you remember that, that was a patriotic call to service and unfortunately during that time Americans were just tired of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So obviously, "yes we can" was definitely the way to go. SHARPTON: Victoria? SOTO: Let me echo what Shaun said. Gentlemen, listen to your wives. But more broadly, when we are talking about, "Yes we can," that`s a Spanish translation of sisi puede, and it is a logo that fired up the Latino community starting back into the `60s, it`s what got us through the Latino civil rights movement, and got Latinos incorporated into the Latino political fray. So it`s a beautiful thing to see it in both in English and Spanish motivating tens of thousands of millions of people, sisi puede. SHARPTON: Jason? JOHNSON: All it does is remind me, I have always thought, when it comes to the president and Michelle Obama, like she`s the Aunt Viv and he`s Uncle Phil. Like she`s always been the one who is more in touch with how real people operate. I mean, when he was doing third -- do we know the President didn`t come up with that, that came from Michelle Obama. So, I`m not surprised that she is his cool meter and she is the person he goes to to find out if something is really going to sell. SHARPTON: Everyone, stay with me. When we come back, "Saturday Night Live" turns 40 with an epic party. And my red carpet meeting with Sarah Palin. It was great to see her. SHARPTON: We`re back with the panel, Shaun, Jason and Victoria. Live from New York, it was Sunday night. Last night over 23 million people tuned in for a star-studied party. Forty years in the making. Celebrating 40 years of Saturday Night Live, former cast members, past host, musicians, athletes, politicians, all came to pay tribute to the iconic show. It was almost the most tweeted TV show in history. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (TWO MEN PERFORMING) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: And welcome back to celebrity jeopardy. (TWO MEN PERFORMING) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I think that was one of the best. Even better than Beyonce. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: And that brings us to number five. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Kanye, sit down. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Shaun, what was your favorite part? ROBINSON: Celebrity jeopardy had me just on the floor rolling. Will Ferrell as Alex Trebek and -- as Burt Reynolds and Norm McDonald, I`m sorry, Norm McDonald is Burt Reynolds. And Darryl Hammond. I mean, it was just hysterical. To me, that is classic "SNL." And just, you know, when you`re in the skit, and you just want to watch it over and over and over again. Classic "SNL." SHARPTON: Wait a minute. Let`s take a look at Shaun, let`s watch what you`re talking about. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Just two letters beginning with G for 400. And the answer is, this G-shaped letter comes between S and H. (LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Matthew McConaughey, what are you doing here? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: What are any of us doing here? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Jason, what was your favorite part last night? JOHNSON: I too, first off, anything that Andy Samberg ever does with Lonely Island was great. That`s when you break heavy cracking up. But also I love Chris Rock`s monologue. Chris Rock`s basically got up there and said, all of you guys owe your jobs to a black man who saved the show in 1983. His introduction of Eddie Murphy was fantastic. Better than Eddie Murphy`s appearance. SHARPTON: Let me play a little of that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (TWO MEN PERFORMING) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: And that`s what you referred to first, Jason, that you love anything about what he does. Victoria, what was your favorite part? SOTO: My vote goes to the jeopardy skit too. Kate McKinnon as Justin Bieber is genius. When she came out a couple weeks ago in the Calvin Klein ad, she had me in stitches. And then last night where she or he kept calling Alex Trebek girl, and he said, wait, I have a mustache, I`m not a girl, I couldn`t get enough of it last night. SHARPTON: Well, as you know, I was there, I`m going to go to break and come back and talk about it. Shaun, Jason and Victoria, thank you for joining the conversation. When we come back, my red carpet meeting with Sarah Palin. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The next question, yes, Tina? SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: No, it`s Sarah. Sarah Palin. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes, sorry. Governor Palin, welcome. PALIN: Yes. I`m just curious, Jerry, how much do you think Lorne Michaels would pay me if I were to run in 2016? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Run for president, Sarah, I don`t think there`s a number too big. PALIN: Okay, just hypothetically, then, what if I were to choose Donald Trump as my running mate? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Sarah, you`re teasing us, that`s not nice. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That was one of the big moments for the "SNL" special. But there was lots of action before the show as well on the red carpet. Last night 30 rock was rocking with the biggest names in TV and entertainment. I saw everyone from Eddie Murphy and Whoopi Goldberg, to Leonardo DiCaprio and Rihanna, but a got a huge response on social media to these pictures of me with Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, two people I disagree with on politics and just about everything else. As I tweeted that last night, I loved to treat my attackers with candor and a smile. They want you bitter. And it`s always a good idea to keep the other side off balance. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: This is the shot I want. I want this right here. SHARPTON: Talk about the odd couple right here. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes, no, no, this is awesome. This is what "SNL" can do. SHARPTON: We are the direct opposites of American politics, but we`re here tonight. PALIN: But you know what, we both love America so much, right? SHARPTON: That`s right. PALIN: I mean, it`s Americana all the way and respect for the entertainment value that they provide our society. SHARPTON: And they spoof both of us. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We`re equally spoofed. Like how does it feel when you turn on the TV and you hear "SNL" is going to do a Sarah Palin, or an Al Sharpton? PALIN: I would do a double take because Tina Fey is so good. You know, I`m like, is that me? SHARPTON: Tina is good but I`ve seen her when she came on with Lorne, she was very good natured about it and all of that and I defend the fact that she actually sees Russia from her house. PALIN: Oh, god! See! I`m going to kick you in the shins. This is Americana, though. This is show is Americana and those of us who have grown up with it, right? SHARPTON: We can disagree without being disagreeable. Without a doubt. PALIN: Yes. Yes. And at the end of the day, I mean, there are some funny things going on in this world today. SHARPTON: I want you to run again. It will help us out. PALIN: You think? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You running again, Sarah? PALIN: Not if it`s according to his reasoning, no. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Be tough, be firm, but don`t let them see you sweat. Wise man once told me, you can`t be big and small at the same time. Lot of people say a lot of ugly things. I`ve had to learn, don`t be ugly because it only brings you to a level that you really don`t want to be. And at the end of the day, they have the right to stand for what they want to. And I have the right to stand for what I want to. That`s what makes the country good. I`m glad Sarah Palin told everybody that we both love America. That`s not what they usually say about me. But I do. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 18, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021601cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 72 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 16, 2015 Monday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 16, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes, Ayman Mohyeldin, Michael Steele GUESTS: Graeme Wood, Edward Norton, David Sampliner, Dorian Warren SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7754 words HIGHLIGHT: The ISIS Libya branch murders Egyptian Christians. And Egypt counters with airstrikes. For years, Republicans have complained that President Obama acts on his own too much, but they are now complaining that the legislation the president has proposed doesn`t allow him to act on his own enough. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN. The ISIS Libya branch murders Egyptian Christians. And Egypt counters with airstrikes. Tonight, what is really wants and how to stop it? Then, the trouble with the King Obama argument. KARL ROVE, GOP STRATEGIST: This man has done more to reconstitute the imperial presidency. HAYES: When it comes to waging war -- SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I think we should not restrain the president of the United States. HAYES: Plus, ranking the presidents on presidents day. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not going to do it. HAYES: And he was one of the stars of the "SNL" 40 spectacular. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This week`s hottest club in New York is called yank! HAYES: Tonight, my exclusive interview with Edward Norton about his new Netflix project and about last night. (on camera): How was this all brought logistically together? EDWARD NORTON, ACTOR: There`s like everybody else who was involved, and then Eddie Murphy alone. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight, new evidence ISIS is expanding beyond its base in Iraq and Syria. Over the weekend, video appeared online bearing the logo of ISIS` media arm, and the title, "A Message Signed with Blood to the Nation of the Cross." And while it has all the hallmarks of other brutal videos ISIS has released, slick production values, militants dressed in black, speaking fluent English, by ubiquitous orange jumpsuit. This video appears to take place on the coast of Libya, 1,000 miles from ISIS held territory in Syria and Iraq. It appears to show the beheadings of 21 Coptic Christians who came to Libya from Egypt to look for work and had been abducted last month. In a TV appearance last night, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi vowed to retaliate. And early today, the Egyptian military announced it had conducted air strikes on ISIS inside Libya carrying out what it termed, quote, "revenge for the blood of Egyptians and retribution from the killers and criminals." In the wake of the attacks, Libyan media is reporting that at least 35 Egyptians were kidnapped today in what appears to be a roundup in areas controlled by ISIS and other militants. Almost four years after Libya`s Arab spring uprising and the NATO air campaign that helped topple Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, the country has descended into civil war. Libya`s divided into two rival governments, a secular one, recognized by the international community, and Islamist government that rules from the capital of Tripoli. And amid the many gaps in those two camps` authorities, various militias hold sway, and ISIS has managed to gain a foothold. Now, if that sounds familiar, that`s because it`s the trajectory followed by ISIS in Syria and Iraq. With Syria in particular, the parallel are striking. In both Libya and Syria, you had secular strongmen, Moammar Gadhafi and Bashar al Assad, who built their reputations in part on standing up to the West. Both of those dictators were the targets of peaceful uprisings during the Arab spring, which gave way to violent reprisals by the government and ultimately all-out civil war. But there`s one key difference in the way the two conflicts have panned out, in Libya, the U.S. and allies intervening, ultimately resulting in the defeat and Gadhafi`s death. In Syria, however, despite strenuous calls from critics and at times members of his own administration, President Obama has resisted getting the U.S. military directly involved in efforts to overthrow Bashar al Assad. And yet somehow, these two places, Libya and Syria, which have effectively been test cases for different approaches to U.S. foreign policy in the region, somehow they appear to have converged in the same chaotic and brutal end result. It raises some disquieting questions as we have a debate about an authorization of use of military force about the U.S.`s ability to effect outcomes in the region and whether U.S. influence is a lot more circumscribed than anyone in Washington is willing to admit. Joining me now: NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin. Libya is a situation in which there was an intervention, and then, of course, the Benghazi attack, which probably spooked U.S. security officials to sort of pull back. What do we make of what Libya is now when we think about how the Obama administration has managed the Arab spring? AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the short answer to both of those comparisons is they have one thing in common, they are both failed states. The underlying message is that regardless of the approach in the early stages of the engagement, how long and how committed does the international community stay in that process to make sure that the state does not collapse? What we saw in Libya is that, yes, there was a central government that was a dictatorship and certainly controlled the territory and the people underneath it. In the wake of the Arab uprising and the wake of that NATO liberation, if you will, or NATO campaign to help the rebels, there was a disengagement following that and following the Benghazi attack. They did not want to get involved. It was too dangerous perhaps. They wanted to see the central government kind of exert itself. That failed. And what we saw in Libya now is a failed state. HAYES: But do critics of the intervention to begin with, who at the time back in 2011 said that was a bad idea, part of the criticism was you not have, U.S., West, NATO, proven yourself particularly committed or adept at any kind of nation-building or sustained commitment in this region, so don`t go blowing things up if you`re not going have follow-through, and then we saw what happened. MOHYELDIN: Yes. I mean, the question that we have struggled to answer in this country is what about the day after, what about the next day. Who`s in charge? Who`s going to build this up? Who`s going to create the capacity of a central government to address all of these issues? There was no answer back in 2011. There was certainly no clear answer back at the time of the NATO intervention. And this is something that a lot of the strong men in the region constantly point at. They constantly criticize the West for saying, great, you have an answer for the short-term, but what do you do about the day after? And it`s something that has scared the international community into action in Syria. There was no clear answer. The alternatives that started to appear in Syria really scared the international community, and some of them were hard core al Qaeda affiliates, some of them were Islamists, some of them were ISIS, and as a result of that, there was this kind of paralysis that gripped the international community about what to do. HAYES: You have covered Tahrir Square, you`ve covered the Arab spring. We are seeing this phase in which it`s retrenchment in Egypt with a military strongman in the figure of Sisi, chaos in other places, very little tangible democratic flowers. Tunisia is probably the closest to a success. MOHYELDIN: The only one. HAYES: The only one. OK. What about the theory that whatever we do, it`s not our story to tell, and we are fundamentally unable to impose any kind of shape on the outcome? MOHYELDIN: Well, I would say the words of the outgoing Chuck Hagel, who said that America`s influence in the Middle East is certainly waning. It certainly does not have the same kind of clout it used to have with its ability to shape political outcomes or realities on the ground. That doesn`t mean that the U.S. doesn`t have tremendous influence, but it`s not with the same ease as it used to be. We`re seeing these governments collapse, decentralize, and as a result the traditional mode of communication that the U.S. had to rely on influence is no longer concentrated in the hand of one individual. But the Arab spring has not panned out the way people had hoped for. It has not. Every country has had a different trajectory. Yemen is very different than Libya, different than Syria, certainly different in Egypt and Tunisia. Don`t forget about Bahrain. They struggled as well with efforts to reform that country. But at the end of the day, the underlying current has proven to be the biggest challenge for the United States. How do you deal with all of these things that have now started to emerge to the surface? HAYES: And I guess in summation, the way this debate gets phrased is critics saying, we should have pushed this button, and my feeling is maybe there`s no button to push. MOHYELDIN: Yes. There is no single -- there is no formula cookie cutter approach to every one of these countries. So, you have to have kind of a tailor-made to each country based on values, I guess. HAYES: Thank you, Ayman. Always a pleasure. MOHYELDIN: My pleasure. HAYES: All right. With the appearance of the video purported to show ISIS in Libya, there is evidence they are setting up outside of what has been the bounds of their so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria. As "New York Times" reported this week, U.S. intelligence officials say the group is expanding beyond its base to establish militant affiliates in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt and Libya, and there are less formal pledges of support from, quote, "probably at least a couple hundred extremists in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Yemen." It`s not clear how much they are in the style of al Qaeda, and to what extent they are seeking to capitalize on the vicious branding of ISIS. A new feature in the March issue of "The Atlantic" entitled "What ISIS Really Wants" argues that ISIS and its adherents around the world subscribe for a most part to a remarkably coherent ideology, an ideology rooted in a literal reading of Islam harkening back to the middle ages, and here in U.S., we`d do well to pay attention. Joining me now the author of that, Graeme Wood, contributing editor of "The Atlantic". Good to have you here, Graeme. GRAEME WOOD, THE ATLANTIC: Thank you. HAYES: You talk about it basically being a kind of apocalyptic millenarian fundamentalist vision of Islam returning to its eighth century roots. WOOD: Yes, that`s well put. And you can see that really in all of the rhetoric that the Islamic State puts out, including the video of the 21 Christians who were killed over the weekend. It`s not just one of the rhetorical modes that ISIS uses. It really is the only one. And the message was laced with apocalyptic rhetoric, quotations from Hadith. It is the way it justifies itself. HAYES: One of these things actually from the article, there`s a part of the message where they talk about Rome, right, sort of warning to Rome, that actually in this kind of apocalyptic ideology, that actually, this final confrontation, this kind of end of days battle with Rome happens actually in a city in Syria. WOOD: Yes, it`s a particular city which is strategically completely unimportant, except it is mentioned Hadith as the site of a major showdown battle that will happen. The crusaders will be defeated and Rome itself falls to the Islamic State. HAYES: So, there`s seem to me -- again, I`m not there. I`m not reporting from the ground there. But from all of that I`ve reading and sort of talking to people that have been there, reporting on it, there`s sort of two things happening in terms of ISIS, right? There`s the kind of propaganda wing and the ideology, and then there`s just a lot of Sunni militants, right? Folks who are providing a lot of the military strategy and troops who are sort of alienated from the Iraqi government. How much is that fused together or how much we know about how it`s fused together? WOOD: Yes, they are closely connected. You certainly have a lot of ideological sophistication and doctrinal enforcement within the Islamic State. But you also have a lot of political current of disaffected Sunnis in a region where Sunnis really in the last few years got the short end of the stick. And so, you find a lot of people who are politically disaffected and turn to the ideology as a result of that. HAYES: In terms of the questions that`s posed: what does ISIS want? I mean, I came away thinking they want war, and they want to fight everyone, because fighting everyone is what they see themselves as destined to do. It makes them bigger. It is fulfilling their legacy. So, when you see the videos, you think what are they doing here? Do they want a war with Egypt and the war with U.S., and the war of -- and the answer I got from the article is yes. WOOD: Yes, they do, absolutely. And really all of the videos that we see of them consist of goading the United States, goading NATO into attacking them. They really want to have their rhetoric and their propaganda confirmed in its message that there`s a war happening between Muslims and the rest of the world. And if they have boots on the ground in Syria, then they`ll have exactly what they say they are going to get. HAYES: Part of the major destination in terms of their rivalry with al Qaeda, a rivalry that at the times has been very bloody and at other times sort of letter disputes is the fact that they have actually territory there controlling which is part of their kind of branding advantage to international jihadists, right? Come home to the caliphate. Al Qaeda has the ideology we actually are doing it. We are cutting off these hands. We`re bringing it back. WOOD: Yes, al Qaeda was an underground terrorist network. It never controlled territory really. And so, what is the caliphate is saying is we have space that we can implement Sharia law in. And that is one of the criteria for having a caliphate. Caliphate is something that al Qaeda never thought it would achieve in the lifetime of, say, Osama bin Laden. And sure enough, just a few years later, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has it. HAYES: Graeme Wood of "The Atlantic" -- thank you very much. I really appreciate it. WOOD: Thanks. HAYES: For years, Republicans have complained that President Obama acts on his own too much. They are now complaining that the legislation the president has proposed doesn`t allow him to act on his own enough. I`ll explain, ahead. HAYES: Authorities in Denmark say a gunman who killed people in two separate attacks in Copenhagen over the weekend might have been inspired by the terror attacks in Paris last month. On Saturday, the gunman opened fire at a forum on freedom of speech, which featured a Swedish cartoonist who`s famously caricatured the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoonist was unharmed in the attack, but a documentary filmmaker who was in attendance was killed. NBC News has obtained an audio recording from the forum which captured the moments that gunfire erupted. A warning, it is disturbing to hear. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. It is freedom of speech, but -- and the turning point is, but -- why do we still say "but" when we -- (GUNFIRE) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Hours later, police say the same gunman killed a Jewish security guard outside a synagogue. The suspected gunman was later killed in a shootout with authorities on Sunday. Police say he had a history of violence and weapons charges and gang ties. Police have not named the suspected shooter but he is identified by Danish media and in court proceedings as 22-year-old Omar Abdel El-Hussein. "The Associated Press" reports El-Hussein had been released from jail just weeks ago. The director of the Danish security services confirmed the suspect was known to the agency before this weekend`s attacks. The Danish prime minister said today there is no indication that the suspect was part of an organized terror cell. He has vowed to protect Denmark`s Jewish community and has urged Danish Jews not to follow calls from Israel to immigrate there. Meanwhile, the prime minister was among tens of thousands of Danes who gathered in Central Copenhagen for a memorial service to honor the victims of this weekend`s attacks. HAYES: Republicans hit the Sunday shows yesterday to discuss the president`s proposed authorization to use military force against ISIS. And the essence of their criticism is that the AUMF excessively restricts the executive branch in waging war. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The president is asking for less authority than he has today under previous authorizations. I don`t think that`s smart. We need a robust strategy to take on ISIL. In addition to our robust strategy, I think we need to have a robust authorization. SEN. BOB CORKER (R), TENNESSEE: I think there`s a lot of skepticism about the administration`s commitment to dealing with ISIS or Daesh or ISIL or whatever you want to call them. FORMER REP. MIKE ROGERS (R), MICHIGAN: He keeps talking about the things he won`t do. He is drawing it into this year. MCCAIN: I think we should not restrain the president of the United States. The Congress has the power of the purse. If we don`t like what the commander in chief is doing, we can cut off his funds for doing so. But to restrain him in our authorization of him taking military action, I think frankly is unconstitutional and eventually leads to 535 commanders- in-chief. (END VIDEO CLIPS) HAYES: Now, some of that criticism may or may not be true on the merits of war-making. We`ll get to that in a moment. But it is a little hard to square with the Republican Party and conservative movement that have spent much of the last six years talking about Barack Obama as an imperial president most notably with regard to his executive actions. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: One of the most disturbing patterns we`ve seen over the last five years is a consistent pattern of lawlessness from President Obama. REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R), CALIFORNIA: He may have a pen and a phone, but we have a Constitution. REP. MIKE KELLY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: The executive cannot make exceptions and just enforce the laws he or she wants. That`s not who we are as a people. We left monarchs. We left tyrants to come here. This is a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: He is not an imperial president. And lawlessness will not be accepted by the American people. REP. TREY GOWDY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: This is not a fight with the Republicans. It`s a fight with the people who founded this republic. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That the king couldn`t on his own do that, he couldn`t just simply say, I`m going to dispense with the laws or suspend their operations for a period of time. Our Founding Fathers knew this history well. And the more the president acts outside the bounds of his powers, the harder it becomes to actually achieve a solution. (END VIDEO CLIPS) HAYES: Now, this is part of a larger tension at the heart of conservatism and the Republican Party. On one hand, a deep distrust of government authority and excessive government, and yet at the same time, an embrace of government at its most powerful and most invasive in the war- making powers of the executive branch. Joining me now to square this circle, MSNBC contributor Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. So, is there a contradiction here, Michael? It seems to me there is one. MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. No, there is. I think it`s a bit of an apple and orange. There`s a difference between the president taking executive action in the place of Congress, and the Congress giving or wanting to give the president as much as authority as he possibly can have to act, and I think that`s really where the fine line in the two debates rest. One -- HAYES: But here`s the wrinkle, though, just to get here. STEELE: Sure. HAYES: Let`s keep in mind: the president is using this interpretation of the 2001 AUMF to do what he`s doing now, and I heard nary a peep from the constitutionalists in the Republican Party who want to rein them in. STEELE: Well, but -- well, that`s because that is a very broad AUMF. And, in fact, what you`ve heard the constitutionalists and some like-minded Democrats, I might add, say the president already has the authority from 2002. He doesn`t need to come to this Congress to ask specifically for an AUMF. What this president wants to do is narrow the scope of the prior AUMF and basically eliminate it to come back on the field with a different AUMF that have -- use of military force that is more narrowly tailored, that has limits -- that even the ranking member of the House, the Democrat ranking member of the Senate Armed Services says he doesn`t accept the limitation of just three years. Everyone acknowledges this is not going to get done in three years. The president is looking for a window to close this just as he`s walking out the door -- HAYES: Wait a second, this is crazy -- STEELE: -- and that`s not the way that Congress is looking at this. HAYES: This is crazy to me. The debate right now is we need to declare endless war in perpetuity. How dare you as a matter of constitution and Democratic accountability put a time limit on a military engagement? I mean, think about what the opposite of that is. What if it takes 30 years to defeat ISIS? Are we saying now in the year 2015 -- well, sorry, kids, we`re going to be fighting ISIS for another 30 years? STEELE: Yes. We likely could be. HAYES: But that`s insane. STEELE: Yes, it`s insane. But, look, the government has to deal with the reality in front of it, Chris. You can`t just walk away from the battlefield because you don`t like the timeline. HAYES: No. STEELE: The reality of it is you have an enemy that is prepared to engage. You just had -- you just spent 15 minutes, two segments, talking about the treacherousness and the dangers of the enemy we face. You think you`re going to resolve that in three years? HAYES: I think an important, strategic -- STEELE: Do you think ISIS is going to roll over and play dead in three years? HAYES: I think it`s important that just because your enemy wants to get in a fight doesn`t mean you have to get in one too. STEELE: That`s true. But you don`t think the enemy is going to bring the fight to you? So, the question you have to ask yourself, and the question that Congress is legitimately asking, Mr. President, where are you going to draw the line for this fight? Are we going to have it here? Are we going to have it there? And what does that mean? HAYES: So, here`s what I would say to you in return. If this is idea, the idea is we need to be prepared to engage in a generational struggle against these murderers country ruling a relatively small sliver of territory in Iraq and Syria, if that`s the idea, then fine. Everyone who wants that and says it may be generational, this is a formidable enemy, we`re not going to be done in three years, then tell the American people that`s what`s on the table, right? I mean, be honest in that way. Prepare for yourselves for, we`ve had 13 years, 14 years of war. Prepare yourself for another 30 if that`s what it takes. STEELE: Have you looked at the map? A relatively small sliver? I think ISIS controls a little bit more of a small sliver of the territory they have taken. So, this is the reality that you have watched. You`ve watched Syria fall. You`ve watched Lebanon now get engaged. You have this expansive approach taken by this enemy. Now, I think there is great cause and effect for the U.S. to actually lead with others. Not by itself. And I think that`s a big -- well, should be a big part of this AUMF as well. But the reality of it is, the president is looking to narrow the scope, the Congress wants to give him the same or more broad authority that the 2002 had. HAYES: Look, we`re going to have an open-ended military commitment to defeat ISIS, then people should be clear about that. MSNBC Michael Steele who is being honest about that, and I appreciate it. Thank you. It`s Presidents Day, and that means it`s time to rank the best and worst presidents this country has had since its founding, also an opportunity to show you some great "Saturday Night Live" clips. So stay tuned for that too. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) IRIN CARMON, MSNBC NATIONAL REPORTER: What would you like to be remembered for? RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Someone who used whatever talent, Irin, she had to do her work to the very best of her ability. And to help repair tears in her society, to make things a little better through the use of whatever ability she had. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is having a bit of a cultural moment. Last year, she`s emerged as the true leader of liberal wing of the Supreme Court and its ambassador to the world outside the court, achieving meme-dom along the way. There`s the Notorious R.B.G. Tumblr, which got it all started. Plus, there had been t-shirts and Halloween costumes. Who can forget Ruth Baby Ginsburg? Someone even got a pretty intricate tattoo, a permanent one of the justice there. Justice Ginsberg has also been speaking out more in public, something that Supreme Court justices should do more often, in my opinion. And our own Irin Carmon got to talk with her in a wide-ranging interview in which Justice Ginsberg let`s us know how she feels about people who think racism is a thing of the past. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUTH BADER GINSBERG, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: People who think you could wave a magic wand and the legacy of the past will be over are blind. Even though the days of state enforced segregation are gone, segregation because of geographical boundaries remains. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You can watch more of that interview tonight on the Rachel Maddow Show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WILL FERRELL, COMEDIAN: Those smarty pants types are never going to understand speak first guys like us. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, they`re all brains. You and me, we`re all gut and balls. FERRELL: Yeah. Yeah. FERRELL: Every decision I ever made happened between my belly button and the middle of my thighs. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Saturday Night Live`s 40th anniversary last night have given us a chance to litigate probably one of the most important debates of our time on this President`s Day, who was the best fake president? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before we reached the dining room, the president reached out and tried to kiss me. He lifted his hand and put it on my breast. And then my hand to his penis. That is hot. FERRELL: I would like to address my remarks tonight to Mr. Osama bin Laden. Buddy, you crewed up big time. You see, you made a big mistake. If you`d had any brains you would have challenged me to a game of Scrabble, or maybe a beard off. You might have won that because I don`t have a beard. And when I do, it comes in patchy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, Governor Romney keeps mentioning this five-point plan. But where is it, what are these five points. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, you want to see them, OK. Here you go. This is one, two, three, four, five. Right here, bam, that`s my plan. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I have a one point plan for you. Want to see it? Here it is. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, President Obama, put your finger down. UNIDENTIFEID MALE: and the best thing about my plan is you can sit on it and spin. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: There are so many great fake presidents in SNL`s 40 year history. Of course, the best one clearly Will Ferrell as George W. Bush. So, I suppose we might as well talk about the other less important debate that`s raging online today, the rankings of the actual presidents. New rankings are out from American Political Science Association had Lincoln, Washington, FDR ranked one, two, three, sounds about right to me. Rounding out the top ten are Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton making the top ten, Andrew Jackson, questionable, and Woodrow Wilson. Scholars have President Obama ranked 18th sandwiched in between George H.W. Bush and James Polk, the first thing ever to be sandwiched between George H.W. Bush and James Polk. Vox.com has their own, quote, ultimate semi-arbitrary ranking of American presidents. In which Matt Yglesias breaks the presidents down into categories like the all-time great, the good ones, which puts Obama in the top 10, and then there are categories like, quote, laid the groundwork for civil war, and the worst where we find Andrew Johnson, because as Yglesias writes, quote, "Johnson`s deep-seated commitment to white supremacy ended up giving back a huge share of what had been accomplished during the Civil War. When dealing with Presidential rankings there`s a qualitative difference in how presidents are assessed. In 1996, The New York Times magazine`s Arthur Schesslinger Jr. (ph), a long time historian who, according to George Mason`s history news network, quote, "asked 32 historians, only one of whom was black, and two politicians, to rate the presidents deciding whether they belonged in the categories of great, near great, high average, average, below average or failure. At the same time, a different team of researchers, Professors Hanes Walton and Robert Smith asked 44 black political scientists and historians about presidential leadership, asking them to sort the presidents into some very different categories: White Supremacist, Racist, Racially Neutral, Racially Ambivalent and Antiracist. Joining me now to discuss the various ways we value president. Dorian Warren, professor at Columbia University and an MSNBC contributor. Thank you for doing double duty today. Great job at 4:00 p.m. today. OK, so part of it is the evaluative framework, right. Like, how do we come to it. And one of things I think we find is that Lincoln is the greatest president because he passed the ultimate test on the moral issue both as a sort of moral matter and also he won the Civil War and kept the union together. But it seems to me that when we talk about presidents and where they stand, it is impossible to leave race for very long. DORIAN WARREN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: You can`t -- I mean, I think the set up was great here, because when you ask black political scientists versus white political scientists, there`s a very -- race colors, so to speak, how we view presidential leadership. And, frankly, it is useful to have a different kind of framework that looks at presidents in terms of did they expand the democracy for excluded groups, or did they retract the democracy. HAYES: Right. There is like, there are these two different ways of looking at presidents, right, did big stuff, right? Which I think is the stuff that gets Woodrow Wilson and say Andrew Jackson in the top 10. Even if big stuff is, in the case of Andrew Jackson... WARREN: Genocide? HAYES: A campaign of ethnic cleansing. And in the case of Woodrow Wilson, World War I. And then there is this question of sort of expanding democracy -- I think that is a really interesting metric, right. How do we think about greatness being related to expanding the sort of circumference of democracy in the U.S. WARREN: And making America hold up to its true ideals in those founding documents that of course were written by slave owners, right, that`s the central contradiction of American democracy. And the question is, for presidents, are you going to go the one route that expands, again, democracy, and create an inclusive democracy, or are we going to retrench our democracy and kick people out? HAYES: Do you have a favorite or like a sleeper? WARREN: I do have a favorite. You know, I am a fellow at the Roosevelt institute, so obviously I`m a big fan of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but I would say in light of all the controversy, LBJ is my favorite for sure. HAYES: Oh, that`s fascinating. Why? WARREN: He expanded the democracy -- he passes that test. He expanded -- in fact, one could argue LBJ made America a true democracy for the first time in terms of allowing people the right to vote, people that were declined, that were supposed to be citizens, black people who were supposed to be citizens, he actually through the voting rights act, of course there was a movement behind him, but he in presidential power, he expanded the democracy for African-Americans and for other group. And frankly he built on the Roosevelt legacy of a social welfare state in this country. HAYES: It`s interesting to think about Johnson -- how Johnson is evaluated. Because I think what ends up happening to Johnson is the further we get from the Vietnam War, the more his stock rises. Because the Vietnam War, the things he accomplished are still with us, and the war is further in the past. WARREN: That`s true. That is a mark. That is a mark on his presidency. HAYES: At the time it would have been inconceivable for two liberals to say LBJ -- was hated, hated. WARREN: Yeah, but you know from the war on poverty, the `64 civil rights act, the `65 civil rights act, housing legislation in 1968, the Fair Housing Act, all of these things expanded opportunity and democracy for formerly excluded citizens in this country. HAYES: Barack Obama, 18 in that. I mean, it is sort of hard to tell someone before they have finished. I think with Barack Obama so much of it has to do with grading on the curve of what he inherited. WARREN: There is that -- right, exactly. So we should grade him on a curve for sure. But then you also have to consider what -- we`re in war. You know, essentially, and we`re -- he is about to get authorization, even though he says he has it. So that will be part of his legacy. But then when you look at the other side, the question again did he expand democracy for excluded groups? The answer is yes. And then when you add in the ACA in terms of building on Johnson`s legacy and Roosevelt`s legacy of providing health insurance for millions of Americans... HAYES: Yeah, I think his domestic legislative agenda is going to be in the top five. WARREN: His ranking is going shoot up, I think, by the end. HAYES: Dorian Warren, host of Nerding Out on Shift by MSNBC live on Thursday at 11:00 eastern. Thank you very much. WARREN: Thank you, Chris. HAYES: Edward Norton will talk about being part of last night`s incredible Saturday Night Live 40th anniversary show. Plus, a new documentary he`s involved in ahead. HAYES: If you haven`t been able to get enough of me tonight, I will be on Last Call with Carson Daly on NBC at 1:35 a.m. Eastern. And if you`re missing me between 9:00 p.m. and then, there`s always our Facebook page, Facebook.com/allinwithchris, where you can check out the chat I did today. Be sure to like us while you`re there. We had a lively conversation about all of the other Chris Hayeses out there, including the guitarist for Huey Lewis and the News. And if you`re tired of me, which case here`s a commercial break. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: It is the Midnight Couterie of Midnight Intruders starring Owen Wilson as a man in danger. EDWARD NORTON, ACTOR: Wow, what the heck. There`s a bunch of crazy people standing in our yard. Hey, huh, I think we`re about to get murdered. ANNOUNCER: And his terrified wife, Gwyneth Paltrow. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don`t say. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Last night, he hosted SNL, Edward Norton showed off his incredible Owen Wilson impersonation in one of the great all-time Saturday Night Live digital shorts, a home invasion horror movie in the distinctive style of director Wes Anderson. Last night, Norton turned up on the ridiculously star-studded SNL 40th anniversary show shot here in 30 Rock, which we learned today was NBC`s top rated prime time entertainment telecast, excluding post-Super Bowl shows in more than eight years. For the show, Norton took on signature SNL character, New York City nightlife expert Stefan. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NORTON: Well ladies, when you want to hit the clubs this week`s hottest club in New York is called Yank. Renovated by the third never spoken of property brother Poppy, this club keeps thumping until you hear sit Booboo sit, good dog. Ruff. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Norton is up for an Academy Award for best supporting actor for Birdman, also played an inspector in Grand Budapest Hotel, which is nominated. I talked to him a bout what it was like to be part of SNL`s 40th anniversary show. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: All right, so it`s the day after the 40th anniversary Saturday Night Live show. NORTON: Yeah, I`m actually a much younger man than I look right now. It`s just when you party with the Lorn Michaels crowd until the wee hours. HAYES: I saw some social media posts of what looked like a pretty amazing epic jam session that happened at some point at the after party. So, all right, you were in -- you did Stefan. NORTON: I did. Yeah, I dared to step into the large comic shoes of Bill Hader. HAYES: Can you talk a little about the logistics, because as someone who puts on a television show every day, I spent the entire time nerdily thinking in my head like how was this all brought logistically together, to get these people whose schedules are insane like to all -- did you rehearse? NORTON: Well, there is like everybody else who was involved, and then Eddie Murphy alone, you know what I mean, like wrangling that alone. HAYES: Did you understand that moment, the Eddie Murphy moment? Because a lot of people -- I didn`t understand it. NORTON; I thought he was great. I thought he was very gracious. And I think you know I kind of think you couldn`t say it better than Chris Rock said it. I think that some people said something later like why did they put such focus on that, but anybody that grew up on SNL, everything that Chris said was really true, it was -- even within the enormous kind of edifice and institution that SNL is, Eddie Murphy was for a lot of people, he was a seismic shift and reinjection of excitement into that. HAYES: It is funny because I didn`t know the story of basically how he saved SNL until Chris Rock`s monologue. I was sitting there on my laptop and I was like -- I like went to the Wikipedia page. I was like, oh wow, I didn`t realize that the show was almost canned. NORTON: I thought Chris was, as he often is, eloquent and incisive and pointed and I liked in a lot of ways -- I think when someone like Eddie Murphy just comes out and just simply says like I`m proud of this and really happy to be here, sometimes it`s so nice when people are not always on, they just -- I love that sincerity, too. HAYES: It was an extremely human moment. NORTON: It was, yeah, it was great. I mean, it was -- to even have participated around the fringes of the institution of SNL in a way is a privilege. I mean, you feel like you have been let into that -- a company that is really special in some ways. And they always, for people who are not the core of that, they -- Lorn Michaels has created an incredibly generous -- I think there has always been, I think, this real -- like people on that show say thank you to each other. They -- I can`t explain it. They really lift each other up and they lift you up and they make you feel like you can do it. HAYES: In some ways it is sort of -- there is no way it could survive otherwise, because they`re asking people to come -- like such as yourself, you`ve hosted before -- to come and take a huge risk, right? NORTON: Yeah -- yes, yes... HAYES: I mean, at like performative level, right? NORTON; Well, they ask you to do something that is different in the modern age -- live TV. In many ways, it is a real throwback and it has its special magic and it still comes through in an age where everything can be rewound and DRD`d and rewound and all of it. But yeah there`s something -- you know, it`s -- when I did it I thought about the great movie My Favorite Year where Peter O`Toole, you know, there`s that great scene where Peter O`Toole says like, you know, I feel good, I think we`re going to get it in the first take and the guy goes like you better it`s live. And you know he has his meltdown. And you have this moment right before you do something like that where you start -- you go, wait a minute like what am I about to do? But someone really smart told me like look at the -- you know, take a pause to look up past the hastily built sets and look at the audience and look at how exciting it all is. And it is. You feel like you`re back in the days of Sid Caesar, or that great old days of live television. And it is really unlike anything else. HAYES: I used to have my offices on that floor so I would be around them all of the time -- on the eighth floor where the studio is. And it always struck me that it had this like -- it almost felt like college theater in the best way. Like here are the most -- these are the most accomplished, this is the biggest deal franchise and the atmosphere of everyone was like, we`re making a show together. It was very cool. NORTON: Yeah, it shouldn`t work as well as it does, but it does. And it`s an amazing group of people. They`re all so -- I actually thought the joke, I can`t remember who told the joke about like all of the shots of the cast out in the city having fun was the biggest lie because they never leave, they never get to go out. When you do it, you realize this is like the hardest working bunch of people in show business. They work really, really hard. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Stick around, because when we come back we`re going to talk about a new documentary narrated by Edward Norton about what it is to be a man and a father in the 21st Century. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are having a little boy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do you kneel? DAVID SAMPLINER, FILMMAKER: Well, I`m thrilled. I`m terrified, actually. I feel ready to be a parent, but being a father to a son is not just being a parent, it means bringing a boy into manhood, a place that I feel so far from myself. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Earlier today, I spoke with David Sampliner who wrote, produced and directed a documentary called My Own Man. It debuts on Netflix on March 6, which explores what it means to be a father and a man. Also with us was Edward Norton, executive producer on that film and also its narrator. I opened the interview by asking David what prompted him to make the film. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SAMPLINER: I was at a point in my life where I suddenly felt like I wasn`t where I wanted to be in my life. And I felt like I needed to make a big change. And I -- it -- and someone actually said to me I think you might be afraid of your own masculinity. And unfortunately it rang true. HAYES: It`s funny. My wife and I talk about this all of the time that there are -- the old models have been taken away, and new models are sort of still forming in this -- you know, and even the easy -- easy -- difficult logistical things, like, which person in this relationship is going to do this thing -- move for someone else`s job, which used to be answered in the bad old days of patriarchy without a question. Now, like is a question, right? SAMPLINER: Right. We are not in charge anymore. Men share everything now with women in the workplace and at home. And it`s amazing that it`s just a generation -- my mother went to a fantastic university and when she and everybody she knew graduated they were expected to stay home and they all did. And her daughter grew up in an entirely different world and her sons grew up in an entirely different world and now we`re sharing it with women in ways that was totally inconceivable for my parents. HAYES: What drew you to the film? NORTON: It struck me just that it was that rare thing that I like the most in almost kinds of work, which is was very personal to him. It was like he taken the impulses he has as a filmmaker and applied them to something that I could tell was a really deep personal exploration. And I always think those kinds of films are the riskiest, but when they work the best. HAYES: Yeah, you end up -- this is like intensely personal film about, a lot of it is about your relationship with your father. Like you end up really exposing yourself emotionally in this movie. SAMPLINER: I think -- I can say we`re trained not to be vulnerable. NORTON: You know, it`s interesting, too, is as an actor, actors talk about, I think really great actors even in the course of a career you`ll see actors who get more and more comfortable with stripping away more and more artifice, and being more naked in some sense, more -- and I think that in this era of reality television, which is the furthest thing from reality. It`s a highly managed, highly image projected, you know -- these people who on reality television and are obviously like playing to camera, enormously, it only highlights how difficult it is in real documentary film to explore personal narrative and have it come across with sincerity, have it come across as something that is an authentic, like an authentic conversation with self. And that`s, I think, one of the things that is really masterful about the film. HAYES: And one of the things that forces you to do that I found in my own life, is caring for a small human in which -- that strips a lot out of performance out of you when you`re dealing with like vomit at three in the morning. Because you`re -- it has this forcing mechanism on you to honest and to be present in a way that nothing else I`ve encountered in my life does. SAMPLINER: Yeah, becoming a father changed -- it happened during the course of making the film and that of course entirely changed the film in ways that I could never have imagined. NORTON: The thing that is interesting, though, is that David was asking prior to even the question of fatherhood, and what that drove -- the urgency that drove in his own -- he was already asking, I think, a lot of questions that are very -- as you pointed out -- very topical to our generation. And even you know people talk about a film like Fight Club, or look at a film now like Boyhood that is out, these questions about like what does modern adulthood look like? And for our generation relative, which relative to our parents has in some ways embraced some of the moments of, quote, unquote adulthood later or in more attenuated way, that I think a lot of people of our generation relate to this idea of reluctantly moving into adulthood and having to confront a version of it that is very different. So I think even before the question of parenthood came in, the thing that I thought was very universal about this was that he was asking questions about how we define ourselves as men that are very, very -- that are very tangible I think to a lot of people our age. HAYES: Edward and David, thank you very much. My Own Man on Netflix. Really appreciate it. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: That is All In for this evening. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021601cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 73 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 16, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 16, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Irin Carmon GUESTS: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Randy Fitzwater, Marcus Constantino SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 6941 words HIGHLIGHT: MSNBC`s Irin Carmon sat down with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Supreme Court. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, man. HAYES: You bet. MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Tonight is the night of our Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg interview. Very excited about that. That is coming up. I`m very excited. It`s been making for a very happy Monday around here all day. Although, here, today, I should tell you as in most of the country, today has been very, very cold. Cold to the point of uncomfortable. Record breaking cold. The city of Boston is now buried in more than eight feet of snow with yet more on the way. Places like Kentucky, and Virginia, and even Little Rock, Arkansas, got walloped today, ice and snow. I went ice fishing in New Hampshire this weekend. It was really, really, really, really cold ice fishing. That`s sort of the point of ice fishing. But even in the middle of a frozen lake in New England, ice fishing on Saturday, it was still not as cold where I caught that finish as it was in downtown Madison, Wisconsin, where a large number of people were out in the cold not fishing, but rather protesting against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. It was minus 13 or something with the wind-chill when this big protest happened against Scott Walker this weekend in Madison, specifically about what he is proposing to do to public universities in Wisconsin. The governor`s budget proposal for that state this year includes a $300 million cut from the University of Wisconsin system. $300 million just sort of sounds like a big round number that doesn`t necessarily mean anything on it`s face. To put it in perspective, the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, which is the flagship campus for that system, and also I should say, one of the finest public universities anywhere in the country or in the world, the chancellor of the Madison campus says that if she just outright eliminates the school of nursing, and the law school, and the business school, and the pharmacy school, and the school of veterinary medicine, if she outright eliminates all of those schools from the Madison campus, that still would not be enough to make up for what Scott Walker wants to make up from that campus. Wow. At the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, which is an urban campus in that system, their share of the Scott Walker cuts they say it would be equal to eliminating the school of public health, and the school of information studies, and the school of social welfare and the whole engineering school. That will get you close to what Scott Walker wants to cut from that campus. The University of Wisconsin is a beacon for that whole part of the country in terms of higher education. I mean, one of the things they`re known for nationwide is the outstanding quality of their public higher public education. It`s their claim to fame, nationwide. And their governor is proposing essentially to dismantle that, which is an amazing thing in that state and which got a lot of people out on Valentine`s Day, on a Saturday, at minus 13 degree wind-chill, to not ice fish, but instead to go protest what he wants to do. But, you know what? Come on, let`s be realistic. Scott Walker is running for president, and so, this is the kind of thing he`s going to be doing for the next year or so. He is, in fact, increasingly seen as a top tier presidential candidate on the Republican side. I think that is in part because conservatives nationwide, you know, they may love the idea of destroying the University of Wisconsin. I don`t know. I think it`s probably driven more by the fact that a lot of other would be top tier candidates who are supposed to be competing with Scott Walker right now, those other would-be top tier candidates are having trouble right out of the gate, even the very high profile ones. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, for example, he`s had a bad few weeks, including a bad overseas trip to London. That got him a lot of bad headlines. Former supporters in New Jersey, including the campaign manager from the first time he ran for governor seemed to be siding more with Jeb Bush than with him. Chris Christie`s poll numbers at home in New Jersey have absolutely tanked. Conservative media buzz used to have Chris Christie at the top of the list of connected Republicans best positioned to win the Republican presidential nomination. Not right now. Now, he is basically considered to be more in the marching order of guys like Mike Huckabee or Rand Paul. Rand Paul is now past the phase where he got to enjoy being the object of beltway media fascination. He is now in the part where he is trying to present himself as a credible candidate for president. It`s not going great, both because he doesn`t seem to have any major donor support, which is important at this stage, but also because he keeps making a lot of unforced errors. Like, for example, Senator Paul saying multiple times at a recent appearance that he has a degree in biology. Rand Paul does not have a degree in biology. Amazing thing about this is that nobody said to him at this event, Senator Paul, do you have a degree in biology? He just volunteered that. I have a degree in biology - - and it`s not true. And now, of course, he is angry that anyone is pointing out what is not true. No one would have brought it up had he not brought it up, had he not said it. Rand Paul, what are you doing? Why would you volunteer that if that is not true about yourself? You were under no pressure to prove your biology bona fides. So, a lot of the people who look like they might be top tier candidates are sort of fizzling already. And so, the man to beat might very well be Scott Walker. It`s kind of hard to believe, but honestly, the conservative media loves him right now. One of the things they love him for is his proposal to absolutely gut the flagship university system that his state is known for. But beyond Scott Walker, you know, if you do look the stuff that makes it possible to put together a winning bid for nomination, if you look at connections, and big donor money, and early commitments, and who`s got the real establishment on their side, the closest thing the Republican Party has this year to an inevitable candidate, to an inevitable nominee is, of course, Jeb Bush. And now, faced with the age old dilemma, pets or meat, which is it, pets or meat? We now know, thanks to a brand new scoop of "The New York Times", that Jeb Bush, the closest thing that the Republican party has to a candidate this year, he is a meat man. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (DOG BARKING) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I saw the sign down on the street. It said you are selling rabbits and bunnies here. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For sale. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want pets or meat. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pets or meat? You mean I can buy the bunnies to have as a pet or I can buy them for -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Meat. They are already dressed and cleaned. I butcher the babies when they reach four or five months old. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s good. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You see, if you butcher the older ones like these guys, they are stewers, they are not fryers. And a lot of people like fryers better than they do the stewers. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that makes sense. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, I keep my own personal stock and when my babies get four or five months old and I have 15, 20 babies, you have you have to get rid of them sway. If you don`t sell them as pets, you have to get rid of them as meat. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Pets or meat. That is obviously Michael Moore being amazing. But we now know, thanks to a brand new scoop in today`s "New York Times" that on the age-old question of pets or meat -- when it comes to rabbit, Jeb Bush is a meat man. We know that because of this letter on bright yellow paper that was given to Jeb Bush in 1985 by the vice president of the marketing for the American Commercial Rabbit Association. Quote, "I`m developing a business plan for the market of domestic rabbit meat. I would value your assistance in establishing contact with the potential USDA liaison." This person apparently met Jeb Bush at a Bush family political fund- raiser in 1985, hand delivered this letter to him saying help me out with my rabbit meat plan. I need some contacts in the federal government in Washington. And thanks to "The New York Times" digging that letter out of the George H.W. Bush archives we know that Jeb Bush hooked the rabbit meat lady up. Look at what he said, "Dear senior adviser to the vice president of the United States" who happens to be my dad, "Tom, can you get me a name at USDA to help out the rabbit meat lady?" Sends the note. And, you know, when the son of the vice president of the United States wants a rabbit meat contact in the federal government -- well, that`s what he gets. Within less than a week, look, this is the letter from the office of the vice president on office of the vice president stationary seeking a federal referral for the rabbit meat lady. Good thing she went to that fund-raiser, right? Look, here`s a phone log from the follow-up conversation with Jeb Bush. See the hand-written notation on the right. The notation there says, "Rabbit meat, USDA", that was the subject of the conversation. And then, here`s the response. A representative from the federal government calling the rabbit meat lady directly to make sure she`s got all the contacts she need and she knows Jeb Bush took care of her after she hit him up at a fund-raiser. So, "The New York Times" did a deep dive not just to the rabbit meat thing but other evidence there is of how Jeb Bush over the course of his lifetime and political career made good news of his family connections. It is remarkable the things large and small that you can get done when you are the grandson of a senator, the son of the vice president, the son of a president, the brother of another president. It is one thing to have an amorphous idea of what the privilege and power must mean for a person, it`s another thing to see the granular "thank you" notes details of it. And to see that he really, thanks to his family connections, is used to having a ton of pull. Thanks to his brother and his grandfather and his dad and all the other Bushes and all their political power and contacts. One of the weirder political losses of the George H.W. Bush administration, so Jeb`s dad`s presidential administration, one of the weirder political knocks they took while he was president was the U.S. Senate deciding not once but twice to reject someone who Bush supported to be the U.S. attorney in the state of Florida. The nominee for this U.S. attorney is a guy when he was he acting U.S. attorney general -- excuse me, when he was the acting U.S. attorney, he got admonished by the justice department for the way he ran his office. The attorney general of the United States also had to raid in to this guy`s office and take him personally off a high-profile prosecution because he was not seen as being experienced enough or temperamentally suited enough to handle a high-profile prosecution. So, the attorney general of the United States had to step in and take him off of it. The FBI background check of this guy recounted a whole bunch of previous allegations of domestic violence against him. For all of those reasons and others besides, the Senate rejected this nomination for this guy to be U.S. attorney, rejected it once. But still, for some reason, poppy bush kept pushing for this guy and nominated him again. The Senate did him the great insult of rejecting his nominee for the second straight time. What was behind the commitment to this guy? We know behind the scenes that Jeb Bush in Florida had been advocating for that guy`s nomination, forcibly. Advocating to his father when he was vice president and president, including pushy letters to top staffers about the nomination. Jeb Bush also went to far when his father was president, also went to far at one point to make a recommendation to his father as to who should get the next open seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. He writes a letter to his dad, encloses the guy`s resume and says, quote, "Many people know him in Miami", in case that`s an important qualification for the Supreme Court but, you know, Jeb Bush is writing where this recommendation as the president`s son, writing to his dad`s top advisers about who ought to be on the Supreme Court. Quote, "Should the opportunity arise, I hope you would give consideration to Peter T. Fay promotion to the U.S. Supreme Court." Peter T. Fay did not get nominated by Poppy Bush to the Supreme Court despite his son`s advocacy. To the contrary, Poppy Bush ended up picking David Souter and Clarence Thomas as his nominees to the Supreme Court. He got to two. Since then, every president`s got two. President Clinton chose Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer for the court. George W. Bush chose John Roberts, the current chief justice, and also, Samuel Alito. President Obama so far has chosen Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Supreme Court nominations are among the most durable and important things that a president does ever. And not every iteration of the Supreme Court hears Brown versus Board of Education, or Marbury versus Madison, or Bush v. Gore, for that matter, or Roe versus Wade. I mean, not every iteration of the court hears cases that become household names and that change the world drastically and forever. But the Supreme Court of the United States has breathtaking power on myriad issues. Nothing else in government is like it. Even just right now, we`re awaiting oral arguments on cases that may eliminate the whole of Obamacare in one fell swoop, millions of people losing their health insurance all at once. They could do that. They`re going to hear those oral arguments, they will rule in the next few months. We`re also awaiting another case that could legalize same-sex marriage nationwide or not. We`re waiting another case that could ban the way that states kill their prisoners now by lethal injection. That`s all just in the next few months. I mean, the Supreme Court is always important and the president`s choices around who they would put on the Supreme Court are among the most important criteria we have when it comes to choosing a president. Now, for example, we with know that Jeb Bush would have liked the guy named Peter T. Fay for the Supreme Court. OK. But our Supreme Court right now has on its plate an unusually large number of really, really consequential cases, all of which are going to get heard in the next few weeks and decided in the next few months. And because of that, the opportunity to hear from one of the justices of the Supreme Court, the opportunity to talk to one of the justices about that work and how they are approaching it, and how they feel about politics right now, an opportunity to do that, that`s a big deal and a very rare opportunity. And so, without further adieu, I cheer by declare you should stay where you are for just a second, because Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court justice, is the interview right here, next. MADDOW: OK. Just ahead, our exclusive interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the 81-year-old justice on her health, her legacy, on women`s rights, on abortion rights on President Obama and her relationship with him and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on tattoos. It turns out she has strong opinions on tattoos. Our interview with Justice Ginsburg is next. Not to be missed. MADDOW: April 2009, President Obama had just been in office for a little more than three months. We`re just starting to get his feet wet as a brand new president, when all of a sudden it became red alert time inside the White House. News leaked to NPR reporter Nine Totenberg that Supreme Court Justice David Souter was about to retire. David Souter at the time was only 69 years old, which is still quite young for a Supreme Court justice. But NPR got this scoop that he was leaving the court and Barack Obama, just three months into being President Barack Obama, he is faced with one of those "this is not a drill" moments. Right? Think about that for a second. Your president, you have only been president three months but you alone get to nominate the next member of the United States Supreme Court, who will then serve for life. A few weeks after that, brand new President Barack Obama announced his choice would be Sonia Sotomayor, a federal judge from New York City. Here`s how Sonia Sotomayor described getting that call. She said this, quote, "I had my cell phone in my right hand and I had my left hand over my chest trying to calm my beating heart literally. The president got on the phone and said to me, `Judge, I would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.` I caught my breath, started to cry and said, `Thank you, Mr. President.`" Sonia Sotomayor was President Obama`s first Supreme Court appointment but not his last. About a year later, when Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement, President Obama nominated former Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Steven seat on Supreme Court. Some presidents don`t even get one Supreme Court appointment during their time in office. President Obama has so far had two. And one big, sometimes awkward question that has lingered over the final two years of his presidency is whether he`s going to get another pick as well. The oldest serving member of the Supreme Court right now is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She is 81 years old. She was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 after a career that included founding the Women`s Rights Project at the ACLU. She was the second woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court after Sandra Day O`Connor. And all the speculation all of the time now when it comes to Ruth Bader Ginsburg is how much longer does she intend to serve? And when you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg in that way, right, as 81 years old, somebody who survived a number of health scares, including more than one bout with cancer, it seems like a logical question to ask. But then you hear her speak and then you look at her opinions on the latest cases decided by the court, and you realize that, yes, 81 years of age, but you know what? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not only still on top of her game, she might be at the height of her game right now. My MSNBC colleague Irin Carmon sat down with Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Supreme Court, which was itself a feat. Supreme Court justices do not send for many interviews. And what Irin got from her was a wide-ranging fascinating interview that included that magic question, how much longer do you plan to keep doing this? Watch. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) IRIN CARMON, MSNBC NATIONAL REPORTER: I know that you have no intention of retiring -- correct me if I am wrong -- anytime soon. But I`m wondering what you want your successor to look like. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: My successor will be the choice of whatever president is sitting at that time. I`m concerned about doing the job full steam. And I said many times, once I sense that I am slipping, I will step down, because this is a very intense job. It is by far the best and hardest job I have ever had. And it takes a lot of energy and staying power to do it right. I will step down when I feel I can no longer do the job full steam. CARMON: A lot of people worry about your health. They want to know, are you cancer-free? How is your health? GINSBURG: I had my first cancer bout in 1999. That was colorectal cancer. And it was a challenge. It was massive surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, the whole works. Then I was fine for 10 years, and then in 2009, tiny tumor in my pancreas was detected, very early. And I had surgery for that. So, that`s 2009, and now it is 2015. The most recent episode occurred when I was with my personal trainer. And suddenly, my chest felt so constricted. And I broke out in a sweat. I was overwhelmingly nauseous. So I said, "Well, I stayed up all night last night writing an opinion. So I`m just exhausted. I`ll rest for awhile." I was very stubborn. It was a blocked right coronary artery. As soon as they put this stent in, I was awake during the procedure, groggy, but still awake. As soon as the stent was in place, I was fine. No more constriction in my chest. CARMON: Other than that, your health -- GINSBURG: Other than that -- CARMON: -- is OK? GINSBURG: -- it`s fine. CARMON: When you were fighting for women`s rights in the `70s, what did you think 2015 would look like? What`s the unfinished business that we have, when it comes to gender equality? GINSBURG: Our goal in the `70s was to end the closed door era. There were so many things that were off limits to women, policing, firefighting, mining, piloting planes. All those barriers are gone. And the stereotypical view of people of a world divided between home and child caring women and men as breadwinners, men representing the family outside the home, those stereotypes are gone. So we speak of parent -- rather than mother and wage earner rather than male breadwinner. That job was an important first step. What`s left, what`s still with us and harder to deal with is what I call unconscious bias. CARMON: You`ve been a champion of reproductive freedom. How does it feel when you look across the country and you see states passing restrictions that make it inaccessible if not technically illegal? GINSBURG: Inaccessible to poor women. It`s not true that it`s inaccessible to women of means. And that`s -- that`s the crying shame. We will never see a day when women of means are not able to get a safe abortion in this country. There are states -- take the worst case. Suppose Roe v. Wade is overruled. There will still be a number of states that will not go back to old ways. CARMON: Well, now there`s lots of legislative activity, right? And it`s mostly in the direction of shutting down clinics, creating new barriers-- GINSBURG: Yes. But -- CARMON: -- in front of women. GINSBURG: Who does that -- who does that hurt? It hurts women who lack the means to go someplace else. The situation with abortion right now -- all the restrictions, they operate against the woman who doesn`t have freedom to move, to go where she is able to get safely what she wants. CARMON: You mentioned if Roe v. Wade is overturned, how close are we to that? GINSBURG: This court is highly precedent bound. It could happen but I think it`s not a likely scenario. The court has an opportunity to do that some years ago. And they said in an opinion known as Casey that they would not depart from the precedent they had set. They did more than that. They gave a reason, a rationale that was absent in Roe v. Wade itself. Roe v. Wade was as much about a doctor`s right to practice his profession as he sees fit. And the image was the doctor and a little woman standing together. We never saw the woman alone. The Casey decision recognized that this is not as much about a doctor`s right to practice his profession, but about a woman`s right to control her life destiny. I don`t want to make any predictions, but precedent is important in this court. (END VIDEOTAPE) MADDOW: We will have more of this exclusive interview with Justice Ginsburg next. Please stay with us. MADDOW: We`re back now with more from our sit-down interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg does not do many interviews but she spoke with MSNBC`s own Erin Carmon about a wide range of issues. She spoke at length about women`s rights and abortion rights, some of which you just heard. She also had a stinging critique of the dysfunction of our current Congress, which you will hear in just a moment. But she also entertained a little lightning round. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CARMON: I wonder, Justice, if you could give me just one word that comes to mind when I say a few things. Just a fun little game. President Obama. GINSBURG: Well, let`s say, symphatie. That`s a French word. It means more than sympathetic. It means someone who cares about other people. CARMON: Citizens United. GINSBURG: Wrong. CARMON: Chief Justice Roberts. GINSBURG: Most able chief. CARMON: Hobby Lobby. GINSBURG: Wrong again. (LAUGHTER) CARMON: You have been dismayed by the court`s ruling on women`s rights. GINSBURG: Not all together. Think of the case of the girl who was strip searched. She was in the 8th grade. If you saw the difference between the oral argument and what some of my colleagues thought, the boys in the gym, Oh, the boys in the gym, they-- they undress and nobody thinks anything of it." CARMON: That was a case in which you changed their minds is what it looks like. GINSBURG: Yes. So, as we live, we can learn. It`s important to listen. So I`m very glad that case came out as it did. CARMON: I`m looking at something you wrote in 2003. You said the stain of generations of racial oppression is still visible in our society. I`m wondering how you see the current state of race relations in our country. GINSBURG: People who think you can wave a magic wand and the legacy of the past will be over are blind. Think of neighborhood living patterns. We still have many neighborhoods that are still racially identified. We still have many schools -- even though the days of state-enforced segregation are gone, segregation because of geographical boundaries remains. CARMON: The court`s taken a look at some major civil rights laws in the past. You`ve dissented on the Voting Rights case. There`s been several Title 7 cases, that seem to be chipping away a lot of the legislation that was passed during the civil rights era. Should we be worried that all of those great achievements of the Civil Rights Movement are being rolled back? GINSBURG: The Congress in 1991 took a look at some of this court`s restrictive interpretations of Title 7. And they passed a bill that changed -- changed all of those. At the moment, our Congress is not functioning very well. (LAUGHTER) CARMON: Yes. GINSBURG: I mean, for example, the Voting Rights Act was renewed by overwhelming majorities on both sides of the aisle. But the current Congress is -- not equipped really to do anything. Someday, we will go back to having the kind of legislature that we should, where members, whatever party they belong to, want to make the thing work and cooperate with each other -- with each other to see that that will happen. I mean, it was that way in 1992 when I was -- when I was nominated for this good job. There were only three negative votes. And my hope and expectation is that we will get back to that kind of bipartisan spirit. CARMON: And when the time comes, what would you like to be remembered for? GINSBURG: Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability and to help repair tears in her society, to do something as my colleague David Souter would say outside of myself. I have much more satisfaction for the things I have done for which I was not paid. (END VIDEOTAPE) MADDOW: Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability and to help repair tears in her society. Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I want to show you one more exchange from this interview. As you may be aware, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has achieved sort of a cult following online. There`s a Tumblr dedicated to her, complete with Notorious R.B.G. t-shirts and all sorts of Notorious R.B.G. and R.B.G.-themed Internet memes. They`re even, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I kid you not, tattoos that have popped up here and there across the country. Erin Carmon, God bless her, asked Ruth Bader Ginsburg about people getting Ruth Bader Ginsburg tattoos. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARMON: I wanted to -- I wondered -- have you -- GINSBURG: I saw that. And I thought it was -- I thought it was a joke. I thought it was something you pasted onto your arm. But I -- I`m a little distressed that people are really doing that. CARMON: Distressed why? GINSBURG: Because why would you make something that can`t be removed on yourself? I mean, it`s one thing to make holes, and -- that you can use or not. My granddaughter for awhile was wearing a nose ring. Now, she`s not anymore. But a tattoo you can`t remove. CARMON: Well, I think it`s because they admire you, that`s why. This is the second tattoo I`m aware of. The other one has a picture of you. And it says, "Respect the bench." GINSBURG: Well, that`s a nice sentiment. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: My face, that`s very distressing. Respect the bench -- yes, that`s a nice sentiment. Amazing. Huge thanks and huge, huge congratulations to Erin Carmon for getting this great interview and for letting us debut it here. Erin is going to be on "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL" in the next hour with more on the interview and we are going to be posting the whole unedited thing, the complete enchilada online. Great get by Erin. Great interview. All right. We still got a lot of other news tonight, including this - - which is the kind of thing that`s never good news. But at least today, it did happen in the middle of a giant snowstorm. That made it better in terms of the huge fire ball but worst in terms of first responders getting there. That`s ahead. Stay with us. MADDOW: Today was a big day for snow and ice all around huge swaths of the country. But in one corner of America, this is a day for snow, and ice and fire. Flames reaching hundreds of feet in to the air, a great roiling column of fire. Reporters calling in to this area today trying to find eyewitnesses to tell them what was going on. Reporters said they could hear the flames roaring, even over the phone while people tried to describe what it was that they were seeing. We`re going to be talking to somebody who was there, talking with an eyewitness right after this. Stay with us. MADDOW: So, early this afternoon, about 1:30 local time, a 109-car freight train carrying Bakken crude oil from North Dakota went off the rails near Mount Carbon, West Virginia. It`s about 30 miles outside West Virginia`s capital city of Charleston. Following the derailment, there were multiple large explosions. We have reports one home was destroyed. Other homes may have also caught fire. The railroad, CSX, says one person suffered an inhalation injury from the fire. They have evacuated hundreds of people so far, anybody within a half mile of the derailment and subsequent explosion. We also have reports that at least one train car end up in the Kanawha River, and that some of the crude oil carried by the train has gone in to the river. These local towns around here drink from that river. And tonight, they have shut down their water intakes in an effort not to send the crude oil and toxins from the spill in to people`s showers and kitchen faucets. Now, where this crash happened today, it isn`t in a middle of a big city or anything, but it`s also not also in the middle of nowhere. There were a lot of people who witnessed what happened, a lot of people who took photos and video of the aftermath and flames, people who talked to reporters about what they saw. Now, I want you to watch this from a local news crew from WSAZ, which is the NBC affiliate there. Their crew is interviewing man about what he saw when the derailment happened, and it`s burning in the background. But then watch what happens as they talk to him. This is incredible. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re standing down on the river bank when we saw the train or a car explode and it shot up a mushroom cloud about as high as those, like that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you get a picture of that? Man, that`s high. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Incredible footage from WSAZ in West Virginia. "Reuters" is reporting tonight that nine or ten of the cars on the train exploded at intervals of a half an hour. Again, this is not in the middle of nowhere, right? People live quite near the railroad tracks and those explosions today. One local resident named Ruthie Willis Collins took this video from the vantage point of the Catholic Church in Boomer, West Virginia. I mean, you can see people live along these tracks where this happened. A reporter for "The Charleston Daily Mail" today pointed out that this new crash and this explosion today happened on the same train line as the crash of another train last year over the state line in Virginia. Same line, same route, same tracks, same kind of trains. That train that blew up in Lynchburg, Virginia, last year was also carrying Bakken crude oil from North Dakota, along the same line heading for the same storage facility that was April last year when that oil train derailed and exploded and sent those rail cars and 20,000 gallons of crude into that river in Virginia. Now, it`s West Virginia. We have seen a long lengthening strain of exploding oil trains. I mean, just in recent history, right? There`s the runaway oil train that crashed and exploded and killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic in Canada in 2013. Few months later, most of Castleton, North Dakota, fled the explosion when oil train crashed and exploded there. There was that crash in Lynchburg, Virginia last year. There was that crash today along the same line in West Virginia. The federal government has been considering new standards for older tanker cars to try to make them safer. But even if those new standards get approved, the rollout is expected to take 20 years. Meanwhile, in places like West Virginia, reporters have been asking for information about the oil trains that have been moving through their communities. The state so far has refused to let reporters look at that information, but you know what? Every once in a while, it is hard to keep the information under wraps because every once in a while, an oil train goes off like a giant bomb in the middle of places where people live and that is something that everybody can see. Joining us is Randy Fitzwater. He`s a resident of Boomer, West Virginia. He lives very close to where the trains went off the tracks today. This is the view from his house today in Boomer. Mr. Fitzwater, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate you being with us. RANDY FITZWATER, BOOMER, WEST VIRGINIA (via telephone): Thank you for calling. MADDOW: So, what did you hear and see earlier when this train derailed? FITZWATER: Well, my wife and I were sitting in the living room talking. We heard a sound that sounded like sounded like commercial jet airliner engine over our house. And that lasted a few seconds and then we heard giant explosion. And I got up and went to the window and could see the fire ball across the river. You are looking at my front yard in that video. And I thought it was an airliner that crashed. So, I told my wife to call 911. She tried to call 911 but got a busy signal on the first call and called back and said, my husband thinks there`s an airline crash. The 911 attendant said, well, no, it is a train derailment. We have had some other calls. MADDOW: Mr. Fitzwater, how close is your house to where this actually happened today? FITZWATER: Just right across the Kanawha River. We`re on one side and the fire is directly across from us. Probably, maybe a quarter mile. MADDOW: OK. Do you see these types of oil trains go through that area and go down that line frequently? FITZWATER: Frequently, yes. Primarily coal and oil on those tracks and there are some chemical cars that travel it, as well. MADDOW: Mr. Fitzwater were you evacuated at all or have you been given advice on what you should do because you are so close to where this happened today? FITZWATER: Well, there was an evacuation put forth for Boomer and my wife is disabled and hard for us to get out and we are in the middle of one of the biggest snowfalls we have had in quite sometime. I just made the decision I didn`t think it was necessary to leave. We stayed here at the house. Luckily, we`re OK. MADDOW: Randy Fitzwater in Boomer, West Virginia -- well, good luck to you and your wife. Ands thanks for helping us understand what this was like today. I appreciate it, sir. FITZWATER: Thank you. MADDOW: Thank you. I want to bring in now Marcus Constantino. He`s a multimedia reporter for "The Charleston Daily Mail", which is a great paper. He`s at the scene of the derailment now and has been speaking to witnesses. Mr. Constantino, thanks for joining us. MARCUS CONSTANTINO, CHARLESTON DAILY MAIL (via telephone): Yes, thank you. Here at the scene, I`m 500 feet away from the train. It`s still burning into the night. You can see flames still shooting out from a couple of the oil train cars across the river. First responders, firefighters arrived on the scene about an hour ago. The flames have been really too intense for them to do anything, you know, up until recently, so they`re looking at the train right now, and there`s still no indication on when this fire could be out or how much of that crude oil has seeped into the Kanawha River. MADDOW: Two questions that I have been looking for answers to tonight that you may know but I haven`t been able to find. One, do they know how many of the tanker cars have blown up or burned? And do they know what caused the derailment? CONSTANTINO: I`m not sure exactly how many exploded, burned up. Just looking at the scene, it looks like maybe 10 to 12 tankers are just sitting in a burning heap on the other side of the Kanawha River. And at press time today, we had not yet heard from CSX about the cause of the accident. I have heard that the engineer was injured, but he is doing fine. MADDOW: Marcus Constantino, multimedia reporter for "The Charleston Daily Mail -- thanks for being out there covering this in this difficult weather and difficult circumstances tonight. Appreciate having you here, sir. Thank you. CONSTANTINO: Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: All right. We`ve got much more ahead, including a needed best new thing in the world. Please do stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUBTITLE: Today at the TRMS production meeting -- MADDOW: Rand Paul went to Baylor, dropped in Texas, went to Baylor, didn`t graduate, but was admitted to Duke Med School anyway, because Duke has a loophole where you can test in with appropriate college credits, even if you didn`t graduate. STEVEN BENNEN, MADDOWBLOG WRITER: Not anymore. MADDOW: What`s that? BENNEN: Not anymore. They dropped that, after Rand Paul graduated. Seriously. MADDOW: Did they say why they dropped it? BENEN: I can look into it, but I don`t know. MADDOW: OK. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So, earlier tonight in the show, we played much of Irin Carmon`s interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the whole interview was great, and we`re posting the whole thing online. And we are excited to have debut here tonight. I have to tell you, though, there was one part of the interview that was so good that we had to save it for best new thing in the world. Started with a question from Erin about falling asleep, Asking Justice Ginsburg about falling asleep during the State of the Union this year, and her admission that a glass of wine that she had ahead of the speech might have been the culprit for why she nodded off. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARMON: I`ve got to ask you, by the way, everybody`s talking about the State of the Union. GINSBURG: Yes. CARMON: They`re saying you said yesterday that you were not 100 percent sober. (LAUGHTER) GINSBURG: Oh, what I meant was that I head a glass of wine with dinner, and that on top of having stayed up all night. I was writing something. And -- CARMON: So, you`re a bit of a lightweight, as we call it? GINSBURG: I said -- I thought to myself, "Don`t stay up all night." But then my pen was hot. And so, I couldn`t -- I couldn`t stop what I was doing. And then (INAUDIBLE) just drink sparkling water, no wine. But the dinner was so good. And it needed to be complemented. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: What`s more important here, the main reason she fell asleep was because she had been up all night writing the night before. She says, my pen was hot. So, I can`t stop when the pen catches fire. So, one, she was up all night burning up the pages. Two, she was going to stick to sparkling water at her pre-State of the Union dinner, but the food was so good at dinner, it deserved -- no, it demanded to be complemented with some fine wine. And when a meal demands to be complemented, Justice Ginsburg honors that demand. And that was all before we found out who was to blame for not keeping her awake during the president`s speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GINSBURG: That`s a tradition that we have dinner together before the State of the Union. It`s usually Justice Kennedy who brings in a good California wine. CARMON: Mm-hmm. David Souter, when he was on the court, he sat next to me. We do everything in seniority order. So -- and he was sensitive to my -- well, he couldn`t -- he could sense when I was beginning -- my head was beginning to lower. So, he would give me a pinch. Now, my colleagues -- I think they`re more reluctant. CARMON: Who was sitting next to you? GINSBURG: I have Justice Breyer on one side, Justice Kennedy on the other. And they gave me a little jab, but it wasn`t -- wasn`t enough. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So, little known fact, David Souter, best known for being a surprisingly moderate Supreme Court justice for nearly two decades. We now also know that he was Justice Ginsburg`s official pincher. That he would pinch her when she would start to fall asleep at speeches. And learning that, come on, that`s the best new thing in the world. May we all have official pinchers when we need them. Also, Justice Kennedy, step up. Come on. That does it for us tonight. We will see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL". Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021601cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 74 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 16, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 16, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Irin Carmon, Ari Melber GUESTS: Phyllis Bennis, Jill Filipovic, James Traub, Asra Nomani, Irin Carmon, Jill Filipovic, Dianna Hunt SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7515 words HIGHLIGHT: The Egyptian military struck back against Islamic State. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Rachel, rumor has it that you are Chris Matthews` official pincher during State of the Union addresses. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Any truth to that? You want to -- RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: Not during the State of the Union but other times. O`DONNELL: OK. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Well, today, the Egyptian military struck back against Islamic State. And it was day four on the American sniper trial. Irin Carmon will join me later with her exclusive interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And Lorne Michaels will talk about the 40 amazing years of "Saturday Night Live". (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A dramatic escalation of Egypt`s role in the battle against ISIS. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The first time it`s taken military action against the militant group. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It follows the release of a video showing ISIS terrorists executing nearly two dozen Egyptian Christians. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In Denmark tonight, two men are under arrest, suspected of aiding the gunmen in a pair of deadly terror shootings. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Danish nation is strong, and we will not accept any attempt to threaten or intimidate our liberties. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This latest terror attack comes as our Department of Homeland Security runs out of money in just 12 days. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We cannot cut funding for the Department of Homeland Security. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: One more time, the House has done its job under the Constitution. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what if the Department of Homeland Security funding runs out? BOEHNER: Well, then, Senate Democrats should be to blame, very simple. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you`re prepared to let that happen? BOEHNER: Certainly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A disaster unfolding right now in snow-bound West Virginia. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A single CSX train car went off the tracks causing a massive explosion. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jurors watched a videotaped confession from the man accused of killing American sniper Chris Kyle. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Routh has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Punishing snow, brutal wind and dangerous ice brought much of the South to a stand still today. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re in South Boston. You see the mound behind me, 100 feet high. The excavators and the backhoes are pushing the snow back. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Haven`t been the best for business, but the kids have fun, and everybody gets to take a break. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes, yes, yes! We got it, baby! We got it! Woo! (SINGING) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Forty years of comedy and pop culture packed into a three and a half hour show. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And today, everyone is sharing their favorite moment. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A dramatic escalation of Egypt`s role in the battle against ISIS. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Punishing snow, brutal wind and dangerous ice brought much of the South to a standstill today. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what if the Department of Homeland Security funding runs out? BOEHNER: Well, then Senate Democrats should be to blame. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: After the Islamic state in Libya released a video last night, showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians, tonight, a Libyan newspaper is reporting that some 35 Egyptian farm workers have been kidnapped by the Islamic State in Libya. Earlier today, the Egyptian military launched air strikes against Islamic State in Libya in retaliation for the beheadings. In Denmark, police continued to investigate Saturday`s terrorist attack. In Copenhagen, earlier today, Danish police said they arrested two men suspected of helping the 22-year-old Muslim gunman who attacked a meeting on free speech, killing a filmmaker and then later attacked a synagogue, killing a Jewish guard before he was killed by police. Tonight, President Obama spoke to the Danish prime minister who said today that there was, quote, "no indication that the gunman in Saturday`s attack was affiliated with a terrorist cell or the Islamic State. Here`s more from the prime minister today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HELLE THORNING-SCHMIDT, PRIME MINISTER OF DENMARK: I want to underline that this is not a conflict between Islam and the West. This is not a conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. This is a conflict between the core values of our society and violent extremists. (ENBD VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, Jill Phillipovich. JILL FILIPOVIC: Filipovic. O`DONNELL: Filipovic. You`d think we rehearsed this. Jill Filipovic, senior political writer for Cosmopolitan.com. James Traub, weekly columnist for "Foreign Policy" magazine. And Asra Nomani, and journalist and author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman`s Struggle for the Soul of Islam." Asra, your reaction to the events in Denmark this weekend? ASRA NOMANI, JOURNALIST: Well, I watched a video of the sad burning of the Jordanian pilot earlier this month. And last night, I watched the video, every second of it, of the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. And while people may say that these are actions and the actions in Copenhagen are part of a network, there is a network of ideology that is fueling this kind of violence. It`s very clear that these men who are acting in the name of Islam are using the theology of the Koran and the Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. But something else, Lawrence, is happening. If viewers think they`re in the twilight zone, it does feel a little like that. These folks are literally chasing the apocalypse. They are chasing their vision of eschatology or the belief of what end times should look like. The video of the Coptic Christians beheading was just filled with so many symbols and signals from Islamic theology, from the return of Jesus praying behind the Muslim messiah, to so many other accounts, that we have to be very clear that the danger we have before us is very real and of a kind that we have to take very seriously. O`DONNELL: James Traub, your article on "Foreign Policy" is entitled "The World War Inside Islam", and you say this is a war inside a non- Western civilization that has overtaken and consumed the West. JAMES TRAUB, FOREIGN POLICY: Well, yes. And I think when you think about the Danes, you know, or any of the countries where this has happened in the West, you ask yourself, what can they do? And you think about what Asra said, this is an apocalyptic theology. And so, the idea that the West can, in some say, cure that, in the way that in the Cold War, we were able to project positive images of capitalism and win an ideological war. This is an ideological war also, but it`s inside Islam. And so, there`s a great deal that Denmark is going to have to do, and France is going to have to do, and the United States is now doing. Those are defensive actions they have to perform. But I think the only way this is going to end is by some sort of change, either in Islamic regimes or in Islam itself. And that`s not going to happen any time soon. O`DONNELL: Phyllis, your reaction? PHYLLIS BENNIS, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: I think it`s true there is an ideological and religious basis to this crisis. But I think it`s important that we understand that many of the people who are followers here are not theologians. They`re not theologically experienced in this. I would imagine that this 22-year-old kid in Copenhagen who is apparently responsible for the shootings knows nothing about the eschatology, about the ideological differences between what are the standards of ISIS versus al Qaeda. He was in prison until very, very recently. He was radicalized very quickly by some preacher who had access to the prison. This is not someone who is reflecting a different reading of the Koran than he learned earlier. This is somebody going after the violence. So, I think when we talk about what can we do, we have to get away from the idea that we can somehow bomb extremism out of existence. You can`t do that. You can bomb extremists, you can kill people, but that creates more. And instead, I think what we have to do is deal with the circumstances that lead other people to think that this sort of atrocity is somehow not such a bad idea. That`s something that can be done. TRAUB: I think that`s a very important point. The thing that European countries -- it hasn`t happened in the U.S. so much, it may -- I mean, we can talk about why it hasn`t so far. But France and Denmark and other countries are going to have to do is how do we distinguish between the kind of police and maybe even in some cases that military actions against that very small number of extremists from doing something about the toxic brew of alienation and anger and embitterment that you find for example in Paris when people go in there. A famous French anthropologist who spent years in Sandini (ph), which is the place near Paris, and the level of embitterment he finds towards Paris, towards France, towards the republican idea, towards the West, towards Jews, is really, really deep among people who are not going to kill somebody. But they are going to be the support mechanism. What do you do about that? BENNIS: Well, one thing, if I could just answer that question, what do you about that? I think we start in places like Iraq where what we do is, for example, stop the Iraqi government, which the U.S. funds, has created arms, stop them from doing things like bombing Sunni communities, which they are still doing, even with the new prime minister who talks the better talk about includivity and that sort of thing. They`re still attacking Sunni communities. There still is a Shia government, not a national government in power that the U.S. is maintaining and arming and perpetuating. As long as that goes forward, the idea that we can somehow both bomb ISIS and expect Sunnis to break with ISIS is simply never going to happen. O`DONNELL: Jill, to Phyllis`s point, there`s been a long discussion, certainly since the Iraq war and since the discovery of no weapons of mass destruction and so forth, that American military actions in the region actually have had a hand in fomenting a lot of this. And there was no Islamic State before this kind of military action. And it`s hard to see where in the Washington policy-making discussions there is any reaction to that possibility. The menu options always seem to be the same. JILL FILIPOVIC, COSMOPOLITAN.COM: Right. Well, no U.S. politician wants to get up and say we`re not popular. O`DONNELL: I know, you can`t come up publicly and say it. But if you stare at the policy choices that they end up advancing and selecting, it`s hard to detect that there`s any conversation going on behind closed doors about that possibility. FILIPOVIC: Right. I mean, one certainly hopes that there is and that conversation is certainly happening in media. But strategically having the U.S. go in and drop more bombs and create more acts of violence, I mean, that`s about the best recruiting mechanism we could offer ISIS right now. That`s why it`s important to have the Arab states leading this right now. And they realized it`s very important, too. It`s not as if ISIS is particularly regionally popular. I think the U.S. taking a back seat on this and offering aid where we can, but really letting folks who frankly have the most at stake and the most to lose lead the effort is probably the smartest thing we can do right now. O`DONNELL: I want to get some of the details of what happened. I want to listen to Lars Vilks who was actually the target when this gunman came in to kill. Let`s listen to his description of what happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LARS VILKS, SWEDISH ARTIST: What happened that day was we were surprised. I mean, it was unbelievable. When things happen, it takes you a few moments before you understand, this is real. This is real. People are shooting. I mean, that`s a strange experience. But this was an occasion which took the police surprise because they, this guy was better equipped than the police. So, he had an advantage. So when he starts shooting there, the police had really nothing to go back with, because they were shooting through glass. And these handguns police had was not very efficient in that firing. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Asra, there has been an expectation that there could be some sort of copycat action somewhere in Europe about ha happened at "Charlie Hebdo" when the cartoonists were assassinated. This seems to have elements of that. NOMANI: Yes, and I`ve been listening very intently to the others, and I have to say that, sure, American foreign policy is littered with all sorts of mistakes and aggression, all, justifiable or not, from Central America to Latin America to Africa, to Japan. You can justify it. You cannot. But I will say that the one remarkable threat that we are seeing here is that copycat action or the act of the Islamic State, there is an ideology that is very much at play here. And what I still see us doing is tap dancing around that very fact. You know last time I came, I brought the Koran. And this time I bring these various copies of the Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. These aren`t just actions occurring because of bombing actions of the U.S., they are occurring because of an ideology that`s happening and spreading through our world. Over the next few days, the Obama administration is going to have the summit on countering violent extremism. It`s dancing around this idea of Islamic ideology. You know, the leader of Denmark is right. We are not at a war with Islam but we are at a war with an interpretation of Islam that wants to destroy us. In that way, we better pay attention, otherwise, we`re really going to end up with troubles here at home also. And I don`t try to put fear into people, but this is a very true reality that we face today. O`DONNELL: We`re going to take a break right there. We`re going to come back on that point. We`ll be back with more on this subject. And also, later, the trial of the real -- the killer of the real American sniper in Texas today. The jury heard the defendant`s confession, his video confession in court. That`s coming up. (VIDEO CLIP PLAYS) O`DONNELL: That was the dramatic scene in West Virginia after a train carrying more than 100 tankers of crude oil derailed today about three miles south of the state capital of Charleston. And at least 14 tankers caught fire, and a few hundred people have been forced to evacuate. At least one of the tankers went into the Kanawha River, upstream from a water treatment plant that provides water for about 2,000 people. That plant had to shut down. The tanker cars were loaded with crude oil from North Dakota. One car plowed into a house which triggered an explosion. So far, only one person has been injured, treated for smoke inhalation. We`ll be right back. O`DONNELL: We`re back with Phyllis Bennis, Jill Filipovic, James Traub and Asra Nomani. Asra, I just want to go back to you on that. You`ve cited the Koran on this program and also you just talking about various things that Muhammad has said, and you approach those things critically, and yet, you are a Muslim woman. How do you balance your faith and your religion with these criticisms you have of these elements of it? NOMANI: Well, I, you know, find kindred spirit in folks like feminists in the Catholic Church and feminists in Mormonism, who challenge the traditional doctrine as I am doing in my own faith. What I ultimately believe is that Islam was brought into the seventh century as a progressive faith. And we need to return to that spirit of progress and basically remove hundreds of years of antiquated interpretations of religion mostly by men, and ones that really are not compatible with the 21st century. So, I am a liberal Muslim. I believe in a school of Islam that we call Islamic feminism, one in which women do not have to cover their hair with a scarf, where women can marry outside of the faith, where you can interact with peace and prosperity, with others of other faiths. And, you know, women can drive cars. I mean, there`s just so many interpretations of Islam that we`ve now inherited into the 21st century that are basically the work of men who want to use religion to suppress women and others. And the Islamic State, is, to me, enemy number one in -- among Muslims like myself who want to have a progressive feminist interpretation of Islam in the world, because we also are their enemy, and, you know, they would as quickly want to remove us from this earth as they would a Coptic Christian or a Jordanian air force pilot. I mean, this is truly a battle within Islam. And the place that others outside of the faith can help us is by having honesty and being very real about the issues. Not giving Islam a pass in the way they wouldn`t their own faiths. O`DONNELL: James, I want to go to what happened with the attack on these Egyptians, and now capture of more Egyptians. This looks like a dynamic that`s going to continue. TRAUB: Right. Here`s my concern. So, Jill rightly said that it`s important that regional powers be part of this, including the military aspect of it. But I actually think that they`re acting even less strategically than the United States. So, you have the Egyptians as well as the Emiratis who decide that there`s a battle between the good guys and the bad guys. The bad guys are called Islamists, the good guys call themselves secular, and the Egyptians and Emiratis have been basically helping the so-called good guys. You know, you`re not going to solve the problem until there`s some kind of political solution where these two sides, neither of whom are going to conquer the other, in some way, get together. And if the local states are going to be giving tremendous military aid to one side, it`s going to keep that conflict bubbling forever. There is a U.N. negotiator whose trying to bring these two sides together. It`s unlikely, it`s not impossible. To me, that`s the big game in Libya right now. BENNIS: I think this is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to be going on in the United States. This is what needs to be happening in Syria. You know, the idea that there were two negotiating processes in Syria that failed. OK. We recognize that. You don`t stop and say well, I guess we can`t do negotiations, we`re just going to start bombing again. Except now we`re not bombing to get Assad out of power, because Assad`s on our side. We`re bombing these guys because they`re the worst ever. A year from now, we`re going to seeing one else, the Khorasan Group. Remember, they were about three days, the Khorasan Group, was we were told, worst than ISIS, and they sort of disappeared, not because they were bombed out of existence, it`s because they weren`t need for the propaganda value. So, we have to get back to saying, what is going to end the war in Syria. That means there has got to be negotiations, there`s got to be diplomacy, and we have to stop using military force that doesn`t work. TRAUB: Do you think the U.S. should actually agree that Assad is going to stay there and work with him? BENNIS: I don`t think it`s up to the U.S. to decide whether Assad goes or stays. That`s up to Syrians. What the U.S. needs to do is to be doing is pushing all of its regional allies and its regional opponents, and its global opponents and allies to start new negotiations over what are the terms of a cease-fire, first local, then national, and then an arms embargo to make it real. O`DONNELL: And we`re out of time on this for tonight. That will have to be THE LAST WORD. Phyllis Bennis, James Traub, Asra Nomani, thank you very much for joining me tonight. BENNIS: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Irin Carmon will join me with more of from her exclusive interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. O`DONNELL: On the day before Valentine`s Day, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Irin Carmon how to keep romance alive. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Perhaps because we married, today would be considered -- rather on the young side, I was 21, Marty was 22. And Marty was an extraordinary person. Of all the boys I had dated, he was the only one who really cared that I had a brain. And he was always -- well, making me feel that I was better than I thought I was. So, we went to law school. And he told everybody, all of his friends, and he-- he was one year ahead of me. His wife was going to be on the Law Review. And people looked at me and said, "She doesn`t look like the type that`s going to be on the Law Review," whatever that type was. And -- but in the -- in the course of a marriage, one accommodates the other. So, for example, when Marty was intent on becoming a partner in a New York law firm in five years, during that time, I was the major caretaker of our home and -- and then -- a child. But when I was -- when I started up the ACLU Women`s Rights Project, Marty realized how important that work was. The kitchen is another story. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now is MSNBC national reporter Irin Carmon. Back with me is political writer for "Cosmopolitan", Jill Filipovic, and co-host of MSNBC`s "THE CYCLE", the man who needs no introduction here, Ari Melber. Irin, congratulations on the big get. And we learned among other things that from this interview that Justice Ginsburg has not cooked dinner since 1980. IRIN CARMON, MSNBC NATIONAL REPORTER: That`s correct. Well, the personal is political here. She`s been up to a lot since 1980. So, one of the things that she told me was that her daughter says we need to save mommy out of the kitchen. O`DONNELL: Yes, and they`ve done that. CARMON: But, you know, behind every great person, you know, is a team of people and, potentially, a partnership that makes it possible for them to devote so much to their work. And I think, you know, even Justice Ginsburg`s personal life speaks to the fact that she was able to sort of achieve everything that she did in the feminist movement. (END VIDEO CLIP) It was a team effort. It involved what is, yes, even still a very egalitarian marriage by today`s standards. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what she said about the big question of just exactly how tipsy was she at the State of the Union Address. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARMON: Everybody`s talking about the State of the Union. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: Yes. CARMON: They`re saying, you said yesterday that you were not a hundred percent sober. GINSBURG: Oh. (LAUGHTER) What I meant was that I had a glass of wine with dinner. And that, on top of having stayed up all night writing something. And -- CARMON: So, you`re a little bit of a lightweight, as we call it. GINSBURG: I said, I thought to myself, "Don`t stay up all night." But then, my pen was hot, and so I couldn`t stop what I was doing. And then I said, "Just drink sparkling water, no wine." But the dinner was so good. (LAUGHTER) And it needed to be complemented. (END VIDEO CLIP)O`DONNELL: Ari Melber has never been a hundred percent sober, so he gets that. (LAUGHTER) He gets that completely. But, Jill, what is this she`s pulling all nighters. I mean, what is this -- over 80. And this is -- this is nuts. JILL FILIPOVIC, COSMOPOLITAN.COM SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER: I mean, she`s a phenomenal woman. And she`s an icon for a reason. And I don`t think any one of us were sober during the State of the Union, so I appreciate -- (LAUGHTER) -- her disclosure. But, I mean, you know, like Irin was touching on, here is this woman who has had a phenomenal career, who has had this whole team of people behind her, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- including a husband, including, you know, a daughter who, you know, pulled her out of the kitchen. You know, she`s now hitting this point where it seems like she`s really -- she`s looking back, she`s realizing, you know, she`s not going to retire before she`s ready. But she does have an opportunity here, as she`s aging, to really start kind of spelling out what she wants her own legacy to look like. And it seems like that`s kind of what this interview was about. It seems like it`s been what several of her other recent interviews have been about when, for years, she was, you know, sort of still quiet about what she was doing on the Court. So, it`s really interesting and, I think, pretty inspiring to see a woman who`s had a career like hers saying, you know, even at 80, "I`m going to go ahead and take control of," you know, "the narrative, of the history of my life." O`DONNELL: Ari, she said she doesn`t expect Roe versus Wade to be overturned. (END VIDEO CLIP) ARI MELBER, MSNBC ANALYST: Yes, she said that. And I thought what was very interesting in her discussion with Irin was her emphasis on the fact that these are not just gender issues, although they come from a history of sexism in her view and something she`s fought on. But they also are class issues. And so, she said that, in situations where women`s rights and women`s health decisions are being encroached upon, often by Republican State legislatures, wealthy women can still travel, leave or arrange some other type of private alternative. And she said this is a class issue, at this point, in our history as much as it is a gender issue. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And, Irin, I was a little Surprised at her, what seemed like confidence, about Roe versus Wade not being overturned. CARMON: Right. I wonder if, in some ways, she`s kind of exhorting her colleagues, -- O`DONNELL: Yes. CARMON: -- she`s kind of playing a long game here and saying, "They would never do something so radical." O`DONNELL: Right. CARMON: The truth is though, that Roe v. Wade will not have to be overturned to make abortion accessible. There`s an incremental strategy that`s happening right now. And the Court is likely to rule on one of these cases that`s coming, so we`re challenging state level restrictions that make abortion inaccessible in a practical sense without making it actually illegal. So, the Court is likely to hear a Texas case. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And, I think, the probably the Justice just doesn`t want to say too much about it. But it really looks like -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- they could overrule Roe in all but name. O`DONNELL: Does she -- is it your feeling that she kind of gets what sort of celebrity she is. I mean, you showed her the tattoos -- CARMON: Uh-hmm. O`DONNELL: -- and she kind of knew about that and talked about it, she felt sorry -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- for the people who were tattooing themselves. (LAUGHTER) CARMON: That`s when she`d get a little Jewish -- O`DONNELL: Yes, yes. Talk about that. CARMON: You know, she is definitely really amused by all of the adulation. But, more importantly, she`s really interested in having a dialogue with young women and encouraging them to take out with energy the same causes that she`s devoted her life to. So, I think she sees this as an opportunity to speak with young women. I wonder whether it`s one reason that she agreed to speak with me because it`s something that I both cover and that, you know, I exemplify in my life. In fact, I`m working on a notorious RBG book. Might I mention, it`s available for pre-order on Amazon. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. CARMON: And so, I think that this is a point where she can say, the Court is so cloistered, you know, because we see so little about what happens outside of the opinions and maybe/or argument. (END VIDEO CLIP) And there aren`t any cameras allowed in there. But here`s an opportunity to talk to people about what can be done in the court and how she is fighting for people who are poor, who are left out of the original Constitution and figuring out how to enlarge our society to make room for other people. O`DONNELL: All right. We`re going to take a break right there and come back with more of this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARMON: So, as you know, I met with your trainer. I interviewed him. GINSBURG: Yes, yes. CARMON: Lovely gentleman. GINSBURG: He said you wouldn`t try out my routine. (LAUGHTER) CARMON: Someday. I mean, I can`t keep up with you, Justice Ginsburg, because I heard you can do 20 push-ups. GINSBURG: Yes, but will do 10 at a time. (LAUGHTER) And then I -- and then I breathe for a bit and do the second set. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: OK, well, I guess, she`s 20 push-ups ahead of me today. (LAUGHTER) CARMON: Yes. To all the people who are saying she`s frail and she should retire, -- O`DONNELL: Right. CARMON: -- see if you can beat that. O`DONNELL: Yes. That`s one of the important things about this interview -- a lot of talk about her health, specific talk about her health -- her problems with cancer, where she is now. And that has been, you know, to put it mildly, grumbling -- loud grumbling in Washington about why doesn`t she get out of the way, so Barack Obama can put -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- someone in, you know. And this is a pretty strong answer to that. CARMON: She has no intention of stepping out of the way. O`DONNELL: Yes, yes. CARMON: I mean, none of us can predict what will happen. O`DONNELL: In fact, all that -- all that talk has stopped. I think she has convinced people, Ari, -- CARMON: Uh-hmm. O`DONNELL: -- she`s not kidding. She`s staying, so you can stop talking about this. MELBER: Yes. I think she wanted to answer that directly. I think what she said, and I know she spoke to Irin about it, is the fact that she, very openly doesn`t think, in the political climate today, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- where this is a criticism of the President or the way the Senate works, that someone like her, an ACLU feminist, would be the likely pick of any Democratic president. She thinks there`s a regression. And I think there`s stats to back that up in terms of how you define what`s an -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- acceptable liberal nominee for the Court. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what she said about how things have changed for her in their deliberations on the Court. And there`s a little bit of sexist stuff there when she started. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARMON: In 2009, you said that, sometimes, you`re in a room with your fellow justices, and you something and no one listens. And then you say it again. Do you still experience sexism. GINSBURG: Yes, less than I wanted to. Once, it happened all the time that I would say something and there was no response. And then a man would say the same thing and people would say, "Good idea." (LAUGHTER) That happens much -- much less today. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And, Jill, I`ve got to think she`s speaking for millions of women out there. (LAUGHTER) FILIPOVIC: Yes. I think a lot of us have experienced that. And I was actually really impressed that she went on record and said that. You know, I, like Irin, talk to a lot of people about sexism they experience. And, I think, a lot of women are really hesitant to say, "I experience sexism in my job now," especially in a venue where their coworkers and their bosses might see it. So, I guess, that`s, you know, one -- one to think about -- O`DONNELL: And we all know -- (LAUGHTER) FILIPOVIC: -- a lifetime appointment. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: -- we all know the names of her coworkers, -- CARMON: Right. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: -- you know. I mean, this is just not -- it`s not some anonymous group she`s talking about. CARMON: I know, she`ll do like initial -- (LAUGHTER) -- M.E.K. Yes. I mean, I think it`s so fascinating because when she was first appointed by Bill Clinton, he actually said she`s going to be -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- neither liberal nor conservative, blah, blah, blah. You heard this a lot. But she actually had a very moderate voting record on the D.C. circuit. And her first few years on the Court, she was not a liberal firebrand. She`s really come out of her shell. (END VIDEO CLIP) She`s become the leader of the liberal wing of the Court. And she`s enjoying now really, like making her voice heard in the way of the ACLU feminist that she was before this. She`s kind of kept that light under a bushel. And, now, she`s saying, "You know what, I`m going to talk about this life I`ve experienced and I`m going to talk about the things that really animate me and that matter to me." O`DONNELL: And, Ari, that kind of evolution on the bench is such a common story in the history of the Court among justices. MELBER: You see that a lot. And what you see now is the Court has become a highly professionalized technocratic Court. These are all people who have been judges used to that. It used to be that we had politicians, governors, other types of individuals who, at least, as one positive, would have had a very clear idea of what they`re willing to fight for. That`s something that politicians have to do. I think, judges have a lot of tools if they want to lay back or be careful. John Roberts, highly careful before he got out of the Supreme Court. FILIPOVIC: Elena Kagan, highly careful. MELBER: Exactly. So, I think she is someone who has used the time, though, in power to speak very clearly. And even when she`s lost some recent cases on civil rights, voting rights, reading her dissents strongly from the bench, trying to speak not only to the American public but, I think, to law students around the country, looking forward to where these cases may go. O`DONNELL: A very special thanks to Irin Carmon for this interview and joining us tonight. Jill Filipovic, thank you. Ari Melber, thank you. MELBER: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Coming up, the murder of the -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- the confession of murder by the man who killed the real "American Sniper," Chris Kyle. (END VIDEO CLIP) A Texas jury heard the confession today of Eddie Ray Routh, a former Marine accused of murdering the real "American Sniper," Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. During the testimony of Texas Ranger Danny Briley, prosecutors introduced the nearly hour-long video of Eddie Ray Routh`s confession the night he was apprehended. The judge has refused to make the audio of the video available to the news media. Before Eddie Ray Routh confesses, he tells Texas Ranger Danny Briley, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "I Keep talking to Chris, you know. There are a few dozen Chrises in the world. I talked to another man named Chris who gets sent to another man named Chris." "I was thinking about talking to the Wolf, you know, the one in the sky. The ones in the sky are the ones that fly, you know what I mean, the pigs in the world." (END VIDEO CLIP) When he finally admits to killing Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield, Eddie Ray Routh says, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "I told my sister I had to kill men today. It wasn`t a want to. It was a need. I had to, get out of that situation today. If I didn`t, I was going to be the next one up there getting my head chopped." (END VIDEO CLIP) Joining me now is Dianna Hunt, who was inside the courtroom today, covering the trial for the "Dallas Morning News." Dianna, one of the points raised about the confession is, does it show that this person is insane, was insane at the time of this incident. How was that evidence delivered today. DIANNA HUNT, DALLAS MORNING NEWS REPORTER: I think it`s -- it was quite a contradictory set of comments from him. He clearly told the ranger he knew that what he had done was wrong. He clearly was exhibiting signs of rather severe mental illness at the time. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) The question is going to be whether the jury believes he was so mentally ill at the time of the killings that he didn`t know what he was doing was wrong. He went back and forth. A couple of times he said, "Yes, I know I was wrong. I know I was wrong." And then, a couple of times, he said, "Well, if I had stayed there, would that have been the right thing to do." So, he clearly was confused about it. We`ll just have to see what the jury thinks." (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And, Dianna, this is the first time that the jury is hearing his voice, isn`t it. HUNT: Yes, it is the first time that they`re hearing his voice. He had kind of a low, gravelly -- he was kind of speaking off the cuff, kind of tossing lots of really random, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- nonsensical stuff. It sounded like complete sentences but it didn`t make any sense. O`DONNELL: A sample of it is, from his confession, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- him saying, "I can`t just keep eating my soul up about this, you know. You can`t just let people keep eating up your soul for free, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- you know. It`s not what it`s about. It`s about having the soul that`s in you, for yourself. I`ve got tons of people eating on my soul right now. Look, I haven`t been able to sleep because I keep waiting for them to come back and take my soul." That`s just one -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- example, Dianna, of what you heard as all over that confession. I assume, both sides, prosecution and defense, think there are benefits to them in that confession. HUNT: Clearly, they do. The investigator, Danny Briley, the Texas Ranger, said, clearly, he knew what he was doing was wrong. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) He confessed to the killing. He wanted to apologize to the family. He said, "If I could talk to the family, I would tell them I`m sorry for what I`ve done," that, "if I could do it over, I could do -- I would do it differently." But, then again, he also went -- said they were stealing and that he had to kill them before they killed him. It was a very contradictory tape. I think it probably offered help to both the prosecution and the defense. O`DONNELL: Dianna Hunt, thanks for joining me again tonight. HUNT: Thank you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Coming up, Lorne Michaels, the man who everyone thanked last night for 40 years "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE," tells Matt Lauer how he does it. (END VIDEO CLIP) A new poll shows presidential hopeful, Chris Christie`s approval numbers in his home state of New Jersey are at a record low. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) A new Rutgers Eagleton poll has Governor Christie`s job approval among New Jersey voters at 42 percent approve and 52 percent disapprove. And only 37 have a favorable opinion of Governor Christie, and 53 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the governor. (END VIDEO CLIP) Lorne Michaels, in his own words, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE MYERS, ACTOR: Number two, Lorne Michaels. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) What can be said about Lorne Michaels that he himself has not already said -- (LAUGHTER) -- about himself. (LAUGHTER) I mean, the man is a genius. For 40 years, -- DANA CARVEY, ACTOR: Minus five. MYERS: Yes. (LAUGHTER) He would say things like, "OK, we`re going to lick all the laugh. But did it get the right laugh." (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: The "SATUDAY NIGHT LIVE" 40th Anniversary Special was seen by more than 23 million people, making it NBC`s highest primetime entertainment special in 10 years. Matt Lauer talked to Lorne Michaels, Creator and Executive Producer of "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE." (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MATT LAUER, NBC HOST: You oversee this show literally and figuratively. LORNE MICHAELS, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" CREATOR AND EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Yes, totally, yes. LAUER: Figuratively but, literally, your office -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- is right up there. MICHAELS: Yes, well, the first -- (END VIDEO CLIP) three days, Monday to -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- Wednesday, we`re up on the 17th floor. (LAUGHTER) That`s where the writing is done and, mostly, early production. And then, we move down here on Thursday, and then it gets fairly intense Friday night late because you`re locking in the show and changes are still coming in. And then the host, very often, is filming until 5:00 in the morning, and might have started at 6:00 in the morning that day, filming something else. (END VIDEO CLIP) It`s always sort of coming together. LAUER: I`ve worked in this building for 22 years, not as long as you, but a long time. So, I`ve heard a lot of Lorne Michaels story. MICHAELS: I bet, yes. (LAUGHTER) LAUER: OK. And I`ve heard a lot of words associated with you. I`m going to throw a couple of them at you. MICHAELS: Sure. LAUER: Give me a yes or no, -- MICHAELS: All right. LAUER: -- OK. Youthful, -- (LAUGHTER) -- handsome, youthful. MICHAELS: Yes. I`ve heard those. LAUER: Creative. MICHAELS: Yes, yes. Creative, yes, yes, sure. LAUER: Powerful. MICHAELS: Inevitably, now, yes. Yes. LAUER: Controlling. MICHAELS: Controlling, you know, sort of has a negative context. I`d say in-charge. I think people have to know who`s in charge because -- and everyone has to have a direct route to you. You know, pretty much, I talk to everyone. And that`s -- and then I listen, I absorb it. But, at some point, you make a decision and then you move on. LAUER: Unflappable. MICHAELS: Calm, yes. LAUER: Yes? MICHAELS: Yes. LAUER: The other word that I hear a lot -- MICHAELS: Uh-huh. LAUER: -- used with you that surprises me -- MICHAELS: Uh-huh. LAUER: -- is serious. MICHAELS: I`m a serious guy, yes, but I`m also -- nothing makes me happier -- Steve Martin and I -- he called yesterday and he was going over the jokes, the monologue, and I was so happy laughing because you get -- you can get lost in detail. And then you go, "Oh, right, that`s the reason we`re all here," is we`re going to make people laugh. And that generally starts with you laughing yourself. And that`s joy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHEVY CHASE, ACTOR: Live from New York, it`s "SATURDAY NIGHT." (APPLAUSE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE-OVER: Joy that began 40 years ago with a cast that reads like a who`s who of comedy, Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Jane Curtin, Gilda Radner, Lorraine Newman and Garrett Morris. (END VIDEO CLIP) LAUER: I always think that when you plant that seed and those roots take hold -- MICHAELS: Uh-huh. LAUER: -- from that first season, that that`s the foundation. Was that first group of people that you put together the reason we`re sitting here 40 years later. MICHAELS: Oh, no question. The show stands on their -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- shoulders. They were, them and the designers, the -- you know, the musicians, every aspect of the taste of the show came from really, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- you know, seriously creative people. LAUER: It`s hard to gather and get your arms around those egos. How did you manage it. MICHAELS: I think that there was a sort of pseudo-egalitarian aspect to the show, which was, part of that was the `70s. And part of it was, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- you need the others. Everyone, we were all working together. It wasn`t fair. Sometimes, you cut someone`s piece, and they`d -- they`d think there`s a bias or they`d -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- but, mostly, everybody understood that I was just trying to go for the best show possible each week. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAUER: It`s well-documented that a couple of the brightest stars of this show, in the past, -- MICHAELS: Uh-huh. LAUER: -- flamed out -- MICHAELS: Yes. LAUER: -- tragically. MICHAELS: Yes. LAUER: When they did, did you take it personally. (END VIDEO CLIP) MICHAELS: No, because, you know, the weirdest part about this show is you`re just here. And you don`t much leave the building except to go home. So, when people go away or people go to Hollywood or leave the show, you stay in touch. But, mostly, they come back. And you see them or -- but they were in a different world then, so -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- when John died, he was -- he had gone three years, you know, so it`s a different -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- power structure out there. Here, it`s a very clear thing of we have a job to do, we have to get it done. LAUER: So, do you think, in some ways, leaving that structure, that power structure here was the biggest problem? MICHAELS: Yes, and I think structure is incredibly important to creative people. I think boundaries and structure have to exist. LAUER: Does it ever bug you when people take a nostalgic view of the show. In other words, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- you hear people say a lot, -- MICHAELS: Yes. LAUER: -- "Oh, the cast today is not like -- MICHAELS: Oh, yes, yes. LAUER: -- the cast it was when I was in college." MICHAELS: Yes. LAUER: Or, "when I graduated from college." MICHAELS: Right. LAUER: We all have kind of a sweet spot -- MICHAEL: Right. LAUER: -- where we view the show. Does it bug you. (END VIDEO CLIP) MICHAELS: No, not at all. I think that, generally, when people talk about the best cast, I think, well, that`s when they were high school. Because, in high school, you have the least amount of power you`re ever going to have. You don`t get to drive, you don`t have any money. Staying up with friends late on a Saturday is great. And people attach to a cast. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAUER: Do you worry about your legacy. Do you -- MICHAELS: No. I think the thing about -- the moment you begin to, first of all, talk about yourselves in the third person or begin to think about where you are or worry about where your museum is going to go, you know, I think it`s just a major art of the game. And I love the game too much. And why would you want to leave the game if you`re good at it. When you`re no longer good at it, then you disagree for a while and then, -- (LAUGHTER) -- gradually, you will leave. LAUER: So, you`d segue perfectly into the last question, which is, you`re here on the 40th Anniversary, -- MICHAELS: Yes. LAUER: -- will you be here on the 45th Anniversary. MICHAELS: Yes. I would expect so, yes. LAUER: So, we end with the best headline we could have. You`ll be here for the 45th. (LAUGHTER) LOAD-DATE: February 17, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021601cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 75 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 17, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS for February 17, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Ayman Mohyeldin, Page Hopkins, Robert Gibbs, Maria Teresa Kumar, Jonathan Capehart GUESTS: Robert Grenier, John Brabender, Seth Shostak, Jackie Kucinich SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8480 words HIGHLIGHT: ISIS burns 45 Iraqi Sunnis alive after confining them in a truck. A group of anonymous Clinton allies uses the newspaper "The Hill" to launch a war against David Axelrod. Last night, a federal judge down in Texas temporarily blocked part of President Obama`s executive actions on immigration; and then, today, the administration announced it will delay carrying out the executive orders. Democrats think they can win back the U.S. Senate in 2016, and to do that, they`re trying to lure back names back into the political arena for comeback bids. CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: The terror rages. This is HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews, up in New York. ISIS has just burned alive 45 Iraqis. They took them captive in Anbar province, where ISIS is fighting for more territory, put them in a truck, poured gasoline all over them and set them afire. That`s according to a member of the Iraqi parliament from that area. And those that ISIS burned alive include Iraqi government and local forces trying to defend their area from the advancing Islamic State. This horrific new form of terror that kills people in the most agonizing way is an ISIS tactic to kill with impunity and to let its enemy know that that`s what it does to people who dare stand in its way. To ISIS, prisoners of war are torture and death exhibits for those who dare to face them in battle. Ayman Mohyeldin is an NBC News foreign correspondent and Robert Grenier is former director of the CIA`s counterterrorism center. He`s the author of "88 Days to Kandahar." Ayman, talk about this incident, as much as you understand about it. This seems to be escalating the horror, the pictures they`re presenting of willing to burn people alive just for opposing them or being from another religion or whatever. AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Chris, I mean, we`re still getting the details of that incident, but it is not a shock to see how ISIS is behaving with these people. Now, keep in mind that the Anbar province is predominantly Sunni Arab. That is something that in the past, ISIS has relied on for some kind of sympathy or support, that these people that had grievances with the central government. But it seems now that even in places where there are Sunni Arabs that oppose the rule of ISIS, ISIS absolutely shows no mercy, shows any kind of compassion in allowing these people who oppose them to coexist. What they have done, as you mentioned -- gather about 45 people or so from two various tribes, tribes that have deep roots in that part of the country, tribes that are well respected and have thousands of followers and members, and burned these individuals alive, including some members of the security forces. It just goes you -- it shows you the strength and it shows you the willingness of ISIS to go to any length to continue to control that part of the country, no matter what, at any cost, Chris. MATTHEWS: Robert, besides sadism and just the usual reason why people for centuries have done this to each other when they have the upper hand, what`s the strategy here on the part of this -- to do this so horribly to people, not just take them prisoners, shoot them in a firing squad, no, burn them alive. ROBERT GRENIER, AUTHOR, "88 DAYS TO KANDAHAR": Well, I would go even further than Ayman. I would say not just even in the case of Sunni Muslims who oppose ISIS, but I would say especially in the case of Sunni Muslims who oppose ISIS will they use these unbelievably brutal tactics. What they`re saying, in effect, is, Look, if you`re an unbeliever, OK, that`s fine. We will mete out the punishments that are prescribed in the Sunna (ph) Hadiths and the Quran and sharia. But if you are a Muslim and you depart from the correct path, essentially, you`re an apostate. You`re committing apostasy, and we will treat you accordingly. But I want to go on from that and say that even in that context, I have never seen anything as brutal as this. I spent much of my adult life in the Middle East. I have followed these extremist groups for many, many years. This is going completely beyond the pale, and they seriously risk alienating not just the moderates in the region who you would expect not to be terribly sympathetic to them in the first place, but I think they risk alienating fundamentalists, as well. They`re clearly overplaying their hand. MATTHEWS: Well, this is a great question. I mean, I hate to even talk about people that have been killed so ruthlessly and so brutally. But let me start with Ayman, and then back to you, Robert. Is this a recruiting tool, to be this horrific to people, the people -- to burn people alive, the beheading people, Coptic Christians? Does this turn on, to be blunt about it, young people in the slums around Paris or the slums here in the United States or wherever? Does this make people excited to join them? MOHYELDIN: Well, it`s very hard for me to answer that question. I think what they are using those tactics locally for is to instill an absolute sense of fear in everybody that may be anywhere around ISIS. The message to the remaining tribesmen and to the remaining Sunnis, for example, in Iraq, where these 45 people were killed, is that if you dare to raise your voice, if you dare to ally yourself with anybody other than ISIS, this is the fate that you will share. And the message, as well, to the Christian world from ISIS is similar, is that for those who ally themselves against ISIS, you will be beheaded wherever we can get to you. That`s the message they`re doing, and not because I think they want to recruit people in the West and in Europe. That`s certainly an objective of theirs. We`ve heard that very explicitly when their leaders have called on people in the West to carry out attacks. But with these specific types of brutal murders, gruesome, grotesque, the message is different. The message is, If anyone dares to challenge us, this is the fate that you will have. Do not cross ISIS. So I think they`re using fear as an attempt to keep people away from confronting ISIS in both the Sunni-dominant areas, or whether it be those that are allying themselves with the West-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Robert, you first here. Tie this into the romance of going to paradise. I mean, somebody was quoted the other day, I was listening to it on the radio. They were going around in Tunisia, talking to people, and some said, We hate the United States, and this is going to take us to paradise. If this is going to take you to paradise in your religious beliefs, to nirvana, how does that fit with killing people in the most horrific way on the way to nirvana? How does it work? Is it both a chance to be sadistic, and also to get the pleasure of going to heaven? What is the drive here, and how does it connect? GRENIER: Well, actually, we`re talking about two different things here. Yes, absolutely, the appeal of going to heaven is a very, very strong one, but that involves your death. If you become a martyr in defense of Islam, then you will receive, you know, great rewards. What we`re talking about here in killing other people, that`s really quite different. That`s not necessarily the road to nirvana. But that is participating in the struggle. And while I think that Ayman is exactly right, that using these particularly brutal tactics, the immolation of captives -- that is a local terror tactic, as he has just described. That`s telling them, Look, you oppose us at your peril. Don`t do it. But a little bit more broadly than that, in their willingness to use violence in order to expand the caliphate, that`s going back to the very earliest days of Islam. And this is not an ant-Islamic statement at all. I have the greatest personal respect for Islam. But during the rise of Islam, it was a very violent rise. I mean, Islam was spread through warfare earlier, and conquered people were given a choice. You will either accept Islam or you will be killed. And there was a slightly better deal that was offered to people of the book, to the Christians and the Jews. But the initial expansion of Islam was a violent expansion. Religions mature. Religions evolve. Religions moderate. And Islam is certainly the same. These people are going back to that very violent earliest tradition. And yes, to some, to some fundamentalists, this is a very attractive thing. They`re returning to the roots of Islam. They are regaining the glory of Islam that we had in the very earliest years. MATTHEWS: Well, speaking to a White House-organized summit on countering extremism, Vice President Joe Biden said the key was offering people an alternative to the lure of groups like ISIS. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We`re here today because we all understand that in dealing with violent extremism, that we need answers that go beyond a military answer. We need answers that go beyond force. Societies have to provide an affirmative alternative for immigrant communities, a sense of opportunity, a sense of belonging, and to -- that discredits the terrorist appeal. It`s not enough to take on these networks of extremists who wish to do us harm. We also have to take on the ideology that attracts foreign fighters from all around the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: You know, Ayman, what the vice president`s there I don`t think is going to be the solution because if the problem is poverty or the problem is a lack of alternatives in life, you`re going to have to go to not just 95 percent of all the people who are alienated by the West and who are Muslim in this case and are turning to terrorism, you`re going to have to go to 100 percent because all it takes is a few percent, is what we`re talking bout, in every community in France or in Denmark or the United States, or anywhere in the world. You can`t turn everybody to the right side. Some people are going to go to the other side because they`re losers or they`re zealots or something in their brain soup makes them do it. This idea we`re going to recover all these communities I think is just hopeless and long term to the point it`s not going to deal with people in our lifetime, our grandkids` lifetime. Why are we talking like this? You know, it sounds like we`re going to get kids off drugs by giving them better education. Well, maybe, in most cases, but there`s always -- in this case, we`re talking about worldwide terrorism. It seem like -- that doesn`t seem strong enough a response. MOHYELDIN: Well-- MATTHEWS: Is it? MOHYELDIN: Well, I would have to say that there are two different approaches here. One is what you`re talking about in the Arab world, where a lot of this is taking place right now, this type of extremism, and then what is happening in the West, in countries like France or here even in the United States. I think the vice president is talking to two different sets of problems here. MATTHEWS: Yes. MOHYELDIN: The first problem in the Middle East is, yes, you have to create more political plurality. You have to improve the economic situation. You`ve got to allow for a freedom of ideas, a freedom of the interpretation of the religion to counter that extreme ideological narrative that has now been hijacked by these individuals. That`s separate from what he`s talking about back here in the U.S. and in France, where we`ve got to have immigrant communities feel like they belong. The U.S. experience with immigration -- very different. We`re not looking at big slums on the outskirts of New York and Chicago and LA like we see in Paris and other cities, where there are just thousands of young people ripe for exploitation, disenfranchised, not feeling like they belong. Immigrants come to this country because they feel like they belong. And I think that`s what the vice president is trying to say. MATTHEWS: Yes. MOHYELDIN: We`ve got to make the immigrants who feel isolated in parts of Europe feel they belong in Europe, feel they have a seat at the table and part of the process so that they`re not lured and drawn to that ideology, and in addition to the other problems that you`ve got to do that are forward-operating problems-- MATTHEWS: Yes. MOHYELDIN: -- things in the Middle East that you actually have to address on the ground. MATTHEWS: You know, Robert, everything that Ayman just said there, I think you can argue for as American. In principle, we want democratization. We want freedom. We want free expression. We want all those opportunities. But you know, that was the neocon argument that got us into Iraq, it got us all through the Middle East mess we`re in right now -- tear down these dictatorships and out of them will bloom freedom. A "freedom agenda" it was called. And yet all it did is create hell on earth. GRENIER: Well-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: We tore down these governments, and we`re left with what? We`re left with ISIS and al Qaeda and all this -- in the ruins. The ruins have been great for these bad guys. GRENIER: Well, look, I-- MATTHEWS: They`ve loved us bringing down these governments. I`d like to see Gadhafi back and Saddam back and the whole rest of these bums because it least they were the Three Stooges over there! They weren`t threatening Israel`s real existence. They certainly weren`t threatening ours. They were a bunch of bums, but you know what? All they cared about was survival and their Uday and Qusay kids to take care of them and give them sweet opportunities later on. GRENIER: Well, look-- MATTHEWS: They weren`t a threat really like ISIS is. It seems to me, I think we`ve gotten worse. We`ve gone from the frying pan into the fire-- GRENIER: Well-- MATTHEWS: -- because of the neocons, that kind of thinking. GRENIER: That kind of -- well, look at the end of the day, let`s not overestimate what the United States is actually able to do. The United States didn`t create the Arab spring. It wasn`t because of actions of the United States that Egypt fell and that we have a civil war in Syria right now, that Gadhafi fell. At the end of the day, it`s the people in those countries that will determine the path of their countries. And I think that Ayman is exactly right over the long term. I think over the long term, yes, you have to give people an alternative or they have to find an alternative to extremism in order to meet their legitimate aspirations. In the short term, though, when we`re -- going back to the -- the-- MATTHEWS: Wait a minute! I want to interrupt this. GRENIER: -- issue of what the vice president is saying-- MATTHEWS: I want to interrupt there. We did create the situation in Iraq today because all those generals and former members of the Saddam regime, all those people in uniform were thrown out because of de-Ba`athification, a U.S. policy, thrown into the -- nowhere. They found a place at (ph) home. They call it ISIS. GRENIER: Yes. MATTHEWS: And by the way, we were warned, when Syria went down, it was going to be replaced by something worse. Everybody knew that. It was going to be worse. GRENIER: When-- MATTHEWS: Than Assad. GRENIER: That-- MATTHEWS: So I mean, there wasn`t, like, a shock-- (CROSSTALK) GRENIER: No, that -- well, that wasn`t necessarily the case. In the case of Iraq, well, actually, I go at great length in my book, as a matter of fact, talking about all of the very serious mistakes that we made in Iraq. There was an opportunity to achieve some very good things there, and unfortunately, we squandered it. But again, at the end of the day, when we`re trying to trying to counter radicalism, radicalization in the Middle East, we are on the periphery of that discussion. It`s not about us. MATTHEWS: Well, that`s a good argument, but unfortunately, they`re bringing it to us on national and international television every night, and we are watching the burnings alive and we`re watching the beheadings-- GRENIER: Oh, it doesn`t-- (CROSSTALK) GRENIER: It doesn`t mean that -- look, we have a very important stake in the outcome of these struggles. And it`s very important for us to be engaged. It`s very important for us to try to reinforce the forces of relative good, if you will, in those countries. But at the end of the day, we have to very careful against overplaying our hand. For instance, we`re constantly talking about a U.S.-led coalition against ISIS. That may resonate well in domestic political context here in this country, it does not resonate well in the region. Nobody wants to defend the interests of the United States. The United States has to be in a position where it is supporting the interests of those in the region who want to counter a radical organization like ISIS. MATTHEWS: Boy, I`d love you to figure out how to do that because we haven`t figured that one out yet. Yes, I`d love to lead from behind. That`s what you`re saying, lead from behind, right? GRENIER: That`s exactly what I`m saying. MATTHEWS: Well, we`ll try. Anyway, thank you, Ayman Mohyeldin and Robert Grenier. Coming up -- a group of anonymous Clinton allies used the newspaper "The Hill" to launch a war against David Axelrod. My question -- if they`re proud of what they`re doing, why are they keeping themselves anonymous? These are all anonymous people yelling. Plus, mystery in space. Scientists are puzzled by these images on Mars that show a vast plume of haze in the planet`s hemisphere. What exactly is it? I know this is something different for us tonight, but I found it fascinating. What`s going on on Mars? And a district judge in Texas dealt a blow to the president`s immigration policy, temporarily at least, blocking the government from giving some undocumented immigrants relief from deportation. Can this immigration plan of the president`s survive the court challenge? And "Let Me Finish" tonight with the growing horror of ISIS and the American response. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: A new poll shows that most Americans disagree with how President Obama`s handling the threat of ISIS. A CNN/ORC poll finds that 57 percent of those surveyed disapprove of the president`s approach to the threat posed by ISIS militants. But the poll also found that 78 percent -- 4 out of 5 Americans -- believe Congress should give the president authority to fight ISIS. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Well, the lead story on line for much of the day in "The Hill" newspaper, which covers Capitol Hill, was this piece by reporter Amie Parnes, who`s also the co-author of the book "HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton." In the story, three anonymous Clinton allies apparently are quoted as being outraged by comments made here by David Axelrod about Hillary`s emerging campaign. Axelrod was, of course, the senior adviser to President Obama and is also an analyst at this network. He`s currently doing media for his new book. Well, here`s the backlash against Axelrod. Quote, "`It`s not helpful, and it`s definitely not appreciated,` said one Clinton ally. Another supporter added `I don`t think a lot of us are scratching our head -- I think a lot of us are scratching our heads, why is any of this necessary? A third added, `She`s been a great team player. She`s been very supportive of the president and she hasn`t gotten in front of him on a lot issues. So what`s he trying to do?`" Well, according to the story, Clinton`s allies are outraged in part by what Axelrod told our show about the challenges facing John Podesta, who`s a likely choice to be Hillary Clinton`s campaign chairman. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID AXELROD, FORMER OBAMA SENIOR ADVISER: People are going to make mistakes. I mean, the question is, do the mistakes reveal something that voters take away from it, or are they glitches? John Podesta has to get control of the Clinton operation. And I think that`s part of his job-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Yes, he`s pretty good at that. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, are Axelrod`s comments really worth all these attacks in the paper today? Who let the dogs out? Are these sources, by the way, actually speaking with Hillary`s authority, or is this some kind of blood sport we`re into here? And why do these people refuse to identify themselves if they`re proud of what they`re saying? Robert Gibbs is an MSNBC political analyst and was President Obama`s press secretary. John Brabender is a Republican strategist. Robert, I`m going to ask an infantile question. But only you can get to this primitive thought. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: If people are proud of what they`re saying, if they want the world to know they`re for Hillary, which a lot of people in this city of Washington are, why do they go on background? Why are they trashing Axelrod for I would think a relatively constructive idea? Get your act together. You`re starting a campaign in a few months? Why are they all on background, so neatly anonymous? I don`t get that part. I would be proud. If you`re for Hillary, get out there and say so. ROBERT GIBBS, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, my guess is, much like I remember dealing with in the White House, my guess is they`re not that senior a person or a group of people. They`re not that influential in the campaign, but they have convinced somebody to cite them as an anonymous Clinton official. I`m sure there are several thousand of those, while there are only probably 10 real decision-makers. MATTHEWS: Sure. GIBBS: I thought the comments themselves were, quite frankly, Chris, laughable. She`s bringing on John Podesta to fix what was a huge impediment and one of the reasons she`s not president now, because the functioning operation of her campaign was more interested in fighting inside the building than they were effective at fighting outside the building. And that`s all that David said. And quite frankly, if this has got them rankled or whatever, I would only say this to the Clinton campaign. Buckle up. It`s going to get a lot worse. It`s going to get worse from your friends, and your donors, and it`s going to certainly get a lot worse from Republicans. This is not an easy gauntlet to get to the White House, which she knows. MATTHEWS: Are these heavyweights within the -- people? Are these people like -- we have watched people like Lanny Davis speak for the Clintons. I always wondered if he ever met them. It goes on and on. They`re people on the outside, David Brock, for example, or Sid Blumenthal, or Lynn Rothschild, or whatever. They`re all over the place, but are they in fact speaking for her campaign? But the way the press runs it now, any time a person takes a shot now, they`re being portrayed as Clinton people. GIBBS: Right. MATTHEWS: Well, yes, but there`s millions of people that voted for Clinton. Are they actually part of the hierarchy, yes or no? You don`t know? GIBBS: Well, my guess is they`re not part of the senior hierarchy. They may be people that are tangentially involved. MATTHEWS: Yes. GIBBS: But all this story did today was kick up the fact that Hillary Clinton had all these problems when she ran eight years ago. I mean, what on earth would Clinton officials that were smart and savvy and at the senior of the campaign`s ultimate leadership, why would they start this fight today? It`s great for David. He`s going to sell some more books because of it. MATTHEWS: Yes, I hope so. GIBBS: It doesn`t help Hillary Clinton at all. MATTHEWS: Well, it`s a great book. I hope so. It`s called "Believer." Let me go over to John on this question. You`re watching this from the other side of the aisle. And I`m wondering, is this the new rules of engagement, that if you say anything even constructive about the Clinton campaign-to-be, which I assume it will be a campaign, that somebody somewhere will take shots at you personally, and go after you and question your motives and question your character? Is that the new rule? And it doesn`t even have to be the campaign. It can just be these sparkies out there, these characters that don`t even have names. JOHN BRABENDER, FORMER SENIOR SANTORUM CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Yes. Well, let me first say to the opposite side of the aisle, thank you, keep it up. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) BRABENDER: The ultimate irony is, they`re proving Axelrod right. He said, look, someone has to get control of this, and so they send three people out there to basically shut it down. The fact that we`re talking about it, ironically, shows that it had an opposite effect and it also shows that no one is calling the shots and there are these like loose cannons over there. I do think it also makes people start to wonder if this is what Clintonville is. You go out and you say something that really wasn`t even all that critical and all of a sudden everybody is jumping on you. I went back and looked at all the comments. I think they were probably right on and I didn`t find them overly critical. MATTHEWS: I didn`t think so either. Anyway, on your side of the aisle -- I will get to you in a moment, but be ready for this. Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, is playing the terrain as he travels to it. He`s playing it where he`s at. he`s being -- in Rome, he`s being a Roman. Anyway, after playing Mr. Nice Guy last week in Iowa, Governor Christie assured crowds in New Hampshire this week that he was anything but Iowa nice. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I had one of your leaders say to me today, we don`t want some kinder, gentler Chris Christie. We want the real Chris Christie. Well, there`s only one Chris Christie, everybody. This is it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Wow. Well, he also played up his aggressive fighting style, which has seen its share of YouTube viral videos. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRISTIE: There will be times I will say some things that will make you shake your head. There will be some times that I will say things in a way that you will make you think he maybe could have said that a little bit better. But what you will never say is that I don`t know who he is, and I don`t know what he believes, and I don`t know what he`s willing to fight for and who he`s willing to fight to get there. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Christie finds himself trailing the pack in all of the primary states right now. And I know it`s early. In Iowa, for example, he`s got 9 percent and trails Huckabee, Bush, and Walker. He`s running fourth in New Hampshire, behind Bush, Walker, and Paul, Rand Paul In South Carolina, he doesn`t even make the top five. Rob, this thing about being two-faced or -- Huey Long did it in the old days. He talked about his Protestant grandmother, Baptist grandmother in one part of Louisiana. Then he talked about his Catholic one when he`s down in New Orleans. I mean, you can get away with that before there was like radio, but now it seems to me people know what people are saying in other places. GIBBS: Yes. MATTHEWS: Can Christie be the tough live free or die character, gritty as hell up in New Hampshire or the more, the word elegiac, easier-going fellow out in Iowa, which hates loud noises? GIBBS: Well, I do think it`s very hard, as you mentioned, Chris, to do that in anything that approximates modern politics. What you say one place trails you everywhere else. MATTHEWS: Yes. GIBBS: A good example, the whole vaccine outbreak, no pun intended, on the -- on measles and vaccines happened when Chris Christie was in London. And that was a big story in the United States. So, you really can`t do the two audiences, you know, different things to the two audiences. I will say obviously Iowa and New Hampshire are very different states. They are very different voters and very different people on how they receive messages. And I think quite frankly that most of the people running and deciding the Republican primaries are going to want to see the Chris Christie they are used to seeing. And I think the worst thing any political consultant or adviser can do is try to make somebody something that they are simply not. MATTHEWS: Yes. GIBBS: And I think Christie is what he is, and that`s what makes him potentially electable. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: John, almost out of time, but what`s your view about the two faces of Christie, one for New Hampshire, one for Iowa? BRABENDER: Well, and knowing the Chris Christie people, who are smart people, that`s not what it`s going to be. He`s very authentic. They will keep that. It is going to be the Chris Christie everybody has ever seen, and he`s better off when he acts himself, and not tries to become something that he is not. MATTHEWS: So Jersey is going to sell in Iowa? BRABENDER: I think Chris Christie comes across as an American original, which I do think sells in Iowa, as well as a lot of the other candidates will sell in Iowa. MATTHEWS: Well, it will be good for us all covering this campaign to have a good show when Jersey -- when the Jersey boy hits Iowa. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: That is going to be great. Anyway, thank you, Robert Gibbs. Thank you, John Brabender. GIBBS: Thank you. MATTHEWS: Up next, something completely different. As I said, these images of Mars showing a cloud-like are puzzling scientists, top page, front page of "USA Today." We have got an expert coming up to explain what`s going on, on Mars. We don`t usually do this, but we`re doing it tonight. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. A mysterious cloud-like plume, as I said, appeared briefly in the upper atmosphere over Mars, and the phenomena is baffling scientists right now. Spanning roughly 300 to 600 miles, the plume were about the size of a tropical storm. They were first spotted and observed by amateur astronomers for 11 days back in the spring of 2012. Now a team of researchers has published a report detailing the phenomena, yet the scientists analyzing the images have been unable to come up with any explanation. Of course, this story comes as an ongoing Obama counselor, John Podesta, tweeted this about the possible existence of UFOs -- quote -- "Finally, my biggest failure of 2014, once again not securing the disclosure of the UFO files. The truth is still out there." Of course, he was kidding. But I`m joined right now by Dr. Seth Shostak, senior astronomer -- astronomer and director of the SETI Institute, which searches for extraterrestrial real life. Doctor, thank you for joining us. Your expertise is in listening on the radio or whatever technology we have, sonar, to listen and see if there`s any reaction to signals we send out. I want to ask you about that world. Have you ever heard anything come back, any evidence of life out there responding to us? SETH SHOSTAK, SETI INSTITUTE: Well, Chris -- yes, well, Chris, if we had heard something, believe me, you would know about it. (LAUGHTER) SHOSTAK: That would be an enormous story. No, not yet, but I remain optimistic. MATTHEWS: OK. Now let`s get to these plumes. I guess we are always looking for hope that there`s life or potential life on other planets, that there might be H20, some water, or livable habitat for us in case we get too crowded here. How does this fit into that, these plumes, or does it or does it not? SHOSTAK: To be honest, Chris, yes, there`s clearly something in the air on the Red Planet, but it`s probably either dust that has been kicked up. I mean, Mars has dust storms. It even has dust devils. You can go online and find all these nifty videos of dust devils down near the surface of Mars. But this thing is pretty high up. It`s like about 150 miles up. It`s about the size of, well, the state of Nevada or a tropical storm. So, what is it? Well, it could be dust. It could be little particles of ice, water ice, dry ice, carbon dioxide ice. It could even be aurorae. It could be, you know, like the Northern Lights. It could be any of these things. We still don`t know what it is. But I don`t think it tells you terribly much about whether there`s life on Mars, because that`s a slightly different story. MATTHEWS: Well, these chemicals you mentioned, like these compounds, CO2, does that tell you that there`s H2O? What does it -- what do we know about the plumes and life? That`s what I want to get to, life. SHOSTAK: Yes. Well, life is something else. Look, Mars is everybody`s favorite inhabited planet. I mean, there are Martians everywhere, right, books, movies, radio plays. The one place we haven`t found life on Mars is on Mars. OK? But that isn`t to say it isn`t there. If you look at the surface of Mars, it is a terrible place. If you look at the photos, it kind of looks like some remote part of Nevada or Arizona or something like that, without the cacti, right? MATTHEWS: Yes. SHOSTAK: There`s no obvious life there. Daytime temperatures, minus-50 degrees. No water, right? Terrible, terrible place. But if you were to go to Mars tomorrow or the weekend and dig a hole maybe 100, 200, 300-feet deep, you might find life down there, not little gray guys, but some sort of microbes. That`s not ruled out. MATTHEWS: What bounds this story to the top of the fold to today`s "USA Today," which really goes for the popular quiz? It goes for a real general audience. It`s not a business newspaper or anything else. It goes for the big interests people have. What do you think put it up here? I`m holding it up right now. The top of the fold of the front page, mystery plumes. What is that about? SHOSTAK: Well, I`m not really sure. I think that your theory here that it has something to do with Podesta`s comments about UFOs, which has gotten enormous play -- I have gotten I don`t know how many phone calls this morning from people saying, see? The government is covering up. This is the same government that runs the Postal Service, and yet they`re able to cover up the evidence for visitors for 60 years or so. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So you don`t believe there`s any secret stash of hard evidence that we have been visited from other -- by other beings from other planets? You don`t believe that? SHOSTAK: No, Chris, I -- no, Chris, I don`t. Look, to begin with, I`m not sure that the federal government would be capable of keeping that secret, but even if you think they-- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I`m just asking, because I know some people care. SHOSTAK: Yes. Oh-- MATTHEWS: People watching this show people are -- people are fascinated with the possibility of UFOs. Everybody has seen something that they can`t quite figure that moment as what it is. And it`s something about our human nature. You`re part of it. You`re doing it for a career. People do want to find something out there. SHOSTAK: Yes. Well, that`s absolutely the case. I mean, one-third of Americans -- polls have showed this for, I don`t know, three decades. One-third of Americans think that the aliens are here, buzzing the countryside, hauling people out of their bedrooms for unauthorized experiments, one-third, OK? So they`re very interested in that. And they think the federal government is keeping it quiet. (LAUGHTER) SHOSTAK: But, on the other hand, if you think that`s true, then you have also got to figure that the Bolivians and the Botswanans and the Belgians and the -- all those -- all those guys are keeping it secret, too, or maybe the aliens only like to visit the U.S., which seems improbable. MATTHEWS: That`s why I don`t believe in time travel, because I always ask the question, where are they? Where are the people from the future? Anyway, thank you, Seth Shostak, Dr. Shostak. Thanks so much for your expertise. Up next: the district court decision that could be a major blow to the president`s immigration policy. What will it mean for the nearly five million illegal immigrants who could see some relief from deportation, which is what the president is trying to give them? You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. PAGE HOPKINS, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Page Hopkins. Here`s what`s happening. A senior defense officials tells NBC News the U.S. will provide moderate Syrian rebels with light pickup trucks, mortars and small arms to help them protect their villages from ISIS and government forces. Ashton Carter was officially sworn in earlier as defense secretary during a ceremony at the White House. And parts of the South that were hit with a rare winter storm yesterday, well, they`re in for more misery, as a deep freeze moves in, sending temperatures below zero in some areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina -- and now we`re going to take you back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, last night, a federal judge down in Texas temporarily blocked part of President Obama`s executive actions on immigration. Then, today, the administration announced it will delay carrying out the executive orders. Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security Secretary, said, quote, "The department of justice will appeal that temporary injunction. In the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it." Mr. Johnson said. Anyway, late today, President Obama spoke about the judge`s action. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I disagree with the Texas judge`s ruling and the Justice Department will appeal. This is not the first time where a lower court judge has blocked something or attempted to block something that ultimately was shown to be lawful. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, this leaves up to 5 million undocumented immigrants temporarily in limbo. And where does it leave the president? Joining me right now is NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams. Great question -- what does this do to his whole push since last November, to help these people get relief from deportation? PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it puts it on ice for now. We`ll have to see how fast the administration can get to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Undoubtedly, the states that challenge this law will respond, and then we`ll see how fast the Fifth Circuit responds. If the government doesn`t get satisfaction from them, Chris, it can still ask the Supreme Court. But remember this is just round one in this court. The judge hasn`t yet to rule on the guts of the lawsuit, which is a straight up challenge to it as either illegal or constitutional. All he has done so far is said, Texas is likely to prevail. It`s better to put a stay on it now and let this play out than he says not to put a stay on, have all these people come forward out of the shadows, in the phrase he used today in his ruling. And then, if it`s later found unconstitutional or illegal, immigration people would have all their names and they could risks deportation. Now, you could claim that, you could argue that the judge is being a little overdramatic there, but that is something that`s been raised as a concern. MATTHEWS: Constitutional question, I know it`s a hard question. Did the president legislate by these actions or did he just simply show prosecutorial discretion? WILLIAMS: Well, the judge would say that he went too far. You`re right, the administration has said this is prosecutorial discretion, this is the fact that the government can`t possibly handle all the people that here illegally, so it`s going to concentrate on the ones with the most serious threats, criminals, potentially terrorists, people who commit crimes. And, therefore, it`s going to give a pass to the others. But the judge says this is not just the government turning their back on the others. This is the government reaching out to them and giving them Social Security numbers, work permits, and other benefits. That he says is going beyond what the law allows. MATTHEWS: Well-said. Now, I understand it. Thanks so much, Pete Williams. I`m joined right now by the roundtable, Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, of course, Jonathan Capehart of "The Washington Post", and Jackie Kucinich of "The Daily Beast." I want to start with Maria. I know your advocacy role here and I`m trying to figure out what does this concern you? Do you -- are you just the fact of this thing today, a judge putting the stay and stopping the locomotive from going where it was going, thanks to the president, towards relief for millions of people? MARIA TERESA KUMAR, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think we have to look at exactly what the judge said. It wasn`t the policy he was going after. He actually said that it was the manner in which the policy was carried out. So, the stay, when you look at the rest of the executive order, the rest of the executive order, that part that actually focuses on enforcement, enforcing the border, enforcing recent arrive, enforcing the individuals that are the most criminal, those are -- that still continues. What the judge had a problem with, Chris, was the idea, that the part of extending DACA and DAPA, executive action for the undocumented to receive temporary relief. He said that didn`t have enough comment. Now, I spoke with some folks indeed administration, and they feel it will be a temporary roadblock, but in the long term, that 11 million people are going to eventually be able to come forward. But I think the real issue is Congress needs to fix the problem. And while this is a temporary order, this is up to Congress to say, we have a broken system, let`s figure it out -- MATTHEWS: They don`t want to do it. KUMAR: They don`t want to do it. They don`t want to do the hard work. MATTHEWS: Well, let me go to Jonathan on this, because as a general political analysis, the kind you do all the time, and we try to do, which is, is it possible that the president`s biggest enemy right now is the courts, both in this regard and the subsidies for Obamacare? The Congress, as Maria just touched on, has been basically comatose in terms of getting anything done. JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Right. MATTHEWS: They don`t get anything done. They`re still arguing among themselves. And yet the court can be pretty cold and tough by saying, look, you`ve gone too far, Mr. President, here, you`ve encouraged them to come in from the cold, you`re giving them Social Security, you`re being proactive here, you`re not just being not discriminating in terms of not going after people that are a problem. You`re encouraging them to come out online with these programs. CAPEHART: Well, in many ways, because Congress is so inactive and doesn`t get anything done, and where bills go to die, a lot of people have turned to the courts for relief, turning the courts into not only the judicial branch, but in some cases the legislative branch. MATTHEWS: Yes. CAPEHART: And Maria Teresa is absolutely right. We wouldn`t be in this position if Congress had moved on that comprehensive immigration bill that passed the Senate in June 2013 with an amazing 68 votes. That`s a bipartisan bill that went to the House, and Speaker Boehner let it sit there and let it die. They could have resurrected it during the lame-duck session and passed it then and actually trumped the president and taken some credit for fixing a broken system. Instead they punted. And now, we have a brand-new Congress, where they`re going to have to start all over again. And rather than use the comprehensive bill as a template to get something done, they`re depending on the courts to do the work for them. MATTHEWS: You know, let me ask you, though, Jackie, do you do you think the president can act because the Congress screws up? I mean, they can`t replace the Congress. You know, you fight the -- somebody said you fight the battle with the army you have. All he`s got is this Congress, so he says if they can`t do the job, I`ll do it, but that`s not so easy under our Constitution. You know, you can only -- you can do certain things along the margins, but can you create immigration law? Which is in effect what he`ll be doing if Congress doesn`t act? JACKIE KUCINICH, THE DAILY BEAST: You know, that`s the debate. What the White House set they`re very much in the parameters, and right now, congressional Republicans say he`s not and these 26 governors, that is the question and that`s what we`re going to see play out. But I`ll tell you this -- the president does want to see DHS passed and what the Congress is doing there is probably a mistake for Republicans. MATTHEWS: I agree, I agree, they screwed things up, but he can`t get away with what he wants to do, which is to set policy without the Congress participating. It`s a system of three branches of government and it`s very tricky. KUMAR: But it`s temporary. MATTHEWS: I think the problem this year this summer is going to be the courts. I looked at the subsidies with regard to exchanges. I worry about that because I think the court -- I think Roberts could go the other way this time. Anyway, thank you. The roundtable is staying with us, all of them. Up next, back to the future. The Democrats` plan for retaking the Senate in 2016, guess what, includes running people who lost the last time in 2010 and 2014. Can they win with guys who have already lost? This seems to be their strategy. I don`t think it`s going to work. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: We`ve got some new polling on the 2016 presidential race from the key swing state of New Hampshire. Let`s check the HARDBALL scoreboards, some surprises here. According to the new poll from St. Anselm College and Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton would beat Rand Paul by seven points, 48-41. But catch the rest of this. Against Scott Walker, Clinton`s lead grows to 13. Clinton 50, Walker 37. But look at this baby, against Jeb Bush, the Republican with arguably the highest name ID, Clinton`s got him by 14 right now. Clinton 50, which is winning, Bush 36. And we`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: We`re back. Actually, Democrats think they can win back the U.S. Senate in 2016. And to do that, they`re trying to lure back names back into the political arena for comeback bids. The thinking is that strong Democratic candidates who lost in the GOP wave elections of 2010 and 2014, when turnout was exceedingly low and bad for Democrats, they have a chance at winning in a presidential year when voter turnout is usually high. Former Senators Kay Hagan of North Carolina lost a close one. Mark Begich of Alaska lost in 2014 as well, has yet to rule out a comeback campaign in 2016. Former Senator Russ Feingold, a popular fellow in Wisconsin, former U.S. Congressmen Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania who hasn`t stopped running since last time, and former Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, all lost to Republicans in 2010 and are all considering rematches in 2016. Former Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio who lost a reelection in 2010 is also weighing a Senate bid now. Back now with our roundtable, Maria Teresa, and, of course, Jonathan and Jackie. I want to start with Jonathan this time. Do you think it is smart to go with the retreads? CAPEHART: Well, yes, it depends on how the retreads lost. All the people you`re talking about, these are people who didn`t lose because they`re constituents hated them, didn`t lose because they were terrible at their jobs. They lost because the Democratic coalition didn`t come out to vote, which, you know, by tradition, the Democratic coalition doesn`t come out to vote in off year elections. You talk about the Republican wave that came through during the midterm election. So, if Begich and Hagan and others you talked about are on the ballot during a presidential election year when there`s going to be a lot of excitement -- MATTHEWS: Yes. CAPEHART: -- especially on the Democratic side for a potential, perhaps, a nominee for Hillary Clinton, that they could get back into office. MATTHEWS: But isn`t this, Maria Teresa, isn`t this recycling? You put them in, and they face a six year situation six years from now when they`re back again with the wrong kind of electorate and they get blown away again. And the other guy goes in. This is a revolving door. These guys don`t have the strength that went to a wrong kind of election. So, it`s like baseball players. Left handers and right handers, you`ve got to be able to take any kind of pitching. I`m sorry, that`s the part -- KUMAR: I think -- Chris, I think that could be true, but I think that what the Democrats are calculating are two things. One, these are folks that are tried and tested. They don`t want to repeat that I am the witch that the Republicans said when they ran unknown candidates. And, two, they`re in swing states presidential. So, Hillary is going to definitely be stumping there. And, finally, and most importantly, these are folks that have their own personal fundraising network. MATTHEWS: I see. KUMAR: I think running a new candidate is going to be very difficult if the Democratic machine is going to be supporting Hillary. MATTHEWS: OK. KUMAR: These are folks that actually have fundraising capabilities. MATTHEWS: Yes, the difference is, let me just try this, Jackie. You know, one thing I`ll give to the right wing, they come up with new people, they pop up all over the place. We had not heard of Rubio until recently. We`ve never heard of Cruz. I wish we had never heard of him lately. They`re sprouting candidate out of the woods. But they come up with new ones. I think the Democrats are going back to where they were instead of reaching out to new kinds of people, different ethnic candidates, Hispanics, different kinds of people, where the Republicans are doing that a little better, your thoughts? Sure, there`s someone who are dangerous (ph). KUCINICH: I think it defends on the state. Look at Scott Brown. That didn`t work too well for them. But you`re right, somewhere like Ohio, the Democratic bench is not deep, so they`re going for someone like Ted Strickland who has won statewide. So, I think it really depends on -- MATTHEWS: He`s lost statewide, too. KUCINICH: Yes, he has lost statewide. But I think it depends on the election. It depends on the electorate. A lot has changed since the last time Ted Strickland and some of these other candidates, maybe not Hagan, maybe not Begich, but some of the others have run. MATTHEWS: Yes? KUMAR: But I think, Chris, what you`re saying to is what the Republicans have done so well is they`re building a candidate bench that starts in the state legislature and it preps them. The Democrats do not have that. As an example, in California, you had roughly three or four Republican Latinas for the first time run in their local elections and actually made it to the state legislature and now, they`re going to be groomed for Congress. The Democrats definitely don`t have that type of operation. MATTHEWS: Yes, who are the Mia Loves on the Democratic side? Anyway, thank you so much, Maria Teresa Kumar, Jonathan Capehart, and Jackie Kucinich. And I`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Let me finish with this new report of horrors we face. These tortures and killers of ISIS burned 45 people alive today. They took them prisoner in embattled Anbar province, loaded them on to a truck, throw gasoline over them and lit a match. They burned them alive. For the same reason that people have done horrors like this over the centuries, to punish those who opposed them and to terrify others into bowing before them. But ISIS has changed the roles of warfare. They have eliminated the option of capture, facing these sadists, you have two choices: run or fight to the death and hope it is to the death. Capture becomes too horrendous to consider, nobody opts for being burned alive. I`ve said this before and I have to say it again. We Americans cannot stand and watch this hell on earth without being effected by it. If we don`t act, really act to fight, it`s going to weaken us morally. How can it not? ISIS knows it`s got the hot hand and it`s playing it to the death. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021701cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 76 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 17, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 17, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Tom Costello, Kate Roger GUESTS: Mollie Matteson, Todd Paglia, Ruth Conniff, Howard Dean, Mike Robichaux SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7509 words HIGHLIGHT: West Virginia`s in a state of emergency, as flames still burn from crude oil train derailment the day before. Governor Scott Walker charms conservatives with a tale of a "teacher of the year" as his poster child for Act 10, an anti-union bill, despite serious holes in his story. President Obama addressed important foreign relations issues impacting U.S. national security, as Ashton Carter assumed his role as Secretary of Defense. Five years after the disastrous B.P. oil spill, fishermen see the impact in the wildlife. Hard-working Americans who call the Gulf home say they suffered additional health issues following the B.P. Oil Spill. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Carrying crude oil that derailed in West Virginia yesterday, it still burning. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A thousand people were evacuated. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Official shutdown two water plant as a precaution. ALEX SANDOR, WITNESS: And it start up a much cloud about the time -- burning now like that. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: And later, the gulf today, plenty (ph) of stories of health the environmental concerns five years after the spill. PJ HAHN, PELICAN COAST CONSULTING: I started to get -- having problems with breathing and a weird rash that breaks out from time to time. DEAN BLANCHARD, OWNER, DEAN BLANCHARD SEAFOOD: We still have mutilated shrimp, shrimp with no eyes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today, they still getting tar balls on the beach. SCHULTZ: Plus, Scott Walker`s education cuts earn him extra credit with conservatives. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: We actually care about the quality of the education in our classroom, not the size of the education bureaucracy. LEIGH MILLS, NBC 15 ANCHOR: Governor Walker`s proposed funding cuts to the UW system are sparking controversy. WALKER: As conservative, we shouldn`t take a back seat when it comes to education reform. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We start tonight with the massive oil disaster in West Virginia. At this hour, the fire is still burning after an oil train derailment. This was the dramatic screen Monday afternoon near Mount Carbon, West Virginia. A train carrying Bakken Shale oil from North Dakota, jumped the track in a snowstorm, 19 of the cars caught fire after the derailment. Governor Ray Tomblin declared the State of Emergency in the state of West Virginia on Monday evening. 7 of the 26 derailed cars on the train did not leak oil although there are major environmental concerns. An unknown amount of oil spilled into the nearby Armstrong Creek. The creek feeds the Kanawha River which provides water to the community. No one was killed in the derailment but one person was injured. Tom Costello of NBC News has the latest from West Virginia. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM COSTELLO, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It was a massive explosion that rocks the West Virginia country side Monday afternoon. A single train car carrying oil had slid off the track and then to the nearby Kanawha River. Soon fire consumed the train, a nearby house and the oil`s leak on the water. SANDOR: When we saw the train explode, well, cars explode and it start up a much cloud about the time -- burning now like that. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Breaking News, the word out of Fayette County, West Virginia. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We did hear from West Virginia State Police a few minutes ago that as of right now there are no fatalities. COSTELLO: The breaking news quickly dominated the local headlines. The 109 car train was carrying oil from North Dakota to Virginia. It went off to tracks near Mount Carbon, West Virginia. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some of those cars that were carrying crude oil, spilled into the river. COSTELLO: With oil in the river, water treatment facilities downstream quickly shut off their intake valves and warned residence not to drink their water. Meanwhile, roughly 200 people evacuated from the fire zone, many are taken to a nearby high school. CRAIG LOY, VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL: Right now, we`re still able to operate our kitchen. We were able to store water before the intakes were off so we have enough that we can actually prepare in clean with. However, after the smell here that`s going to cause us a little bit concern on the water situation. COSTELLO: The fire itself intense feeding up oil and giving up tremendous heat in the middle of a West Virginia snowstorm. The challenge now, stopping the leak and assessing how much oil leaked into the river. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHUTLZ: And late this afternoon the water treatment plant was reopened, 2,000 people are still under a boil water advisory in the area. The West Virginia disaster is just the latest in a long line of oil spill involving trains. This weekend a train carrying crude oil derailed on Northern Ontario, 29 of the 100 cars jumped the tracks. Seven cars were still on fire Sunday afternoon. This derailment is similar to the scene in West Virginia. It happen in Northern Canadian Wilderness so there was very little reporting. Overall, 2014 was a record year for oil spills involving trains. Last year, there were a record 141 unintentional releases around the country. It`s the highest level since record keeping started back in 1975. Virginia, Colorado and Pennsylvania saw major spills. 2013 was a record year, when it came to the volume of oil spilled. This massive derailment near Casselton, North Dakota leak 400,000 gallons alone. Overall, a record of 1.4 million gallon of oil leaked from trains in 2013. In response to these disasters, the government is proposing action. The Department of Transportation once enhanced tanker car standards for carrying oil. They include strengthening the cars, breaking controls and speed restriction along the line. The DOT-111 is the tanker model most commonly use today. These models have been criticized by regulators and operators for years. The proposal that the government is talking about would phase these cars out within two years. Earlier today, CSX said the West Virginia train was using the newer model CPC-1232 tanker cars. In December, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York was proposing and pushing for immediate action to oil trains. In June, Canada said it would move forward with or without the United States to phase-out the DOT-111. Canada will eliminate this train car by May of 2017. More lawmakers need to get on board. There are serious safety concerns and environmental concerns. The oil and gas industry is bringing in tanker loads of oil, filled with oil which is the economy from the Bakken Shale. And there is no reason they can`t pay for saver tanker car. In fact, there are many cars that are carrying oil as I`m told that won`t even designed to carry oil. There`s, of course, a lot of commodities are that run on trains and a lot of product other than oil such as coal. So there`s a lot of competition to get on this train. Is it the safest way to go? Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Do we need immediate new regulations on oil trains?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment at our blog at ed.msnbc.com and we`ll bring you result later on in the show. For more on this, let me bring in Mollie Matteson. She`s a Senior Scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. Also with us tonight, Todd Paglia, he is the Executive Director of ForestEthics. Great to have both of you with us tonight. The inspection process if any of you could -- either one of you could shed some light. Molly, you first, the inspection process of these trains. In aviation for example, everything has to be signed off on, everything has to be periodically check and rechecked depending on what you`re using the aircraft for and how many hours the aircraft might run, you know, periodic checks, whether you`re flying commercial or private. And I`ve wondered, if the industry -- in the train industry has these kinds of restrictions. There`s a hell of a lot difference between carrying corn from the middle of a country and carrying oil. What`s your response to that Mollie? MOLLIE MATTESON, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: Yeah. Well, part of the issue was that, you know, the railroad have largely been left to do their own inspections and then the federal regulators there is just -- not nearly enough of them to do all the inspections that are needed across the country, so that that`s one of the problem that we`re facing right now. SCHULTZ: So we`re short on regulation, we`re short on inspectors and so, do you think inspections would reduce the number of train mishaps that we`re having and seeing carrying oil? MATTESON: Well, it would help but I don`t think that it would stop the problems that we`re having. As you said, the cars that were involved in West Virginia accident where these newer, supposedly, safer CPC-1232 tank cars and you can see what the result was when they got in a collision. These are same tank cars that are involved in the Lynchburg, Virginia accident last year in April where we had tank cars rupturing, exploding and setting the James River on fire. So better inspection, yes, but we need a lot more other changes as well. SCHULTZ: Todd, what do we need? What regulations would curb the kind of train that we`re seeing? TODD PAGLIA, FORESTETHICS: I think what we need to look at actually, Ed, is taking these railcars right off the rails. I don`t think there`s anyway and in fact over the last several years, we`ve seen a bigger experiment happened between the oil companies and the rail companies. The experiment has been, can we haul 30,000 gallon containers through our cities and towns filled with explosive oil and do it safely. And the answer has been a resounding no. This is not working. It`s not going to work. And my fear is that, we`re going to have something like which happened in Lac-Megantic, Quebec happen in U.S. city or town soon because this system is failing. SCHULTZ: How would you move the oil? PAGLIA: Well, I think there`s a certain, you know, there`s a certain part of this that we have to we really wrap our heads around. The two oils that are being move by rail are really extreme crude. They`re Bakken and tar sand. They`re the most expensive, the dirtiest and the case of Bakken, the most volatile. So I think that there is a very strong argument that we don`t need these oils, they are relatively small percentage of the overall oil usage in United States. And if it`s too dangerous to transport safely, the answer is right there. We can`t do this. SCHULTZ: What about trucking? PAGLIA: Oh, I think you end up with, you know, with even more problems if you were to do that. I mean, everybody likes the idea of American-made energy and that`s what, you know, the Bakken is supposed to promise. But if we`re putting our lives on the line, the American-made energy, I want to see more of its wind and solar and that`s something we can get behind and as not as dangerous -- and if there`s just no way to do this safely, the vortex in (ph). SCHULTZ: Yeah. Mollie, this is been the big debate for those who are proposing the Keystone XL pipeline and, of course, it`s on its way to the President`s desk and it`s got a certain amount of time to sign it or veto it. So the fact is, that pipeline is going over the aquifer and, of course, if there was in disaster it would be irreversible. But they do claim that pipelines are far safer than trains. You`re thoughts on that and does it matter? MATTESON: Well, first of all, pipelines are, you know, have their own problems. They explode. They leak. Pipelines have not a great track record in terms of safety. The other thing is that, you know, it`s a false dichotomy here to say pipelines versus oil trains versus whatever. As Todd was saying, you know, these are extreme fossil fuel. We shouldn`t be transporting them at all. We should be leaving them in the ground. And so, I think the arguments that, you know, pipelines are safer is really a false one. And actually, the industry would like to have all of the above too. That`s really what they would like to see. SCHULTZ: I mean, I`m just at the school of thought that if you had more regulations and if you had more inspections, and if you run the world of trains, the way you ran aircraft in this country, you wouldn`t have anywhere near these kinds of problems. Speed zones, no doubt, would make a difference. I think, Todd, because, you know, but there`s so much pressure to get product on the trains. They`re up against the clock, time is money to these trains. PAGLIA: Yeah that`s... SCHULTZ: So, it would seem to me that regulations would make a difference. PAGLIA: Well, I think they would make a different. I don`t think you eliminate the problem and I think the problem is dangerous needs to be eliminated. And here`s the other thing you need to take into account on the regulatory side of this. These are extreme oils as I said before. They are the most expensive oils, the most difficult to handle, the most arduous to clean up. And that is exactly the kind of oil that they are going to scrimp and try to save money o. And that means cutting safety regulations. SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAGLIA: So I think what we`re starting to see here is a little bit of the massive influence of oil on our political system because no same person would car (ph) this kind of oil all across the United States and North America with the risk that is going to explode like he keeps doing and think its OK. There`s nothing right about this and the only thing right about it would be to shut this industry down. SCHULTZ: OK. And, Mollie, we haven`t really heard a lot about and not too many environmentalist or those who work closely with the environment complain about trains. I mean, this disastrous are bringing more attention to it. There really wasn`t much conversation before these disasters. What do you make of that? MATTESON: Well, we don`t have an argument with trains. Trains are very useful and great for transporting certain things. The argument here is about transporting these dangerous oils by train. And the implications when you have them derailing and exploding and spilling into waterways that have important (ph) drinking water as well as endanger species which the Kanawha River does. So that`s the argument about oil trains. PAGLIA: And, Ed, if I can make a quick comment there. You know, we at ForestEthics, we`ve mapped all the rail lines that carry crude. If you go to forestethics.org, you can see a map of all the crude lines put in your address and see how far you are away from the blast zone. What we found is that 25 million people live within the blast zone, that`s why you`re seeing this incredible up rising across North America, in the U.S. and Canada against these trains because these are communities at risk. They`re already in many cases and, you know, rough areas and marginal areas along tracks and now they have bomb trains being drag to their neighborhoods. SCHULTZ: All right. Mollie Matteson, Todd Paglia, great to have both of you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. PAGLIA: OK. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us on Facebook. We appreciate that and we do pay attention to your comments. Coming up. Conservatives circle the wagon around Scott Walker on education. What he says and what he does maybe different. Plus, an Ed Show series continues tonight. We look at the environmental impact and health concerns in, "The Gulf Today 5 Year After The Spill". BLANCHARD: Ed, if we tell you some of the stuff we`ve seen, you wouldn`t believe it. I mean, I`ve seen birds fly and then liquid coming out of birds. And all of the sudden, they wiggle a little bit and just crash and die. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: In 2010, there was a young woman named Megan Sampson who was honored as the outstanding teacher of the year in my state. And not long after she got that distinction, she was laid off by her school district. Her union contract said the last hired was the first fired. The last in was the first out. Well, I`m proud to tell you today that in Wisconsin, because of our reforms, we didn`t just balance the budget. We`re now say in our schools, there`s no more seniority or tenure. You can hire and fire whoever you want. You pay based on performance. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has told that story for years. Walker has made teacher of the year Megan Sampson, the phase of Act 10. His signature anti-worker, anti-union bill turns out Walker over stated the honor to add a little drama to the whole thing. Sampson was actually named outstanding first-year teacher by the Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English. It`s something New York Times Columnist Gail Collins pointed out in an article last week. In the article, Collins also made the mistake of blaming the 2010 Teacher Layoffs on Walker`s cuts to education. Well, wait a minute now, here comes the folk that have his back, the right- wing media. They were quick to point Walker didn`t take office until 2011 and they`re correct. As a result, Collins` column was widely mock on conservative blogs. There is good reason the right-wing media is coming out in full force to defend Walker. And the latest NBC News Marist Poll`s conducted in three key presidential caucuses and primary state, only two Republican candidates got double digits in all three, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and her old buddy Scott Walker. In New Hampshire, Walker comes in second behind Bush with 15 percent. In South Carolina, Walker comes in third behind Bush with 12 percent. In Iowa, Walker comes in third behind Bush with 15 percent. It`s important to note, Walker crushes Bush among Iowa voters who identify as conservative or very conservative, in fact, by 10 percent. It make sense, Walker is the poster child for the Republican slashing and starving budget policy by protecting him and distracting the public from the issues that really matter. They`re hoping to get one of their own into the White House. It is interesting. Other candidates on the right wing have not garnered such loyalty so fast. Joining me tonight, Ruth Conniff, Editor-in-Chief of the Progressive Magazine, also with us tonight, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean. Great to have both of you with us. FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN, (D) VERMONT: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: Ruth, you first. Interesting, what do we -- what`s getting lost in the minutia (ph) of this teacher story? What do you make of it? RUTH CONNIFF, THE PROGRESSIVE MAGAZINE: Well, I mean, first of all. It`s just amazing how the right-wing media coordinates and hammers, hammers, hammers on the message because, you know, the fact the Gail Collins who`s a funny writer in New York writes the funny column and gets one little detail wrong. It`s not really the story, it was going on with Walker and education in Wisconsin. I mean, even the teacher of the year story which as you point out, is about a teacher who self-nominated one of between 2 and 10 teachers in English Department who are in their first year who self-nominated for this award (inaudible), right. So this is not like somebody was picked out of the whole state as outstanding and she was competing against other first year teachers not the more senior teachers that he says, you know, shouldn`t have stuck around when she was laid off. Secondly, she wasn`t laid off. She got a notice during that period when there were a lot of layoffs going on that she might be laid off. And this happen as they adjust classroom sizes, as they do head counts at the beginning of the year. She ended up staying. So she wasn`t laid off. She wasn`t teacher of the year and these whole stories sort of falls apart. Finally, because that "Last-In, First-Out" policy is a district by district policy. They negotiate that individually and that time (ph) didn`t do anything about that policy. SCHULTZ: Yeah. CONNIFF: So he denounce (ph) it. I mean, none of what he said was true. What is true is that Walker is taking a hatchet (ph) to K-12 education in Wisconsin and he is really the poster child for the privatization of schools and the distraction of the education budget. He`s famous now for striking the search for truth out of the mission of the University of Wisconsin along with these $300 million cut that will devastate this top tier university. But his K-12 cuts are even worst not only is he cutting 130 million out of the K-12 budget in this next budget he`s proposing. He`s opening the door statewide to school vouchers. In Green Bay, School Choice Wisconsin has just issued an open record request for all the personal data and all the kids in that district, so they can solicit them to take out remaining public school... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CONNIFF: ... funds in Green Bay and take them to private school of school voucher. (CROSSTALK) SCHULTZ: Well, Governor Dean was that -- Governor Dean, will that litany of facts (ph) that we just got, it looks to me like that Scott Walkers is looking for some kind of political cover here. What do you make of he keeps telling the story? Does he know he`s vulnerable here? DEAN: He`s an interesting guy as far as I can tell. First of all, he`s done a lousy job as a Governor, the job growth in Wisconsin well behind the rest of the country. He`s got a situation where he is now, not as Ruth pointed out, not just cutting high school and K-12 education. He`s now cutting one of the greatest universities in the country, big time. And this is not a small -- $300 million is not a small cut. A guy who wants to talk about jobs and wants to get rid of the veterinary school, the medical school, these are all things that their president of the university mentioned that might have to go under these cuts. This is a guy who is going to do what`s best for Scott Walker. And I think he is - - actually, there`s a part of me that would love him to be the nominee because I think it would beat the living hell out of him because the American people were not stupid. But I also would rather have a nominee on the Republicans side not that I`m going to have anything to say about it, who would be a good president in case we don`t win. And Scott Walker would be probably the worst president. He would give George W. pretty run good for his money. SCHULTZ: What do you -- that`s a statement in itself. What do you -- Governor Dean, what do you make of the fact that all of these right-wing bloggers were so quick to his defense? And I have not seen any of the other -- and there are some other -- well, actually all of them have set some pretty risky or stupid things at onetime or another but they haven`t gotten the defense that Walker has gotten. How do you see that? DEAN: You know, I don`t know. For some reason, he is the -- I think he kind of taking a (inaudible) the institutions that have made this country great which is our universal public education, our public universities. And there are a lot of very angry people out the right. I know because I get all their tweets or idea until I figured out how to close their tweets down. But, you know, these are just -- the right-wing is a very angry group of people. And I think Scott Walker apparently is a good candidate for that which makes -- and this is a really bad candidate for the 85 percent of us that are not chronically angry about something. I was just -- I think we want to get a really good solid, middle of the road, thoughtful president who actually knows what they`re doing. And that does not -- that description does not fit Scott Walker. SCHULTZ: So Ruth, if Scott Walker has won three out of four elections in Wisconsin, why would we believe that that states going to go blue in 2016? How heavy a lift is that going to be for any democrat? CONNIFF: Well, I mean, this is the great appeal of Scott Walker, right, as they look at him as a blue state governor who`s been able to win and yet he has this very right-wing politics so he was able to appeal to the base. He sort of got this magic juice (ph) going now. But, you know, Wisconsin has repeatedly, you know, I have to say at the same time we were electing Scott Walker, again, we are electing Tammy Baldwin as senator and we have always been politically divided state. And I think that as Howard Dean points out. You know, what Walker speaks to is this very dangerous and so far successful formula in Wisconsin which is speaking to peoples` worst side (ph). You know, he talks about not helping people get more health care, more education. He`s cutting back on both of those things but he speaks to their resentment of their neighbors who do have those things until reducing, you know... SCHULTZ: Right. CONNIFF: ... drug testing welfare recipient, reducing health care even if it cost us more to give people less health care and cutting into education, cutting -- taking it to teachers because they have benefits that some -- private sector employees don`t have, has appealed to peoples` sense of resentment and bitterness but it sure he`s not building a better state here and it`s dangerous, well, more (ph) for the country. DEAN: Well, also the other point, Ed, is that he has not had to run on a presidential year, not still make a whole different thing, whole different -- I think, you know, I think he`s a very polarizing guy. I mean people either really like him as the far-right does where they really despise him. And I think that`s not a good kind of person as you want as president of the United States. I don`t think he`ll win in his home state if he wins the nomination. SCHULTZ: Ruth Conniff, Governor Howard Dean, great to have you with us on the Ed Show. DEAN: Thank you. SCHULTZ: I appreciate your time. Still ahead, part two of our week long series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill". Tonight, the impact on the environments and the health issues people are dealing with. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BLANCHARD: This whole shell fell off right here. There should be shell that`s going all the way to the bottom. That`s a cancer right here you got. SCHULTZ: That`s a cancer right there? BLANCHARD: Yeah. SCHULTZ: And can you tell by the color of the shell? BLANCHARD: The shell is gone. SCHULTZ: The shell is gone? BLANCHARD: Yeah, you can feel it. Feel it right here. You can see that shell off. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. The President spoke just a short time ago after meeting with new Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We talked about wide range of security challenges and opportunities that we face around the world, everything from making sure that we are dismantling the ISIL, and not only stabilizing the situation in Iraq but addressing the foreign fighter issue and countering the narrative of violent extremism that has been turbocharged through the internet. We had a chance to talk about the situation throughout Ukraine. We also had an opportunity to talk about how we maintain the strongest and most effective military in the world and how we keep faith with our outstanding men and women in uniform. I could not be more confident that Ash Carter is going to do an outstanding job to as Secretary of Defense. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And of course, Ashton Carter sworn in as Secretary of defense today. Carter is the Obama administration support Secretary of Defense replacing Chuck Hagel. And also today, the United States has approved its first policy for selling armed drones to allies. The State Department says the United States is committed to stringent standards for the sail, transport and subsequent use of U.S. origin military. We`ll be right back with more on the Ed Show. Stay with us. KATE ROGER, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks ends with modest gain today, the Dow adds 28, the S&P 3 and the NASDAQ rises 5 points. A parent company of Burger King and Tim Hortons reported a quarterly loss earlier due to cross related to the deal that combined the two companies have their (ph) sales growth sending shares up by more that 8 percent today. And homebuilder`s sentiment unexpectedly fell this month to a four year low. That`s as winter weather (inaudible) buying That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: And we are back. Tonight in part two of our series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill". I met with residents who showed me what they see as the ongoing environment issues in the region. Dean Blanchard one of the countries largest shrimp buyers show us first hand how gulf shrimp are paring in the wake of spill. Over in Florida, seafood process as David Barbara (ph) discusses the impact on marine life. And PJ Hahn, former Director of Plaquemines Parish`s Coastal Zone Management Department, he`s with us tonight and he shares his personal health story. They all have concerns about the health of the environment and the resident of the gulf. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That fire is still burning on that rig which is said to be leaking oil into the gulf. This was the coast guard begins to investigate what went wrong. SCHULTZ: Describe the impact on the environment from the spill five years after the fact. BLANCHARD: Ed, if we tell you some of the stuff we`ve seen, you wouldn`t believe it. I mean, I`ve seen bird fly and then liquid coming out of bird and all of sudden they wiggle a little bit and just crash and die. SCHULTZ: The gulf today is no where near what it was before the spill. HAHN: The Grand Isle as they refer to as bustling (ph) booming town. I mean, it was awesome place. It`s still an awesome place to come visit for the locals. But it was growing lifts and bounce, they got a wonderful mayor that was really promoting the island and it was doing -- fabulous. And then the when the oil spill came in it shut everything down. SCHULTZ: You see the effects everywhere, from the environment to wildlife to the seafood industry, into the health of the people. It seems and feels irreversible. What is the water quality right now? HAHN: It`s messed up and you can see whenever you hit the bottom with a wheel you can see oil coming from the bottom, you know, stuff like I mean. This is sick. SCHULTZ: One of the scary things about this is that the birds are still on these islands coming in here feeding. So you could just imagine the contamination that takes place within the wildlife, five years after the fact. Look how dark that is right there. This is stuff that`s been kick off from the bottom by the prop. This is what its looks like. Along the beach here in Grand Isle, Louisiana, there is evidence all over the beach of the damaging effects of the spill. Right here on the beach if I were to dig here, what would I find? BLANCHARD: You find all this tar ball that they buried. SCHULTZ: Tar balls? BLANCHARD: Yes. Yes. You find tar balls buried. I mean, a lot of people don`t let their kids on the beach because they, you know, that`s, you know, kids get on beach they`ll have a little scoop shovel and they dig them up all day long. HAHN: Today, they still getting tar balls on the beach that they have to get cleaned up. Every time we have anytime type of, you know, we can say a hurricane, high energy environment that creates a little bit of a storm, and pushes up against the shorelines. These guys come out here and find tar balls. You will find tar balls all days out there. SCHULTZ: It`s not unusual for these shrimp boats here at Grant Island to come up with this in their nets This is known as tar ball from a corexit that was put on the surface to push the oil down. Now, all the oil is gathered like this and it`s on the bottom and it ends up in shrimper`s nets, and they don`t like it. This is the economic breadbasket of the region, shrimp. What is it like here now? Is it there`s no shrimp? BLANCHARD: Very little, very little. We`ve probably doing about 30 percent of what we did before. And it actually got a little bit better last winter. You could see a couple of dolphin right there but used to very common in beaches, you see a thousand of dolphins over here. SCHULTZ: And what about the quality of the shrimp? BLANCHARD: On the inside, water we`re still having mutilated shrimp, shrimp with no eyes, shrimp with sore on him. On the outside, it`s getting a little bit better. SCHULTZ: So that it`s all rare. BLANCHARD: That is not abnormal. That all going into the head. But that`s a sore you got right here. That`s not normal. SCHULTZ: That`s a sore and that`s not normal, right there. BLANCHARD: This whole shell fell off right here. There should be shell as going all the way to the bottom. That`s a cancer right here you got. SCHULTZ: That`s a cancer right there. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. SCHULTZ: And you could tell by the color of the shell? BLANCHARD: The shell has gone. SCHULTZ: The shell is gone? BLANCHARD: Yeah. You feel it. Feel it right here. You see that is shell is off. See the shell, right here. SCHULTZ: Yeah. BLANCHARD: You can see enough. SCHULTZ: Now, what would do wit that? BLANCHARD: (Inaudible) shell all over. SCHULTZ: What would you do with that? BLANCHARD: We don`t eat the heads but that`s where most of the stuff added. SCHULTZ: So you just take them up and... BLANCHARD: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... you`re going to consume that? BLANCHARD: Yeah. The government says it`s all right to eat. SCHULTZ: The government says it`s OK. BLANCHARD: If you can`t believe the government, who can you believe in? SCHULTZ: It`s not only shrimp. The oyster industry has been dramatically affected. DAVID BARBER, OWNER, BARBER SEAFOOD: For us what happened is our bay is really died (ph) off in the last three years. We`re hours to bay to dives for some reason -- was to do with the oil spill some say these tar sands would be problem, lack of fresh water were some of the problem. And they were seeing now the oyster beds in Apalachicola go down a lot they have. SCHULTZ: In all the years you`ve been working. BARBER: In all the years, I`ve never seeing it. We usually -- we are one of the biggest buyers of oysters in the county from the bay and we used to get 200 to 300 bags a day and now we get about 50. SCHULTZ: And how about the quality of the oysters? BARBER: The quality is still pretty good. There were just a lot of, you know, because reproducing very small, you know, we have a problem with the lot of them being small and down on the west of the bay, oysters used to grow a little bigger down there and all of those oysters died. You know, I had a friend of mine owns a hostels down on that side and he is, you know, he is nothing. SCHULTZ: Many local seafood workers believed that tar balls are a direct result of the chemicals used in an effort to clean up the gulf. B.P. refused to that claim and says dispersants were an important and highly effective component of the response to the spill. What about the corexit that they use? Do that make it worst? BLANCHARD: In my opinion, that`s would -- that`s the whole problem we`ve got. They do another (inaudible), not in all the natural substance. I mean, once you put a chemical, I mean, you then destroying the gulf by putting all the oil in there. Why would you -- you come from miles by putting another 4 million to 5 million gallons of the chemicals in there. SCHULTZ: So they put the chemical on the oil spill. It messed up and fill to the bottom and it`s still there. BLANCHARD: And I really believe that when you spread those chemicals then it`s actually stopping the environment from cleaning itself. And all these, they just suck up the oil. You see you in the old days when you have an oil spill, what like my grandfather-in-law would do, they will throw here on and off because they wouldn`t put chemicals all these... SCHULTZ: (Inaudible) It was absorbed. BLANCHARD: It would float to the top all lighter in water. Water is having it all. So if you really want to pick up the oil, Ed, and it`s on the top of the water, why would you sink it to the bottom when it would be easier to pick it up if it`s on the top? When they started taking it to the bottom, we knew they weren`t trying to pick it up. SCHULTZ: While the gulf is left with chemical residue, many residents are left with health issues from rushes on the skin to respiratory problems to fatigue. It`s a health misery. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, when checking air quality over here. You can see that big (inaudible) across the beach, the air quality was right and back in the lobby (ph). This (inaudible) off the ground but the (inaudible) is just hot. So the wind would blow over the top of them and everyday that there we had a good air quality. SCHULTZ: What kind of health problems have you experienced, your friends, your neighbors? HAHN: I started, you know, having you have problems with breathing and a weird rash that breaks up from time to time. And, you know, and I just -- I went to the doctor and the doctor -- I will say what he said when he was and, basically, he didn`t know what it was and came out with some kind of letters forward to us and that means I don`t know what the hell... SCHULTZ: A lots of folks who have that? HAHN: Well, and I thought I just contributed to old age, because I was getting all with trouble of breathing and then talking to the people that work out there. They`re all complaining about the same thing. And when we went to the doctor and get treated for it, it doesn`t help. They treated it as like it`s asthma but ventilation (ph) with the other medications that they give you for asthma weren`t working on it. That you still felt the same and didn`t even relieve it a little bit. But there`s a lot of people that are far off that far worse than me and its still haven`t seeing a dime from B.P. from medical claims. SCHULTZ: That had nothing to do with the agriculture industry or anything? HAHN: No. No. SCHULTZ: They`re just folks that live here? HAHN: Folks that live here. Folks that worked out there during the oil spill, folks that -- if they came in contact with the oil and then a lot worse shape and I know that many of them that are worse shape than I am and it`s a shame because they`re still suffering and I still have rocking up medical bills. SCHULTZ: And then not could get a dime. HAHN: They haven`t seen it. They will be dead before they see a dime. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: We have invited representatives from B.P. to join us on this show so far. They have decided not to appear. That invitation remains open all week. B.P. has directed us to their website thestateofthegulf.com. The oil company has also pointed out numerous government and B.P funded studies showing health and environmental concerns have no direct correlation to the spill. From my experience, visiting with the folks down in the gulf, I think it would be hard for us to find gulf residents who would agree with that. Later in our series, we will hear from environmental experts on the gulf. Ahead in this hour, we`ll visit with a gulf area doctor about what he has seen patients since April of 2010. Our series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill" continues all week here on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`re right back. SCHULTZ: Tomorrow in part three of our series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill" we`ll explore the ripple effects from the disaster. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHIP WASSON, BUSINESS OWNER: To say it plummeted (ph) would be an understanding. Truly after the oil spill there was hope that it was going to get clean up, it was going to of get rectify and there was going to be an impact to the beaches here. And as time kept, you know, taking away each day and you`re watching the updates on the different news, medialets (ph). And the fear was that it was going to start washing up here on the shore and what was going to happen to tourism when it did. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tomorrow on the Ed Show, we`re hearing directly from coastal residents. And up next, we`re talking and taking a closer look at the health of the workers and residents after the spill. Dr. Mike Robichaux tells us what he is seeing in patients along the coast. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, it takes years after any oil spiller chemical disaster to learn the impacts on the environment in human health. It could be decades before the real picture truly emerges. One new study shows an unusual mortality event among marine mammals primarily bottlenose dolphins in the Northern Gulf of Mexico between 2010 and June 2013. The study links these deaths to B.P.`s historic 2010 oil spill. The study is part of a natural resource damage assessment in the Deepwater oil spill legal case against the responsible parties. We did reach out the NOAA team who led the study. They were unable to offer any other comment beyond what has been published. Marine life is just one small portion. Some people living and working in the gulf region are concerned about their own health. B.P.`s public health fact sheet says, "Studies by federal and state scientist and independent researchers have concluded that exposures of oil, oil constituents and dispersants for response workers and the public were, well, below levels that might be expected to raise health and safety concerns." Physicians in the region may argue otherwise. I am joined tonight by Dr. Mike Robichaux. He is a physician from South Louisiana who has treated over 100 patients who were exposed of the products of the spill. Dr., good to have you with us tonight. DR. MIKE ROBICHAUX, SOUTHERN LOUISIANA PHYSICIAN: Nice being with you. SCHULTZ: You bet. What are you hearing from your patients? What the symptoms are consistent? What are you seeing? ROBICHAUX: Ed, let me give you a short background on this. Right after the spill, I begin seeing people from Florida, Alabama, Mystic and Louisiana. All of them had some really weird symptoms. I`ve been in practice for over 40 years and I`ve never seen or heard anything like this. I`m and ear, nose and throat doctor but most of these people didn`t have insurance and didn`t have any resources and they were really sick as hell. I began trying to treat them and was able to do very little good at that time. Since that time, I`m probably seeing 200 or so people with these problems. And we did have a grant at one point in which we were able to put people through a detox program and got some reasonable results. But the fact to the matter is that we have some extremely, extremely sick people from the spill and many of them are still ill. They`re not being recognized and they`re no being compensated at all by B.P. SCHULTZ: And when I was in the area, I heard several people who live in the gulf talking about the health concerns since 2010. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAHN: I started getting problems with breathing and a weird rash that breaks out from time to time. And, you know, I just -- I went to the doctor and the doctor -- I will say what he said but it was basically he didn`t know what it was. Folks that live here, folks that worked out there during the oil spill, folks that -- if they came in contact with the oil and then a lot worse shape and I know that many of them that are worse shape than I am and it`s a shame because they`re still suffering and I still have rocking up medical bills. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Dr., what`s your reaction to that? ROBICHAUX: Well, all of these problems existed at one point. Actually, his skin problem and his lung problems were some of the least common of the serious problems that I saw. The patients that came in initially had extremes of headaches, memory loss, hearing ability, insomnia, vertigo, impotence. The list went on and on. And at one point, the federal judge in this case pointed 19 attorneys to a committee who once called the Plaintiff Steering Committee to negotiate with B.P. and decide what illnesses were going to be compensated and these horrible things that I`ve been seeing. And they wind up not listing any of the serious illnesses that I`ve been seeing in their areas that would be compensated through a class action lawsuit. SCHULTZ: So they ignored you? ROBICHAUX: They just completely ignore it. And I`m not a rocket scientist and I`m certainly not a toxicologist but I have some sicker (inaudible) patients that have been completely ignored and was sick to this day. We are paying B.P. freight for the health care of this people. I`ve got three of them that I know very well and very close to all (inaudible) social security right now, young people who incapacitated and will be incapacitated for the rest of their lives. SCHULTZ: Well, that`s what they want to focus on. There are people today that you see that are impacted by what unfolded five years ago. ROBICHAUX: Without a doubt, right. SCHULTZ: And are they involved in any kind of compensation or any kind of effort to get their medical bills replenished? ROBICHAUX: I don`t know... SCHULTZ: Reimbursed? ROBICHAUX: ... I don`t know all the legal statuses and so forth but they have not received a penny to the best of my knowledge that... SCHULTZ: And you know these people. They were healthy before the spill and they`re sick after the spill. ROBICHAUX: Absolutely. One young lady, is a brilliant young woman who went to Louisiana school for the gifted, Notchitoches. Got a genius I.Q shortly after the spill and she was exposed to a tremendous amount of these materials... SCHULTZ: Yeah. ROBICHAUX: ... she would get lost in her hometown. SCHULTZ: OK. ROBICHAUX: She couldn`t find her way home. She have to call people to drive her home because her memory was so bad. And that was one of the salient problems that we saw with this people who was enormous fatigue and memory loss. SCHULTZ: All right. Dr. Mike Robichaux, we`re going to have you back to talk more about this. It`s a very important subject. "Politics Nation" with Reverend Al Sharpton starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021701cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 77 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 17, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 17, 2015 BYLINE: Rev. Al Sharpton GUESTS: Dana Milbank, Lloyd Doggett, Joe Madison, Midwin Charles, Ken Padowitz, Angela Rye, John Fugelsang, Alyona Minkovski SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6616 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama speaking out against a court ruling from a Republican appointed judge temporarily blocking his action on immigration. House Republicans are trying to block Loretta Lynch from taking office of attorney general. The prosecution rested today in the case today in the "American Sniper" trial. Eddie Ray Routh is accused of killing the hero from the movie, Chris Kyle, and his friend Chad Littlefield in 2013. The "New York Times" reports Hillary Clinton met with Senator Elizabeth Warren one on one in a private meeting in December. The Times reports Clinton asked for policy ideas and suggestions from Warren, and used the meeting to build a relationship with Warren. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. We start tonight with breaking news. Late today, President Obama speaking out against a court ruling from a Republican appointed judge temporarily blocking his action on immigration. The ruling represents a major new threat to nearly five million people protected by the president`s historic move. And the president says he will fight it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: With respect to the ruling, I disagree with it. I think the law is on our side and history is on our side. And we are going to appeal it. And we will be prepared to implement this fully as soon as the legal issues get resolved. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: In this new ruling, Judge Andrew Hanen claimed that the Obama administration had exacerbated illegal immigration. And accused the homeland security secretary of rewriting the laws and even creating them from scratch. The Republican officials behind this lawsuit knew what they were doing when they shopped for a friendly court purposely filing in Judge Hanen district. He was appointed by President George W. Bush. The conservative "National Review" says he has a record of hawkish immigration positions. And in an opinion last year, he even claimed the White House deportation policies endangers America. The justice department is going to appeal this ruling. But in the meantime, the president`s program is on hold with millions of people once again left in the shadows by the GOP. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We should not be tearing some mom away from her child when the child has been born here and that mom has been living here the last ten years minding her own business and being an important part of the community. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Those are the stakes right now. And tonight this fight is far from over. Joining me now are Congressman Lloyd Doggett, Democrat from Texas and Dana Milbank of "the Washington Post." Thank you both for being here. DANA MILBANK, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Hi, Reverend. REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D), TEXAS: Thank you, Reverend Al. SHARPTON: Congressman, you`re a former judge. What`s your reaction to the news that White House will fight this ruling? DOGGETT: Well, I would say the more, the faster they can do it, I thought it was very unusual to have an opinion come out of a federal court at 10:00 on a Sunday night, and be such an overreached. I met today with some of the students who are dreamers. And we see this as a clash, of course, nationally between the judiciary and the president. But I`m concern about the impact on them. You got a woman named Lorino who lived from being a rent chant (ph) and now hoping to become a civil engineer. That`s the type of talent we need. And this judicial overreaction really just impairs her future. SHARPTON: Now Congressman, you talk about a young lady you met with. I mean, do your colleagues, do your Republican colleagues not care about these kinds of people? DOGGETT: Well, sometimes I feel like maybe they`re on another planet. They seem to be on the program that their whole immigration approach is deportation today, deportation tomorrow, and deportation forever. They want to deport the dreamers who have been here, 600,000 of them have gone through the program already. They have cleared criminal background checks. They paid a fee. They`re out there attending school or some in cases, here at San Antonio, they`re out there working in our community already. It is the type of talent that has made America strong in the past. These young people have so much to contribute. Let`s not let one George Bush appointee down in the southern tip of the United States prevent more of these young people from participating in this program and then eventually the parents of American citizens to do the same in May. SHARPTON: Dana isn`t that really what we are talking about. We are talking about a Bush appointed judge, known as an immigration hub (ph). Is it really anyone surprise he ruled there way? MILBANK: No, I don`t think so, Reverend. And that is why there is really is just sort of a speed bomb here. Here, you have a judge has been unwavering in his hostility to the administration, particularly on immigration issues. There was venue shopping going on. And almost certainly this will be -- the injunction will be lifted on appeal and ultimately won`t be the policy. So at most it does is slow it down a little bit. And, you know, if you look at this crassly as a political matter, it`s not such a bad position for the president to be on now that he`s on the side of this very important demographic in American political culture right now. And you see George W. Bush appointed judge standing in the way. SHARPTON: No. Well, politically, you may be right, but for five million people they`re not thinking about politics tonight. MILBANK: Exactly. You`re right. SHARPTON: But Congressman, in this decision, Judge Hanen accuses the federal government of quote "complete abdication on its responsibilities on immigration." Now, what struck me about that, Congressman, is it sounds very similar to the absent indication rhetoric we hear from your colleagues, the Republicans in Congress. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president has absent dated his statutory responsibilities in enforcing the law --. SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: The humanitarian crisis that is playing out on our southern border right now, and the abdication of responsibility that`s playing out in Washington, D.C. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Congressman, again, you were a judge, won an appeal caught take this political language with a grain of salt? DOGGETT: It does sound in part a little like a stump speech. I have been hearing there in the floors of the floor of the capitol. Yes, I think that we will see this stayed. I hope it will be soon. And whatever the value one way or the other politically, I just look at it from the perspective of these young people I`ve been visiting with, the uncertainty that these families face of being torn apart. We will continue our efforts telling them get your application filled out, be prepared to act as soon as this court has acted to stop this nonsense, because these families want to be part of America. Many of these young people have never known any other country and we need to give them that opportunity. At the same time in Washington, we fund the department of homeland security. SHARPTON: You know, Dana, but isn`t that what is disturbing, right-wing talking points in a legal decision? I mean, what does this say about the judiciary here? MILBANK: Yes. And I think they have to get the talking points straight. So, is the president a monarch or is he abdicated? Because if he abdicated, he`s no longer a monarch. So they have got to get straight on that. Yes, I mean, look. You have seen, you know, we`ve heard a lot of complaints about activist federal judges, typically from conservatives. But of course, conservative judges can be activists, too. And here`s a guy who is doing that, who is essentially legislating from the bench and trying to undo what the duly elected president has done. SHARPTON: Congressman Doggett, we also have the speaker, Speaker Boehner, saying that he`s willing to let homeland security funding run out unless Democrats agree to defund the president`s actions. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: And what if the department of homeland security runs out? REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Then Senate Democrats should be to blame, very simply. WALLACE: You`re prepared to let that happen? BOEHNER: Certainly. The house has acted. We have done our job. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, a new poll finds 53 percent of Americans would blame Republicans if there is pause or shutdown of the homeland security department. Just 30 percent would blame President Obama. Is it about time, Congressman Doggett, that Republicans started rethinking their strategy here? DOGGETT: Absolutely. If they want to hide behind this erroneous decision, they can use it as an excuse. Let`s not see furloughed some 30,000 department of homeland security employees at a time we face additional international concerns about our security. It`s unfair. Majority leader McConnell said earl why are in the years, no more government shutdowns. And here we haven`t gone two month and they`re talking about doing it again, for, of all things, the department of homeland security, to say they will not fund it the way other federal agencies are funded is just really incredible. And it jeopardizes the ability of that department to provide grants to local law enforcement and to do other things that it wants to do to assure that we are protected. Same people that are complaining, we don`t have enough border security are the ones who won`t fund the security we have and need. SHARPTON: You know, Dana, let`s go back on that point from the Congressman. Let`s go back to your point on politics. How do the Republicans think they can have a future for the party when they offend a major constituency in terms of Latino vote? And in these times where we have all of these real anxieties about security, you`re going to even flirt with shut down homeland security, and what that means to American people, real or imagined? MILBANK: Right. Well, Reverend, if you`re taking the long view, it really is inexplicable. I mean, I think the Republicans feel they can get away with this, you know, largely white male southern party for a little bit longer. Obviously, they can`t do it for very long. This sort of conflict is going to highlight that distinction, and that`s why, you know, if anything, I think that the poll numbers that you cite probably will be even more lopsided if the shutdown actually comes, because the president, any president, tends to win these fights with Congress, particularly because he`s got public support both on immigration, and he can be suggesting that the Republicans are being weak on terrorism. So it`s -- it`s a no-win situation they seem to have gotten themselves into here. And you`ve got to think they`re going to find a way to climb down. SHARPTON: Congressman, do you believe they will let the department of homeland security shut down? DOGGETT: It could happen, Reverend Al. It`s amazing, things happens with these folks should never expect. Speaker Boehner was here in San Antonio not so long ago last year telling us that he wanted to get immigration resolved. He`s continued to say that throughout this. And the only reason the president had to take this action is because of the total failure of the House of Representatives to consider this issue and permit people of goodwill, who are Republicans and Democrats, to come together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. They cannot even pass through the house a totally partisan Republican homeland security bill only that was proposed earlier that would demand before we act on other immigration that our border tighter than North Korea, totally unrealistic bill. They were all for it committee and then afraid to bring it up on the floor of the United States house. Anything that smacks of action on immigration other than deportations seems to be something that these Republicans will not get behind. SHARPTON: Congressman Lloyd Doggett, and newly clean-shaven Dana Milbank, thank you both for your time tonight. MILBANK: Thanks, Reverend. DOGGETT: Thank you. SHARPTON: Coming up, the new GOP campaign to block the Loretta Lynch nomination, the real reason they oppose her as attorney general. Also, dramatic video from inside the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. Why did he take apart his phone the day after the victim`s death? All that plus the secret meeting between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Why the first lady is teaming up with big bird. And all reaction from my red carpet run-in with Sarah Palin. Big show tonight. Stay with us. SHARPTON: Tonight there`s a coordinated effort in the GOP to derail Loretta Lynch`s nomination for attorney general. Why is it happening? And why now? That`s next. SHARPTON: Winter snow closed most government offices in Washington D.C. today, leading to scenes like this. (VIDEO CLIP PLAYING) SHARPTON: A massive snowball fight in a D.C. park, since so many kids and adults had a snow day. But it was still a busy day at the White House, where vice president Biden today swore in Ashton Carter as our nation`s news defense secretary. It was a big day for Secretary Carter, and it should be. But this stands in stark contrast to what happens happening to another Obama nominee, Loretta Lynch for attorney general. Take a look at this. It took 74 days from Secretary Carter`s nomination to his swearing in. President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch 101 days before, and the Senate committee hasn`t even voted on her confirmation yet. And now, House Republicans are trying to block her, too. A group of house complains are reportedly pressuring Senate judiciary members to oppose Lynch`s nomination. And 20 of them have signed on the effort (ph). Loretta Lynch is more than qualified to run the justice department. So here`s my question. We got a new defense secretary today. Why haven`t we gotten a new attorney general? Joining me now is Sirius XM radio host Joe Madison. Thanks for being here, Joe. JOE MADISON, HOST, MORNINGS WITH MADISON: Thank you, Reverend. SHARPTON: The house has no say in approving the president`s nominees. Why are all these House Republicans trying to block Loretta Lynch from taking office? MADISON: They do the dirty work for the Senate. The Senate is supposed to be an August body, the more deliberate body, but what they do is allow the house to be the rabble-rousers, particularly to rabble up their base. That`s number one. Number two, let`s go back to your last segment on immigration. This is exactly one of the issues that they are definitely opposed to. She has said and stated that she certainly agrees with the president`s position on immigration, and would represents that position as the attorney general. Well, that did it as far as those house members of concerned. And then I think there`s the 800-pound gorilla in the room. I think the fact that she`s a woman, that she`s African-American, that they think that she`s going to be another Eric Holder, has a lot to do with it. And as you know, being from New York, Loretta Lynch has taken on the mob, she`s taken on terrorists, she`s taken on Wall Street. She has taken on some of the most difficult cases that this country has, and if I`m not mistaken, she`s been confirmed twice. SHARPTON: Not only confirmed twice. In the hearings around the Judiciary Committee, they were all praising her. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: I`m impressed with your qualifications, and I hope to support your nomination. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m very impressed with your career and want to thank you for upholding the law in your career. SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: And I should say congratulations to you for an outstanding career. CRUZ: A number of my friends and colleagues who practice law in New York have reached out to me with words of praise for you. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: A compliment from Ted Cruz? I mean, here is no doubt she`s qualified. Why don`t they just take the vote? MADISON: Well, that is because they`re afraid of their base. That`s exactly what this is all about. These guys are playing to their base. And the bottom line is, once again, you know and I know, if there was any real, real opposition, serious opposition to what Loretta Lynch could not do this job, New York is full of legal minds that would express that. So, you know, take the vote and let`s call it a day. As a matter of fact there`s a historical opportunity for the Republican party to do just that. Here we are in February, near the end of black history month, and they could make some great inroads because, once again, as you know, they have already confirmed her twice. They know this attorney general -- I mean, this nominee almost better than they`ve known any nominee that`s come before them. SHARPTON: But Joe, I mean, and I hear you about her position on immigration. I think Jeff Sessions of Alabama even said that, they are reevaluating based on immigration stand. But isn`t this really also some of them just spitting at President Obama and attorney general Holder? MADISON: This is exactly what it is. You hit it. This is about going after Eric Holder. I think I said this the last time. Think probably have mentioned Eric Holder`s name more in this committee hearing than they have mentioned Loretta Lynch`s name. This is exactly what this is about. She is her own woman. She has been her even woman. She`s one heck of a prosecutor, always has been, and they ought to allow the president to have his attorney general bottom line take the vote, call it a day, and let`s get on with enforcing the laws of the United States of America. When she takes that oath of office, it would not be to uphold President Obama. It would to uphold the constitution of the United States. SHARPTON: Joe Madison, thank you for your time tonight. MADISON: Thank you, Reverend. Coming up, the prosecution rests in the American sniper trial. Plus Hillary Clinton`s secret meeting with Elizabeth Warren. What happened inside Hillary`s house? And why did she want it? And everywhere I go, people are asking me about my meeting it Sarah Palin. I enjoyed it. Those responses are ahead. SHARPTON: The right wing is still cracking up over Phil Robertson, the star of Doug Dynasty. He is being honored with a free speech award at the conservative CPAC summit later this month. Now, these folks can do what they want. But it does seem a little odd. After all, Mr. Doug was the guy who compared homosexuality to bestiality, who said African-Americans were happy picking cotton (ph) before welfare. And who suggested people deserve to disease because of who they love. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PHIL ROBERTSON, STAR, : Now to me, either it`s the wildest coincidence ever that horrible diseases follow immoral conduct, or it`s God saying there`s a penalty for that kind of conduct. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Since when is speech like that worthy of an award. Believe it or not there`s actually one thing even more bizarre than Phil Robertson receiving a free speech award. The group giving it to him is Citizen United, the same Citizen United that went all the way to the Supreme Court to argue that money was the same thing as speech. So maybe they were just confused when they gave a free speech award to Mr. Duck, because a group that also thinks money is free speech doesn`t have a grasp of the concept. Did they think we would be happy, happy, happy about this? Because we`re not. Nice try. But we Got You. SHARPTON: It`s time for the "Justice Files." Joining me now legal analyst Midwin Charles and former prosecutor Ken Padowitz. Thank you both for being here tonight. MIDWIN CHARLES, LEGAL ANALYST: Thanks, Rev. KEN PADOWITZ, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thank you. SHARPTON: The prosecution rested today in the case today in the "American Sniper" trial. Eddie Ray Routh is accused of killing the hero from the movie, Chris Kyle, and his friend Chad Littlefield in 2013. They volunteered to try to help Routh deal with his PTSD. The prosecution`s case hinges on the question, did Routh know right from wrong. Routh has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The prosecution showed Routh driving Kyle`s truck in a high-speed chase before he turned himself into police, and the moments after his arrest when he said, I don`t know if I am insane. And a taped confession where Routh said, quote, "I was going to be the next one getting my head shot off if I didn`t take out his soul, he was going to take my soul next." Midwin, how did the prosecution do? CHARLES: I think they did the best they could with what they have. Here you have a defendant with a history of mental illness, and so from a defense perspective, I could see whether the defense would want to say, hey, he`s not guilty by reason of insanity but I think the prosecution did an effective job of showing that this guy knows the difference between right and wrong by pointing out certain facts. One, he fled, which is clearly is an indication that you know that what you just did is something that you want to evade capture from. SHARPTON: Right. CHARLES: And also, his statements, you know, he admitted to killing them and said, he was sorry. What does that mean? It means that you feel bad about what you did, because what you did you know is wrong. So, I think the prosecution did the best that they could in showing that those are the kinds of things that indicate that he knew the difference between right or wrong at the time of the killings, not before or after. SHARPTON: Ken, how do you think the prosecution did? PADOWITZ: I think the prosecution did a very good job. I mean, I was a homicide prosecutor. And I used to look at all the people that I prosecuted from first degree murder, and I thought they were all crazy to do what they did. But the reality is that in a trial where the defense is insanity, most juries do not buy that as a defense. And I think in this case is going to be the same problem for the defense. They`ll going to have a hard time, the defense, convincing a jury that this client that who`s on trial didn`t know right from wrong. He`s apologizing for shooting these two men, so I think that very clearly is pushed by the prosecution to this jury. He does in fact know the difference from right or wrong, and most juries like I said, don`t buy the insanity defense. SHARPTON: What does the defense need to do, Midwin? CHARLES: At this point they`re doing all they can do. See, this is the thing, when you`re a defense attorney, you get the case the way it is, you have to work with what you have. And what these defense attorneys have, is they have someone with a history of PTSD, diagnosed in 2011. They have a client who was medicated, and who also took drugs, so they are doing the best that they can do. And all they can do right now is point out, listen, this person didn`t know the difference between right or wrong. SHARPTON: Right. CHARLES: And he was out of his mind when he committed these crimes. I think it`s an uphill battle, but they`re doing what it is they have to do. All defense attorneys must represent their clients zealously and do as much as they can to get an acquittal. SHARPTON: Ken, let`s move to the Aaron Hernandez murder trial, and the video his lawyers did not want the jury to see. Hernandez is accused of killing semipro athlete Odin Lloyd in 2013. Here`s the video the prosecution showed today from the day after the killing, when Hernandez left the Police Department, a detective zoomed in on him with a surveillance camera in the parking lot. And if you look closely, you see his cell phone is in three pieces on his lap. Police say he took it apart. Now look at this shot. It`s a little bit later, and it shows Hernandez using two phones, the second one is from his lawyers. Prosecutors say he used that new phone to call the one of the other men charged with Lloyd`s murder. Ken, the defense tried to keep this video out of the trial. How does it help the prosecution? PADOWITZ: Well, it`s got to be really weak evidence, quite frankly, Rev. I mean, somebody`s phone doesn`t work well, they take the battery out, they reset it. You know, he didn`t destroy this phone, he didn`t demolish it, he didn`t break the sim card in half. So, I think it`s a piece of circumstantial evidence the prosecution wants to present to the jury, but it`s not that strong. It`s a rather weak piece of evidence. And the fact he`s using another phone may also just corroborate a defense argument that the first phone wasn`t working properly. So, it`s rather weak. And as a prosecutor, I would have presented it, but I would have framed it to the jury that this is just a small piece of evidence to consider in light of all the other evidence we presented to you in this front. SHARPTON: What were they trying to do? CHARLES: I think they were just trying to show that, you know, he made certain calls at that particular time, and therefore trying to box him in. And also, a lot of times what prosecutors do, is they introduce evidence to sort of create a timeline of events. So, that could have been where they were going, with introducing that evidence, but I agree with him, I don`t see how strong it is. This is a circumstantial case, it is not a slam dunk, but when you start adding circumstance after circumstance after circumstance, you start marching towards a conviction. SHARPTON: Let me raise this, though, Ken. Hernandez is inside a car in a public parking lot. Is there an expectation of privacy here? PADOWITZ: No, not at all. In fact, all the time when you`re in public, for instance, even in a police station or in the back of a police car, there`s no expectation of privacy. Police officers all the time put two defendants together in the back of a car and hope they talk, and they record that conversation. So, there`s no expectation of privacy that he`s in another vehicle in a public parking lot taking apart a phone? No, no expectation of privacy. SHARPTON: So when you say this is a circumstantial case in terms of evidence, but they`re trying to piece enough together that a jury would say there`s enough there to convict? CHARLES: Absolutely, but I think that I think is missing from this case is motive. And I don`t know that the prosecutors are doing a good job of showing motive. You don`t need it to get a conviction, but juries sure as hell like it. SHARPTON: Well, all right, thank you both. Still ahead, the agenda for the secret private meeting between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Also, apple`s next big thing. Why the auto industry may have something to worry about. And what you are saying about my surprise run-in with Sarah Palin. "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: Time now for "Conversation Nation," joining us tonight, political strategist Angela Rye. Political comedian and Sirius/XM radio host, John Fugelsang, and HuffPost Live host Alyona Minkovski. Thank you all for being here tonight. ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Thank you. ALYONA MINKOVSKI, HUFFPOST LIVE HOST: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: We begin tonight with the secret meeting between two progressive power houses. The "New York Times" reports Hillary Clinton met with Senator Elizabeth Warren one on one in a private meeting in December. The Times reports Clinton asked for policy ideas and suggestions from Warren, and used the meeting to build a relationship with Warren. A democrat briefed on the meeting called it cordial and productive, but Hillary did not ask Ms. Warren to consider endorsing her likely presidential campaign. Angela, a pretty juicy story. What do you make of this meeting? RYE: I think that the democrats are better at keeping secrets than the many republicans, Rev. You know that when Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney met, just a couple of weeks ago, that was making front page news. Jeb Bush was taking photos in the airport at DCA and now you have a meeting that took place in December and we`re just not talking about it in February, so I think we`re certainly better strategists in the sense, we`re able to hold our water a little bit. SHARPTON: Alyona? MINKOVSKI: I think it`s one of those situations where, you know, they say, keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. Elizabeth Warren has a lot of support. And even though she repeatedly have said that she`s not planning on running for president. People want her to, they are begging her to. They have set up a PAC without asking her, you know, without asking her if she wants them to or not, in order to try to encourage her to run. And so Hillary Clinton knows that this is someone who could be taking attention away from her, and I think that hopefully she might pick up a things or two. Elizabeth Warren has a big progressive race that really does report her and her stands on issues when it comes to the economy and Wall Street. SHARPTON: John? JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUS/XM RADIO HOST: You know, for millions of progressives, Elizabeth Warren Rev is a melve (ph). Mom, I would like to vote for. And I think it`s a very, very smart strategy on the part of Mrs. Clinton. And I will read Mrs. Clinton`s book if she promises to read Elizabeth Warren`s book. SHARPTON: All right. Let me ask you, Angela, if Elizabeth Warren has input and does not run, that clears the field of any potential superstar or big name, but you still have others out there. Could any of them gain traction? RYE: I think other folks could gain traction Rev, but I think we need to just level with the progressive community at this point. Elizabeth Warren is not running. And sure, there are things that she could share with Hillary Clinton, but Hillary Clinton is no rookie. We`re talking about a woman who was first lady for two terms of her President`s tenure. We`re talking about a senator from New York, we`re talking about someone who has already run a presidential race. So, she can learn from them, but she can also teach them. So, whether or not anyone else jumps in, it`s clear that folks are ready for Hillary, and she`s certainly ready to run. SHARPTON: But John, Karl Rove said if Elizabeth Warren ran, it could give her a run for a money. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KARL ROVE, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: It certainly would give her a scare. I think this Elizabeth Warren`s hard-left prescriptions in the economy sing to the heard of democratic primary voters. So, yes, I think she could give her a run for her money. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Run for her money, John? FUGELSANG: Well, I want to give you credit Reverend for airing a sound clip where Karl Rove isn`t wrong about something for the first time in history. However, I do think it was very smart strategy on the part of Mrs. Clinton to sit-down with Senator Warren not since Barack Obama have we seen a senator this popular. I do hope she`s challenged by someone in the primary season. I think, you know working on her debate skills will only help her in the fall. SHARPTON: Now, let`s move on to something else. Move over iPad and iPhone. Are you ready for the I car? That`s right, the "Wall Street Journal" reporting Apple has hundreds of employees working on an electric car, while Apple has decline to confirm the rumors, people familiar with the plan say the company is recruiting car technology experts and designers and that the top-secret project has been code named "Titan." Alyona, is the world ready for an Apple car? MINKOVSKI: I think the world is definitely ready for an Apple car. The world was ready for flying cars a long time ago. SHARPTON: Really? MINKOVSKI: That`s the Hollywood toll that we were going to get. But the technology obviously isn`t there yet. But I think the Apple is smart again to this game. Because there`s a lot of competitors out there. I think that google is certainly one of them, some of the rumors surrounding the Apple car say that it might be a driverless one, which is something that we already know Google is working on, and it also might be. An electric vehicle and Tesla owns that game right now. And so, Apple I think is trying to prove to investors that, you know, they have a lot of big plans and ideas for the future as well as consumers and the automotive industry that they are ready to move things forward. SHARPTON: Angela, an Apple car? RYE: Rev, I`m not sure about this one. I think that sometimes you have to stay in your lane, all kinds of pun intended there. And I just think that, you know, perhaps this is going one step too far. I know there were also reports saying that they were considering a merger or a purchase of Tesla. If that doesn`t happened, I don`t know why of if I would trust Apple behind the wheel. SHARPTON: Well, stay in your lane, we`re talking about which car you`re going to have in your lane, John, what do you think? FUGELSANG: Well, look, I mean, I`m thrilled that something else will going to get made in China, Rev. That`s a great thing. You know, I guess I`m just curious to know if the Apple car will come with windows, because that will be a joke that everyone tells when they go to buy it. I`ve heard the same rumor that they`re interests in buying Tesla. I`m thrilled to see a new technology race on who`s going to have the most popular electric car. And I hope that it has a battery life of more than 20 minutes. Considering it`s an Apple program, I hate to see how large the multipack is for the Apple car. SHARPTON: How large the multipack is and whether it has windows. Ha ha, I just got it. (LAUGHTER) Now, let me ask you, would you be afraid, Alyona, of a car that has no driver. If you`re out driving, and rumor comes that there`s the car that drives itself, how do you think you and most of the public react that are still driving their own cars? MINKOVSKI: I think there`s a lot of questions that need to be answered there. And that`s something that, you know, people are working on even when it comes to the ethics of it like making a decision. Let`s say that you need to swerve out of the way because there`s an obstacle in the road and it`s, you know, either hitting a car that has five people in it or hitting a pedestrian. Who is going to make that call or thrust a car to do it and that`s something that we might be having a face in the future. SHARPTON: All right. Everyone, stay with me. When we come back, the first lady promotes healthy eating with some help from big bird, and Billy on the street. And the reaction from my red carpet meeting with Sarah Palin, next. SHARPTON: We`re back with the panel, Angela, John and Alyona. Next up tonight the video everyone is talking about online today. First Lady Michelle Obama teamed up with "Funny or Die" comedian Billy Eichner, and Big Bird as well to promote a new healthy eating initiative. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Tell us, what is e-brighter about? MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: We have the "Sesame Street" friends like Big Bird teaming up with the produce industry to try to help make eating fruits and vegetables fun and exciting for kids and their parents. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I love vegetables. OBAMA: Me too. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We`re bribing kids to eat fruit! (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But the fun was just beginning. Mrs. Obama along with a surprise contestant played Billy`s unique brand of quiz show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Be honest, who is hotter Abraham Lincoln or Barack Obama? OBAMA: Oh, Barack Obama. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I`m sorry. It`s Abraham Lincoln. It all goes by my opinion. By the way, very offensive to Mary Todd. Next question -- slow dance with Big Bird while I sing "Don`t Want to Miss a Thing." Just right here, here we go, ready you guys? I don`t want to close my eyes, I don`t want to fall asleep because I miss you babe and I don`t want to miss a thing. Final question, for a dollar, give some a hug with a knowing look that tells me it`s all going to be okay. Oh, thank you so much. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Flotus wins the game. Eat brighter. OBAMA: Eat your vegetables. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Well, you can eat lots of other stuff, too. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Okay, great, thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Angela, how effective is this for the First Lady? RYE: I think it`s tremendously effective, Rev. We have seen in the recent past the President as well going on to YouTube with some of the YouTube sensations to promote health care. And I think this is one of those thing where you have to go and meet your audience where they are. It`s a great way to promote healthy eating and it`s also a great way to ensure that Big Bird Keeps his job, given what Mitt Romney wanted to do to him during the elections. SHARPTON: John, those that say that it`s not what the President and First Lady ought to be doing. FUGELSANG: Well, you know, Reverend, people who hated Michelle Obama before this, will still hate Michelle Obama after this. You can`t flip-off the hate, it`s corrosive and it rots of brain. This is completely positive and I would love to see Michelle Obama go a step further and warn people against hitting crap out of boxes but it was very harmless and she can do no wrong with me, I should be impeached, I like her so much. SHARPTON: Alyona, let me go to this because I`ve got to do this. I have to say, everywhere I go, people are still asking me about my red carpet meeting with Sarah Palin. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: This is the shot I want. I want this right here. SHARPTON: Talk about the odd couple, right? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: No, no, this is awesome. This is what SNL can do. SHARPTON: We are the direct opposites of American politics, but we`re here tonight. SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: But you know what we both love America so much? SHARPTON: That`s right. PALIN: I mean, it`s Americana all the way and respect for the entertainment value that they provide our society. SHARPTON: And they spoof both of us. We`re equally spoofed. And I defend the fact that she actually sees Russia from her house. PALIN: Oh, good! See! I`m going to kick you in the shins. SHARPTON: We can disagree without being disagreeable. PALIN: Yes. Yes. And at the end of the day, I mean, there are some funny things that are going on in this world today. SHARPTON: I want you to run again. It will help us out. PALIN: You think? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You running again, Sarah? PALIN: Not if it`s according to his reasoning, no! (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Our Facebook fans have been loving it. Raymond said, "You made my day." Jerry said, "Never let them see you sweat." And Donna says, "It`s sort of like keep your friends close and your enemies closer." True, Donna, but Sarah Palin isn`t my enemy. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Alyona, meeting Rush next? MINKOVSKI: Yes. Sure. I would take a meeting. Good on you Rev, for giving her a hard time, but I think it was interesting, there was certainly some tension there, it was palpable, she kept trying to give you a little slap on the face, trying to kick you in the shins. She was feeling hurt. SHARPTON: Well, I tried to get a couple of little digs in in a friendly way. I will not even ask Angela her opinion. And I`ve got to go. Angela, John and Alyona, thank you for joining "Conversation Nation" tonight. RYE: Thank you. MINKOVSKI: Thank you. SHARPTON: Last night`s epic tribute to Stevie Wonder. My tribute to my longtime friend is next. SHARPTON: Finally tonight, an all-star tribute for the musical genius Stevie Wonder. The living legend was honored by the Grammys committee with a star-studded tribute airing last night. Some of the biggest names in music came out to celebrate like Beyonce, John Legend, Lady Gaga, Ariana Grande, Pharrell, and others. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: You love Stevie Wonder like I love Stevie Wonder, I want you to stand. (MUSIC PLAYING) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Stevie is a legendary performer, and he`s also a dedicated activist. He led the push for federal holidays to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. He dedicated his academy award to Nelson Mandela, prompting the apartheid regime to ban all of his music. Stevie and I go way back. I`ve known him a number of years, both in business and in my personal life. A highlight of my career was having him join us on our advancing the dream special from the Apollo in 2013. (MUSIC PLAYING) Stevie Wonder is peerless, is ageless, is genius. If anyone deserves an award, it`s Stevie Wonder. It`s no wonder they did it all last night. Thanks no watching, I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021701cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 78 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 17, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 17, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes GUESTS: Joaquin Castro, Erika Andiola, Bob Kincaid, Zach Bissonette, Naomi Schaeffer Riley, George Hatcher SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8141 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama`s immigration action stopped dead in its tracks by a Texas judge. Interview with U.S. Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas. Fires are still burning near Mount Carbon, West Virginia, nearly 24 hours after a train carrying 107 tankers of crude oil derailed, triggering massive explosions, and sending a huge fire ball into the sky. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is giving rights and benefits to those who are violating the law. The president does not have that power. HAYES: President Obama`s immigration action stopped dead in its tracks by a Texas judge. Tonight, the political explosion on Capitol Hill and the human toll across the country. Then, the fire is still burning in West Virginia as we learn more about the supposed safety of crude oil trains. And then, an exclusive interview with one of the hundreds of finalists vying for a one-way trip to Mars. And, the Republican 2016 front runner is a college dropout. BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS: Isn`t kind of strange a presidential candidate who didn`t finish college? HAYES: Tonight, why I say a college degree should not be a prerequisite to becoming president. SCOTT BROWN (R), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: I don`t think we need another Harvard professor or a Harvard graduate at the White House. HAYES: ALL IN starts rights now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. One of President Obama`s signature accomplishments of late and the fate of as many 5 million people have been thrown into legal limbo today. Late last night, a federal judge in Texas blocked President Obama`s executive action on immigration, which the president announced in a primetime address to the nation in November, and which would offer work permits and protection from deportation to millions of undocumented immigrants. The preliminary injunction from the Federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen does not rule on whether the president exceeded his constitutional or statutory power. Instead, it finds that the 26 mostly Republican-led states that filed a lawsuit against the executive action have standing to do so. It prohibits the Obama administration from carrying out its action as the lawsuit moves forward. President Obama today promised to appeal the ruling, saying he was well within his authority to act. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`m not willing to just stand by and do nothing and engage in a lot of the political rhetoric. I`m interested in actually solving problems. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Republicans reacted to the ruling with glee, casting as a repudiation of the president`s executive overreach. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Last night`s decision was a major turning point in the battle to stop President Obama`s lawless amnesty. The president is bound by federal law just like everybody else. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: This rule doesn`t come as the huge surprise. The president`s reporters say the plaintiffs in the lawsuit chose to file in this district, the 7th district in Texas in Brownsville, precisely because Judge Hanen, a 2002 George W. Bush appointee, was seen as likely to rule in their favor. "New York Times" points out the judge has excoriated the Obama administration immigration policies in several initially outspoken rulings, declaring last summer its deportation policy endangers America and was, quote, "an open invitation to the most dangerous criminals in society." Joining me now, Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas. Congressman, your reaction to the ruling? REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D), TEXAS: Well like others, I was disappointed. You know, you never want to go to court and lose. But as you mentioned in your opening segment, this was an attorney general in Greg Abbot at the time who is now governor of Texas and folks in 25 or 26 other states who were determined to court shop and find a judge that they were pretty sure would rule in their favor. And so, this is an injunction. Hopefully, the Fifth Circuit will put a stay on that injunction. But it was not a ruling on the merits at all. And so, I think in the end, whether it`s at the Fifth Circuit or if this case finds its way to the Supreme Court, the president`s actions will be upheld. HAYES: The states -- the plaintiffs in this case are saying the president doesn`t have the authority to do that, that basically that they did not take proper care to allow for commenting in the manner that is required by a federal statute, that make sure that regulations have been promulgated. Do you think -- do those arguments hold water with you? Or do you think this is entirely a bad faith political exercise? CASTRO: No. I think what you see now is that Republicans are trying to use the courts to do their dirty work. And the reason I say that is because if you think of the civil rights era for example, Brown versus Board of Education, all that work was to get the courts to confer rights upon people to honor rights in the Constitution. What you see today is Republicans repeatedly going to court and trying to take rights away from people. whether it`s this example with immigrants, on gay marriage, marriage equality and on other issues. So, I think that because they can`t in this case even among themselves come to an agreement on immigration, they are having the courts do a lot of their work for them. And so, it`s a very cynical ploy. HAYES: Well, my question to you though is, there are some precedent here. There`s this lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act the Supreme Court is going to hear. When that started, King versus Burwell, people said there is not much to it legally. And lo and behold, here we have it before the Supreme Court. Do you see this as an indicator as how hard they are going fight, scratch and claw to do whatever they can to make sure this does not happen? CASTRO: Oh, absolutely. There is no question that they are going to fight it every step of the way. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. And I think the advocates and the administration needs to be prepared for that. And I think if you listen to Eric Holder, they are prepared for that. And also, Chris, I think that we shouldn`t lose in all of this debate the fact that we`re dealing with the lives of human beings here. The expanded DACA that was put on hold would affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people who were brought here through no fault of their own, had no choice in coming to the United States and many of them are for the most part just as American as any of us. And so, there are real human lives at stake here. And it`s disappointing to see Republicans go after these young people and go after their parents. This will lead, if DAPA is treated the same way, this will lead to more deportation, it will lead to more families being separated, more parents being separated from their young children, and more children - - who had no choice in coming here -- being deported. HAYES: But Republicans would say, fine, you want to pull on heartstrings Mr. Bleeding Heart, then pull on the heartstrings. But the president said 22 times -- that`s the line John Boehner has been using and others -- the president said he couldn`t do this, that he did not have the authority, and then he turned around and did it. CASTRO: Yes, no. He went back and he examined the legal record and his legal ability to do so, and made a decision to take this executive order. And, you know, over 230 legal scholars from across the political spectrum, both liberal and conservative, have said that the president acted within his authority. Similar challenges, Joe Arpaio for example challenged these actions before, his case was thrown out. And I`m confident whether it`s now with the Fifth Circuit or eventually with the Supreme Court, this case will be revolved in the same way. HAYES: What do you think, Congressman, does this effect the capitalization on Capitol Hill where there is impasse of funding DHS precisely over this issue? It occurs to me this gives Republicans a way to retreat or to back out of a corner they painted themselves into and just say, well, we`re going to go ahead and fund DHS because the courts have now put a stop to this? CASTRO: Yes, you would think that that makes the most sense. But they haven`t always done the most rational thing. I think you could go -- they could go two ways here. I think they could take the tact that you have described and say, hey, we don`t need do this because the court is going take care of it. But I suspect what is more likely to happen is that the Steve Kings of the world -- and they often take their marching orders on immigration from people like Steve King, those guys will go back in to the Republican conference and say, listen, we told you so, so we were right on this issue and you better not give in to the Democrats or the president on this. I would bet, based on what I`ve seen the past, in my past two years of service, and how they have treated this issue before, I would bet that that`s more likely the route they take than the one you`ve described. HAYES: Congressman Joaquin Castro, thank you very much. The timing of Judge Hanen`s ruling was not accidental. The first applications for protection from deportation under the president`s November executive order, from up to 270,000 undocumented immigrants, who came to the U.S. as children, those were supposed to be accepted tomorrow. Millions more, the parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, would have been eligible to apply for safe harbor starting in May. In a memo accompanying his injunction, Hanen wrote that if the president`s executive order took effect, quote, "The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle." Adding that granting legal status to millions is a, quote, "virtually irreversible" action. Instead, his ruling, as the president noted today, has left a huge swath of people at risk of seeing their families torn apart. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We should not be tearing some mom away from her child when the child has been born here and that mom has been living here for the last 10 years minding her own business and being an important part of the community. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now Erika Andiola, co-director of the Dream Action Coalition. Erika, what does -- what does this mean for the people that you represent and organized amongst who might be eligible, who might have been eligible literally tomorrow? What does this decision mean for them? ERIKA ANDIOLA, DREAM ACTION COALITION: Yes, I mean, it`s just frustrating. It`s been really, really frustrating to see that just like now. In the past, there`s also been so many political games that have happened, specifically on immigration rights. It is such a politicized issue now that both parties just really continue to really play with the lives of so many people. I mean, even within my family, my sister actually didn`t qualify for DACA in 2012 when it came out because she was a year older. So, now, you know, the president announced this in November, he took off the cap so now she`s able to qualify. And she was definitely ready to apply tomorrow. She started her GED program. She was ready to go. And she`s definitely discouraged by it, but also she knows just like we were telling the rest of the community that this is -- this is a roadblock on the way of justice and we think we`re going to win at the end. HAYES: Yes, why are you confident you are going to win? ANDIOLA: We`re confident. I mean, we`ve -- you know, when we pressure the president -- and, you know, you were asking the congressman in the past, you know, the president did say a lot that he didn`t know or he didn`t have the ability to do so. And many advocates across the country, a lot of DREAMers were like, yes, you do. It`s constitutional. We`ve worked with tons of attorneys with legal scholars. And all of them were able to work with us to figure out that this is constitutional. So, we know that it is. We just think that, you know, right now, the GOP is trying to send a message and it`s pretty much a scare tactic to be able, you know, get as less people as possible to apply for this. And that`s not what we want. We want as many people that qualify to know that they can apply for it. And that -- you know, it makes the program a success. HAYES: So here is a trajectory in short form of the kind of activism that`s come from the DREAM coalition. There was a lot of energy at the president in 2012. He came out with DACA, which is DREAMers, right? Then, I think the energy and pressure turned to the Republicans to bring a vote to the House for comprehensive immigration reform. When it became clear that wasn`t going to happen, the pressure went back of the president, successfully I would say, in this executive action. Now, it seems if there is a place to place the political pressure, it is on essentially the Republican governors who are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit and the Republican members of Congress who are threatening to block DHS. Am I right about that? ANDIOLA: You are right, except that this in this case this is a little more frustrating when we`re dealing with the GOP, because we know that in many states, they don`t really care. I mean, many of them don`t necessarily think that they are going to be held accountable in anyway by perhaps the Latino community or constituencies who really support this issue. And I`m talking about my own state, right? I live in Arizona. And I tell you that now we have a new governor, Governor Ducey who also decided to join in lawsuit and, you know, seems like he doesn`t really care what the Latino community thinks in Arizona. And we`re a pretty big number. HAYES: That`s fascinating. ANDIOLA: So, it`s frustrating to see. But like I said, you know, we need to make sure that both parties are stopping this game. And we have demonstrated that we`re going to hold both parties accountable. HAYES: But what I`m hearing from you to be clear. What you are saying is you have leverage over Democrat, you have leverage over the president. They have to listen to you. And in some ways, that they`re more receptive, even though they`re more aligned in your position, you now find yourselves encountering Republicans who just do not care. ANDIOLA: Yes, and I mean, this is -- this is 2015, right? We`re in a year where perhaps they don`t care. And right now, we`re trying to see and we`re looking forward to 2016 to see how this -- HAYES: Yes, they`re going to start caring soon. ANDIOLA: Yes. I mean, how are they going to reverse this? I mean, they are going to be remembered as a party who took -- or tried to take away affirmative action. And Mitt Romney was the perfect case when he lost in 2012 the Latino community lacked the support for him. HAYES: Erika Andiola, thanks very much. ANDIOLA: Thank you. HAYES: The residents say it sounded like an atomic bomb going off when the train carrying crude oil derailed yesterday in West Virginia. It was bat. But here is the thing -- it could have been much worse, and I`m going to tell you why, ahead. HAYES: There is late breaking news regarding the Affordable Care Act tonight, which was announced by the president in a video posted for the White House Facebook page. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We just got great news today, which is that during this open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, 11.4 million people have either reenrolled or enrolled for the first time. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That`s up from 7 million last year when you don`t count the dental plans. Below certain estimates of 13 millions but above DHS. So, all in all, the White House probably feeling pretty good about that number. According to the White House, the greatest surge in enrolment they`d ever seen came on Sunday, the final day to apply. You can share the full White House announcement on the ALL IN WITH CHRIS Facebook page. If you would like, while you`re there, check this out -- you can watch that video absolutely free of charge. HAYES: Fires are still burning near Mount Carbon, West Virginia, nearly 24 hours after a train carrying 107 tankers of crude oil derailed, triggering massive explosions, and sending a huge fire ball into the sky. The train company CSX said one person was being treated for possible smoke inhalation. But remarkably, when you look at that video, no other injuries were reported. At least hundred residents of nearby homes were forced to evacuate however and West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomlin has declared state of emergency in two counties effected by the derailment. Meanwhile, several of the tankers appear to be ruptured or leaking, and there are concerns that crude could be spilling into the river, running alongside the tracks. Those concerns have already led local water utility to close at least one intake at a treatment plant downstream, which caused 2,000 customers to lose running water. CSX train, which was transporting oil from the Bakken in North Dakota, to a depot in Virginia, was actually hauling a new model of tank cars, according to the company, tank cars which are supposed to be tougher and harder to puncture than the older model. These were supposed to be the good kind. As domestic oil production has ramped up over the last few years, there`s been an unprecedented surge in crude ship by rail throughout the U.S., with an increase in shipments from the Bakken of more than 4,000 percent since 2008. And the surge by rail has resulted perhaps not surprisingly in a surge in accidents, like the one yesterday. Now, because of the industry secrecy it is difficult to know where exactly the routes for those potentially explosive trains go. This map from the environmental group Forest Ethics gives you idea just how extensive the network is -- stretching through just about every region of the country, including some very populous cities. One of the main destinations for crude on the East Coast is none other than the city of Philadelphia, where the train tracks go right past University of Pennsylvania and through a tunnel under the Museum of Art. Now, take another look at the explosion yesterday in West Virginia, and imagine that happening right in the middle of Philadelphia, population 1.5 million. And if that that sounds farfetched, consider this -- a train carrying crude oil derailed in South Philly less than three weeks ago. Luckily for everyone involved, it did not ignite. Joining me now, Bob Kincaid, co-founder of the Appalachian Community Health Emergency Campaign. And, Bob, my understanding is the fire is still burning. Have you seen the actual site? BOB KINCAID, APPALACHIAN COMMUNITY HEALTH EMERGENCY CAMPAIGN: Yes, I have, Chris. Good evening. I drove down the mountain this evening to get here, and I noticed that there is still a considerable amount of smoke that is pouring out of the wreck site across the river from approximately Boomer, West Virginia. It looked -- there was obvious there were a lot of responders with flashing lights on vehicles still over there. You could see the tank cars. And you could tell that it is another toxic disaster in West Virginia. HAYES: Yes. This recalls of course when you start hearing about crude spilling into the river, recalls the fact that last year that a chemical leaked into the -- one of the main water supplies for the biggest city in the entire state and shut down water for days. This is not something West Virginians are unaccustomed to. KINCAID: Sadly, it`s not. Like some toxic Groundhog Day, Chris. You know, we get Thanksgiving, we get Christmas, New Year`s and then the state of emergency. I saw a sign on a restaurant on the way down here that I never imagined I`d see in the first place a little over a year ago. Sorry, closed. No water. 2015, United States of America, how does that happen? HAYES: Well, and here`s what`s interesting, too. I mean, West Virginia obviously is an intensively extractive industry there. It`s the heart of coal country. But what we saw in West Virginia could be happening in lots of other places. I mean, we don`t even know where these oil trains are going. This is from the "Wall Street Journal" who just did an investigation. Finding the location of oil-filled trains is difficult even in states that don`t consider the information top secret. There are no federal or state rules requiring public notice despite several fiery accidents involving oil trains. What do you say to those Bob who say this is the exactly the reason that we should be building more pipeline, the Keystone pipeline among them. KINCAID: That`s a nonstarter. The fact of the matter is, what we ought to be doing is leaving the stuff in the ground, period. When you consider this crude oil that has such profound volatility that they can`t keep pretty spontaneously exploding, whether it`d be it in North Dakota, Dickens County, Alabama, Lac-Megantic, Quebec, or Lynchburg, Virginia, or now, Mount Carbon, West Virginia, the Lynchburg explosion happened a year ago. I predicted that we`d have one in West Virginia, and lo and behold, it turned out to be not if but when. This is not an argument for pipelines. This is an argument getting off of our fossil fuel habit that has -- well, it`s got us in what amounts to a death grip, Chris. HAYES: Yes, and that one up in Quebec was one of the most insane things I`ve ever seen. Basically, a fireball that essentially evacuated the entire town. The governor there, though -- I mean, the way we tend to deal with these issues are the people are rushed to the pipeline, first of all, and second of all, the idea is like -- yes, the stuff is, you know, it explodes, it`s dangerous. But we need it. KINCAID: Well -- but there`s got to be a balance there, Chris. Do we need this? Or do people who live along railroad tracks need to have their homes blown up? I might point out that this explosion took place just a few scant miles away from a national park. That`s a few miles from where I live. There is a bridge 800 feet above the railroad. What if this had gone off there? And again, we`re not talking about if, we`re talking about when. This is terrifying stuff. And sadly, it happens in a state where terrifying accidents seem to be the norm, where human beings, well-being is sacrificed for corporate profits. It`s kind of hard for me not to notice that this isn`t ISIS that did this, or any other foreign enemy of the United States. This is a good old domestic American corporation and they seem to be doing more harm in West Virginia than any foreign power. HAYES: This is CSX, of course, which is one of the largest shippers in the country, which has rolled out these new -- according to them -- safer versions of this. And your point, Bob, I think is important, is not if but when. The volume we`re seeing is completely unprecedented. We`re completely -- we`re running an experiment in oil transmission in this county right now. Running it through Cincinnati, running it through Philadelphia, running through Maine population centers and it really does feel like it`s only a matter of time before something either changes or something goes terribly, terribly wrong on one of those. Thank you, Bob Kincaid. I really appreciate it. KINCAID: Well, that`s certainly the case. It`s already been proven and these things have been proven to be unsafe. And frankly we`re talking about -- these to -- to coin on old phrase. This is unsafe at any speed. HAYES: Yes. KINCAID: And frankly, it is a failure of government that we are playing with the notion of transporting this stuff when it`s got a volatility -- I`m told by the scientific community -- that is higher than that of gasoline and it is not OK to transport gasoline by rail car -- unless the law has changed. HAYES: That`s a very good point, Bob. Thank you very much. All right. What would make someone want to take a one-way trip to Mars? I will ask someone who`s volunteered to do just that, ahead. HAYES: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been giving a fair amount of interviews recently, like the one she did with MSNBC`s own Irin Carmon, and other with "Bloomberg News". Ginsburg was asked how people across the country would react if the Supreme Court would to rule in favor of marriage equality. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: The change in people`s attitudes on that issue has been enormous. In recent years, people have said this is the way I am. And others looked around and we discovered it is our next door neighbor. We`re very fond of them. Or it is our child`s best friend, or even our child. And the rest of us recognize that they are one of us. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, that sounds like a fairly accurate description of this country`s evolution on gay rights and marriage equality in recent years. But FOX News` Brit Hume called those comments, quote, "amazing impropriety". And the National Organization for Marriage or NOM, a conservative group that opposes marriage equality is seizing on those comments and calling on Ginsburg to recuse herself from the cases on same-sex marriage that are currently pending before the court this term. NOM, by the way, which has set itself the task of fighting marriage equality, has to be the single biggest failure of any political group in America right now. At this point, they might as well be the Washington Generals of activism. And the case they`re making is essentially this, because Justice Ginsberg has made it so clear in public that she is going to rule in favor of marriage equality she should disqualify herself from decisionmaking process altogether. Which, as an argument is just nonsense on stilts. Yes, we have a good sense of what Justice Ginsburg thinks of marriage equality. She officiated same-sex weddings and also written her joint opinions on the topic. We also know that Justice Antonin Scalia thinks of marriage equality and gay rights in general. As he rhetorically asked in 2012, quote, "if we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?" Which gets to a fundamental issue that drives me crazy about the way the Supreme Court is perceived. This notion that justices are monks, or robots, or in the famous words of Chief Justice John Roberts umpires who simply call balls and strikes. In fact, Supreme Court justices are, wait for it, human beings with politics and belief systems and world views, and commitments, and life experiences that influence their interpretation of the law. No one should be pretending otherwise. And thank you, Ruth Bader Ginsberg for doing your part in blowing up that ridiculous, insidious deception. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mars One will establish human settlement on Mars in 2023. 1972 was the last time that humans walked on the moon. No human has ever gone as far as Mars. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That is true. And if you had the chance to go to Mars, would you go? Well, sure, you might say, that would be cool. Here`s the catch, what if I told you it is a one way trip, meaning you can go to Mars, do stuff, then die there. Then would you go? That is what Mars One, a Dutch based nonprofit is offering. They want to start a permanent human colony on Mars. And they plan to help pay for the endeavor, which has an initial price tag of $6 billion by making a reality show out of it. Now, when Mars One first put out the call for volunteers, over 200,000 people applied, which seems like a staggering number of people willing to leave this planet forever. Mars One now whittled that number down to 100: 50 men, 50 women from around the globe. Eventually, 24 of them will have a shot in making it to Mars, six crews of four people. Then, if all goes to plan, in 2024 the first crew will head to Mars to begin the colony, living inside space capsules, growing their own food. The next crew will join them 2026, the following in 2028, and so every two years until all 24 colonists are living on Mars and with no return ticket dying on Mars, possibly very quickly. A computer simulation of the MarsOne plan put together by a group of engineering grad students at MIT using current technology projects the first crew fatality would occur approximately 68 days into the mission. If you wonder exactly who would volunteer for such a mission, meet George Hatcher, a avionics engineer at NASA`s Kennedy Space Center and one of the 100 hopefuls selected to potentially spend the rest of his life on Mars. George, I suppose I should begin with congratulations on your selection. GEORGE HATCHER, NASA ENGINEER: Thank you. HAYES: OK, there is so much I want to ask about this. First of all, is this real? Like I guess that`s the big thing. Are you --= would you actually, really -- you have a family, you have a wife and kids, right? HATCHER: That`s right. I have a wife and two children. HAYES: OK. So, project yourself -- let`s say all of this happens. And then Mars One people like come to the door on lift off day, you would really do this? HATCHER: That is the plan. That`s something that I have been working towards really my entire life. HAYES: What do you mean by that? HATCHER: Well, my parents gave me a Lego set when I was three that had a spaceman, and I told my mom I wanted to be an astronaut. And I got a scholarship to space camp when I was 11. And that`s where I learned about a human mission to Mars So, it is a goal that I`ve had and something I have work towards, and kind of built my degrees around and my career around since then. HAYES: what is the conversation like with your spouse about, you know, leaving everyone for mars? HATCHER: My wife and I were pretty up front with each other about what our life goals were before we got married. And I told her that I would like to be an astronaut and that Mars was the ultimate goal of a mission that could happen in my lifetime. I also told that her knowing the rocket equation, a one-way mission is going to be a lot cheaper. At the time, I was pretty sure NASA wouldn`t put forth a one-way mission. But I told her it was a possibility for a private organization. And she said, OK, as long as have kids first. HAYES: So you had that -- this is so classic. I mean who hasn`t had this conversation with someone you start dated. It is probable there is going to be a Mars mission, probable it has to be one way, because it will be cheaper, probable or hopeful that I am going to be no that, let`s get on the same page. HATCHER: Right. HAYES: OK. So now comes the second part of this, which is I have been reading about the Mars One stuff. It is one of these things that like gets shared a lot. It`s like, oh these people are so crazy, they`re going to go to Mars. But is it a real thing? I can`t tell if this is a real thing or not. And you, working as an avionics engineer at NASA made me think that it was perhaps more of a real thing than I thought it was formerly. HATCHER: I`m treating as if it`s a real thing. I`m putting full faith in the organizers. And I threw my hat in the ring as if it was a real endeavor. HAYES: And what makes you think it is? HATCHER: I`m hopeful that it is. I trust Dr. Craft. I know he`s selected astronauts for NASA and for ESA and JAKSA before. I take Basel Anstorp (ph) at his word. And I think that the organization is kind of purposefully slowly revealing a lot of the details of their plan to try to drum up interest and improve viewership for the reality television program. HAYES: You`ve worked for 10 years at Kennedy Space Center. So you actually work on the space program. You went to space camp. You are getting a PhD a this moment. How feasible is it? I mean, whether Mars One can pull it off from an organizational and funding standpoint, right, how feasible is that we see a Mars mission in our lifetimes, whether it is Mars One that does it, whether you`re on the capsule or whether someone else does? You know, when I look at Warner Von Braun`s plans for sending humans to Mars shortly after sending them to the moon, I know that this has been on the docket for really decades. And it comes down to funding in my opinion. I think it is a matter of will. I think there are enough people in the United States and around the world behind the idea of sending humans to Mars, but it is just a matter of can you get the money together because I really do believe that the technology either exists or can be developed for us to do this. And when I look back to the Apollo program, as an example, if the technology didn`t exist, they really did invent it. So I think if Mars One approaches a lot of existing aerospace companies and says we`ve got the budget for this, can you make this work, then think that I trust a lot of the engineers across the United States to make it possible. HAYES: So are the 100 of you that have been selected in this round, are you in contact with each other? Is there a listserv where people can just sort of call... HATCHER: A lot of people are communicating with each other personally on Facebook, on Twitter and through the Mars One website. I haven`t been incredibly active with meeting a lot of the other candidates really because I have a full-time job and I`m getting a PhD and a father of two in diapers. HAYES: Do you feel that there is some kind of kindred spirit for the kinds of people like yourself that are such believers, such that... HATCHER: I think that these are the kind of people that, given the chance, would be members of the Explorers Club. These are the kind of people who would be interested in visiting all seven continents. These are dreamers. These are people who feel a calling to something greater than what one might consider a quote, unquote "normal life." HAYES: Yeah, it`s funny. I have to say that I have zero subjective access to that feeling, but I admire it. It`s pretty remarkable. George Hatcher, thanks so much for joining us. HATCHER: Thank you. HAYES; All right, does the president of the United States need a college degree? I think the answer is no. I`ll tell you why ahead. HAYES: At 1:30 p.m. today, the National Weather Service in Boston sent out this tweet, "beginning January 24 through 1:00 p.m. today Boston has received an astounding 90.5 inches of snow." 90.5 inches, that`s a little over seven-and-a-half feet of snow, making this month the snowest month, and this winter, the third snowiest winter on record. While all this snow in Massachusetts has inspired some very cool time lapse videos like this one, it has created a lot of problems. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority said yesterday it may need a month to return to full service and it could take even longer if another storm hits. The city`s budget for snow removal has been blown so they`ve turn to prisoners to help shovel out. Meanwhile, the mayor of Boston also has this problem. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARTIN WALSH, MAYOR OF BOSTON: People are jumping out of windows into snow banks. First of all, it`s a foolish thing to do. And you could kill yourself. So I`m asking people to start the nonsense right now. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: There`s also the issue of parking and the Boston tradition of space saving, placing traffic cones or household items in your parking spot after you dig your car out to save the spot for when you return. All the snow has caused problems for both the savers and the takers. This gentleman, for example, decided to put the snow back after someone else parked in the spot he had saved. It`s gotten so bad that forecasters have started apologizing before they deliver their weather predictions. The Weather Channel posting today, quote, "we`re sorry to be the messengers. And we know snow fatigue is reaching epidemic proportions. Snow may now be one of those four letter words you shouldn`t say. Unfortunately, the relentless cold continues. Here`s our current forecast, which, you guessed it, is for more snow. So get ready Boston." HAYES: If Scott Walker 2016 were a stock, he would be trading right now at a high. The governor of Wisconsin is having a bit of a moment with positive, albeit early polling, favorable conservative reaction to him in Iowa. And now, he appears to be launching the defining political battle of his pre-election year by taking on his home state`s beloved university system. Even though his decision spurred protests on Wisconsin college campuses, it could, I think yield big gains for his potential president candidacy. Governor Walkers budget, according to the New York Times, calls for a 13 percent cut in state aid across the university system for a total decrease of $300 million over the next two years while freezing tuition for two years to, quote, maintain college affordability. But it is not just a budget issue. According to the Times, Walker also suggested in a comment that infuriated university faculty and staff members, that professors could help make savings by teaching an additional class per semester. In other words, Scott Walker is taking on those pointed-headed elitist professors. It`s conservative populism at its finest, especially considering, and this is what`s so brilliant and devilish about it, the fact that Governor Scott Walker, himself, does not have a four-year colleague degree. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Former presidential candidate Howard Dean bashed Walker for not finishing college, watch this. HOWARD DEAN, FRM. GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: And this is a particular problem from Scott Walker, which has not been an issue yet, but it will. Scott Walker were he to become president, would be the first president in many generations who did not have a college degree. He`s never finished. So, the issue here is not just an issue of dancing around the question of dancing evolution for political reasons, the issue is how well educated is this guy? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I took a minute -- I talked to you earlier about the fact that you have a lot of very Mark Zuckerberg, Jesse Ventura, Richard Branson, Warren Buffett, Karl Rove, Barbara Streisand, Derek Jeter, Peter Jennings, these -- a lot of people, and as referenced earlier... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Steve Jobs... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Steve Jobs, yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No college degree. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Washington, Lincoln, Johnson, Jackson. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get a little buzz about this mystery surrounding his college degree. We know he didn`t finish, but there`s a little bit of buzz going on about that because people are saying, hey, if you`re going to run for president shouldn`t you have a college degree? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think this is normal. And certainly Scott Walker dropping out of college is newsworthy. People would be interested to know and interested as an up by the boot straps story as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Before I continue with the text here, can we go back to Scott Browne`s list, which went from Mark Zuckerberg to Jesse Ventura? The first time those two met, I think they would have been placed next to each other on a list. Anyway, there are those who would argue that the president of the United States should have a college degree, which raises the question what exactly is the real value of a college degree. My beliefs on that are ahead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: The bottom line is like a lot of Americans my senior year I was working at IBM, they moved their office to Chicago. One my clients was the American Red Cross. They offered me a job and like a lot of people out there today I jumped at that opportunity. In the back of my mind, I thought in a couple of years maybe I would go back, take a course here, a course there. Well, a couple of years later I met Tonette. We got married. A year after that we had Matt, a year after we had Alex. The next thing all your time and your money is spent on your family. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker addressing the issue, if there is one, of not completing his college degree. Joining me now New York Post columnist Naomi Schaefer Riley, author of The Faculty Lounges (ph); and Zach Bisonette, personal finance expert and author of Debt Free You. All right, you want to hear my theory on this? This is a classic Roger Ales bear trap that has been set for liberals to stumble into. Like, and Scott Walker, too, which is like Howard Dean said one thing once on Morning Joe, they ran that clip over and over. Like there you go, those liberals, snobby liberals don`t -- won`t respect a man without a college degree. And no one -- I don`t think anyone actually cares. ZACH BISSONETTE, PERSONAL FINANCE EXPERT: I don`t think that was a comment that anyone saw and was like, you know, score. Great point Howard Dean. He shouldn`t be president because he dropped out of college with like a semester left. I think no one other than Howard Dean is making that point. HAYES: Yeah, I think there is a desire to have -- there`s a desire to have a bunch of elitist pointed-headed intellectuals gaining up on Scott Walker because he didn`t graduate. But that has failed to materialize. NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY, NEW YORK POST: Well, yeah, that is the narrative about Republicans that, you know, they don`t care about education. They lead with their gut. You know, it`s all Sarah Palin. I mean, and so you know there is this notion that, you know, the pointed-headed liberal intellectuals will make fun of him for this. But I do think, you know, he -- this sort of gets to the question, I think, of whether you want in your Republican candidate, you know, someone who you can have a beer with or someone who you are aspiring to be. Now, there are 31 million Americans last year, in the last 20 years who have started college, but not finished it. So, you know, he is somebody who a lot of people can relate to. HAYES: Also, let`s just be clear here, because we talk about college. I mean, the thing -- the real thing here is should it be a prerequisite to be president of the United States. I say no. What do you say? BISSONETTE: A prerequisite, I mean, no, just like it`s not a -- I mean, it`s not a prerequisite, I think in general... HAYES: It`s not disqualifying. BISSONETTE: No, it shouldn`t be a disqualifier, but you know, is there -- is it such a terrible thing to have the sort of best and brightest, you know, as president? I would say could argue that it wouldn`t be a terrible idea to try to, you know, elect the sort of the most... RILEY: Right, but there is no evidence that he is not smart or good at his job. He`s obviously succeeded on the merits of what he has done. HAYES: So, two things I want to say here. One is that before we get into like the everyman thing, like he was at Marquette, which is a good Catholic school, but that is a private four year institution which is itself a tiny sliver of American higher education activity. I feel like... RILEY: He is not the community college guy. HAYES: No, and like when we talk about college in this country there is this -- it is like oh, yeah, he went to Marquette. Like that`s like yeah that already, going to Marquette University, a private four year school, puts you in a small minority of American students, right? RILEY: Absolutely. It puts you in the elite. HAYES: So -- right, that puts you in the elite. So then the question becomes for me is, is college worth it? Is college -- there are two ways to think of it, it is a place where people get this necessary set of skills, human capital, engage in sort of betterment as people, as citizens, and then the other is that it is basically a means of essentially stamping people for the job market or for the American elite to say like this person gets the stamp on the wrist. He enters the club. RILEY: It is the credential. It says you can show up places on time, you can be a responsible middle class kind of person. And unfortunately I think college is doing less and less of actually giving people the skills that they need, or even giving people the traditional kind of strong education that they once had, and instead it is this four years of hanging out, partying -- a great survey that showed that people are spending less than 25 hours a week in an out of class ding anything academic in college. What could they possibly be getting four years? HAYES: What do you think, Zach? BISSONETTE: No, I mean I think -- I don`t really disagree with any of the sort of macro criticisms of like -- you know, I don`t think college is the greatest institution that it could be. You know, on the other hand, the unemployment rate is about half for college grads what it is. And what a lot of people don`t understand is because during the recession there was all this talk about college students, you know, getting jobs that didn`t require college degree. But incomes and unemployment escalated far worse for people without college degrees during that time. So really going to college is a better idea now than it has ever been just if you look at the income gap. A lot of that has happened because of the falling incomes of people who didn`t go to college. HAYES: Right. So, the question then becomes, though, is -- and this gets to the sort of deep, sort of policy question, but also this political question for Scott Walker, right? Is like is this -- is the college four- year college degree conferring a valuable thing or is it just marking people as more employable, right? Because there`s a circularity. RILEY: I think it`s marking people as more employable. And one of the problems is we don`t have good alternatives. We don`t have an apprenticeship system. We don`t have ways of putting people into skilled jobs and marking them as middle class, show up on time kind of people beyond the college degree. And the problem is a lack of alternatives. I don`t think that the lower unemployment rate for college graduates shows that college is doing anything other than giving them that stamp. HAYES: Well, but it does show from a sort of strictly like investment perspective, right, that like there are monetary gains to be gotten from it. RILEY: Right. I mean, there are two questions here. There is the social question that, you know, we need to answer as a society and then there is a question for individuals should you send your kid to college? And the answer is probably going to be yes because yes your kid will be more employable as a result. HAYES: Right. BISSONETTE: We agree on that. HAYES: So then the question to me becomes like what would a good version of this look like? I mean, one of the things that`s happened in this country is we have seen wage stagnation, right. Everyone is told you have to go to college, right. I mean, the president says this all the time. It`s like, this is as necessary in the 21st Century as high school was before. He`s announced this new community college initiative right, to sort of expand that. The question then becomes like, what would a good version like -- what would a good version of this look like such that people had access to the kind of education they needed to be more employable, or... RILEY: But if you really want to start from scratch, you would ask yourself why is it that now you need to go to college in order to get the skills that people got in high school 50 years ago. I mean, part of the problem is our K-12 system has completely broken down. HAYES: Is that really true though? RILEY: Oh, yes, absolutely. HAYES: No, no, like -- I mean, when you say the skills that people got in high school. Like what is the metric for that? What`s the citation? RILEY: Oh, I think, reading and math skills. People are graduating - - I mean, there is an amazing statistic. In California half of the kids graduating from California schools, when they go to a state university they need to take remedial classes, so what are they learning in high school? HAYES: Well, I don`t know. I mean, I think part of the problem here, though, right is that you have a situation in which we have not answered a question definitively about what we want to produce out of the college system, right? We have this sort of patchwork system. We have some that work very well like the University of Wisconsin system. The California system, which both of which are sort of under attack. But there is still in this act, there is no sense of like what is the job here to make people that are employable, is the job here to make citizens, is the job here to make people that are self-actualized? Is the job to make people that can essentially ace a job interview? BISSONETTE: Well, I think you have to -- I agree with her on most of those macro issues. I think the thing you have to be really careful a bout is from a personal finance perspective and policy is not tackling these macro problems in a long term way, in a way that you sort to ruin things for people in the short-term. So it may be that we should be investing more in apprenticeship programs, but that is maybe a long-term solution. But for right now the priority I think really has to be access and affordability to higher education. Because we don`t have a system that can give people jobs. HAYES: I love the idea of Scott Walker going to night school on the campaign and just like showing up at some interview like actually I got it. Actually it`s over. Naomi Schaffer Riley, Zach Bissonette, thank you both. That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now. Good evening, Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021701cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 79 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 17, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 17, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: Russell Gold, Anne Gearan SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7784 words HIGHLIGHT: North Dakota`s latest train derailment prompting new push for new safety rules. Hillary Clinton invited Senator Elizabeth Warren for dinner raising speculations about possible 2016 presidential run. (CROSSTALK) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC ANCHOR: Naomi Schaefer Riley, Zac Bissonnette, thank you both. That is ALL IN for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, my friend. HAYES: You bet. MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. You know the font size on newspapers used to be a lot smaller than it is now. Look. This, for example, this is the front page of the "New York Times" on April 30th, 1903. Makes you feel old, doesn`t it? It`s seven columns wide, what looked to be thousands of words in each columns just on the front page. Even the big stories could this little tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny headlines. But in this issue of "The New York Times" the lead story, front page, above the fold, right hand column, April 30th, 1903, was about a disaster in Canada. It happened to the town called Frank in Alberta, Canada. And it was the deadliest landslide ever in the history of that country. Those little towns at the foot of a mountain, basically, and for some as yet unexplained reason, in the middle of the night, in April 1903, the top of that mountain decided to slide down that mountain and bury the town at the base. There`re apparently had not been any warning signs. This is a reconstruction that was done years later to explain what it might have been like. Obviously, this isn`t footage of what happened. But the people on that poor town, they did not have any warning signs, they did not have any idea this is going to happen. The whole town overnight basically got buried while they slept in their beds. This is one of the worst natural disasters in Canadian history. And today, that mountain top is still sitting at the foot of that mountain where the town used to be. And it makes sort of for a kind of eerie moon like landscape, right? All that mountain top land stone has slid into what used to be the valley, right? It still looks weird even more than a hundred years later. That side looks particularly weird right this second because there has just been a giant train crash at that exact site. Where that rail line crosses the 100-year-old rubble from that old famous deadly landslide in Canada? There was a derailment at that exact spot. Look at the landscape there. See all the piles of limestone around it? Because it`s on the rubble site. That`s where there was a train derailment this weekend on Saturday. This is on Alberta, Canada. The sight of the town formally known as Frank. It`s an oil country, the train that derailed was carrying rail cars full of crude oil from the Alberta oil fields. Twelve of those oil tanker cars derailed at that crashed site including a couple of them flipping entirely over, miraculously, none of those blew rail cars full of oil blew up in that crash, on Saturday. Not to worry, though. On that same day, there was another oil train derailment elsewhere in Canada where the oil tankers did blow up. That one was in Northern Ontario. It was rail cars again full of Alberta tar sands oil, headed east across Canada. And in Northern Ontario there was another giant derailment and in that one, same day as the other one, seven of those rail cars full of oil did blow up and they blew up in the way that oil cars do, which is that they give you a cinematic display of what the end of the world will probably look like. Both of those oil train crashes including the seven rail cars full of oil that did blew up, both of those crashes happened this weekend on Valentine`s Day. Then two days later, which is yesterday, this was the scene in West Virginia. About 30 miles outside the state capital of Charleston, West Virginia. Now this oil train it was 109 cars long. It was carrying Bakken crude oil from North Dakota through West Virginia, on its way to Yorktown, Virginia, where that oil is going to be loaded on to barges. They got a lot of these trains now traveling this route through towns large and small. And yesterday, for reasons that are still unexplained, on that 109-car long train, car number three, four, five, six, all the way back to car number 28 came off the rails. Seven of those cars that derailed did not blow up, but 19 of the cars that derailed did blow up. Nineteen cars full of oil, one after the other. Miraculously only one person was hurt in this conflagration in West Virginia yesterday. One man was hurt. He`s been hospitalized since the explosion. He`s been treated for inhalation injuries. He is the person who had the misfortune of being home when the derailment and the explosion happened. The explosion set his house on fire and destroyed this man`s house. Sent him to the hospital. It is a miracle that he was not killed. It is a miracle that no one else was injured. More than 2,000 people were evacuated from the local area. Power lines melted in this huge blast. Telephone poles caught fire. Hundreds of people are still without power tonight. People in multiple communities in West Virginia have been without running water now for more than 24 hours including a local hospital and nursing homes and schools. The local water company says they think they`ll be able to draw clean water from that river, where the crash happened. But even if people do start to get water running through their taps locally, everybody is being advised to still boil any water they might consume because nobody knows yet if it`s going to be safe. Yes. When we first reported on this derailment and this huge fire and these explosions on last night`s show, we`d taken -- all this footage that was taken over the course of the day, mostly by local residents showing what it had been like when the derailment happened, when those cars started to blow up, one by one. We talked on the phone to a local resident in Boomer, West Virginia, right across the river from where the explosion happened. This was the view from his living room. He had been home with his wife who was disabled when the explosion happened. He told us about what it sounded like but it looked like he said that noise was so loud and the explosion was so big that he and his wife were convinced that a full-sized jetliner had crashed into the ground across the river from their house in Boomer, West Virginia. He said he only learned when his wife got through to 911 that it had actually been a train derailment. So after talking to him on the show last night, we then went to a local reporter who was on the scene. This was about 9:30 p.m. last night Eastern Time. And the first thing that local reporter told me when I put him on the air last night was, "Oh, by the way, the fire is still burning." So we`ve been showing all this footage of the fire burning over the course of the day. I had no idea. I should have known. I mean, seeing how big the explosions were and the fires were yesterday. But this thing happened at 1:30 yesterday afternoon. By the time we are on the air last night at 9:30, talking to those guys, those fires were still burning while we were covering it on the air last night. And as of tonight, at least, as of when we got on the air six minutes ago, it`s still burning right now. This thing burned all day long last yesterday. All night long last night. All day long today. It`s still burning. These rail cars, each of them full of about 30,000 gallons of oil, have just been going off like bombs, one after the other. First responders couldn`t even get to those fires, leave alone put them out. This was the headline on "The Wall Street Journal" about it today. "Fires from Derailed CSX Train Allowed to Burn." Oh, allowed to? That is rather generous. I mean, allowing it to burn implies that you have a choice, that you could not allow it to burn if you wanted not to. I mean, how many options did the local fire crews along the Kanawha River in West Virginia -- how many options do they actually have for trying to put something like this out? The same thing happened just down the line in Lynchburg, Virginia, last year when the exact same kind of train with the exact same kind of rail cars following the exact same -- exact same route, taking the exact same oil on its same way to the exact same terminal in Yorktown, Virginia. Last year, that was Lynchburg, Virginia, when that train also derailed and blew up. You remember that incredibly dramatic footage from Lynchburg, Virginia. Again, all through a populated area. This is not the middle of nowhere. When those train cars went up in Lynchburg, Virginia, last year in these apocalyptic mushroom clouds of flame, local firefighters there too just had no choice. They just let that guy burn out. What else are you going to do? That kind of risk, the fact that this oil trains travel through lots and lots of very populated places. The fact that this is the increase that we`re experiencing right now. That`s between 2008 and five years later, 2013. This is the kind of increase we`re experiencing right now as a country in terms of the amount of oil being shipped by rail. It`s a multiple thousands percent increase in the number of these oil trains over the last five, six, seven years. I mean, that combined with what it looks like when this things blow up and how helpless we are as humans before the magnitude of this kind of disaster when it happens. A few options we have to contain the kind of damage or even put out the fires when this happens. You combine all of those things and yes, this is becoming a real source of concern. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Governor, a lot of this stuff does move through our state. A lot of these tank cars apparently did not withstand this crash. Do changes need to be made? GOV. EARL TOMBLIN (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Well, you know, I think that`s something that the National Transportation Board and the federal agencies that regulate the railroad should be here later today to probably better answer that question. Obviously, we want to assure that the trains move through the state and on through the other state, they`re operating safely. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Governor Earl Tomblin of West Virginia today answering questions from reporters. For much of the day today, Governor Tomblin appeared alongside executives from the railroad, from CSX. To their credit, they did make themselves available for questions today about this oil train disaster, but that doesn`t mean they had very many answers. For example, quote, "We try to run a safe railroad. Obviously, something has gone wrong there in West Virginia." Yes, you think something has gone wrong? So that`s the basic truth here, though. Right. Stuff does go wrong. I mean, in West Virginia yesterday two days before that, it was two different oil trains and two different parts of Canada on the same day. Remember the huge derailment and oil train explosion in Casselton, North Dakota, that huge one where this footage is from? That`s from December 2013. But you know what? It then happened again in Casselton less than a year later. It happened again in Casselton just this past November. And this time they didn`t have to evacuate the whole town. This time they got lucky in part because the oil tanker cars that derailed and flipped over again and crashed again in the -- second Casselton oil train wreck, the train cars this time happened to be empty. Lucky, lucky Casselton, North Dakota, the train was going the other direction that time when it crashed. But before Casselton, it was that Lynchburg, Virginia, crash that they had to just let burn out. Before that it was the one in Alabama, before that the one -- it was the one in Quebec and Lac-Megantic, Canada. It happens. Stuff goes wrong. Oil trains derail. And crash. And blow up in huge apocalyptic fireballs that sometimes kill dozens of people. And part of the way to try to lessen that risk is to make the trains themselves safer, to make the cars that carry the oil more resistant to blowing up like it`s the end of the world. And that`s one ongoing fight now over what the standard should be for the kind of cars the oil goes into. But the other fight or at least which seems like what ought to be the other fight is over what is allowed to go into those train cars in the first place before they take off across the country. I mean, last year after the Quebec disaster, the one that killed 47 people. After the Quebec disaster, and then the Casselton giant explosion, and then the Lynchburg crashed and the giant explosion there. After all of those happened in relatively quick succession, it suddenly became a national news story that North Dakota, North Dakota specifically, was pumping oil on to oil trains that were then setting off all across the country. They`re putting oil on those trains that was particularly dangerous to put on trains. Here is what I mean. When oil is produced in Texas, like at the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas, shale in Texas, oil producers there use a big piece of equipment called a stabilizer to basically take out of the oil what they call the light ends. The super flammable, basically, their natural gas components that are otherwise mixed in with their crude oil and that catch fire and explode really easily. They use this big stabilizer machines to remove all of those super flammable compounds from the oil before they transport that oil anywhere else. This is in Texas. Not exactly known as the land of onerous safety regulations, right? But Texas does that with the oil that they pump before they transport it. North Dakota does not do that. We`re experiencing this great energy renaissance in this country, right? The North Dakota oil fields have transformed the United States of America into a net energy producing nation, right? It is a legit oil rush in North Dakota. People are making their fortunes. They have Man Camps in North Dakota. Man Camps. To house all the people that are coming into that state to produce all of that oil. But even Texas is taking more care for the safety of the oil they`re shipping out of their oil fields than North Dakota is. Why doesn`t North Dakota have to do that, too? Well, here is the story for you. This is incredible. In September, North Dakota held hearings about whether or not they too should start doing that. Whether they too should start stabilizing their oil before they put it on to bomb trains and ship it off to the local rail crossing next to your kid`s elementary school. All right. The hearings were -- they were in September in North Dakota. They were fairly intense for North Dakota. People who were concerned on the safety side showed up to make the safety case, a lot of oil industry people showed up to make the oil industry not safety case. In the end, North Dakota decided to split the baby, sort of. They decided to kind of, sort of gesture in the direction of doing something to make the oil that they`re shipping more safe. The state of North Dakota decided late last year after the spate of terrible explosions and terrible publicity about how irresponsible they`re being, they decided to require not the kinds of stabilizers that they use in Texas, to make the oil less flammable when they ship it around the country. They decided instead that they would have oil producers in North Dakota do something with the existing equipment that they had on hand. They have them do something called conditioning the oil. So conditioning the oil is not the same as stabilizing it. It`s not the same as what they`re doing in Texas. It`s not as safe as what has to happen to the oil in another parts of the country. But at least, at least, North Dakota decided late last year to require oil producers to do some processing of the oil. To make it at least a little bit more safe before that stuff gets put into the rail cars and shipped to your town. Those new regulations in North Dakota were agreed upon in December, announced in December. They made this plan. They announced in December. We`re going to make the oil that we put in those bomb trains a little more safe. They agreed to do it in December, that regulation goes into effect April 1st. So that means after this. For the hundreds of people who live in these little towns in West Virginia who have been evacuated, who don`t have power, who don`t have water, who don`t know when they`re going to get water. For everybody who counts on that river as the source of their drinking water, for the guy who`s in the hospital tonight after his house was quite literally blown up by an apocalyptic fireball. Would it have made a difference if North Dakota had acted six weeks faster? Those regulations that are going into effect literally on April 1st, would they have kept those little towns from catching fire? Would they have kept that part of West Virginia safe? Are we actually doing anything that is going to make this safer in a material way and are we doing it fast enough? Joining us now is Russell Gold. He`s the senior energy reporter for "The Wall Street Journal." He`s the author of forthcoming book "The Boom. How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Change the World." Mr. Gold, thanks very much for joining us tonight. RUSSELL GOLD, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SENIOR ENERGY REPORTER: Thanks for having me. MADDOW: So as they start to investigate what happens here in West Virginia, do we know anything about the crude that was on those rail cars in terms of its combustibility or safety, anything else? GOLD: Well, we know is from the Bakken shale in North Dakota and every time they go out and test the Bakken shale crude they find it that it is particularly combustible and volatile. So as you put it, it`s got a lot of light ends and it has a tendency to explode. This first caught our attention at "The Wall Street Journal" back in December when the videos, the amateur videos from Casselton, North Dakota, came out. And we are looking at these enormous fireballs coming out of these trains and asking ourselves, wait a second, this isn`t the crude we know. This isn`t the crude that we`ve grown used to. Crude doesn`t explode like that. So we began asking what is going on, and the answer we found was that up in North Dakota there is very little infrastructure. And essentially, instead of removing these light ends, ethanes, propanes, and shipping them off elsewhere, they were putting them into the crude and trying to get them out to coastal refineries to be processed, straight through West Virginia, Virginia, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland, Oregon, et cetera, et cetera. MADDOW: So the towns -- I mean, the towns along the way have to thinking about who -- not just who gets to make the decision, but what`s likely to affect the decision of these oil producers about how safe this stuff is going to be that gets pumped through their towns. Is it honestly, prohibitively expensive for North Dakota oil producers to separate this stuff out? I would -- I would have no reason to doubt their case that it is prohibitively expensive, except for the fact that in Texas they think it`s OK to do. GOLD: Well, the equipment is not prohibitively expensive. It will add a few cents to the cost. But you can -- you can take a step above what they do right now which is basically heating it up to separate it. You can go one-step beyond to really stabilize it. The problem is once you removed it, what do you do with it? Because the North Dakota oil field has grown so quickly, that they don`t have crude oil pipelines, they don`t have enough gas pipelines and they certainly don`t have enough pipelines to move all these gas liquids anywhere. So essentially, in the rush to produce oil, to go from producing a 100,000 barrels a day to 1.2 million barrels a day, which is what North Dakota does right now, they`ve just -- they`ve moved very, very quickly. That`s really the only way to say it and they haven`t built all the infrastructure. If they have the pipelines in place, this would be a very easy fix. But they built the oil field first and now they`re building the pipelines and the infrastructure that really required to have safe operations. MADDOW: So in essence what they`re doing is they`re pumping oil plus other stuff, and they`re pumping the oil and selling the oil because they can and there`s a market for that. They`ve never bothered to create any sort of system for dealing with the other stuff, whether it is this -- these highly flammable compounds that they can deal with another oil fields, or the other kinds of waste that they still haven`t figured out how to process like the radioactive filter socks that they don`t know what to with it. And all of this other detritus that comes with -- and waste water disposal, all these other detritus that comes with oils, that comes with oil drilling, they just never had to get their ducks in a row on that stuff before they start to bring this stuff to market. GOLD: Well, essentially they pumped first and now they`re trying to figure out how to deal with this. I mean, you make good points. They are building salt water disposal wells right now as quickly as they can to get rid of some of this water that comes up. They`re trying to figure out what to do with these socks which catch materials. Yes. They are coming up with solutions sort of, as they go. MADDOW: They`re coming up with solutions or not and the rest of the country are paying a price for it, depending on where they can ship this stuff out to. It`s an incredible story. Russell Gold, senior energy reporter for "The Wall Street Journal," thanks for your time tonight, and I`m glad you`ve written a book on it because I feel like this is the story that needs telling at length. GOLD: Thank you. MADDOW: Thanks a lot for being with us. Thanks. GOLD: Appreciate it. MADDOW: All right. There`s a lot more ahead tonight, including Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren meeting in the same room with each other and the sky somehow refusing to fall. I know. Please stay with us. MADDOW: This was last Thursday on the show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: I usually would finish the report like this by saying watch this space. In this case really watch the space. This really feels like an outbreak of shenanigans. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That was Thursday night. I had a Scooby sense that some shenanigans were on the way. Now tonight, those aforementioned shenanigans have arrived. And that story`s next. MADDOW: So there was an unexpected oh no, was just happens, kind a moment this morning when our brand new Secretary of Defense Ash Carter pulled up outside the Pentagon for his first day of work. Washington, D.C. is very, very icy right now. A lot of things have been shut down a couple of days in D.C. because of the weather but the icy conditions were not enough to put off Ash Carter`s swearing in ceremony at the White House today and then his trip to the Pentagon for his first day at work as our nation`s newest secretary of Defense. So his car pulled up to the Pentagon in very icy Washington, D.C. Our new Defense Secretary Ash Carter got out of the car, he greeted some people, he turned around, and then, well then something went down. And it went down and I have to tell you just off camera, but still, watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa, whoa. What happened? (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Whoa, whoa, what happened is that Ashton Carter`s wife, Stephanie Carter, stepped out of that big car on to the icy road and she slipped, she fell down. And it`s a real blessing that she was not hurt when she fell down. I think it is also a small but significant blessing that the cameras did not actually capture the fall itself so she never has to see that on film, right? She got up, she was a champ about the whole thing. She joked about it as she made her way up the stairs with her husband, so it ended up OK. It happens to everyone. Also so does this. At least this happens to pretty much everyone who has ever met Vice President Joe Biden. During his White House swearing in ceremony, there was this moment when Vice President Biden was trying to get Mrs. Carter to stay on the stage, he was basically, trying to keep her from shying away from the attention and from the camera shots on her husband`s big day as he spoke to swearing-in ceremony. But he did so in his very Vice President Biden way, right. Gave her a quick shoulder massage, whispered something in here ear. Yes. She was a champ about that, too. And somewhere between the fall and the shoulder rub, we did get a brand new defense secretary. Ash Carter was sworn in officially. He got his first day on the job including a meeting with the president. He`s sworn in as of today. President Obama`s fourth defense secretary. President Obama nominated Ash Carter as defense secretary in December of last year. He sailed through his confirmation hearings. The vote on him in the Senate was 93-5. He was an uncontroversial highly qualified nominee who did really well during his confirmation hearings. That was Ash Carter. That was also Loretta Lynch. President Obama`s nominee to be the next attorney general. Loretta Lynch, an incredibly accomplished prosecutor, long and distinguish career, nobody who`s in the position to know has ever publically expressed anything but admiration and respect for her and for her record. She did great during her confirmation hearing. No one laid a glove on her. I mean, to the point of it actually getting a little weird because senators decided that since they couldn`t lay a glove on her, instead they just asked her questions about other people, get her to say stuff like this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: You`re not Eric Holder, are you? LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: No, I`m not, sir. (LAUGHTER) CORNYN: So no one is suggesting that you are, but of course, Attorney General Holder`s record is heavy on our minds now. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Loretta Lynch was nominated for her job a month before Ash Carter was nominated for his job. And neither of them had a single hiccup in their confirmation, or faced a single scandal or a single scurrilous accusation, neither one of them even got a particularly hard question. But now Ash Carter is our nation`s defense secretary, and Loretta Lynch is still waiting for a vote. And for awhile, it seemed like Republican senators were admitting that there was no substance of objections to her nomination. For a while it really seemed like she was going to get a vote. But then for some reason they had paused. Now Loretta Lynch reportedly doesn`t have enough Republican support to win confirmation as attorney general. Republicans have cooled on her, whatever that means. And if you are confounded by this turn of events is because it is confounding. In part, because of what job she`s about to get, right? Or she`s supposed to get, right? Who she is supposed to replace? There`s almost no one Republicans in Congress object to more than they object to the current attorney general. It`s not a secret, right. Republicans in Congress don`t try to disguise their malevolence about Attorney General Eric Holder. And yet here they are with a highly qualified totally noncontroversial nominee to replace Eric Holder and get him out of the job. This is their chance to get rid of him but instead of voting on her, they`ve decided to keep Eric Holder around for awhile. Even Eric Holder seems genuinely perplexed by this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is ultimately up in Congress, as to when I actually leave office. (LAUGHTER) You`d think in some ways Loretta`s process would be sped up given their desire to see me out of office. But -- (LAUGHTER) Be that as it may, I`ve never -- logic has never been necessarily a guide up there. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Attorney General Eric Holder saying today basically, "Hey, Congress, you hate me. I know you hate me, everybody knows you hate me. This is your opportunity to get rid of me. You know that, right?" (LAUGHTER) Maybe -- so maybe the reason we can`t have a new attorney general is that Republicans love hating Eric Holder too much. They love hating him so much that they can`t rid of him. Maybe that`s what`s going on. They don`t want to be without him. They enjoy the hatred for him so much. Raising money off him or something, I don`t know. Or maybe it`s taken about five minutes into this current Congress for Republicans to go all Ted Cruz on this subject. It was Texas Senator Ted Cruz back in the fall who said Republicans should block all of President Obama`s nominees, however qualified, until President Obama changed his mind and reverse his decision on immigration policy. It was Ted Cruz who argued that Republicans should not only block all qualified nominees, he said they shouldn`t even in worry about shutting down the government. That would be totally worth it as a tool of leverage to get President Obama to change his mind on immigration and reverse his immigration policy. Republicans in Congress decided to not go a full Ted Cruz and shut down the whole government over President Obama`s immigration policy. They decided instead to do kind of a half Ted Cruz and just shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Funding for the Homeland Security Department will end next Thursday. If Republicans in Congress don`t act to fund that department. They say they won`t act to fund that department unless President Obama changes his immigration policy. The Republican Party also decided not to go a full Ted Cruz on blocking all qualified Obama nominees. After all they were happy to confirm Ash Carter, but they apparently are going sort of a half Ted Cruz on that strategy as well. They`re not blocking all of President Obama`s nominees, but they are blocking Loretta Lynch apparently as some sort of protest against President Obama`s policy on immigration. So good for Ted Cruz. He`s been half getting his way, right, on holding up everything in the government as a way of trying to block the president`s policy on immigration, as a way of trying to get the president to not implement that policy. Well, today the calculus on all of that changed in a pretty big way because today a conservative federal judge blocked President Obama`s immigration order anyway. The president said today his administration will appeal that ruling, but in the meantime the sole policy that the Republicans hate so much, it`s on hold, it`s not happening. It`s on hold because the Republican Party -- excuse me, it`s not on hold because the Republican Party made threats and promised to shut down Homeland Security. It`s not on hold because they said we can`t have a new attorney general. The reason the policy is on hold is because it`s getting held up in the courts. At least temporarily. And so now here`s the big unanswered question. Now that the conservative complaints about President Obama`s immigration policy are being handled in the courts, now that the judiciary is on that, does that mean that the country will please be allowed to have a Homeland Security Department again? Can we have a Homeland Security Department since the immigration is blocked? And can we have a new attorney general? Can we have any one of those? Or do you guys really just want to keep Eric Holder as attorney general forever? MADDOW: To the extent that political parties can be said to have souls, Senator Elizabeth Warren is all of that and a bag of chips, and a root beer, and flexi straw, and a cookie for the modern Democratic Party. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Now look, you build a factory, and then turn it into something terrific or a great idea, God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid that comes along. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Elizabeth Warren gave that unscripted speech during her Senate campaign 2011, this year this Senator Warren keeps saying that she is not running for president in 2016. But she has, today, quietly become a signal that something is going on in the presidential race for 2016 that may be an unprecedented thing in American politics. And that story is next. Please stay with us. MADDOW: The Republican field for president feels -- what`s the word? Cluttered. They are all very nice people, I`m sure, but there are a lot of them. There`s some clutter. The Democratic field, however, not cluttered, spartan, ascetic, even minimalist. There is the former U.S. senator from the great state of Virginia, Jim Webb, who announced that he might be running late last year, launching this campaign with this video which he found lodged in a broken Fisher-Price camera from 1987. Despite that big launch, this weekend Senator Webb seemed to maybe change his mind saying in an interview that he might not be able to raise enough money to actually go through with running for president. Then there`s the former governor of Maryland, Martin O`Malley, who had an interesting and totally weird physical injury just happened to him. We are told that Martin O`Malley is apparently doing his campaigning now with his arm in a giant brace because he broke his elbow in a mysterious weight- lifting accident that no one will explain. Even with all of that, human interest intrigue, I mean, how does that happen, what does his injury look like, what does the brace look like. Even with that human interest level, we can`t show you a picture of him campaigning for president with his elbow brace cast on because we can`t find one anywhere because nobody is taking pictures of him as he travels around the country. There is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, technically independent senator. He may be running. He`s making noises to make it sound like he will run. I say this with absolutely no offense intended and I like Senator Sanders a lot. But I believe his run will probably be a run to get his ideas out there on a presidential platform more than anything else. There is a large and committed effort you may know among the Democratic Party faithful to try to draft Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to run. It really seems, though, like she is not going to. She`s not doing any of the things you would be typically doing. No. If you`re going to run for president. Today there was a little bit of a jolt of excitement in Democratic circles when the "New York Times" reported about a one-on-one meeting in December between Senator Warren and Hillary Clinton. It apparently happened at Mrs. Clinton`s house in Washington. Senator Clinton reaching out to Senator Warren to ask her to come over one-on-one without staffers and talk policy. What`s a tad unclear is exactly why this unnamed Democrat briefed on the meeting is leaking this news to the "New York Times" now if the meeting happened in December. One can only wonder about that. But what is clear is that Senator Elizabeth Warren really does not seem to be running for president, which then forces a difficult question of who is left and what that means for the Democratic chances of holding on to the White House in 2016. I mean, is Hillary Clinton going to run effectively if not literally unopposed? As a matter of history, that would be almost unprecedented for an open run for the presidency. In 1968, the Republican and Democratic Parties created what we now consider to be the modern nominating process, with binding primaries and binding caucuses instead of just working everything up by the insiders at the conventions. Since then, since 1968, you want to know how many non-incumbent nominees ran unopposed? Zero. None. I mean, the closest example is 2000 when Vice President Al Gore faced opposition in the form of former U.S. senator, Bill Bradley. That election, though, Al Gore won every single primary and every single caucus. He was also running as the sitting vice president at the time. And yes, there are a few years where there was one prohibitive front runner in Ronald Reagan in 1980, John Kerry 2004, Mitt Romney, frankly, in 2012, but there was at least some competition pushing that front runner, and that front runner in all those cases didn`t win 100 percent of the delegates. I mean, Hillary Clinton running de facto unopposed for the nomination? For an open seat? From what we can tell that would be unlike anything that has ever happened before in American politics. An unprecedented first. Which means that we can`t predict from history how exactly it would turn out. I mean, isn`t an uncontested nomination for Hillary Clinton a good thing? Where she`d be fresh as a daisy for the general election having been able to essentially sit out the primary season? Or would it be a bad thing for the Democrats` chances of hoping to hold on to the presidency? I mean, if a primary toughens you up for the general election? And she`s not really going to have one. Is there a plan in Hillary Clintonville to basically plan around that problem? To compensate for that difficulty that she oddly might have as the Republicans fight it out amongst themselves to pick a nominee to compete against her, and she just gets to walk to the general. Joining us now is Anne Gearan. She`s a political correspondent from "The Washington Post" assigned to cover Hillary Clinton and her possible upcoming campaign. Anne, it`s nice to see you. Thanks for being here. ANNE GEARAN, WASHINGTON POST REPORTER: Thank you. Glad to be here. MADDOW: Let me ask you first as a professional Hillary Clinton watcher now, as your job. Am I asking the right question? Do I -- the way I just framed this, is that the way they are approaching the prospect of her candidacy? GEARAN: Yes and a little bit no. MADDOW: OK. GEARAN: So on the yes front, certainly all of the many Hillary Clinton backers and Hillary Clinton insiders are delighted that at this point there isn`t some giant primary problem that she has to overcome, anything on the order of Barack Obama in 2008. It makes things a whole lot easier in terms of assembling a campaign operation, raising money, and as you alluded to in your intro, essentially coasting to what, at this point, looks like a nearly uncontested election. At the same time, many Democrats, including many who are close to her, know that that is, in many ways, unorthodox, and probably not a great idea in terms of having a battle tested ready candidate for the general. You don`t want all of the things that might come your way to hit you in the general election. You want some of that to be worked out in the primary. At least that`s sort of the general theory of why primary opposition is good. And she won`t, at this point have much. It certainly doesn`t look like she will. MADDOW: Is there any way that they`re thinking, as far as you know, that they can plan around that? I mean, I think part of the reason that people are so intrigued by this report today about the meeting between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren is because part of the reason people want Elizabeth Warren to run is to give Hillary Clinton somebody to run against in the Democratic context, so Democratic ideas get flushed out and Democratic fights happened before the general election. The idea of them talking if not colluding while one of them is obviously going to run and one of them isn`t I think has piqued people`s interest in terms of how the Clinton campaign might get around this constraint that they have in terms of running an unprecedented no primary general election run-up. GEARAN: Absolutely, and it was a nice scoop that Maggie Abraham had today on that meeting. And you can only kind of imagine what the conversation must have been like. And given that it really does not look at all like Elizabeth Warren is going to mount a campaign of her own, she is a very smart politician and she is using her leverage in exactly, it seems to me, the most effective way, which is to -- and in this case she was invited by Hillary Clinton to come and talk to her. To keep Clinton honest, to say here is a -- you know, here I represent a very large potent and important part of the party, certainly a big important part -- particularly in the primary stages. And I am going to tell you -- Elizabeth Warren, I`m going to tell what that part of the party thinks. It`s not as if Hillary Clinton doesn`t know already, but here she has someone who kind of personifies something that Hillary Clinton is not. And that`s an important thing in the primary phase. At this point it`s the closest thing that Clinton has to primary opposition. An undeclared and extremely unlikely candidate embodying a thing that she is going to have to take in -- take on board and be able to reflect in order to get the kind of party support and enthusiasm that she needs. One thing that Clinton supporters don`t want to see is her close to a nomination and have the entire party be just bored stiff by the entire process. MADDOW: Right. Exactly. It`s one thing to consolidate the party behind you, it`s another thing to make everybody forget it`s happening because there`s no politics on TV anymore. GEARAN: Exactly. Exactly. MADDOW: Fascinating stuff. Anne Gearan, reporter for the "Washington Post." GEARAN: Thank you. MADDOW: Who has a particularly exciting beat right now. Anne, thanks very much. Appreciate it. All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us. MADDOW: Today is the last day in office for the longest serving governor of Oregon in the state`s history. He got elected to his first term in 1994, then another term in 1998. Then he took a few years off. Then he came back and he got elected again in 2010. And then he just got elected again in 2014. He just got elected again this past November. But today is Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber`s last day in office as he steps down from the governorship. Technically voluntarily but under a ton of pressure after all the other major Democratic leaders and elected officials in the state called for him to do so, and his ethics investigation of him spread from the state ethics commission to the state attorney general`s office to the FBI. Governor Kitzhaber leaves office under raging storm clouds of suspicion and recrimination, mostly about the role of his girlfriend in his administration, and alleged efforts of him to cover his tracks as governor once the investigations into her role started. Oregon is a state that has had far less than a state`s usual share of political scandal and corruption. And so from all accounts, Governor Kitzhaber leaving office under these terms, the scandal that got him to this point may have left the state more than a little shook up, which is a hard place to start if you are the new governor. But that is what Oregon gets tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. local time when Secretary of State Kate Brown is sworn in as Oregon`s 37th governor. Oregon doesn`t have a lieutenant governor so as secretary of state, Kate Brown is next in line. And becoming a new governor when you never expected to has got to be hard for anyone. Taking the reins of the state government that is in chaos and shock is a challenge for the ages. Good luck, brand new governor, Kate Brown, Oregon`s new governor as of 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. MADDOW: We spend a lot of time on this show talking about people who give politics a bad name. Politicians who go bribe shopping like they`re going to pick up a quart of milk. Politicians who are convicted felons. Politicians who run as family values crusaders while they have a hooker thing going on, on the side. Politicians who steal speeches from WikiPedia or who steal quarters from parking meters. It`s hard to think sometimes why anyone would want to go into politics when you look at who goes into politics. But in today`s news we have found the cure for that feeling, and that story is next. MADDOW: Not quite a year ago, the brand new mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, was arrested in an FBI sting for taking thousands of dollars in bribes. The city council chose a state senator to fill his shoes. So when that senator resigned to take over as mayor of Charlotte, there was a vacancy seat for the Senate seat. Under the arcane rules of the local Democratic Party, 49 people gathered in a Charlotte church to choose the new senator for that now open seat. 49 people, there were four candidates. The winner with a grand total of 25 votes was this guy. His name is Jeff Jackson, although really the biggest winner of the night was Mr. Jackson`s stepson because Mr. Jackson had promised that if he won, he would get the kid a puppy. It think we have a picture of Jeff Jackson here. Yes. There he is. He`s an army veteran, he served in Afghanistan. Also serves as an assistant district attorney, prosecutor. You probably have heard that snowy, icy weather has been pounding North Carolina and much of the southeast these past couple of days. Well, Senator Jackson arrived at work this morning at the North Carolina state capital in the middle of the snowstorm and he discovered that he was alone there. Nobody else had showed up to work in the hall legislature. Now you or I, this is probably the time where if we were in the North Carolina state legislature, we`d think snow day, awesome, turn around and go home. But Senator Jeff Jackson didn`t do that. Instead he said, quoting from his Facebook page, quote, "I feel like I should hurry up and pass Medicaid expansion. Anything else while I`ve got the place to myself?" And then this, quote, "Just came back from the Senate chamber. All votes were unanimous, Medicaid expanded. Teachers paid." A few minutes later, "Independent redistricting, check. Invest heavily in wind and solar, check. Support early childhood education, check. Broad-based economic development, check. North Carolina is quickly becoming a national model for progress." Then about an hour in, "I`m now receiving lots of calls from actual lobbyists. Even the false appearance of power gets their attention." Another hour down, "Just had a big debate over whether to cut our university system even more. In a 1-0 vote, we decided that would be a terrible idea." Two hours later, "I just defeated a filibuster because I needed a drink of water. That removes any opposition to new childcare subsidies." In the end, Senator Jackson presided over a marathon five-hour, one lawmaker, totally fake, but very fun-to-watch legislative session. He was like a guy diving into his backyard snow drifts just because they were there. Winter gave Senator Jackson of North Carolina the chance to be a legislature of one today. And you know what? The guy dove right in -- almost the best new thing in the world today. It looks like weather has canceled all of North Carolina`s legislative business tomorrow, as well. Gleeful North Carolina State Senator Jeff Jackson, get back to work. I`m sure you have more to do. That does it for us tonight. Now, it`s time for THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL. Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021701cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 80 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 17, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 17, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Richard Wolffe GUESTS: Michael Weiss, Graeme Wood, Muzaffar Chishti, Brett Williams, Cory Bennett, Mark Ambinder, Dianna Hunt, Michael Snipes SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7518 words HIGHLIGHT: The White House convened a meeting today on violent extremism. A Texas judge stopped the implementation of President Obama`s executive orders on immigration. RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: Two hours later, I just defeated a filibuster because I needed a drink of water. That removes any opposition to new child care subsidies. In the end, Senator Jackson presided over a marathon five-hour, one lawmaker, totally fake, but very fun-to-watch legislative session. He was like a guy diving into his backyard snow drifts just because they were there. Winter gave Senator Jackson of North Carolina the chance to be a legislature of one today. And you know what? The guy dove right in -- almost the best new thing in the world today. It looks like weather has canceled all of North Carolina`s legislative business tomorrow, as well. Gleeful North Carolina State Senator Jeff Jackson, get back to work. I`m sure you have more to do. That does it for us tonight. Now, it`s time for THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL. Good evening, Lawrence. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel. I tried to take a snow day today in solidarity with the lazy members of the North Carolina legislature, but, you know, the boss is here. MADDOW: If you ever need a note, just let me know. O`DONNELL: OK. MADDOW: Yes, thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Thanks, Rachel. Well, the White House convened a meeting today on violent extremism, a Texas judge stopped the implementation of President Obama`s executive orders on immigration, and it`s being called the biggest bank job ever. How did hackers steal a billion dollars from banks? (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: We spend more time, more time talking about what do you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it. Radical Islam, Islamic extremism -- I`m not sure a lot is gained by saying that. It doesn`t have any impact on our military posture. JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The topic of discussion in our meeting was about what to be done in Europe now. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Leaders are gathered for three days of meetings on how best to address the threat posed by ISIS and other violent extremist groups. BIDEN: I`m not suggesting that I think America has all the answers here. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: These meetings come just days after terror attacks in Denmark. BIDEN: We just have a lot more experience. We are a nation of immigrants. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Late last night, a federal judge halted the president`s executive action plan. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I disagree with the Texas judge`s ruling, and the Justice Department will appeal. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After five days, the prosecution rested and the defense began laying out its case. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Routh met Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield the day he killed them, during what is supposed to be a type of therapy session for the troubled veteran. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defense picks up their case again tomorrow morning. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Snow and ice brought treacherous travel conditions to states like Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Weather has been proclaimed postponed -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Mardi Gras. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- until Wednesday. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn`t seem like many are staying inside. Even with temperatures a bit colder than normal. BIDEN: In Washington, when you hear "snow is coming," everything shuts down. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Federal offices are closed. Schools are closed. It`s a snow day here in Washington, D.C. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, boy! (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: Tonight, a member of the Iraqi parliament tells NBC News that 45 Iraqi security personnel were kidnapped, locked in the back of a truck, covered with gas and then burned to death by the Islamic State militants. To fight the Islamic State in Syria, a senior defense tells NBC News tonight that the United States will begin providing equipment and small arms to Syrian rebels fighting against the Islamic State and against the Syrian military forces. Only rebels trained and vetted by the U.S. military will get the assistance according to that official. Today, representatives from 60 nations met in Washington for a summit on countering violent extremism. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BIDEN: We`re here today because we all understand that in dealing with violent extremism that we need answers that go beyond a military answer. We need answers that go beyond force. It`s not enough to take on these networks of extremists who wish to do us harm. We also have to take on the ideology that attracts foreign fighters from all around the world to join them. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Michael Weiss, a columnist for "Foreign Policy" magazine and author of the new book, "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror." Also joining us, Graeme Wood, a lecturer in political science at Yale University, and a contributing editor for "The Atlantic," whose latest piece is entitled "What ISIS Really Wants". Also joining us, Richard Wolffe, executive editor of MSNBC.com. There has been much criticism in the media and elsewhere about the president`s use or nonuse of the word "Islamic" in front of the word terrorism. This is all encapsulated to something Bill O`Reilly said tonight. Let`s listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: The holy war is here. And, unfortunately, it seems the president of the United States will be the last one to acknowledge it. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Michael Weiss, your reaction to that? MICHAEL WEISS, FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE: Look, to deny that there is a component of Islam to the Islamic State I think is just farcical. It refuses to take them at their own estimation, at their own propaganda. They are tapping into well springs of Islamic theology and Islamic history. However, to only describe ISIS as an Islamic fundamentalist organization I think is false. They`re also a mafia -- O`DONNELL: Are those the two choices, that it must be entirely a tribute to its religion or completely eliminate it? WEISS: No, Lawrence, the upper echelons of this organization, I keep banging on about this in the media, if you look at who populates the decision-making elements of this organization, these are ex-Saddamists, in some cases, literally people who went from wearing military fatigues, having epaulettes on their shoulders, smoking cigars and drinking wine, to a year later having long black Salafi beards and, you know, being dressed in Islamic garb. Did they become radical Islamists overnight? Well, possibly, but more likely what they`re trying to do, and this is one of the components of ISIS` global project, or regional project, this is a Sunni power projection political phenomena. They feel that 2003, the United States toppled Saddam. The Sunnis lost Baghdad. Four years of a brutal war in Syria where the Sunnis are the majority, and yet, the U.S. failed to intervene. Sunnis are being ethnically cleansed. They have barrel bombs, chlorines, sarin gas dropped on their heads. Nobody is doing anything about it. Iran`s hegemony has now spread from, obviously, Tehran, to Yemen, to Gaza, to Lebanon, throughout the Middle East. They are projecting themselves. They are presenting themselves as the last guarantor and the custodians of Sunni Islam. That`s what they`re tapping into, the Abbasid Caliphate. If you listen to what Abut Bakr al Baghdadi is saying, he`s going back to the second Crusades. The al-Zangi mosques in Mosul. This is redolent of what Salahuddin preached before he went to fight the crusader armies. They`re tapping into this history. So, whether you like it or not, there is an Islamic component to this. O`DONNELL: Richard Wolffe, is there a case to be made for the president carefully avoiding that use of the word "Islamic"? And -- because he`s going to need to work with Islamic leaders around the world, he`s going to need to work with governments who would be sensitive with the use of that term. And the real question, so what is their intelligence when the door is closed and they`re making their strategic decisions and one of those decisions based on? But it seems to me there is a strong case to be made for the president avoiding the use of that word "Islamic" the way Bill O`Reilly wants him to. RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC.COM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: There is. And it`s not what we want to hear, or what domestic politics want to hear, right? There are also some reasons for domestic politics why we might want to say, you know, where this problem is rooted. But if you`re trying to dole with a foreign policy question, there are different strains of Islamist thinking and action and parties and leaders who you might want to peel off. There are reasonable Islamist leaders, somebody reasonable compared to ISIS now, and we have a model first and it was the Cold War. We didn`t say everyone associated with socialism and communism was bad. There were socialists we liked. There were even people we thought, well, you know, if they`re socialists, we prefer the harder socialists who we can manage and understand. And that`s in a Anglophile Western European model. So, we could understand socialism and communism in ways that we don`t understand. All sorts of strains of Islamist thinking, not least of which is ISIS. So, yes, there are very important reasons. One of which we still lack cultural understanding. We still lack understanding of the ladders of power, but we need to splinter this movement, if it is indeed movement, and ISIS is just one piece of it. So, there`s a reason for a president speaking to the rest of the word why he would not want to say, this is about Christianity against Muslims, even if that suits some people on the other side of Sixth Avenue. O`DONNELL: Graeme Wood, your article, which has caught attention like no other on this subject, you say, "The reality is the Islamic State is Islamic, very Islamic." Is it -- what is your reading of the president`s language on this? And is it important for him to include or not include that word "Islamic" when he`s discussing this? GRAEME WOOD, THE ATLANTIC: There are certainly aspects of presidential rhetoric that have to be taken into account. The way he`s quoted is going to be in a very short way, and I totally understand the impulse to make sure there`s a distinction made between the Islamic State and the vast majority of Muslims who reject it. But to understand the appeal of this group really requires a fine grain to understanding of its roots. And those roots certainly as Michael said include harkening back to elements of Islamic text and the behavior of Muslims over a thousand years that Muslims have existed. So, I would suggest the use of rhetoric could be used a bit more fine grain precision, even in the short sound bites that the president is likely to be quoted in. O`DONNELL: Go ahead. WEISS: Look, if you look at the Arab countries that are part of this coalition fighting ISIS, including Jordan, today, ISIS released an audio file, an audiotape of al-Maqdisi, this was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi`s mentor in Jordan, OK? He`s a Salafi jihadi in Jordanian captivity. They let him out of prison. He`s obviously working for the Jordanian intelligence services. He was negotiating with ISIS for the release of their hostages, including Muath Kaseasbeh, the Jordanian pilot. Jordan is using a Salafi to negotiate with terrorists because he has to appeal to them on some level. Nobody is under any illusion to what this group represents. The president calls them ISIL. What does ISIL stand for? The Islamic State -- you know, it`s absolutely absurd to just deny this core component of their ideology. WOLFFE: The White House is trying to deal with what`s terrifying most people here right now, and that isn`t necessarily just the graphic images we`re seeing out of the Muslim and Arab world. It`s also about what we`re seeing in European cities. And we cannot sit here today and say, you know what, those people are acting under the orders of some allegiance of ISIS. There are many, many disaffected European-born Muslims who have a relationship, maybe just by watching online videos in a connection to ISIS. Is that ISIS-driven? Is it Islamist-driven? Or is it something bigger and deeper that is really unsettling Western European capitalists right now? And I think, you know, to define that as Islamist terrorism, what we`ve seen in Paris and in Copenhagen, I think is reductionist and falls into our own judgment about what we think the world is like. Europe and the Middle East, two very different places that have a connection, but they are different places with different dynamics. O`DONNELL: Graeme, you write we are misled by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny Islamic State`s medieval religious nature. What is important about the nature of the Islamic State in figuring out how to combat the Islamic State? WOOD: What`s important is understanding what its appeal is to the potential radicalized people in Copenhagen, in Paris for example and understanding exactly what the beliefs of the organization are. If we know what those beliefs are, we have some hint of what`s important to them, what is it going to do. In some cases, they actually in a way sort of give away their game plan by suggesting that this is the way that they believe prophecy will unfold. Understanding exactly what -- O`DONNELL: What is it that you see in their game plan that strategists should be staring at in order to figure out how to fight ISIS? WOOD: In large part, it`s the way they frame the fight, which is a fight between crusaders and Islam. This is what they want. The United States, NATO to step into, is that exact narrative. And that`s what they are doing with these videos. They are intentional goading of the West to create this fulfillment of a narrative of a clash of civilization. O`DONNELL: Do you send in troops? Is it their mission to get American boots on the ground? WOOD: Clearly so. O`DONNELL: Then what happens in their theory of the case? WOOD: In their theory of the case, the battles will be fought between the armies of what they call Rome, which really means the Crusaders, and the Islamic State. When those battles are fought, Rome will be defeated in a place called Dabiq, Syria. After that, the Islamic state will expand possibly as far as Istanbul, but possibly the entire world. O`DONNELL: Michael, is it an article of religious faith for them that they will win, that if these American and European troops can come in, they can actually beat any army that comes in there? WEISS: It`s not about beating them. It`s about bleeding them white. They did this with the United States in Iraq. Remember, ISIS is not a new nemesis. We`ve been at war with them 11 years. You know, we bombed the hell of out of Fallujah -- O`DONNELL: Under other titles. WEISS: Other titles such as al Qaeda in Iraq. That was Abu Musab al- Zarqawi`s franchise. We dropped so much ordnance on the city of Fallujah, we flushed them out. Within the first week, they were already in Mosul. It was like playing whack-a-mole. The way they build that battle, even though they lost it, was a tactical defeat. But, strategically, they saw this as a victory. Osama bin Laden came out and said, look what we did, we killed scores of marines, we forced the United States to commit these war crimes against Muslims in a major Arab world, this is going to be a global casting call, a global recruitment drive for mujahidin to pour into Iraq. They build this as an apocalyptic struggle. But again, look, I want to emphasize this -- the sort of messianic Islamist components of this, I would describe more as the marketing. The rank and file, the foot soldiers that ISIS requires to fight this war, and here, we`re talking about the 14- year-old boy in Tunisia with bad skin, who, you know, they want to (INAUDIBLE) that`s the stuff we`ve all read about in the tabloids. These guys are fired by the radicalization elements. They are fired by Islamist eschatology. That said. At the upper echelons, again, this is a political project, first and foremost. They are looking to restore the lost prestige of Sunni Islam in both Baghdad and Aleppo. O`DONNELL: OK. Let`s take a quick break here, because I want to come back to what would the Islamic State be without the religious component. What would they -- how would that work with the recruits? We`ll be right back. O`DONNELL: We`re back with our guests discussing the Islamic State. Graeme Wood, as Michael Weiss just said -- he referred to Islam as the marketing tool basically that gets you recruits into the Islamic State and adds strongly to their will to fight. If that marketing tool wasn`t present, what would we have now? WOOD: We would have a political organization without that ideological background. And as Michael said -- O`DONNELL: With how many troops or how many, you know, ideological soldiers among them? WOOD: Well, they wouldn`t be that ideological. They would be a group that arises out of a place of terrible governance, with very little opportunity and hope for their lives in a very simple, material kind of way. What they wouldn`t have, though, is the ability to recruit overseas in particular with the promise of the fulfillment of a caliphate. And that is a concept within Islam that has a long history and it has certain requirements, such as the retention of territory where Sharia law can be implemented. If they can`t claim to be able to offer that, they`ve lost one of the major recruitment tools they have. O`DONNELL: Richard Wolffe, it seems our politics are going to continue to be consumed by who`s going to say the word "Islamic" in what order in their discussions with this. WOLFFE: Yes, it`s a pretty reductionist view of the challenge here. I will say -- I think we have actually seen these same people do this before without Islam. It was called the Baath Party. The Pan-Arab unifying idea, anti-capitalist, anti-Western. In those days, they had a big benefactor, and that was the Soviet Union. And when socialism collapsed, they then went looking for someone else. That someone else is radical Islamist theology, funded by Gulf states and other various other partners, now self-sustaining, but now with the trappings of religion because that is Pan-Muslim, Pan-Arab, and that`s a much more effective recruitment tool. O`DONNELL: Michael, your view of what would be left of the Islamic State if you didn`t have the Islam as a recruiting tool? WEISS: When we talk of the Islamic State, we`re not just talking of the actual fighters and clerics and members who have signed up. We`re talking about the people they govern or they rule. O`DONNELL: Yes. WEISS: Including and most important -- O`DONNELL: Now about 8 million people. WEISS: The core constituency, Lawrence, are the Sunni tribes of Eastern Syria and Western Iraq. Why are they signing up with the Islamic State? It`s very simple. These groups are persisted for hundreds of years, making deals with any and all comers, including the Baath Party, as you said, for the simple sake of pragmatism. They see ISIS as a better guarantor of their safety and sanctity and prestige than the government of Baghdad, or the government in Damascus, for the simple fact that both of those governments are led by their enemies. The Alawites of Bashar al-Assad in one hand, and the Shia, essentially funded and financed and trained by Iran on the other hand. So, there is a political component to this, it`s huge. O`DONNELL: Michael Weiss and Graeme Wood, thank you both very much for joining me tonight. Richard Wolffe is going to hang around. Coming up, new revelations about the NSA. They actually might have a way of spying on virtually every hard drive in the world. O`DONNELL: A federal judge in Texas today blocked implementation of President Obama`s executive orders on immigration that would have granted millions of undocumented immigrants, legal status and work permits. In last night`s 123-page ruling, federal judge Andrew Hanen said that the president`s executive orders could not be based on prosecutorial discretion, as the administration had claimed. The judge wrote, "Instead of merely refusing to enforce the laws against an individual, the DHS has enacted a wide-ranging program that awards legal presence to individuals Congress has deemed deportable or removable." The judge said, "There is no specific law or statute that authorizes the new benefits." Joining us now is Muzaffar Chishti, a lawyer and the director of the Migration Policy Institute at NYU School of Law. You were here first to instruct on this subject. When I wasn`t able to find any legal justification for what the president was doing. And more interestingly, Richard, I wasn`t able to find a single Democrat who could come on this show and tell me what the legal basis was of what the president was doing, but they were all for it. You found it for us. And it was in the prosecutorial discretion area of the 1986 laws and regulations. And does the judge`s ruling and what you`ve read in the judge`s ruling change your view of what`s possible here? MUZAFFAR CHISHTI, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE: I don`t think so. I think the judge basically I think had kind of tipped his hand on this a while ago. If he has spoken a lot about this administration and his policies on immigration that he fundamentally disagrees with them. So the moment he got this case, I think a lot of people thought that a ruling like this would be coming down. Look, it`s obviously a setback for the administration and for this new program. But it`s not the last word on the subject. I mean, that`s why we have a federal court system, an appeals court, and it will be reviewed. I think what he was saying today was an extremely narrow technical basis for his opinion, which is that, look, this is a substantive piece of a new rule, and a substantive piece of a new rule, you must have notification and comment period. That`s a very narrow ruling then saying this is, you know, sort of constitutionally permissible. Oh, this is against the separation of powers. O`DONNELL: Yes. CHISHTI: So I think it will be focused all on this narrow issue. O`DONNELL: Yes, he based it on the idea that this really is a new regulation, and when you do a new regulation, you have to allow for public comment. CHISHTI: That`s right. When I was on the show last time, I said this is not a new regulation. O`DONNELL: Right. CHISHTI: Because we had a precedent like this at least since the 1960s. The only thing new about this is the number of people that it impacts. That in the past, we have -- the president and the executive branch exercised this kind of authority without any challenge, and there`s challenge (INAUDIBLE). But never for this large number of people. So, the issue is, does the volume of people that are covered change that or no? And I think that`s the debate we`re going to have. O`DONNELL: And, Richard Wolffe, it seems headed for the Supreme Court. WOLFFE: Yes. And if it hadn`t been this judge, it would have been another one. This is a White House probably braced for that. It spent months and months, if not years looking at how could they withstand a legal challenge? It`s not just the number of people it impacts. It`s the kind of people it impacts. But it`s the politics that was always going to propel it to the ultimate court in the land. So, you know, whether it`s the number of days or some other judge ruling on some other area of the law, this was going to be challenged in Congress, in the courts. And this is a showdown everyone -- actually I think everyone wants to have it. The administration wants to discuss these issues and bring not just the people out of the shadows, but the issue out of the shadows of nativist conservative talk show radio, which has influenced very strongly the Republican Party at this point. CHISHTI: Yes. O`DONNELL: There`s also the legal point of standing, there`s a very serious question whether states have the actual legal standing. But there`s a very serious question as to whether states have the actual legal standing, because it`s states who have brought this case, and the judge found that they do have the standing. And that may be a piece of this that collapses on appeal. CHISHTI: He at least found one state standing. O`DONNELL: Exactly right, there were 26 states and he said only one of them does which is Texas. CHISHTI: The order of the judge is very brief, but it`s a 123-page memorandum, which tells a lot about his world view on immigration, which is basically a combination of political statements and legal. It`s hard to say where the political statement ends and where the legal argument begins. But it`s very speculative in that regard. What he found, he had to go through a lot of gymnastics, that he found that in the state of Texas, they would be eligible for a driver`s license. And to actually get you a driver`s license, that you only pay $24 for a license fee, but it takes the state about $117 to make it. The difference would be the impact on the state. O`DONNELL: Yes, economic impact. And other states supplied evidence that it was positive economic impact for them. So, Muzaffar Chishti and Richard Wolffe, thank you both very much. WOLFFE: Thank you. CHISHTI: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Coming up, computer hackers reportedly pull off the biggest bank heist ever, a billion. O`DONNELL: Kaspersky Lab, a Russian-based security software maker says it has detected spying programs in hard drives made by the world`s top manufacturers. The evidence, so far, indicates it`s part of a previously unknown NSA project. According to Reuters, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- the U.S. National Security Agency has figured out how to hide spying software deep within hard drives made by Western Digital, Seagate, Toshiba and other top manufacturers, giving the agency the means to eavesdrop on the majority of the world`s computers, according to CyberResearch and former operatives. Kaspersky Lab said it found infected computers in 30 countries, including Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Mali, Syria, Yemen and Algeria. Kaspersky said, the targeted computers included government and military institutions, telecommunications companies, banks, energy companies, nuclear researchers, media, and Islamic activists. (END VIDEO CLIP) A former NSA employee told Reuters that the Kaspersky Lab is correct. The NSA declined to comment. Joining me now is the Former Director of Operations for U.S. Cyber Command, Major General Brett Williams. Also, Cyber Security Reporter for "The Hill," Cory Bennett, and Editor-At-Large for "The Week" and Contributing Editor for "The Atlantic," Mark Ambinder. General Williams, what is your reaction to this report. MAJ. GEN. BRETT WILLIAMS (RET.), U.S. CYBER COMMAND FORMER DIRECTOR: Well, Lawrence, unlike some of the unnamed former officials, I can tell you that if I had any direct knowledge of that, I certainly wouldn`t talk about it here in this particular venue. But, I think, the more important point is that what we should really be concerned with is not these very high-end capabilities that exist out there. I think, we should be thinking more about what is the threat that we, as individuals, what is the threat that we, as businesses, face as a result of poor cyber security practices like we see that resulted in the theft from the banks. And so, the kind of things that you`re hearing discussed, these very high-end tactics, that`s certainly the Holy Grail of hacking, to be able to get into the code that actually runs the hard drives, that actually runs the basic motherboard of the computer, that`s some very sophisticated type of techniques. Generally, nation states would be the only ones with that capability. But, I think, the average person is much more concerned that their bank has not taken the proper measures to protect their money, to protect their resources, as opposed to being concerned with the type of activity that we`re talking about in that particular article. O`DONNELL: Cory Bennett, the thing that isn`t clear to me is, where does this intervention on these hard drives occur. Is it something that it`s occurring at or near the manufacturer, or is it after they are delivered into these foreign countries. Iran, apparently, is the number one place where these hard drives have been found infected this way. CORY BENNETT, CYBERSECURITY REPORTER, THE HILL: Yes, and that makes sense with Iran knowing the history there. Obviously, the reason that we were able to tie these back to the NSA is that it resembled, in large part, the stocks in that cyber attack, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- kind of the original major destructive cyber attack in 2010 that took down roughly 2/5 of their centrifuges, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- their nuclear centrifuges. But, yes, this is from what we know. And, again, we do not know very much. But, from what we know, this is occurring very early on in the process of these hard drives being created, which means that, from the instance they are being shipped out, they do have that ability that you discussed, to spy, to launch cyber attacks around the world. You know, the list of countries you have there is quite extensive. It`s quite a wide net from what we see, from researchers here. O`DONNELL: So, Mark, a Russian cyber security firm discovers this while Edward Snowden has been living in Russia for quite a while now and discovers possible NSA involvement here. Are we to think that there`s no possible connection between Snowden`s revelations and this. MARK AMBINDER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, THE WEEK: I would love to be able to connect the dots, because it is an interesting theory. In fact, a lot of people in the Intelligence community would almost certainly say, without question, the answer is yes. I would say, though, based on Mr. Kaspersky`s own troubles with the government of Russia, he probably isn`t benefiting from any direct access to Edward Snowden. What I find very interesting, though, about this entire story is that you have a corporate entity, which Kaspersky is, challenging government power. You don`t have a government leak doing it, you have a corporate entity. And, of course, this gets back to your last question, because you asked, where in the supply chain do these implants get infected -- get infected and into the computer. Well, the answer is, there probably is some cooperation, very secret cooperation between the NSA and U.S. corporations on some level. One of the ways to police the government, to watch the watchers, is for corporate entities to fight back. And this is one way to do it without violating laws. O`DONNELL: All right, gentlemen, stay with us. We`re going to come back and talk about this hacking into banks. It`s the biggest bank heist ever. That`s next. According to another report from the Russian0-based Kaspersky Lab, an international hacking ring has stolen up to a billion dollars from a hundred financial institutions in 30 countries, including the United States. Kaspersky says, these unprecedented attacks began in 2013 and are still ongoing. NBC`s Pete Williams explains exactly how the cyber criminals did it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: The criminals sent banks they wanted to rob innocent-looking e-mails like this one. When a bank employee clicked on the attachment, it secretly launched malware that burrowed into the bank computer, snooping around for the account of the systems administrator. The malware copied the administrator`s keyboard strokes, and sometimes even turned on bank surveillance cameras to study the administrator`s work patterns. The criminals then took a random account, say, one with a thousand dollars in it, changed the balance to $10,000 then took $9,000 out, doing it all by remote control, like a scene in a Hollywood movie. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We`re rejoined by Major Brett Williams, Cory Bennett and Mark Ambinder. General Williams, this is the kind of thing that the NSA is trying to defend against all the time. And, it seems to me, there`s got to be more than one major player out there trying to get into these banks. I don`t think we have the General`s audio. Cory Bennett, could you hear me then. BENNETT: I can hear you, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Oh, Cory -- Mark, Mark -- BENNETT: I can -- yes, I mean, it`s -- what`s fascinating is the technique it -- WILLIAMS: Yes, it`s back on. O`DONNELL: Go ahead. BENNETT: The technique is really simple. It`s pure phishing. It`s the same type of e-mails we all get from trusted confidantes. But then, the techniques they`ve used, once they`re inside the bank systems, are reminiscent of what spy agencies are able to do. And yet, these are done essentially by black market hackers. That`s, I think, what makes it so scary, the sophisticated technique once they`re able to break through bank security. O`DONNELL: And the idea that those just -- you know, one giant entity out there trying to do this, there`s just -- there`s got to be hundreds and hundreds of players around the world trying to do this. BENNETT: And they`ll team up together if they can make money. And, in this case, they made a billion dollars. That`s enough reason to find a good teammate, a good hacker. O`DONNELL: What the report on it stresses is their patience, the way they get into these computer systems and just kind of sit and watch and learn exactly how to mimic the moves of the real -- the authorized operators. BENNETT: This was, incidentally, very similar to the tactics used by the hackers who took over Sony`s computer system. They did the exact same thing. They sat on the network, they learned the patterns of life and the ways that systems administrators went about their jobs, figured out how to exfiltrate the data without it getting caught, and then committed their deeds. It`s pretty scary because, again, these techniques were, previously, techniques that only big governments could do until maybe the past five or 10 years or so. And, now, they`re becoming increasingly something you can literally buy off the black market. O`DONNELL: General Williams, can you give us an idea of how much of America`s cyber defense is spent trying to protect against these kinds of attacks. WILLIAMS: Yes. And, Lawrence, I think that`s exactly the problem is, that we, as consumers, have to demand more from these financial institutions. Frankly, they`re spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year. And, in many cases, they`re ineffective. In this particular case, the attack factor was just, as the gentleman mentioned, simple phishing attacks, unpatched software, those sort of things. So, I think there`s two things consumers can do. One, we can hold our financial institutions accountable. We need that consumer grade of how good the cyber security is from the people that we trust with our money. And then, number two, we`ve got to get involved as consumers in demanding that we get the legislation passed, that`s been before Congress the last three years, that provides the -- both the incentives and the requirements for information sharing, particularly among financial institutions, so that we can protect ourselves better. O`DONNELL: That`s going to have to be the last word on it tonight. I`m sorry for the audio mix-ups there. Thank you, all, for joining me tonight. The mother of the man accused -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- of murdering American Sniper, Chris Kyle, takes the stand today. The latest on the trial of Eddie Ray Routh is coming up. (END VIDEO CLIP) The prosecution rested its case today in the murder trial of Eddie Ray Routh, the former Marine accused of murdering the real "American Sniper," Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Prosecutors rested after 4 1/2 days of presenting witnesses and evidence, including Eddie Ray Routh`s videotaped confession. And, today, prosecutors showed more video -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- from the moments after Eddie Ray Routh was apprehended and placed in the back of the police car. Routh can be heard on camera saying, "I`ve been so paranoid and schizophrenic today, I don`t even know what to think of the world. I don`t know if I`m insane." (END VIDEO CLIP) After the prosecution rested its case, the defense called Eddie Ray Routh`s mother. Jodie Routh -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- testified that she had begged the Veterans Hospital not to release her son on January 25th, 2013, the week before Eddie Ray Routh killed Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Joining me now is Dianna Hunt, who was inside -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- the courtroom today, covering the trial for the "Dallas Morning News," and Michael Snipes, a former Dallas County judge and current criminal defense lawyer. Dianna, what was the reaction in the courtroom today for Eddie Ray Routh`s mother`s testimony. And how long did she testify. DIANNA HUNT, DALLAS MORNING NEWS REPORTER: She testified a good 20 to 30 minutes, I would say. I didn`t time it exactly. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) But she was very stoic. She didn`t -- she looked like as if she were about to break into tears at one point, but she sort of shook it off and kept going. Her son looked at her, looked away. There wasn`t one of those moments where their eyes really locked in place. But she tried really -- she tried to humanize her son, talking about him playing little league in football, being happy-go-lucky. And then describing how much he had changed after he got back from the military, after he came home from the Marines. She said he was a different person. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And Judge Snipes, I would think this was the defense`s attempt to try to humanize the defendant and connect to those 10 women jurors. MICHAEL SNIPES, FORMER DALLAS COUNTY JUDGE: Yes, it definitely was. And, you know, as you look at this trial, there`s no question that Eddie Routh was mentally disturbed, mentally ill, however you want to put it. The question is, was his mental illness or whatever his mental issues were, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- did that rise to the level of insanity. And that`s what the jury is going to have to decide. O`DONNELL: And, judge, they -- it has to be -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- as I understand it in Texas law, the simple test for it is, at the moment that the crime is committed, do you know the difference between right and wrong, and do you know that this thing you`re doing is wrong. Is that basically the test. SNIPES: That is the test. It`s really not as complicated as you might think. The decision-making process is very complicated. It`s interesting, from Routh`s statements to the police, at first blush, you would think that -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- his statements, that he didn`t know the difference between right and wrong would be compelling and inculpatory. But if you think about it, if you assume or you end though that he was insane at the time of the offense and at the time that he was being interviewed, how was him saying that he was sane at the time. How was that going to make any difference. You can`t ask an insane person whether he`s sane or not. Perhaps, more telling in the case, as far as the confession goes, is that he expressed remorse for what he had done. And that kind of human feeling is consistent with being sane. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Dianna Hunt, do we know if the defense intends to call the defendant to the witness stand. HUNT: We don`t know. And, sometimes, that can be a very last-minute decision, once they listened to like how things have gone over -- (BEGGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- and weigh what the jury -- how the jury is responding. I would be surprised if he testified. He`s now under medication and is not going to be displaying some of the signs of mental illness that he was displaying earlier. But you can never -- you can never -- I wouldn`t wager either way on that one. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Judge Snipes, what`s your guess about whether the defendant will testify. SNIPES: I would guess that he would not. Of course, that`s up to him or up to the defense team. But despite what you tell the jury -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- about following the law and so forth, if he gets on the stand and makes a bad impression, they could be so afraid of him that they might render a verdict of guilty even though, intellectually, they might think that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. O`DONNELL: Yes. And, Dianna, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- they have the psychiatrist`s findings that he had psychosis, was mentally ill. They`ve already got that in the record of the case. And, as you say, if the medications are working well when he`s testifying, he may not appear terribly mentally ill at all. And the jury may make their decision based on the way he appears on the witness stand, as opposed to what he was doing that day. HUNT: Right. He also has exhibited signs of speaking out, saying sort of shocking things in the past, even when he was medicated. So, it would be quite a risk for them to put him on the stand. I do know they`re going to go extensively through his medical history, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- through the treatment he got at the V.A. or the lack of treatment, as his mother said. And I`m sure we`ll get a number of expert witnesses testifying to his mental state at the time. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Judge Snipes, if he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, what kind of action would the judge take, what kind of sentence - - I mean, do we call it a sentence at that point. SNIPES: No, it wouldn`t be a sentence. He`d be committed to one of the mental institutions in Texas, such as Vernon, where he could stay for the rest of his life. Although, he could be released if he was found to be sane at some point. O`DONNELL: Dianna Hunt and Judge Michael Snipes, thank you both for joining me tonight. Coming up, can you imagine what would happen if someone was -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- crazy enough to yell at First Lady Michelle Obama. And I don`t mean yell at her from a distance across the street, yell at her motorcade going by. I mean, right in her face, yelling at her. We have the video. (END VIDEO CLIP) The Vice President of the United States -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) once again sparked a Twitter frenzy today. This time, at the swearing in of new Defense Secretary Ash Carter. While Secretary Carter was speaking, the Vice President called over the Secretary`s wife, Stephanie Ann, put his hands on her shoulders and then he leaned over and then "bidened" her ear. We don`t know exactly what was whispered there, but lots of Twitter users took some wild guesses. We`ll let you look those up on your own. (END VIDEO CLIP) Coming up next, who would dare yell at First Lady Michelle Obama, and how would she handle it. O`DONNELL: Can you imagine what happens if you yell, I mean, yell at First Lady Michelle Obama. Here is what happens. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILLY EICHNER, ACTOR: Hey, guys. It`s Billy Eichner from "Billy on the Street." I`m here in a grocery store in Washington, D.C., ready to play my new game, "Ariana Grande or Eating a Carrot?" Let`s play. You and your husband have such busy lives to say the least. Does he ever come home and you say, "Oh, good, you`re here. I just DVR`ed `Hot in Cleveland.` Anything like that? MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: There are some shows like that. A lot of SportsCenter going on in our house. EICHNER: Oh, wow, ESPN. Remember that movie, "Hoosiers," with Gene Hackman. OBAMA: I sort of. EICHNER: Come out of retirement. He`s such a good actor. OBAMA: He`s a great actor. Big Bird, you are huge. I`m not used to having to look up at people because I`m very tall. You`re like Jane Lynch. You`re enormous. BIG BIRD, SESAME STREET CHARACTER: I am a big bird. EICHNER: So, Mrs. Obama, if you can, tell us, what is "Eat Brighter" about. OBAMA: We`ve got the "Sesame Street" friends like Big Bird, teaming up with the produce industry to try to help making eating fruits and vegetables fun and exciting for kids and their parents. EICHNER: I love vegetables. OBAMA: Me, too. EICHNER: We`re driving kids to eat fruit. Now, it`s time to introduce to you our other contestant today. One of our fan favorites from "Billy on the Street," I once ambushed her on the streets of New York and, now, we`ve brought her back to the show a number of times. But here`s the thing, she has absolutely no idea, I swear, that she is about to meet the First Lady and Big Bird. And she`s about to meet the First -- didn`t I just like poke you on the hand or something. OBAMA: It`s OK, but watch it. You could get shot. EICHNER: Oh, OK. Oh, my God. (LAUGHTER) This is so much fun. Fruits and vegetables, I could die at any moment. OBAMA: I`m Michelle Obama. ELENA, BILLY ON THE STREET REGULAR: I`m going to faint. I just -- (LAUGHTER) -- I just can`t believe this is the best day of my life. EICHNER: Oh, that`s so nice. Please don`t faint. Of course, I do a segment about healthy eating, Elena dies. ELENA: No, I have high blood pressure. EICHNER: OK, perfect. Wonderful. Eat a vegetable. ELENA: You`re not like an actress that`s being Michelle -- OBAMA: No. EICHNER: No, this is the actual First Lady. Don`t embarrass me here. For a dollar, look in the camera and say, "I am Groot." It`s from "Guardians of the Galaxy." OBAMA: I am Groot. EICHNER: I would like to thank the Academy from the bottom of my heart. I would like to thank our miraculous cast and crew. I would like to thank Donna Gigliotti (ph) and David Carver (ph)! Stop, stop! (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Have you ever noticed that Big Bird and Jane Lynch have never been seen together? Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021701cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 81 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 18, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST Bush Family Ties; What Does ISIS Want? BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Kasie Hunt, Steve Kornacki GUESTS: George Pataki, Michael Weiss, Barry Levinson, Mike Paul, Nicholas Confessore, Tara Palmeri SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8681 words HIGHLIGHT: Likely Republican 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush says he`s not his brother or his father, but doesn`t articulate how his policies would differ. To whom is ISIS addressing its message with these awful videos of beheadings and burnings? CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Oh, brother. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews, up in New York. Jeb Bush took the first big step to the White House today. He did so by stepping away from his father, and most important, his brother`s presidencies. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make, but I`m my own man. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: "I`m my own man." But look who he`s got on his foreign policy team as of today. Yes, he`s got James Baker, a realist, but guess who else? Stephen Hadley and Paul Wolfowitz, those best and brightest who took this country into Iraq, who came up with that damned (ph) warped choice that broke that country and left us with ISIS, a nutso policy that proved what General Colin Powell called the Pottery Barn rule -- you break it, you bought it. Will the real Jeb Bush please stand up? Are you the pragmatist your father and Jim Baker were, or the go-it-alone, French-hating Freedom Fries neocon ideologue that W. was sucked into being? I can be tougher. Your father took us into war with the Iraq the first time. Then your brother doubled down with his war of choice. Are you taking us to war with Iran? Is this going to be the Bush trifecta? Are you truly going to be your own man and find other means to guard and advance this country`s interests than by taking us into another war? MSNBC political correspondent Kasie Hunt is in Chicago covering Governor Bush today. What was the feeling out there, that he separated himself from his sibling and his father, or he didn`t? KASIE HUNT, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Chris, I think that while the headline out of this was "I am my own man," you didn`t actually hear very many specifics where Jeb Bush is actually differentiating himself between George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush. If you listen to his explanation on Iraq, for example, that came during the Q&A period, while he said that there were mistakes that were made in Iraq, he also then went on to say that the surge was politically heroic, one of the most politically heroic things any president has ever done, and he said that President Obama is the one who squandered the gain from the surge that -- and that that is what ultimately led to ISIS. MATTHEWS: And how did President Obama splurge (ph) the surge, if you will? HUNT: Well, the way that Jeb Bush outlined it in his Q&A is just that because Obama accelerated the withdrawal from Iraq, that`s what ultimately led to the power vacuum. And his accusation seemed to be that if the president had shored up the troops in Iraq, left them there longer, had a presence that was more -- that was stronger, more resilient, that we ultimately wouldn`t be in the situation we were today. MATTHEWS: OK, Kasie Hunt, great reporting. As I mentioned, during those remarks to a global security group in Chicago, Governor Bush cited the mistakes in Iraq but praised his brother`s strategy as heroic. He was talking about the surge. And here`s Jeb Bush. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: There were mistakes made in Iraq for sure. Using the intelligence capability that everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction was not -- turns out not to be accurate. My brother`s administration through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that -- that any president`s done because there was no support for this -- and it was hugely successful, and it created a stability that when the new president came in, he could have built on to create a fragile but more stable situation that would have not allowed for the void to be filled. The void has been filled because we created the void. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Steve Kornacki`s the host of MSNBC`s "UP" and George Pataki, of course, was three-time governor of New York. I want to go to you, Governor, because I`m not sure whether you`re running for president or not, but you may want to make an announcement. Now? GEORGE PATAKI (R), FMR. NEW YORK GOVERNOR: I`ll wait a little bit. MATTHEWS: OK. PATAKI: Probably New Hampshire. MATTHEWS: How does Jeb Bush separate himself from a very recent presidency, with whatever your politics, is now recognized as a very unpopular war with Iraq? PATAKI: Well, I think he did not do that today. He said he`s his own man, and he is. And during the course of the campaign, he will be asked specific issues and he will outline positions that will allow him to stand on his own two feet. But what he really said today was basic Republican orthodoxy. He said that we made the wrong decision on Cuba. Almost all Republicans agree on that. We have to rebuild and strengthen our military. Almost all Republicans and I think most Americans agree with that. We have to stand with Israel. I think these are all things that they don`t separate him from his brother, but he doesn`t have to on these issues because these are things that Republicans across the board, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, think are the right... MATTHEWS: In the primaries, especially. PATAKI: I the primaries, and I think in the general, too. The American people support a stronger military and standing with Israel. MATTHEWS: Well, you know, I think the interesting thing is how tactical he was, Steve, I mean, going out and saying, I supported the surge, when most people if you`re going to get stuck in Iraq, at least we`ll get to leave on our own terms, which the surge allowed us to do. But the more strategic question is, was that a smart war to fight? Were we right to go in there? Are we better off for having that situation the way it is now... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Is ISIS better than Saddam Hussein? STEVE KORNACKI, HOST, MSNBC "UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI": And that`s the question -- that`s the question he doesn`t want to answer. In fact, he practically (ph) came out and said that flat out the other day. It`s also a question a lot of Republicans, and Democrats, for that matter, who supported this war, you know, 10, 12 years ago... MATTHEWS: Like? KORNACKI: ... don`t want to... KORNACKI: Like? (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: The vice president of the United States and like Hillary Clinton. KORNACKI: Yes, Hillary Clinton... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: ... comes right to mind. But I think what the governor was saying there is true in that what Jeb Bush said today, the broad message he laid out -- absolutely, that`s consistent with where the Republican Party is. And the Republican Party, I think, with all the developments with ISIS in the last year -- so this is probably true of the whole country, but the Republican Party in particular, which has always been a little more hawkish, moving in a more hawkish direction response to this. So Bush is where he needs to be, I think, ideologically. It`s a pragmatic question, though. Do you want to nominate another Bush? MATTHEWS: I think he wanted to be very Reagan-esque, rather than Bush-ish, if there`s an adverb -- a verb -- anyway, Jeb Bush described Iran as an existential danger to the world -- Iran -- and slammed President Obama`s nuclear negotiations with that country. Here it is. And this is the hot stuff. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: Iran`s ambitions are clear and its capabilities are growing. For many years, they have been developing long-range missile capabilities and their own nuclear weapon program. When he launched his negotiations, President Obama said that that was the goal, stop Iran`s nuclear program. Now we`re told the goal has changed, and the point of these negotiations isn`t to solve the problem, it`s to manage it. Iran`s intent is clear. Its leaders have openly expressed a call for the annihilation of the state of Israel. This is an existential threat to Israel and to the world, including the United States. We could face large- scale proliferation issues throughout the region if Iran has the ability to launch a nuclear weapon. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: OK, the overstatement`s obvious. It`s not an existential threat to the planet. The planet will exist. Well, anyway, that`s fine. He made a mistake in his words there. What is the Republican mainstream alternative to continue negotiations at least for a couple more months or a couple more weeks, actually, with Iran on nuclear? What`s the alternative? PATAKI: Chris, I think you see it in Congress. If the negotiations don`t work, go back to hard sanctions and try to get as much buy-in globally as possible. Can we get the Russians and the Chinese this time? I`m not sure. MATTHEWS: Yes. PATAKI: I think Obama made an enormous mistake in lifting the sanctions in exchange for returning to negotiations. We should have had negotiations, but while the sanctions remained in place. And if Iran wouldn`t do it, then crater their economy and result in a much weaker... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... admit, right off the fact (ph), that tougher sanctions won`t be bought by the people that -- who trade with Iran, what -- they won`t work. PATAKI: We have to preserve the opportunity, if they are close to developing a nuclear weapon, to prevent that from happening. MATTHEWS: I know. PATAKI: Jeb (INAUDIBLE) the important thing. It`s not just Iran and their existential threat, as they are, to Israel, but also the fact that Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Turkey, they`re all going to have nuclear weapons! MATTHEWS: OK, here`s the gut question. Do you think either administration would ever attack -- if there`s a Republican administration coming in -- either them or Obama would ever attack Iran unless they were on the very edge of having a nuclear weapon, and not a year out? I get the sense listening to Bibi Netanyahu, and I have listened to the hard right -- I think they`re ready to bombs away right now because they talk about it. They are very close to a hawkish position, which scares the hell out of me. Go to war with another Islamic country when you don`t have to? KORNACKI: Well, that`s -- that`s one of the legacies, I think, of Iraq and of the idea of preemptive war that I think -- you know, the world has changed a lot in the last year. At least how we perceive the war has changed a lot in the last year. And I think a lot of people in this country who -- who`ve sort of been spooked by the experience of Iraq for the last 10 years are maybe rethinking that a little bit. But I think the one thing at least that carries over from Iraq in terms of the public mood and the reality for administrations is that preemptive attack, that preemptive war like we launched in Baghdad in 2003 -- I don`t think that`s going to be happening... MATTHEWS: Do you think anybody in your party would go that far... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... hit them before they even have a nuclear weapon? PATAKI: I think when they are on the verge of a nuclear weapon, there will be many, not just in my party... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... Democrats will do it, too. PATAKI: ... who agree that that is a necessary strike (ph)... MATTHEWS: I agree. I agree. PATAKI: ... for the safety of the world. MATTHEWS: You have to hit them before they have an opportunity to hit us. I agree with that. The question is, how much lead time are you willing to give them? Are you willing to say, Well, a year out, I can live with that because that gives me a year to track them, if you have the right kind of inspections. KORNACKI: Well... MATTHEWS: You have to be there... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: This will come down to intelligence, too, right? MATTHEWS: Right. KORNACKI: I mean, we`ve been hearing all sorts of... MATTHEWS: On the ground. KORNACKI: ... warnings for the last two, three, five, six years... MATTHEWS: Longer (INAUDIBLE) KORNACKI: ... that they`re six months away, they`re a year away, so... MATTHEWS: Anyway, Jeb, the governor, cheered the coming visit of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will address a joint meeting of Congress in an open effort to derail the president`s negotiations. Why know why Bibi`s coming. He`s going to criticize Obama`s plan. Let`s watch the governor -- Governor Bush here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I`m really eager to hear what he has to say. Israel is not at the negotiation table with Iran, but it has a lot at stake. I don`t blame him for wanting to share his views. And in fact, I think it will be important for the American people to get the perspective of our closest ally in the region. I`m surprised that the administration is upset to hear from a close and valuable ally on such a sensitive subject. Foreign policy should be a place where our long-term security interests are front and center, and the political hacks should be doing the campaigns and staying there. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Speaking of political hacks, I have never heard of a speaker going along with a secret plan to invite somebody to speak to a joint meeting. All they had to do was call up the president, say, I know you`re not going to like this, but I got the prime minister of Israel coming over here. He didn`t do it! He never -- he never -- he just went and cut the deal, invited the guy, and all of a sudden, Obama`s cut (ph) cold (ph) with a fait accompli, a partisan move, but looks to be a Likud partisan move by Bibi, a move by the ambassador to help him, it looks like, and all to the detriment of a bipartisan foreign policy. PATAKI: And Chris... MATTHEWS: All to the detriment. PATAKI: Chris, the fact is, Netanyahu is going to be addressing Congress. The Democrats should go. And by the way... MATTHEWS: Well, do you think it`s right to do it the way he did it? PATAKI: It`s done. I think what is not right is the president should invite... MATTHEWS: You`re avoiding the question! PATAKI: The president should invite Netanyahu to the White House. He is a... MATTHEWS: Oh, OK! (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: ... a head of state. He`s coming. I... MATTHEWS: OK, how about... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: How about inviting Herzog and Tzipi Livni, the opponents in the next election, since it`s only two weeks off? PATAKI: I don`t think, other than for... MATTHEWS: Two weeks off. PATAKI: ... for people like the pope, you don`t invite candidates. MATTHEWS: Oh, you... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... candidate for reelection. PATAKI: He`s the prime minister of Israel. MATTHEWS: It`s two weeks before the election. They sneak him into the country. They do this without... PATAKI: He`s not sneaking into the country. MATTHEWS: Well, they did... PATAKI: He is the sitting prime minister of Israel. MATTHEWS: Has there ever been in your lifetime someone invited to talk to a joint meeting of the Congress without the president knowing it was being done? I`ve never... PATAKI: I can`t tell you that. I don`t know the answer to that. MATTHEWS: Well, why are we setting precedent here? KORNACKI: Well, it is sort of extraordinary, and I think the bigger sort of political story is... MATTHEWS: I know the politics here. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... once he`s here because then you`re snubbing him. But this was a snub perpetrated by the ambassador to Israel -- from Israel, not to Israel -- and the speaker of the House. They put this thing together, and it`s official now. They never told the president. KORNACKI: And you can see there`s this political alliance that`s sprung up in the last decade or so between Netanyahu, between the right in Israel, and the Republican Party in this country. And I think this is... PATAKI: One quick point... MATTHEWS: By the way, this is cooked. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: This isn`t about Israel or Jewish people or supporters of Israel. This is about the crazy right-wing evangelicals... PATAKI: No! No! MATTHEWS: ... that they`re selling this to. PATAKI: No, I think it`s about the breakdown in civil negotiation between parties... MATTHEWS: Fair enough. PATAKI: ... the president in Washington. MATTHEWS: Well, who started this fight? PATAKI: That`s the bigger picture. MATTHEWS: Who started this fight? PATAKI: The president, I believe, with "Obama care," when he wouldn`t even talk to the Republicans, began the breakdown in civil dialect. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That is (INAUDIBLE) because I have heard that. That is not so off the wall. I`ve heard... PATAKI: (INAUDIBLE) off the wall. MATTHEWS: ... the reason -- the reason -- I said it`s not off the wall. PATAKI: Yes. MATTHEWS: I said Boehner -- some people say the reason he did this little tricky little number with Netanyahu was to get even for the executive orders on immigration, which is really... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you keep going back, it`s 1-0, it`s because of this, then the other says it`s because of that. (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: ... our country`s leaders, they should sit down, work together and... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... the greatest country in the world. We should stop the Mickey Mouse, and this is part of the Mickey Mouse. I know we all agree. PATAKI: On both sides. MATTHEWS: I know, but in this case, Mickey Mouse is a Republican. Anyway, thank you, Governor George Pataki, who may well run for president. Any thoughts on that right now? PATAKI: We`ll decide later. MATTHEWS: I love this "we." (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Where do these... PATAKI: My wife! MATTHEWS: OK, your wife. PATAKI: She has veto power, Chris. MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, Steve Kornacki, my buddy. Coming up -- the ISIS barbarity continues. The group has taken torture and violence to a new level with mass beheadings and burning people alive, then they post their crimes on line for the world to see. To whom they are -- my question, to whom are they addressing their message? Plus, a State Department spokeswoman is being attacked by the right wing for the comments she made here on HARDBALL the other night about the root cause of terrorism. Also, John Boehner, the speaker, blind-sided the White House last month by inviting Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu -- yes, he did -- to address Congress. A new poll shows nearly two thirds of Americans say Boehner shouldn`t have sent that invitation. Finally, the man responsible for some all-time great Hollywood classics, from "Diner" to "Good Morning Vietnam" to "Rainman" to "Wag the Dog," the great Barry Levinson, has a new movie out starring Al Pacino. He`ll be here in just a moment. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: President Obama plans to name a new director of the Secret Service. A senior administration official says the president will name Joseph Clancy as director. Clancy has been serving as the interim director of the Secret Service since October, when Julia Pearson resigned following a string of mishaps. By appointing Clancy, the president is ignoring criticism from Capitol Hill that the agency should be run by an outsider, rather than appointing someone from within. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. What does ISIS want? Great question. And how can it be defeated? Those are the questions facing counterterrorism officials here in the U.S. and around the world. Well, late Tuesday, the group continued its assault, launching multiple waves of attacks against Kurdish forces in northern Iraq. Meanwhile, there`s disturbing news about that ISIS video of 21 Egyptian Christians being beheaded in Libya. One voice expert who viewed the tape for NBC News said the main speaker had a North American and likely American accent. Well, today, President Obama addressed a White House summit on countering violent extremism. He said military force alone won`t solve the problem. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have to confront squarely and honestly the twisted ideologies that these terrorist groups use to incite people to violence. Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam, and they propagate the notion that America and the West generally is at war with Islam. That`s how they recruit. That`s how they try to radicalize young people. We must never accept the premise that they put forward because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders, they`re terrorists. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: For more, I`m joined right now by Graeme Wood, who wrote about ISIS in the latest issue of "The Atlantic," and Michael Weiss, who`s co-author of "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror." Gentlemen, the president continues to make this dichotomy between Islam and the terrorists. I don`t know what -- do you think that`s useful? GRAEME WOOD, "THE ATLANTIC": I think it`s important that he mentions that Islam is not defined by ISIS. It`s also false, however, to say that ISIS doesn`t derive some of its basic rules of the world from the Islamic tradition. And making that distinction is a very important thing for the United States to do to, as he says, show that the United States is not at war with Islam, which is really what the narrative of ISIS is. MATTHEWS: What`s ISIS about? What`s its purpose? It`s a new organism on the planet that came from somewhere. It`s a -- is it a derivative of al Qaeda? What is it? MICHAEL WEISS, CO-AUTHOR, "ISIS: INSIDE THE ARMY OF TERROR": Well, it used to be a part of al Qaeda. It`s not new, though, Chris. We`ve been at war with them for 11 years. I mean, if any -- if any -- if ever there was a familiar enemy to the United States, it`s this. They were founded in 2004 in Iraq by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, himself a Jordanian. They first went under the banner of al Qaeda in Iraq. They have gone under serial changes to their upper echelons in terms of the leadership, also the banner that they fly under. MATTHEWS: When did they begin to claim land and hold land as a caliphate? WEISS: OK. As a caliphate, recently. But, remember, they were taking over whole cities and towns in Iraq. When the U.S. had a military presence there, they were in Fallujah. We kicked them out of Fallujah. They showed up in Mosul. We kicked them out of Mosul. What do they want? MATTHEWS: But the map is new. Now we look at a map that`s a big part of Iraq and a big part of Syria. It looks like a country developing there. It`s got its own militia and it`s running its place. It`s running health care. It`s building loyalty I guess under Sharia law, because those Sunnis would rather have that, apparently, than have the militias from the Shia crowd in Baghdad. WEISS: Well, that -- I think you have hit the nail on the head there. ISIS is fundamentally, I would argue, more of a political project than it is a religious one. The religion plays a huge role. They are, as Graeme said, tapping into wellsprings of Islamic theology and Islamic history. The idea of merging the two fiefs that persisted at the time of the second Crusades of Aleppo and Mosul, this is very powerful. It`s part of their propaganda and their narrative. But I would argue that propaganda is aimed at what you might call the foot soldiers or the rank and file. The guys at the top, a lot of them are true believers in Salafi jihadism, but a lot of them also come from the regime of Saddam Hussein, guys who literally went from wearing military fatigues, smoking cigars, drinking wine and having 80 mistresses to being in the dishdasha with the long black beard and claiming that they were Salafis. Saddam actually had a program called the Islamic faith campaign, where he tried to marry Baathism and Salafism. A lot of guys he put through that program came out of it, graduated, and said the helicopter with Baathism. Let`s just become Salafis. He had a role to play in cultivating this. But, look, these guys -- there is an economic incentive. MATTHEWS: So they come from sweet deals with the older Iraq government of Saddam Hussein. They are kicked out by our de-Baathification program, so they find a new call. WEISS: Exactly. And is an economic incentive here. The Sunni tribes of Eastern Syria and Western Iraq have persisted for centuries cutting all manner of pragmatic deals, doing horse trading with whoever is in charge. Right now, ISIS is in charge and they say, as you put it, let`s join forces with these guys. They are brutal and they`re barbarists, but it`s true they make the trains run on time, they provide health care sanitation. MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about what we`re up against. The reason we`re fascinating with this, it`s not looking at a map somebody shows us, not for regional studies. It`s because we`re seeing people beheaded. We`re seeing people burn alive and we identify with those people. I do. I think why is a bunch of -- why is this woman who is a good woman get supposedly killed in some air attack, which she probably wasn`t? And then you get someone else who is a loyal fighter for the Jordanian air force, probably a good guy, burned alive with gasoline just because he`s a soldier. There`s no rules of warfare here. And then these Coptic Christians are killed because they are Christians. WOOD: Certainly, if you ask them, they do have rules of warfare and they talk about them constantly to themselves and to the rest of the world. These are rules of warfare that I think most Muslims would say deviate extremely from the norms of warfare in classical Islam and most scholarship of warfare law since then. But to say that they are making it up as they go along I think would be a mistake. And to suggest that, even though it`s certainly true that we have so many of these Baath Party members who have joined the upper echelons of ISIS, to say too quickly that they are simply insincere, I think... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about their true belief. How do they see the world, these people? They are killing people ruthlessly. They are recruiting with it. It`s a recruiting tool, but you say it`s deeper than that. WOOD: Yes. They believe that they are agents of the apocalypse and they believe that part of what they have to do is create a fight between the West and, as they call it, the army of Rome, and Islam, and once they are able to do that, they will have a particular signpost along the way and eventually that`s going to lead to the end of time. MATTHEWS: So how many in that group of the ISIS people in the black uniforms driving around in the armored personnel carriers, how many of those people are actually the true believers at the top who have this religion, this cult? WOOD: We don`t know. We know that there are programs to make sure that there is ideological enforcement. There are of course many people who are probably more interested in making sure that they have a paycheck, making sure that they have security and they find that ISIS is the fastest way to get there. MATTHEWS: How do we beat them? WOOD: Well, we can defuse in some ways their propaganda. We can kind of break the spell, because one crucial element of their propaganda is to say that we are constantly expanding, we`re modeled on the Islamic conquests of the very earlier days of Islam. If we stop their expansion, they start to look a bit less inevitable and maybe a bit more pathetic because the territory that they do control, it`s impoverished. It delivers very little in the way of social services. MATTHEWS: Are they heading to Cordoba? WOOD: They would love to. MATTHEWS: I think they might. They`re going all the way to Spain, but I guess we can stop them before they get there, I hope. Thank you very much. Very good read there. Michael Weiss, thank you. Both of you. WEISS: Sure. MATTHEWS: Up next, the American film director, the great one, who gave us "Diner" and "Rain Man." Barry Levinson joins us up next. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, with so many worthy films in contention this year, the Academy Awards this Sunday night are as anticipated as ever, especially in the hotly contested best actor category. Our special guest this evening knows a thing or two about what makes a great performance. In his career, Academy Award-winning director Barry Levinson has directed six actors in Oscar-nominated roles, Glenn Close, Warren Beatty, Harvey Keitel, Ben Kingsley, Dustin Hoffman, and the late Robin Williams. Levinson`s new film, "The Humbling," about the price, you might call it life toll that an actor pays to be in front of an audience. It features Al Pacino as Simon Axler, a stage performer at the end of his career, whose love interest, played by Greta Gerwig, is nearly 40 years his junior. Here`s a clip. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE HUMBLING") AL PACINO, ACTOR: You know, I was thinking, don`t you think it`s time you told your parents about us? GRETA GERWIG, ACTRESS: Oh, no, no, no. My mother can never know about... PACINO: Why? GERWIG: Anything. PACINO: Why? What are you thinking? GERWIG: Well, even if the two of you hadn`t had a thing for each other back in the day... PACINO: What thing? Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait a minute. GERWIG: I`m just saying, I could never -- I could not possibly tell her, or him. Oh, God. Think of the look on Asa`s face. That would be terrible. It would just be way too painful, wouldn`t it? Oh, you want to go? Let`s get settled in? Oh, thank you so much for trying to help. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I`m joined right now by the filmmaker behind "The Humbling," Academy Award-winning director Barry Levinson. Barry, thank you for joining us. BARRY LEVINSON, DIRECTOR: Thank you. MATTHEWS: We often read about how All Pacino almost didn`t get the part for "The Godfather" because he had to do the restaurant scene before he nailed the part. And yet everybody who has seen him in "Panic in Needle Park" or any of those movies said, this guy pops. That young woman there pops in your... LEVINSON: She does, Greta Gerwig, fantastic. MATTHEWS: So you`re talking about in this movie about how this -- it seems to me it`s about what a life in acting does to you. It takes so much experience out of you, so much -- it exhausts your very being, so you have a guy like Al Pacino -- I don`t know how autobiographical this is, but it`s about an actor who is just at the end of the line. LEVINSON: Well, I mean, it takes a toll physically and mentally. I mean, mentally, there is a point you begin to forget lines, you can`t remember certain things. And then just the pure getting beaten up in a sense. You have done all this work. You get attacked. You get praised or whatever. I mean, it just plays games with your head. MATTHEWS: Well, let`s take a look. It`s hard to pick a single best performance among this year`s nominees for best actor. They include Steve Carell in "The Foxcatcher," Bradley Cooper for "American Sniper," Benedict Cumberbatch for "The Imitation Game," Michael Keaton for "Birdman," Eddie Redmayne for "The Theory of Everything." I always thought -- I`m a nut for movies, as you know. And I always the guy who gets the nominee and the woman who gets the best actress, they have won already. The nomination, you have had six people you have directed to. And who wins the final? How is that based on what? To break out of the age groups, too many British movies or that kind of stuff? LEVINSON: No. It`s pure -- it`s pure -- there is no answer to it, because there are these performances in a given year, some great performances. And they are so different. It`s very hard. All of them who were nominated, but you say Bradley Cooper did a terrific job. That`s over here and then you have got Benedict Cumberbatch, a totally different kind of piece of work. There`s all of these different things and in the end somebody says, I guess I will pick so-and-so. MATTHEWS: Is there any sentiment to this, like Michael Keaton, who has had a tough time in his career and here is his comeback movie? LEVINSON: Yes, I guess so. It does to a certain degree. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: I guess so. Anyway, "The Humbling" is about an actor at the end of his career. And it`s a very great Pacino -- if you love Pacino, he`s in this movie. You did "Diner" back in `82 and it featured many actors at the beginnings of their career. It`s amazing the number of guys you found here. They are household names. But here`s a clip. By the way, the music you have just done is fantastic. (CROSSTALK) LEVINSON: Oh, thank you. MATTHEWS: Anyway, here`s the original movie. Here`s the movie (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "DINER") UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: What do you pick, Sinatra or Mathis? UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Would you just let that die, please? UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: It`s important to me. UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: It`s annoying me. (CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: It`s important in my life. UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: You`ve been asking that question to every man that walks in here. Would you just forget it? UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Maybe I have something to gain from the answer. Did you ever think of that? (CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: What does it matter? UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Let the man speak. Let the man speak. Speak. UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Presley. UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Elvis Presley? UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: OK. There you go. There`s the definitive answer. Sinatra or Mathis? It`s Presley. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: So you cast this Kevin Bacon, who has been around ever since, and Mickey Rourke, who has had a rough run. But these guys -- Steve Guttenberg, of course, and Paul Reiser. LEVINSON: Paul Reiser. MATTHEWS: And Tim what`s his name. LEVINSON: Tim Daly. MATTHEWS: Tim Daly, who is on "Madam Secretary now." You spotted them all. LEVINSON: Well, you know, I saw 500 guys for those, you know, six roles. MATTHEWS: See where -- to look for guys like the ones you grew up with. LEVINSON: Well, I was trying to find -- I wanted to do a movie that sounded like the way the times were when I hung out, just ordinary conversation, not special stuff, very ordinary things. You know, who do you like better? Do you like this? Don`t -- you going to eat this? You`re not going to eat it? Just very ordinary talk. And I had never seen it done in a film that way. And I thought, can I just get down to the way we really function and how we can`t communicate? That`s really what is behind it. We never really say what we want. We`re always going sideways. And our relationships with women, we never just go to it. We`re always just doing a dance. We never want to come out and say the way we feel. And I thought, can I put that on film? Can I do it? MATTHEWS: Did you know a guy that really made his girlfriend go through a sports test before he would agree to marry her? LEVINSON: My cousin Eddie did. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: And he really held her to that? LEVINSON: He did. And he said to me, he says, Barry, I saw the movie five times, and I realized it was not a good idea to give my wife the football test. And I said, really? I was thinking you learned something. He says, you know why? Because three weeks after we were married, she can`t remember one of the answers. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: So it didn`t work. It didn`t stick. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: One of the most celebrated films this guy produced -- or directed was "Rain Man" with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman. Here`s the famous scene. Here`s Cruise and his autistic brother, who insists on buying new boxers, I mean underwear, from the Kmart in Cincinnati. Here we go. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "RAIN MAN") TOM CRUISE, ACTOR: You don`t have to go to Cincinnati to get a pair of underwear at Kmart. DUSTIN HOFFMAN, ACTOR: You have to go to Kmart, 400 Oak Street. CRUISE: What did I tell you, Ray? We are not going to Cincinnati, and that`s final. HOFFMAN: I get my boxer shorts at Kmart. CRUISE: Raymond, that is final. Did you hear me? HOFFMAN: I don`t want to be short-less. CRUISE: I`m going out of my mind! What difference does it make? What difference does it make where you buy underwear? What difference does it make? Underwear is underwear! (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: You know, that movie is so good. LEVINSON: Thanks. MATTHEWS: And you won the Academy Award for that. And I got to tell you Dustin Hoffman -- and I think Cruise was great in that. He gets underestimated. LEVINSON: Cruise was great because he had to push the whole movie. Dustin is going to -- was over here, but Cruise has to move the whole film forward. It`s a tough role. He was great. MATTHEWS: Ratso Rizzo, on to these roles that Dustin Hoffman -- who`s the greatest actor of our time? LEVINSON: That`s a hard question. I think -- there -- I don`t know that I can say. I certainly think, in having worked with Al on several movies, he`s one of the greatest actor I have ever seen. He has such dedication. He`s so committed and so loves to work. It`s really quite remarkable. MATTHEWS: I loved his Shylock. LEVINSON: It was -- on Broadway? Amazing. MATTHEWS: It was amazing. Here`s something I have always wanted to know from you. You made a movie in 1997 about how a president manipulates events to get himself off the hook from an embarrassing sex scandal. It was called "Wag the Dog." And in it, the girlfriend of the president who was causing him trouble, or he caused her trouble. had a beret. In fact, there was a joke in the movie and they would sing "Thank Heaven," the old Maurice Chevalier line. And then along a year later comes Monica Lewinsky and that whole mess. How did you know the girl would be a beret-wearing woman who looked just like this woman? I said to you in the break, religions are based on less than this. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: How did you know that she would be wearing a beret? LEVINSON: You know what is so funny? MATTHEWS: No answer to this coming. LEVINSON: There`s no answer to it. But it`s funny, because someone said, so what did you do? You went back and put that in the movie? (CROSSTALK) LEVINSON: I said, no, no, no, we just happened to have her with a beret. We thought it would look good. And so who would know. MATTHEWS: You didn`t show an early version of this to Bill Clinton, did you? LEVINSON: No. MATTHEWS: Get him confused. (CROSSTALK) LEVINSON: But I will tell you a quick little story about it. When we were in Washington doing a -- on a break -- we were only here for one day. And someone came in and said to Dustin and De Niro and myself, would you like to meet the president and Mrs. Clinton? We said yes. So we go through the whole hotel. We were in the restaurant part. We go there. And we`re waiting outside. She says, I will be right back, as some guy comes out and says, can I help you? We said, we`re supposed to meet the president. He said, the president is very busy, turns, goes back in. We feel like silly fools. We go back to the restaurant and the same woman comes running back, says, oh, my God, there was such a mixup. She`s out of breath. Would you still like to meet the president? And De Niro looks at her with that kind of way he can do that and he goes, will he meet us halfway? (LAUGHTER) LEVINSON: And so she`s... MATTHEWS: Did do you that? Did you stand him up? LEVINSON: She gets nervous, says, oh, I see. You were kidding around. And we go, and we go into this room and Clinton walks in. The president about a minute later comes in, hi, how are you, says hello, et cetera, et cetera. And then he says, so what`s this movie you`re doing? MATTHEWS: Oh, my God. LEVINSON: And all of a sudden, we realized, wait a minute, we can`t talk to a president about the fact that the president was having a relationship with this young girl, et cetera. This is all before Monica Lewinsky. But we can`t talk about that. We don`t know what to say. And we all look at one another and all of a sudden Dustin comes forward and he says, well, it`s a story. And he makes up an entirely fake movie. (LAUGHTER) LEVINSON: We were too embarrassed to tell him at that point. MATTHEWS: Oh, my gosh. He must wonder about your religious powers. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, Barry Levinson, the great director, thank you for coming on. LEVINSON: Thanks. MATTHEWS: Up next: A State Department spokeswoman is being attacked by the right wing for comments she made here about the root causes of terrorism. Anyway, is this criticism fair? You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. (NEWSBREAK) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. State Department spokesman Marie Harf is being attacked by the right wing over comments she made here on HARDBALL Monday night of this week. Harf said, we have to do more than just kill terrorists. We have to address the root causes that lead people to become violent extremists. Here she is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Are we killing enough of them? MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: We are killing a lot of them and we`re going to keep killing more of them, but we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the longer term -- medium and longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it`s lack of opportunity for jobs, work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economy so they can have job opportunities for these people. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, those comments didn`t sit well, if you will, with conservative commentators and they jumped on her. Here they are. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) LAURA INGRAHAM, RADIO SHOW HOST: This is an insult to all of the people in the world who are actually poor and not blowing people up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly. INGRAHAM: And not targeting Christians. RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Now, they send their spokesman from the State Department to say, well, we cannot kill our way out of this war with ISIS. We`re going to have to get to the root cause. We`re going to have to find them jobs. This woman is simply a product of the deranged, delusional beliefs of the professors and graduate assistants and the teaching assistants. SEAN HANNITY: I guess maybe if we just try and get every terrorist a job and provide a better way -- maybe we should put them on our food stamp program next. Like seriously? Now that has to take the lead, seriously, for the dumbest statement I`ve ever heard even from this administration. (END VIDEO CLIPS) MATTHEWS: Well, this morning on MSNBC`s "MORNING JOE," Harf`s old boss at the CIA, Michael Hayden, said Harf probably wishes she could take those comments back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN (RET), FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: You started your show today quoting Marie Harf, who used to work with me at the CIA. And I think Marie would want to take a mulligan in how she said what she said two days ago. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Harf also appeared to all the criticism and doubled down. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HARF: Well, I`m not sure I would take a mulligan on this one. Military commanders, politicians of both parties, counterterrorism experts all agree that if you`re going to prevent terrorist groups from spreading to other places getting a more recruits, you have to look at the root causes that can lead people to extremism. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: OK. Joining me tonight on the round table: Mike Paul is a former aide to Mayor Rudy Giuliani of this city, Nicholas Confessore is a political reporter with "The New York Times", and Tara Palmeri is with "The New York Post". Tara, that seemed to be -- I want to let you have the first shot. Was Marie Harf correct in saying that you have to get to the root causes which are mainly poverty or should we look at this more as a military/political thing, fighting ISIS, killing them? TARA PALMERI, NEW YORK POST: She only gave a piece of the story and that was a problem. It was just like picking up a line out of the quote and saying it`s the full story. And, unfortunately, she`s being skewered for it. But let`s be serious, that`s one of the dumbest remarks to make, because it doesn`t sit well for Americans. It`s hard for them to stomach the idea of helping a group of terrorists who are seeing beheading -- MATTHEWS: Potential terrorists. PALMERI: OK. MATTHEWS: She says give them jobs and hope before they become desperate enough to become bad guys. PALMERI: Recruits are leaving our country, leaving Europe to join is thinking that there`s opportunity there. And so, there`s opportunity here in the United States and we`re supposed to be helping them? It doesn`t sit well with Americans. NICHOLAS CONFESSORE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Different questions, right, Chris? I mean, the guy who is leaving his home to go fight in Iraq, right, he`s not going to not behead somebody because he has a job at McDonald`s. It`s not going to happen. He has to be killed. MATTHEWS: I want a better job. CONFESSORE: He has to be killed. But soft power (ph) has his place, right? MATTHEWS: A good job as a plumber, electrician making good money, would he stick around? CONFESSORE: I don`t know. Would he? MATTHEWS: I`m just wondering what the bidding here is. CONFESSORE: I just think that you can have soft power as part of the conversation. When we`re talking about people who are beheading people -- MATTHEWS: Yes. CONFESSORE: -- it`s not the thing you want to hear first or even second. MATTHEWS: When somebody comes up to you and says they have this new nonflammable material that might be more helpful, no, you want the fire truck to show up. MIKE PAUL, FORMER MAYOR GIULIUANI AIDE: Chris, as the only spokesperson sitting at the table that I have to defend which is she was not speaking for herself. She was speaking for the administration. MATTHEWS: What do you think the administration believes is the way to deal with ISIS? Job program? PAUL: I think there`s another problem that we`re not talking about. On Monday, there was a message about is and the beheadings and that was a serious message and should have had a serious response. On Wednesday, today, they were prepping on Monday for a conference that was going to be on terrorism. They had agreed it was going to be a softer message and I`m sure her bosses said that you need to talk about both. She came on your show, she was asked a direct question from a war perspective, from a beheading perspective, and she answered that first and then gave the soft answer after and she got hit. MATTHEWS: Yes. I thought when I heard her answer that this was coming. I mean, I think because people -- when you`re in a war, it appeals to the bellicosity of politicians. It doesn`t appeal to the specific feature of people, you know what I mean? When you say, I got a long-term plan of -- in some cases around Paris, obviously the Muslim immigrants are having a hell of a bad time -- PALMERI: Right. MATTHEWS: -- but you remember 9/11, all of those guys were technically skilled. PAUL: Also, one of the things that she should be hearing now is, make sure on Monday when you have a message with 21 beheadings, you stick to that message on Monday. PALMERI: Right. PAUL: Tuesday morning was fine to go into the softer message before the conference. MATTHEWS: And the guys who flew the planes on 9/11, they didn`t know how to fly planes, we taught them. There`s the job training program we shouldn`t have gotten involved with. PALMERI: In her defense, that is her job, long-term. It is her job, you know, long term development in these countries. So, that`s what I would say in her defense but is that something you want to be saying on national television. MATTHEWS: The roundtable is staying with us. And up next, a new poll shows majority of Americans don`t agree with John Boehner going behind the president`s back to invite Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to address Congress. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: The Supreme Court is taking up an appeal case on lethal injections later this year and now, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is calling for a moratorium on the death penalty until that decision. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I think the fundamental question about the death penalty need to be asked. And among them, the Supreme Court`s determination as to whether or not lethal injection is consistent with our Constitution is one that ought to occur. For my perspective, I think a moratorium until the Supreme Court made that determination would be appropriate. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Holder added that he disagrees with Justice Antonin Scalia who believes an innocent person has never been executed. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: We`re back. Speaker of the House John Boehner ignited a political fire storm when he and fellow Republicans invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress next month without notifying President Obama first. Now, a new CNN/ORC poll reveals that most Americans believe it was a bad move, 63 percent of Americans say it was wrong to invite Netanyahu without notifying the president. We`re back with our roundtable, Mike, Nick, and Tara. Tara, what do you think of this, in the long run, how`s this going to break? Good for Boehner, good for Netanyahu, bad for who? PALMERI: I think it`s a delicate issue right now and they`re playing politics. You know, I`m not sure which way it`s going to go, but I think we shouldn`t forget that back in 2007, Nancy Pelosi went to Syria against the White House`s wishes on behalf of Israel. So, this has been happening for a while. They play politics in international relations. So, it will be interesting to see how it works out. MATTHEWS: We do have a Logan Act however, Nicholas Confessore, which is we`re not supposed to -- I know this isn`t exactly doing that. It`s getting close when you start inviting a leader of a country in a very difficult situation where he disagrees with our president on a policy of trying to negotiate away from having nuclear weapons in the hands of the ayatollahs -- (CROSSTALK) CONFESSORE: -- feels very strongly about a potential deal. MATTHEWS: He doesn`t want a deal. CONFESSORE: But the Constitution which we hear a lot about in the House, does not give the speaker of the House the right to set foreign policy. It does not put him in charge of it. It`s one thing to invite foreign leader to a joint address. It`s another to invite him to essentially lobby on an issue in which there is an active disagreement in American politics over the proper policy. It`s inappropriate. It`s unprecedented. PAUL: And during an election time in Israel and during the week that 21 Christians were beheaded in the Middle East, I mean, we could go on and on, it`s a horrible precedent. I think it was a big mistake. And I think it will come back to bite any -- MATTHEWS: You know, there is a dispute about who knew what? Dermer, the ambassador from Israel, says that he was informed by somebody, doesn`t say who, that the president was going to be told of this invitation. PAUL: Guess what? This is why the State Department handles foreign policy and dealings with foreign leaders. PALMERI: I find that hard to believe that he didn`t know that the president -- MATTHEWS: Yes. So, what`s that going to do to Israeli politics? I`m curious about it, because I keep reading about the investigation now of the prime minister over there. Bibi is a hell of a politician, but he`s got Tzipi Livni, who`s a great person, and Herzog and this new Zionist party, and this polling over there. Israel is a very difficult country politically. People like to argue. Everybody thinks of themselves as prime minister. It looks like a squeaker of an election over there. Will it be seen that he gave that bloc a break here? Will it be treated that way? CONFESSORE: I`m not an expert, but I do think there`s a sense that the relationship with the U.S. is so important, it is the bedrock of the national security. And to kind of meddle in it in this way for what it appears to be kind of a campaign purpose, is probably not going to sit well, even with the voters who share his worries about a deal with Iran. MATTHEWS: I`m amazed at the people who have stood up and said they`re not going. It is outstanding to stand up in Israel in this way in way that looks like it`s anti-Israel. We know it isn`t. But in a way that could be used by political enemies as being anti-Israeli. You never want to be in that box. CONFESSORE: I mean, the polls, you saw showed it, like this has actually penetrated beyond the beltway. PAUL: It`s not going to be a cake walk for Boehner. It`s not going to be a cake walk for Netanyahu. It`s going to be troublesome. MATTHEWS: Yes. We`ll see how Bibi will be. I think he`ll be at the height of his charm. Thank you. It`s not that high. Our roundtable tonight, Mike Paul, thank you, sir. Nick Confessore, thank you. And welcome, Tara Palmeri. I`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021801cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 82 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 18, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 18, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Hampton Pearson GUESTS: Lawrence Wilkerson, Lori Wallach, Danny Glover, Mark Dimondstein, David Carmardelle SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 7227 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama just finished what turned out to be a rather major speech of today`s White House Summit on battling violent extremism. The United States has set new rules to export armed drones to other countries. The rules will make it easier to provide Predator and Reaper drones to American allies involving counter-terrorism measures. United States postal workers have a new partner in the fight. Actor Danny Glover tell his personal story and about the importance of this great American institution. ExxonMobil Refinery exploded in the city of Torrance. According to a statement released by Exxon, four people were taken to the hospital for minor injuries and all personnel have been accounted for. The ripple effect of B.P. Oil Spill after five years. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from Washington D.C. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tonight, the campaign against ISIS and its international impact. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ISIS is escalating its relentless assault. PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATE OF AMERICA: This isn`t our challenge alone. It`s a challenge for the world. But I`m confident that, just as we have for more than two centuries, we will ultimately prevail. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The goal of ISIS is to conquer the world. JEH JOHNSON, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: We all have a state. It`s our public safety. It`s our Homeland security. It`s our country. SCHULTZ: And later, five years after the spill, we focus in on tourism and the seafood industry. CHIP WASSON, BUSINESS OWNER: The fear was that, it was going to start washing up here on the shore and what was going to happen with tourism when it did. DAVID BARBER OWNER, BARBER`S SEAFOOD: The oysters have declined and lot of the oystermen had quit. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know just a little guy (inaudible) like he can`t but I`m not going to give up. SCHULTZ: Plus, the fight to save the Postal Service gets some star power. DANNY GLOVER, ACTOR, FILM DIRECTOR: I`m Danny Glover, and I believe that Postal Service is one of our most vital institutions. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re hoping with public pressure to turn it around, stop the changes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now more than that we need the Postal Service to thrive and innovate for the future. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We start with breaking news. President Obama just finished what turned out to be a rather major speech, at today`s White House Summit on battling violent extremism. The President immediately addressed the threat of ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: This isn`t our challenge alone. It`s a challenge for the world. ISIL is terrorizing the people of Syria and Iraq, beheads and burns human beings in unfathomable acts of cruelty. We`ve seen deadly attacks in Ottawa and Sydney and Paris and now, Copenhagen. So, in the face of this challenge, we have marshaled the full force of the United States government, and we`re working with allies and partners to dismantle terrorist organizations and protect the American people. Given the complexities of the challenge and the nature of the enemy -- which is not a traditional army -- this work takes time, and will require vigilance and resilience. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: President Obama said terrorist extremist groups are based in lies. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Al-Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders -- holy warriors in defense of Islam. That`s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the "Islamic State". And they propagate the notion that America and the West, generally, is at war with Islam. That`s how they recruit, that`s how they try to radicalize young people. We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders, they`re terrorists. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The President went on to say that groups like ISIS do not represent the faith of Islam. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Do draw, selectively, from the Islamic texts. They do depend upon the misperception around the world that they speak in some fashion for people of the Muslim faith. That Islam is somehow inherently violent, that there is some sort of clash of civilizations. Of course, the terrorists do not speak for over a billion Muslims who reject their hateful ideology. They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills innocents in the name of God represents Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism. No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The President was strong to make the point that Muslim leaders play a role in stopping extremist recruitment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: So just as leaders like myself reject the notion that terrorists like ISIL genuinely represent Islam, Muslim leaders need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam, that there`s an inherent clash in civilizations. Everybody has to speak up very clearly that no matter what the grievance, violence against innocents doesn`t defend Islam or Muslims. It damages Islam and Muslims. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And finally, President Obama made a big point that everyone plays a role in combating violent extremism. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: And when all of us, together, are doing our part to reject the narratives of violent extremists, when all of us are doing our part to be very clear about the fact that there are certain universal precepts and values that need to be respected in this interconnected world. That`s the beginnings of a partnership. As we go forward, we need to find new ways to amplify the voices of peace and tolerance and inclusion, and we especially need to do it online. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Today`s summit at the White House, in this speech comes after ISIS has dominated news in recent weeks. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is bringing the fight to ISIS with a change in trade policy. The United States has set new rules to export armed drones to other countries. The rules will make it easier to provide Predator and Reaper drones to American allies involving counter-terrorism measures. This shift in policy reduces the chance -- friendly countries will buy drones from other manufacturers such as Israel or China. The State Department said that there will be strict standards for the sale and use of these drones. This change in trade policy will absolutely affect our national security. And I think that there are other issues involved here. I think the Trans-Pacific Partnership also plays a role in our national security. I think the President is going along with the TPP because he wants to strengthen the economic ties with these countries and also strengthen the defense ties. When you tie 40 percent of the world`s economy together, you rely on each other. It will be easier to open military bases in these countries and also do counter-terrorism measures. It will also be easier to get them onboard in fighting ISIS in the long run. Now, this is my theory in all of these. Because so far in trade policy, the administration has not given as a real good reason why American workers or how American workers or an industry are going to benefit from this trade agreement. The economic push around the globe right now is about the best thing we have when it comes to fighting terrorism across the globe. I don`t think the TPP is the way to go. I have always been against the TPP and always for American workers. There are other methods and other ways we can do this. This is a flowed trade agreement and to money it up with national security I think is a mistake. For more, let me bring in Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff, Secretary of State Colin Powell. Colonel, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY: Good to be here. SCHULTZ: Have we done as much as we can do when it comes to a strategy with ISIS at this point? I mean, I think today that this summit at the White House and this speech was the President really putting the icing on the cake of what kind of strategy he wants. He wants Turkey involved, he wants the Iraqis involve, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, a lot of players, a big global coalition all culminating to work against these extremists that are ISIS and also they`re recruiting method. I mean, this was a big speech today by the President. And I think it played really into his strategy. I want you take on -- have we gone as far as we can go on ISIS in what we`re doing? Is this it? WILKERSON: I think at this point, we probably have, especially since, what the President said. I think is very circumspect with regard to how he wants to develop the strategy. Let me make a couple of points though. Despite the tragic events that have happened particularly in last few days, weeks, regarding ISIS, four-fifths of the world plus still has about as much chance of dying from a terrorist attack as they do from a lightning strike. So, we do need to over hype this. The second point I`d make is that, historically, the United States has -- through its policy and its actions in the world been the greatest aider and abettor of the rise of these forces. First, Al-Qaeda in Iraq then taking Gaddafi out in Libya not -- essentially disowning Assad in Syria. These dictators held a lot of these forces in check and removing these dictators precipitously and expecting that there`s going to be democracy afterwards was a bit naive. We started in my administration by invading Iraq, one of the most disastrous decisions America has made in a long time. So, with those two things in mind, fighting these forces such as they are in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq and elsewhere with the indigenous forces, so to speak, is makes a lot of sense. It`s the only way to do it. Putting American ground forces in there simply aids and abets the process, I just referred to earlier. All you`re going to do is create more of them because they`re going to be incentivized by not only doing their Islamic thing, if you will, their radical Islamic thing, but by killing American forces on the ground. SCHULTZ: Colonel, what`s your read on the availability of drone technology now to allies that want to work in counter-terrorism measures around the globe in coordination with the United States? WILKERSON: In media respects, Ed, what we`ve done is taken the template we use in the Cold War where we would support almost any government as long as it was anti-communist. And now we`re supporting almost any government as long as it`s counter-terrorist, it`s fighting terrorist. To put drones into that bag might be good for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and others who manufacture these drones. And it might be competitive with Israel and other who are selling them to anyone. But it is not a smart thing to do in terms of the technologist spread. All technology migrates, but as we saw with nuclear weapons, you don`t want this kind of technology migrating any faster than you can control it. SCHULTZ: Well, the United States has been criticized for killing civilians with drone attacks. Now, if drones go to other countries, there`s no way a country is going to be able use drones and be perfect on their strikes. I mean, this is going to rope other countries into killing other civilians, but it`s the latest and hottest and the easiest technology for taking out terrorist which we have done across the globe with this technology. WILKERSON: And let... SCHULTZ: But I sense that you think this is a slippery slope. WILKERSON: So let me just -- you just put your finger on it, in order to be reasonably assured you`re doing the enemy and not civilians. You must have a massive and good intelligence complex -- tactical, strategic and operational intelligence. Tell me what other country other than Britain and perhaps Germany, maybe France has that kind of capability? Maybe Israel. So if you`re proliferating these drones out there for people who don`t have the kind of the -- they`re just going to kill whatever happens to show up in the aperture of the mechanism. SCHULTZ: Well that`s the other fly in the ointment I think. I mean, if you sell an arm to another country, how are you going to control how they use it? WILKERSON: You can`t. And the world right now is awash in arms. Look at Libya. We used air power in Libya with NATO. No one secured Gaddafi`s arms depots on the ground. They now constitute the greatest arms bazaar in Africa. 20,000 shoulder fired missiles, all kinds of sophisticated weaponry available to ISIS and ISIS-like forces because Libya had its dictator taken down. SCHULTZ: And what`s your take on the economic ties the United States has with other countries when it comes to trade? Are we selling security? WILKERSON: We are selling security. We`ve been doing it since World War II. Our trade packs have this biggest security component as they do financial and economic components. They`re designed to facilitate arm sales for major arms merchants. They`re designed to make sure our allies have interoperability with our forces and so forth. There are as many security, what I would call a hard security implication to the trade packs as there are economic and financial. And of course, those are wider security implication too. SCHULTZ: What hope do you hold out or what reality can we expected of all of these countries that the United States -- the Obama administration is going to need to be players involved in this to destroy and degrade ISIS. That`s the terminology that they`re using. Can this happen? WILKERSON: I think it can but it`s got to be the native forces so to speak. I think in Iraq what I`m seeing right now, the intelligence reports I`m looking our right now. In Iraq, we have pretty much stabilized the situation. In Syria, it`s a little bit different because we`re not able to do what we should be doing which is really taking Assad side. I don`t care how you do it. I don`t care how you camouflage it. But you need to take the side of the force in Syria that can bring stability. SCHULTZ: And so, we should be arming the Syrian rebels? WILKERSON: We should not be arming the Syrian rebels. SCHULTZ: OK, because they`re talking about doing that... WILKERSON: I know. SCHULTZ: ... training in vetting -- but they`re talking about light trucks, mortars and small arms. How in the heck going to beat ISIS with that kind of fire power. I mean, that kind of defeats the purpose, I think. WILKERSON: It`s a -- when we talk about the number of arms that are in the world today, small arms in particular... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WILKERSON: ... the world awash in them. There are so many arms out there for these people and yet, we didn`t secure the ones in Libya, we didn`t secure the ones in Iraq and yet we`re still selling weapons to the so- called rebels in Libya and the so-called rebels whom we support in Syria. We do not need more arms. SCHUTLZ: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. I want to followup on this issue of trade because, of course, this is been a big story on this show. We`ve covered it quite a bit. I want to bring in Lori Wallach who is the Director of Public Citizen Global Watch. Lori, good to have you with us tonight. I would like to have your reaction on the United States selling security and, of course, when you look at the enormous TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it involves 40 percent of the world`s economy. These would be new partnerships, new deals with countries that we haven`t had these kinds of ties with. Do you think there`s a connection? LORI WALLACH, PUBLIC CITIZEN GLOBAL TRADE WATCH: Well, I certainly see where you`re going with it because the agreement doesn`t make sense in economic basis. It would make it easier to offshore our jobs and push down our wages. So then the question is, why? But, I actually don`t think that the administration`s intent is about these foreign policy alliances. First, we have trade agreement with most of the country is involved in TPP and the once we don`t have relationships with aren`t the countries are going to be leading the counter-ISIS effort. But also the agreement predates all of these blowing up in the Middle East. What you do see is the administration now as the economic arguments for TPP have basically failed, the public doesn`t buy it. They see this new trade data Obama`s last trade agreement with Korea, huge new trade deficit, more jobs lost. The model -- that was model for TPP. So now, they`re trying to create sort of a distraction. It sort of -- they`re now using the issue of, oh, we better write the rules or China will. TPP are our rules. And that really is the trade agreement version of "squirrel". SCHULTZ: Yeah. WALLACH: So we all go look some place else because, if you actually look at it. We`ve heard the same exact argument like we heard was NAFTA. And what China is or isn`t going to do maybe a real issue, but giving away our manufacturing strength, our ability to just defend ourselves by making our own stuff. Our economic well-being doesn`t improve our ability to counter China. And if you look, specifically, during NAFTA, we were told if we don`t write the rules China`s going to write the rules in Latin America. Well, now it`s 20 years later. SCHULTZ: Yeah. WALLACH: At the time, we had 69 percent of exports going into Mexico. We`re down to 49 percent. Guess who got it? We did NAFTA and China moved in. The agreement is not the answer to what might be real China problem, but it`s not a foreign policy solution. SCHULTZ: All right. Lori Wallach, always great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time here on the Ed Show. We move on. Coming up, the United States Postal Service has a new lethal weapon. Actor Danny Glover joins us to tell his personal story and about the importance of this great American institution. He joins me live coming up. And later, the third installment of our series "The Gulf Today: 5 Year After The Spill". Tonight we hear from residents who were still grappling with the ripple effects. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DEAN BLANCHARD, OWNER, DEAN BLANCHARD SEAFOOD: It`s been a nightmare. It`s a -- I mean we woke up one morning that living in paradise and then went to living in hell. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DANNY GLOVER, ACTOR: I`m the son postal workers. My mom and dad worked for the Postal Service for most of their working lives. My sister was a postal employee, my brother, a letter carrier. I even worked to the Post Office during Christmas break as a teenager. The Postal Service belongs to all of us. It reaches everyone, everywhere. The Post Office is an anchor, a symbol of community. Join me in a Grand Alliance to strengthen a cherished institution, our Postal Service, a public trust, a national treasure. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. United States postal workers have a new partner in the fight and believe me it is a fight. For 240 years, United States Postal Service has provided affordable, universal mail service to all Americans, all communities. They serve 150 million households and businesses each day without -- and listen to me folks, without any taxpayer funding. They`re self-sufficient. Now unlike private shippers, the Postal Service goes everywhere. Your in small town America, they deliver about 30 percent of FedEx`s total U.S. ground segment. What would FedEx do without the Postal Service? Well, the Postal Service employs over 626,000 people, including approximately 130,000 military veterans. It is shining example of we the people at work, which is why we the people need to stand up and fight to keep the Postal Service alive. And they are under attack. They now have a Grand Alliance to save our public postal service in a coalition of 65 groups mobilizing across the manufactured crises threatening this institution. Now, since 2006, Congress is required the United States Postal Service to prepay future retiree health benefits75 years in advance and put it all into a 10-year window of getting it done, at a costs of approximately $5.5 billion per year which is align out in their budget that they have to meet. So when you hear people say that Post Office isn`t making money it depends upon what you`re talking about. It`s something no other business is required to do. And as a result, more than 140 mail processing facilities have closed since 2012, 82 more. That`s 82 more are scheduled to close or consolidate this year in 2015. What`s the mean? Well, slower service, slash hours of operation at neighborhood Post Offices and threaten to lower service standards. Thousands of postal workers have lost good living wage jobs and it`s unnecessary. The Postal Service is a democratic right enshrined in the constitution. Under a "Do Nothing Congress" it`s up to us to protect it. Ask yourself the question tonight. In your town, do you really want your Postal Service Office to close? Joining me tonight Danny Glover, Actor and spokesman for the Postal Service. Also with us tonight, Mark Dimondstein who was the President on the American Postal Workers Union. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. GLOVER: Thank you. Glad to be here. MARK DIMONDSTEIN, AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION: Glad to be here. SCHULTZ: Mark, first of all. Let`s talk about this consortium, this alliance that you have. What is it, what are expectations? DIMONDSTEIN: Well what is it? It`s 65 national organizations and that`s just the beginning. They`d have -- from my walks in life, from faith-based to labor based, to advocacy, to civil rights based, they all have a strong feeling that they need to join together and to protect the common good manifested in a public Post Office and in a viperid (ph) Post Office. And so, what they expect to do in time right now, the flag has been raised but in time, to work together to promote good legislation certainly to meet with the Postal Services to make sure they`re concerns are being heard. And to stop the downward slide of less service, slower service and to turn that around and to be part of what you said in your opening, that we the people. And so they`re declaring we the people are going to stand together and protect the public Postal Office. SCHULTZ: Mr. Glover, this is personal to you isn`t it? GLOVER: Well, yes, yeah. My parents came to the Post Office. I think the beginning of my maturation, I was through what I saw -- how I saw them as young people, young parents who are building the family, building their life and that life would not had been build, have it not been for their employment at the Post Office, the Postal Service. And the work that they did and the beliefs that they had and that things we`re changing in this country with their work. SCHULTZ: And the big thing on the Postal Service is that it hires a lot of veterans and has a tradition... GLOVER: Yes. SCHULTZ: ... of doing that and you saw that. GLOVER: Yeah. Well, certainly, my father was a veteran of World War II and so he had certain preference and when he was hired in 1948. My brother was a veteran of Vietnam and, certainly, that helped him hiring as a letter carrier in the `70s after he came back from Vietnam. So, yes. It does that, you know, and -- but I think more of the -- we`re talking about something else, we`re talking how do we change the narrative around here. The narrative has always been placed upon the idea of profit, return on investment. The narrative is based about greed. And the Post Office never worked on greed. The Post Office was essential part of this whole change in America with the expansion of public service. The Post Office expanded its realm as well. Now, the idea privatization is based upon the concept that certainly the concept of competition. What about the concept of cooperation that is build into -- things happen, people changed, communities changed, people grow, not by competition but by cooperation. That somebody -- some people may think that`s an esoteric way to look at the... SCHULTZ: No. The Post Office is the heart beat of a community. GLOVER: Absolutely. SCHULTZ: It`s vital to small business. It`s vital to all businesses. It`s vital to elderly people who are counting on their medicines. GLOVER: Absolutely. I go to the same Post Office in San Francisco that I`ve gone to since I was 11-years-old. SCHULTZ: Mr. Dimondstein, the numbers. If you didn`t have this legislation thrown on you in 2006, you`d have a different bottom line. DIMONDSTEIN: Absolutely. The operating profit of the Post Office just this last quarter was $1.1 billion. Last year, $1.3 billion to the good, we`re it not for this pre-funding hoax manufactured by (inaudible)... SCHULTZ: So you`re being attacked by the profiteers? DIMONDSTEIN: Absolutely. SCHULTZ: ... and high level business which ironically couldn`t serve as well as they do right now if you, guys, were out of business. DIMONDSTEIN: That`s right. That`s right. SCHULTZ: What`s -- what do you hear from postal workers? Are they mad about this? GLOVER: Well, generally, I think that the -- from what I see, we`re at the same time that would build in this Grand Alliance. We also in sometime raising the conscious of workers themselves... SCHULTZ: Yeah. GLOVER: ... those who are most endangered by this. I think on the one- hand, we get it easy in a particular place. I mean, I remember the -- when my parents were involved in the union, involved these employees and everything else, there was something else in which drove them as well, and that was a Civil Rights Movement. So, you see that played out through their work as postal employees` involvement in union. I think there`s sense of the change is -- at my own interpretation... SCHULTZ: Sure. GLOVER: ... the change is going to happen. We can`t play a role in facilitating the kind of change that works with us. We want to see that it belongs to us. It`s our... SCHULTZ: Yeah... GLOVER: ... responsibility to be the participants in our own rescue. SCHULTZ: You know, the American people have, I think a great grip on what`s happen in their community. I really do. I mean, I think if you live in a community, you know what`s happening, you know what`s going on. Where is the march to get rid of the Postal Service? Where is the outcry the people say they`re just not get it done, they going to get rid it. It`s not there. This is such a manufactured attack by people who see an opportunity to do big business and make a profit and it speaks right to what you`re talking about, about what the commitment is to with community, it will be undermined it in a big way... DIMONDSTEIN: Absolutely. SCHULTZ: ... if it goes down that road. Gentleman, great to have you with us tonight. GLOVER: All right. SCHULTZ: Danny Glover with Mark... DIMONDSTEIN: Thank you Ed. GLOVER: Thank you. SCHULTZ: ... Dimondstein in here on the Ed Show. Still ahead. A look at the ripple effects in the gulf years after the worst oil spill, this country has ever seen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WASSON: Shortly after the oil spill there was hope that it was going to get clean up, it was going to get rectified, there wasn`t going to be an impact to the beaches here. And as time kept, you know, ticking away each day and you`re watching the updates on the different news, media outlets. The fear was that, the oil is going to start washing up here on the shore and what was going to happen to tourism when it did. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Take a look at these pictures out of the Southern California today where an ExxonMobil Refinery exploded in the city of Torrance. According to a statement released by Exxon, four people were taken to the hospital for minor injuries and all personnel have been accounted for. The explosion happened around 9:00 this morning local time. No word yet on what caused the explosion. Well, our Republican friends are not going to like this story one bit. Today, 11.4 million Americans are now enrolled in private health insurance through the Affordable Health Care. This year`s open enrollment period is closing although there`s still time for anyone who forgot to complete the application. If you started the process before 15th of February deadline, there is an extension which is good news. You have until this Sunday, the 22nd, to complete it. The number, 11.4 million, I`d to say that`s successful. Today, President Obama named Joseph Clancy, the new Director of the Secret Service. Clancy has been agencies` acting head since the service`s Director Julia Pierson resigned in October amid a host of scandals. The decision has sparks a passionate response from some on Capitol Hill who are expecting the President to choose from outside the agency. And just in case you missed it, take a look at this pup. I watch this every year, by the way. The 4-year-old beagle known as Miss P took home the title at last night`s Westminster Dog Show. Miss P`s great uncle, the only other beagle to ever win the competition took Best in Show in 2008. It must run in the family. Our dogs Buck (ph) and Ducky (ph), they fell asleep early and I don`t think they saw it. There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC Market Wrap. The Dow falls 17 points, the S&P ends flat, the NASDAQ add 7. Shares of ExxonMobil fell more than 2 percent today dragging down the Dow, as you`ve heard earlier, an explosion Torrance, California refinery own by that company. Shares of watchmaker Fossil slid about 16 percent today, a day after it reported declining sales and lower than expected profits. And the minutes in the latest Fed meeting show policymakers are concerned about low inflation. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Tonight in part three of our series, "The Gulf Today: 5 Years After The Spill", we focus on the ripple effects along the coast. The residents we spoke with on the gulf shore shared their tales of economic hardship in a weakened real estate market and a threat to seaside culture which defines the region. In tonight`s edition, shrimp buyer Dean Blanchard shows us Grand Isle, Louisiana through his eyes. Blanchard believes the oil spill disseminated the region but he`s giving up hope. B.P. believes their restoration efforts have been successful. The oil company cites improve tourism numbers in the end of the active clean up operations by the coast guard. Dean Blanchard tells us why he believes B.P. still has a long way to go in repairing the place, he calls home. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHUTLZ: It`s an old saying, "What with this guy, it really fits". Dean Blanchard is the salt of the earth. BLANCHARD: We have asked for nothing. We never got government money on nothing. I mean, I`ve never collected a penny from the government in my life. SCHULTZ: A tell it like it is, raging caging on a mission. Blanchard was one of the largest seafood distributors in the United States before the spill. BLANCHARD: It`s 800 to 900 shrimp boats regular. SCHULTZ: 800 to 900? DAVID CARMARDELLE, GRAND ISLE MAYOR: I`m asking the President of United States to come and save our fisheries in Louisiana because it`s a crime. I`m born and raised as commercial fishing and I`ve got tears in my eyes seeing these fishermen begging and asking me to please do something Mr. David, please. BLANCHARD: 800 to 900 shrimp boats. SCHULTZ: Just right at here? BLANCHARD: Yes, right out there. SCHULTZ: They`re not there now. BLANCHARD: They`re gone. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You see heavy oil coming here a couple days ago, you didn`t see this much oil west of the river. TOM CAPELLA, JEFFERSON PARISH COUNCILMAN: It`s here. We touched it. We get off the helicopters. It`s like when you`re a little kid with a cake mix or brownie mix, it`s that thick. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There maybe submerged oil, maybe oil coming beneath the booms. We`ve had report of tar balls coming beneath the booms not along the surface. BLANCHARD: There`s reason for them to come. They`ll come once and awhile and just look because they`ve been so used to come and, you know, they lost day-long. They can`t catch enough to feed a few. SCHULTZ: The shrimp industry has changed and he`s mad about it. So, all the shrimpers boats that where out here, where are they now? Are they out of business? BLANCHARD: A few went out of business, the ones that didn`t want to leave. They`ve took out job mostly with oil companies. I mean, we had to go -- they had to go to people that pretty much put them out of business. SCHULTZ: Today, he`s an activist and advocate to make things right. BLANCHARD: We, actually, was naive enough to think that B.P. was really trying to pick up the oil. SCHULTZ: Many local seafood workers believe the tar balls are the direct result of the chemicals used in an effort to clean up the gulf. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: B.P. workers are on the beaches in Mississippi now, cleaning up tar balls and patties in Biloxi. SCHULTZ: B.P refutes that claim and says dispersants were an important and highly effective component of the response to the spill. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thousands of feet boom that`s being loaded on these boats to be taken out to stop this oil. BLANCHARD: And they did it about two or three weeks, they realize that... SCHULTZ: Yeah. BLANCHARD: ... so many right here, you know. SCHULTZ: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nobody is out doing their business right. If you`re commercial fishermen, most of them are out trying to stop this oil. BLANCHARD: They`re trying to arrest me three times by going over there and see what the hell is going on. The guy tells me it`s none of my business, none of my business. He just destroyed 30 years (inaudible) work, what the hell you mean? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The coast guard held us, held us hostage by two hours. As they call the Governor`s office, they get Governor. They get the coast guard to let us go so we got out of there. They won`t let us close to haul (ph) and film it. SCHULTZ: Real estate here may never be the same. BLANCHARD: It dropped down, you know, a lot. They were going for $350,000 to $500,000. They`re probably down to $150,000 to $250,000 right now. SCHULTZ: If you could tell and a lot of people have left. BLANCHARD: Well, yes. As you see and this is a small place Ed, this is not like Florida. We don`t have the big building, the big condos. There was a place to come with your family and, you know, we have very little crime down here. And if you like to fish this was the place to come, because the shrimp would come here and the fish would follow him for the food. Well, right now, when the spill came most that all came probably 80 percent. It all came into probably about 30 miles circle of this place. So the shrimp went around the Isle and they went to western part of the state and so the fish follow the food, you know. SCHULTZ: So life has really changed here. BLANCHARD: It`s been a nightmare. It`s -- I mean, we woke up one morning that living in paradise and then went to living in hell. SCHULTZ: And finding things like this on the beach certainly doesn`t help. I`d never believe it unless I saw it (inaudible). BLANCHARD: That`s why they made it liquid turned into this. Yeah, how many chemical do you think you got to spread and make a liquid turn into this? SCHULTZ: So this is... BLANCHARD: That`s oil. SCHULZT: This is oil. BLANCHARD: Look at the inside, there. SCHULZT: This is oil and they pour so much chemical on it. It hardens and it becomes... BLANCHARD: And it sank to the bottom and then... SCHULTZ: It hardens like this. And then it sinks to the bottom. And this along the beach here in Grand Isle. BLANCHARD: I just found it right there, how long we`ve been here? SCHULTZ: But we just got here... BLANCHARD: And that`s out to 30 people, they cleaned up... SCHULTZ: Yeah. BLANCHARD: ... every morning. SCHULTZ: I don`t think this is just amazing. BLANCHARD: Yeah. BLANCHARD: The ripple effect on the main street throughout the gulf is unforgiving. WASSON: Shortly after the oil spill there was hope that it was going to get cleaned up, it was going to get rectified, there wasn`t going to be an impact to the beaches here. And as time kept, you know, ticking away each day and you`re watching the updates on the different news, media outlets. And the fear was that, it was going to start washing up here on the shore and what was going to happen to tourism when it did. KATHY RIVERS OWNER, CROSSFIT DESTIN: The locals can`t support the local businesses. I know, you know, from talking with couple other business owners that it did affect them just not, you know, like for us it was effect of -- with locals and the tourism. But their businesses were straight tourism and they basically have to shut their doors. BARBER: The oysters have declined and lot of the oystermen had quit because we didn`t have oysters and they don`t have a lot of -- our crews downsize a lot. SCHULTZ: It seems every walk of life and every aspect of business has been affected. BLANCHARD: I`m born and raise here. I`m not going to let B.P. run me out of the hometown. I mean, this is, I mean, we`re suppose to be free. We got -- I`m in a Cajun, we got -- in 300 years ago, in 1810, he was thrown out of Canada because of the British. I mean, I`m our father entered (ph) from the British. SCHULTZ: You just -- this is your land. This is your home. BLANCHARD: This is why we`re going to make our stand right here, Ed. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Once again, we`ve invited representatives of B.P. to join us on the show. They have declined the offer tonight but the invitation remains open. B.P. is directed us to their website thestateofthegulf.com. Coming up this hour, we will speak with the Mayor of Grand Isle Louisiana. Our series "The Gulf Today: 5 years After The Spill" continues all week here on the Ed Show. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. You can follow me on Twitter @WeGotEd and @edshow. And tomorrow we continue our series "The Gulf Today: 5 Years After The Spill" with a look at the changing landscape of the gulf. Off the coast of Louisiana, Cat Island was a sanctuary for wildlife. Today, it`s all but disappeared. Now, the birds which used the land as their breeding ground could be at risk. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PJ HAHN, PELICAN COAST CONSULTING: We`ve lost the pelicans which is our state bird back in the `60s due to DDT. Louisiana`s only got six bird islands left and they`re all disappearing. If we don`t start rebuilding these islands, this small little habitat for them, we`re not going to -- we`re going to lose the pelican again because their habitat... (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And the oil industry is helping with that restoration. Stay tuned all this week for our coverage on the gulf. And next, the Mayor of Grand Isle Louisiana joins us to discuss his town`s road to recovery. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, we want to focus on the small community of Grand Isle, Louisiana. Fifty miles south of New Orleans, was one of the worst affected areas of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Five years later, some islanders are fed up with the hearing the crisis is over. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today, the beaches and gulf were open for everyone to enjoy. We shared what we`ve learned so we can all produce energy more safely. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Well, the beaches still covered in many areas with wrung streaks of oil and the sand is lined with tar balls in many areas. Environmentalists say tar balls contain the most toxic form of oil because of the Corexit that was used to try to clean it up. Local state terrorism has not bounced back and neither as commerce in Grand Isle and many people have left. The Mayor of Grand Isle wants some action taken and he joins us tonight. David Camardelle, he is the Mayor of Grand Isle Louisiana. Mr. Camardelle, good to have you with us tonight on the Ed Show. I`d like to know, what would you like to see happen in Grand Isle Louisiana? What has to happen? CAMARDELLE: Well, like I said, we`ve been dealing with this for five years, Ed, and between the council myself and dealing with the situation in Grand Isle and try to take care of the people that make a living on the island specially the people that make a living, the fishermen and the charter boat captains and even if people that -- my resident is suffering, my -- business (ph) people. Through the years, you know, we`ve been promise a lot. We lobbied a lot. We went to Washington several times. We even had the President that came in and looked like when the President came in the beginning, he pushed things at the beginning and the minute he left it looked like things are left alone. So in the meantime, we, you know, thank God, you know, we went through different types of low pressures and hurricanes but in the meantime dealing with the B.P. Oil Spill is as totally different compared to dealing with the (inaudible) with the federal government but it`s been a nightmare. I`ve been traveling all over between Washington (inaudible) New Orleans and trying to convince B.P. officials that, you know, when you got to, your people come in your office and campaign a gas bill, your local fishermen they come in and your working people, they can`t pay the gas bill and you look at the families and the mothers and the kids, you`re tell them go buy groceries and we`re going to do the best we can until we can get back on our feet. In the meantime, more tourists will come and back to the island and they try to come enjoy the island. For instance, two Fridays ago, we picked up 191 pounds of tar balls on a north side of the coast guard station off the state park. You know, B.P. came in and promised a lot. Our kids, you know, when you have to take as a Mayor and a councilmen and the chief of police with 6,000 people coming in on the island to try to clean up the beach. You don`t know who`s coming on the island. You had to get to different churches and get all kids in with the parents and tell them it`s going to change the way our lives and that`s what happened. In the meantime, you know, we`re still waiting on some help and, you know, I got a call from the Governor`s office, you know, that the budget is going to be tight and we need to figure out a way how to keep the state awesome. SCHULTZ: So, David, there`s still a lot that has to be done. CAMARDELLE: Yes sir. SCHULTZ: Would it be too much of a stretch to say the Grand Isle will never been the same? CAMARDELLE: Well, you`re right. It will never be the same. You know, I`m begging Dean Blanchard and other business people who have patience. Please, it`s going to get better. You know, but when you`re fishermen and shrimp buyers make 30 percent in the last five years, they can`t pay their bills. You know, this, the biggest shrimp buyer they have in United States but we, you know, we used to bring million of pounds over that island. We even got a factory that we brought back since we`ve back in the, you know, the years... SCHULTZ: And it`s not just, Dean -- and quickly your residents their lives have been turned upside down. Fair statement? CAMARDELLE: Yes sir. Yes, all of our lives. All of our lives have been turned upside down. You know, when you got fishermen that turned all his receipts and been there 40, 50 years which I`m one of them. And, you know, and through the years and they`re coming back and they`re dealing with different type of attorneys. They`re being question you over and over and over, it gets frustrating. When you got elderly fisherman who`s retired and coming and asking me I can`t get nothing from B.P, they want to check my freezes ... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CAMARDELLE: ... to see if I`m a true fisherman. SCHULTZ: All right. CAMARDELLE: You know, we don`t need all that bull. SCHULTZ: All right. CAMARDELLE: Just come in and take care of our people. That`s all we want. We don`t want them (ph) from that, Ed. SCHULTZ: And we will continue this focus. Mayor David Camardelle, I appreciate you being here. "Politics Nation" with Reverend Al Sharpton is up next. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021801cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 83 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 18, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 18, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Jonathan Capehart, Joy Reid, Abby Huntsman, Maria Teresa Kumar GUESTS: Andre Carson, Eric Guster, Faith Jenkins, Stephanie Miller, Jimmy Williams SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 6977 words HIGHLIGHT: Some Congress believes that President Obama does not want to destroy ISIS and may use the power for further cause.; Jeb Bush`s of Jeb`s 21 foreign policy advisers worked for either his brother or his father.After that argument, Meyers drove home, dropped off her daughter and picked up her son who had a gun. They followed the other driver for about ten minutes and went back home. Today was the first full day of testimony for Eddie Ray Routh and his defense team. His lawyers have to convince a jury that he did not know right from wrong when he shot the movie`s real-life hero and his friend. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: That`s "THE ED SHOW." I`m Ed Schultz. POLITICS NATION with Reverend Al Sharpton starts now. Good evening, Rev. REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. We start with breaking news. President Obama delivering a major speech on ISIS and fighting violent extremism around the world. The president saying he`s confident the U.S. will prevail. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the face of this challenge, we have marshaled the full force of the United States government and we`re working with allies and partners to dismantle the terrorist organizations. And I`m confident that just as we have for more than two centuries, we will ultimately prevail. And part of what gives me that confidence is the overwhelming response of the world community to the savagery of these terrorist. Not just revulsion but a concrete commitment to work together to vanquish these organizations. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The president also today addressing the point that`s provoked debate here at home. How to describe ISIS and groups like them? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: There`s been a fair amount of debate in the press and among pundits about the words we use to describe and frame this challenge. So I want to be very clear about how I see it. Al-Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam. We must never accept the premise that they put forward because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They are terrorists. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: They are terrorists. And that`s why the U.S. is pounding ISIS in Iraq and Syria and why the president has submitted a war powers request green lighting the use of special forces. And yet at this serious time, we`re also seeing Republicans return to the kind of rhetoric we haven`t heard since the bertha era. It`s a poisonous atmosphere, where a GOP congressman actually feels like it`s OK to say the president is on the side of ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. SCOTT PERRY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: We have a commander in-chief who seems not only not ready, not un-willing but really working collaboratively with what I would say is the enemy of freedom and of individual freedom and liberty and western civilization and modernity. He actually might use it to further their cause in what seems to be his cause. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: A sitting member of Congress accusing the president of the United States of trying to further the cause of ISIS. It`s stunning. But we`re hearing a lot of this from Republican politicians. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. BLAKE FARENTHOLD (R), TEXAS: You`ve got a president who I don`t think is committed to the war on terror. I don`t think his heart is behind it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My concern is that the president doesn`t have the fortitude to actually do what`s need to be done. REP. BOB CORKER (R), TENNESSEE: There`s a lot of skepticism about the administration commitment to dealing with ISIS. MATT SALMON (R), ARIZONA: I don`t believe that the president really wants to prosecute a war that would truly destroy ISIL. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The president doesn`t want to destroy ISIS? His heart`s not in it. This stuff has seeped back into the groundwater on the right, back to things we thought that were behind us. Now, one conservative Web site is even claiming the president flashed a Muslim gang sign at a recent summit. It`s ridiculous. America is confronting a serious threat and it`s going to require a serious and united American response. Joining me now is Congressman Andre Carson, Democrat from Indiana, the first Muslim American to serve on the intelligence committee. And Jonathan Capehart of "The Washington Post." Thank you both for being here. REP. ANDRE CARSON (D), INDIANA: Your honor. Thank you, Rev. JONATHAN CAPEHART, OPINION WRITER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thanks. SHARPTON: Congressman, your response to the president`s speech? CARSON: Well, I thought the president`s speech was a powerful speech. I thought it was a very important speech. The administration released its first CV strategy in 2011 and they`ve been working with many leaders who were present at the summit today in a way that helps to foster a greater understanding and cooperation in terms of pushing back on extremist activities. Then there`s a growing concern, Revered, that the emphasis has been too heavy on Muslims but I think at a time when we have folks who are claiming to be Muslim and claiming to represent Islam who are committing violent acts against fellow human beings, it`s time that the Muslim community comes together and say enough is enough. SHARPTON: Now, you are a member of the intelligence committee. You`re an elected member of congress. I`ve been to your district with you in churches there. CARSON: Yes. That`s right. SHARPTON: And you are a practicing Muslim. CARSON: Yes, sir. SHARPTON: Is there anything in Islam that you know and practice that in anyway justifies or calls for the kind of behavior that we`ve seen from those that have identified themselves as ISIS or ISIL? CARSON: Absolutely not. Islam means peace. And the history shows that of peace. Of course, any religion has examples of those claiming or purported to be inherent of that faith to have committed violent acts throughout its history. But I think that`s a small fraction and it doesn`t represent the over billion Muslims who inhabit this globe. And it`s unfortunate that it takes a small fraction of extremists who claim to be Muslim to misrepresent the faith that is so peaceful. You, Reverend, have worked with Muslims throughout your career. I know in my own community growing up in the inner city, watching Muslims take control of their communities, doing what law enforcement had failed to do in keeping those communities safe and pushing out drug activities. SHARPTON: Now, if the president, therefore, made this even by inference, seem like a war against religion or a particular religious group which you practice rather than a war against terrorists, as he said, would he not risk deeply offending some Americans who choose to practice a religion that you do that does not at all require you or call upon or condone this kind of activity? CARSON: Without question. And I think whenever you step out there boldly in that kind of way in an official capacity, you risk offending some people. And given the history of the Muslim community`s relationship with law enforcement, relationship with the government, dating back to J. Edgar Hoover`s counter intelligence program, many in the black community warned the immigrant Muslim community decades before of the kind of relationship that is all too often been transactional, reverend, it has been a cover to spy on communities. And the president noted that in his speech and I command him for being bold and doing so. SHARPTON: Jonathan, the president is prosecuting a serious effort against ISIS and yet you have Republicans literally accusing him of fighting for the other side. What`s your response to that? CAPEHART: Well, it`s outrageous. Anyone who would say that the commander in chief of the United States would side with an enemy, side with an enemy so brutal really doesn`t deserve to be an elected official. I mean, it`s outrageous to hear a sitting member of Congress say out loud that he thinks that the president is working against people who would love nothing more than to destroy this country. And what that clip you showed of Congressman Perry from Pennsylvania shows is that the hope that the craziness and silliness and the bertharism (ph) and the otherism (ph) that was coming out of the 113th Congress and ever since the tea party folks swarmed Capitol Hill in 2010, and that was going to go away with 114 of Congress, the new Congress that are seated because they are more reasonable members of the Republican party who were elected to the House. We now know that that`s no longer the case. We are still back to having the president not only battle, you know, enemies of the country overseas who want to not only bring down the United States but just western civilization. He also has to deal with some Republicans on Capitol Hill who still to this day, six, seven years into his tenure as president of the United States, still questioning whether he loves this country and whether he will do everything possible to protect this country. SHARPTON: You know, Congressman, the president rejected the idea that the west is involved in some sort of holy war and he also called on Muslim leaders to reject that idea. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. Just as those of us outside Muslim communities need to reject the terrorist narrative that the west and Islam are in conflict, or modern life and Islam are in conflict. I also believe that Muslim communities have a responsibility as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Congressman, why is it important to talk about this as a fight against terrorists and not this is some epic clash of civilizations. CARSON: Well, I think that there has been too much of an emphasis on placed on the president`s the usage of serving phraseology. This is not a clash of civilizations as it were. But I think that folks of goodwill, be they seek Hindu, Jewish, Christian Catholic, Muslim, Nontheist, must come together and make a stand, take a stand and acknowledge that if you go in any major courtroom, you can find a Muslim attorney or Muslim judge, my father-in-law happens to be the first elected Muslim judge in the country, Judge David Shaheed. Go to any major hospital and you`ll find Muslims position. They are Muslims who are making investments in our country each and every day in positive ways. And so the greater question becomes, how can we as Americans who believe in polaristic (ph) society, who know that our country is a melting pot say that we will not stand with those who are Islamic phobic and those who seek to cast this version on one particular group when there`s only a small fraction those who claimed to be Muslim who misrepresent the greater Muslim community. Enough is enough. SHARPTON: At the same time, Jonathan, stand firmly against Islamic phobia but stand firmly against terrorism without using this as some way to peeved in to partisan shaded the president. These people are beheading people. Are taking people`s heads off and you use that to take a cheap shot at the president? CAPEHART: Yes. I mean, the whole tenure and tone of the debate, especially around, you know, the rise of ISIS, sir, or ISIL has been very discouraging. And I thought the president`s remarks that you played earlier were very important where he said, you know, we`re not -- we`re not going to battle against religious leaders. They want us to legitimize them as religious leaders. They`re not religious leaders, they`re terrorist. CARSON: Yes. CAPEHART: And as long, I mean, it would great if people on -- if everyone on Capitol Hill were to take that to heart and rally around the president and all the leaders in the western world and in the Middle East who are trying to deal with this savage people who are beheading people and killing people all in the name of what, I don`t know. They might be -- they might think that they are doing this in the name of Islam, in the name of Allah, but we all know the truth. And the president has been trying to get that across to the American people for a long time and I hope today -- I hope that today that they got that message. (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: I would have to leave you there. I would have to leave you there. I hope they did -- that he did as well. I hope people got it. And if you can`t rally around the president, Jonathan, at least rally around what is decent and what will preserve human life but rise above this partisan bickering when we`re dealing with this kind of element that wants to distort religion. Congressman Andre Carson, really thank you for being here tonight. Jonathan Capehart, always great to have you. Thank you for your time. Coming up, awkward timing. Jeb Bush tries to distance himself from his brother as we learn the architect of the Iraq war is now on his team. Plus, a twist in that road rage shooting in Las Vegas. Why did the mom and son go looking for the suspect before she got killed? And Jimmy Fallon kicks off his second year on "The Tonight Show." Our conversation nation panel looks out as to how he has redefined late night. SHARPTON: We have a news flash from Jeb Bush. He wants you to know that he`s not his brother. So far, so good. But there`s a catch. And it reveals a lot about his potential run for president. That`s next. SHARPTON: Jeb Bush wants to be president. But he has a big problem. His last name. So in a speech today, Jeb tried to put some daylight between himself and his famous family. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JEB BUSH (R), FLORIDA: As you might know, I`ve also been fortunate to have a father and brother who helped shape America`s foreign policy from the oval office. I recognize, as a result, my views will often be held up in comparison to theirs. Look, just for the record, one more time, I love my brother, I love my dad. I actually love my mother as well. I hope that`s OK. And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make. But I`m my own man and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: He`s his own man. He won`t be W2.0. That`s great. Except 19 of Jeb`s 21 foreign policy advisers worked for either his brother or his father. That includes former Secretary of State James Baker; you may remember him as Bush`s man in charge of the Florida recount. The guy who helped get him into office. Another Jeb adviser, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq war, the guy who wrongly claimed Iraqi oil would paid for it all. So how was Jeb his own man when he was relying on people like that? He`s not, he doesn`t disagree as brothers -- with his brother`s foreign policy apparently anything else his brother did. Check out this clip from DNC that they dug up today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: What`s your biggest political disagreement with your brother? BUSH: I will tell you that I`m the only Republican that was in office when he was in office and as president that never disagreed with him. And I`m not going to start now. Why would I do that now after two years? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: No. Wait, not one time you call up and say, you know what, don`t do that? BUSH: I`m not going to start now. It`s just until death do us part. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: No disagreements? Then or now. Joining me now, our MSNBC`s Joy Reid and Abby Huntsman. Thank you both for being here. JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Thanks, Rev. ABBY HUNTSMAN, MSNBC CO-HOST: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Joy, how can Jeb say he`s on own man? But Philly Champaign (ph) with former Bush adviser. REID: Yes. I mean, on the one hand, I mean, you know, when there`s a previous Republicans president, you`re going to deep into that previous administration for about it because it make sense the family does has have closer advisors but you showed Paul Wolfowitz there. And I think the bigger problem for Jeb is that a lot of those advisors where in a sense more he`s than George`s. Remember 1997 when Jeb Bush was running for governor for Florida, he was also un-signatory to the original -- SHARPTON: You -- a Florida it totally enmesh this prod. REID: Yes. No. This was the year -- SHARPTON: Just so people know we`re talking to a Floridian expert here. REID: I moved to Florida in 1997. So I moved there right at the start. HUNTSMAN: Typically with everything you need to know about Jeb Bush. REID: Everything about Jeb Bush. And at the time that Jeb Bush was an original signatory to something called the project for new American century. Which was the original neoconservative bible. Jeb was the neo counter fold George Bush was a neocon. And that the co-signatories to that panache document, which was the precursor to this idea of multiple theater wars, going in and invading Iraq, and over throwing Saddam Hussein that includes people like Paul Wolfowitz, includes people like Richard Pearl, Scooter Libby. (INAUDIBLE) (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: Who he has advising him now? REID: Exactly. And so he`s carried over the -- the neoconservatives baggage will be inescapable for Jeb Bush because again he has seen more the intellectual in the family than his brother George and he was there in the neoconservative fold before George Bush was. SHARPTON: Now Abby, I get why Jeb wants to make a distinction between himself and his brother but can he realistic do that? HUNTSMAN: I mean, that`s the question everyone is asking. I come from one of seven children. So I`m the first to say that you can be different from your parents and you can be different from your siblings. SHARPTON: All right. HUNTSMAN: What I will say when you look at these group of advisers, and now I was telling Joy this before we came on here, they`re not a lot of people that understand the complexity of foreign policy, to understand our world on the world stage. You may not agree with all of them but he also has folks like Bob Delleck (ph) and Tom Ridge who -- who are not neocons, who are also some of the smartest minds in the business. And I think he said it right. I mean, totally he said it the right way. He said, look, I admire my dad and brother in my service to this country but I am my own man. So I think, he`s making it clear, that regardless of who he surrounds himself with, regardless whether it`s his family or adviser, he wants to be his own man. Running a politics (ph), I mean, he might say before I agree with everything that they do. But when you start running for president, time changed. This going to have to define where those differences are. I don`t think we heard today in a speech, policy wise where he is from the (INAUDIBLE). SHARPTON: Well, I`ll get back to you on that. But Joy, he says he doesn`t want to talk about the past but look at his advisers. REID: Right. Exactly. And he`s got a lot of this, you know throwback kind and I think the neocon piece of it is actually really important. Because if you were to ask Jeb Bush, if you were president of the United States after 9/11, would you have invaded Iraq? It`s going to be hard for him to distance himself in that decision and say he wouldn`t have done anything differently than George W. George W. Bush (INAUDIBLE) SHARPTON: Or he`s going to have to start criticizing. REID: Exactly. SHARPTON: But look, let me go back to what you had said, Abby. You said that he is going to have to distinguish and decide where he`s going to be critical. He did criticize some of what his brother did but then turned it into a critique of President Obama. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: There were mistakes made in Iraq for sure using the intelligence capability that everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction was not turns out not to be accurate. Not creating an environment of security after the successful taking out of Hussein was a mistake. But my brother`s administration, through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that any presidents done. Because there was no support for this and it was hugely successful and it created instability that when the new president came in, he could have built on to create fragile but more stable situation that would not have allowed for the void to be filled. The void has been filled because we created the void. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: So Abby, Iraq is unstable because of President Obama, even though President Bush is the one that led us in there, into war. I mean, how is that work? HUNTSMAN: I mean this is going to be the beginning for Jeb Bush. He`s going to have to answer a lot of questions about the Iraq force simply because he`s George Bush`s brother. What he`s doing here though, and correct me if you disagree. SHARPTON: We will. HUNTSMAN: I think -- well, I`ll think he`s already running in the general election. I think he`s bypassing the primary thing. I`m already going to be the general election candidate. He`s being very bold. He`s letting everyone sort of know the guy that he is, and he baggish (ph) that he has. He talked about using drugs in the past. That`s the sort of Jeb Bush that we`re seeing and the question I have is, is there a path way for successor. Is there a way for to make it pass? The prime is a lot of people compare him to my dad, because my dad is very much that way. He was very open about who he was and was able to disagree with people. The difference is from my dad, my dad got him blate (ph) and he came in from serving the Democratic president. With Jeb Bush, I mean, his starting very early, his going to have the money. He`s got name recognition. He`s got support on the ground at somebody primary state. So the question is, can he make it to the general election. But as you`re saying he`s already running to general -- SHARPTON: And can he drag, not only the baggage of his name but the identify what the policy that are parallel with that name, I mean, if you can -- you can say as you, I`m a child among seven, you can`t say and I want everybody to advise and let guided the other six on my team. HUNTSMAN: Right. SHARPTON: Without people saying, wait now what`s going on. And he`s oh no, that`s the new president`s fault. Even though my brother is the one that brought us in to Iraq. REID: And think about the fact too, that one of the things that a lot of animals would say brought George W. Bush down but then he stated to incorporate some of the same neoconservative elements that were not necessarily in his pocket before and they dragged his presidency away from his com -- you know, low-key foreign policy that he was going to do some sample (ph) foreign policy into these neoconservative ventures. Jeb Bush was all in that. Jeb Bush was for that before his brother was. And the other thing, if you unpacked what he said, he`s saying the surge was heroic. This what they desperate attempt to extricate us from a war that was in and out of itself not necessary and then after all that loss of life and all that destruction, it was a Hail Mary to try to get us out of the mess George W. Bush got us in. So is he saying that the idea of invading Iraq was OK but not continuing to stay in Iraq forever and ever and ever, which is what the neocon that they -- (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: But his big problem -- and I`m out of time -- the big problem, also, is going to be getting by the primaries and one of the other Republicans start hitting among us. HUNTSMAN: It`s going to be a night. You know, and I hope he stays true. He does not seem like the guy that`s going to pander that could hurt him. But I hope that he stays true to who he is. Because definitely longer term that was help. SHARPTON: Well, he`s got three problems. He`s got a general, he`s got a primary and he`s got thanksgiving dinner, you going to be careful on how he deals with the members of his family. Joy Reid and Abby Huntsman, thank you for your time tonight. Please sure to watch Joy on "THE REID Report" weekdays at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. And stick around right after that for Abby on "The Cycle." Weekdays at 3:00 p.m. Eastern. Right here at MSNBC. Still ahead, the stunning twist from that road rage shooting in Vegas. Was the victim out looking for her killer before she died? Also, we`ll look at the man in charge of stopping the next White House security breach. Can he fix the secret service? And the late-night revolution, one year into the Jimmy Fallon era, how`s he redefined political comedy. Stay with us. SHARPTON: The numbers are in and its diagnosis success for the Affordable Care Act. 11.4 million people have signed up and are re-enrolled for insurance plans under the ACA. That`s over two million more than the Obama administration predicted. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The Affordable Care Act is working. It`s working a little better than we anticipated, certainly working a lot better than many of the critics talked about. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a second, Mr. President. Do you mean to tell me ObamaCare had critics early on? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), OHIO: ObamaCare will ruin the best health care system in the country. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Obamacare is a malignant tumor that is metastasizing and consuming the liberty of the American people and it must be repealed. REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: Let`s repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: And today, despite millions enrolled and GOP talking points, they still pushed for repeal. They just took their 56th vote in the house this month and the potential 2016 candidates just don`t get it either. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We need to repeal every word of ObamaCare. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: ObamaCare is a disaster. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We must repeal ObamaCare and its entirety. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We must repeal ObamaCare and replace it. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: ObamaCare restricts freedom and must be repealed. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I think what we need to do is to start over. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Never fear, Dr. Sharpton is here. All they need is an eye exam because the ACA is working and it`s time the GOP sees it. Did they not think we would notice their prescription for bitter pills has expired? Nice try. But here`s a dose of reality. We gotcha. SHARPTON: It`s time for the justice files. Joining me now, criminal defense Attorney Eric Guster and former prosecutor and host of "Judge Faith," Faith Jenkins. Thank you both for being here tonight. FAITH JENKINS, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thanks, Rev. ERIC GUSTER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you. SHARPTON: Up first, a mother gunned down outside her house after a road rage fight. Tammy Meyers was driving last week in Las Vegas when someone almost hit her. A daughter reached over and honked the horn and then argument broke out. But there`s some new information we`re learning in this case. After that argument, Meyers drove home, dropped off her daughter and picked up her son who had a gun. They followed the other driver for about ten minutes and went back home. But when they got there, police say the other driver pulled up and started firing, killing Meyers, her son Brandon fired back without hitting anyone. At a vigil for Meyers last night, Brandon said he would do it all again. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRANDON MEYERS, VICTIM`S SON: I did what I had to do to protect my family. Everyone can think what they have to think. I did it for a reason. And I would do it for anyone all over. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: She did everything she possibly could to protect me and I love her so much. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The sketch is the best hope police have for identifying and finding the shooter. But Faith, if they do find him, does he have a case? Could self-defense be a factor? JENKINS: I don`t think so. There`s so many questions here. How does this family go home and then she picks up this -- moms picks up her son who has a gun. How do they find this other car who they have this argument with and follow the car for ten minutes? SHARPTON: Right. JENKINS: And then how does that person in that car then get to their home? I`m assuming they followed this mother and her son back to her house. Here`s the issue with self-defense. You can`t pursue someone who is retreating, even if there`s a dispute, Rev, if that dispute is over and this mother and son went back home -- SHARPTON: Right. Which means the dispute was over. JENKINS: It`s over, they went back home, you can`t then pursue them, shoot and kill a person and then say, oh, I had to defend myself. Self-defense is about you being in eminent fear of great bodily harm or dying. SHARPTON: But Eric, suppose if he says, would they come after me with a gun, they threatened they would come back, I thought that I had to kill them to stop them from coming back. GUSTER: And that`s what I think will happen. Reverend Al, guns make people bold, they made wimped super bowl. This woman went home and got her son with a gun, then went after this guy. They are totally at fault because she didn`t call police. She didn`t -- she didn`t alert the authorities, hey, someone was harassing me. She went to the fight. Now, I don`t know if his self-defense claim will hold up but he definitely will have some mitigation being that they came after him first. JENKINS: Well, we don`t even know -- all the police said is that the son had a gun. We don`t know if he brandished it. We don`t know if the other driver knew that he had a weapon, no they shouldn`t have followed them. GUSTER: This is beyond following. They went home and got the gun. SHARPTON: But the tape we played of the son said, he said, I did what I had to do, I would do it -- JENKINS: Which makes no sense. SHARPTON: The inference is, if I`m the shooter and I`m caught is he admitted he did something. JENKINS: Well, they followed whoever the shooter was for ten minutes. What were they doing? Driving around stalking this guy? It makes no sense. SHARPTON: Yes, but the big question is, how they knew how to find him? JENKINS: Right. SHARPTON: I mean, was he waiting on them to got me to -- JENKINS: There`s more to the story there. There`s more facts that will going to come out. SHARPTON: All right. Let`s move on to the "American Sniper" trial in Texas. Today was the first full day of testimony for Eddie Ray Routh and his defense team. His lawyers have to convince a jury that he did not know right from wrong when he shot the movie`s real-life hero and his friend. Today, his sister testified that Routh was not himself when he came to her house after the shooting. She says he was talking about pigs sucking his soul. At first she didn`t believe him when he said he killed two people. Routh pleaded not guilty to killing Chris Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield in 2013. The friends agreed to meet Routh at a gun range to try to help with his PTSD. Eric, how`s the defense doing? GUSTER: The defense is doing a decent job. When you look at the totality of the evidence, they have the murder victims actually texting back and forth saying, this guy is crazy. Then they are presenting evidence that he was not himself and they are going to present more evidence, I would suspect that he had PTSD to the level for he did not account for his actions. So it`s a very interesting case, to say the least, because there`s so many factors involved in it. PTSD, they are war veterans and I think they are doing a pretty decent job. SHARPTON: You know he mentioned this, Faith, Eric did about the texting and a key moment came when the defense in the opening statement claimed Routh`s insanity was evidenced in those texts, that Kyle and Littlefield sent right before the shooting. After meeting Routh, Kyle sent Littlefield a text, quote, "This dude is straight up nuts." Littlefield responded, "He`s right behind me. Watch my six." That`s military talk for watch my back. How important is this case? Could it help the defense case? JENKINS: It`s definitely going to help their case. I mean, that speaks to the defendant`s state of mind right before he shot and killed Kyle and his friend. And it`s not just about one piece of evidence like that text message. It`s not just about one -- witness, that the defense is doing, they are building. They have their fact witnesses, like the defendant`s sister, they are putting on first to speak about his state of mind. SHARPTON: Right. JENKINS: And then you have the two individuals who were killed who spoke about his state of mind, he was not in the right frame of mind. And then you are going to have their experts, their experts will then going to come in and talk about he was in the middle of a psychotic break. The jury at the end of this case I think they`re going to find, if this guy did suffer from a mental illness and the question is going to be, did he know what he was doing was wrong when he pulled the trigger? SHARPTON: Well, we`re going to keep following both of these big cases. I`m going to have to leave it there. Eric Guster and Faith Jenkins, thank you for your time tonight. JENKINS: Thank you, Rev. GUSTER: Thank you. SHARPTON: Straight ahead, Hollywood star Kristen Bell speaks out on the vaccination debate. And Jimmy Fallon kicks off year two on "The Tonight Show." "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: It`s time for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, radio host Stephanie Miller, democratic strategist Jimmy Williams and MSNBC contributor Maria Teresa Kumar. Thank you for being with me tonight. JIMMY WILLIAMS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you. STEPHANIE MILLER, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: Thanks, Rev. MARIA TERESA KUMAR, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: First up, the GOP reaction to a court ruling from a republican- appointed judge temporarily blocking President Obama`s action on immigration. The President`s executive action would keep millions of undocumented immigrants from being deported. But that hasn`t stopped the GOP from trying to reverse it. Ted Cruz spoke about it today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: This victory this week, the decision from the federal court was a major victory for the rule of law. All of us have reason to be proud that Texas led the way, standing up to President Obama`s illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Maria, it`s an historic executive action. Five million people are impacted and the GOP is touting this judge as a hero? I mean, what do you make of that? KUMAR: I caution them on being so giddy when it comes to families and parents from their children, when you`re talking about the executive actions, the three to five million is true that it`s unprecedented but he`s not the first president that actually has ruled a temporary, Reverend, temporary rule of law. This actually dates back to Eisenhower and pretty much every president successfully has used their discretion to identify what group of immigrants will actually have temporary relief until the republicans get their action, their action order. This is pretty much the only thing that the President can do right now. And again, it`s a temporary relief. It`s an permanent -- SHARPTON: Jimmy, aside from the legalities, which it is temporary, politically, I mean, the republicans really want to act as though this judge is a hero and this temporary stop is something that will help them politically? WILLIAMS: Well, Senator Cruz who is actually an immigrant, he was born in Canada, and so when he left another nation and moved to the United States as an immigrant and became a U.S. citizen because of his parents, what happened there basically is, he is now a naturalized person, right? He`s now an American. That`s a fascinating thing because that is not what President Obama`s executive order actually did. All it did was say, you cannot separate an American-born child from their parent who was not born in a foreign country. SHARPTON: Right. That`s all it did. WILLIAMS: It`s really that simple. So that`s the legality of it. You asked me about the optics, the politics. The politics are actually simpler. If the Republican Party is going to put Ted Cruz, not McCarthy, up as the spokesman for immigration reform, they are making a massive mistake. By 2040, there will be over 100 million more Latinos in the United States by birth not by immigration. I assumed that Ted Cruz, he will be a pretty old man by that point and when that`s the case, he will be like, oh, I know, the majority of country. That`s not the way for the republicans to expand their base. They`re making a huge mistake. SHARPTON: Stephanie, your read on this, Stephanie? MILLER: Well, let me just say Ted Cruz gives me a giant headache in my eye. SHARPTON: In your eye? MILLER: And I think other republican colleagues share my thoughts on that. You know, you guys are all right. As the President said, he`s on the right side of history with this. Most legal experts say he`s well within his authority and I think that`s the way it`s going to play out and I think, you know, everybody makes a good point about demographically, they are on the wrong side of this, on the wrong side of human compassion, of families. SHARPTON: All of it? MILLER: Yes. All of it. SHARPTON: Wait a minute. Let me move on because I want to cover a couple of things in the time we have. I want to move on to celebrities speaking out on the vaccination debate. It`s become a political hot potato for republicans, like Chris Christie and Rand Paul. But Hollywood star Kristen Bell is telling the world, if you`re not vaccinated, stay away from my family. Bell says she insists that anyone who wants to hold their baby must have the whooping cough vaccine saying, quote, "it`s very simple logic. I believe in trusting doctors, not know-it-alls." Stephanie, a big celebrity speaks out. Your take on this? MILLER: I got to say, I`m out here in Hollywood, Rev, it drives me insane. You can`t cure an infectious disease with kale or a rubeola. You need to get your child vaccinated. A jojoba oil is not going to do the trick. These are diseases that we have eradicated already. And there`s a 98 percent non-vaccination rate in some pre-schools in Santa Monica, it`s ridiculous. SHARPTON: Maria? KUMAR: Reverend, this is really a high-class problem. You have countries all over the world, third world countries that mother will walk miles to get their kids vaccinated and here we actually think that it`s a luxury of a choice when you`re actually try to infect. SHARPTON: Yes. KUMAR: I mean, high-five to Kristen Bell. This is exactly the conversation that we need to have and I mean, the leadership where we don`t have normally coming out of Washington, we`re not having that leadership. We`re having it out of Hollywood. SHARPTON: That`s an excellent point about others walking miles to get it. Everybody, stay with me. We`ll be right back with Jimmy Fallon changing late night one year after taking over "The Tonight Show." SHARPTON: Back with more "Conversation Nation," Stephanie, Jimmy and Maria are here. Finally tonight, "The Tonight Show" where Jimmy Fallon kicks off year number two tonight. Last night the show celebrated one year on the air and in that year Jimmy redefine the role of late night host. From bringing it back to New York City, to singing in sketch with world famous musicians to somehow getting a-list celebrities to do really goofy things on national TV. Jimmy, what do you think, Jimmy, about how Jimmy Fallon has reshaped the legendary show? WILLIAMS: Listen. He`s brought a young energy to it and it appeals across all demographics. My favorite was when he, I was in the audience when he had sting on and sting had to do cell phone rings with his songs. And it was brilliant. The audience was like transfixed by it. And listen, Jimmy Fallon is going to be around for a long time and we`re proud to have him obviously as an NBC family. But he brings something new to that show and I think it`s a wonderful, wonderful thing for again, every -- kids can watch that show. Older people can watch that show. That tells you everything you need to know about what he`s doing. SHARPTON: Stephanie, what do you think? You`re out there in Hollywood? MILLER: I am in Hollywood so I have to name drop, Steven Steal (ph) is a friend of mine. So, that clip that you showed when he played Neil Young and then you saw the real, you know, Crosby steals the Nash comes up behind him, it was hilarious. And of course when the President slow jammed with them on the old show, we have the coolest, funniest president ever. I`m sorry. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: Yes, Maria, 30 seconds. KUMAR: I think that`s absolutely right. When he does that, he bridges generation and demographics and he knows what funny is and that`s basically what is the root of his brilliance, is that he`s able to do that. SHARPTON: And he`s a genuinely nice guy. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) MILLER: He really is. SHARPTON: Stephanie, Jimmy and Maria, thank you for joining "Conversation Nation". WILLIAMS: Thanks. KUMAR: Thanks, Reverend. SHARPTON: When we come back, one of the toughest jobs in America was filled today. That`s next. SHARPTON: Finally tonight, finding the right person for one of the toughest jobs in America, protecting the President. President Obama is naming a 30-year veteran of the secret service, Joseph Clancy, as the new permanent head of the agency he has his work cut out for him. Last year a man hopped the White House fence and got all the way inside the executive mansion while carrying a three-and-a-half inch knife. And last month, this drone landed on the White House lawn renewing questions about the repeated failure of the Secret Service. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The agency has suffered a series of embarrassments in recent years, starting in 2009 when the Salahis, a reality show couple crashed President Obama`s first state dinner and as "The Washington Post" just reported, in 2011, it took four days for agents to discover a gunman`s bullets had hit the residence. A tipping point came in 2012 when several agents were fired after soliciting prostitutes on an official trip to Colombia. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, it`s up to Joseph Clancy to fix the secret service, he served on President Obama`s personal detail and has protected presidents of both parties. Americans need to know that their presidents are safe. And Mr. Clancy must now restore the public`s trust in the Secret Service. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021801cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 84 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 18, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 18, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes GUESTS: Juan Cole, Morris Davis, Nihad Awad, John Kiriakou, Jeannie McDaniel, Jane Robbins SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7583 words HIGHLIGHT: Jeb Bush lays out his plan to lead America. Is there any reason to think he wouldn`t be just like his brother? As the drums of war raged on the Right, the State Department has it exactly right. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I`m my own man. HAYES: Meet the new Bush, same as the old Bush. JEB BUSH: ISIS didn`t exist three or four years ago. HAYES: Jeb Bush lays out his plan to lead America. Is there any reason to think he wouldn`t be just like his brother? GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: You can`t get fooled again. HAYES: Then, as the drums of war raged on the right, why the State Department has it exactly right. MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: We cannot kill our way out of this war. HAYES: And why O`Reilly has it exactly wrong. BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: The holy war begins. HAYES: Plus, Republicans in Oklahoma declare war on history. And a preview of my exclusive interview with the former CIA agent who did two years in prison for talking to a reporter about torture. JAILED CIA AGENT: You lie, you cheat, you steal, you swindle, you trick people. Problem at the agency often times is that those guys don`t know when to turn it off. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Today at a time when Congress is about to debate yet another military authorization ostensibly against ISIS, that would include but not be limited to further war in Iraq, the brother of the man who brought us our last war in Iraq came before a podium to all but officially announce that he was running for president. Former Governor Jeb Bush declared, "I am my own man." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: I love my brother, I love my dad. I actually love my mother as well. Hope that`s OK. And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make. But I`m my own man and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The problem with the sentence "I am my own man" is that like I am not a crook, it has a way of refuting itself, which does not help by the fact that Governor Bush has announced his foreign policy advisors, a who`s who of people from both his brother and his father`s administrations, with some Reagan for a good measure. But as you see there, most of Jeb Bush`s advisors draw from his brother`s team. Including notables like Paul Wolfowitz and Michael Hayden, in other words, in large part, a throwback to those who helped bring about George W. Bush`s Iraq war. Even Jeb Bush himself was not immune to the pull of history when in a section of the speech where he meant to be talking about Iran, he said Iraq instead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: The problem is perhaps best demonstrated by this administration`s approach to Iraq. We`ve had 35 years of experience with Iran`s -- excuse me, Iran 35 years -- experience with Iran`s rulers. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Hate it when that happens. Bush spoke of ISIS as a force grossly underestimated by the current administration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: President Obama called is the junior varsity four days after they took Fallujah, and when they comprised a fighting force of more than 200,000 battle tested men. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: But 200,000 is itself a gross misrepresentation. As noted by "The Daily Beast", 200,000 is far greater, in fact, an order of magnitude greater than the U.S. intelligence community`s estimates. Last week, National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen pegged the fighting strength of ISIS at between 20,000 and 31,500. After the speech, a Bush aide told "The Daily Beast" the governor had misspoken. But it is a bizarre turn of history that the consequences of our last war in Iraq have produced a new group of jihadists whose perceived threat is so large the country could conceivably end up scared enough into electing the brother of the man who brought us our first war with Iraq. Joining me now is Juan Cole, professor at Michigan -- University of Michigan and author of "Engaging the Muslim World." Professor Cole, your reaction to Jeb Bush`s speech today? JUAN COLE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Well, it just seemed not ready for prime time. He didn`t have his figures right. His history was all wrong. He said that ISIL didn`t exist a few years ago. I mean, it has -- it goes back to Abu Musab Zarqawi and the al Qaeda in Mesopotamia of the early zeros and has been styled the Islamic State of Iraq since at least 2006. So, it doesn`t seem to me that he really as yet has a firm grasp of the details of this foreign policy. HAYES: I was struck also by him talking about several consequences of the Iraq war without talking about the Iraq war as what produced them. For instance, he talks about Iran`s control over Baghdad, their influence in Baghdad. He talks about ISIS and the threat it provokes. And you end up asking yourself, well, how did all that come about? COLE: Yes. You know, in 2005, the Saudi foreign minister came to New York and gave a wounded and puzzled speech. He said, why did the Bush administration deliver Iraq into the hands of Iran? He said, we fought the Iran-Iraq war for eight years to stop this kind of thing from happening and now they`ve just undone all of that. And while, you know, he has a particular point of view, there`s something to what he said and it is puzzling as to why the Bush administration did set things up so that Iran gained the lion`s share of influence in Iraq. HAYES: He did acknowledge mistakes in Iraq. But he also had to say in defending his brother`s record there. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: My brother`s administration through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that any president`s done, because there was no support for this. And it was hugely successfully and it created a stability that when the new president came in he could have built onto create fragile but more stable situation that would have not allowed for the void to be filled. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Do you buy that? COLE: No, of course not. Well, you know, the idea that by putting 30,000 extra troops into Iraq and doing some counterinsurgency, Bush turned the entire situation around, you know, that`s a myth. And one of the reasons that violence subsided in late 2007 into 2008 was that under the nose of the surge soldiers, the U.S. actually disarmed the Sunni Arabs first and that allowed the Shiite groups to go into these neighbors and ethnically cleanse the Sunnis. They were chased out of Baghdad probably in the hundreds of thousands. It is that dislocation and the advent of a Shiite-dominated Baghdad that turned into the ISIL counter- reaction. So, no, no, you can`t rewrite history that way. HAYES: Juan Cole, thank you very much. With regard to the current U.S. campaign against ISIS, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf recently said something that would seem to be -- well, obviously true. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HARF: We`re killing a lot of them and we`re going to keep killing them. So were the Egyptians, so were the Jordanians, they`re in the fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the longer term, medium and longer term, to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Harf went onto discuss those root causes in greater detail. In fact, when the right first started Harf for those very comments, Harf pointed to similar statements by then-President George W. Bush. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH: We know this war will not be won by force of arms alone. We must defeat the terrorist on the battle field and we must also defeat them in the battle of ideas. We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And yet here`s just a sampling of the fire storm Harf`s comment created over at FOX News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Stimulus, shovel-ready jobs program for terrorists, that will stop it. Maybe we should give people free housing, terrorist housing, and maybe we should get them Ferraris and Obamacare. I`ve seen a lot of terrorists on TV that need dental work. LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: Sean, Marie Harf is exhibit A for the comprehensive failure of the U.S. educational system. Hey, Marie, war is about killing. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can`t say, hey, you know, if all these guys had perfect nuclear families, if everything was going great and if they had a $75,000 a year job that would help or hurt. If you don`t get the leadership and movement, it is totally without regard to your place in society and how much money is in your account. MARC THIESSEN: George W. Bush could say similar thing, but he was going out there and actually leading the surge to defeat ISIS. (END VIDEO CLIPS) HAYES: But here`s what the last 14 years have looked like, just so we`re clear on what the actual record is here. After 9/11, we declared war on Afghanistan and then Iraq. U.S. military deaths totaled more than 4,400 people. The Iraq war cost more than $815 billion, according to Congressional Research Service. U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan totaled more than 2,200 people. And operations in Afghanistan and other counterterror operations have cost an additional $686 billion, again, according to Congressional Research Service. Deaths on the Iraq and Afghanistan side are much harder to calculate for various reasons, but when civilian deaths are included, number in the hundreds of thousands for Iraq and near 15,000 at least for Afghanistan. And, of course, we haven`t stopped there. Including but not limited to U.S. drone strikes, United States has been involved in Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. The New American Foundation compiling data on killing covering the Obama and Bush administrations. They estimate that more than 800 people have been killed in U.S. air and drone strikes in Yemen and more than 2,000 have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan. So, it seems like we`ve been doing an awful lot of killing our way out of this situation for an awfully long time. What does the world look like? Having spent 14 years spending money, risking our troops lives and killing lots of people, here`s what it looks like -- Afghanistan is a corrupt quasi-narco state that many believe will once again fall to the Taliban sooner or later. It is only marginally better in Pakistan, where the Pakistani Taliban remained strong and semi-autonomous in the large swath of the country. Yemen, the site of our most intense targeted killings after Pakistan has now become essentially a failed state, one that also happens the strongest al Qaeda affiliate in the world. And Iraq -- well, Iraq is home to ISIS, which is now, we are told, the most monstrous terrorist threat since al Qaeda, or before that, the Taliban. And ISIS, of course, is now branching out, popping up in new places and has terrorized Libya with ghastly recent beheadings there. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. So, at what point do we say that the U.S. has been doing for 14 years without cessation is not working? Joining me, Colonel Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor at Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay, now a professor at the Howard University of School of Law. And, Colonel, you were in the midst of it. I mean, you were in Guantanamo, you saw the way the sort of initial structure of the war in terror developed. And it`s amazing to me that after 14 years, the argument is, we didn`t do enough of it. Does that scam (ph) to you? COL. MORRIS DAVIS (RET), HOWARD UNIVERSITY: No, it is a sad chapter in our nation`s history that has gone on far too long. And again you have the crowd on FOX News that acts on feeling and the fact and this kind of thing plays well with -- appealing to feeling. But, you know, the facts are, you know, we wasted $5 million at Guantanamo. You may have seen today, we`ve only had seven trials, one today was David Hicks, the appellate court overturned his conviction. So, what the Bush administration did at Guantanamo is just an absolute failure. HAYES: Is there a path forward to reduce the level of instability or threat that does not involve further military involvement in the mission? DAVIS: Yes, I`m often a critic of Marie Harf, but I think her statement was entirely accurate. You know, we can`t bomb our way to success in what is going on in that part of the world. Certainly, I think some military action is necessary to contain ISIS, but we have to get to the root cause. I mean, these groups don`t just sprout up. There is a root that facilitates their development. And primarily, our allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and others that have been more than happy to facilitate these proxy wars. And this one has gotten out of control. So, we`ve got to get our leaders to not facilitate this proxy movement. We`ve got to contain ISIS. We`ve got to do as Marie said, and give people an alternative that looks better than putting on a suicide vest and blowing yourselves up. HAYES: It`s also remarkable to me how little soul-searching there seems to be in Washington or the Beltway about Libya. I mean, here was -- you know, an example of coordinated coalition NATO bombing, U.S. participation in that, essentially regime change, and here we are, it was hailed at the time as a victory. Here we are with the horrific images of ethnic cleansing, essentially by ISIS, of these poor Christian killings, and maybe the dropping of bombs was not as successful as we thought it was. DAVIS: Yes, there`s certainly been many. Particularly with the drone program, you have heard the argument made before, that, you know, for every bad guy we kill we make ten more. The people that were on the side lines that were not militants, you know, when you kill their brothers and sisters, and mothers and fathers, many of them decide to join up with the other side. So again, we`re not going to bomb our way to success into this venture. I mean, we`re talking about problems that date back many, many centuries ago. And we`re not going to solve that by killing our way out of it. So, again, I think Marie is right. This is a multi-facetted problem that will take a multi-facetted approach. It includes military and economic development -- and getting the powers in the region to stop playing these proxy groups that lead to groups like al Qaeda and ISIS. HAYES: Colonel Morris Davis, thank you very much. All right, Bill O`Reilly and the leader of ISIS agree on one thing. I`ll tell you what that is ahead. Plus, a preview of my interview with the only person who went to prison for the CIA torture. Stay tuned for that. HAYES: As this country goes to what feels like to me as a retrenchment into the white knuckle fear reminiscent of the early 2000s, a story of Massachusetts seems emblematic of our current political mood. University of Massachusetts Amherst announced today they are reversing their decision to ban prospective Iranian students from certain graduate programs, this comes after the university said earlier in the month they were not going to admit Iranian nationals because of U.S. sanctions, citing legislation passed in 2012, which states in part, quote, "The secretary of state will deny a visa to, and security of the homeland security shall exclude from the United States any alien who is a citizen of Iran the secretary of state determines to seek to entire the U.S. to participate in course work and an institutional higher education prepare the alien for a career in the energy sector of Iran or nuclear science or nuclear engineering or a related field in Iran." NBC News reports, quote, "Enforcement of that law has generally rested with the State Department, which issues visas, and the Department of Homeland Security, which investigates threats. Generally, universities have depended on those agencies to weed out potential students seen as risk." According to NBC News, UMass said it was having trouble complying with the sanctions so it was just going to stop letting Iranians in. There was widespread outcry from those opposed to the decision, including some students and professors at the university citing discrimination. One professor tweeting last week, quote, "UMass computer science will admit and welcome Iranian applicants to our program, signed, graduate admissions chair, me." In a statement today, University of Massachusetts said the policy reversal, quote, "follows consultation of the State Department and outside counsel." HAYES: The self proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Baghdadi, and FOX News host Bill O`Reilly, these two very different men are in agreement on one very crucial point, there is a holy war being waged in the Middle East. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: The holy war begins. That is the subject of this evening`s talking points. This is now so-called holy war between radical jihadists and everybody else, including peaceful Muslims. The holy war is here, and unfortunately it seems the president of the United States will be the last one to acknowledge it. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That will probably be after him, if he ever acknowledges it. For months, FOX News personalities have been attacking the president for not attributing the horrors committed by ISIS to, quote, "radical Islam", fixating on that phrase, and for not using the phrase "Islamic terrorism", as you see in this tweet from FOX host Eric Bolling. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) HANNITY: Why do you think he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge radical Islam? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even the United Arab Emirates called ISIS Islamic extremism, and ISIS itself calls it the Islamic State. They proudly proclaim this and Obama denies it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this point, it is beyond burlesque. It`s pathological. It`s clinical, their inability and unwillingness to accurately describe things. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have an administration that will not even admit there is a religious basis underlying what is going on. (END VIDEO CLIPS) HAYES: If the president`s refusal to cast the enemy as fundamentally Islamic got the folks at FOX mad, his obviously true statement that during the crusades, people did bad things in the name of Christianity, that made them positively apoplectic. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said ISIS is bad, but you know, Christians were just as bad a couple of centuries ago. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is making excuses it seems for ISIS behavior, essentially saying we started it. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Then the next step was anger at the president because in the statement, the White House referred to the 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians murdered by ISIS as Egyptian citizens, instead of explicitly calling them Christians, though he did do that today in his op-ed. Here`s FOX radio host Todd Starnes who regularly appears on the cable network. (BEGIN VIJDEO CLIP) TODD STARNES, FOX RADIO HOST: The president could not even summon the moral courage to speak the truth. They`re called Christians, sir, and their heads were savagely turned from their necks by monstrous Islamic jihadists. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And now, we have reached the next and final logical step, we are now according to one of the most influential figures on the American right, in a holy war, the holy war is here, it begins. And that sort of rhetoric is of course exactly what ISIS wants, for if it is a holy war, they were not some murderous cult or some fringe Sunni militia -- no, if it is a holy war, they`re the representatives of Islam, which is why the president at today`s summit on countering violent extremism was careful not to cast the fight in those terms. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They`re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: But ISIS has had success in framing the fight on their terms not just on FOX News, but also to some extent on the battlefield. Western volunteers are now joining a Christian militia in Iraq fighting ISIS, including a 20-year-old veteran, U.S. army fatigues, who sports a tattoo of Jesus and a crown of thorns. Another American veteran Jordan Matz (ph) of Wisconsin who fights the Kurdish militia against ISIS, reportedly wears a vest emblazoned with the words, Christ is lord. Can you imagine anything ISIS wants more than a Christian identified army lining up from Christendom against them? It only feeds their claim that they represent Islam in a holy war against he rest, a narrative that recruitment and radicalization and gives oxygen to the very fire we are trying to snuff out. Joining me now, Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Mr. Awad, does that make sense to you? NIHAD AWAD, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS: No, it does not. And thanks for having me, first. Holy war is a Christian concept. It does not apply to Islam. Holy war has been used in the 18th century, and I think Orientalists and those who do not know Islam very well, they lack access to Islamic terminology and they borrow from the Christian terminology to apply it to Islam. There is no such thing as holy war in Islam, because if you translate it back to the Arabic language through which the Koran was revealed, it says (SPEAKIGN FOREIGN LANGUAGE) and I`ve never seen this in the Koran, which Muslims consider the revealed text from god. HAYES: Right. AWAD: Or the tradition of the prophet. So holy war is just a Christian or Muslim label that is being imposed on what some Muslims do. HAYES: Right, but let`s just be clear here. The idea of fighting a war in the name of God, whether that is Allah, or Yahweh, or Jesus, that has been something that Muslims have done. That in different points, Jews have done, and Christians have done, throughout history. I mean, whether it is called holy war, clearly ISIS thinks they are fighting a holy war. AWAD: Again, ISIS claims that they`re fighting jihad, or the legitimate concept within Islam. And it is very dangerous. If we allow journalists and some media outlets or commentators or some politicians to give legitimacy that ISIS is seeking from all of us, if we call them jihadists or what they do is jihad, because jihad in Islam is a legitimate concept in Islam, which is self-defense, it`s like, you know, if a foreign army invades the U.S., we all defend our army and have a standing army. However, what ISIS is doing is a violation of Islamic norms, Islamic theology and Islamic rules of engagement. And that is called criminal and it is called terrorism. So if we say that terrorism that ISIS is doing is jihad, or they are jihadists, then we work for ISIS, and that is really shooting ourselves in the foot. HAYES: I understand that, we had Graeme Wood I believe last night talking about the piece he wrote for "The Atlantic" about what ISIS wants, that sort of talks about their own kind of theological conception, a religious group with carefully considered beliefs. He calls it at one point. I mean, this to me seems an important point here, which is not to say that ISIS represents anything like a mainstream variation of Islam, but it also seems to me strange to I mean, people the faith is sort of constituted by what people say they`re doing, right? I mean, ISIS does claim they`re waging jihad. I don`t feel like I`m in a position to say what they`re doing or not. What they`re going is ghastly. AWAD: You know, they`re the popular saying, right, saying so doesn`t make it so. So, if ISIS claims to be jihadists and we know that they are criminals and terrorists, then we shouldn`t give them the legitimacy, it is like the Westboro Baptist Church, they think they have the only view and interpretation of Christianity. Well, most Christians would disagree with them. The same way we disagree with ISIS. And therefore, we should not call them Islamic, because they`re not Islamic. And the problem I have with the piece of Mr. Wood in "The Atlantic", he said ISIS is very Islamic. I believe that is giving them legitimacy and doing the recruitment for ISIS which they don`t deserve. HAYES: Nihad Awad, thank you very much. AWAD: Thank you. HAYES: All right, gridlock on the West Coast. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the 40 years I`ve been doing this, it is the most unusual and devastating problem we have had with export shipping. REPORTER: This is peak period, yet Lobo`s (ph) citrus packing house is sending about half as much fruit as normal overseas. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: What modern day labor union power looks like, next. Plus, Oklahoma wants to ban advanced placement U.S. history. You won`t believe what they want to replace it with, ahead. That story is ahead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just want to show you this. This ship right here left China last month. It has been sitting here since February 9, it cannot even get into the port. The one back there behind it left China also last month. It has been sitting there since February 12. Look at all the cargo sitting on their ship. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Dozens of cargo ships are in limbo off the west coast tonight. Food is rotting. Imports and exports are stuck in containers, and billions of dollars are at risk, because of a contract dispute between the dock worker`s union and the port operators. The negotiations had already jammed up 29 west coast ports for months with the union citing safety concerns and operators accusing the union of slow-down tactics. Then, this President`s Day weekend, all unloading and loading of ships came to a complete halt, workers were reportedly locked out, the port operators unwilling to pay overtime. Work resumed yesterday, but the backlog will take weeks to clear. And with the union still without a contract, they`ve been without one since the last contract expired in July, and apparently deadlocked with port operators, there are very real fears of a total shutdown at the ports, which, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, can end up costing the U.S. economy about $2 billion a day. And that`s because thousands of American businesses move products through those west coast ports. On any given day just in Los Angeles and Long Beach, up to a dozen ships handle more than $1 billion worth of goods. And trucks haul off 40 percent of the nation`s incoming container cargo each year. The rise of globalization helped make the west coast ports incredibly important. They are now the choke points for U.S. trade with Asia, which makes the union that works at those ports, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, one of the last great bastions of organized labor power. And Even though the union is relatively small, about 20,000 people, it wields tremendous power, power it has leveraged to create good wages and benefits for its members and to improve safety conditions in the very complex and dangerous place in which its workers work. That`s enough power to bring the secretary to labor himself to California this week on behalf of the president to meet with the union and the port operators and to stress that it is imperative the parties come to an immediate agreement. Because you see, all labor power ultimately flows from workers` ability to strike, to withhold their labor, to bring the means of production to a halt. And the dock workers in L.A. are a stark reminder of what that looks like. And in an America where powerful unions are indeed an endangered species, what we`ve lost. HAYES: This morning, I had a chance to interview John Kiriakou. He`s a former CIA officer who is to date the only official who served time in connection with the agency`s torture program. He just got out of prison 23 months into a 30 month sentence after pleading guilty to giving the name of a covert officer to a reporter, making him the first former CIA officer ever to be convicted for leaking to the press. When he was at the CIA, Kriacu was part of the team in Pakistan that captured Abu Zubaydah, then believed to be a high-ranking member of al Qaeda, a man who has the dubious distinction of being the first person tortured by the CIA. Kiriakou wasn`t present when it happened. But in a 2007 interview with ABC, two years after he left the agency, he became the first CIA official to publicly confirm that Zubaydah had been waterboarded during interrogations. When I talked to Kiriakou, he told me what happened after he went public, how he ended up in prison and his reaction to the senate torture report. We`re going to bring those to you and other parts of our wide-ranging interview over the next two nights, but first tonight, Kiriakou`s behind the scenes perspective on the culture of the CIA starting with the agency`s reaction to the attacks on September 11, 2001. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JOHN KIRIAKOU, FRM. CIA OFFICER: 9/11 really resulted in a terrible collective guilt. You know, I remember policymakers at the time saying we shouldn`t be pointing fingers, the Democrats shouldn`t blame the Republicans and the Republicans shouldn`t blame the Democrats. Well, the truth is this was a massive intelligence failure. the next two nights. And so, we inside the CIA felt that it was -- it was our fault. You know, we should have been able to find these guys overseas, we should have been able to disrupt the attack, at the very least we should have worked with the FBI, which we famously didn`t. So there was this feeling of collective guilt. HAYES: How palpable was that? I mean, if I`m walking around Langley a week after 9/11, two weeks after 9/11, I mean, is it... KIRIAKOU: Most people who were there in the building on 9/11 didn`t leave for the first couple of weeks. I slept under my desk for three days before somebody told me you really need to go home and take a shower. We even -- on the moving into the night of 9/11, you know, toward September 12, we actually got bolt cutters and cut the lock off of the cafeteria door and stole all the food. It was a Marriott contract. Stole all the food and cooked it ourselves and just placed it on these big tables in the hall so people could eat and not stop working and that went on for days. We ended up having to write a check for something like $15,000 to the Marriott for stealing all their food. But most people didn`t leave, or if they left, it was only to take a shower and change clothes and come back, because we felt like we had to make up for this terrible mistake that we had made and show that we could make some kind of progress against al Qaeda. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: I had to Kiriakou, given his past as an undercover agent for the CIA, if he is a reliable narrator of history. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Before we go further, I`ve got to ask you this, I`ve had some experience talking to spooks in my reporting career. And two things have struck me. One is, a lot of them seem a little crazy, and the other thing is you guys are trained paid liars. KIRIAKOU: Yes. HAYES: So, it`s like why should I believe anything you`re saying to me now? You literally professionally lied for decades. KIRIAKOU: Yeah, you`re trained to lie. You lie all the time. You lie, you cheat, you steal, you swindle, you trick people, that`s the nature of the job. Yes. The problem at the agency oftentimes is that those guys don`t know when to turn it off... HAYES: do you know when to turn it off? KIRIAKOU: I hope that I do. I think that I do. But one of the side effects of that kind of a culture is that the agency has what is probably the highest divorce rate in all of the federal government. And it`s because you have officers who lie all day long and then go home and lie to their wives about their girlfriends or about what they`re doing and things fall apart. One senior officer who had retired and then come back as a trainer told me one time, you can lie all day, but never lie to your boss and never lie to your wife. And getting back to your original point about people being kooky, a CIA psychiatrist once told me that when the CIA is looking to hire people, they`re looking for people with what he called sociopathic tendencies, not sociopaths, but people with sociopathic tendencies, that is people who are comfortable working in moral gray areas and who are comfortable lying and doing it with a smile. With that said, oftentimes, sociopaths will slip through the cracks because sociopaths can very easily pass a polygraph exam. They have no conscience after all. And so sometimes you get people who really probably shouldn`t be working there. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Kiriakou also had some very interesting things to say about how the agency manages its relationship with the executive branch, including with President Obama. We should note, he was no longer at the CIA when President Obama took office. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) KIRIAKOU: Historically, Democrats have entered the presidency, viewed as unfriendly to the CIA -- toward the CIA or as just not really caring one way or the other. And the CIA as an organization, as a culture, has sought to bring those presidents into the fold. And we sought it with Bill Clinton when I was there and we saw it in spades with Barack Obama. Obama was seen as a potential enemy. And virtually as soon as he took the oath of office, the agency brought him in, taught him the secrets, showed them what they could do and he became their biggest cheerleader. HAYES: I mean, you say recruiting, it`s so funny, it`s like the way you would recruit a spy. KIRIAKOU: Sure. Sure. You know, the traditional way that you recruit a spy is to spot him, assess his vulnerabilities, develop him in terms of a relationship and then make the recruitment. So, what you do with a president is you convince the president that not only are you his best friend in government, but you`re going to help make his presidency and make his legacy and it`s going to benefit him to have a close relationship with the CIA starting with his morning intelligence briefing, and going all the way through whatever covert programs happen to pop up. HAYES: I mean, talk about an advantage over everyone else in government. You get the president every morning. KIRIAKOU: Every single morning you have a private meeting with the president. Most members of the cabinet can`t say that. (END VIDOETAPE) HAYES: We asked the CIA for a response. They declined to comment. We`ll bring you more of my interview with John Kiriakou tomorrow might. It is must see TV. Don`t miss it. HAYES: I appeared on Last Call with Carson Daly this week where I said something to me that is all but self-evident. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The single most important thing we face globally is the fact that we are heating the planet to a level that has never before been tried while also trying to have human civilization. That`s a real big experiment to run with human beings live in real-time. It is the kind of challenge that a hundred years from now, people will look back and be like how did they talk about anything else ever? Like, didn`t they understand they were sitting tied to train tracks with a train coming. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Now, as a somewhat hilarious testament to the yawning gap of polarization in American politics today, a number of the people on the right picked up that clip and pointed to it almost without comment as self- evidently ridiculous. It even turned up on the Drudge Report. And any time you get a Drudge link like that, you can expect a barrage of just lovely people contacting you with very strongly held views. Sadly, our own friend Chris Hayes, local reporter for the Fox affiliate in St. Louis, who I met in person when we were in St. Louis last summer, and who has the unfortunate Twitter handle @ChrisHayesTV, was on the receiving end of a lot of those communications which were meant for me. Polite as ever, he tweeted back at some of these detractors, quote, "you might find people who will agree with you, but I`m the Fox 2 St. Louis Hayes." And later, quote, "this might be a record today on the number of times I`ve been mistakenly called a hygiene product." Turns out there are some people on the internet whose strong beliefs aren`t matched by equally strong Googling skills. Luckily you do not even need to Google to find my segment from Carson Daly`s show, because it is on our Facebook page Facebook.com/allinwithchris. And while you`re there, go ahead and like us. HAYES: The state of Oklahoma took a step toward banning AP U.S. history this week. By a vote of 11 to 4 along partisan lines, the state house`s education committee voted Monday to approve a ten-page bill authored by state representative Dan Fisher who wants to put an end to advanced placement U.S. history courses in the state by cutting funding for them. In lieu of the AP, Fisher lists in his bill what he refers to as foundational and historical documents that should, quote, "form the base level of academic content for all U.S. history courses offered in schools in the state." Peruse the dozens of foundational documents listed and among them you`ll find the ten commandments, three speeches by Ronald Reagan, including his first inaugural address and George W. Bush`s speech to the nation on 9/11. Ever since the college board, the organization that developments the Advanced Placement course revised the framework for the U.S. AP history test, a change that took effect last year. Conservatives have been marching in lockstep in their outrage. Back in August, the Republican National Committee denounced the newly designed test as, quote, consistently negative view of American history. Then a few weeks ago, a Georgia state senator introduced legislation that calls for a return to the old test. Echoing the language in the RNC resolution, the Georgia legislation calls the new framework, quote, a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects. Which brings us back to Oklahoma State Rep Dan Fisher and some of the issues he has with the test. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ST. REP. DAN FISHER, (R) OKLAHOMA: American free enterprise is a positive force. It`s pretty much omitted and the oppression of the poor and the strong oppressing the weak is pretty much what it`s about. In essence, what we are having here is a new emphasis on what is bad about America. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A spokesperson for the college board views things different, telling All In in a statement tonight quote, "the redesigned AP U.S. history course framework includes many inspiring examples of American exceptionalism. Educations attest the new framework encourages a balanced, thoughtful and patriotic course that will qualify a student for college credits at Oklahoma`s colleges and universities." Fisher`s bill is now eligible to go to the full house floor for consideration where Republicans have a huge majority. They also have a majority in the senate the governor is a Republican. In other words, if Oklahoma lawmakers continue to vote along party lines on this bill on this bill to ban AP U.S. history, they could literally rewrite history for thousands and thousands of students. We`ll talk with people on both sides of the AP history culture war next. HAYES: Joining me now, Democratic Oklahoma State Representative Jeannie McDaniel and Jean Robins, a senior fellow with the American Principles Project. Representative McDaniel, my understanding is you voted against this bill as it came out of committee. What`s your objection to it? ST. REP. JEANNIE MCDANIEL, (R) OKLAHOMA: Well, I support the College Board and I support the AP classes. And so I was somewhat appalled that the vote came down the way it did. To think 11 people supported it caught me by surprise, many of them were principals and teachers themselves. And I was actually surprised that we had so many votes against. HAYES: Is there some sort of grass roots or widespread objection to the test from teachers and principals, the folks who are actually working in the classroom with this material to the new AP history test? MCDANIEL: No. This was actually a response from Representative Fisher. And we had two AP teachers who had sort of led the charge. But I think, Chris, behind the scenes it`s the bigger picture of what`s crossing the nation in some other states doing this piece of legislation to stop this particular AP history test. But in the state itself, we`ve had overwhelming support from the teachers, the staff, and today kids began tweeting and e-mailing their support for AP history asking us to please allow them to continue to take this. HAYES: Jane, you are associated with a group that has been leading the charge against this new test. I saw just Saturday, Oklahoma in the latest Education Week rankings, Oklahoma came in 48 among 50 states. Do you think this will help that if you take away U.S. AP history in Oklahoma? JANE ROBBINS, AMERICAN PRINCIPLES PROJECT: Well... MCDANIEL: No, absolutely not. HAYES: Sorry. Let Jane answer that. ROBBINS: So, I think it`s misleading to say that the bill, as I understand it, abolishes AP history. I think what Oklahoma is wanting to do, which is what some other states are wanting as well, is to look for an alternative. The College Board is an unelected, unaccountable group and they have essentially decided to transform the teaching of American history and in effect usurping state history standards, most of which are much better than this framework. So I think Oklahoma wants to look for some alternatives and there are alternatives that may be developed down the line. HAYES: Well, there`s alternatives in the bill, actually. There`s actually Fisher actually gets into what has to be included. My understanding, though, is there`s objections to things like for instance the use of the term white supremacy to describe the views of the founders. Is that correct? MCDANIELS: I think what you`re finding here is they`re objecting to the AP class itself, the way that -- the syllabus and what`s in the course. This is a critical thinking course, it`s not teaching U.S. history. By the time kids get to take this course, they`re preparing for college. It`s college preparatory. It`s actually a college-level course. So this is a critical thinking course using the benchmarks they`ve already learned about history throughout their 12 years in school, or 11 years in school. So, this isn`t to learn about how history occurred, this is to learn - - it teaches kids to think about what they think brought these events about. The other thing I might add here is the College Board has been existence since 1900. They have a known reputation for developing these courses. What we would do if we went back and developed these by Oklahoma standards, which remove from the kids in our state the opportunity to take the tests that other kids they may see in college in other states have taken that class and gotten credit for. HAYES: Jane, this is more than a process complaint with the existence of the College Board and the way they go about this, this is actually grew out of a substantive complaint of what the actual principles in American history, or principle moments, or approach to the body of facts is. ROBBINS: Yes. MCDANIEL: Absolutely. HAYES: Sorry, Jane, please. ROBBINS: This would not have become an issue if the College Board had kept the AP course the way it has been for the last several decades, which is a small five page topical outline in which the teachers put in the content based on their state standards. What has happened now is that the AP -- the College Board`s AP course has been radically revised so that now the essential content will be written out in the framework. And that is what the teachers are supposed to teach through the lenses, the very leftist lenses, the concepts and themes of this outline. So that`s the problem. HAYES: Is it a leftist lens to say that the founders believed in white supremacy? Is that a leftist lens? ROBBINS: I would say that the way the framework phrases that is definitely a leftist lens. And I encourage people to go read the framework. It`s online. HAYES: That`s a matter of fact, right. I mean, most of the founders believed in white supremacy. ROBBINS: Well, what the framework suggests is that the country was essentially founded on white supremacy and that that was the theme that began and then was followed through for hundreds of years in the country. That is what we object to because the country was founded on so much more than that. There were problems in the country, and no one has ever suggested sanitizing American history so that we don`t talk about the problems, but we think that the country was founded on a set of principles that was really revolutionary, radically revolutionary in the history of humanity. HAYES: Was the Ten Commandments part of that? ROBBINS: And that is what the framework doesn`t go into. HAYES: Do you think the Ten Commandments were part of what it was founded on? ROBBINS: Well, the Ten Commandments I -- the framework doesn`t discuss the Ten Commandments, and that`s up to state standards whether... HAYES: No, but Dan Fisher wants the Ten Commandments included. ROBBINS: Well, the problem is -- this brings us back to the problem. The College Board wants to dictate what... HAYES: All right, sorry, we`re -- State Representative Jeannie McDaniel and Jane Robbins, thank you both for joining us tonight. Sorry, we ran out of time. All right, that is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now. Good evening, Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021801cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 85 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 18, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 18, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Tom Colicchio GUESTS: Linda Sarsour SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7431 words HIGHLIGHT: Republican Party television has declared that what the country got right now is a holy war. President Obama is using social media and the Internet to reach out to more people. CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: That is all for this evening. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. That was fascinating. HAYES: It was something. MADDOW: Yes, well done, man. Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. OK. This is a Japanese cat. Hello. He`s a male cat. The variety of cat that he is I`m told is that he is a Scottish fold cat. I don`t know what that means. But he belongs to somebody in Japan, not in Scotland. His name is Maru, M-A-R-U. And Maru is the biggest freaking thing in the world on the internet. Maru videos on YouTube have been viewed more than 200 million times. Maru the Cat is not famous anywhere else in the world. He does not make talk show appearances or appear in movies or anything -- at least as far as I know. He`s just online. But he is freaking huge online. Maru. He is the star of the show. Also huge online if nowhere else is the Prancercise Lady. I thought this was an old thing. It`s been around forever and people rediscovered it. No. Prancercise, this video has only been up online since 2013, but it has been viewed more than 11 million times. Prancercise. Prancercise is big online. It is possible to be totally unknown in the wider world. It is possible to be a totally obscure figure elsewhere in life while also being a very big deal online. And one of those people who you might not recognize from anywhere else in the world who is capital F famous online is the lady who says Monster Energy Drinks are a ploy of Satan. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at your M closely. There`s a gap right here in the letter M. It`s never connected. So, you go into Hebrew. The letter Vav is also the number 6. Short top, long tail. Short top, long tail. You could have here in Hebrew 666 on the can. But my interest is the word "Monster". What do you see in the O? There`s a cross. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What has Christ got to do with an energy drink, let alone the name Monster? So I thought, well, maybe this is a Christian company then. BFC at the bottom of the can, do you know what that stands for? That`s the F word. Why would they have a cross on the can? Here`s the message: Antichrist, 666 in Hebrew and then the bible talks about the beast in Revelations. And look at Monster`s ad. You cannot deny that that is a cross and what is witchcraft, when the cross goes upside down. Bottoms up. And the devil laughs. Something to think about. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is how clever Satan is and how he gets into the Christian home and a Christian`s life and it breaks god`s heart. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: OK. So the lady who claims -- no, doesn`t claim, explains that Monster Energy Drinks are the work for a very clever Satan breaking God`s heart by making you go bottoms up with the cross and the O and the secret -- all rest of it. She is very famous online for that, for that video. That video has been viewed online more than 8 million times. It`s popular enough that she even has kind of a nickname. She`s just known as the shorthand online as the Satanic Monster Energy Drink lady. But Satanic Monster Energy Drink lady got famous not just online but in real life last month on the steps of the Texas state capitol. Since 2003, every couple of years, Muslim groups in Texas host something called Texas Muslim Capitol Day, where hundreds of people from various Muslim communities across Texas, mostly kids and teenagers honestly, they come to the state capitol for a big civics day and they meet their state legislators and they learn about the workings of state government. They basically promote civic engagement in their community. It`s kind of a visibility thing and also a meet your government thing. Well, this year on Texas Muslim Capitol Day, as that group stood on the capitol steps and held a press conference about their events and they had a prayer and they sang the national anthem, as that was happening this year these nice folks were standing right across from screaming at them. You can see their signs. "Go home and take Obama with you." "I`m the infidel Allah warned you about." This is one particularly nice. "I serve a risen Savior, Jesus Christ. Muhammad is dead." That was nice. So, those are the protesters across the street from the group of mostly Muslim school kids. And then in the middle of the Texas Muslims, again most of them school kids, while they`re singing the national anthem, at the middle of that event, all of a sudden, none other than the satanic Monster Energy Drink lady burst out of the anti-Muslim protester crowd and grabbed the microphone at the event. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I stand against Islam and the false Prophet Muhammad. Islam will never dominate the United States and by the grace of God, it will not dominate Texas! (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: After she did that, the satanic Monster Energy Drink lady rejoined the protestors across the street. According to a reporter who was there from the "Houston Chronicle", he said she then led them in a chant of "Muhammad is dead. Muhammad is dead." So, that`s how Texas Muslim Capitol Day went this year -- thanks to these nice folks. It wasn`t just the satanic Monster Energy Drink lady and the other random people on the street screaming at Muslims that way, though. They also had some company inside the Texas state legislature. One freshman Republican state representative, a woman named Molly White, posted this on her Facebook page that day. "Today is Texas Muslim Capitol Day in Austin." I should mention she misspelled capitol. She says, "Most members including myself are back in district. I did, though, leave an Israeli flag on the reception desk in my office with instructions to staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws. We`ll see how long they stay in my office." So, welcome to the state capitol, Texas Muslim school kids here to learn about civics. In Texas, where hundreds of thousands of Muslims live, eighth largest Muslim population in the country. Welcome to your state capitol. This is your state government working for you. That same state representative had previously written on her Facebook page, quote, "Muslims cannot be trusted, no matter how peaceful they appear." So, it`s the Satanic Monster Energy Drink lady and her fellow street protestors. It`s also inside the building a Republican state rep, who`s an elected member of the legislature. It`s also the newly elected lieutenant governor of the state of Texas who was a Republican state senator before he got elected lieutenant governor this past November. His name is Dan Patrick. When Dan Patrick was a Texas state senator, he made a habit of getting up and walking out of the Senate chamber whenever the prayer to open up a legislative session happened to be led by a Muslim that day. So, that`s Texas, which again is home to more than 400,000 American Muslims. Obviously, though, this is not a Texas only thing. In certain parts of the American right, this is sort of the ambient temperature right now. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRYAN FISCHER, AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION: Permits in my judgment should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America. Not one. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Bryan Fischer from the American Family Association. That was him speaking in 2010. And I think it`s relevant that that`s him speaking there in 2010 because circa 2010, we used to think of the American family association and their staff members and radio hosts saying things like mosques should not be allowed to be built in the United States of America, we used to think of that group and guys like that as a fringe, out there organization. But even though that`s who they are, just a couple weeks ago, the National Republican Party, the RNC, invited all of its members to go on an all expenses paid trip to Israel hosted by the American Family Association. In the ensuing publicity the RNC tried to distance itself specifically from that guy, from Bryan Fischer at the American Family Association. But the trip was led by another American Family Association guy who`s named David Lane. That`s who actually took members of the RNC to Israel at the invitation of the Republican National Committee. This is David Lane. This is a column of his berating the Pentagon for apologizing for the burning of Korans. The headline on his column, "Pentagon apologizes to the false god of Islam." That is who the Republican Party National chairman, Reince Priebus, invited all the members of the Republican National Committee to go on an all expenses paid trip with just a couple of weeks ago. Until the publicity around that trip got to him a little bit, I think. Reince Priebus himself was reported to be planning to go on that trip with the false god of Islam guy. But apparently, Reince Priebus in the end didn`t go. At least we think he didn`t go. They still won`t answer our questions about him. But that`s the tenor of really radical anti-Muslim stuff in American conservative politics right now. And you know, you think of it as the fringe stuff. Right? You think of it as the screaming stuff in the street. That would just be the province of the satanic Monster Energy Drink lady, right? Turns out it`s off the hilarious YouTube pages that get 8 million gape-mouthed views. It`s not just on YouTube. It`s not just unhinged street protests. It`s inside state government, very comfortably, it appears, in places like Texas. And thanks to the current Republican Party and the Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus, this stuff has been brought right into the heart of the mainstream of American major party politics by the Republican Party chairman, partnering with this group -- inviting all of the members of the RNC to go on this trip with this group that maintained in the past that it should be illegal to build a mosque in America henceforth. This group that maintains Muslims actually have no freedom of religion in America. That any Muslim wanting to immigrate to the United States should be forcibly converted to Christianity if they want to be allowed to immigrate in this country because you should not be allowed to practice your religion as a Muslim in America. That`s what this group has advocated for. Basically, they advocate that if you are a Muslim, you are not welcome in this country, America`s not for you, Republican Party partnering with that group. Today at the White House it was day two of a three-day summit on the subject of countering violent extremism. As part of the summit effort, President Obama published an op-ed in the "L.A. Times" today which starts with a long, long, long litany of murders and terrorist attacks committed by what he calls in the op-ed groups that promote a twisted interpretation of religion that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the world`s Muslims. He starts the op-ed with this big long list including the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and the Fort Hood massacre and Boston marathon bombing and ISIS killing hostages including Americans in Syria and Iraq and ISIS murdering Egyptian Christians and Libya, ISIS and al Qaeda-inspired attacks in Ottawa and Canada and Sydney, Australia and Paris and most recently in Copenhagen, the Pakistani-Taliban massacre of school kids, al Shabaab`s attacks in Somalia, Boko Haram killing and kidnapping people in Nigeria and now in neighboring countries. So, he starts with this long, long litany of essentially the threat. In remarks tonight at the White House at the summit, the president reiterated more of that list. And he said in his remarks tonight bluntly, there will be a military component to this. There are savage cruelties going on out there that have to be stopped. There will be an element of us just stopping them in their tracks with force. But then the president went on to say this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There`s been a fair amount of debate in the press and among pundits about the words we use to describe and frame this challenge. So, I want to be very clear about how I see it. Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam. That`s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the Islamic State. And they propagate the notion that America and the West generally is at war with Islam. That`s how they recruit. That`s how they try to radicalize young people. We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They`re terrorists. (APPLAUSE) And we are not at war with Islam. (APPLAUSE) We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. If extremists are peddling the notion that Western countries are hostile to Muslims, we need to show that we welcome people of all faiths. That`s the story extremists and terrorists don`t want the world to know -- Muslims succeeding and thriving in America -- because when that truth is known, it exposes their propaganda as the lie that it is. It`s also a story that every American must never forget, because it reminds us all that hatred and bigotry and prejudice have no place in our country. It`s not just counterproductive. It doesn`t just aid terrorists. It`s wrong. It`s contrary to who we are. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Obama speaking at the White House late today and that -- what he just explained, that used to be pretty standard American political rhetoric on this subject. Not everybody speaks the way everybody else speaks, but that argument used to be pretty core to the way that American leaders talked about the subject. It used to be what we expected to hear from any mainstream politician on this subject. President Obama when he made that case today honestly, forgive me, sounded more like President George W. Bush on the subject than anybody else that springs to mind. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: These acts and violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it`s important for my fellow Americans to understand that. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Americans understand we fight not a religion. Ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who have proudly called themselves Americans. And they know what I know, that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion, the exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The way that George W. Bush talked about Islam and American Muslims is the same argument that President Obama was articulating today. It`s the same way he has talked about it throughout his presidency. That used to be a consensus position basically for all mainstream American politics. But on the right, right now, the National Republican Party is partnering with an organization that rails against the false god of Islam and says Muslims shouldn`t be allowed to practice their faith in the United States, that we are a country just for Christians. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor who`s making a run for president for 2016 and is being taken seriously in some quarters, Bobby Jindal goes abroad and gives a speech about these hysterical conspiracy theories that Muslims have taken over huge swaths of Europe and Christians aren`t allowed in whole portions of Europe anymore. It`s nonsense, right? I mean, it was not that long ago that Republican president conservative hero George W. Bush was talking with some uncharacteristic eloquence about how we are not at war with Islam and how the Muslim faith is based on peace and love and compassion. But now, Republican Party television for one has declared that actually what we have got here is a holy war, a holy war, and actually that`s the way we should think of it -- a war between religions. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: Hi, I`m Bill O`Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. The holy war begins. That is the subject of this evening`s talking points memo. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Screw it. It is a holy war. That`s this week on Republican Party television, ISIS wants everybody to believe that there`s a holy war in the world and they are one side and the West is the other side. That`s what ISIS wants people to believe. That`s what al Qaeda wants people to believe too. And it used to be American consensus politics, at least American consensus mainstream politics to reject that narrative, to not let those terrorist groups define what`s going on here and define themselves as half of the fight in a clash between two equal civilizations, with them as the Muslim side and, you know, everybody else as the other side. There used to be a consensus in American politics that giving them that framing for what they`re doing which they seek so desperately was not only repeating their big lie, it was idiotic strategically, it was doing their work for them. I mean, if this really is defined as a fight between Muslims and the West, which is how they want to define it, you know, not only the terrorist group`s going to define it that way but Americans are going to define it that way. What kind of message is that to the whole Muslim world, to the billion Muslims in the world? If we`re saying that that is the fight, the two sides, Muslims on one side and everybody else on the other. How did the "we are not at war with Islam" consensus fall apart on the American right? And can it be rebuilt? And is it dangerous if it is falling apart? Joining us now is Linda Sarsour. She`s a national advocacy director at the National Network for Arab American Communities. Ms. Sarsour, thanks very much for being here. LINDA SARSOUR, NATIONAL NETWORK OF ARAB AMERICAN COMMUNITIES: Thank you for having me. MADDOW: Let me just ask big picture if you agree with the premise here, that at least in mainstream U.S. politics, there used to be a spoken consensus that there was no war between the United States or the West with Islam. And it was important to define that. I feel like there was that consensus and it is now slipping. Do you agree with that? SARSOUR: I think it`s always been in the mainstream in the rhetoric but it`s never been with the action that`s go along with the words. So, while George Bush was saying that within on one hand we were in an unjust war in Iraq where we killed 650,000 people, many of whom were Muslims. So, I think for people, they don`t just look at words. We want to see the actions and do they align with the words that we see. And as you said with the Republican Party, it`s kind of how you win -- how you as a Republican win elections. The more anti-Muslim you are, the more money you raise. And that`s kind of been the M.O. of the Republican Party for the past couple elections. MADDOW: Do you think operationally thinking about national security, thinking about terrorism, thinking about homegrown radicalism, and all those other sort of things -- do you think it is actually dangerous for people to buy into that framing and for people to repeat that framing, to say there is a holy war, to say it is -- that Islam is the enemy? Is it dangerous? SARSOUR: It`s very dangerous for all of us as Americans. Violent extremism equals Muslims in this country. It goes unsaid. So, while we`re changing the words we`re using, we`re still focusing on countering violent extremism programs on Muslims only. Glen Miller went into a Jewish center in Kansas City and shot three people. Michael Page is a white supremacist. He went into an Oak Creek Gurdwara thought they were Muslims and shot six people. These domestic extremism needs to be dealt with in all its forms, whether they`re Muslims or non-Muslims. And right now, we are obsessed and toeing the line of Peter King. He was having fine hearings in Congress about radicalization in the American Muslim community and he`s a Republican. And the Obama administration is doing counter extremism summit about Muslims. While we`re do-two different parties, two different sets of ideologies, but when it comes to Muslims, we`re kind of like becoming -- it`s kind of a gray area for me. I kind of ask myself oh, wait, no, no, Democrats, Republicans, like you just don`t know anymore. MADDOW: Do you feel like in the fight right now over how best to combat ISIS overseas, as that`s being debated in terms of -- one of the things that was interesting today is the president was talking about, yes, this is a military fight. But it`s also all these other different types of fights. It`s a way that America has to use our soft power abroad and we have to project our values abroad in a way that`s going to help defeat this beyond just what we`re doing militarily. Do you feel like that discussion is constructive or that that is also basically over reductive, it doesn`t take into account of how we`ve been acting? SARSOUR: I mean, if we want to uphold our values and we want to show the rest of the world how wonderful we are, we need to start here at home. While we`re talking about partnering with Muslim communities and you are a partner, you`re part of the fabric of our society, our government operates massive surveillance program, unwarranted surveillance in Muslim communities, chilling free speech, making people feel afraid. I mean, a lot of Muslims have come to the United States to get away from regimes where they feel like their freedom of speech is infringed on, where they -- some people don`t have freedom of religion. We come to the U.S. Twenty-two states with anti-Sharia bills trying to ban us from practicing our faith, Mosque oppositions. We`re fighting zoning boards across the country. Our kids are hearing this rhetoric. We have people, mosques being vandalized, kids being executed, Islamophobia. Leaders on national television saying that, you know, holy wars and these people want to take over America. I mean, it`s just -- it doesn`t for me reflect what we do stand for as a country. And these very -- the minority in our country who are the loudest voices are reflecting what we are. And that`s not what we are as a country. I`m an American and I`m a Muslim. Should I cut myself in half? What side am I on? I`m born in Brooklyn. I can`t take that away and no one can take that away from me. I can`t be deported anywhere. So, it`s just a really hard conversation to have with young people, especially young Muslims who don`t know what side they`re supposed to be on. I`m on the American side. I`m on the right side. I`m on the side of justice. That`s the only side I`m on. MADDOW: And you can`t split yourself in half to do that. And you shouldn`t have to. SARSOUR: No. MADDOW: And there is a big difference between talking about our values and living them. I think what`s happening domestically around issues of bigotry right now is spooky. It`s not like it hasn`t existed before but the way it`s bubbling up right now and being mainstreamed right now I am spooked by. Thank you for coming in to talk about it. I appreciate. SARSOUR: Thank you. Thanks for having me. MADDOW: Linda Sarsour is national advocacy director at the National Network for Arab American Communities. All right. There`s lots more ahead tonight, including the second oil fire explosion disaster this week, and it`s only Wednesday. Also, the latest from presidential hopeful Jeb Bush. He had a doozy of a day. And Tom Colicchio is here. It`s a big show. Stay with us. MADDOW: This is the scene right now in Prescott, Arizona where they have gathered for a memorial in honor of 26-year-old American aid worker Kayla Mueller. Kayla Mueller was held as an is hostage for almost a year and a half after being kidnapped in Syria. Her death while she was still being held by ISIS was confirmed by the White House last week. Local churches and community groups in her hometown of Prescott organized tonight`s event to honor her life and specifically her work as an international aid worker. They`re lighting up the town`s courthouse square with candles in her memory. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: We`re on 9:00 this morning in a suburb of L.A. called Torrance, California, people started noticing a weird powdery white substance was settling onto their cars. This photo shows a windshield just coated in gunk. Here`s another one. That`s the hood of the car that`s just covered in what looks like flour. What it actually is, is ash. And no, this was not a creepy elaborate Ash Wednesday stunt of some kind. This ash was from an ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance that went up in flames today. At about 9:00 this morning, there was an explosion inside that refinery that set off a three-alarm fire. The explosion took place inside a unit of that plant that refines oil into gasoline. Look at the crumpled thing there. Look at that. Refines oil into gasoline and other products. That specific unit did reportedly suffer some kind of mechanical issue on Monday this week which caused it to be temporarily shut down. There`s no indication yet as to whether that issue Monday eventually caused this fireball explosion and the ripping apart of the unit today. But that explosion and the fire caused injuries to four contractors who were working at the refinery. They were sent to a local hospital for treatment. It also forced everyone at 14 schools in the area to shelter in place for hours. People nearby, even people several miles away, told local reporters that their houses shook so hard they thought it was an earthquake, until they saw the fire and the smoke and the ash raining down from the sky. This was the aftermath of the explosion at the refinery itself. Look at that, just thick layer of ash covering everything. And the whole thing just mangled. Local officials say they`re continually testing the air quality in the area tonight. So far they say they`re not detecting any harmful emissions. So, again, that was Torrance, California today. Near L.A. that happened about 9:30 this morning. Meanwhile, across the country, West Virginia residents today are still dealing with the aftermath of this, a massive train derailment and crude oil explosion that happened 30 miles outside the state capital of Charleston on Monday. This was that CSX oil train hauling crude oil from North Dakota to a transportation hub in Virginia when for some still unknown reason that train derailed and then 20 of those tanker cars ignited. That fire began on Monday. It was still burning today, three days into this disaster. More than 100 people are still evacuated from their homes tonight. Tonight, finally at least the local water came back on. Water service had been shut off after that derailment today. They did get water restored today but residents are still being advised to boil their water before they use it. Given the size of this oil train disaster in West Virginia, given the size of the explosions and the fact that 20 of these cars exploded one after the other and it happened not out in the boonies but along a stretch of river that has small towns all up and down, it is something of a miracle that there were not more people hurt in this disaster. That said, there was one home that was burned in the blast, completely destroyed by the explosions. The local NBC affiliate in that part of West Virginia spoke to the man whose home that was. Get this. He was home at the time of the accident when that oil train blew up and took his house with it. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I made it about 10 feet. I heard the house caving in behind me. So I ran out of the house in my sock feet in the snow. The house was engulfed in flames. REPORTER: Morris`s daughter and grandchildren had been staying at his home for a couple weeks and had just left the day before the accident. His wife, Patricia, was in the hospital for open heart surgery. He says had they all been home, they`d have certainly been killed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wouldn`t have left any of them in there. I would not run out of that house without them and she couldn`t have made it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Morris made it out of the house as it was caving in behind him. He himself was later treated and released from a local hospital. He was treated for smoke inhalation. That derailment in West Virginia still under investigation tonight, as is the refinery explosion today in California. Just one more day of trouble. It`s only Wednesday this week. Watch this space. MADDOW: Did you hear about the one with the two guys in the Soviet Union and the American president? And the tiny little bit of swearing? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: Told me this story about the two fellas in the Soviet Union that were walking down the street. And one of them says, have we really achieved full communism? Is this it? Is this now full communism? The other one said oh, hell, no, things are going to get a lot worse. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Funny is a helpful thing in any line of work. It is particularly helpful if your line of work is politics. But that is being tested right now in some very, very brand new ways. And that`s ahead. Please stay with us. MADDOW: On June 16th, 1960 talk show host Jack Paar hosted a young senator from Massachusetts on his show, a man named John Kennedy. It went very, very well. It was in the lead up to the 1960 presidential election. That was basically the first time a presidential candidate had tried to leverage late night TV to boost his Q rating. By 1968, there was Nixon doing it too. Having learned his lesson from Kennedy in 1960. There was Nixon appearing on "Laugh-In" in 1968. There was Ronald Reagan in 1975 talking budget cuts with Johnny Carson, before announcing his candidacy against Gerald Ford in 1976. There was Bill Clinton running for president in 1992 playing the sax and wearing sunglasses on the Arsenio Hall show. There`s George W. Bush doing the top 10 list on David Letterman, when he was first running in the year 2000. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH: Number 7: make sure the White House library has lots of books with big print and pictures. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: It became a regular part of presidential campaigning. If you were seriously running, you had to show up on a late night show, show your human side, laugh at yourself, whatever. But then starting in 2009, new president Barack Obama became the first ever not just candidate but sitting president to be interviewed on a late night talk show. That is a practice he has continued throughout his presidency. He went on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno", and then on "David Letterman" and on "Jimmy Fallon." Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States. But now, nothing against the late shows -- I think the late shows are actually pretty great right now. But now high-end popular humanizing comedy opportunities for politicians, they are no longer defined by just the reach of network television. Now, if you`re trying to get past the press corps to an audience that isn`t trying to pay attention to politics, that is just trying to be entertained, now the presidential comedy opportunities are much further flung than the network shows. And so, when the first Obamacare signup deadlines were approaching, President Obama turned for help to the most popular interview show on the Internet machine. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ZACH GALIFIANAKIS, BETWEEN TWO FERNS: I have to know. What is it like to be the last black president? OBAMA: Seriously? What`s it like for this to be the last time you ever talk to a president? GALIFIANAKIS: It must kind of stink, though, you that can`t run three times. OBAMA: No. Actually, I think it`s a good idea. If I ran a third time, it would be sort of like doing a third "Hangover" movie. Didn`t work out very well, did it? GALIFIANAKIS: You said if you had a son, you would not let him play football. What makes you think that he would want to play football? What if he was a nerd like you? OBAMA: Do you think a woman like military would marry a nerd? Why don`t you ask her if she would marry a nerd? GALIFIANAKIS: Could I? OBAMA: No, I wouldn`t let her near you. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: More than 13 million people watched that interview in the first 24 hours it was posted. And yes, that was President Obama talking trash with a famous comedian. It also ended up being about how to sign up for health care. And the White House actually credits that "Between Two Ferns" comedy video with bumping up traffic on the Affordable Care Act Web site by 40 percent, that video alone. That`s the power of Zach Galifianakis, right? Since it worked so well the last time, this month, with another Obamacare signup deadline approaching, the White House decided to do the same kind of thing again. This time they decided to do it with Internet traffic monsters, BuzzFeed. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (MUSIC) OBAMA: Thanks, Obama. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s pretty good. OBAMA: That`s pretty good. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Seconds left in the game. Down by one. Brrr! He gets it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President? OBAMA: Can I live? (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That video has been watched nearly 50 million times on Facebook alone, 50 million. For a point of reference, that`s 18 million more viewers than the president had for his most recent State of the Union Address. And once again, the goal was to let those 50 million people know while they were watching this ridiculous funny video of the president, to let people know a substantive thing, that a deadline was coming up to sign up for health coverage. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The deadline for signing up for -- the deadline for signing up for health insurance is February -- Febru -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like any other Wednesday. OBAMA: That`s not right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wednesday. OBAMA: February -- man. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wednesday. OBAMA: February 15th. February 15th. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: And it was February 15th. And so, yes, there are people out there who believe these goofy videos are not presidential. We all have our own ideas of what presidential is. But the thing to know about these comedy video stunts, (AUDIO GAP) is that at a very functional level they work. They get more viewership and therefore more attention to whatever thing they`re trying get attention to than they could get by any other means including the state of the freaking union address several times over. And if you were trying to get your message or some awareness of some policy across to a younger audience, in terms of guaranteed eyeballs, guaranteed attention by people who otherwise aren`t paying attention to politicians, you are better off putting something out on social media that people want to watch than almost anything else you can do. Certainly, you`re better off with a viral video than you are with a press conference or a speech on TV. And so, now, it is not just President Obama that is using this tactic, it is the first lady as well. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADDY: So we`re going to start with the stairways. You ready to do this? JIMMY FALLON: I was born ready -- (MUSIC) OBAMA: Turnip for what. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can take it from me. Eating the right foods can help make you a better athlete. OBAMA: Ooh! UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh! (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Michelle Obama has arguably been better at using social media than her husband, the president. She`s enlisted everybody from Jimmy Fallon to LeBron James. There was a moment of dunking on LeBron James. Now, this week, though, Michelle Obama has done one that has aggravated all her usual critics -- not presidential. But it has got a ton of people to watch, all for a very specific cause. And there is the very funny video about that, but there`s also the question about how much this thing really does help the cause in question. And tonight, we have somebody here who knows, and that`s next. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which is better Ariana Grande or eating a carrot? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FLOTUS? MICHELLE OBAMA: Eating I a carrot. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, correct. FLOTUS gets the point. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gwyneth Paltrow makes a fantastic broccoli and arugula soup, does that matter, yes or no? Elena. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, it does, she has a website. Who`s more deserving of a Kennedy Center honor, Martin Short or a box of frozen court? FLOTUS? OBAMA: The corn. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Martin Short. He`s a genius. He played Ed Grimly, right, Elena? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is funny. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is funny. Even Elena likes him. OBAMA: I like corn. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Corn is delicious. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Canada. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he`s from Canada. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is. What does that have to do with anything? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t know. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: First Lady Michelle Obama`s latest attempt to use online social media in this case to get America to eat better. Things like that which this White House is very good at, they get a ton of views because they`re very funny and because it`s unusual to see somebody like the first lady of the United States in that kind of environment. Do they work, though, at changing people`s minds, moving us forward on the country on the issues at the heart of the funny? Joining us now for the interview tonight is someone who has been really aggressively involved in the push to get to us eat better as a country -- Tom Colicchio, chef, food activist, "Top Chef" judge, and as of today, the brand new MSNBC food correspondent, and host of the new online show "Stirring the Pot", which will be airing on Shift. Tom, it`s great to see you. TOM COLICCHIO, FOOD ACTIVIST: Likewise. MADDOW: Has it made a difference in your activism world that Michelle Obama has taken on these things as her issue? COLICCHIO: Yes. Obviously, yes. She`s done such a great job. Both the president and first lady, I think they realize that you need to broaden your audience. And how do you broaden your audience? You need to use various types of media. It`s great going on the late-night shows, but how do you use video? We`ve come such a long way from "video killed the radio star" on MTV, to now millions and millions of people watching online. Millennials who are actually coming to the dinner table and talking about these various videos that they saw and discussing them with their parents. So, in a way, it`s almost like the gateway drug toward getting -- infusing politics and policy into the conversation. But you`re actually starting from the ground up and from the, again, millennials up to the adults. MADDOW: Around food issues, obviously, some of it is policy and therefore hard politics. A lot of it is raising awareness and is getting people to think about it in a -- basically a raised consciousness sort of way. With all the different things you do. I mean, obviously, restaurant king and the "Top Chef" stuff and all the other forms of activism, in forms of business that you do. What do you feel like is most effective at getting the messages across to regular people? COLICCHIO: Sure. I think you need to break down complex problems and give them to people so they can easily digest. I mean, for instance, we`re looking at fruits and vegetables. Michelle Obama`s done a great job to try to encourage people to eat fruits and vegetables. But how do we create a different incentive to get people to eat fruits and vegetables? We know fruits and vegetables are typically more expensive than processed foods. So, how do you get people who are trying to eat better but don`t have the money to do that, how can we get them to afford fruits can and vegetables or create an incentive to do that? Now, that has to go to policy. If you look at subsidies, $24 billion, $25 billion worth of subsidies, 85 percent of that goes to commodity crops, 15 percent goes to meat and dairy, 1 percent goes to specialty crops or what we know as fruits and vegetables. So, there has to be an underlying and a corresponding policy change to actually make those more affordable. MADDOW: So you have to affect both the supply and demand. You have to make people want them and also make it reasonable that they can try to get them. COLICCHIO: People want them. I think Michelle Obama`s doing a great job to get more people to want them and understand the importance of why fruits and vegetables, whole grains are important. I mean, we grew up with the food pyramid. Remember the food pyramid? Now it`s a food plate. Half of that plate has fruits, vegetables, and hole grains on it. Yet our underlying policies are not supporting that plate. And so again, I think this is a way -- we`ve got to break these complex problems down and give them in bits and pieces so people can digest it, understand it, and then go from there. There`s a lot of food issues that are sort of food stories but we don`t look at them as food stories. For instance, look at the Deepwater Horizons bill and the tons of oil that was put into the gulf. That`s a food story. That affects the food chain. That affects the fisheries there. That affects people`s livelihoods that rely on the fisheries. When you look at the overuse of pesticides and herbicides and leaching into the water system and getting into the water system and creating a dead zone in the Gulf, another food story. And then there`s the light side of it, Super Bowl comes around and it`s about the game and commercials but also about food. Then, you take hunger issues that are sometimes complex and how do you break them down so people understand it? And I think that`s what our country -- they`re ready for it. We`ve seen the stand and stir shows. We have a whole network dedicated to food. We have reality shows that I`ve been part of. We have the travel shows that we see. And I think people are ready for that next conversation around food. People want to know what`s in their food. They want to understand food safety. They want to understand social economic issues around food. They definitely want to understand and fix hunger problems. So these are all food stories and they need to be told. MADDOW: And the connection between our individual decisions about this stuff which we`re all very in touch with and the larger -- the world at large in policy stuff I think is a connection you`ve been making better than almost anybody. We`re so happy you`re here. It`s great. COLICCHIO: Thank you. MADDOW: Tom Colicchio is the brand new MSNBC food correspondent -- a phrase I`ve never said before -- host of the online show "Stirring the Pot," which is going to be airing on Shift. Tom, it is really, really an honor you`re going to be joining us here. We`re all very excited. COLICCHIO: Thank you. MADDOW: Thanks. Tom Colicchio, MSNBC. Do you believe it? I know. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: There`s been a lot of attention this week to the Southeast getting thumped with snow and ice, a region of the country that`s not used to it. A lot of the country in the last few weeks about Boston getting absolutely buried in snow. But there`s one other place in America that is so buried right now it is actually making them have a problem that couldn`t conceivably have anything to do with winter if this winter weren`t this big. Such a weird story. That`s next. Stay with us. MADDOW: There`s so much snow on the ground in some parts of the country right now, particularly New England, that we are running out of ways to describe it. Here is a brand new idea to wrap your head around. An idea you have never had before. The city of Portland, Maine, has been dumping all its plowed snow at a spot near the airport near the approach to one of the airport runways. But now, that snow mountain they have built is so high that Portland just figured out that they are about to violate FAA regulations. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE BOBINSKY, PORTLAND, ME PUBLIC WORKS: It can send a signal that there is some sort of structure there, and it could affect their instrumentation as they land and possibly even take off as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: They built their snow mountain so high in Portland, Maine, this winter that it is now interfering with airplanes. The search for a metaphor for this winter is hereby over. Portland wins. That does it for us tonight. We will see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL". Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 19, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021801cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 86 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 18, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 18, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Howard Dean, Ayman Mohyeldin, Richard Engel GUESTS: Asra Nomani, Dianna Hunt, Michael Snipes, Casey Hunt, Howard Dean, Robert Costa SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7070 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama said, we are at war with people who have perverted Islam. Jeb Bush said he loves his father and brother but he is his own man. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Rachel, where did you build your snow mountain with all this snow in your driveway? RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: In my heart. I keep it in my cold, cold heart. O`DONNELL: Thanks, Rachel. Well, today, President Obama said, we are at war with people who have perverted Islam. Jeb Bush said he loves his father and brother but he is his own man. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are here today because of a specific challenge, countering violent extremism. JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is a summit on countering violent extremism. OBAMA: Now, leading up to this summit, there`s been a fair amount of debate about the words we use to describe and frame this challenge. EARNEST: This is not a religious. This is not a war on Islam. OBAMA: Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They are not religious leaders. They`re terrorists. JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Under this administration, they are indecisive. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s dealing with a Republican Party today that`s very different than the Republican Party that nominated his brother. BUSH: I love my brother, I love my dad, but I`m own man. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The reason it`s different is because of his brother. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: University of Massachusetts Amherst officials will now accept Iranian students into its science and engineering programs. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not the only school with this kind of policy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Defense attorneys for Eddie Ray Routh continued calling witnesses Wednesday, trying to bolster their case that he was psychotic when he killed Chris Kyle. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Closing arguments are expected to begin as early as Monday. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight, investigators on the scene of a massive explosion at a oil refinery in California. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ExxonMobil says we will conduct a thorough investigation of the cause of this event. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Secretary of State Kate Brown is slated to become Oregon`s next governor. KATE BROWN, OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE: Oregon has been in the national news for all the wrong reasons. That changes starting today. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Turning now to the relentless winter weather. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In Baltimore, a water main break froze a car to the street. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Minus 9 in Minneapolis, minus 7 in Chicago. Kansas, minus 1. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On top of the frigid weather forecast, they`re inspecting more snow to move into, yes, New England. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Enough, no more. Surrender to the snow. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: President Obama delivered remarks today at the White House summit on countering violent extremism. He said he called the summit meeting because of, quote, "the urgent threat from groups like al Qaeda and ISIL." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: They propagate the notion that America and the West generally is at war with Islam. That`s how they recruit. That`s how they try to radicalize young people. We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders, they`re terrorists. (APPLAUSE) And we are not at war with Islam. (APPLAUSE) We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: The president also spoke to what he called the reality that many Muslims who do not support the Islamic State support the idea that Islam is incompatible with modernity. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The reality, which again many Muslim leaders have spoken to is, is that there is a strain of thought that doesn`t embrace ISIL`s tactics, doesn`t embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances. Sometimes that`s accurate. Does buy into the belief that so many of the ills in the Middle East flow from a history of colonialism or conspiracy. Does buy into the idea that Islam is incompatible with modernity or tolerance, or that it`s been polluted by Western values. So, those beliefs exist. En in some communities around the world, they are widespread. And so, it makes individuals, especially young people who already may be disaffected or alienated, more ripe for radicalization. Muslim leaders need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam. That there is an inherent clash in civilizations. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now: Asra Nomani, a journalist and author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman`s Struggle for the Soul of Islam." Also joining us, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, and NBC News foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin. Asra, you were at the president`s speech. What was your reaction? ASRA NOMANI, JOURNALIST: Well, I went to the speech because I wanted to see whether this conference on violent extremism was going to address the issue of Islam. I walked into the session and it was almost like an open house at our local mosque. There were folks there with names like Abdullah, Muhammad, Ahmed, Farha -- you know, this was very much an issue about Islam today, and I was happy to see that we discussed issues related to the religion. But at the end of the day, I still see a tap dance that we`re still doing as a nation about the issue of Islamic extremism. You know, I felt really sad when I was there, because it was on this week, 12 years ago in 2002, 13 years ago, that we got the video that documented the murder of my colleague, Daniel Pearl at "The Wall Street Journal." When the murderers killed Danny, they literally put a knife to his throat. And then they washed the blood from the floor and they laid their rugs down for prayer. What they did was believe, as many people do, that they were acting in the name of Islam. The fact that 13 years later, we`re still having this erudite conversation about whether we`re at war with Islam or whether we`re not, whether, you know, Muslims are under attack or whether they`re not, reveals to me we`re still not dealing honestly with the very real issue of an ideology that was born over the last decades. Ayman (ph) was born in 1979, and that was the year the Saudis put out into the world this ideology that is wreaking so much havoc in the world. And that`s what we really need to talk about. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what Bill O`Reilly said about the president`s speech tonight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: President Obama is flat out wrong in not describing the terrorist threat accurately. Muslim fanatics want to kill us, and there are millions of them, period. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Ayman? Take your time. Millions of them. AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: I`m not even going to respond to that. I don`t want to get dragged into a conversation where he`s citing numbers that he may have. This is not -- O`DONNELL: He`s saying that there are millions of terrorists out there. There`s absolutely no evidence of millions of terrorists. MOHYELDIN: I think you should address that question to Bill O`Reilly to have him explain that number. What I can say to you is we can`t conflate the issues that exist out there in the public. There are grievances against a lot of issues that come from the West. There are a lot of grievances against governments in the West. There are a lot of societal problems. It`s important that when we address these issues, not to conflate all of these issues across the spectrum. I think this is what the president is trying to do. He`s trying to be delicate on a few issues. It`s a fine line he has to walk. He cannot alienate some of the allies he wants to keep in this coalition. That is a political and diplomatic issue. Certainly, the United States is going to rely on its allies in this fight, ideologically, militarily, politically. But at the same time, I understand why people are trying to say the president needs to be more aggressive in identifying these issues. What struck out at me in this speech by the president, is that we talked about so many of the issues, poverty, education, the ideology. But what thing that was omitted very blatantly is the consequences of so many of the West`s policies in the Middle East. O`DONNELL: Yes. MOHYELDIN: So many of the governments that they support. It`s hard for ordinary people in the Middle East who have grievances, who will look at the United States as a country -- as a beacon of values and ideas, but see it so closely aligned with countries like Saudi Arabia, with countries like Egypt. That has nothing to do with religion. That has to do with politics. That has to do with interests. And this is the big disconnect that the United States is having right now. It`s trying to convince people in the world we are trying to do good, we want to do good, we can do good. But in the reality of the equation and the balance of foreign policy in the Middle East, drones speak very loudly. The support of some of these regimes speak very loudly. The U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan speak very loudly. And that you cannot just erase with a conference in D.C. that doesn`t even include all of the participants. Right before I came on your show, I was with the ambassador to the United Nations, who was saying his country was not invited to attend this summit in D.C. or this conference in D.C. How can a country like Russia, or how can you completely go around the international system? How do you ignore things like the United Nations, not invite them to be the leader on this issue? O`DONNELL: And Russian intelligence was crucial to the case of the Boston marathon bombing. Howard Dean, the president had the chore today of explaining to the Bill O`Reillies of the world why he doesn`t have the word "Islamic" in the title of the summit on violent extremism. I thought he did a very reasonable job of that. I thought it made perfect sense, and he made it very clear that this summit is about al Qaeda and the Islamic state. But then he went on, I think, to make it very clear why he`s not using these words the way Bill O`Reilly wants him to. HOWARD DEAN (D), FORMER VERMONT GOVERNOR: Yes, I think it`s simple-minded to say there`s millions of Muslim terrorists. It`s not true. I looked at the history of the crusades. And, you know, we didn`t behave so well, us Christians didn`t behave so well either in those days. That was 1,000 years ago. What you have to do is having a single standard for all of humanity. What`s unacceptable in one part of the world is unacceptable in another part of the world. Obviously, what ISIS is doing is incredibly unacceptable. They are thugs. They are criminals. They are murderers. And I totally agree with the president. I wouldn`t give them the dignity of having this associated with any kind of religion, and it isn`t. There`s fundamentalism, there`s harsh versions of all this. When people think of Jim Jones or David Koresh, they don`t say they`re Christian terrorists. They were horrible people. We`ve got to do better than this, and I think the president was 100 percent right. We`ve got to separate the deeds, leave the religious arguments to religious people. It is true, and there was a very interesting article in "The Atlantic Monthly" in the last week or so, that some of the stuff ISIS is preaching you can find justification in the Koran for it. But you can also find justification for all kinds of savagery in the bible. Gouging an eye for somebody who`s taken an eye, and all these kinds of things. There may be a battle between Islam and modernity -- I`m on modernity`s side. We have a new way of looking at human beings, which actually I think goes back to the United States Constitution. And I think we ought to adhere to that, and I don`t think it`s about religion, I think it`s about expecting people to behave differently than they have for centuries, and I think we need to do what we can to hold up that expectation. That includes -- to Ayman`s point, we do have to behave well in other countries, not just our own. O`DONNELL: Asra, you want to respond to that? NOMANI: Well, there are a series of countries that I wish had come to the summit. I wish we had called them out on the extremist Islamic views they put out forward in the world. And those are the countries that make up the organization of Islamic cooperation. They are second to the U.N. as a governmental agency out in the world. And ten years ago, they put a campaign into the world that said that they wanted to promote the true image of Islam. One of the reasons why we`re having such a hard time dancing around this issue is because there is an entire lobby of these Muslim countries that don`t want us to talk about these very real issues that are in mosques, in sermons, that are in interpretations of the Koran and the Hadith throughout the Muslim world. And so, those countries are very much part of the problem, because they want to make it seem as if we are -- O`DONNELL: Asra, which countries are you talking about? NOMANI: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation was started in the `60s by the countries with large Muslim populations. So, those are countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan. And I can tell you that just today in Pakistan, they are pushing for the U.N. to again try to mandate blasphemy laws, so that it becomes a crime to talk about issues of extremism or to defame Islam. And so, this is really what we`re inheriting today. The debate on Islam has been hijacked by this effort to try to promote a public relations campaign that, you know, puts forward Islam in the best way possible, and then not deal with these very real issues. And to me, that`s the real crisis that we`re facing today that, you know, here it is, 2015, and we`re still figuring out how to have this conversation. O`DONNELL: All right. We`re going to take a break, come back to discuss what the president talked about as the military component of this. O`DONNELL: In his speech today, the president made only passing reference to what he called the military component of fighting violent extremism. Here`s NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel with the latest on how that`s going. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) RICHARD ENGEL, NBC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): ISIS is spreading like a virus. And months of U.S.-led air strikes don`t seem to be containing it. In Libya, is has been showing its strength. The group beheaded 21 Egyptian Christians. One of the executioners speaking in English with an American accent. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Recently, you have seen us on the hills. ENGEL: Egypt hit back with its own air strikes. ISIS says Italy will be next. Security has already been beefed up at St. Peters. But the biggest advances and reportedly the worst atrocities have come where Washington claims to be making the most progress, in Iraq, which is starting to look like a failed state. In the north, we saw firsthand last week how Kurdish forces have been under attack. Today, near the city of Irbil, they turned back a major ISIS assault. In central Iraq, where ISIS captured the town of al Baghdadi, Iraqi officials claim as many as 48 of their fighters were burned alive by militants. It`s unconfirmed by U.S. officials, but it reportedly happened just five miles from a base where hundreds of U.S. marines are deployed as advisers. But why the spread? ISIS is moving into all the cracks in the Middle East. The unresolved conflicts in Iraq, Libya, the Sinai, Syria, and Gaza. This is not a problem that can be droned away. The ISIS virus is consuming the Middle East, infecting Europe, and showing no sign of stopping there. Richard Engel, NBC News. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: Ayman, I just don`t see what the plan is. MOHYELDIN: Well, I think -- O`DONNELL: A military plan, I just don`t see it. MOHYELDIN: We know from American military officers who are publicly stated there is no military end to this operation. This is not going to be won on a battlefield. The U.S. militarily can contain ISIS. It can degrade its leadership, it can destroy weapons depots. But when you`re fighting an ideology, bombs don`t destroy ideologies. America won the Cold War, defeated communism without firing a single bullet at the Russians. There has to be a new approach to combat the ideology. You have to do that by reforming these societies, trying to put pressure on them to create more political plurality, improve the education system, try to create opportunity for individuals, only to drain that swamp of that ideology, that reservoir that exists to ripe for ISIS. But dropping bombs on pickup trucks, destroying weapons depots, it`s going to be refilled within days. You kill the leader of ISIS, you`ll have somebody more hard core that the one that`s in place. And just to put it on perspective, if you take a look at the span of the last 13 years, we went to war in Afghanistan in 2001, al Qaeda was pretty much localized in Afghanistan. Concentrated in Afghanistan. Thirteen, 14 years later, we have not only al Qaeda in Libya and in the western part of Africa and the Maghreb, and in Yemen, we also have ISIS in Iraq, we have ISIS in Libya and in northern Sinai. The military solution or the option of this dealing with every problem militarily is not going to work in the long run. O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, our military tactics have been a failure, they`ve been a mistake, as the Iraq war was mistake in its entirety. And yet, Washington keeps going back to military tactics. DEAN: I think the Iraq war, had it not been for the Iraq war, we wouldn`t be looking at this right now. Ayman is exactly right. This is about failed states and filling in the cracks. I think I have some disagreement, though, the military option is important and here`s why. One of the reasons that ISIS is attracting young, disaffected people is because they appear to be winning. As soon as they appear to be losing, and I think what happened when the Jordanian pilot was burned was critical, for the first time, imams in the Middle East began to condemn ISIS as un-Islamic. That is very important. As soon as these guys -- this is why what the president said is right. They need to be called out as losers and criminals, not as some sort of Islamic jihadist heroes. And as soon as they start losing, and I think the military option is part of that, then their recruiting ability is going to go down dramatically. This is a group of people that are attracted by winners, and they`re not going to be attracted to losers. O`DONNELL: Asra, what is your view of the military component of the fight against the Islamic State? NOMANI: Well, just one point, I don`t think we have this dichotomy of calling them heroes or zeros. There`s a nuanced place we can have this conversation, and that is acknowledging the ideology that is fueling this movement. In that way, I have to say, it sounds scary, but our military strategists need to be studying the apocalyptic eschatology or end times strategy of the Islamic State. What they`re going to do now is they`re going to try to sweep into Damascus. That`s what the end times for Muslims declares is going to happen. I as a liberal Muslim do not believe it, but at the Grand Mosque in Damascus, they believe Jesus will pray behind the messiah of the Muslims and the army will march down to Jerusalem and claim Dome of the Rock. This is a grand plan that they believe will be executed and all of these grievances simply feed their idea of what the apocalyptic scenario will look like. And so, the solution must be a very strategic one that, unfortunately, may have to include military options. O`DONNELL: Asra Nomani, and Ayman Mohyeldin, thank you both for joining me tonight. Howard Dean is going to stick around. Coming up, Eddie Ray Routh`s sister and his former girlfriend both testified in Texas today. That`s next. O`DONNELL: In the murder trial of Eddie Ray Routh, the former marine accused of murdering real American sniper Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield, the defense called four people to the stand, including Eddie Ray Routh`s sister and former girlfriend. Both testified about Eddie Ray Routh`s behavior the day of the killings. The sister said, "He started talking and things he was saying I knew he wasn`t himself. He was talking about pigs sucking his soul. That was one thing that stood out to me, because that was bizarre. I knew he wasn`t quite right. He said he killed two guys. I said, what do you mean you killed two people? I really didn`t believe him, because he said crazy stuff before. I mean, he never said that, but I just didn`t believe him because he wasn`t talking the way he normally would." Eddie Ray Routh`s former girlfriend told jurors "Eddie definitely had paranoia about the government out to get him. I asked him if he was seeing things." Joining me now is Dianna Hunt, who was inside the courtroom today covering the trial for the "Dallas Morning News," and Michael Snipes, a former Dallas County judge and current criminal defense lawyer. Dianna, the testimony -- these were defense witnesses called by the defense today, clearly trying to demonstrate by what they say that Eddie Ray Routh was saying on the day of the killing, that he was not in his right mind or any form of a right mind that day. DIANNA HUNT, DALLAS MORNING NEWS: Yes. They were very strong witnesses for the defense. He clearly had -- his condition had been deteriorating. He went from getting down on his knees and asking his gift to marrying him the night before to ordering her out of the house the next morning. He was feeling paranoid and disturbed and upset, and that`s the way he headed off to Glenn Rose with Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. O`DONNELL: At another point in her testimony, his sister said, "I looked in his eyes and I told him I love you but I hate your demons. And for a moment he was my little baby brother and he looked at me in his eyes and I could tell he needed me. But it was like it switched back so fast, that he became this person that I didn`t know anymore." Michael Snipes, I -- it`s obviously a very tough case for the defense. This may be the best they have. MICHAEL SNIPES, FORMER JUDGE DALLAS COUNTY: Well, it`s compelling testimony, but you have to understand the jury is going to know we`re talking about the sister of the defendant, and also the ex-girlfriend and they`re going to understand they`re going to have to take this testimony with a grain of salt, because they`re trying to convince the jury that the defendant was insane. So, they`ll have to evaluate that part of the credibility. O`DONNELL: And, Judge Snipes, just to make it clear, what is at stake here? You mentioned the other night that if he`s found not guilty by reason of insanity, the judge will obviously sentence him in effect to a mental institution. What kind of institution is that? Is that, in effect, a prison? SNIPES: Well, it`s not a prison in the sense of having barbed wire fences and things of that sort, but it`s certainly a locked down facility. But the difference between a disposition in which a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity and in which they have life without parole is there`s a possibility that they can get out one day. O`DONNELL: And, Dianna Hunt, it seems the jury isn`t going to really know that distinction. In fact, the prosecutor in his opening statement kept using the phrase, for him to get away with this. He kept saying, the standard of proof that the defense is going to have to meet in order for him to get away with this, kept using that phrase, get away with it, as if he would just walk out the door. HUNT: Right. The jury has been instructed that they`re not allowed to consider what the punishment might be or what might happen to him if he`s found not guilty by reason of insanity, or if he`s found guilty. They`ve been told not to consider what the punishment might be, that they`re only to determine whether he knowingly killed these two men, if he knew it was wrong when he did it. So, they`re going to be prevented from thinking about that. I think it`s going to be very difficult for them to do that. It`s not something -- I think it`s something they don`t want to see somebody get away with something, but they may not know he would get treatment. O`DONNELL: And, Judge Snipes, what about that language, get away with it. I was a little surprised there wasn`t a defense objection to the use of that language in the opening statement. SNIPES: And there could have been, and were I the judge in this case, I would have sustained that, although it`s not a terribly troubling comment. But the point is this, as I mentioned just a moment ago, you potentially, eventually the psychiatric experts and judicial authorities determined that your sanity has been regained, you could potentially get out. It`s happened in other cases where defendants were found not guilty by reason of insanity. O`DONNELL: Dianna Hunt and Judge Michael Snipes, thank you both for joining me tonight. Coming up, driving on icy roads can kill you. Jeff Rossen will show you driving tactics that you need to know to save your life. O`DONNELL: On icy roads can kill you. Jeff Rossen will show you driving tactics that you need to know to save your life. O`DONNELL: A man in Tennessee was almost hit by this pickup truck, which went out of control on an icy road. This is police dash cam video that shows the truck sliding just past the worker as it careened down the median. Temperatures are going to be in the single digits in many parts of the country for the next few days. NBC`s Jeff Rossen has a report on how to save your life if you are behind the wheel on icy roads. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JEFF ROSSEN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Frightening moments behind the wheel. Fishtailing, no control. Just as scary when the wreck is coming right toward you. From sedans to semis. This truck skidding out. Missing other cars by just feet and that`s the danger, too. Swerving into traffic. Look at this car, spinning all over the road. Seconds later, an oncoming car smashes into it. This week, icy roads are wreaking havoc again. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were driving, this car started spinning out of control. ROSSEN: So what do you do if you`re caught in a skid? We`re in Maryland at the especially designed ice driving course. TOM PECORARO, FORMER POLICE OFFICER, CERTIFIED DRIVING INSTRUCTOR: There you go. ROSSEN: Our instructor, Tom Pecoraro, a former police officer and certified driving instructor. Oh, boy. We`re spinning right now. PECORARO: Right. Yes. So that was 16 miles per hour. ROSSEN: When we start driving again, I hit another patch of ice and make a classic mistake. PECORARO: Two worst things you can do, you jammed on the brake and you jerked the wheel. ROSSEN: What am I supposed to do? PECORARO: You`re supposed to get off the brake, and get off the accelerator, straighten the wheel, and then ride the skid out. ROSSEN: It goes against conventional wisdom. I want to stop the car. PECORARO: That`s what everybody wants to do but that`s the worst thing you can do. ROSSEN: Flat roadways are dangerous enough covered in ice, but how about when you`re on a hill? What happens if my car starts sliding down backwards? PECORARO: Stay off the brake. ROSSEN: Stay off the brake? PECORARO: Stay off the brake. Roll back. Look over your shoulder and steer to a safe location. ROSSEN: Important tips, especially this winter when the ice and snow just won`t stop. Jeff Rossen, NBC News, Germantown, Maryland. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: Coming up, Jeb Bush hired 21 advisers from his father`s and bother`s administrations and then gave a speech, no doubt written by some of them, saying that he is his own man. That`s next. O`DONNELL: Bush foreign policy is back and it sounds like this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Under this administration, we are inconsistent and indecisive. We have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. We definitely no longer inspire fear in our enemies. The problem is perhaps best demonstrated by this administration`s approach to Iraq. We have had 35 years of experience with Iran -- excuse me, Iran, 35 years experience with Iran`s rulers. They have attacked the United States and American troops directly and through their surrogates. They have used terror as a tool of intimidation. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, MSNBC political reporter Casey Hunt, former Vermont governor, Howard Dean, is back with us, and "Washington Post" national political reporter Robert Costa. Casey, you were at the speech today, and there were some echoes of old Bush stuff there, including that little flub, the little verbal flub. I don`t want to make too much of it. But his brother was noted for mangling a word here and there. CASEY HUNT, MSNBC POLITICAL REPORTER: Lawrence, that particular flub I think just showed that he clearly had Iraq on the brain, and that was what a lot of people in the room were thinking about. And he went on in the Q&A to talk about the fact that he thought that there were mistakes made in the Iraq war, but he didn`t go so far as to really criticize his brother for invading the country or for what happened afterward. Instead, he says that the current vacuum that we`re seeing there with ISIS is actually because President Obama didn`t continue the surge policy that was implemented near the end of George W. Bush`s second administration. So he`s very clearly trying to walk a line that allows him to move past his brother`s record in Iraq, without actually criticizing him in an aggressive way. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to Jeb Bush`s view of America`s power in the world. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: The United States has an undiminished ability to shape events and build alliances of free people. We can project power and enforce peaceful stability in far-off areas of the globe. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, I can`t think of a more shocking couple of sentences, the notion that the United States has an undiminished ability to shape events and build alliances around the world and has the power to enforce peaceful stability. That`s exactly what his brother proved we don`t have. HOWARD DEAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. This is a very interesting speech. And I don`t think I would have given this speech if I had been Jeb Bush. The problem he has here is that he is reminding everybody of the Bush legacy in Iraq. And I think they`re going to be -- I mean, the notion that if Obama had only done the surge more and sent more troops to Iraq, somehow this all would have gone away. That may play well in the right wing corners of the Heritage Foundation, but it is not going to play on main street, especially the main streets which have given up an awful lot of soldiers to do that with second, third, fourth, fifth tours, a lot of PTSD, families broken up. I -- I think this was not a good start. O`DONNELL: Well, let`s listen to the "I am my own man" passage of this speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: As you might know, I`ve also been fortunate to have a father and a brother who helped shape America`s foreign policy from the Oval Office. I recognize that as a result, my views will often be held up in comparison to theirs. I love my brother. I love my dad. I actually love my mother, as well. I hope that`s OK. (LAUGHTER) And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make. But I`m my own man and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Robert Costa, how is that playing with Republican primary voters and Republican campaign contributors who are trying to -- who need to see now how Jeb Bush will be able to distinguish himself from his brother? ROBERT COSTA, "WASHINGTON POST" NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: I spoke today with several top Republican donors and some close Bush allies. And I said what was the purpose of this speech? What was the message? And he said, though Bush was saying he is his own man, Governor Bush was also trying to signal that when it comes to foreign policy, he`s not so much George W. Bush, but more George H. W. Bush. He`s an internationalist, he believes in coalition building. And it was really a pitch on temperament, that when it comes to how he would manage foreign policy, he`d be more like his father. He thinks that could play in a primary and in a general election. O`DONNELL: He also said he`s very much in favor of Benjamin Netanyahu coming to address Congress. Let`s listen to that part. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I for one am really eager to hear what he has to say. Israel is not at the negotiation table with Iran but it has a lot at stake. I don`t blame him for wanting to share his views and in fact I think it will be important for the American people to get the perspective of our closest ally in the region. I`m surprised that the administration is upset to hear from a close and valuable ally on such a sensitive topic. If we want to build confidence and trust of the American position, we have to listen. Foreign policy should be a place where our long-term security interests are front and center. And the political hacks should be doing the campaigns and staying there. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, I have to believe his father, who was a diplomat, would be -- before he was president, would be very much opposed to the way Benjamin Netanyahu has been invited to the White House. DEAN: Yes. What I`m thinking of as I listened to that, it`s so ridiculous. President Jeb Bush is in the White House, Nancy Pelosi is the speaker, and invites the leader of the Labor Party in Great Party to come over and talk -- and lecture President Bush on his lack of proper social programs or something like that. I mean, this is an enormous gaffe, and it`s -- Netanyahu is really clumsy. He`s just been -- I think he`s done Israel a lot of harm and he`s done American-Israeli relations a lot of harm. And the best ways the Israelis can fix that is in March, after he -- he`s done here he`s got to stand for re-election. And I hope the Israelis get a new prime minister because it`s going to make things a lot better for both countries. O`DONNELL: I want to take a break here, but I want to come back -- when we come back, I want to go to Robert Costa on the question of how much of this was really aimed at Rand Paul, because foreign policy for Republican primary voters is one of Rand Paul`s real weak points. And we`re going to pick that up when we come back. O`DONNELL: We`re back with Robert Costa, Casey Hunt and Howard Dean. Robert, I was saying that when Jeb Bush is talking about foreign policy, that team knows this is a weak spot for Rand Paul among Republican primary voters. It is also a weak spot for Mike Huckabee among Republican primary voters. And so how much of this stepping into foreign policy was about exposing or going toward the weaknesses of the other candidates. COSTA: Bush is trying to signal to donors and to activists that, though he doesn`t have too much international experience, he comes to this race as an unapologetic hawk. So it comes from the Bush lineage on foreign policy. And he`s sending a message that, though there is some pockets of the GOP that are war weary, he`s not going to be bowed or cowed by them and he`s going to stand by his traditional position. O`DONNELL: We`ve got the latest poll out, a national poll of the Republican candidates with Mike Huckabee at the top at 16 percent., Jeb Bush at 14 percent, Scott Walker 11 percent, Rand Paul 10 percent, Ben Carson 8 percent, Chris Christie at 7 percent, and everyone else far below that. Casey Hunt, there`s Jeb Bush looking at a national poll where he`s not on top. And again, it seems to me that he`s got a much stronger hand to play on foreign policy with Republican primary voters than Mike Huckabee does who is on top of that poll. HUNT: Lawrence, I think that one of the things, and you touched on this earlier with Robert, is this speech sort of hit every single note of the sort of general Republican platform on foreign policy, without being particularly inflammatory on any of them. So he sort of laid out his resume that was one point at a time, you know, Iran, ISIS, Israel with the Netanyahu point, where he talked about it in a sort of very reasoned, measured way but in a way that spoke directly to those primary voters. And, you know, I think that your point is a good one that in many ways Huckabee will struggle on this front in a way that Bush, while he does potentially have issues in a general election with his brother`s legacy on Iraq, is probably going to be a little bit safer in a nominating contest. O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, "The New York Times" is reporting tonight that we may have our very first announced candidate on April 7th. Rand Paul is looking at that date to announce his presidential candidacy. That`s the beginning of a -- of a fundraising cycle in terms of the FEC reporting that would have to be done. And they look at that as an advantage. And so we could be under way in April. DEAN: I think we probably will be under way in April. We`ve really been under way since Jeb made it known that he was definitely going to run and the dominos have been falling every since. So away we go. O`DONNELL: Yes. And Casey Hunt, what are you hearing in Bush world about when they might formalize an announcement? HUNT: Well, I think you have to look at April in sort of this broad context of being the beginning of a new fundraising quarter. That`s in large part why the Paul camp decided to step it out now and I think you`re starting to hear a lot of that from some of the other Republican -- potential Republican candidates that, you know, if it doesn`t come in April, then you get into the May-June timeframe, then you`re looking at the end of that second fundraising quarter. But so much of this is driven by how they can make money and at what point it makes the most sense for them to start doing that. O`DONNELL: Casey Hunt, Howard Dean and Robert Costa, thank you all for joining me tonight. COSTA: Thank you. HUNT: Thank you, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Coming up, if you buy or sell anything on Craigslist, you need to know how to do that safely. A man who tried to buy an iPhone on Craigslist was murdered. That story is next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: Both countries have to get past their old mindsets and realize that this is a new day. Both sides are going to have to move. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: A new round of negotiations to restore full diplomatic ties with Cuba is now scheduled for next Friday in Washington. Senators Mark Warner, Claire McCaskill and Amy Klobuchar went to Cuba over the weekend in support of a bill Senator Klobuchar is sponsoring to remove the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. Senator Klobuchar told the "Washington Post" today, "We walked freely around the streets and talked with anyone we wanted. I did not know what to expect. The people were really positive about Americans. I didn`t expect them to be that positive and excited." House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is leading a House delegation to Cuba this week. But members of Congress are not the only ones visiting Cuba. Conan O`Brien tweeted, "I just spent the last four days shooting my show all around the city of Havana. I met countless friends and had one of the most experiences of my life. Many laughs but that could also be the rum. Watch Conan in Cuba." Conan then linked to this photo. Conan is the first late-night host to do a show in Cuba since Jack Pars` "Tonight Show" which recorded a full interview with Fidel Castro there in February of 1959. We`ll be right back. O`DONNELL: In Atlanta today, two men were sentenced to life without parole, convicted of felony murder and several other charges. They used Craigslist to create a fake ad saying they had an iPhone to sell. Instead when the would-be buyer arrived, the two men tried to rob him and ended up killing him. If you use Web sites like Craigslist to buy and sell things, there are -- there`s a new effort by some local police departments to stop this kind of crime and keep you safe. NBC News correspondent Gabe Gutierrez explains how. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GABE GUTIERREZ, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It can be quick and easy. But police say doing business on Web sites like Craigslist can also be dangerous. Just last week in Georgia, 21-year-old college student James Jones, Jr. was robbed and killed. Investigators say he`d responded to a Craigslist ad for an iPhone 6. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s sad to know that people would do something like that over an iPhone. GUTIERREZ: In January, police say a Georgia couple was murdered after driving to a secluded location to buy a classic car listed on Craigslist. Crimes like these have police in Woodstock, Georgia, taking action. They`re now asking buyers and sellers on Craigslist and other sites like it to do business right here at their local police station. CHIEF CALVIN MOSS, WOODSTOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Transaction Safe Place initiative really is about moving those transactions away from that secluded areas where they often occur and bringing it here to a very public place. GUTIERREZ: You need to call ahead to make sure an officer will be there, but Chief Moss says he doesn`t expect the service to cost his department any extra manpower. If somebody is trying to rip you off, it`s a lot harder to do here in the lobby of a police station. MOSS: Well, sure. You know, typically a bad guy doesn`t want to transact bad business in a police department. GUTIERREZ: It`s a growing trend in policing. More and more departments across the nation are doing it, too. In south Florida, the Broward County Sheriff`s Office launched its safe spot last summer. SHERIFF SCOTT ISRAEL, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA: If you`re committed to Craigslist or any place where you`re dealing with a person for the first time and you`re trying to do a transaction, I don`t know of any better way to do this. GUTIERREZ: Craigslist did not respond to our request for a comment, but on its Web site the company says users should decide on a public meeting place and tell a friend or family member where they`re going or bring the friend along. ISRAEL: Because no matter what your profit is or no matter what the -- you know, that product is that you may want to have, it`s not worth getting hurt. GUTIERREZ: With police watching, it`s an idea they hope will be easy for the public to buy. Gabe Gutierrez, NBC News, Woodstock, Georgia. (END VIDEOTAPE) LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021801cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 87 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 19, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 19, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Hampton Pearson GUESTS: PJ Hahn, Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, Stuart Russell, Molly O`Toole, Holland Cooke SECTION: NEWS, DOMESTIC LENGTH: 7501 words HIGHLIGHT: Continues investigation into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill five years on, as it continues to wreak havoc on the Gulf Coast. Rahm Emanuel battles with his unflattering nickname "Mayor 1%" as he faces a heated re- election fight, after his tenure saw the closing of 50 Chicago Public Schools. Texas celebrates the marriage of the first same-sex couple in the state, while Walmart and Aetna boost pay for their employees. Major shift in armed drone policy opens the door for supplying the technology to carefully selected allied countries. Right-wing radio talkers can`t seem to get behind Jeb Bush as the potential 2016 Republican nominee. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Five years after the spill, Cat Island disappearing act (ph). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cat Island the ground zero to the oil spill. SCHULTZ: So this is all that`s left to Cat Island. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is it. SCHULTZ: This is it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is it. PJ HAHN, PELICAN COAST CONSULTING: If we don`t start rebuilding this island we`re going to lose the pelican again. SCHULTZ: And later, what drone exports will mean in the fight against terror. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The State Department is putting out an announcement to about an expanded policy that could lead to the much wider export of arm drones. PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I called on the international community to come together and eradicate this scourge of violent extremism. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Should we be selling drones to some of these allies. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we have to do extremely conscious about it. OBAMA: This isn`t our challenge alone. It`s a challenge for the world. SCHULTZ: Plus, how Rahm`s failing grade on public education is impacting the Chicago mayor`s race. MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL, (D) CHICAGO: I said when I ran for office, we`re going to tell the people the truth, do the tough things. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s been a year and a half since the mayor closed 50 Chicago public schools. JESUS CHUY GARCIA, CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR: He`s the one that came to town loaded with millions and millions of books (ph) and said I want to be emperor of Chicago. EMANUEL: I will absorb the political consequence so our children have a better future. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching. We start this evening with our week long gulf series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill". In our first three stories, we`ve taken you across the gulf to hear from people directly affected by the spill. I spoke with business owners who say the disaster drove their livelihood right into the ground. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KEN PARMER, FORMER BUSINESS OWNER: They started pulling their boats out. The guests stop eating seafood because of the worries of the dispersants and the oil contaminating the seafood. We couldn`t get seafood out of our local suppliers in Louisiana and Alabama because it was contaminated. So that drove the cost up (ph) of the product if we could even find it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The seafood in the gulf still requires a continuous testing. Government study show the seafood is safe. One of the largest shrimp distributors in the country showed us his latest catch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DEAN BLANCHARD, OWNER, DEAN BLANCHARD SEAFOOD: These all shell fell off right here. There should be shell are going all the way to the bottom. That`s a cancer right here you got. SCHULTZ: That`s a cancer right there. BLANCHARD: Yeah. SCHULTZ: And you can tell by the color of the shell? BLANCHARD: The shell is gone. SCHULTZ: The shell is gone? BLANCHARD: Yeah. You feel it? Feel it right here. You can see that shell off. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The facts on how the spill impacted human health are still emerging conclusive medical studies will take years. B.P. directed us to government and company funded studies showing no direct correlation between health concerns and the chemical spill. We spoke with an environmental consultant who disagreed. He shared his personal story. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAHN: I started to get -- having problems with breathing and a weird rash that breaks out from time to time. And, you know, and I just -- I went to the doctor and the doctor -- I will say what he said when he was and -- basically, he didn`t know what it was and came out with some kind of letters forward to us. And I said what is that means -- "I don`t know what the hell... SCHULTZ: A lots of folks who have that? HAHN: Well, and I thought I just contributed to old age, because I was getting all with trouble of breathing and then talking to the people that work out there. They`re all complaining about the same thing. And when we went to the doctor and get treated for it, it doesn`t help. They treated it as like it`s asthma but (inaudible) with the other medications that they give you for asthma weren`t working on it. You still felt the same and didn`t even relieve it a little bit. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And tonight, we examined Cat Island. People in the gulf felt this was ground zero for the oil spill. It was a crucial breathing ground for the Louisiana state bird. After all the devastation, there is now a big community effort to restore Cat Island. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAHN: The nation, the world didn`t understand how bad this oil spill was. SCHULTZ: The images were iconic. Louisiana state bird covered in oil, a symbol of the gulf disaster. PJ Hahn was there to document it. HAHN: The media we would get out there before the workers would get out there and once they started seeing these poor birds covered in oil, gasping for air and those pictures came back which -- yeah. We`re going to get some help. SCHULTZ: Authorities did not want the media to see that, did they? HAHN: They absolutely didn`t want us to see. And as the amateur photographer so to speak, I was out there photographing, taking photographs and I have a lot of the media with me. And we happened to catch some birds in oil -- that were trapped in the oil, covered in oil. SCHULTZ: So if that story had gotten out there may have been more of an intensity to save Cat Island? HAHN: Well, I believe that more intensity to get more equipment down here because we were being told there`s a lot of equipment. The problem is, they would leave shore -- they would leave land, load up their boats and by time they got on the water it was 11:00 in the morning and then they only work `til 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon. By the time it got dark, they were coming back off. Now the locals, the people that were locally hired, those guys worked until middle of the night. They wear lamps on their head just to go out and collect the oil. SCHULTZ: Off the coast of Louisiana barrier islands provide a sanctuary for wildlife. HAHN: Little groups of islands they were anywhere between 4 acres to 6 acres in size and it was pelican and various other types of birds, even some endangered species that were using those islands to nest. The birds use those islands because they are far away from any type of predators. Now, they had 7-foot to 8-foot mangrove trees on those islands. They were so thick. As a matter of fact, you couldn`t get on to the island. You can only drive around the island. You couldn`t actually get on the islands and it was covered with birds. SCHULTZ: Cat Island was one of the barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana that`s saw the most damage from the oil spill. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cat Island is ground zero to the oil spill and there`s a series of barrier islands along the Louisiana coast. What happened was the oil came along the west side of Mississippi river. It came through what they call (inaudible) came in there and -- as it came through this whole island (inaudible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not that there`s ever a good time for an oil spill but it was a worst time because the birds were nesting at that time. So you had the pelicans, and shore birds, and a variety of other birds that were using those islands at the time to nest. And unfortunately, the oil was coming in so thick that`s covered the mangroves, they would kill the mangrove trees and they are the vegetation that were on those islands. HAHN: When the root system dies of any plants out here in the gulf, what happened is the land start to fall apart. There`s nothing to keep the root system... SCHULTZ: Sure. HAHN: ... to keep those lands (inaudible). SCHULTZ: And then the erosion takes place. HAHN: Yeah. And (inaudible) way back here erosion from different storms or just a natural wind and wave action that hit these islands starts breaking apart. SCHULTZ: Can you believe what you`re looking at right now? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m shocked. I mean, it`s just that it`s really gut- wrenching. SCHULTZ: This is all that`s left of Cat Island. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is it. SCHULTZ: This is it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is it. SCHULTZ: Right off these islands, when you get into shallow water and the craft starts to run out of ground a little bit, it kicks up the ground and this is what comes in the surface. You can actually smell the oil. It`s literally amazing. See our craft went through there with a two engines kick up the surface and there`s your oil. It comes right to the surface and it stinks. Birds are still on these islands coming in here feeding. So you can just imagine the contamination that takes place within the wildlife. As the island slowly disappears, so might the migratory birds that have made the island their breeding ground. HAHN: We`ve lost the pelican which is our state bird back in the `60s due to DDT. Louisiana is only got six bird islands left and they`re all disappearing. U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries did studies on the birds and discovered that what happened is when these birds are born on this islands they imprint to those islands, and they`ll come back every year, year after year to those same islands. DAVID MUTH, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: They`re going to move where they have to move. It`s just that, you know, we`re running out of places for them to go to. HAHN: If we don`t start rebuilding these islands and the small little habitat for them, we`re not going -- we`re going to loss the pelican again because of habitats. SCHULTZ: There was a massive effort now being put forth to restore this, to bring it back to its nature position. So your goal is to rebuild Cat Island? HAHN: Absolutely. SCHULTZ: Which is going to take how much? HAHN: $6 million. We`ve been able to raised $3 million and we got a great cooperation our new parish president, Amos Cormier, he`s decided to step up the pace and help as well by using some of the funding that the parish has. So we`ve got money that we`ve cobble (ph) together from donation. I know we can bring it back, we got to bring in back. And then, the birds are depending on this thing. It`s going to be a beautiful bird sanctuary once it gets completed. SCHULTZ: In their getting support from some unlikely sources. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shell Oil put up $1 million to help us rebuild this island. So they`re not all bad, you know, they`re not all bad. SCHULTZ: Yes. HAHN: There`s actually at one time belonged to Apache Oil and Apache Oil approached them to donate to the parish and they did. SCHULTZ: What is B.P. done to restore it? HANH: Nothing. SCHULTZ: Nothing. HAHN: No. SCHULTZ: Not a dime. HAHN: We send out... SCHULTZ: Not a dime for Cat Island? HAHN: Not a dime. It`s a shame that we have to pay for something we had - - that we had no responsibility of committing this. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: We`ve invited B.P. to speak with us on this program all week. They`ve declined the invitation. The invitation -- that invitation remains open. Joining us live tonight our guide to Cat Island, PJ Hahn of Pelican Coast Consulting. PJ, thanks for you hospitality down there and your guidance through all of this and shown us exactly where Cat Island was because if we had not caught a tide ride, correct me if I`m wrong, we didn`t gone right over it, correct? HAHN We would have lost it, Ed, And, Ed, first of all, thank you and thanks to the show for having me on and for bringing all of these to light to the nation and showing people the devastation that`s happened and what these people and the wildlife has having to go through. Five years, it still going on, it`s still not right. And it`s a shame because Cat Island, which you just highlighted in your show, was just the most beautiful place. You`ll see some of the most beautiful birds. Over 75 percent of all migratory birds passed right through that area. And it`s one of the most beautiful areas and bird sanctuaries that you could find and it`s now gone. SCHULTZ: Yeah. HAHN: Generations of birds lost. SCHULTZ: And right where we kicked up the bottom is right at Cat Island and that, you know, oil came up to the top or something came to the top and it stunk right there. So I just want our audience to know that is exactly where we were when we run a ground right there and again, it kick up the bottom. Now, I want to go through this. B.P. told us in a statement when asked about Cat Island. They said Cat Island was rapidly eroding before the Deepwater Horizon accident in 2010 -- primarily due to erosion from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. What`s your response to that? HAHN: Yeah. It`s a shame because B.P. is stealing a page out of a book of Hitler to say, you keep saying things over and over to the public and (inaudible) will take us the truth even if you`re lying to him. And the sad thing is, that`s totally false because Cat Island was in perfect condition. We had 8-foot mangrove trees, you saw the pictures. I`d photographed that island two years in the making of photographing. It was gone. Are you telling me that that island could disappear that quickly? We saw the pictures of the oil over the root covering of mangrove trees that would kill those mangroves. Once the mangrove trees died, that`s it, they`re gone. There`s no more island because as root system dies so does the island. So for B.P. they continuously put up their propaganda. If B.P. would just pay -- pick the ads off the T.V. one day of what they spend nationwide to tell everybody how good they are and promote themselves as to saving the gulf and use that money to restore things like Cat Island. One day worth of commercial could have put this island back. Five years later, we`re still having this conversation about who`s going to build Cat Island... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HAHN: ... and they were directly responsible. SCHULTZ: So if you were taking the bull by the horns to collect the resources, nothing would be happening with Cat Island. Here`s the local folks that have got a real concern here... HAHN: Yes. SCHULTZ: ... that a real desire to do this. HAHN: That`s right. SCHULTZ: Because I sense just how much love for the region and the community, they`re actually was down there. What it is like right now? What -- if you go out there, understand you were out there today, what did you find? HAHN: Well, unfortunately, the birds are trying to -- several different -- especially the pelicans are trying to land out on some place that`s not there. These were birds that were probably born there two or three generations ago that are returning and wandering around the island, swimming around the island. And actually now, in most cases, trying to find a place to nest. And what`s -- unfortunately, what`s happening is, with the lost of the island, with nothing there, those birds will not go up and breed somewhere else. That`s it. The U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries clearly has report showing these birds once they come back to this island, if it`s not there, they don`t go up and breed somewhere else. So unfortunately, generation after generation of birds were losing and it`s not only the pelican, there were a lot of birds that`s nested there. Some of them rare and endangered birds that we were able to photograph that use that island to nest. SCHULTZ: Yeah. And do you have something to show us that you picked up today? HAHN: I do. I was out at this morning. Of course, I loved how B.P. saying everything is gone. Obviously, there`s so much oil still out there. SCHULTZ: So what are we looking at right now? HAHN: What you see right now is a screenshot of a marsh grass -- I brought a scientist out there that`s doing research on bugs in the marsh. And while we were out there, of course, there`s a lot of dead marsh with the oil that`s kicked on underneath it. But she`s doing a research on bugs in the marsh and it`s a very interesting research that she`s doing because they`re pretty much a canary in a coal mine showing that at all levels wherever this oil is at the bugs are dying. Even -- there are certain bugs that live only on the ground, some that live in the middle of the stacks (ph) and some that only move from top-tip or the top of the stacks (ph). SCHULTZ: So this would document irreversible damage? HAHN: Right. This is -- I don`t know whether you can see this but... SCHULTZ: Yes, we can see it. Yup. HAHN: OK. And basically what you can see is this marsh grass... SCHULTZ: Yeah. Lifts up a little bit. HAHN: Obviously, this marsh grass is -- it would be very tall. This is the oil clinging on to it. I`ll leave it here in the studio. If B.P is watching tonight, they want to send somebody to pick it up or even give him a GPS coordinate to where to find some more of this. But this is the kind of stuff that you find out there, in the marsh. And this is a type of stuff that the birds in the wildlife are feeding on the small -- underneath, they`re this stuff are a lot of small crabs and crustaceans that the marine life, the wildlife are all eating and it gets put back to the ecosystem. SCHULTZ: We`re going to replay our Monday story tomorrow but then, coming up on Monday, we`re going to have an extensive report on restitution. There has been -- describe the restitution, if you can, to lead us to where we`re going for Monday`s coverage. HAHN: Well, what happened is there is -- under the Clean Water Act, there are several -- going to be several different buckets of money coming down to the coast. So far, we haven`t seen any of those buckets directly to the parish. SCHULTZ: OK. HAHN: Plaquemines Parish, what we`re hoping to do is be able to cobble (ph) the money that we`ve raised from -- for Cat Island which is over $3 million. SCHULTZ: Sure. HAHN: And then we`re also looking at trying to get some moneys from the first wave of restore funds and be able to use that to put the island back. SCHULTZ: OK. And B.P., for the record, no money yet towards Cat Island, correct? HAHN: No money yet at all and I, you know, I literally have called every number I could for B.P. and I`ve spoken with them trying to get them to look and recognize this island and come out here and spend... SCHULTZ: OK. HAHN: ... a little bit of money on it. It would go a long way to be able to restoring what was once an absolute, gorgeous, pristine island and a great bird sanctuary. SCHULTZ: And they also, in their statement to us said that, that they blamed a winter freeze for killing vegetation. HAHN: Again, I can`t say that if you`ve repeat a lie long enough, you`ll people will take as a truth. And unfortunately, that`s been -- that is been B.P.`s MO from day one, lie about how much oil came up the wellhead, lie about what they were putting out in the ground as far as resources to pick up the oil. And then even after this oil spill, they`ve lost every appeal so far in court. You know, they`re going to do... SCHULTZ: Sure. HAHN: ... everything they can not have to spend a dime to correct. I mean, we`ve lost -- and I`d like to point out, 11 lives were lost in that explosion. I mean, if that doesn`t show negligence, pure negligence, and the price of the oil like the barrel for oil rises when once you identified negligence. This is pure negligence on the part of this company. SCHULTZ: All right. HAHN: We have a lot of good companies, a lot of good oil companies that work and thrive in the gulf and that a lot of people depend on. B.P. was just a bad player in the gulf. That is plain and simple. SCHULTZ: PJ Hahn, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate... HAHN: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: ... your helping... HAHN: Thank you very much. SCHULTZ: ... produce these segments. Thank you so much. HAHN: Yes, sir. SCHULTZ: The full segment from B.P. on Cat Island can be found at msnbc.com. Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "From our reporting, are you surprised with the condition of the gulf?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can go to my blog at wegoted.com and leave a comment. We`ll you the results on the poll later on in the show. Up next, many Chicago once call him, "Mayor 1%" as Rahm Emanuel gears up for reelection. Next week, I`m talking to his top challenger, Chuy Garcia when we come back. Stay with us. SCHUTLZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. The Chicago mayoral race is less than one week away and Rahm Emanuel is pulling out all stops to get his reelection bid in stone. Emanuel has tapped in to his $30 million war chest to flood the local air waves with T.V. ads. Today President Obama travel to Chicago to designate a national monument and rub the elbows with his former chief of staff. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I have confidence as a voter and as a resident of Chicago that he`s going to continue to do a great job. I`m glad he`s my Mayor, and I`m glad he`s going to be my mayor for another four years. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Well, that would be an endorsement. According to the latest number Rahm Emanuel could use the boost. Chicago Tribune poll shows Rahm Emanuel leading by 45 percent in suits (ph) of 45 percent he`s top challenger and my next guest Chuy Garcia comes in with 20 percent rating of support, 18 percent of voter say that they are still undecided and to make number. Emanuel needs to hit 50 percent plus one benchmark in order to avoid a run- off election on April 7th with the second place finisher. Garcia wants to go one-on-one with what they call "Mayor 1%" in Chicago. Obviously, those are Emanuel supporters. Garcia has the backing of a number of labor and progressive groups who have tried -- who are basically tired of what they call Rahm Emanuel`s corporate friendly leadership. Garcia has pitched himself as a mayor for all of us. He`s most enthusiastic supporter comes from the Chicago Teachers Union. Emanuel has spent years battling with Chicago teachers. He angered voters with his decision to close 50 public schools most in minority neighborhoods on the south and west side of Chicago. Some residents feel that he was picking and choosing neighborhoods which of course alienated a lot of minority voters. Emanuel now sets at 42 percent with black residences who make up a third of the cities population. Go up in 25 percent of undecided black voters will play a key role in deciding whether Rahm Emanuel avoids a run-off of even wins the race. This race comes down to that old term "turnout". Speaking of turnout, we did reach out to Mayor Rahm Emanuel to invite him to join us on this program, unfortunately, he had a scheduling conflict. The invitation stands -- Rahm Emanuel, you`re certainly welcome to come on the Ed Show before the election or any other time. Joining me tonight is Chicago mayoral candidate Chuy Garcia. Mr. Garcia, good to have you with us tonight. If you had to describe Rahm Emanuel`s time as mayor of Chicago, how would you do it? GARCIA: Well, during the time that he`s been mayor, he`s catered to select a few in the city who have benefited from his tenure. He essentially has catered to the rich and powerful in Chicago, receiving huge amounts of campaign contributions from Hollywood, from Hedgeland managers, from the wealthy in Chicago. And the Chicago Tribune showed two weeks ago a series that most of his contributors expect return in the form of contracts of appointments to important board in commissions, tax increment, financing subsidies, just a host of benefits that 60 percent of his donors, the article pointed out, benefit directly from giving him money while the neighborhood in Chicago have suffered. As you pointed out, from the massive school closing that have occurred in Chicago making us a leader in that regard and also from Chicago becoming we`re the most violent cities in the country with over 10,000 shootings over the past. SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARCIA: . four years, so there some (inaudible) issues that are before the voters right now. SCHULTZ: So, Mr. Garcia, how is the black vote going to go? How much of an effect will be felt in this election based on what the mayor did with closing of 50 schools? GARCIA: I think the school closures were a turning point for African- American voters in the city. The African-American community suffered a disproportion at the impact. In terms of the numbers of schools that were close, you know, the neighborhood where the school were close were devastated by the school closing (inaudible) doubt a sign of life, a sign of positive energy, it affected local businesses is very negative... SCHULTZ: But what would be different if you were mayor? GARCIA: Well, for one, I would non have them barked on such a course, I would have listen to the voice of parents, and student, and other stakeholders in this communities that said, if you close these buildings, these institutions our communities will truly be in the terrible straits in terms of having any hope for the future. It`s a sign of the disinvestment that`s occurred under this administration. SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARCIA: . in many Chicago neighborhood. SCHULTZ: Is President Obama`s visit today and flat out endorsement. Well, you heard the sound bite. Is that going to help the mayor in Chicago? GARCIA: I don`t think so, I think it`s too little and too late. I think the President came in at the behalves of the mayor who`s trying to save himself from going into a run-off. But I think this mayor has demonstrated a real carelessness to ordinary working people in Chicago. SCHULTZ: OK. GARCIA: ... and the neighborhoods just think that he`s not a neighborhood guy, doesn`t spend his time there. When they did an investigation under use of his time as mayor of the city of Chicago, he always makes time to meet with the rich and powerful but not in the neighborhood (inaudible)... SCHULTZ: So he`s not going to be everybody`s mayor. Yes, you`ve capitalized on that saying that you`re... GARCIA: I have. SCHULTZ: ... a mayor for everybody. OK. GARCIA: Yes. And interesting enough, you know, the city downtown district which is doing great happens to complies one percent of the total land mass of the city of Chicago. SCHULTZ: All right. Chuy Garcia, thanks for joining us tonight. GARCIA: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: The election of course is next Tuesday. GARCIA: Going to a run-off. SCHULTZ: Going to -- you think it`ll be going to a run-off? GARCIA: Yes, I do. SCHULTZ: OK. We`ll follow the story. I appreciate your time tonight. GARCIA: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Coming up, Walmart big announcement. And later, the Obama administration has drastically altering our armed drone policy, what it could mean for national security. That`s ahead. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Retail giant Walmart is making headlines today promising to give a half of million employees pay raises in the next two months. By April, the starting pay for an entry level position of the store will be ramp up to $9 an hour. That`s nearly $2 more than the federal minimum wage. It is still far below the $15 minimum wage. Protesters have been working towards but the company did respond. Walmart`s decision comes on the hills of insurance company at this major announcement. This big company said last month, Aetna, that they would ramp their based pay raise to $16 an hour. The company also plans to launch an enhanced medical benefits program which will lower out-of-pocket expenses for employees. To the state of Wisconsin, where members of the Menominee tribe, completed their five-day march to Madison, they had hoped to talk to Governor Scott Walker about a proposed Hard Rock Hotel and Casino. They want in Kenosha, Wisconsin. This is something advocates say will bring money into the state and to the (inaudible) tribe jobs to help the unemployed and, of course, tax dollars to the state. But Governor Walker won`t budge on this decision. He`s against the casino and refused to meet with the tribe members after their five-day march to Madison. In the state of Texas, despite its ban on same sex marriage allowed a gay couple to marry today. The license was granted for medical raises to Sarah Goodfriend and Suzzane Bryant, after Goodfriend was recently diagnosed with ovarian cancer. This is not a sweeping change to the state legislation as the grant only applies to this one couple. Texas statewide ban on gay marriage was declared unconstitutional in federal court last year. The judge stayed the ruling to allow the state to appeal. And tonight, in our Ask Ed Segment, our question comes from Larry (ph). He wants to know, what could Democrats be doing before 2016 arrives? How about getting a candidate? Get somebody to declare. I`m starting to think that nobody is going to declare except Hillary. Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next. HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks in today mixed. The Dow sheds 44 points, the S&P is off by 2, the NASDAQ is up by 18. Most of the Dows decline is due to the decline in Walmart shares which finished down more than t3 percent. The company`s latest earnings being estimate but revenue fell short. It`s also boasting pay for employees. And the number of Americans filling for first time jobless claims fell by 21,000 in the latest week to 283,000. E-commerce were expecting a smaller decline. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. The Obama administration has announced a major shift in our country`s armed drone policy. This week the State Department said that it would permit the export of arm drones for the first time. The administration is moving quickly on this. Carefully selected allied countries could have arm drones by 2016. The Unites States, China and Israel are the only three countries that currently manufacture arm drones. Turkey and Italy have reportedly been seeking to buy arm drones from the United States for some time. Both of these countries are concerned with the spread of ISIS. The Obama administration has laid down a strict set of rules for drone sales. Drones cannot be used for unlawful surveillance. No country could use drones against their domestic population and any use must take place in internationally sanction military operations. Each sale would be individually reviewed and the United States would monitor compliance. Drone technology has greatly advanced in recent years. The latest Reaper drone can carry as much munitions as an F-16 fighter. The Obama administration said the policy shift is to ensure arm drones are used responsibly and legally around the world which of course has been questioned by many of the United States uses drones but you cannot deny their effectiveness. Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel is Stuart Russell who was a Professor of Computer Science at U.C. Berkeley and an expert on robotics also with us tonight, Molly O`Toole -- pop above (ph) -- talk about political reporter for Defense One. Great to have both of you with us tonight. Molly, you first, did people in your line of work know this policy shift was on the horizon, was there much conversation about it? I mean, it just came out the other day and it didn`t seem like anybody knew that this is going to happen. MOLLY O`TOOLE, DEFENSE ONE: I saw the media announcement. It is come as a bit of a surprise to some. I can`t believe the Washington Post, I`ve got to jumped on it but not by a long but this conversation around the sale of drones -- has been going on for some time from two different perspectives. From the business community, a lot of production of arm drones of these technology even goes on in the United States and they`ve been complaining that the they don`t have access to this market because of the regulations. And then politically with the ramp up in the fight against the Islamic State our encouragement for coalition partners to get more involved. There had been request that have been previously denied for both armed and unarmed drone technology. For example, Jordan earlier who is a crucial ally in fight against Islamic State had made such a request for unarmed predator drones for surveillance and that have been denied. For the conversation had been going on although I just think the announcement came as somewhat of a surprise. SCHULTZ: OK. Professor Russell, you wrote in a recent post that several nations are working towards the development of lethal autonomous weapon systems that can assess information, choose targets, and open fire without human intervention. This is so pretty scary stuff. How advanced is this technology and how risky is it for us to let other countries have it? STUART RUSSELL, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY: So the technology is very far along. The pieces are all in place. And if you wanted something that would run by itself, for example, if you were worried about enemies the harmony (ph) of communication with your drones and you needed to have a drone flying by itself using its own target. I think you could pretty much put something together it right now. And have it out there within a few months. Would it be the highest quality system? Would it sometimes make mistakes - - that`s to be seen. But suddenly, within less than five years, you could have very high quality systems out there doing a lot of their jobs that are done by drones right now. The risk would be that, this is not the first step. The technology that we have right now with drones is a human being teleoperating the vision. The vision fed is coming back to the home base and the human is making the decisions. So right now, we could replace that function with autonomy but the arms race that would ensue would be very rapid because once you have fully autonomous drones up rising, then they`re operating in a much highest speed in terms of their reaction times. And so the only way you can defend against them is by having autonomous attack drones that would engage those drones and you get into an arms race and to limit that arms race. The end point would be machines of incredible speed, incredible accuracy, and incredible lethality against humans. And, you know, I`ve said in some other interviews that on the battle field, the lifespan of human being might be 10 seconds under those circumstances. SCHULTZ: Amazing. And if we didn`t export this technology Professor, would other countries get it anyway? RUSSELL: So there are two parts of that question. The export of drones that are teleoperated by humans, I think that`s happening already. There are more than 60 countries who have drone programs either buying an drone technology or developing their own. The creation of systems that is capable operating independently is more difficult. And I think right now only the U.S. could produce high quality systems. So at the moment, the United Nations is working very hard on a treaty that would actually ban the deployments of weapons that can shoot their own targets out and engage, in other words, kill them. SCHULTZ: Molly, how would the United States monitor compliance? That`s like me selling you a car and telling you can`t drive on mainstream. I mean, when someone -- we can just imagine that a country is going to feel pressured in some way and maybe go up and use the drone because they may view it in their own best interest yet it might violate. And so, how would the United States enforce that and what about compliance? O`TOOLE: Right. Well, we`re not exactly sure how this is going to play out as of yet -- I mean, as you yourself noted regarding the State Department`s announcement, they included details of how stringent the application process would be and that the bar (ph) would be pretty high, and that I think they use of phrase "presumption of denial". So it`s unclear, after we get him, the drone is over, (inaudible) drone technology over even how they would enforce compliance. And I think as the Professor suggested, there is a concern here about the proliferation of this technology. But I think part of the motivation behind this announcement which many analysts and reporters have stated this that they recognized that there are some lot of inevitability to the spread of this technology. SCHULTZ: Sure. O`TOOLE: ... with the proliferation of this technology. So it`s the way the U.S. can kind of preempt to that and try to regulate it and control it as best they can while acknowledging that inevitability. SCHULTZ: And, Professor, is there a sense here that this might just be a business deal? We want to sell more than the Israelis and the Chinese on this, that we want to deal before they do it. Or is this really about security and the President talking yesterday about allies and fighting ISIS and making sure by (inaudible) and get it done? Well here we are. RUSSELL: Well, you might say it`s a consequence of factors. I mean, none of us would be shocked if business was arguing for greater freedom to export ... SCHULTZ: All right. RUSSELL: ... those weapons. SCHULTZ: OK. RUSSELL: I just -- I`m reminded of my kids, you know, I accidentally got them NERF guns for Christmas and they promised never to use them in the house, right, as you can tell what happened. SCHULTZ: We can use our imagination. And also, what if they fall into the wrong hands? Stuart Russell Professor of U.C. Berkeley, thank you. And also, Molly O`toole who was a political reporter for Defense One, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you so much. O`TOOLE: OK. Thanks. Coming up, Jeb Bush is gearing up for a presidential run but right-wing talkers, they are just trashing this guy in the airwaves. Talk Radio Consultant, Media Consultant Holland Cooke with a few details when we come back. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And tomorrow, we revisit part one of our series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill". Coastal residents told us what impact the disaster had on business and culture. According fishermen, Rocco Scalone, the effects of the spill will be felt for generations. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROCCO SCALONE, GULF COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN: Within the first two minutes, they`ve dumped more oil in the gulf than I`ve ever -- in my lifetime (inaudible) anywhere. All we had to do is just keep it going so that my kids could have something (inaudible) life and now I got nothing. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: That`s coming up tomorrow on the Ed Show at 5:00 Eastern and I`ll join Joe Scarborough tomorrow morning, on Morning Joe to talk more about our series. Next week, we examine the restitution program of "The Gulf 5 Years After The Spill", the battle continues in the courtroom. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GLENN GILLYARD, CARR, RIGGS & INGRAM, LLC: Personally, I just think that B.P has been taking as much time as they can, retaining as much capital as they can. It slows the system, their using this to do it. There`s also an appeal process that they have. They can appeal anything from a business claim over $25,000. Currently, they`re appealing about (inaudible) notices to come out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: That`s coming up Monday on the Ed Show. Up next, Jeb Bush steps into the conservative gauntlet. Holland Cooke, Media Consultant, weighs in on what the ratings are talking about. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FRM. GOV. JEB BUSH (R) FLORIDA: I`m my own man and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my experiences. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Given that statement the former Florida Governor is still surrounding himself with the same guys as dad and he`s brother were hanging out with on the administration. Take a look at this Venn diagram from the Washington post the fix, showing the overlap between Jeb Bush`s advisors and past Bush administrations. Despite, who Jeb is surrounding himself with, he still doesn`t have the support of the GOP base. The latest CNN poll of national Republican voters shows that Mike Huckabee. He has the lead in 17 percent. Bush is in at second place at 12 percent, Scott Walker and Rand Paul each in 11 percent, Ben Carson takes 9 percent of this poll. Since Jeb Bush announcing December that he would actively explore a White House run. Conservative talkers on the radio around the country have been painting (ph) Bush as an -- entitles in Republican a "name only". (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAURA INGRAHAM, "LAURA INGRAHAM SHOW" HOST: I think Jeb Bush, you know, if I had to bet right now he`d be the nominee. And if I had to bet right now, he`ll lose. I don`t want that to happen. RUSH LIMBAUGH, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW" HOST: When you compare their positions, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, on the key important issues, they are two peas in the same pod. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The Republican Party can`t seem to decide who Jeb Bush takes after. He`s family or he`s potential opponent, whoever that might be because nobody`s announced. Holland Cook, Talk Radio Consultant, joins us tonight here in studio of the Ed Show. Good to see, great to have you with us. HOLLAND COOKE, TALK RADIO CONSULTANT: Hello. SCHULTZ: All right. So, he`s own man, why would he go down in that road and even address that? COOKE: Well, he`s going to have to because, as you say, the talent he`s round it up includes some familiar names. He frankly beat Michter (ph) to the talent and to the Dow (ph). I`m not surprise by that Huckabee number you just showed because he is playing better to that based, who has two problems with Jeb common core immigration and because Huckabee of all the 2016 wannabes is the best speaker. SCHULTZ: He is the guy media savvy. COOKE: Yeah, Carson is the worst but the Huckabee is the best. SCHULTZ: OK. Now to Bush, what`s the problem with right-wing takers in Bush? COOKE: Two-fold -- does he have a problem with talk radio and frankly doesn`t matter. Talk radios really good in the mid-terms because turnout is low, tends to be the more zealous (ph) voters, tends to be the base. General election is -- every four years people get excited we`re going to pick up a president. It`s more representative. Talk radio doesn`t have quite the track record in the presidential years that it has as we just saw in the off-years. So if he does have a talk radio problem, does it matter? You`ve seen the ratings, and the big markets, the big national talkers are in ratings trouble. So we`ll see, but I do think he has a problem with him. Glenn Beck is doing the drastic voice that he does, warning you about Jeb. You`ve heard what Laura Ingraham says. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are very favorable to Ted Cruz who owns the Tea Party reign. Sean is very intrigue with Rand Paul who owns libertarian lane. So if those two can win place or show in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They`re going to be pace cars that make this a long race for Jeb. SCHULTZ: Media Matters has pointing out how many times Limbaugh has mentioned Scott Walker`s name. It`s almost as if he`s already picked his guy in the race and because of his attack on Eugene and he is conservatively principle that he thinks he`s the guy. Can Limbaugh help Walker? COOKE: We`ll see but Walker`s in Jeb`s lane, you know, he`s going to be the establishment governor guy and, frankly, although I don`t think that he`s intention, Walker maybe running for V.P. SCHULTZ: Well, does talk radio have the influence it had 10 years ago? Let say -- let`s go back to 2004, in the reelection of George W. Bush. A lot of people of this day are so wondered how the heck did that happened. And I mean, they were -- the ratings were pounding John Kerry, just pounded him. I mean just going after -- I`ve never heard anything, never seen anything like that before, or heard anything like that before. I mean, would that have an effect this time around or is talk radio lost some its influence? COOKE: Well, back then was before Twitter... SCHULTZ: Yeah. COOKE: ... and before Facebook. People are having conversation with or without talk radio. And you have seen how they have to turn on a dime when the Twitter burst turns again them. You seem still that they will quickly walk back and apologize of Limbaugh pounds on him. But I think the attention is now spread out and that the people having the conversation are more in control and that the gatekeepers on talk radio might be less influential because of social media. SCHULTZ: I think the gatekeepers of talk radio are well aware that the Republican Party doesn`t want to do too much or they going to get pounded on the radio. I think that they have more of influence on people in Washington than they do on the actual voters across the country. COOKE: Yeah. And if were Jeb I wouldn`t be going on the show now, anyway. Like Hillary lay low for now. What do you have to gain by exposing yourself? But sooner or later they`re both going to have to show up. SCHULTZ: Well, as far as Hillary is concern I don`t think it`s going to be -- I don`t think it`s going to be a coronation. I think it`s going to be draft. I mean, the $8 billion is going to be -- spent and who can raise that kind of money. COOKE: Yeah. SCHUTLZ: I would say the Clintons are first out. COOKE: Yeah. The Dow is mother`s milk of this process and I would take her stumbling... SCHULTZ: Yeah. COOKE: ... to bring in Joe Biden who would be the obvious Plan B. SCHULTZ: Holland Cooke, great to have you with us. COOKER: Thank you. SCHULTZ: That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021901cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 88 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 19, 2015 Thursday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 19, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz GUESTS: Margie Omero, Jamal Simmons, Hallie Jackson, Natalie Azar SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7041 words HIGHLIGHT: Republicans are having doubts in President Obama`s loyalty to the country or the terrorist and determine to make sure that the president will fail. After a major manhunt and standoff the suspect for the shooting of Tammy Meyers is now in custody, surveillance video captured the scene. The GOP elites love Jeb Bush but the base can`t stand him and said unelectable line. UCLA found the superbug from contaminated duodena scopes that the hospital use for procedures to look for ulcers, similar to endoscopy. REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Wait a minute Ed, stay close because we`re going to see you later on in this show. SCHULTZ: Looking forward to it. SHARPTON: All right. But now it`s time for us to get to work. Tonight`s lead, birtherism by another name. Today one of the ugliest right-wing smears of the Obama presidency has crept back into the Republican rhetoric. The suggestion that somehow the American president is not fully American. Here`s what former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said at a private dinner. Quote, "I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America. He wasn`t brought up the way you were brought up, and I was brought up, through love of this country." Giuliani was right about one thing -- it was a horrible thing to say. And today he tried to walk it back, sort of. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Well, first of all, I`m not questioning his patriotism. He`s a patriot, I`m sure. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents. And when it`s not in the context of an overwhelming number of statements about the exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he`s more of a critic than he is a supporter. I don`t also believe he expresses the love of western civilization that he should, or understanding of western civilization. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The president doesn`t love western civilization. Now, Rudy Giuliani hasn`t served office in 13 years. He`s certainly not any kind of power player in the GOP or anywhere else, so it should be easy for Republicans to reject this kind of talk, and yet here`s what GOP Governor Scott Walker, who was at the event with Giuliani last night, here`s what he said today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: I mean the mayor can speak for himself. I`m nothing going to comment on whether what the president thinks or not. He can speak for himself as -- I`ll tell you I love America. UNIDENTIFIED MALE INTERVIEWER: Did you agree with his comments? We`re you offended by those comments? What was your reaction when you heard them? WALKER: I`m in New York. I`m used to people saying things that are fully aggressive -- (CROSSTALK) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Governor Walker refused to condemn the comments, and Republican Governor Bobby Jindal shined in saying quote "The gist of what Mayor Giuliani said is true." It`s true that the president doesn`t love America? This is now unacceptable talking point from mainstream Republicans. Today President Obama showed what this debate is really about, talking about his plan to defeat terror group like ISIS, and emphasizing once again that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute of the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative. The notion that the west is at war with Islam is an ugly lie. And all of us, regardless of our faiths, have a responsibility to reject it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now is Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat from New York and Dana Milbank of "The Washington Post." Thank you both for being here. REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D), NEW YORK: Thank you. DANA MILBANK, THE WASHINGTON POST WRITER: Hi, Reverend. SHARPTON: Congressman, you know, it`s one thing for a former mayor who`s really looking for relevance to say this stuff, but what about so-called serious Republican politicians, some prey who are running for president. What about them shining in? JEFFRIES: Well, it shows a very troubling degradation of our politics, to attack the commander in chief at a time when we should be concerned about the ISIL threat and what it presents to National Security, the people of decency all across the world. You know, this is a president, Rev., who was raised in large measure by a white mother and two white grandparents, a grandfather whom I believed served the World War II. He was educated at some of America`s best institutions at Columbia, at Harvard. SHARPTON: But he wasn`t brought up to love America. By a World War II background. (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: He didn`t bring him up and raise as the love of America. JEFFRIES: Absolutely. But the problem with the Republican attack machine is that facts don`t matter. And if you look at his presidency it`s been one of the most successful in history. Not just bringing us ground breaking legislation to rain in Wall Street, to deal with the affordable health care crisis, but he`s turning the economy around. He inherited an economic train wreck and the economy is back on track. To me, that shows a tremendous love of America, his sacrifice and his leadership to the office of the presidency. SHARPTON: I mean, Dana, I thought we had heard got it rid of all these ugliness and this virtual in the last election. I mean, what is this all about? MILBANK: Revered, I don`t think it disappeared at all. And certainly not for a very long period of time. And I think it is a continuation of what we`ve been seeing over the last seven years now. And that is to create the impression that this president is something other than a patriotic American. And of course Giuliani was questioning his patriotism before coming out and saying he wasn`t questioning his patriotism, and he`s not alone. We`ve got Ted Cruz, we`ve got Republican member of the House, we`ve got others raising doubts repeatedly about where this president`s loyalties are, whether they`re to America or to the terrorists. Now, you can look at the president`s language on, you know, avoiding the notion of a war against Islam. It`s essentially the same language that George W. Bush that used back during his presidency, but there is really a concerted effort I think to create this impression that this president is something other than a normal patriotic American. SHARPTON: So Congressman, someone to right say to president doesn`t love America, we`re also hearing claims that he sympathizes with ISIS. Listen to Senator Ted Cruz. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: What undermines the global effort is for the president of the United States to be an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, an apologist for terrorists, Congressman? I mean, do comments like this make it harder to have a serious debate in this country about strategies for destroying ISIS? JEFFRIES: I think it`s hard to have a serious debate whenever the junior senator from Texas is involved. I mean, this is somebody who`s continued to disgrace himself and his credibility, but the problem is there are people on the right who take Ted Cruz seriously, Rev. And that`s an unfortunate thing. They have been attempting to delegitimize this president from the moment he was sworn in January of 2009. They failed in his initial election, they failed in the reelection. And so now I think that the rhetoric has gotten more strident, showing the hatred that many on the right seem to have for this president and for his success. And it`s unfortunate, because the Republican obstructionism if anything has been bad for America. They`ve been so determine to make sure that President Obama failed, they`ve been unsuccessful in that effort of course, but they`ve limited even the aggressive economic progress that he`s been able to make to the detriment of the American people. SHARPTON: Now, Dana, this -- since the ISIS threat emerged, since the beginning, we`re seeing more and more right-wing pundits claiming the president is anti-American and anti-Christian, and all these kind of conspiracy theories. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. KEITH ABLOW, FOX NEWS CHANNEL PSYCHIATRY CONTRIBUTOR: This balancing threats, and to the president of the United States, I believe the United States of America is the bigger threat. FMR. LT. GEN. THOMAS MCINERNEY, U.S. AIR FORCE: Maybe we have some Islamists embedded in the White House. TODD STARNES, FOX NATION ANCHOR: The world would be a much safer place if the Obama administration hated Islamic extremists as much as they do FOX News. BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS CO-HOST: He said, you know what? Yes, ISIS is bad, but you know what? Christians were just as bad as ISIS was a couple centuries ago. He`s making excuses it seems for ISIS` behavior essentially saying we started it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: So maybe, Dana, maybe the Republican politicians are just trying to satisfy these pundits that clearly galvanize their base. MILBANK: You know, and I think that`s the very important point here, Revered. As you`re always going to have, you know, wing nuts out there saying all kinds of crazy things, the important thing here to look at is who`s validating that. So you have Scott Walker, a guy who has as good a chance as any of getting the Republican nomination for president, refusing to weigh in on whether this president loves his country. And you know, you had this same guy a week as we discussed refusing to weigh in on evolution. So the problem here is they`ve created a leadership vacuum, there`s no leadership coming from Scott Walker and a number of his colleague seeking the nomination and that`s why you have so much of an echo. SHARPTON: And that`s my point. I mean -- the former mayor, I understand, you know, he`s got to do what he`s got to do to get some attention every now and then. But the fact that these guys were not weighing and show leadership and a players now with the following, is what`s so disturbing and distressing. But let`s put some facts into this debate though, why it is so to me so absurd. Because let`s remember, 1.6 billion people are Muslim in the world -- 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, just 0.0018 percent are members of ISIS. And the U.S.-led coalition, Congressman, has launched over 2,400 airstrikes on ISIS since August. Now, aren`t those the facts that critics of the president are missing? JEFFRIES: Those are absolutely the facts, Rev. This president has led the effort to combat and destroy ISIL. And we`ll continue to lead the way in that regard. This is also the president that had the courage to pull the trigger on the assassination, a daring raid on Osama Bin Laden, something that George Bush his predecessor couldn`t accomplish. And so I think the reality here is always very different in the facts presented by the Republicans, and it`s unfortunate that it`s a race to the bottom amongst Republican presidential candidates right now. SHARPTON: And what I`m saying is that we can all disagree, but we don`t have to be disagreeable and you don`t have to come with cheap shots. You know, I ran into Sarah Palin early this week in NSOP and even she said we both love America. I was stunned to hear her admit it, but I have it on tape. And that should be the base of the discussion rather than the aberration. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries and Dana Milbank, thank you both for your time tonight. JEFFRIES: Thank you, Rev. MILBANK: Thank you, Revered. SHARPTON: Coming up, fears about a deadly new super bug. Two dead, many more at risk. Should you be worried about your next trip to the hospital? Also the GOP civil war over Jeb Bush, how his last name and his record is pulling the party apart. Plus, President Obama staring tribute to generations of men who shook off the chains of Jim Crow to build a new life in the north. And a new debate should -- or a new debate about sugar. Should we tax sweets the way we tax cigarettes? Conversation nation is ahead. SHARPTON: Breaking news out of Las Vegas, on that story about a road rage shooting we brought you last night. A suspect is now in custody after a major manhunt and standoff for the shooting of Tammy Meyers. She`s the mother who was gunned down outside her home following a road rage fight last week. This surveillance video captured the scene. Again the breaking news tonight, the suspect in the Vegas road rage shooting has been taken into custody. We`ll be right back. SHARPTON: Welcome to tonight GOP dating game. With more and more 2016 candidates angling for attention, it`s time we get to know the contenders. Let`s get started. First up, we`ve got a former Republican governor. He was known for cutting taxes, fighting teachers` unions, opposing abortion rights, and supporting stands your ground. So who is this mystery man? If you guessed Jeb Bush, you are absolutely right. On to our next contender. He had a held elected office for nearly a decade. The base says he`s on left on the education, soft on immigration and one group even calling him unelectable. Who is he? Yes, this one is Jeb, too. So how does this work? Jeb wants to be seen as a compassionate conservative. And the GOP elites love him. But the base can`t stand him, and that unelectable line, I wasn`t making that up. Check out this new online ad (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JEB BUSH (R), FLORIDA: I want to say thank you to both Secretary Clinton and the President Clinton. Thank you for service to our country. HILARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I want to say a special thank you to Governor Bush. Now, this is not the first time that a Clinton and a Bush have shared this stage. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Jeb might be playing the GOP dating game, but he still got a lot of right wingers who are interested. Joining me now Democratic Strategist Margie Omero and Jamal Simmons. Thank you both for being here. MARGIE OMERO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you, Rev. JAMAL SIMMONS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Good to see you. SHARPTON: Margie, we`re talking about the GOP dating game. But will anyone in the base even return Jeb`s calls? OMERO: I don`t know. I mean, people complain as it is as hard to find as good match here in Washington and certainly, the current field, I think, reflects that because you see so many people entering the field. And Jeb Bush, with despite his name I.D. and how well know he is nationally, really can`t break out of the top tier. He`s obviously, top tier in a lot of polls whether it`s our poll that we`ve in, whether the "NBC" Marist poll that came out this week. He may be leading in some of the early primary states, but not by a lot. Not by anything outside the margins of error. SHARPTON: Now Jamal, Jeb wants to show the base he`s the top conservative but he also trying to brand himself as part of a kind gentler GOP that can work. Can that work? SIMMONS: I don`t think it`s going to work. Once people remember things like Terri Schiavo, where Jeb Bush fought to keep this woman alive, which tragically been a sort of brain dead for a very long time and whose husband was ready to let her go. But who`s mother -- whose parents weren`t. But Jeb Bush was willing to use the government in a fear in this tragic family situation and it`s those kind of examples that show that he`s -- he`s so in bed with the right wing of his party, they are willing to trample on individual Americans` ability to make a decision what`s best for their family. That I think that, once people get a wind to that they get back in to the whole swim of his tax cuts and his all the other policies, I think they`ll realize that his Bush 3.0 looks a lot full like Bush 2.0 with W was there. SHARPTON: Let me -- let me -- let me dig in that a little further, Margie. Because "The Wall Street Journal" today went out of its way to show all the ways Jeb Bush is conservative, saying that as Florida governor, he cut taxes by $19 billion, removed civil service protections for public workers and shrank the government payroll. Fought with teachers unions over testing and charter schools, and signed the first stand your ground law in the nation. Is this the stuff that Jeb Bush will emphasize in the primary, but downplay in the general election? OMERO: Right. I guess it`s part of his phrase, I need to be willing to lose a primary in order to win the general. Then look, Jeb Bush is no moderate. As Jamal points out, I mean, you can read some of the recent coverage in "New Yorker" and "Politico" about and "The Wall Street Journal" articles, but you stand he`s no moderate. I think the fact that he`s meeting some resistance from within the primary voting electorate shows how far to the right the primarily elector has evolved in the last few cycles. And some of the positions where he is a little bit more centrist, whether it`s on education or whether it`s on immigration, those can be unpopular in some of the early primary states. SHARPTON: Now, Jamal, talk radio is one of the areas now that Jeb Bush faces a lot of problem. Listen to what some of the hosts to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GLENN BECK, AMERICAN TELEVISION AND RADIO HOST: I really don`t like Jeb Bush for a variety of reasons. PATRICK GRAY, AMERICAN TALK RADIO HOST: Me too. MARK LEVIN, AMERICAN TALK RADIO HOST: People say Jeb Bush is the brightest Bush. I`m starting to think he`s the dumbest to the Bushes. RUSH LIMBAUGH, AMERICAN ENTERTAINER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Why doesn`t the base, why is the base not thrilled about Jeb? Because Jeb Bush and the Republican establishment have made it clear, they think the Republican Party`s big problem is Republican voters, and not Democrats and their policies. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Can he overcome this, Jamal? SIMMONS: You know, on one side he`s got the top radio folks who are coming after him. On the other side he`s got these young activists who are really looking for somebody much more like a Rand Paul. You`d be surprised on the number of young Republicans that I hear about in my friends` families that are following Rand Paul. They think that Rand Paul wins the ticket for this election. So I think Jeb Bush is got a fight on two sides. Both of the right-wing adult conservatives and this sort of millennial who are more enamored with somebody who`s a much more passionate person conservative like Rand. SHARPTON: You know the other big Jeb Bush problem, Margie, is that he has that last name. Yesterday he says he`s his own man, but he reminded us an awful lot of his big brother. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) J. BUSH: The slogan that that I think drove the foreign policy of the `80s was peace through strength. GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT UNITED STATES: Our military is not letting you down when it comes to upholding a great tradition of peace through strength. J. BUSH: Free people, free markets, free ideas. G. BUSH: Free markets, free trade and freedom from oppression. J. BUSH: I believe, fundamentally weakness invites war. G. BUSH: We will build our defenses beyond challenge, less weakness, invite challenge. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: So, Jeb`s his own man, Margie. Really? OMERO: Right. Well, he -- I mean, was also worth noting not only the similarities in the speech, the similarities in his foreign policy advisers, and the Post reported this week nearly every single foreign policy adviser that Jeb Bush has worked for -- worked for either the -- or both of the previous two President Bushes, and a "Washington Post/ABC" poll from January showed that even Republican voters are kind of divided as whether they`re going to be more likely or less likely to vote for Bush as of because of his family connections. So it`s a liability even within his party and outside his party. SHARPTON: Margie Omero, Jamal Simmons, thank you both for your time tonight. OMERO: Thank you. SIMMONS: Good to see you (ph). SHARPTON: Straight ahead, some breaking news tonight on that nightmare bacteria. Why is a potentially deadly super-bug hitting a California hospital? And nearly five years since the BP oil disaster, has anything changed? Has there been justice for the people impacted? MSNBC`s Ed Schultz has some terrific reporting from the gulf. And he joins me live, next. SHARPTON: Now to breaking news about a deadly superbug that maybe to blame for two deaths in a California hospital. In the last 15 minutes, UCLA Hospital wrapped up a press conference, saying there are seven cases linked to this some superbug. They happened in people who had procedures done with two different scopes. One hundred seventy-nine other people may have been exposed. The bug can kill up to half of the people whose bloodstreams become infected. Here`s NBC`s Haley Jackson. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HALLIE JACKSON, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Now a patient at UCLA are learning they may have been exposed to CRE after having endoscopies between October and January. The hospital says seven people caught the bug from instruments called duodena scopes that may have been contaminated. And two died possibly because they were infected. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: CRE normally leaves in the gut. If it gets into the bloodstream, it maybe kill 50 percent of the people it infects. JACKSON: Similar outbreaks have happened in Seattle, Chicago and Pittsburgh. And the CDC says at least one CRE case has been reported and nearly every state. DR. LAWRENCE MUSCARELLA, LFM HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS: This is unprecedented. What we`re watching now in terms of patients dying, patients getting infected. JACKSON: Sometimes the recommended sterilization isn`t enough to decontaminate the scope before it`s used again. (END VIDEOTAPE) SHARPTON: Joining me now is NBC news medical contributor Dr. Natalie Azar. Thank you for being here, Doc. DR. NATALIE AZAR, NBC NEWS MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Al. SHARPTON: How can someone get this bug? I mean, walk us through what we`re seeing here. DR. NATALIE AZAR, NBC NEWS MEDICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Okay. So basically the procedure that they`re discussing is something called an ERCP, this is a little bit different than a regular endoscopy that you get that just goes into the esophagus to look for ulcers. What you can see on the screen is that you have a camera and at scope that`s going down through into the esophagus into the stomach into something called the small intestine, shooting some dye to take a look at the gallbladder and the pancreas. And why it`s important to say that specific detail is because they believe that that mechanism there with the camera, and the dye and everything like that, is how it`s possible that this bacteria can seed this area, it means that it can get on that area, and as the infectious disease specialist commented, if it gets out of the gut and into the bloodstream, that`s when it becomes dangerous. SHARPTON: Now, there appears to be no wrongdoing from the hospital. How do we change procedures to make sure this doesn`t happen again? AZAR: Exactly. And so, what we are learning is that they appropriately followed protocol in terms of disinfecting these scopes after they`re being used. We need to take a closer look at what those recommendations are. They may defer from manufacturer to manufacturer. The standard infection control procedures are pretty much, you know, standard throughout the country, and the FDA is clearly looking into this and making sure that not only are the recommendations appropriate, but that the hospitals and, you know endoscopy suites are going to be following these protocols very, very carefully to avoid something like this happening again. SHARPTON: Are there similar concerns with other instruments or other procedures? AZAR: Yes. And so, you know, even more broadly, this is not a bacterial infection that we worry about just in the community. We typically would see this in what we call in-dwelling catheters. So, catheters there in place. This is a gut bacteria, so it has to do, you know, obviously something with the gastrointestinal tract. But anytime you have catheters or scope in an area of the gut where this bacteria can live is a potential for this kind of thing happening. SHARPTON: How concerned should people be? Should they be very alarmed or? AZAR: I think that again, sort of to reiterate, that for most people for doing just a regular endoscopy or colonoscopy we`re not as concerned about those particular scopes as we are the ones that are used in this ERCP. I think that my recommendation would be for patients to discuss with their doctor that they are aware of this, and that they are, you know, maybe taking some extra measures to make sure that they are disinfecting these scopes before they`re being used. I did read from, you know, another institute that they are waiting 48 hours between use now to make sure that the bacteria is not growing. I think there are things that could be done, we have to look at both procedure as well as protocol and see how those -- SHARPTON: Well, you can`t be too cautious. Dr. Azar, thank you for your time tonight. AZAR: Thanks. SHARPTON: Nearly five years ago, the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Today Ed Schultz is reporting on what changed in the gulf, and what hasn`t. He joins me live, next. SHARPTON: We`re approaching the fifth anniversary of a disaster that changed the lives of thousands of Americans. In 2010, a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 people. The explosion created the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Oil gushed out of this pipe for 87 days, and it impacted people`s health, business and the environment. My MSNBC colleague Ed Schultz has been doing some amazing reporting all this week with his series, the gulf today, five years after the oil spill, and see how life is different five years later. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST, "THE ED SHOW": So life has really changed here. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It`s been a nightmare. We woke up one morning and living in paradise, and went to living in hell. SCHULTZ: And finding things like this on the beach certainly doesn`t help. I never would have believed it unless I saw it. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That`s oil. That`s what they made a liquid turn into this. How many chemicals do you think you have to spread to make a liquid turn into this? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me is the host of "THE ED SHOW," Ed Schultz. Ed, great reporting, great reporting five years later. I mean, do the people from the gulf have justice yet? SCHULTZ: No, they don`t. And that`s our next story coming up on Monday as the restitution. Only a fraction of the people have been getting the kind of restitution for their businesses and their personal losses five years after the fact. The $20 billion that was committed, the figure is nowhere near that at this point. And basically when I went down there, Rev, it was to listen to people. I went down there not knowing I was going to come back with a series, but there`s so many facets with the stories. There`s a business loss, there`s the personal loss, there`s the health concerns, there`s the environment, there`s the restoration. All of these things and now of course the court battles that are going on trying to make sure that these people have their lives restored. But what I found was careers lost and financial ruin for a lot of people. It`s sad. SHARPTON: Yes. I know that you found people that had continue to have health problems, and there are people that are not even getting any money from BP. SCHULTZ: That`s right. That`s exactly right. Now there are people that have been paid. SHARPTON: Right. SCHULTZ: You know? And we`re going to have the facts and the figures on all of that coming up in our next report, exactly who has gotten paid. SHARPTON: But some didn`t -- SCHULTZ: The majority of people affected by the oil spill haven`t gotten a dime. SHARPTON: I want to show one of something from your series. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PJ HAHN, PLAQUEMINES PARISH COASTAL DIRECTOR: I started having problems with breathing and a weird rash that breaks out from time to time. SCHULTZ: A lot of folks have had that? HAHN: Well, I just contributed it to old age as I was getting all the trouble of breathing, and then talking to people that worked out there, they`re all complaining about the same thing. And when we went to the doctor and get treated for it, it doesn`t help. They treat it like it`s asthma, but the medications they give you for asthma weren`t working on it. You still felt the same, it didn`t even relieve it a little bit. But there`s a lot of people that are far worse off than me and still haven`t seen a dime from BP for medical claims. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Not one dime, like you just said. It`s unbelievable. SCHULTZ: There`s three basic programs right now after Feinberg left after the first year. There`s the Congressional program, there`s economic recovery program and then there`s the medical claim program. There`s only a fraction of those people that have gotten anything. There`s been some court rulings and whatnot, but they have really fallen short for taking care of the masses and the people that have been affected. And it really is a travesty, the koreksi (ph) that what was put on the oil on the top, had a chemical reaction, it collected the oil and dropped it to the surface. Now, of course BP will, you know, say that`s not right. And they have a website that`s very comprehensive from their side of the story on everything, but the folks down there have been clearly affected by this. The fishing industry has been affected. SHARPTON: You also found some problems with the shrimp. Let`s look at that. SCHULTZ: Okay. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That`s a cancer right here he got. SCHULTZ: That`s a cancer, right there? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes. SCHULTZ: And you can tell by the color of the shell? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The shell is gone. SCHULTZ: The shell is gone? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes, feel it? See, it ate that shell up. SCHULTZ: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It just ate it up. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, what was your reaction when you saw that? SCHULTZ: Well, my next question to him was, do you consume that? He says, yes, and the government says it`s okay to consume it, but obviously consumers are having a hard time with that. They do sort quite a bit and they do inspect the shrimp quite a bit, and they are shrimping in different areas, but clearly there has been an effect on the resource, and certainly the catch is way off, that gentleman that I was talking to was Dean Blanchard, he was one of the largest fish -- or should I say shrimp distributors in the country. And he`s getting maybe about 30 percent of what he used to get. It`s a different world down there. There are reefs that have been producing fish for years for the commercial fishermen, Rocco Scalone who I interviewed, and they are all gone. I mean, they have been constructing reefs over the years, the government stopped letting people do that in the `90s, but back in the 70s and 80s, you can go out and construct reefs while all of the wildlife has been, you know, decimated on those reefs, and the fish aren`t feeding on them anymore, and it`s changed a lot of things. SHARPTON: What surprised you? What did you go down and really find surprising? SCHULTZ: Well, you know, BP took out a huge advertising campaign about the gulf is great, come on back, and BP has had a tremendous effort, but in the eyes of the folks that live down there, not enough. And the folks that are in that part of the country Rev are not against the oil industry. A lot of them work for the oil industry. They just believe, and I heard it time and time again, that they thought that BP was just not a very good player in the whole thing. And so, what did I think when I went down there? I couldn`t believe it. You know, I guess I was one of those ones that was believes and there had really been a real recoveries and that everything was okay and Trump was coming out. I didn`t know the numbers were down like that. I didn`t know that the commercial fishing had been decimated like that. I didn`t realize that, you know, businesses, one wharf that we recovered when we went down there, a retired fighter pilot put his retirement into it. His wife had to go back to work, she`s 75-years-old now, she`s fighter pilot, put his retirement into it. His wife had to go back to work, she`s 75-years-old now. She`s 71. And they`re in debt over a million dollars. I mean, the oil came, the business left, and they couldn`t get it back. And the bank took the wharf and they`re still stuck with the narrative. I mean, these are, you know, where is our government? I mean, it`s no difference between a hurricane where federal help has to come in, you know, or any kind of drought or anything like that. This one has just lasted five years. SHARPTON: Again, great reporting. Ed Schultz thank you for your time. And watch "THE ED SHOW" tomorrow for more on his series "The Gulf Today: Five Years After the Spill" 5:00 p.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC. Still ahead, why can`t GOP leaders denounce Rudy Giuliani`s ugly comments about President Obama? Also, should we tax sugar the way we tax cigarettes? And what has the 25 years of Photoshop done to the way we look at celebrities and ourselves? "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: It`s time for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, Mic.com`s Liz Plank, "The Huffington Post" Noah Michelson, Roll Call Shira Center, thank you all for being here. LIZ PLANK, MIC.COM: Thanks, Rev. SHIRA CENTER, POLITICS EDITOR, ROLL CALL: Thank you. SHARPTON: I have to start by going to Rudy Giuliani, saying he does not believe that the President loves America, but the real problem is people like Scott Walker refusing to condemn the comments. Bobby Jindal saying that the gist of what Giuliani said is true, and Ted Cruz is calling the President an apologist for terrorists. Now, Shira, Rudy is one thing, totally irrelevant, but the possible 2016 candidates not condemning it? How is this playing out in Washington? CENTER: Well, you know, privately a lot of these guys are shaking their head, saying like, my gosh, did Rudy really just say that, right? Could he really just put this in a position of responding in this kind of thing? When I heard about it, I just put that in my manila file of crazy things Rudy Giuliani says sometimes, and that he`s never going to run for office again. (CROSSTALK) Well, it`s growing certainly. Yes. SHARPTON: Liz? PLANK: Well, I agree with that. I mean, he`s made so many race bait comments like that. He`s talking, you know, the emphasis on black on black crime, like he`s always going off, but there are people who are listening to him. And I think that`s what we really need to be concerned about. And that`s what the GOP means to think about as well. Saying that Obama doesn`t love America that he didn`t grow up like you. That is very dangerous language that no one should be endorsing. SHARPTON: And I mean, the White House played the high road today, just tweeting about three national monuments the President dedicated today. With the #ObamaLovesAmerica. But Noah, what about the other guys? I mean, the guys that are now currently possibly running for president, holding office that have real followings. What about none of them really condemning this? NOAH MICHELSON, THE HUFFINGTON POST: I think it`s, you know, despicable, but not surprising. And I think that we need to hold people accountable to those kind of things and say, you know, why aren`t you speaking out when you know this isn`t blatantly not true. And the fact that, you know, the most American thing you can kind to do is hold your country accountable for its actions and I think that`s what Obama has been doing. And I think that for republican candidates not to speak out. I think it`s pretty sad. SHARPTON: Now to a question. Should your sweets be taxed? A dietary guidelines advisory committee recommended a tax on sugary foods and sodas, as a way to fight obesity. More than two thirds of adults, and nearly one third of children and teens are overweight or obese. The studies are shown that sugary snacks and beverages are tied to high obesity rates. Noah, what do you think? Should the government be taxing sugar? MICHELSON: You know, I don`t have a problem with taxing sugar. I think the question is really, who is going to be affected by the tax? And how are they going to be affected? I think we know that a lot of poor and working people are probably going to be hit heart. And so, if those taxes are in use to help programs that are going to help people get healthy food into their homes and into their mouths, and we`re actually going to change their conversation about how we`re eating in this country, I think it could be a good thing, I`m not convinced that`s how, that money could be spend though? SHARPTON: Shira? CENTER: Yes. I think it`s pretty well proven that this taxing sugar is not a popular position, even the most liberal of communities, and mostly I think voters should have the option. You know, they can choose on a ballot referendum whether or not they want their sugar to be taxed. It doesn`t have a terrific history in terms of taxing these kinds of premium products. SHARPTON: Liz? PLANK: Yes, I mean, we think about obesity as an individual problem but really it`s a collective one. And it`s not just a health issue, it`s a class issue. So, it`s more, you know, to both Shira and Noah`s point, it is more prevalent in low socioeconomic areas. So, we can`t just be further taxing the people who are already poor. We need to think about subsidies for healthy foods, we need to think about why it`s harder for them to even be in the radius that`s close enough to vegetables and fruit. We need to think about the structural problem at hand. SHARPTON: And think about the kind of fools that are available in many communities. PLANK: Right. SHARPTON: That are poorer communities. Because you have this huge areas of where there`s nothing available, but high sugar quick kind of foods. MICHELSON: Right. If you can pay $99 for, you know, extra value meal, that`s what you`re going to do. SHARPTON: Yes. PLANK: Right. SHARPTON: All right. Everyone stay with me. When we come back, happy birthday to Photoshop, 25 years of altering reality. Good for business, but is it good for society? Next. SHARPTON: We`re back with more "Conversation Nation." Liz, Noah and Shira are still here. Happy birthday 25th birthday to Photoshop. It`s great fun for the user. For 25 years it`s altered our sense of reality, but Cindy Crawford is getting a lot of attention for this leaked magazine image, posing without Photoshop. Photoshopping stars is nothing new. It`s now viral photos. Mariah Carey`s body was slimmed down, and so was actress Jennifer Lawrence`s cover shot, and pop star Britney Spears. Nicki Minaj even called out a magazine saying she loves her personal unretouched photos. Liz, what is the impact of 25 years of Photoshop been? PLANK: I mean, it`s had a huge impact. And I think all these examples are very interesting. You know, Nikki Minaj saying, I like my unretouched photos. SHARPTON: Right. PLANK: Here they are. SHARPTON: I do think that those were different than what happened with Cindy Crawford. It`s not entirely clear if she really wanted this photo to be released. Is it seemed like it was leaked by a third party. And judging by the photo that was released by her husband on Instagram where she looks much slimmer, and very different, I don`t think she was happy with that photo being linked. And I don`t think there should be a witch- hunt where we go after these linked photos. We can still have a conversation about how unrealistic these representations are and about media literacy, without exposing these women and with photos that they might not want out in the world. SHARPTON: Shira? CENTER: You know what I would really like to see, Reverend, I would like to see a celebrity walk the walk and make an agreement with the magazine that they will publish their unretouched photos. If they`re really going to say, oh, Cindy Crawford looks beautiful just the way she is without Photoshop, without these retouched imaging, why don`t they go for it and say, he had release their own untouched photos and show the world that it`s really okay to have a few extra curves. SHARPTON: Noah? MICHELSON: I think people are hungry for it too. I mean, Beyonce just had a photo that leaked. SHARPTON: Yes. MICHELSON: And the response was incredible. Because these are people that we look up and it`s nice to day, you know, what? They`re kind of like me. Yes, they won the genetic lottery and yes, no, I don`t look like just them, but they have a pimple, or you know, they have some curves, too. And I think we`re hungry for that. SHARPTON: Well, it had been a big impact on generations of people. I mean, for years people thought I was very fat and was just Photoshopped that I could let everybody see the real me. Liz, Noah and Shira, thank you for joining the conversation tonight. We`ll be right back. SHARPTON: Finally tonight, a monument to change. Today in Chicago, President Obama designated the historic Pullman Factory District a national monument. It`s a tribute to generations of railroad porters, mostly African-American men who escaped the Jim Crow south to find work in the north and build a new black middle class. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: Pullman became the first large company in America to recognize a union of black workers. It was those Pullman porters who gave the base by which A. Philip Randolph could convince President Truman to desegregate the armed forces. It was those porters helped lead the Montgomery bus boycott, who were the central organizers of the march on Washington. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The porters became a central part of the civil rights movement. Years later, many African-Americans achieved success by standing on the shoulders of ancestors who were Pullman porters, including First Lady Michelle Obama and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, A. Philip Randolph, who was the convener of the march on Washington in `63 when Martin Luther King made that famous speech, "I Have a Dream." I remember as a teenager the organizer Bayard Rustin had Rachelle Horowitz call me to come to an event. And as a teenager, I met Randall. I learned of the stories of the dignity and pride of the Pullman porters. My hero Reverend Joseph Lowery would tell stories about how it was Pullman porters and preachers that helped break the walls of apartheid down in the south. Today was a deserving tribute in Chicago to men who rebuild a community and brought their families with them. Thank you for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021901cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 89 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 19, 2015 Thursday SHOW: HARDBALL 7:00 PM EST Giuliani Says Obama Doesn`t Love America; Wrangling Over the Name BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Howard Dean, Michael Steele GUESTS: Ron Fournier, Michael Crowley, Michael Crowley, Danny Vargas, Liz Mair, John O`Regan SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8818 words HIGHLIGHT: Former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani told a group of conservatives that President Obama doesn`t love America and doesn`t understand Western Civilization. Republicans are in a tizzy because Obama refuses to call ISIS Islamic. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: They`re saying he doesn`t love America! Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. And that`s the charge out there, that the president of the United States doesn`t love his country. And it`s coming from the man who proudly carries the title "America`s mayor." Is this what it`s come to? What`s hitting us in the news right now tonight are birthers like Donald Trump who say President Obama was secretly born in Africa and smuggled here to bring down the country, now joined by those who say Barack Obama lacks a true loyalty to Western civilization. Is this how we face the danger from ISIS and other terrorists, by dividing between those who claim a deep commitment to this country and those who argue others do not? Is this how we forge a strong America in reaction to the horror of beheadings and burnings alive, by dividing ourselves? Let`s find out tonight what Rudy Giuliani is getting at here. What deep vein in the country`s psyche does this president fail to touch for him? What gut expression of Americanism is Barack Obama failing to give us? Well, Howard Dean was chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Michael Steele was chairman of the Republican National Committee. Both are MSNBC political analysts. Anyway, last night, while speaking to a group of conservatives in New York City, Rudy Giuliani unloaded on President Obama`s handling of terrorism. He said, "I do not believe -- and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America. He doesn`t love you. He doesn`t love me. And he wasn`t brought up the way you or I were brought up, to love this country of ours." Anyway, there were more from Giuliani -- there was more from Giuliani today on Fox News. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUDY GIULIANI (R), FMR. NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: First of all, I`m not questioning his patriotism. He`s a patriot, I`m sure. What I`m saying is that in his rhetoric, I very rarely hear him say the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear Bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents. I don`t also believe he expresses the love of Western civilization that he should or an understanding of Western civilization or what Western civilization has brought to the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Governor, what`s he saying there about this lack of connection to Western civilization, his lack of love for America, and at the same time saying in some kind of a demurral, Of course, he`s -- I`m not questioning his patriotism. I don`t know what that all means. Why`s he talking like that about the president? HOWARD DEAN (D-VT), FMR. GOVERNOR, FMR. DNC CHAIRMAN: You know, I actually have come to know Rudy in our post-political careers, and I actually think he`s serious. I don`t think he`s just kind of catering to the right-wing nutjobs. I think there`s just a disconnect between some people who just don`t understand what Barack Obama is about. It`s a shocking thing to say. I mean, I couldn`t believe he doubled down the next day. I also might... MATTHEWS: What would you think if somebody said about you on national television, You know, Howard Dean, he`s a liberal, and by the way, I don`t think he loves this country? DEAN: Right. And you know, I think that`s -- frankly, that stuff is so far out that only the real hate wing of the Republican Party is going to accept that. And that`s not very big. It really isn`t. An average person -- if somebody... MATTHEWS: Do you have a radio in your car? (LAUGHTER) DEAN: Well, no, I don`t -- but those people have -- you know, Rush Limbaughs of the world have made their money on hate. That`s what they`re doing. MATTHEWS: Yes. They`re listening and they`re repeating it. DEAN: Yes, but that... MATTHEWS: They love it. DEAN: You know, Rush Limbaugh has an ever-shrinking audience, and it`s not an accident. And it`s not an accident that major corporations pull their advertising because the average person -- look, I would never have said that George W. Bush doesn`t love America. It wouldn`t have occurred to me to say that. We had different views of what should happen in America. But I find this an astonishing thing to say. And if I were him, I`d either fire, or his press secretary -- if I were his press secretary, I`d probably would quit. MATTHEWS: Yes, but he said it anyway, Michael. MICHAEL STEELE, FMR. RNC CHAIR, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: He did. MATTHEWS: Why is Rudy Giuliani, who most of us have respect for what he did during 9/11 a lot -- and we also like his sort of street-wise manner. I like it. I grew up with guys like him. I think he`s -- I don`t dislike the guy. I totally dislike what he just said. STEELE: You know, I kind of fall in that camp. You know, any time you start a sentence with "I probably shouldn`t say this"... (LAUGHTER) STEELE: ... then you probably shouldn`t say it because what comes next is not going to be good for anybody, especially you. MATTHEWS: Who`s it good for? You say it`s non-political. You think it was truly believed. It may well be truly -- what is this thing about he doesn`t seem like Ronald Reagan? He doesn`t seem like Bill Clinton? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That`s, by the way, the new trope. (INAUDIBLE) not Bill Clinton. That`s a little number they pull. STEELE: Howard touched on something that I think it`s important, that you really can`t step over, and that is the way we look at a Bill Clinton and a Ronald Reagan, how they spoke and how they conveyed their emotions about this country is clearly very different from this president, and I would submit even with George W. Bush, you know, again, who like Howard said, would never say he didn`t love America, but even his expressions after 9/11... MATTHEWS: OK, watch him because I think... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I will try to find a smidgen of justice for (INAUDIBLE) but there is none. Here is -- I think is what they`re trying to talk about, Giuliani and his crowd, when they -- you know, like, the birthers like Trump. STEELE: Right. MATTHEWS: He`s from Africa or somewhere. He`s not one of us, he`s one of, what, them... (CROSSTALK) DEAN: See, I think he is catering to the far right. I don`t actually think Donald Trump believes that. I think he`s just catering to the -- the nutjobs. MATTHEWS: What`s the -- what is the mayor New York -- former mayor of New York, "America`s mayor," saying when he says the president doesn`t connect with Western civilization? DEAN: That`s just gibberish. I mean... MATTHEWS: Sounds to me like neo-birtherism. DEAN: ... that`s complete nonsense. MATTHEWS: It`s almost like intelligence design birtherism. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Anyway, here`s what the president -- let`s take a look at - - here`s George W. -- I think that`s what you were talking about, Michael. We all remember this. And we did like it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can hear you! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) BUSH: I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you! And the people... (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) BUSH: And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: That was a thrilling moment for America, a thrilling moment of resilience, with the people who`d just gone through the hell and all those people dead from jumping off that building, and there`s the firefighter there with him, laughing, too. That was American resilience! STEELE: Juxtapose that, Chris, against the announcement by the White House of the beheading of American citizens and the killing more recently of the young woman. And what was the president`s actions after that? MATTHEWS: You think too cool for school? STEELE: Going off to play golf... MATTHEWS: Too school (ph). STEELE: Too cool for school. And that disconnect that Howard referenced translates to a lot of Americans as... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... hang that on you, did you reference that "too cool for school" or he`s just too cool? DEAN: No, I don`t think... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: That`s what Giuliani`s talking about. DEAN: Maybe. I don`t know. I never had a big problem with that. And I actually think the president did what all presidents do. Shortly after the beheadings, we bombed the living hell out of ISIS and started it and a sustained effort to this day. So I think if you compare George W. Bush and Barack Obama, you get a very different demeanor, but you get the same action. STEELE: No, you don`t. DEAN: People who harm America get harmed themselves... STEELE: No, you don`t! MATTHEWS: ... as they should. STEELE: You get only half the action because, yes, the president bombed the enemy as he perceived it, but again, his communication to the American people was something that was lacking. MATTHEWS: OK, let me talk about Giuliani, the fact that he showed up on "Fox and Friends" the next morning after giving a speech that night -- maybe it was scheduled ahead of time, but I think he was trying to repair some damage there. Anyway, I think you should go a little more repairing, Mr. Mayor. I do mean that out of respect. Just take it back "he doesn`t love America," just take it back. It`s better to end it. Anyway, outraged Republicans typically point to three recent examples of White House soft talk, if you will. The first is when President Obama compared Christianity to ISIS`s brutality by invoking the Crusades. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We see Isis, a brutal, vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism. Humanity`s been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Anyway, the second is the president`s refusal to label it actually Islamic extremism. Here`s the president yesterday defending that decision not to call terrorism "Islamic terrorism." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We are not at war with Islam. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you! (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. The terrorists do not speak for over a billion Muslims who reject their hateful ideology. They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills innocents in the name of God represents Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism. No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And third is what State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf told this show on Monday about the war against ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT DEPUTY SPOKESWOMAN: We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the longer term -- medium and longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it`s lack of opportunity for jobs... We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economy so they can have job opportunities for these people. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, anyway, the whole knock across the board from the Republican side is that the president doesn`t have a gut reaction to ISIS, to the beheadings, to the burnings alive, to the very people we`re watching on television. People are angry beyond belief, and he`s not showing that kind of -- I guess this is what it`s all about... DEAN: OK, so... MATTHEWS: ... that kind of visceral rage that a lot of us feel. DEAN: All right, so I get that... MATTHEWS: (INAUDIBLE) that`s it. DEAN: I get it. I get it. Maybe it would be great if he did what George Bush did or Bill Clinton did. But he`s right on all three counts. First of all, the Islamic terrorists or whatever want us to call them Islamists. Why? Because that cloaks them in a religion that a billion people believe in. In fact, the president is absolutely right to say this is not about Islam, this is about a bunch of thugs and murderers and terrorists who we need to get rid of. That deprives them of the very rationale that they`re using to recruit people. MATTHEWS: Well said. DEAN: So the truth is, the president is right on all three counts. And I agree with you that he would do better if he would show some outrage. And people like that, and probably he should, but he happens to be right on all three policies. STEELE: Well, the president may be right on it, but Howard, in the last 30 seconds, you expressed it better than he has in the last two years. And that`s the problem. MATTHEWS: I think we agree on that. It was well said. We ought to cling (ph) to what you just said because I do think -- it`s all propaganda, both directions. DEAN: Of course it is. MATTHEWS: It`s probably -- you`re trying to win an argument. These people obviously do believe it`s part of their religion. We just don`t agree that should be their religion, that they should be using their religion, but they believe it. They`re going to paradise! How can you say it`s not part of their religion? STEELE: And that`s -- that`s... MATTHEWS: Their religion. DEAN: I think -- personally, I think that makes them crazy. STEELE: They`re using the tenets of a faith to justify their actions. And that`s why you hear the pressure for moderate Muslims to speak out. MATTHEWS: Yes. STEELE: And again, the president has the bully pulpit, and he can use those moderate Muslims as a backdrop to help make that argument. MATTHEWS: You can`t go (INAUDIBLE) You can`t go through Christian history and say, Well, that guy`s a real Christian, that guy`s not a Christian, Martin Luther was right, he was wrong. You can`t get into that. But anyway, I think you said it very well, and I will not speak longer on this. Thank you, Governor Howard Dean. Thank you, Michael Steele. Coming up -- The White House is under fire for refusing to label -- we talked about this -- the brutal acts of terrorism in the Mideast as acts of, quote, "Islamic extremism." My question, why do they want President Obama to brand this as an East versus West war? Also -- this is unsettling stuff -- analysts say -- they say they`ve detected a possible American accent of a masked man in a recent ISIS video -- you know, the one killing the Coptic Christians. We`ve got the audio and a linguistics expert. By the way, we`ve got you, too. You listen and decide whether you think this guy`s talking American or not. I`m questioning it. Finally, it`s HARDBALL politics at the Oscars this weekend, the Academy Awards, of course, Hollywood`s biggest night, is Sunday. Who are you sure is going to win? We`re going to ask three journalists to make sure picks. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with this tough, unnecessary and wrong attack by Rudy Giuliani on the president. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: A new Quinnipiac poll shows there are sizable chunks of voters in several key battleground states who are put off by the Bush name. Nearly 40 percent of Colorado voters said they`d be less likely to vote for Jeb Bush because of the legacies of his father and his brother. Only 8 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for him. In Iowa, it`s a margin of 35 to 8 against the Bush name. In Virginia, a margin of 35 to 9 against the Bush name. So it looks like what`s in the name matters if that name happens to be Bush. And we`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back HARDBALL. What`s in a name? And when it comes to terrorism, apparently a lot. Conservatives are blasting the White House for refusing to label groups like ISIS Islamic terrorists. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUDY GIULIANI (R), FMR. NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: If you refuse to say that there are extremist members of the Islamic religion, well, then, it sounds like you`re living in Mars! CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX CONTRIBUTOR We have an administration that will not even admit that there`s a religious basis underlying what`s going on. GEORGE WILL, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: At this point, it is -- it`s beyond burlesque. It`s pathological. It`s clinical, their inability and unwillingness to accurately describes things. REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: To me, it`s almost like we`re afraid to confront the enemy. If you don`t identify your enemy, it`s hard to mobilize support against it. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you have the situation where the commander- in-chief is putting our national security at risk because he`s unwilling to say we are at war with Islamic terrorists -- they can pretend as much as they want, but I don`t know that we`ve seen, certainly that I can recall, an administration so divorced from reality as this current one is. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: For his part, President Obama defended his careful word choice. Speaking at a summit on countering violent extremism today, the president said groups like ISIS use Islam to justify their violence, and the West shouldn`t play into their trap by promoting the idea the West is at war with Islam. Let`s watch him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorists` narrative. Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL peddle the lie that some of our countries are hostile to Muslims. If entire communities feel they can never become a full part of the society in which the reside, it feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, I`m joined right now by Ron Fournier, who`s editorial director for "The National Journal," and Michael Crowley is senior foreign affairs correspondent for Politico. Gentlemen, this -- is this a tempest in a teapot? And what good will come if the president said, You know, I will call them Muslim SOBs. I will call them Islamic terrorists. What do you want me to do? I`ll do it. What would be gained if he did buckle and say, I`m not (sic) going to stop delineating between the terrorists and religion? RON FOURNIER, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": That`s the irony. He could say that for the next 48 hours over and over again, and it wouldn`t kill one terrorist. What it would do, though, is stop playing this game with Republicans, stop taking their bait, stop letting them dominate the narrative here. And he would be have then -- have the space to the country what is going on here, why we`ve got to do all these things, including military action, including... MATTHEWS: But in the world, if he starts saying "Islamic bad guys," does that give the bad guys -- Howard Dean said a minute ago here -- the cover of being among their religious followers? FOURNIER: No, that`s -- that`s -- that`s a name. I mean, you know what they really want? They want us to declare war against them, and we`re about to. MATTHEWS: Well, why should we do it then? FOURNIER: No, we`re about to declare war... MATTHEWS: No, declare war on Islam. FOURNIER: We`re about to declare war on ISIS. That`s what they really want. I mean, the idea that we`re going to make them any more stronger by calling it Islamic extremism is really silly. Let`s move beyond that. Instead, I -- because I -- frankly, I`m not as interested in a debate over how we`re going to talk about them as I am a debate over how we`re going to kill them, how we`re going to destroy them. MATTHEWS: Yes, well... FOURNIER: And that`s what he should be -- he should be having the country focused on right now by... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I`ve been trying to get people the last week to tell me how they`re going to kill ISIS. FOURNIER: Well, that`s what we got to do! MATTHEWS: And I`m having a hard time with jobs programs and things like that. I haven`t heard the answer to that one yet. FOURNIER: Well, and you know why? Because we`re talking about the talk instead of talking about the fight. And we can have a argument over how hypocritical Republicans are being... MATTHEWS: OK, let... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Let`s talk about this. You know, when they were hitting Obama for not loving America and all -- I think I know the turf on which they`re trying to get traction. I know what they mean. He is too cool for school. He is almost Sinatra-like in his coolness. When he`s in trouble politically, he`s so cool, it drives people (INAUDIBLE) I`m more of a hothead, obviously -- I go crazy. FOURNIER: Really? MATTHEWS: When are you -- when are you going to get some excitement here? When are you -- but politically, what do they get -- what do the Republicans get out of what Ron was saying? Why do they win the argument when they say, Call it Islamofascism, call it Islamo this, Islamo that? They`ve been doing that for years. MICHAEL CROWLEY, POLITICO: There`s this frame that Republicans have constructed around Obama that he`s weak and that he`s not a leader, that he`s not facing up to the real problems in the world, that somehow, he wants to negotiate with terrorists and bad guys... MATTHEWS: Is he an apologist for Islam? Is he an apologist for Islam? (CROSSTALK) CROWLEY: No. MATTHEWS: Is that what they seem to be saying? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Isn`t that what they`re saying? CROWLEY: But I don`t know what that means. He`s trying -- he`s making a correct differentiation between a bunch of basically crazy fanatics and an enormous worldwide religion. MATTHEWS: But are they driven by their religious interpretation of Islam or not? CROWLEY: Yes, some are these guys are, definitely. There`s no question. MATTHEWS: Yes. CROWLEY: If you follow -- if you pay any attention to ISIS, it`s clear that a lot of these guys are religious zealots who can recite chapter and verse of the Koran, even if they`re completely warping and distorting it, perverting it basically. But they are fundamentally religious guys who are driven by theology. But that doesn`t mean that we need to talk about it in those terms. I mean, there are good reasons why it doesn`t make sense. The president is not just speaking to Washington. He has a global audience. MATTHEWS: Right. CROWLEY: And among other things, he wants to make very clear to moderate Muslims or even very devout Muslims who are not violent, this isn`t about us against your religion. This isn`t Christianity vs. Islam. And what is gained by using the language that Republicans want? I don`t really know. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So, you`re with Ron on this. FOURNIER: No, no, no, we`re against. Two big things are gained. One, you explain to the American people exactly what`s going on, which is this is a country that is using -- this is a movement that is using the religion to try to destroy us. And, two, you take off the table this demonization that the Republicans are doing. CROWLEY: Well, I will say there`s a precedent for that. FOURNIER: We now have the former New York mayor calling the president of the United States -- saying that he doesn`t love America. That`s preposterous. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: He`s going to have to take that back. Rudy Giuliani, if you`re watching, my friend, please take that back, because there`s no reason to litigate that any further. You can`t win an argument like that. CROWLEY: I will say, the White House has adopted your logic at least once. If you remember, back in September, they wouldn`t say we were at war with ISIS. Is this a war? And the Republicans started hammering them on it, and they folded. And at the -- from the podium, they said fine, we`re at war, just to kill the controversy. So, maybe we will see that again. FOURNIER: Well, we have to. It`s intellectually illogical to say we can`t call it Islamic extremism while we`re pushing Congress to pass a resolution to declare a war on them. Let`s call it what it is. MATTHEWS: On ISIS. On ISIS. FOURNIER: On ISIS. Let`s call it what it is. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: For many conservatives -- excuse me -- the president`s refusal to label it Islamic terrorism means he doesn`t get the problem we`re facing. I`m not sure I know with this. Anyway, Congressman Michael McCaul of Texas, the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, said -- quote -- "The president spent more time this week talking about how America is not at war with Islam than he did laying out a credible strategy for defeating the warped ideology of the jihadists who have hijacked a religion for their own twisted means. Americans understand, we are not at war with Islam, but we will not defeat these fanatics if we refuse to define them for what they are, violent Islamist extremists." Well, that was pretty well said. And here was the front page of "The New York Post" today. I don`t like it. It`s shows a blindfolded President Obama with the headline, "Islamic Terror? I Just Don`t See It." Well, they`re on the rant, usually. That`s wood. (CROSSTALK) CROWLEY: It just doesn`t make sense. What difference does it make what language he uses? Everyone knows what is going on, what these guys are about. What matters is, what is our strategy to defeat them, to kill them before they can hurt us? What are we doing to stand up a credible Iraqi government that ends sectarian passions there? What are we doing to try... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Does the president have the power to set the way we talk? FOURNIER: Yes. MATTHEWS: I remember, years ago, when Jesse Jackson, when he was in his higher, greater days -- maybe he still is -- but he said, we should use the term African-American, rather than colored or Negro or any of those words of the past. And once he said that, that was the official language we all abided by. He had the power to do that, the private citizen, but the leader of the civil rights movement at the time. Can this president, leading the fight against ISIS, define a term and say, we are not going to call it Islamic terrorism and that would mean anything? Or is he just out of touch? Can he set the term? You said he could. He could set the language. (CROSSTALK) FOURNIER: Of course. It`s harder than it used to be, but axis of evil, who set that term? You`re exactly right. In a vacuum... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think it was David Frum who did that, one of the neocon writers for W. FOURNIER: State of the Union. But we`re not in a vacuum. The president, for him to be able to have the ability to convince America, to persuade Americans, he can`t let himself be portrayed the way he let himself be portrayed. CROWLEY: I think those videos of people getting their throats cut persuade people plenty. That`s all they need to see. I don`t think we really need to spend so much time on the phrase. MATTHEWS: Ron Fournier, I can never predict where you`re going to go. FOURNIER: Neither can I. (CROSSTALK) FOURNIER: ... popping out of my mouth. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Michael Crowley. Thank you so much. CROWLEY: Thank you, Chris. MATTHEWS: Up next: Experts think that a key figure in the latest video released by ISIS may have a connection to the West. He may even be an American-sounding person anyway. I`m not sure. I want to listen some more, as you do. You decide. You can do it as well as the experts, I think, maybe almost as well. Can you tell if this guy is one of us? This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, experts in the study of linguistics believe that a key figure in the latest video released by ISIS may have some connection to the West. Filmed over there in Libya, the video released Sunday purported to show the execution of 21 Christians, Coptic Christians. An ISIS-affiliated speaker whose face is hidden from view speaks to the camera in English. And his accent may provide some clues about his background. We`re joined right now by Dr. John O`Regan, senior lecturer in applied linguistics at UCL Institute of Education in London, and as well Michael Sheehan, MSNBC terrorist analyst. Let`s listen now, all of us, to an audio excerpt -- excerpt from that video. It`s brief, so pay special attention to the sound, the tone of the militant`s voice. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Recently, you have seen us on the hills of as- Sham. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, that wasn`t much. So, let`s go to Dr. O`Regan. Dr. O`Regan, what`s your assessment of that background of that person? You have to play Sherlock Holmes here. DR. JOHN O`REGAN, APPLIED LINGUISTICS EXPERT: Well, I think that while this may not be an American accent of the kind that I have been listening to on your show for the past few minutes, it`s definitely an Americanized accent. I would say this is somebody who could well have been educated in the States for some time. He might be a migrant to the States, maybe came in his teens. So he`s had a U.S. education. But he will have retained aspects of his first language accent. And that`s what`s showing through on the tape. But, nevertheless, he gives all the indications of having been exposed to a lot of American English. Now, if he hasn`t been to the States, I would say that he may well have had an education in an American international school, possibly, very possibly in the Middle East. MATTHEWS: Yes. Is this a process? I just want to go through your methodology. Is this a process of elimination? He doesn`t have a South African accent. You can`t hear that tone. You can`t Australian. You can`t hear British of any kind. So that sort of takes you over. And you can`t hear old African, Rhodesian or Kenyan English. So, does that -- is that part of the way you separate him and bring him to the North American option? O`REGAN: Partly. Partly. That`s a bit of an overgeneralization. But I think one of the key features in his voice is what I would call or what linguists would call the postvocalic R, which is to say that he pronounces the R at the end of all his words. So, for example, over here in Britain, with words like mother, father, daughter, sister, we don`t pronounce the Rah sound at the end. But this guy, when he speaks, he does. So, when he says, we will fight you all together, he doesn`t together. He says together. Until a war lays down its burdens -- these kinds of words indicate to me -- or this kind of use of the R sound in the whole transcript gives his way of speaking a real American flavor. MATTHEWS: OK. We don`t want to show too much propaganda here, but we`re going to give you another snippet of his voice again. Listen to the same words again and see if you can, with your own explanation, your own experience as Americans, figure out whether he`s one of us is in terms of language. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Recently, you have seen us on the hills of as- Sham. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, I don`t know. Dr. O`Regan, thank you so much for that. We`re going to go right now to Michael Sheehan and try to figure out, why would they put somebody out? They had somebody the other day, a couple weeks ago, one of their beheadings they were doing, and they made sure that the guy had a British accent. MICHAEL SHEEHAN, NBC NEWS TERRORISM ANALYST: Right. MATTHEWS: Is this part of the stirring up the crap, if you will, scaring people`s heads, and saying, oh, we got one of them from over there, he can go back again and blow -- he can do some beheadings over in America now? SHEEHAN: It is, Chris. They actually think that by putting out someone who can speak English, they`re going to affect the broader American foreign policy. And actually that doesn`t work. But what does have impact is they will excite the radicals that are in the United States to get more fired up. And the more subtle problem for us counterterrorism experts is that guy has probably been to the United States, which means he probably has an American passport, and he could come back and be a real problem. MATTHEWS: That`s what they want us to believe. SHEEHAN: That`s right. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about that, because it seems to me that all these -- the notion of terror is to keep people scared. You go skiing and you`re terrorized by some hills. Let`s face it. Terrorize a person, make them fear the horror to come, the horror that is coming, OK? SHEEHAN: Right. MATTHEWS: So, they behead people. They pour gasoline on people. They pour gasoline on 21 people. They do -- they kill all these people on a bus or a truck the other day who had just happened to be people who fought them in Anbar province in Iraq. When are they coming here? And would they go to a place way out in the country? I have been across this country. Our country is enormous. There are spaces of the country where nobody is there. They could do this stuff if they could get into the country. They could pull off one of these beheadings out in the middle of the desert somewhere. SHEEHAN: It`s hard for them to get... MATTHEWS: Are they going to do that next to keep the excitement burning? SHEEHAN: It`s hard for them to get here, Chris. And we have thought about... MATTHEWS: Well, this guy, you think, who we just saw, he`s got a -- he looks like he`s been here, he`s legal. SHEEHAN: But it`s hard for them to operate here. Remember, the Connecticut bomber, the Times Square bomber, he was afraid to reach out to anybody else. He operated by himself. And his bomb fizzled out, because he was afraid he might be arrested by the FBI or NYPD. So, these guys might be able to come here, but really, since 9/11, both al Qaeda and AQI, al Qaeda in Iraq, which really started in 2003, 2004, have not been able to operationalize themselves in the United States. MATTHEWS: Yes. What`s next, then? SHEEHAN: Well, I think they`re going to keep trying to consolidate territory where they are now, and not focus on the United States, focus on that near fight. MATTHEWS: Right. So, it`s the caliphate. It`s the caliphate. SHEEHAN: The near fight, yes. MATTHEWS: It`s the caliphate. Anyway, thank you so much. Dr. O`Regan, thank you for joining us from London. And thank you, Michael Sheehan, for being here. Up next, more on what has got Rudy Giuliani lashing at President Obama, saying he doesn`t love our country. What a statement. He`s reading into the president`s heart? Isn`t that what W. used to do, figuring people out in their souls? You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. A senior U.S. military officials says Iraqi forces may try to take back Mosul, Iraq`s second largest city, from ISIS as soon as April, with the help of U.S. airstrikes and possibly American ground troops. Here in the U.S., a suspect is under arrest in connection with the Las Vegas road rage shooting that left a woman dead. The suspect was taken into custody after police surrounded a home about a block away from where the victim lived. Another individual is also being sought. This week`s Southern winter storm and the bone-chilling cold that has followed is being blamed for 15 deaths in three states. And UCLA has notified nearly 180 patients that they may have been exposed to a drug-resistant superbug during procedures at the hospital. Seven patients were injected, included two who have died -- back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani made waves last night by opening -- openly questions President Obama`s love of country. He told a group gathered in Manhattan, which included Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker -- quote -- "I do not believe the president loves America. He doesn`t love you and he doesn`t love me. He wasn`t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country." Well, that`s a strong statement, and a very direct one. Joining me now, the roundtable. Liz Mair is a Republican strategist. I don`t think she would have strategized that. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Danny Vargas is former chair of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly. And Perry Bacon is a senior political reporter for NBC News. You first, Liz. Why do you think he said that and do you wish -- does he wish he hadn`t? LIZ MAIR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think it`s probably correct to say that President Obama doesn`t love Rudy Giuliani, at least right now, right? (LAUGHTER) MAIR: I think that.. MATTHEWS: So, in other words, that "he doesn`t love me" was probably the accurate part of that sentence. MAIR: Yes. Maybe if he had front-loaded that, his comment would have gone over better. I think what Rudy Giuliani saying is something that a lot of people in this country, rightly or wrongly, do believe. I personally would not put it quite that way. I would not go out and say that I think Barack Obama hates America. MATTHEWS: OK. Stick your neck out. How would you say it? MAIR: What I would say is that I think that the attitudes that he takes with regard to foreign policy oftentimes put emphasis on international concerns and international interests over what I would describe as more narrowly defined American interests. And I think that that`s a questionable foreign policy approach that makes a lot of people uncomfortable and has proved to be very problematic. Is that the same thing as hating America? No. Is it something that overlaps with that in a lot of people`s minds? Yes, it is. MATTHEWS: Yes. Yes, I`m quite a nationalist, and I like him, so maybe I ought to figure that one. But go ahead. DANNY VARGAS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: So, I think -- I think Rudy has spent way too much time in the echo chamber. I think he`s a good guy. I was a supporter of Rudy Giuliani when he was running in 2008. But I think he`s spent way too much time over the last few years in the echo chamber of the more ultra-conservative voices. And I think it`s starting to -- MATTHEWS: But he`s not one of them. VARGAS: He`s not one of them. Even before he said it, he said "I probably shouldn`t say this," but he said it anyway. I think he`s heard it so many times and was sort of repeating it. I think what he really felt was this -- was that President Obama, probably more than any other president in the U.S. history, doesn`t buy into the notion of American exceptionalism, the notion of America being shining city on a hill, in sole possession of superpower status, that we are great and greater than any other country that God has ever permitted man to create. He doesn`t buy into that as much as previous presidents, and I think the problem he sees in President Obama`s approach is that look, I disagree with almost all the President Obama`s policies and his approach, I felt the same way about some Republicans too. But to say he doesn`t love America, that he doesn`t love the country is a bridge too far. He doesn`t have -- you can`t run for president without loving the country. His approach is different, I disagree with his policy. MATTHEWS: Perry, how would you react when you heard this, this morning? PERRY BACON, JR., NBC NEWS SR. POLITICAL REPORTER: I really hated, "he didn`t grow up the way you and I did" -- it`s like birtherism. It`s like this whole, he`s not a true American, it`s like all that stuff we`ve been trying to say for years. Please stop saying that. Can we ever talk about public policies? What you just laid out was fine, what you laid out was fine, he disagrees -- he disagrees with his policy views, not this kind of like attack on -- you don`t know what Obama believes. Stop pretending you do. Just cut that. I don`t know what -- just talk about -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: What was he up to? BACON: I think you`re right, he`s in the echo chamber, and that`s part of this notion that Obama is not a true American is definitely in the echo chamber, and online probably more than on television, but I don`t think he was up to that. I think he just said the wrong thing, but the fact he`s thinking it is part of the problem. MATTHEWS: Here`s a great reaction, excuse me, you`re up, Liz, after this. But I like, if I don`t know Scott Walker, I met him once, but here is Scott Walker reacting in a very careful way. He`s thinking about running for president. But here he was after, a few seats away from Mayor Giuliani last night. Here was his reaction when he was pressed on what he thought of it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: The mayor can speak for himself. I`m not going to comment on whether -- what the president thinks or not. He can speak for himself as well. I tell you, I love America. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you agree with those comments? Were you offended by those comments? What was your reaction when you heard them? WALKER: I`m in New York, I`m used to people saying things that are aggressive. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: He said he`s used to people speaking aggressively. (LAUGHTER) LIZ MAIR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: In New York. MATTHEWS: That was a great reaction. MAIR: Again, a factual statement. I mean, who can argue with that? I tend to agree with that. I think jumping back to a couple points you guys were making previously. I think Rudy has been a hawk for some time. He has palled around with hawks quite a bit. So, you know, to the point about what you would expect him to say, I`m not sure I would expect much different from this. From the point about whether President Obama has grown up in an environment that`s different to the rest of America -- I mean, I would just say that probably growing up in Hawaii is different than growing up in an Italian-American family in New York City. BACON: If you think that`s what he was saying? I don`t think that was he was saying. MAIR: I`m not saying that`s necessarily what he was saying. I`m just saying, that`s what -- when I heard him say that, it was like, duh, because I mean, nobody grew up in the same circumstances as Rudy, right? VARGAS: What`s relevant about the way that President Obama grew up and the way he lived his adult life is that, he`s never -- he was never expected to lead anything. He`s never been an executive at a company, he`s never been in charge of anything, a chief executive officer of a company knows that he`s also the chief cheerleader of that company. As chief executive of the country, he`s got to be the chief cheerleader of the country. So, he`s never have that expectation in terms of how he approaches things. Particularly speaking in public, the other thing that he has in his background is growing up in the academic environment that he did -- MATTHEWS: Ethereal. VARGAS: The ethereal -- seeing America as a benevolent country, as a member of the community of nations, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe is probably the rationale that a lot -- MATTHEWS: You took that directly from Peggy Noonan. VARGAS: It`s true, though, that academics feel that America should just be -- MATTHEWS: All our experiences are different, but let me ask you this about who loves or doesn`t love. African-Americans have a totally different experience, 200 years and slavery and all, Jim Crow and their love of the country has to be a little bit different than the person that got on the of boat and everything has been great since he`s got here, you know it`s different. BACON: He sure seems like he loved America (INAUDIBLE) talk how big the economy is growing, how much he`s pushing for things. He seems perfectly fine working hard. He ran for president. How can you run for president without loving the country and wanting to improve it? I just find this whole rationale he doesn`t -- the notion that he`s more critical of the U.S. and other presidents, I think that`s true. The speech he gave of the (INAUDIBLE) I think it`s true. MATTHEWS: I think I started this whole thing with my treatment of Marie Harf of the State Department. She talked about the long-term -- and I am, of course, so angry right now. I`m viscerally, I get hot sometimes. I get mad. I get mad about the president`s lousy debate performance, the first debate. I get upset about 20 points behind Hillary. I get upset a lot of things. I got thrills up my leg, I got reactions to things. I admit I`m different than the president. He`s Frank Sinatra, he`s very cool. But this thing started with the discussion with Marie Harf and me about the question of long term solution and short-term solutions. And the short-term solution, if somebody is breaking in your house, you make sure he didn`t get in the house, OK, whatever you have to. In the long term, the guy would have been better off going to school than hanging out on the corner, OK? We`ve got to make decisions, but the long term and short term, sometimes we overrun each other. Anyway, thank you, Marie Harf, for coming on the show. The roundtable is staying with us. We`ve got a great question coming up. Who is for sure going to win the Oscar on Sunday? A sure thing here. This is the biggest, like Jack (INAUDIBLE), this is a sure thing. And HARDBALL, coming back. MATTHEWS: Well, one congressman from California weighed in on the issues of gender identity, and bullying, by sharing his own family`s story. Democrat Mike Honda tweeted out this photo of himself and his granddaughter, captioning it, "As the proud grandpa of a transgender grandchild, I hope she can feel safe at school without fear of being bullied." Honda received an outpouring of support with the LGBT community, which he responded, quote, "These children need our protection and our love." And we`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: We`re back with the roundtable, Liz, Danny and Perry. And Sunday night, as we all know, is Oscar night. It`s coming up. We want to know who the HARDBALL roundtable says are the sure bets to win. We`re gong to go to the full right now. The three major categories -- best picture, where the nominees are "Birdman," "Boyhood", "American Sniper", "The Imitation Game", "Selma,," "The Grand Budapest Hotel", "The Theory of Everything," and "Whiplash." Best actor, where the nominees are Eddie Redmayne, "The Theory of Everything", Michael Keaton, "Birdman", Bradley Cooper, "American Sniper", Benedict Cumberbatch, "The Imitation Game", Steve Carell, "Foxcatcher". And best actress, where the nominees are Julian Moore, "Still Alice", and Reese Witherspoon, "Wild", Rosamund Pike "Gone Girl", Felicity Jones, "The Theory of Everything", and Marion Cotillard, "Two Days, One Night". Well, Liz, Danny, and, Perry, what are your sure bets? Let`s start with you, Perry. Sure bets. BACON: I`ll go "American Sniper" for best picture, and, why? Because, A, critically acclaimed, did well at the box office, and it gives the Academy a chance to say, we understand, red state, America. We understand Sarah Palin. MATTHEWS: I`m with you. You know what it reminded me of, a kind of movie, I`m not knocking anybody with this, because I hung out -- I went to a lot of drive-in movies as a kid. That`s got drive-in movie all over it. It`s like the old Elvis Presley movie. It`s for regular people against the elite. It`s regular people, American, all the way. That guy had an American accent all through that movie. Your thoughts? VARGAS: I agree with Perry, "American Sniper" was a great movie. I think it`s going to win. I think for best actor, I would give to Bradley Cooper, I was torn on this one. MATTHEWS: He`s in the movie. He`s the star. VARGAS: He`s the star of the movie. And it was a stretch. I liked Michael Keaton in "Birdman," but it was sort of which he was playing himself almost, right? So, Bradley Cooper stretched as an actor, wasn`t in his comfort zone, being the sort of pretty boy leading man that he usually does or a comic. This was a stretch, this was a reach. He gained a lot of weight -- MATTHEWS: Didn`t you like the way he was sort of inward. It was like, the kind of guy you`d think would be this kind of guy. Like Gary Cooper from the old days. I`ve got to fight, I`m going to get good at it. I`m not flashy, there`s no panache here, I`m just doing my job. VARGAS: And everything you get about his performance was that it was as true to the real-life guy as possible. Even the guy`s widow believes that Bradley`s performance was spot-on. MATTHEWS: And I just saw him in "Elephant Man," another amazing display of talent. VARGAS: Great talent. MATTHEWS: So, now, it`s up to you. MAIR: What would I say a sure bet? MATTHEWS: Give me a sure bet. MAIR: I think Julianne Moore. MATTHEWS: You stole it from me! (LAUGHTER) MAIR: I`m sorry. I didn`t mean to. MATTHEWS: She plays a woman who is a very academic person at Columbia, she`s a professor, all the lights on, brain power, gets early onset. Explain. MAIR: Well, I think that`s something that`s going to resonate with a lot of people out there. I think that it is something that America is grappling with, but also fundamentally, I just think she`s a very good actress and she did a good job and there`ll be an inclination to reward that. MATTHEWS: Yes, I thought Alec Baldwin was really good. My father went through that with my mom, and anybody has been through it. People watching this show have been through it. The caregiver is in many ways the star in life, because they`re the ones who lose company. They lose the best company of their life. The person they get used to and love being with and look forward to every evening with and look forward to every morning getting up, and all of a sudden they`re not there anymore. And that didn`t even -- that movie didn`t even go to the horror part, the end zone. It only went to a certain point. But if it goes to the point where you`re not physically able to be a regular person, you know? One theory I have about movies, they`re always about the present. You can say it`s about the civil war, it`s back in swords and sandals, or the Christian story. It`s really always about today. And I think there`s more movies about aging now than there were before. Certainly, "Birdman," and I think there`s a lot about there. I think there`s going to be a lot of sympathy for Michael Keaton`s character. VARGAS: There will be a lot of sympathy for Michael Keaton, but also, I think, you know, America in many respects is feeling scared. With everything we`re seeing with ISIS, where we`re seeing that folks around the world are being threatened. Israel is surrounded by enemies, has existential threats. I think we need to have a sense that there are average Americans that can be heroes too. That`s why "American Sniper" and Bradley Cooper did a great job. He`s today`s version of John Wayne. You know, he`s a stand-up guy -- MATTHEWS: More like Gary Cooper. VARGAS: More like Gary Cooper, probably, but we need stand-up folks. MATTHEWS: Wayne liked these wars. Gary Cooper fought them because he had to. Sergeant York. BACON: The other movie about today, of course, "Selma," came out in 2014. MATTHEWS: Great movie! BACON: A great movie, but also a really important time, a discussion about civil rights we`ve had this last year. A discussion about what`s the president`s role -- MATTHEWS: Wasn`t the English guy who played it, wasn`t he unbelievable? I thought it was Dr. King. I thought the guy who played John Lewis looked like John Lewis. And a couple of the other leaders I recognized from the past. I didn`t like the way they treated Johnson, because I think Johnson was a great man and our greatest civil rights president, don`t you think? BACON: Yes, I agree. MATTHEWS: The movie dramatically was powerful stuff. So, I`ll watch. Hope it doesn`t run too long. BACON: It always does. (LAUGHTER) MAIR: Always does. MATTHEWS: OK, thank you. Anyway, thank you to Liz Mair, Danny Vargas, and Perry Bacon. When we return, let me finish with this tough, unnecessary wrong attack by Giuliani on our president. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this tough, unnecessary and wrong attack by Rudy Giuliani on our president. All of us have different temperaments. Look, I can remember when Senator Barack Obama was 20 points behind Senator Hillary Clinton in the early run for president. I kept getting anxious and frustrated, and, OK, angry because he didn`t seem as angry, frustrated, and angry as I was by his position so far behind. Rudy Giuliani says that Obama doesn`t love his country, like he does, like others he knows do. I can understand what I`m getting at, this coolness the president gives off. He`s not a hot head like Rudy or me sometimes. He just isn`t. I remember when he got hammered in that first debate with Mitt Romney. He didn`t know he was being humiliated. Didn`t he know he was letting that man`s sense of personal superiority beating him up on national television. That was another time when I went hot and Obama went cool. But like all the other times, Obama did what he had to do. He and his team defeated, the undefeatable Hillary Clinton and her team. He came back to beat Mitt Romney twice in debates, clearing the way for his convincing re-election as president. So, I can see why a guy like Rudy would think Obama`s too cool for school. But Mr. Mayor, you should never go after someone`s love of his country. It breaks the rules we live by. It divides us when we should be united. I urge you to take it back and quickly, because it really does no good at all, except score political points with those who hate. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021901cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 90 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 19, 2015 Thursday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 19, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes GUESTS: Lawrence Korb, Matt Duss, Charles Pierce, Malcolm Vance, Tsedeye Gebreselassi SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7760 words HIGHLIGHT: NBC News has learned that Iraqi military forces backed by U.S. air strikes and possibly even American ground troops could launch an assault to retake the Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIS fighters as early as April. Last night in Manhattan, a group of conservative economists, media figures, and business executives came together for a dinner featuring Wisconsin governor and likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, Scott Walker; and with Walker just a few seats away, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani addressed the crowd, had said something that even he knew was horrible. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN. REP. TED YOHO (R), FLORIDA: They`re fighting for their god and all I can say is, the person who has god on their side is going to win this. HAYES: Holy war talk from a Republican member of Congress as a majority of Americans now favor ground troops to fight ISIS. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. HAYES: Tonight, as the president fights his critics, have we learned nothing? Then, the political fallout from Rudy`s horrible Obama remarks. RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents. HAYES: Plus, Benjamin Netanyahu commissions a poll that would make Dick Morris blush. DICK MORRIS: We`re going to win by a landslide. HAYES: The raise the wage campaign scores its biggest victory ever. And my exclusive interview with the former CIA agent who did two years in prison for talking to a reporter about torture. (on camera): You`re the only person that has gone to prison over torture. FORMER CIA AGENT: Yes. HAYES: How do you feel about that? (voice-over): ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. NBC News has learned that Iraqi military forces backed by U.S. air strikes and possibly even American ground troops could launch an assault to retake the Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIS fighters as early as April. This news arrives on the same day that a new poll shows for the very first time a majority of Americans now favoring the use of ground troops in the fight against ISIS. It caps a week in which war rhetoric has dramatically ratcheted up. A senior U.S. official from U.S. Central Command told NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski that as many as 20,000 Iraqi military and Kurdish forces could be involved in the operation to retake Mosul, Iraq`s second largest city. The official said that if needed, U.S. ground forces, including Special Operations Forces and forward air controllers used to call in air strikes could also be involved in the operation. Eerily, arriving on the same day, word that for the first time, a majority of Americans would support U.S. ground troops in the battle against ISIS. According to a CBS News poll, 57 percent now favor using U.S. ground troops against ISIS. That support represents an increase from 47 percent in October of last year, and just 39 percent one month before that. Furthermore, 65 percent of Americans now view ISIS as a major threat to the U.S. The war rhetoric is also not limited to discussion of ISIS or even Iraq. A member of Congress is now suggesting that the proposed authorization to use military force in the battle against is include the nation of Iran. Congressman Ed Royce, Republican of California, and chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was asked in an interview about including Iran in the administration`s proposed AUMF. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) HUGH HEWITT: Do you, personally, I don`t know what the committee would do, but would you support giving the president the explicit authority to strike at the Iranian nuclear capacity if they do not abandon it themselves? REP. ED ROYCE (R-CA), CHAIR, HOUST FOREIGN AFFAIRS CMTE: I think it is a good idea. And I will tell you, Hugh, that there are two jihads going on. One of them is the ISIS jihad, which you and I are familiar with. The other is something that`s not being talked about that much, but that is the jihad that`s coming out of Iran. (END AUDIO CLIP) HAYES: That comment comes as hawks in Congress are doing everything in their power to destroy the possibility of a deal with Iran on its nuclear program, and a rise amid a crescendo of drum-beating for more war in the Middle East with the U.S. waging those wars. And it furthers a week of particularly harsh criticism that has been unleashed on the White House. Not only that the proposed AUMF should more explicitly allow ground troops, but that the president of the United States is not employing the correct war rhetoric. And that particular brand of criticism has not stopped. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) YOHO: When you have the president of the United States unwilling to identify who the terrorists are as Islamic radical jihadists, how can you solve a problem? We`re taking god out of this country, they`re fighting for their god, and all I can say is the person that has god on their side is going to win this. (END AUDIO CLIP) HAYES: President Obama speaking today at a global conference on violent extremism, bluntly responded to the complaint that he is not identifying is as Islamic terrorists. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We have to confront the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence. These terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorists` narrative. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: If the terrorists` narrative in this case is coming from ISIS, that they are fearsome and fearless and terrifying and threatening and are coming for the West and coming for the U.S., well, that`s a narrative being embraced all throughout American politics and media at this moment. Joining me now, Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, former assistant secretary of defense, and Matt Duss, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Mr. Korb, let me begin with you, since you were at DOD a while back. What do you make of this news leaking of a planned offensive against Mosul, which seems at first blush at least a bit strange, because obviously there is no longer any element of surprise, were there to be one? LAWRENCE KORB, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, I think the ISIS knew we were going to come to Mosul. What`s very significant about this, back in the end of November, General Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said we would go after Mosul in the first quarter of 2015, but he said we`d need 80,000 troops. Now, they`re talking about 20,000, which is a big difference. And the fact is that I think it shows that we`re making some progress. The military always does worse case. If he could go from 80,000 down to 20,000, you know, to be able to take Mosul, I think that it shows that, you know, we are degrading them, at least militarily. HAYES: Well, let me follow up on that, and, Matt, I want to ask you a question. But this seems to me to be something that is essentially never talked about. I mean, basically, we`re getting these horrific images of ISIS that make you feel angry and terrified and disgusted. That they`re beheading Christians on the beach in Libya or killing the Japanese photographer or the Jordanian pilot, that is distinct from whether they`re having a good six months from a strategic standpoint, in terms of the ground they hold. And there`s some evidence to suggest that they haven`t had a good six months in terms of the ground they hold. Larry? KORB: OK, again, I think it`s important that we`ve killed several thousand of them, and they are replacing them, but the troops that are coming are not nearly as effective as the ones that we`ve killed. The Kurdish -- the Peshmerga is getting much better. We`re beginning to train the Iraqi forces. I don`t worry so much about them going into Mosul, because as that same Pentagon press release talked about, there`s 1,000 to 3,000. I wonder what happens after, and I wonder what`s happening if you`re using Shiite militias as part of this 20,000 troops force. HAYES: Matt, you were -- witnessed the buildup to the war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003. It feels to me an eerily similar kind of crescendo happening, in which it`s very hard to find any kind of perspective, or to find anyone asking hard questions about what actually happens the day after is might be defeated or the fact that ISIS is a creation of the last military intervention there, or the fact that the last place in which we intervened militarily, 2011, in Libya, we now have ISIS. I mean, are we just reprising all of our mistakes? MATT DUSS, FOUNDATION FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE: Well, I think the problem here is that it`s a very seductive idea that military force is decisive in a way that political or diplomatic or the economic tool, all of these other things are not. And I think that`s very appealing to people, because they`re confronted with these images day after day of the brutality of ISIL, and they are brutal. They are a monstrous organization, there`s no question. So I think it gives rise to this idea that we just need to strike them and we`ll solve the problem that way. But I agree, if anything should have disabused us of this idea, it`s the last decade and more of Iraq. And I just want to pick up on something that Larry said. Yes, so, OK, so even if we take Mosul, we will still be stuck with the problems that we were stuck with in Iraq, which is that we have a Shiite-dominated government that`s not inclusive. You have a Sunni minority that feels completely unrepresented. This is a problem we couldn`t solve with over 100,000 troops in Iraq. So, the idea we`re going to address it now, I just see no strategy for this. HAYES: Well, Larry, you made mention of the Shiite troops, and that gets to the fact that whatever political solution there might be to ISIS seems incredibly difficult to get your hands around. I mean, what do you think we`re going to see? Are we going to see more U.S. ground troops in Iraq before all is said and done? KORB: Well, you might see -- we already have 3,000 troops. The real question is, are you going to send large combat divisions like we did when we invaded Iraq? I think that`s off the table. And, you know, when I saw your poll about the Americans supporting this, as Matt just pointed out, they all supported the initial invasion of Iraq. Now, I think if you do use them and you have spotters on the ground that can call in air strikes if you need to, maybe some Special Operations Forces, that`s allowed in the AUMF, the authorization for the use of military force that President Obama has set up. But that`s what I said. The real question is, what happens after you get Mosul? Who`s going to run it? Are you going to have Shiites in there? Are you going to go house to house to root these people out and cause more damage? And then the final analysis, we`re not going to defeat ISIS militarily. We have to undermine their narrative, so that young people around the world are not -- in the Middle East and around the world are not attracted to join them. HAYES: Matt, I want you to respond to Congressman Royce. This is a fairly prominent Republican. He`s the chair of foreign affairs, talking about including Iran in the AUMF. I mean, you have a situation now in which there is a war of all against all that`s happening across Syria and Iraq. In which you have American members of Congress who want us to be fighting Assad, ISIS, and functionally Iran all at the same time. DUSS: Yes. It`s just crazy. There`s no other word for it. I mean, we`re in the midst of a very delicate and very important and potentially very significant negotiation with Iran, that while would not solve all the problems, it would take the nuclear issue off the table and create the possibility of addressing some of these broader issues, between the United States and Iran, that could have very positive implications for U.S. security and for regional security. Now, the idea that we would -- that we would include Iran in a declaration of war and authorization for the use of military force, I mean, if you want to, you know, empower Iranian hardliners to simply withdraw from the negotiations, that seems like a great way to do it. And it seems increasingly clear that that`s precisely what a lot of these hawks in Congress want to happen. HAYES: Yes, I just cannot imagine. I mean, we have -- every force that is currently fighting in Iraq and Syria is a force that at some point, some prominent member of Congress or politician or media outlet has called for the U.S. to use military force against. And at a certain point, I mean, you imagine a quagmire of just ghastly proportions, should we see more and more U.S. troops brought in there. Lawrence Korb and Matt Duss, thank you very much. KORB: Thank you. DUSS: Thanks. HAYES: All right. Why it seems like America`s mayor doesn`t understand the meaning of the word "patriot," ahead. HAYES: Earlier this week, I sat down for a face-to-face on-camera interview with a former spy. And interviewing a spy, as you might imagine, is tricky business. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Before we go further, I`ve got to ask you this. I`ve had some experience in talking to spooks in my reporting career. And two things have struck me. One is, a lot of them seem a little crazy. And the other thing is, you guys are trained, paid liars. FORMER CIA AGENT: Yes. HAYES: So, it`s like, why should I believe anything you`re saying to me now, right? I mean, you literally, professionally lied for decades. FORMER CIA AGENT: Yes, you`re trained to lie. You lie all the time. You lie, you cheat, you steal, you swindle, you trick people. That`s the nature of the job. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: More of my interview with John Kiriakou, the only official to go to prison in connection with CIA torture, coming up. HAYES: Last night in Manhattan, a group of conservative economists, media figures, and business executives came together for a dinner featuring Wisconsin governor and likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, Scott Walker. And with Walker just a few seats away, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani addressed the crowd, had said something that even he knew was horrible. Quote, "I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe the president loves America," Giuliani said, as quoted by "Politico". "He doesn`t love you and he doesn`t love me. He wasn`t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country." Giuliani was asked to elaborate this morning on FOX News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANI: Well, first of all, I`m not questioning his patriotism. He -- he`s a patriot, I`m sure. What I`m saying is that in his rhetoric, I very rarely hear him say the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents. And when it`s not in the context of an overwhelming number of statements about exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he`s more of a critic than he is a supporter. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: OK. Giuliani opened that comment by saying he was not questioning the president`s patriotism. What he had said, again, was, quote, "I do not believe the president loves America." So, here`s the actual dictionary definition of the word "patriot." Quote, "A person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country." So, Rudy Giuliani is correct. He was not questioning the president`s patriotism. He was flat-out calling the president unpatriotic. So, anyway, Scott Walker, who again was sitting just a few seats from Giuliani last night, was asked about Giuliani`s claim today on CNBC. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: The mayor can speak for himself. I`m not going to comment on whether -- what the president thinks or not. He can speak for himself as well. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you agree with those comments? Were you offended by those comments? What was your reaction when you heard them? WALKER: I`m in New York. I`m used to people saying the kind of things that were aggressive. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You know, people say the president`s not patriotic. Quick side note here: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a likely Walker rival in the GOP presidential race decided to send out a statement proactively this afternoon, quote, "Governor Jindal refuses to condemn Mayor Giuliani for his commons." Now, since Jindal wasn`t at dinner, I doubt very many people were actually asking his position on this. But just so you know, to be clear, Bobby Jindal really wants all of us to know, he is squarely on team Obama doesn`t love America. Now, back to Scott Walker. I want to be completely clear about what was going on last night. In addition to Giuliani, the dinner attendees were reported to have included Larry Kudlow, Arthur Laffer, and Steven Moore, as well as anti-tax activist, Grover Norquist, central figures in the GOP`s decades-love love affair with supply-side economics, whose driving concern is cutting taxes for the rich. What they want is to stick with the Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan agenda, and they`re now auditioning to find a better vessel to sell that agenda to the American people. In Scott Walker, they seem to think they may have found their man. Joining me now, Charles Pierce, writer at large at "Esquire" magazine, and a staff writer at "Grantland". Charlie, it`s been a long time since I`ve seen a politician say something preceded by, "I know this is a horrible thing to say, but" get to the clause, comma, and just keep going. CHARLES PIERCE, ESQUIRE: That`s right. Once you get to the phrase, "I know this is a terrible thing to say, but" is when you take off your sock and stuff it in your mouth and you don`t talk for the rest of the evening. Chris, remember when you and I were young and McCarthyite used to be an insult? HAYES: Yes. I mean, yes, I do. PIERCE: Well, it`s not anymore! It is permissible within mainstream Republican and mainstream conservative dialogue to say anything about this president. HAYES: Really. It really is. And this is something, I mean, the president doesn`t love this country, he wasn`t raised the way you and I were -- which is all just gross, I don`t know what that`s supposed to mean, but he wasn`t raised like you and I were raised, who knows what Rudy Giuliani meant by that. But also, the fact, I was genuinely, I will say, I was genuinely, and I probably shouldn`t be surprised, genuinely surprised that Walker didn`t just say, of course I think the president loves this country. Rudy Giuliani doesn`t speak for me on that. Easy! Like he won`t say it, he wouldn`t say it! PIERCE: Hey, he`s still backing and filling on Charles Darwin. He`s got to work his way up to Rudy Giuliani. No, not only is this a party full of bullies, it`s a party full of cowards. I mean, you heard Rudy Giuliani try to walk this thing back today, and as you pointed out saying, I wasn`t questioning his patriotism. Well, you weren`t questioning his sense of style, pal. Everybody knew what you were saying. Everybody in that room knew what you were saying. And to have Walker come out and say -- well, it`s New York, you can hear, you know, anybody say anything. This wasn`t some guy yelling out the window of a cab. This wasn`t some guy on a soap box in Central Park. This guy was standing up in front of an audience of the creme de la creme of the conservative movement. I mean, you talk about the four horsemen of the apocalypse. I mean, you have the four horsemen of the fiscal apocalypse in that room. HAYES: And to me, what that signifies, I think, is that they are auditioning -- they see in Scott Walker, Matt O`Brien, I think, a writer I follow on Twitter, said, he`s the candidate for people who think that Republicans just need to change their message or their packaging and not really change any of their ideas. That Scott Walker, there`s a sense that, OK, maybe this can be the guy who can successfully run on essentially the Ryan budget and the Mitt Romney agenda. PIERCE: Well, yes, he`s the -- you know, he`s the Mitt Romney who doesn`t have a car elevator. You know, he`s got this weird kind of blue- collar thing going now, and he`s a victim because people have shouted terrible things outside their house. And, you know, I -- I saw this coming the night I was in Milwaukee, the night he won his recall. I said, this guy is everything everybody thinks Chris Christie is. All Chris Christie has done is yell at the various bets noire of the Republican Party. This guy`s beaten them all. This guy has heads on his wall. And I thought that was a very compelling thing. The only thing I wondered about -- actually, there are two things I wonder about: number one, why so many people who work for his campaign are going to jail. Number two, whether or not he would overcome this charisma deficit he obviously had, and he did that in Iowa. And now, I think people are looking at him as a serious contender. HAYES: And yet in the last week, this is where I think, this is the peril that all Republican front-runners or establishment choices or whatever you want to call them are going to have. Which is, they believe it is impossible for them to survive a Republican primary or not damage themselves by saying they believe in or they accept evolution as a theory of natural development, or that they, of course, think the president loves this country. There`s going to be one of these every week. And those are going to accrue. And they`re going to come back to haunt whoever it is who ends up with the nomination. PIERCE: Well, I mean, this is a chronic problem that goes -- no, that has gone back to at least 2008, where John McCain felt obligated to put Sarah Palin on the ticket to -- at least partly to appease these people. You know, we all saw what the clown car looked like in 2012. And it looks like in 2016, we`re going to have a clown SUV. HAYES: I`m reminded also, when you talk about McCain, of there was that sort of iconic moment, remember, where at one of these town halls, these town halls were getting sort of rowdier and rowdier and angrier and angrier, and someone basically got up and questioned president`s at the time, Senator Barack Obama`s patriotism, and John McCain basically put him in his place and said no -- you know, called him a Muslim. You`re never going to see that in this version of the GOP -- PIERCE: Look, to me, that was the high point of the 2008 McCain campaign, was that moment with that woman, where he said, no, he`s not, he`s a good American citizen, a fine family man, whatever. OK. None of the guys or ladies who are rumored to be running for the Republican nomination have those kind of stones. It`s simply not viable anymore, given the fact that, you know, the size of the genie that`s been let out of this bottle. HAYES: Charlie Pierce, as always, a pleasure. Stay warm up in Boston. PIERCE: Thanks! Thanks, Chris. HAYES: All right. Good news for half a million Walmart employees, plus more of my exclusive interview with the only official who ever went to prison in connection with the CIA`s torture program, ahead. HAYES: There`s record-breaking cold across the country today. It`s winter, so it`s supposed to be cold, but it is really cold -- so cold that things like this are happening, we think, although there are some in the office who are skeptical this could actually happen, according to NBC meteorologist Bill Karins. This morning in Barrow, Alaska, the northern- most city in the U.S., it was 13 degrees. In Nashville, Tennessee, it was 11, and it was 40 degrees in both Juneau, Alaska, and New Orleans. It`s even cold in Florida. Cold for them. It`s so cold there that the national weather service has issued a freeze warning for the town of Frostproof. It`s a real place. Something called the Siberian Express is responsible for all of this. It`s actually cold arctic air from northern Russia and it`s predicted to be even worse tomorrow in some places like here in New York, and this weekend, more winter precipitation -- this is like a sick joke at this point. More winter precipitation predicted for some, including the state of Massachusetts, where Boston is already buried under 96 inches of snow. So, really, the only solution to cope with a seemingly never-ending winter is to stay inside and watch videos, like this, and contemplate whether they`re real or not. HAYES: Today, Walmart announced it would be giving raises to half a million employees. The company plans to start paying all of its workers at least $9 an hour by April, with a plan to push that to $10 an hour next year. As Walmart president and CEO Doug McMillan explained, the move enables the country`s largest employer to better retain talent. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DOUG MCMILLON, PRESIDENT, CEO OF WALMART: We`ve got about 75 percent of our store management in the United States that comes from our hourly ranks. So today`s cashier is tomorrow`s store manager, tomorrow`s store manager may have my job. So we want to make sure that that opportunity is there for people as it has been for some many of us in the past. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Upon hearing Walmart`s decision to pay its workers an hourly wage nearly $2 more than the federal minimum wage that currently sits at $7.25 an hour and hasn`t been raised in over five years, the White House hailed the announcement and used it to put pressure on congress, tweeting, quote, "good to see Walmart raising wages for about 500,000 employees. Now it`s time for congress to hashtag #raisethewage." Today`s news, of course, also comes after years of political pressure from a national movement of low-wage workers and groups supporting them, from black Friday protests and nationwide strikes to actions outside stores to workers exercising their right to unionize and also facing tremendous recrimination, there`s been a sustained push to get retail employees a living wage. One of the groups that`s been fighting that fight, a group called Our Walmart, put out a statement today claiming victory, but also pointing out, there`s still more to do. Quote, "we are so proud that by standing together, we won raises for 500,000 Walmart workers." Adding that, quote, "this announcement still falls short of what American workers need to support our families." For years, the Walmart name has been synonymous with both low prices and low wages. The question now is, could we imagine a future in which that changes? Joining me now is Tsedeye Gebreselassi for the National Employment Law Project. It`s great to have you here. TSEDEYE GEBRESELASSIE, NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT: Great to be here. Thank you. HAYES: So, this -- this is good news -- I mean, this is big. That`s a lot -- that is a very significant raise for the people that are getting that raise. GEBRESELASSIE: That`s right. I mean, look, it`s a significant raise both because so many workers are going to benefit, 500,000 workers, and because Walmart is the largest private employer in this country, employing 1.3 million workers. Really through its actions, you know, sets the wage for this very low wage sector that`s growing. HAYES: This is a really important point, right, because people -- other places, other retail that are essentially competitors of Walmart or competitors for hiring those people, right, they -- we could imagine there`s going to be spillover wage effect for folks not even working at Walmart. GEBRESELASSIE: That`s right. And in fact, Walmart is responding to what retailers before it have done. I mean, one of the reasons why Walmart I think is raising its wages now, is because it is facing competitive pressure from other retailers like Gap and Ikea, that raise their minimum wages last year, Costco that pays a $12 an hour starting wage and nearly $20 an hour average wage. And so Walmart is responding to this, realizing that it can`t retain a workforce when it has to compete with companies that pay well and also provide, you know, good schedules, which is another issue that we`re working... HAYES: Right. So let`s talk about that in a second. But first, the big question to me also here is, are we seeing the fruits of sustained political activism, organizing, and pressure, or we`re finally seeing some tightness in the labor market, particularly at the bottom of the wage scale, which is what raises wages in a kind of econ 101 sense? GEBRESELASSIE: We`re seeing both of those things. We`re seeing tightness in the labor market and competitive pressure meaning that Walmart is responding to it. We`re seeing the fruits of very intense organizing activity over the last couple of years and Walmart workers going out on strike and raising awareness to things like Walmart doing a food drive for its workers, because its workers were relying on public assistance to make ends meet. You know, all of that feeds the consciousness. And then the third thing is, we are seeing a radically shifting political and economic landscape, where 29 states have raised the minimum wage above $7.25 an hour, where cities like Seattle and San Francisco have instituted $15 an hour minimum wages. And in this environment -- I mean, Walmart`s $10 announcement almost sees antiquated at this point, right? And so that`s why I think the workers are saying, look, this is a great first step and it`s welcome, but there is so much more to do that we`re not going to stop. HAYES: And there`s also an interesting backstory here in terms of how Walmart has reacted in the past to external efforts to mandate higher wages. GEBRESELASSIE: Total... HAYES: Yeah, completely obstinate and refuse. In D.C., there`s a D.C. ordinance that was going to require a certain floor on the wages at that Walmart store. They basically lobbied very hard, they spent a lot of money, they got the mayor to veto it. Something similar happened, went down to Chicago, and they were basically like, we will walk. So, what`s fascinating to me is like, will well -- it`s as much about power as it is money, about who gets to say when the wages get raised? GEBRESELASSIE: Exactly, exactly. And when you have, when you have -- you know, the momentum that`s happened over the last couple of years, the fact that these workers, you know, both Walmart and fast food workers have put $15 an hour into the national conversation about what our economy needs to recover, that is immense political power that Walmart, you know, today I think shows that it was responding to. HAYES: Do you think we`re going to see anything like this in the fast food sphere, which has been the site of so much sustained organizing? GEBRESELASSIE: I think -- I mean, look, I think that the fast food movement started two years ago and has already achieved immense sgains, both in terms of raising workers` wages, being the force behind many of these minimum wage laws that went into effect and starting to bring the corporate parent to actually listen and be at the table, so who knows? I mean, I think it`s two years is a very short amount of time, but I think today`s announcement bodes well. HAYES: Yeah. And hopefully tight labor markets continue. Tsedeye Gebreselassie, thank you very much. GEBRESELASSIE: Thank you. Ahead on the show... (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: When do you first hear about the program, as i believe they called it in the agency. Am i right about that? They called it program. KIRIAKOU: Yeah, the program. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: More of my exclusive interview with the only CIA official who ever went to prisons in connection with that program in a few minutes. HAYES: Earlier in the show, we told you about the bitter cold that`s gripping parts of the U.S. I`m sure many of you are trying to think of ways to keep warm tonight. I would like to offer a suggestion, snuggling right on up with our Facebook page where if you like us you can bask in the warm glow of my reciprocal approval. Back in a moment. HAYES: Only one current or former U.S. government official has gone to prison in connection with the Bush-era torture program. John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, who once worked at the agency`s counterterrorism center and who plead guilty in 2012 to intentionally disclosing the identity of a covert agent. Kiriakou got out of prison earlier this month, 23 months into a 30- month sentence. And yesterday, I sat down with him at his home in Virginia, where he`s now under house arrest and out under house arrest, to talk about his time at the CIA and his role in making the agency`s torture program public. By 2007, there were multiple reports in the press describing the so- called enhanced interrogation program, mostly citing anonymous sources. And then in an interview with ABC, John Kiriakou became the first current or former CIA officer to confirm on the record that the agency had, indeed, waterboarded a detainee. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KIRIAKOU: My understanding is that what`s been reported in the press has been correct, in that these enhanced techniques included everything from what was called an intention shake, where you grab the person by the lapels and shake them, all the way up to the other end, which was waterboarding. He resisted. He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time, and by that, I mean probably 30, 35 seconds. HAYES: That`s quite some time? KIRIAKOU: Which was quite some time. And a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate, because his cooperation would make it easier on the other brothers who had been captured. (END VIEO CLIP) HAYES: The man Kiriakou is discussing in that clip, a man by the name of Abu Zubaydah. Kiriakou was on the team that helped capture that prisoner in Pakistan, but he wasn`t actually present for the interrogations that he described in that interview, and as it turned out some of the information Kiriakou gave ABC was, well, wrong. As detailed in a Justice Department memo from 2005, which came to light in 2009, Abu Zubaydah was water bordered at least 83 times, as opposed to just 35 seconds. And as the Senate intelligence report on the CIA released last year noted, the quantity and type of intelligence produced by Zubaydah remained largely unchanged by the use of torture. Kiriakou has come to feel very differently about the CIA`s detention and interrogation program than he did back in 2007. When we spoke yesterday, he gave me his perspective on what happened to Abu Zubaydah, starting with the mission to capture him in Pakistan back in 2002. (BEGIN VIDEO CILP) KIRIAKOU: We were told by headquarters at the time that Abu Zubaydah was the number three in al Qaeda. That turned out to just not be true. He actually had never joined al Qaeda. And he had never pledged fealty to Osama bin Laden. But he was an al Qaeda associate. And he was the director of al Qaeda`s two training camps in Afghanistan. So, as such, even if he wasn`t the number three in al Qaeda, he was a pretty important target for us. HAYES: But you`re operating at the time thinking, we`ve got the number three of al Qaeda. KIRIAKOU: Oh, yeah. HAYES: And you must have been stoked? KIRIAKOU: Oh, absolutely. In fact, a lot of us felt it was just too good to be true, that, you know, we`ve hit this one guy, we`ve hit this one guy, we`re not going to catch the number three in al Qaeda just by going out and looking for him. HAYES: But you do catch him. KIRIAKOU: Well, we did catch him. HAYES: So now you`ve got Abu Zubaydah. What happens next? KIRIAKOU: Well, he was shot and severely wounded in this raid. He was shot by a Pakistani policeman in the thigh, the groin, and the stomach with an AK-47 and we didn`t think he was going to live. We got him medical treatment immediately that night. And he nearly bled to death. And then once he was stabilized, we flew him to a military hospital nearby. And he was there several days, spent most of it in a coma. We had a couple of brief conversations. And then, finally, the CIA sent a private jet in, with a trauma surgeon from Johns Hopkins University hospital. And they flew him off to a secret site. HAYES: When do you first hear about the program, as I believe they called it, in the agency? Am I right about that? They called it the program? KIRIAKOU: Yeah, the program. I went back to headquarters in May or June of 2002 and I heard about it, I think it was probably the middle of August, when I first heard it from a colleague who I had served in Pakistan with. HAYES: And you hear about it as sort of water cooler chat, as a formal briefing, as... KIRIAKOU: Water cooler chat, in the hall. Yeah. That Zubaydah had recovered from his wounds, he was not cooperative, and that that they were going to waterboard him. HAYES: What is your feeling at the time about the program? Like, what is the feeling in the halls? Like, do people know this thing`s existing? Do they know that you`re hearing it third-hand? KIRIAKOU: 99 percent of the people in the agency had no idea that this was going on. This was... HAYES: People literally had no idea. KIRIAKOU: No idea. This was a very closely held program. And I`ll admit to you that I, like many other people, was still so angry about September 11, I thought, well, if these murderers don`t want to cooperate, then we have to get rough. HAYES: Do you now feel, looking back, that the decision to do this was fundamentally driven by that kind of thirst for reprisal? KIRIAKOU: Oh, absolutely. HAYES: As opposed to some strategic... KIRIAKOU: Oh, there was no long-term plan. Right, there was no long-term plan, just like Guantanamo. Guantanamo was only supposed to be a temporary holding site, until we could figure out where to put these guys on trial. And trials never came. And here we are, what is it, 14 years later, and we still have Guantanamo. Well, in the agency, at the time, and I`m talking about midway through 2002 now, there was no long-term plan. It was still all about reprisals. And at the same time, Osama bin Laden had said that he was planning an attack that would dwarf September 11. And we were petrified that would happen and we would be caught flat- footed again. HAYES: Do you have more occasion to hear about the program, about interrogation, about... KIRIAKOU: Oh, sure. As time went on, more and more people began talking about it. And that`s how I heard that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded and that he had cracked, which is what I told Brian Ross on ABC News in December of 2007. That turned out to not be true. HAYES: So you hear that he`s waterboarded and that he cracked. You come away thinking that... KIRIAKOU: Wow, that worked. HAYES: Right. KIRIAKOU: Wow. That was fast. That`s what I thought. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: The Senate intelligence committee`s report on the CIA detention and interrogation program released this past December revealed that Abu Zubaydah had provided interrogators with valuable intelligence before he was tortured, a finding which contradicted the CIA`s assertion that so-called enhanced interrogation techniques were necessary because he`d stopped cooperating. The Senate report revealed many other disturbing details about the CIA program -- ice water baths, detainees subjected to severe and prolonged sleep deprivation, threats of sexual violence to family members. And while the foreword to the report states that CIA techniques violated the law, none of the officials responsible and faced prosecution, a fact that`s not lost on John Kiriakou. He`s now under House arrest, serving out the rest of his sentence for identifying a covert officer to a reporter. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: You`re the only person that has gone to prison over torture. KIRIAKOU: Yes. HAYES: How do you feel about that? KIRIAKOU: Very disappointed. And not because I think people involved in the torture program should just across the board be prosecuted. I don`t. I think reasonable people can agree to disagree about whether or not those people should be prosecuted. I don`t think they should. But... HAYES: You don`t think they should be prosecuted? KIRIAKOU: No, because they thought that they were following the law. They were told that the Justice Department had approved these torture techniques, that they had been signed off by the National Security Council and the president, and that what they were doing was legal. I get that. I understand. But we now know from the Senate torture report that there was a lot that was done that was not authorized by those national security findings, that was not approved by the White House. And in a couple of cases, people died in CIA custody. I always maintained that there were torture techniques worse than waterboarding -- sleep deprivation can make you so crazy you can`t participate in your own defense. That`s inexcusable. It`s illegal. The cold cell, where a prisoner is stripped naked, placed in a 50- degree cell, and then has ice water thrown some him every hour. People die from those kinds of things. Why aren`t those officers prosecuted? HAYES: That`s interesting. So the line that you see for prosecution should be that things that were done within what agents were told was in the bounds of the law shouldn`t be prosecuted, even if that actual retroactively was an erroneous legal judgment? KIRIAKOU: Exactly. I believe it was an erroneous legal judgment. I think that the Justice Department`s office of legal counsel was wrong in issuing those opinions. But if you`re a CIA officer at the working level and the Justice Department says go ahead and do it, it`s legal, well, if you don`t have a moral problem with it, what else are you going to do? HAYES: But those incidents that we`ve learned from the Senate torture report, in which that was exceeded... KIRIAKOU: Yes. HAYES: You think that should be subject to prosecution? KIRIAKOU: I absolutely think that those officers should be subject to prosecution, yes. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: We reached out to the CIA for a response. They declined to comment. Up next, the legacy of the torture program and whether a retired spy can be a reliable narrator of history. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You guys are trained, paid liars. KIRIAKOU: Yes. HAYES: So, it`s like why should I believe anything you`re saying to me now? You literally professionally lied for decades. KIRIAKOU: Yeah, you`re trained to lie. You lie all the time. You lie, you cheat, you steal, you swindle, you trick people, that`s the nature of the job. Yes. The problem at the agency oftentimes is that those guys don`t know when to turn it off... HAYES: do you know when to turn it off? KIRIAKOU: I hope that I do. I think that I do. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now, counterterrorism expert Malcolm Nance, author of "An End to al Qaeda." Malcolm, great to have you. I`ve been following you for a long time. I`m really glad to have you on the show. MALCOLM NANCE, COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT: My pleasure. HAYES: What do you think -- I thought that his point, John`s point about prosecution -- I mean, what do you think, first of all, to start this off, about the fact that he`s the only guy who`s seen the inside of a jail cell for this entire program and what he did was talk to a reporter about it. NANCE: well, within the intelligence community, you`re always going to have a dim view of people who disclose highly classified information. Unfortunately, when you`re dealing with clandestine agencies like the CIA, naming someone in their true name is a federal felony. He has copped to that. He admits to all of that. And he`s served his time for that now. But the very fact that he is the only person who has been brought to account for activities which, certainly coming from my perspective in the world, you know, I stand for the honor of the program that actually was brought out, that`s the survival, evasion, resistance, and escape program, which was brought out, drawn from the blood of tortured American service members, and which was re- engineered into this program, which he described earlier. It`s almost shameful. HAYES: Do you think he`s hated, Kiriakou? I mean, I get the sense that he is persona non grata inside the CIA. Well, he`s a convicted felon. And that`s all you can say. But the activities as he presented them the first time were almost within whistleblower protections. Again, he divulged that classified information, and that`s what he`s been held to account for. But the broad program of individuals who literally decided that these activities, which the world has seen forever as torture, which we prosecuted people for in World War II, was good enough for us to use. That in itself is a crime. I mean, it`s certainly enough to besmirch the entire honor of the United States. But that -- people should be held to account for that. HAYES: What do you think the legacy of that period has been for counterterrorism and intelligence now? Have things gotten better? Is there some sort of internal repudiation that`s happened, or is it basically, that was a bad chapter and if we have another attack and someone sends the order down from OIC again, we`ll go back at it? NANCE: Well, let`s just look at this on a day-to-day basis. Look at today. We have ISIS and a large-scale al Qaeda affiliate that is now taking over terrain in various parts of the Middle East, fulfilling bin Laden Jihad, executing people wearing the orange jumpsuits of prisoners that were sent to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The entire last 13 years that I`ve been operating throughout the Middle East -- I just came back from seven years in the Middle East, every person has brought up Abu Ghraib, torture, waterboarding, and all of these atrocities, these activities which were carried out by U.S. personnel and U.S. government agencies. This is not the standard that we needed to defeat these enemies. We cannot allow a moral equivalency with our -- with the opposition. HAYES: It`s fascinating, you say that, of pointing out those orange jumpsuits, which has become now so iconic in the snuff films that ISIS seems so fond of. Respond to someone like Tom Cotton, senator and veteran who says, that`s making excuses for evil, making excuses for the enemies. They don`t need an excuse. How dare you bring that up. VANCE: Well, you know, Tom Cotton, of all people should know better. He was a service member. He swore an oath to uphold and protect the United States, but not just to protect the citizens of the United States. We have a 200-plus- year history of serving with honor. And if honor and the dignity of the United States and when the United States armed forces goes into war or our intelligence agencies go into operations and we can`t do it cleanly, then, you know, you`re not actually working for our goals, you`re working for our enemies` goals. We can not empower ISIS. We cannot empower al Qaeda. We cannot empower Boko Haram to go out and do what they believe we`ve done. HAYES: Malcolm Nance, really a pleasure. Thank you, sir. That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021901cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 91 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 19, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 19, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: Sherrod Brown, Mark Schauer SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7361 words HIGHLIGHT: Jeb Bush is winning the Republican presidential primary in terms of money, and it was reported with some shock last week that Jeb Bush raised $4 million in a single night at one New York City dinner fund-raiser. Thursday, February 26th is the day Loretta Lynch will get a vote in the Senate to be next attorney general of the United States. Interview with U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Interview with former Michigan Congressman Mark Schauer, director of the DLCC`s SuperPAC Advantage 2020. CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: That is "ALL IN" for this evening. THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thank you, my friend. HAYES: You bet. MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. We think of Texas as a deep red state, where Republicans are totally dominant. But like the rest of the South, Texas was 100 percent blue not all that long ago. In the 1960s, when the Democratic Party embraced the cause of the civil rights movement, Texas and other states in the Deep South went through this whiplash, right, where they had been lockstep Democratic states, but their party loyalty was no match for their hatred for civil rights. And so, Texas and all these other states started flipping from the solid blue they used to be, to the red that we know them to be today. And the guy who led all of that at the statewide level in Texas was a senator tamed John Tower. And he led that in the sense that he -- in the sense of his election in 1961. John Tower was the first Republican elected to be a U.S. senator from Texas since the Reconstruction era after the Civil War. John tower served as a Republican in the Senate for more than 20 years. He ended up making history after his time in the Senate, when he became the only nominee for secretary of defense who has ever been rejected by the United States Senate. George H.W. Bush, Poppy Bush, nominated John Tower to be defense secretary in January 1989, and the Senate, remarkably, said, no. His nomination was basically doomed by multiple reports of alleged inappropriate behavior by him toward both women and alcohol. He told "The New York Times" when the Senate rejected him, quote, "Have I ever drunk to excess? Yes. Am I alcohol dependent? No. Have I always been a good boy? Of course not." But had it not been for that history-making failed nomination to be defense secretary, the Senate has only ever rejected nine cabinet nominees in the history of the country, and he is one of them. Had it not been for that, what John Tower would be most remembered for is what Ronald Reagan asked him to do after his retirement from the Senate, in 1986. In late 1986, this was the front page news all over the country. President Reagan, president Reagan secretly selling missiles to Iran, in a bungled effort to trade American missiles for American hostages. It was a complete screw-up. Iran actually ended up getting the missiles. We ended up getting none of the hostages. The whole thing was really quite flagrantly illegal and they got caught for it. More than a dozen Reagan administration officials ended up getting indicted. And as this was all first coming to light, in late 1986, on December 1st, 1986, Ronald Reagan appointed John Tower to lead a commission to investigate this scandal in his own administration. Two days later, the vice president of the United States at that time, the man who everybody knew wanted to run to succeed President Reagan in the next presidential election, two days after Reagan appointed John Tower to head up the Tower Commission to look into the Iran Contra scandal, two days after that commission was formed, Vice President George H.W. Bush spoke about it for the first time. He emerged from the cocoon of silence he had sealed himself into on this scandal, on this issue, and he made his first-ever public remarks about Iran-Contra. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE H.W. BUSH, THEN-VICE PRESIDENT: I can tell you that the president is absolutely convinced that he did not swap arms for hostages. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Reagan absolutely did swap arms for hostages, even though Vice President Poppy Bush said he did not. For whatever reason, we have decided as a country that we`re just going to let the whole Iran-Contra scandal thing go. We`ve just decided to forget about it. Forget that about the Reagan presidency. In the end, that speech, the Poppy Bush Iran-Contra speech where he said Ronald Reagan had no idea that happened and that was plainly untrue, in the end, what that Iran-Contra speech was ultimately remembered for is not what Poppy Bush is talking about in that speech, which is Iran-Contra. What he is remembered for in that speech is how he was doing the talking about Iran-Contra, the turn of phrase that he used when he was deflecting responsibility. That speech forever will always be the "mistakes were made" speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE H.W. BUSH: The matter was further clouded by the way in which the president`s goals were executed, specifically allegations about certain activities of the national security council staff. Clearly, mistakes were made. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: It was that great moment, right? Mistakes were -- mistakes were -- was that an apology? It was an acknowledgement that there had been mistakes. But who made those mistakes? Mistakes just happened out there anonymously? Who knows who did it? That is perhaps the most famous thing that George H.W. Bush said while he had the job of being vice president of the United States. Because of that, when his son became president, George W. Bush, it was almost like an historic alarm bell rang every time he used that same awkward, passive voice, that it wasn`t me, non-apology phrasing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: It`s also important for the people of Iraq to know that in a democracy, everything is not perfect, that mistakes are made. And he`s right, mistakes were made. And I`m frankly not happy about it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That`s not to say I had anything to do with them. These mistakes just keep passively being made. It`s almost like they`re making themselves. Nearby, but inconclusively, in terms of their relationships to any nearby humans. It must be very frustrating to members of the Bush family that these mistakes keep being made near them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you establish a dialogue with such a phenomenon? JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Well, it -- let`s go to Iraq. There were mistakes made in Iraq for sure. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: "There were mistakes made." who made these mistakes? Who can say? Passive voice. Jeb Bush has been off the national stage for a long time. He has not been a candidate for any elected office in 13 years. But Jeb Bush now is back, sounding very much like his brother and his dad. And he now is going full tilt right now, making the case to the country that not only should the country pick a Republican president in 2016, but the country should pick three Republican presidents in a row who are all from the same family. And so far, at this point in the race, at least, he is winning. He`s winning both in terms of media coverage and buzz on the Republican primary side. Most importantly, though, he`s winning in terms of money. It was reported with some shock last week that Jeb Bush raised $4 million in a single night at one New York City dinner fund-raiser -- 4 million bucks, for like an hour of his time. That was a shock last week when he did it in New York. Well, he did it again yesterday in Chicago. And next week he`s expected to not make $4 million, but $5 million at one dinner in Coral Gables, Florida. Nobody else has fund-raising numbers anything like this right now. And it is designed to be intimidating to the other candidates or the other would-be candidates in the race. This is the same playbook his brother used in 2000, when a year out from the election, he raised so much more money than anybody ever had before, that the most viable candidates who might have run against him never even got into the race. They were so scared by how much money George W. Bush had piled up early on. That is what George W. Bush did to win the nomination in 2000, and that is what his brother, Jeb, is doing to try to win the nomination right now. Politico.com reported earlier this week that this juggernaut of Jeb Bush fund-raising, him raising seven figures every single day, a year out from Iowa, that is what pushed Mitt Romney out of the race for 2016. Remember, just a few weeks ago, there was this proud little squawk from Mitt Romney, telling people in New York that he was going to make a run for it and they should tell all their friends. That squawk lasted about a week, and then he packed it in and said, uh, no, actually, never mind, I`m not going to run. What happened between that squawk and Mitt Romney taking it back, according to Politico.com, is that when he was dialing for dollars, talking to the people who he expected to be ponying up to fund yet another Mitt Romney for president campaign, he realized that actually he`d been beaten to it. Jeb Bush had already tapped all his donors and starting sucking up all the money in the room. Mitt Romney was too late to try to make another run in 2016. And so now, with anybody who might have been a Mitt Romney donor, and with the huge network of donors to his father and donors to his brother, Jeb Bush is building himself a money mountain that nobody else can scale. I mean, financially, he is almost the prohibitive favorite at this point, unless something dramatically changes in the fund-raising on the Republican side. And with that happening sort of slightly underneath the surface, now in an increasingly public way, he`s starting to do the things that are expected of a top tier presidential candidate. This week, for example, Jeb Bush decided to do what the last successful candidate for president did when he was running in 2007. Just like Barack Obama did before him, Jeb Bush, this week, went to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, to give his big I`m running for president foreign policy speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: President Obama called ISIS the junior varsity. Four days after, they took Fallujah, and when they comprised a fighting force of more than 200,000 battle-tested men. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Jeb Bush yesterday condemning President Obama for not realizing that ISIS had 200,000 fighters. ISIS does not have 200,000 fighters. After the speech, Jeb Bush`s staff had to clarify to reporters that he didn`t mean that. Actually, what he meant to say was 20,000, not 200,000. He was off by a factor of 10. It happens. There was a lot of stuff like that in this speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: The problem is perhaps best demonstrated by this administration`s approach to Iraq. We`ve had 35 years of experience with Iran -- excuse me, Iran -- 35 years experience with Iran`s rulers. And, so, look, this is a -- the more I get into this stuff, there`s some things you just go, you know, holy schnikes. The second thing I would say as it relates to Putin, and the president did this. I don`t know what the effect has been because, you know, it`s really kind of hard to be on the road and I`m just a gladiator these days so I don`t follow every little -- every little detail. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about the dissolution of sovereign states in the Middle East and a return to tribalism? JEB BUSH: I don`t have a solution. I`ve read articles about, whatever, you know, the 1915 kind of breakout of the Middle East and how that is no longer a viable deal. As we grow our presence by growing our ability to produce oil and gas, we also make it possible to lessen the dependency that Russia now has on top of Europe. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The dependency that Russia now has on top of Europe. On top of Europe -- also on top of old smokey. Also, beware the buku. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: We see the rise of non-state terror organizations, like ISIS, Boko Haram. (END VIDEOI CLIP) MADDOW: Jeb Bush`s big debut policy speech had its awkward moments. This was the daily beast report on his speech, quote, "Jeb Bush delivered a nervous, uncertain speech on national security on Wednesday, full of errors and confusion. Jeb bungles facts and pronunciation in his big national security speech, trying to sound presidential. Bush, instead, came off as a confused former governor." Vox rounded up the top cringe-worthy moments from Jeb Bush`s foreign policy speech. At "The Washington Post," Dana Milbank wrote that Governor Bush combined his father`s awkward oratory with his brother`s mangled syntax. Because he`s never been involved in foreign policy at all, you know, the awkwardness, and the flubs, the mispronunciation and the, I haven`t read the articles about this stuff, it is sort of to be expected at this point in his candidacy. The main thrust of the speech, though, and the thing that got all the headlines about his speech, by design, the thing he wanted people to take away from this speech was clearly a much simpler thing than some idea that he`d mastered all the details. It was not about his ability to pronounce Boko Haram and or to know it was Ukraine and not the Ukraine, I mean, yes, he screwed all that up. But the one thing he was sure to get across, the one big idea was this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: As you might know, I`ve also been fortunate to have a father and a brother who helped shape America`s foreign policy from the Oval Office. I recognize that as a result, my views will often be held up in comparison to theirs. I love my brother, I love my dad. I actually love my mother as well. Hope that`s OK. And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make. But I`m my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: I`m my own man. Whatever else he asserted, whatever else he got right or got wrong in his debut foreign policy speech -- I mean, this was the main point. Yes, I want to be the third Republican president in a row from my family. Right, yes. I want to be the third president bush in a generation. But I`m my own man. I`m not my father, I`m not my brother, I love them, but I`m not them. I`m Jeb Bush. I`m a different kind of Bush. Don`t see me as an outgrowth of the other two members of my family who have recently been president, I am my own man. And here is what went wrong. Here`s what went wrong about that, as a campaigning for president screw-up, right? While the press was absorbing the Jeb Bush foreign policy address and his declaration that he is his own man and he`s different from his father and his brother, they were also given by the Jeb Bush for president folks a handout, a list of foreign policy advisers that Jeb Bush was taking council from or had endorsements from in his soon-to-be run for the presidency. They gave out a list of 21 names. Of those 21 names, 13 of those people worked on foreign policy issues for Jeb Bush`s brother, George W. Bush. Two of them worked on foreign policy issues for his father, Poppy Bush. And four of them worked on foreign policy for both his brother and his dad in their administrations. And then one of them is George Schultz, who`s now 94. He was secretary of state when his -- Jeb Bush`s father was vice president. So, of the 21 names that Jeb Bush released to the press as his foreign policy advisers, as he was trying to make the case that he is his own man and he should not be conflated with his dad or his brother, of those 21 names, 20 of them worked for his dad or his brother. "The Washington Post" put it together in this handy Venn diagram, showing the overlap between the Poppy Bush names and the George W. Bush names. The other circle in the upper right is the Reagan administration, to encompass George Schultz. And whatever you think of the prospect of continuing the foreign policy of the other Bush presidencies, mostly the George W. Bush presidency, whatever you think of that substantively, and whether that`s a good idea for the nation to go back to the George W. Bush foreign policy, this is also just a gaffe. This is a running for president screw-up. I mean, you can`t put out this list saying, this is who`s going to advise Jeb Bush on foreign policy, and you can have Jeb Bush giving a speech saying, I`m not the same as my father and my brother, I`m my own man. Don`t conflate me with them, particularly on foreign policy. But you cannot do both of those things on the same day. It`s like the scheduler was tasked with rolling things out for Jeb Bush`s campaign, right? And decided, oh, well, you know, Wednesday`s going to be foreign policy day. So, everything on foreign policy, let`s truck it out there. Everything on foreign policy, including the directly contradictory things, let`s put them all out on the same day, without anybody noticing that those contradictory things would be the headlines right next to each other. I`m my own man! Foreign policy team, eerily familiar. This is a screw-up. But this is also a time, as a country, when we desperately need to start having a smarter debate about real challenges and foreign policy. ISIS, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Boko Haram, even the big reset with Cuba -- I mean, holy schnikes is kind of right, right? There`s a lot going on. The last presidential campaign in 2012 basically completely ignored foreign policy on the Republican side, neither the Republican presidential candidate or the vice presidential candidate had really anything to say on foreign policy. Mitt Romney gave his acceptance speech for the nomination in 2012 without even mentioning that we were actively at war, not even a platitude in that direction, never occurred to him. Not his forte. Presidential elections, for all their nonsense, they really are a great big quadrennial occasion for having the fights we need to have as a country and about our country`s role in the world. I mean, we`ve got an undeclared air war raging in the middle of a civil war in Syria. We`ve got a war that will not end in Afghanistan. Egypt wants us to be back in another war with them and Libya. Diplomacy and the cease-fire agreements are not working with Russia and Ukraine. There`s a lot going on in the world that deserves a great debate between at least two great sides, right? Two sides that are both making good, solid arguments, among people who know what they`re talking about and who are taking it seriously. Instead, on the right, the tenor on foreign policy is this kind of stuff, right? Scott Walker, sitting there last night in New York, while Rudy Giuliani gets up and says what you need to know about foreign policy right now is that President Obama doesn`t love America. Scott Walker sitting right there, today refusing to say whether he agreed with that or not. Another 2016 candidate, Bobby Jindal, volunteering today before anyone asked, volunteering today that he did agree with Rudy Giuliani about that. And that`s what he believes is wrong with our foreign policy right now. President Obama doesn`t love America. On the right-wing blog world, they have uncovered the scandal, evidenced in this damning photo that you see on the left here. See what President Obama is doing there with the finger raised. The right-wing blog world, they have discovered that he is there in that picture giving a secret Muslim gang sign. He`s not just pointing, wagging his finger at somebody. No, he`s giving a secret Muslim gang sign, and that`s why those other guys, those other leaders from Africa are smiling at him in that picture, because he`s telling them, he`s in the secret Muslim gang with them. Every other leader who has also ever been seen pointing in the course of their lifetimes, don`t know if they`re in the secret Muslim gang too, but, obviously, we`re checking. I mean, this is what it`s all about on the right, right now. Look, he`s a Muslim, he pointed. In the Bush/Cheney era, their foreign policy was what brought us the Iraq war and all the rest of us, right? Widely seen as the worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam and maybe even worse than that. What the country needs substantively is a good fight, a quality fight, a serious argument, well fought, between two competing, good ideas on foreign policy. It`s been seven years now since Bush and Cheney left office that we`ve been waiting to find out what the post-Bush/Cheney Republican idea is going to be on foreign policy. What they`re going to contribute to the debate. So far, it`s President Obama`s a Muslim! He doesn`t love the country! Awesome! Or if you prefer, it`s Jeb Bush running away with the nomination at this point and promising that we aren`t going to get a post-Bush/Cheney idea from the Republican Party. We`ll just go back to that one, bring back the old one. A presidential election year is a really important opportunity to have constructive national arguments about America`s role in the world. As this presidential is shaping up so far, the prospect of that happening does not seem bright. Mistakes will be made. MADDOW: Update: we got word late this evening that the president`s nominee to be the next attorney general of the United States, Loretta Lynch, will finally be getting a vote. She has been President Obama`s pick for attorney general since November. She sailed through her confirmation hearings, nary a peep against her. Inexplicably, after those confirmation hearings, the Republicans decided to delay a vote. Now they have scheduled a vote on her, it will be a week from today. Thursday, February 26th. That`s the day Loretta Lynch will get a vote. That had seemed like smooth sailing from the beginning, then the Republicans sort of inexplicably got a little wobbly on her. There`s still no clear indication that she has enough Republican votes to be confirmed, but now at least we know when the vote will be -- a week from today. Stay with us. MADDOW: We finally have a date now for a vote on President Obama`s nominee to be attorney general, Loretta Lynch. No substantive objections have been raised about her or her record or anything raised in her confirmation hearings. Nevertheless, it is no longer clear that she has enough support from Republicans in the Senate to be confirmed. But at least we`ve got a date for a vote. Also, we don`t yet have a date, but we do finally have some noise about some day, maybe starting to have a debate about the war U.S. troops are already waging against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. They`ve been waging that war for more than six months now, without really any political noise about it from Washington whatsoever. That may change, soon. Might not, but might. We also now have the debut foreign policy speech for the guy who appears to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination, at least when it comes to dollars cast and checks written. He`s proposing to bring back basically the entire foreign policy Iraq war hive mind from the presidency of George W. Bush. The Homeland Security Department is due to run out of money this time next week. As yet, there`s apparently no plan to find a way to keep it from shutting down this time next week. Our politics was kind of a freaking mess, even before we started in on the 2016 presidential race. But now that we have started in on the 2016 presidential race, does that make it more likely or less likely that the stuff that needs getting done in Washington is actually going to get done? Now that the Republicans have started their presidential primary process and the Democrats have not -- is our political and policy making dysfunction as a country about to get worse or could it get better? Joining us now is a man who, in theory, seems like he really should be in the Democratic presidential primary race right now, if such a thing existed. He`s the Democratic senator from swing state, Ohio, who Karl Rove`s Crossroads group spent $6 million trying to unseat in 2012, without success. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, so nice to have you here. SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Rachel, good to be back. MADDOW: Does it annoy you to raise the presidential prospect -- (CROSSTALK) BROWN: It doesn`t annoy me, it just doesn`t affect me. I have zero interest. My wife is in the studio. She doesn`t like the idea, I don`t like the idea. I love being in the Senate. That`s what I`m going to keep doing. MADDOW: Connie, is that true? You don`t want him to run? CONNIE SCHULTZ: Yes! MADDOW: You concur, you don`t want him to run? SCHULTZ: Yes. BROWN: I`m not lying. MADDOW: If he did want to run, would you veto it? (INAUDIBLE) MADDOW: Yes! BROWN: Of course, she doesn`t want to run. There`s an old Republican senator from Vermont a few years ago said the only cure for the presidential virus in the United States Senate is embalming fluid. So, once you get that feeling, you can`t get rid of it. So I don`t have that feel. But thank you, Rachel, for your comment. MADDOW: Well, the reason that I asked is because there are some people who think that running for president is not necessarily a great way to get elected president, but a great way to get ideas out there. And that the ideas being discussed in a presidential year, in a presidential primary context end up sort of shaping the agenda and shaping the conversation for the country in a way that is constructive. As a progressive, as somebody who people in left particularly like in the Senate, somebody who`s shown the ability to win in swing state Ohio and all the different things you`ve done, are you optimistic right now in terms of the conversations that we`re having as a country? Are we doing anything constructive? BROWN: I`m optimistic that Democrats will do better in 2016. That`s not your question, I understand. I`m not optimistic that we`re going to solve some of the problems, but I am optimistic that the debate will be joined. I think the way you laid it out tonight, that these candidates, whoever they are, and both sides need to have discussions about big issues, and that doesn`t mean bringing back old advisers from former races and doesn`t mean winning the money race or the money chase, it means talking about big issues. It means -- I think the president gave his best State of the Union Address he`d given this past January, when he talked about building the economy from the middle class out. He talked about middle class economics, understanding the trickle-down economics brought us no job growth during the Bush years, building the middle class, building the economy from the middle out in the Clinton years, brought us 20 million private sector jobs. A job net increase, and during the -- since the auto rescue, we`ve had job growth for 58, 59 months in a row, since 2010. So, we know what works, we know what doesn`t. We need to make that contrast much more strongly than we have and when Republicans accuse Democrats of class warfare, we should just continue to talk, because it`s so important that that`s the way -- because that`s the way the economy grows. MADDOW: So, do you -- if the economic strength we`re seeing right now continues throughout this year, as presidential politics heats up, if we end up having a national domestic political fight that`s essentially a referendum on Obama economics and a referendum on what we`ve done as a country since the Great Recession, to try to come back, you think that would be a healthy thing in terms of us defining the right way to grow? BROWN: Yes, I think it will empower Democrats who are generally too timid, generally shy away from making strong contrasts on economic issues, generally not afraid -- Democrats who are not afraid to take strong positions on these issues, I think it will embolden them. I think it will embolden Hillary Clinton, if she`s, as expected, the nominee, so that she does make these contrasts and show that, here`s what Democrats stood for in building an economy. Here`s what Republicans have stood for. It`s still -- we still haven`t answered very well the questions of -- the question of stagnant wages. That to me is -- it`s so important for people`s lives, now. It`s so important for building their retirement security. We`re not doing either very well, but I think that this growing economy now gives us an opportunity to do it. MADDOW: On that wage issue, obviously, that is, it sounds like a really specific economic concern. It`s everything in terms of the -- working families, and in terms of economic inequality that we`ve got that`s so unprecedented right now. There`s news today that Walmart is raising wages in a very small way for its very large number of private sector employees. They`re doing that for their own private sector concerns. President Obama has not been able to get a federal wage increase. Republicans don`t seem like they`re going to bend on that at all. At least it doesn`t seem that way to me. Do you think that he`s been effective and that Democrats have been effective at basically making the case to the private sector that businesses ought to raise wages on their own, that it`s good business, it`s good for the country, it`s actually a patriotic move. BROWN: I don`t think any of us have made the case strongly enough and well enough. We`re off -- but there have been a few companies that have done that. Aetna insurance is raising its lowest paid -- I`m not sure of these numbers, I believe, from $12 to $15 or $16 an hour, its lowest wage workers, which also means people slightly above that will get raises. And don`t forget that on the minimum wage. If we can raise the minimum wage $3 an hour, it means people making right above the minimum wage will get pushed up, too, and it will mean significant wage increases. We also need to do things like expanding the earned income tax credit, which rewards people for work. If you`re making $40,000 a year, you have a couple of children, you can get $2,000 or $3,000 tax credit, real dollars, refundable tax credit, real dollars in a check in the mail in February or march when you file your taxes. So all of those things we should do, in addition to just generally pro-growth policies aimed at the middle. MADDOW: I feel -- I feel a little more depressed about the prospect of what can get done. You talking in such specific terms about what not only ought to be done, but could be done makes me feel a little better. BROWN: It`s why I came tonight. Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: My personal antidepressant in the form of Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio -- thank you so much for being here. BROWN: Thanks. It`s good to be back. MADDOW: Nice to see you, Connie. Thanks for coming. See you soon. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: OK. If anybody`s keeping track at home, here`s my track record so far on figuring out Democrats may be giving Hillary Clinton a primary for the 2016 presidential run. Elizabeth Warren told me no, just like she told everybody else no. Sherrod Brown, right here, just told me no, and his wife, Connie Schultz also said no and said even if he wanted to, she would veto that decision in their family. Senator Amy Klobuchar told me no, but honestly, she seemed persuadable. And Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri didn`t even exactly say no. She said if Hillary Clinton didn`t run, then she probably wouldn`t consider running either, but she phrased it like that. She seemed persuadable too. I know nobody apparently believes there`s going to be a Democratic presidential primary. I don`t, either. But if there is going to be one, I think we might have started it right here on this show. MADDOW: In 2012, Republicans pulled off a neat trick. Less than half of voters chose a Republican to represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives. And yet, Republicans came out of that election with a 33- seat majority in that chamber. Democrats got over 1.7 million more votes nationwide, but Republicans won 33 more seats. How`d they do that? A big part of it was something called red map. Every 10 years, states redraw their election districts based on the latest census data, and in most states, that re-drawing of districts is done by the legislature. And in general, the party in power in the legislature draws those districts in the way that is most electorally advantageous to them. So, if you`re a Republican, for example, you want as many Republican-safe districts drawn as possible, and you want to cram all the Democratic voters in your state into as few districts as possible. So, red map aimed for Republicans to control as much of the redistricting as possible after the 2010 census, and it was a hugely successful effort. Republicans took over 20 legislative chambers in 2010. And then, in 2011, those Republican legislatures got to work redistricting. And the results for those states` congressional delegations were staggering. In Michigan last year, only 49 percent of voters chose a Republican to represent them in the U.S. house. And yet, the state`s house delegation is 2-1 Republican. In Pennsylvania, Republicans got 56 percent of the vote, but with that vote, they got nearly 75 percent of the seats in the U.S. House. In Ohio, Republicans won 60 percent of the votes for the U.S. House and well done to them, but they sent three times as many members of Congress to Washington as the Democrats did. North Carolina has more than three times as many Republican representatives as Democrats in the U.S. House, even though a full 44 percent of that state`s voters opted for a Democrat. The redistricting of Republican gains in 2010 and 2012 and 2014 created a very steep hill for Democrats to climb. The only way for Democrats to turn winning vote totals into actual control of the House is to level the playing field. They`ve got to take state legislatures back by the end of the 2020 census, in order to do some redistricting of their own. Well, the Democrats actually created an operation to do just that. It`s called Advantage 2020. They created it last summer. And 2020 is very different than 2010 was. 2020 will be a presidential election year. And presidential election years, more Democrats to turn out to vote -- tend to turn out to vote than in midterm election years like in 2010. Today, the Democrats announced that they`re gearing up to put real money behind this 2020 effort, launching a super PAC that aims to raise $70 million to spend over the next three elections. Their goal is to flip some of those state legislatures back to the Democratic column. The group`s new director is former Michigan Congressman, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Schauer, who knows a little something about redistricting. He lost his congressional seat in 2010 after just one term when he saw his district redrawn without his home county in it. Joining us now is former Michigan Congressman Mark Schauer. He`s director of the DLCC`s SuperPAC Advantage 2020. Congressman Schauer, thanks for joining us tonight. FORMER REP. MARK SCHAUER (D), MICHIGAN: Thank you, Rachel. It`s great to be with you. MADDOW: So, you have experienced gerrymandering in your own political career. SCHAUER: Yes. MADDOW: It sort of kind of felt like a knife, I imagine. What happened in Michigan? What do you think has been the effect on the state - - of the way gerrymandering worked in your state? SCHAUER: Well, as a member of the legislature in 2001, the Republicans controlled the state house, the state Senate and the government`s offices and saw the consequences. The kind of numbers you just showed are exactly what we`ve seen in Michigan and key states around the country where voters choose Democrats, but end up with Republican majorities in the state legislatures and in the state capitals. And we`ve seen the associated policy attacks on women`s health, on voting rights, on collective bargaining and workers` rights, immigrants and minorities, and they are playing their agendas out in state capitals, but also, as you noted, in 36 states, the legislatures draw congressional maps. And those 36 states draw districts for 300 in 36 congressional seats. These key states you mentioned are early targets for us in Advantage 2020. And what`s unique is the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is taking a long-term three-cycle view, starting actually in 2015 in Virginia and in the 2016 election cycle. But in short, legislatures matter. And that is our focus. And we`re going to do what the DLCC has done incredibly well, and that`s win and create fair districts and the better policy outcomes that result from that. MADDOW: So, what does a national political party effort look like to win legislative seats? I mean, state rep seats tend to be, you know, districts that are small, that are -- have very local concerns, that tend to be pretty low-profile races. How do you avoid bigfooting that in a way that makes you effective? SCHAUER: Well, the DLCC is a strategic partner with state legislative leaders. I`ve experienced it firsthand in Michigan. They work in looking at demographic trends, data, the kind of analysis that sets the stage for winning elections, candidate recruitment, and providing financial support to win elections. In 2012, again, after a Republican wave election, the Democratic legislative campaign committee helped eight states win back legislative chambers. We know how to do this work, and it will be an all hands on deck strategy, where we engage state leaders, other Democratic committees that share a vested interest, progressive groups, labor and environmental groups, to develop specific state-by-state strategies to win over the next three election cycles, so come 2021, when the redistricting pins are out, Democrats control that pin or a substantial portion of that, so we draw fair districts. But we know how to win, and this is about that level playing field you talked about, and all Democrats need are fair districts and we`re providing the important national leadership to make this happen. MADDOW: Former Congressman Mark Schauer, Director of DLCC`s SuperPAC Advantage 2020, trying to turn around to the Democrats` advantage what the Republicans did so effectively in 2010 -- thanks for helping us to understand it tonight, sir. Appreciate it. SCHAUER: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: All right. We have a story tonight at the end of the show that is both so shocking and so entertaining that you will think I made it up. Please stay with us. MADDOW: It`s a two-step process. Step one, male legislator tells female legislator that women are lesser cuts of meat. Step two -- step two is really good. That story is ahead. Stay with us. MADDOW: Quick calendar note for you. Tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, proceedings will begin in the sentencing of Maureen McDonnell, Virginia`s former first lady. She was convicted last year on multiple counts of public corruption. Prosecutors are asking that she`d get 18 months in federal prison. Her defense team has filed a memo is asking for instead of 4,000 hours of community service and no jail time at all. Just over a month ago, her husband, former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, he was in the courtroom facing sentencing for his multiple felony corruption convictions. Prosecutors had asked for the former governor to get 10 to 12 years in prison, but the lead up to his sentencing included more than 400 public letters of support sent to the court on Bob McDonnell`s behalf, 11 character witnesses took the stand in his defense. In the end, Bob McDonnell didn`t get 10 or 12 years, he got two years, and prosecutors looked furious that his sentence was so light. For his wife Maureen, there has not been the same kind of uplifting of support, at least publicly. We know there were letters that had been sent to the court on her behalf, before she`s sentenced. But those letters, unlike her husband, those letters for her are not being made public the way they were for Bob. We don`t know yet if Maureen McDonnell will speak on her own behalf. She has not spoken at all during proceedings so far. Ten character witnesses are scheduled to take the stand on her behalf tomorrow. Bob McDonnell himself is expected to be in the courtroom. But we`ll find out for sure tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Watch this space. MADDOW: Meet Katrina Shealy. Katrina Shealy is a state legislator in the great state of South Carolina. She`s a Republican in the South Carolina state senator from the Lexington area. And even though she`s only been on the state senate for a years, he has earned sort of an odd distinction. This is a list of all the member of the South Carolina state senate. You may notice something going on here. Thomas, Alexander, Carl, Sean, Lee, Kevin, Paul, George, Raymond, Creighton, Tom -- they`re all men. They`re all men except for Katrina Shealy. There are 46 members of the South Carolina state senate, and she is the only woman. Now, I know what you`re thinking. You`re thinking, what about Nikki Setzler right above her? It turns out Nikki is a guy. There`s the Nikki who`s the governor of South Carolina. She is a woman. In this case, Nikki, the state senator, is a dude. So, yes, Katrina Shealy is it. She is the only woman in the whole South Carolina state senate. She`s even fictitiously named herself the chair of the South Carolina senate women`s caucus. She`s the whole caucus, so of course she gets to run it. And all votes are unanimous. South Carolina`s one woman senator, Katrina Shealy, found herself in the middle of a local firestorm this week when -- this past week, when one of the Republican senators, the guy you see on the right here, made comments to her and about her that made news. See? South Carolina senator: women are "a lesser cut of meat". This Republican state senator said this to his only female colleague, that women, like, for example, her, are a lesser cut of meat. That`s nice. Katrina Shealy told the local press that the comments went too far, that women deserve respect. And then, she went on the Senate floor in South Carolina and she made like a superhero. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STATE SEN. KATRINA SHEALY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: To the women and young ladies in this chamber today and all of those who may be listening -- you will experience roadblocks and challenges. Don`t be discouraged and don`t give up. And don`t you dare let anyone tell you that you`re less than what you are. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So, yes. The guy who called her a lesser cut of meat, he apologized. And because he`s classy, he said he was also sorry that she chose to be offended and make such a big deal out of all this. And maybe the lesson in all of this is that South Carolina should maybe have more than one female state senator out of 46. Not only because it might cut down on the lesser cuts of meat jokes, but also because it turns out women make better legislators. Don`t take it from me. This is a website called Quorum, which is run by a pair of Harvard students that basically crunch all sorts of data about Congress. Votes, bills, floor speeches, they crunch all that data about legislators` legislative activity and they come out with reports about what they find. And what they found this time has to do with the women in the United States Senate. There are currently 21 women in the Senate. The number is varied a little bit over the years, but this data-crunching Web site went back and looked at Senate productivity over the last seven years and they found, to their surprise, that the women of the Senate are, in quantitative terms, just better at their jobs in terms of the sheer number of bills introduced in the Senate, the women on average were more productive, they introduced more bills on average than the men did. Of those bills introduced, women senators had a greater percentage of their bills passed out of committee. Of those bills passed out of committee, they also had a greater percentage of those bills enacted into law. So, just in terms of turning bills into law, women, over the last seven years, have done it better than men in Washington. Women, according to the data, are also better at cutting bipartisan deals. The average female senator cosponsored 171 bills with a member of the opposite party, which is a much higher number than the average number for men. And, oh, and by the way, women are also better at convincing their fellow senators to sponsor their bills as well. And, you know, you often hear women in the Senate say, you know, if there were only more of us around, something might actually get done around here. That appears quantitatively to now be provably true -- lesser cut of meat or not. That does it for us tonight. We will see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021901cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 92 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 19, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 19, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Alex Wagner, Sam Stein, Miguel Almaguer, Jim Cavanaugh, Dylan Dreyer GUESTS: Stephanie Miller, Jose Antonio Vargas, Dianna Hunt, Brian Wice, Patricia Zapf, Brian Wice, Mitchell Matorin, Ann Louise Bardach SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7421 words HIGHLIGHT: Rudy Giuliani clarified what he meant when he said that President Obama doesn`t love America. And it turns out what he meant is exactly what he said. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel. That is absolutely amazing to learn and at the same time unsurprising, that women are better at cooperative activity in the place like the Senate than the men. RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: Exactly. Anecdotally, we`ve seen it happen. To see it proven over time -- O`DONNELL: Yes. MADDOW: -- and over all of them is kind of nice. O`DONNELL: Yes. Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks, Rachel. O`DONNELL: Well, today, Rudy Giuliani clarified what he meant when he said that President Obama doesn`t love America. And it turns out what he meant is exactly what he said. And he just added a little more clarification in the last hour on FOX News. And here in Los Angeles today, the king of porn -- king of revenge porn may be on his way to prison. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have we reached peak Obama derangement on the right or is some of the recent criticism of Obama somehow justified? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are an Islamic movement, an extremely unpopular one, a brutal one, a literalist one. But they`re certainly an Islamic movement. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A leader of the Republican Party said the president doesn`t love us and doesn`t love the country. RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Well, first of all, I`m not questioning his patriotism. He`s a patriot, I`m sure. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The mayor did clarify his remarks this morning. GIULIANI: He talks more about criticism rather than what an exceptional country we are. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m glad we got that covered up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defense rested in the trial of the man accused of killing "American Sniper" Chris Kyle. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After his honorable discharge, family and friends say he wasn`t himself. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Forensic psychologists took the stand today, he testified that the defendant, Eddie Ray Routh, suffered from schizophrenia. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s been called a nightmare bacteria by federal health officials. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s already been linked to at least two deaths at UCLA`s Ronald Reagan Medical Center. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A super bug that can kill up to half the people infected. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And there are fears now that nearly 200 others may have been exposed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The real cold air comes in tomorrow morning, anywhere from 20 to 30 degrees below normal. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sometimes there is some beauty in all this pain. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s so cold, even parts of the Niagara Falls are freezing over. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What should be a view of gushing water, now a wall of ice. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: Here is how you know when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is going to say something horrible. He tells you, he literally says, I know this is a horrible thing to say before he says something horrible. And according to a report in "Politico", that`s exactly what he said at a private dinner for Scott Walker in 21 Club Midtown Manhattan last night. Giuliani said, "I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America." Having lit that match for today`s political firestorm with those words in "Politico", Rudy Giuliani then did one of those "this is what I meant to say" appearances on FOX News today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANI: First of all, I`m not questioning his patriotism. He`s a patriot, I`m sure. What I`m saying is in his rhetoric, I very rarely hear him say the things I heard Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear Bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. I hear him criticize America much more often than other presidents. And when it`s not in the context of an overwhelming number of statements about the exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he`s more of a critic than he is a supporter. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: OK. So, Rudy Giuliani wasn`t questioning the president`s patriotism. He would never do that. He`s not that kind of guy. He`s the kind of guy who says the president doesn`t love America, which is like totally, completely different from saying that the president isn`t a patriot. And Rudy Giuliani is the kind of guy who thinks you don`t have to love America to be a great leader. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANI: Putin decides what he wants to do and does it within half a day, right? He went -- he decided he had to go to their parliament, he went there in parliament, he got permission in 15 minutes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I mean, that was kind of like a perfunctory, I think. GIULIANI: But he makes a decision and he executes it, quickly. Then everybody reacts. That`s what you call leader. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Stephanie Miller, syndicated radio talk show host, Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and filmmaker, MSNBC`s Alex Wagner, and Sam Stein, senior politics editor at "The Huffington Post" and an MSNBC political analyst. Alex Wagner, Rudy Giuliani, you know, he at least warns you. ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC HOST: Yes, right. O`DONNELL: He says, I know this is a horrible thing to say. WAGNER: The fair warning shot. Lawrence, I don`t know which speeches Rudy Giuliani has been listening to, but the speech in question that`s garnered all this criticism, the president made yesterday and he began with a 15-minute introduction about how exceptional America was. I mean, this is a president who has credited his own presidency with -- to American exceptionalism, who says at the conclusion of almost every speech I`ve heard him and give, which is a lot of speeches, that this country is exceptional in its union, in its ability to overcome challenges. And was saying at the beginning of the speech that about the threat posed by ISIS, that we overcome these challenges in front of us and our union is more perfect at the end of it. I mean, I think this is really Rudy Giuliani searching for a way to undermine Barack Obama`s credibility. It goes back to conservative beliefs that he`s not one of us, but really is not rooted in fact -- at least if you are judging the president rhetorically, as I think most folks are, and as Giuliani presumably is. O`DONNELL: Well, Rudy Giuliani, this is what I meant to say tour, continued into the last hour on FOX News. Let`s listen to his latest explanation. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Mr. Mayor, do you want to apologize for your comment? GIULIANI: Not at all, I want to repeat it. The reality is I -- from all that I can see of this president, all that I`ve heard of him, he apologizes for America, he criticizes America. He talks about the crusades and how the Christians were barbarians, leaves out the second half of the sentence, that the Muslims were barbarians also. He sees Christians slaughtered and doesn`t stand up and hold a press conference, although he holds a conference for the situation in Ferguson. He sees Jews being killed for anti-Semitic reason, doesn`t stand up and hold a press conference. This is an American president I`ve never seen before. I`m right about this. I have no about it. I do not withdraw my words. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Stephanie Miller, he -- the president -- I don`t recall the president saying that America was the leader of the Crusades. I missed that part. (LAUGHTER) STEPHANIE MILLER, SYNDICATED RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Right. You know, Lawrence, when someone starts a sentence with, this is going to be horrible, it`s like when someone says I`m not a racist but n-word for a black person. I`m not a homophobe, but f-word for gay person. I`m not a sexist, but c-word for a woman. That`s what this is. He absolutely is saying the president doesn`t love America, and as Alex pointed out, the president speaks, he said only in America could my story be possible, in every speech. Barack Obama is a walking endorsement for what the United States of America is. And this is just another example of the unprecedented disrespect that this president has gotten. O`DONNELL: Let`s just remind ourselves with a little snatch of that first speech where the country saw Barack Obama for the first time, which was, as loving a speech about this country as I`ve ever heard. Let`s listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Well, I say to them -- tonight, there is not a liberal America, and a conservative America, there is the United States of America. (APPLAUSE) There is not a black America, and a white America, and Latino America, an Asian America. There`s the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Jose, I cannot think of a Republican or Democratic political speech that reached that height. JOSE ANTONIO VARGAZ, PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING JOURNALIST: I just have to say, because I`ve been watching and reading what Mayor Giuliani, who used to be the mayor of one of the most diverse cities in America, I just can`t believe it came out of his mouth. I have to say too I can`t stop thinking about James Baldwin who said, I love America more than any other country in the world and exactly for that reason I reserve the right to criticize her perpetually. There is nothing wrong with criticizing America and analyzing why we are where we are, given the racism and sexism and the homophobia and anti- Islam, you know, that`s going on in this country. There is nothing wrong with criticizing America, so long as we`re awake on what`s happening. And really, I -- what Mayor Giuliani has done is incredibly pernicious and I think it speaks to the partisan divide that we have, and I think it also speaks to why people are so turned off by this politics. O`DONNELL: Yes. MILLER: How is it any different than when George Bush said we`re not at war with Islam? O`DONNELL: Yes. MILLER: That was a great point. We`re not at war with Islam. These are not religious leaders, they`re terrorists. O`DONNELL: Sam Stein, is this an indication where the presidential campaign is going to go, they`re going to campaign as much as they can against President Obama and do it on personal terms? SAM STEIN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, past is prologue. The 2012 campaign, at least when it came to the foreign policy debate, was spent with Mitt Romney reminding the American public that he wouldn`t apologize on the world stage like the president did. I think, you know, Jose hits it on the head, which is the playbook, and it has been for many decades, to simplify this election into black and white, when these issues are matters of gray. So you can`t have a lengthy conversation about, you know, racism or the nuances of foreign policy or the histories of religion, because they can be put through this prism by people like Giuliani and use as a political cudgel. So, yes, I do think this is where at least the foreign policy element of the debate is going, in part because Hillary Clinton also served with this president and she`s going to be tied to his foreign policy. O`DONNELL: OK. We have one more bit of what he just said within the last hour on FOX News. Let`s listen to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANI: The grandfather introduced him to Frank Marshal Davis, who was a communist, who the president -- KELLY: He fought in World War II. GIULIANI: OK, you can fight in World War II and then you introduce someone to a communist and the young boy gets -- KELLY: It`s a political world view. It`s not a hatred for the country. GIULIANI: Communism wasn`t a hatred for America? KELLY: I`m talking about his grand father, if he had a leftist view of how politics in the United States should run doesn`t mean he doesn`t love America, doesn`t mean his grandson does. GIULIANI: Kelly, how about being in a church for 17 years where the minister of the church says it`s "God loves America but God damn America." Now, if you were in that church, wouldn`t you quit that church? (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Alex Wagner, Rudy Giuliani has been doing his homework all day and is now reaching back. WAGNER: Rudy Giuliani got into a DeLorean and traveled back to the year 2007. It`s unbelievable that we`re talking about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. It is because the Republican Party have no policy prescriptions to offer the country, because unemployment is where it is. There`s a very complicated foreign policy ahead of any candidate in 2016, and there are no answers. Jeb Bush`s answer to ISIS threat was, I`m going to take them out. That`s not foreign policy. There is no substantive discussion about anything, domestic or international coming from the right side of the aisle. And so, there is a regression, complete and unabashed as Giuliani presents back to the year 2007 to talk about hateful, divisive politics having to do with a church Barack Obama went to 10 years ago, which may or may not informed some part of his world view, that may I add is quite different at this moment than when it was even when he was a senator. It is outrageous that this Rudy Giuliani`s line of questioning. O`DONNELL: Sam Stein, quickly on a political point, there`s Rudy Giuliani at an event for Governor Walker. He said he`s not endorsing him yet, he`s still looking for the right candidate. But what is he doing at a Walker event if that`s not the campaign he`s going to sign up yet? STEIN: That`s a great question. It`s almost more important than these, you know, asinine comments that he`s reading off of his checklist on FOX News. He`s supposed to be a Chris Christie guy. I know if there`s been sort of love lost in that relationship. But if you recall, during the bridge- gate scandal, it was Rudy Giuliani who was sort of ubiquitous on cable the only guy defending Chris Christie saying, give this some time, that the investigations play out, I don`t think he`s guilty, so on and so forth. If he`s now leaning towards either endorsing Scott Walker or flirting with other candidates, it does say a lot not about Giuliani, but about what Christie`s standing right now is with 2016 primary. Two articles popped tonight from "The Post" and "The New York Times", both have basically said the same thing, which is that the donor class and a lot of high profile Republicans are souring on Christie, they think he`s taking too long to get in. They don`t think he`s responsive to their emails or their needs. I think that`s the bigger story here, is that Rudy is drifting and a lot of people are drifting in the donor class as well. O`DONNELL: OK. That`s going to have to be the last word on this segment tonight. Sam Stein, Alex Wagner, Jose Antonio Vargas and Stephanie Miller, thank you all for joining me tonight. WAGNER: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Coming up, the final witness for the defense in the American sniper trial testified today. A psychiatrist who examined the defendant, Eddie Ray Routh. O`DONNELL: An Israeli government reports say Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife have been wasting Israeli taxpayer dollars on an extravagant lifestyle. The report says that Prime Minister Netanyahu, in one example, spent $68,000 over two years just on hair and makeup. Now, you`ve got to admit, look at that hair. It`s perfect. Just perfect. Up next, a psychiatrist testifies for the defense in the "American Sniper" trial. O`DONNELL: The defense rested its case earlier than expected today in the trial of Eddie Ray Routh, the former marine accused of murdering real American sniper Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. The defense attorneys presented expert medical testimony today from Dr. Mitchell Dunn, a psychiatrist, who told jurors that Eddie Ray Routh does not suffer from PTSD, but does suffer from schizophrenia. Dr. Dunn testified that Eddie Ray Routh believed that Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield were going to kill him as part of a world takeover by pigs. Dr. Dunn said that Eddie Ray Routh told him, quote, "When I first got here to jail, I thought I was going to be cooked for people to eat." Dr. Dunn, who did not meet Eddie Ray Routh until after a year after the shootings, testified that Ralph was delusional and believed his neighbor, a police officer, was actually a part of the Mexican mafia, that his former girlfriend was half human, half pig, and that pigs were going to take over the world. Dr. Dunn testified, quote, "There was something really wrong with Eddie Ray Routh on the day of the offense, and that something wrong was a mental disease." Dr. Dunn also told jurors that Eddie Ray Routh admitted that the killings were a mistake, telling the doctor, quote, "As soon as I did it, I realized I made a mistake." On cross-examination, Dr. Dunn testified that Eddie Ray Routh knew in a general sense that killing is wrong. Prosecutors are expected to call two expert rebuttal witnesses, a psychologist and psychiatrist, on Friday. Joining me now is Dianna Hunt, who was inside the courtroom today covering the trial for the "Dallas Morning News," Brian Wice, a defense attorney in Dallas, and Patricia Zapf, a forensic and clinical psychologist with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Dianna, in court today, the defense had a second psychiatrist they wanted to call but who was disqualified. What happened there? DIANNA HUNT, DALLAS MORNING NEWS: He was disqualified, he was put on the stand and the state questioned his credentials, questioned his certification as a forensic psychologist, and the judge agreed with their concerns and did not -- did not allow him to testify as an expert witness. So, they went with the one expert, a psychiatrist who took the stand later. O`DONNELL: And what was your assessment of Dr. Dunn`s testimony? How helpful did it seem for the defense? HUNT: It was a -- it was an astonishing day of testimony, quite honestly. The pig people and high breed pigs and cannibals in the workplace, and human rotisseries -- it was a very bizarre story that was -- that Eddie Ray Routh told to him while he was in Erath County jail. He said that this is what people who have mental illness often are really like. You may not know it, you may not be able to spot it, but that`s what`s underlying some of these problems. O`DONNELL: Brian Wice, two things. The disqualification of one psychiatrist, which is fairly unusual -- usually when an expert witness is being called, credentials have been tested, tested previously in other cases. And then, secondly, what do you make about Dr. Dunn`s testimony and how you think it landed in terms of the legal requirements for an insanity defense? BRIAN WICE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, dealing with the second part first, Lawrence -- it certainly gets them there. All they have to show by a preponderance of the evidence, the fancy legal term for more likely than not, is that at the time he pulled the trigger, Eddie Ray Routh didn`t understand, couldn`t comprehend the difference between right and wrong. But the sound bite from Dr. Dunn`s testimony that really impressed me was the notion that he told this Erath County jury -- folks, insanity is not like you think it is in the movies. I think that`s something this jury can certainly understand. Turning to the first point, Lawrence, it kind of was a rookie mistake for their expert to pretty much get bounced before he had a chance to talk to this jury. You know, it`s not like anybody can walk in and say hey, I`m a doctor. I play one on TV. You know, it`s like Mark Twain said, an expert is just some guy from out of town. And before you get to testify, your credentials have got to past the smell test, and in this case, the judge decided not quite close enough for this jury to hear with this psychologist has to say. O`DONNELL: Dr. Zapf, talk about the difference between the psychiatric profession`s view of mental illness and legal definition of insanity. I mean, here you have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and it`s a repeated diagnosis by other psychiatrist over previously treating this patient. But that in itself isn`t good enough in an insanity defense. PATRICIA ZAPF, FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST: Right. That diagnosis or mental illness is basically a foundational construct that needs to occur. But then there`s also a legal test or a legal standard typically. And so, in this case and many other jurisdictions, it`s whether the defendant knew right from wrong at the time. Texas has a very narrow or limited standard. And so, there`s not as much latitude in their standard. It must be shown that the defendant did not comprehend, was not able to comprehend right from wrong at the time of the crime. O`DONNELL: And, Dr. Zapf, what are you hoping that people might take away from this, what our understanding is of schizophrenia and PTSD? ZAPF: Well, these are major mental illnesses. Certainly schizophrenia, it`s a psychotic disorder. It`s always difficult for us to look back on someone`s behaviors or actions at a different point in time. And, you know, now, we`re looking back and trying to make sense of these actions, which at the time are just not rational. The person is not in touch with reality. They do not understand typically what`s going on. They`re not thinking in a linear, rational fashion. And for the rest of us who typically think in a linear, rational fashion, it`s really hard to make sense of that. It`s difficult to kind of grasp that. So, even in evaluation, when you`re speaking to the defendant and trying to get that defendant to tell you about what they were seeing, hearing, thinking, what was going on at the time of the crime -- you know, at the time you`re evaluating them, they`re usually on medication and have their mental state somewhat under control. They`re in an in touch with reality typically when you`re evaluating them. So, they`re trying to make sense of their behavior at an earlier point in time, as well. It can be confusing and hard to understand for a member of the jury or a member of the public to look back and see, you know, how someone could act so differently at a particular point in time and not be responsible for their behavior. O`DONNELL: That will have to be the last word on it tonight. Dr. Patricia Zapf, Dianna Hunt, and Brian Wice, thank you all for joining me tonight. Coming up, the deadly road rain incident in Las Vegas leads to an arrest today and more revelations about the people involved. O`DONNELL: Dramatic new developments today in the Las Vegas road rage killing of a 44-year-old mother. NBC`s Miguel Almaguer has the latest. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MIGUEL ALMAGUER, NBC NEWS: The tense standoff lasted over an hour. Las Vegas police in a quiet neighborhood, arresting 19-year-old Eric Nowsch, wanted in connection to the road rage death of 44-year-old Tammy Meyers. The suspect`s vehicle caught on surveillance tape may have helped lead investigators to his home. CAPTAIN CHRIS TOMAINO, LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE: The real takeaway here is that the suspect involved in the killing of Mrs. Meyers is in custody and off the streets. ALMAGUER: Meyers was taking her daughter home after giving her driving lessons when the road rage incident occurred. The mother of four dropped her off at home and picked up her 22-year-old son, who was armed. After finding the suspect, the suspect tailed the Meyers home, where he and her son exchanged gunfire. Meyers was shot in the head. BRANDON MEYERS, TAMMY MEYERS` SON: She didn`t deserve this. I did what I had to do to protect my family. ALMAGUER: Today, police made the arrest one block away from the Meyers home, while her husband watched it unfold. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They made my wife look like an animal, and my son. There`s the animal, a block away. Are you happy? ALMAGUER: Tonight, grief, disbelief, and many unanswered questions. (END VIDEOTAPE) LAWRENCE O`DONNEL, MSNBC HOST: Tammy Meyers` husband revealed today that the family knew the suspect prior to the road rage incident. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT MEYERS, HUSBAND OF SHOOTING VICTIM: We know this boy. I couldn`t tell you this before. He knew where I live. We knew how bad he was, but we didn`t know he was this bad. My wife spent countless hours at that park consoling this boy. And he`s probably watching this right now and I know he`s got to feel back. Because she was really good to him. She fed him. She gave him money. She told him to pull his pants up and to be a man, more times than I can count. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Las Vegas Metro Police say they are still looking for at least one more suspect. Joining me now is Former ATF Special Agent and MSNBC Law Enforcement Analyst Jim Cavanaugh. And back with me, defense attorney, Brian Wice. Jim Cavanaugh, it doesn`t seem as though the police have Indicated in that gun fight that turned fatal who fired the first shot, and does -- will that matter in the investigation. JIM CAVANAUGH, MSNBC LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I don`t think so, Lawrence. I mean, certainly, defense attorneys would raise that issue for Mr. Erich Nowsch. They`ll try to make him, you know, a self-defense candidate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) But I don`t think it`s going to wash really. The shooting happened at Ms. Meyers` home, you know, after this road rage incident. And if you look at the facts and listen to the police commanders, they clearly believe Mrs. Meyers` was the victim. She left the home, dropped the daughter off, picked the son up, and left to go try to find the car, but only for five minutes. And so, it`s -- you know, it`s quite possible that she thought that Erich Nowsch was involved because she knew him, and he didn`t have a vehicle, according to the neighbors. So, she might have said, "Let`s drive around and see if that car is around the block at Erich`s house. They were only gone five minutes. Of course, when they drive by, possibly, Erich and a confederate see them, followed them home, and then the shooting begins. So, clearly, she`s a victim here. She didn`t do anything criminal. (END VIDEO CLIP) She didn`t do anything wrong. Maybe, sometimes, it`s not a good idea to do those things. And Mr. Meyers said he thought it was a mistake. But, certainly, nothing criminal. And it`s murder and that`s what he`s going to be charged with. O`DONNELL: Brian Wice, what do you make of the fact pattern in this case in terms of how it began, and then how Mrs. Meyers deliberately went and picked up her son with a gun, and -- BRIAN WICE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: OK. O`DONNELL: -- continued whatever it was that had begun. WICE: You know, in retrospect, Lawrence, it`s easy to say that that decision certainly wasn`t the brightest thing that could have been done at the time. But, at the end of the day, they believed they had the right to go out and do what they had to do to seek out some type of reconciliation, or to try to do to figure out what they could do to maintain their own safety. Look, I agree with Jim. I think that the defense is going to have a pretty difficult road to hoe in getting any traction at all on the self- defense claim. Because we`re taught, the first day of law school, you can`t provoke difficulty and then claim self-defense. And while this defendant is going to be charged with murder, I really think that the best case scenario might be -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- voluntary manslaughter, that is, that the shooting occurred during the heat of passion when the bullets started flying. It`s what we -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- call an imperfect self-defense case. But, I think, Jim`s right. I don`t think this is going to be your typical self-defense defendant that catches the elevator with the jury when it`s over, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: And, Jim Cavanaugh, the legalities of this aside and the upcoming trial aside, there are some pretty obvious life lessons here about how to handle yourself in a situation like this, and if you find yourself behind the wheel, getting a little enraged and engaged with another driver. And everyone involved in this case did everything wrong that they could possibly do wrong. CAVANAUGH: Right. You know, we all sympathize with Mrs. Meyers because we all are drivers, and we all have seen road rage, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) --we`ve all gotten mad behind the wheel. But the thing is, you know, get away from it. If there`s an incident of a threat or an accident, call 911. (END VIDEO CLIP) You know, the police have got to find the gun. They`ve got to find the confederate. There was more than one man in the car. They`re looking for him. They think the man they arrested today is the -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- trigger-puller, Lawrence. And when they get the other guy, he`ll be singing like Shakira, he`ll tell the story. The 15-year-old is a witness as well, the son. So, they`ll wrap the case up. But, yes, if it happens -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- to you, you know, take a deep breath, pull over, let them go by. And just, you know, have a better day. If you need to call the police, then go somewhere safe and call the police. O`DONNELL: Yes, just such a tragic sequence of decision-making here. Jim Cavanaugh and Brian Wice, thank you both for joining me. Thank you very much. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Coming up, the man who got the name, "King of Revenge Porn," for posting private photos, some of them stolen, is on his way to being sentenced here in Los Angeles. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) At least 15 people have died in the frigid weather, from Ohio to Tennessee, some from hypothermia. There are single -- single-digit and below zero temperatures from the Great Lakes to the East Coast, and down in parts of the South. Even Niagara Falls -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- has frozen solid. NBC`s Dylan Dryer has a look at Niagara Falls as you have never seen them. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DYLAN DRYER, NBC NEWS METEOROLOGIST (voice-over): Soaring hundreds of feet over Niagara Falls, a spectacular sight. Frigid air brought in via the Siberian Express has encased the falls in ice, drawing a surge in visitors from all corners. UNIDENTIFIED MALE NIAGARA PARK VISITOR: It`s just amazing, you know. It`s winter wonderland. DREYER: Temperatures along the U.S.-Canadian border haven`t gone above freezing this month, transforming what is actually a collection of three waterfalls from just about every angle. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE NIAGARA PARK VISITOR 1: To see it on this scale, it just seems like really alive. DREYER: Behind the falls, what should be a view of gushing water, now, a wall of ice. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE NIAGARA PARK VISITOR 2: Everything around you is frozen here. And you can see the water rushing underneath snow, and coming through little ports, which is really neat. DREYER (on camera): The falls partially freeze this time every year, with frozen mists and water, tracing everything they touch. But they never completely freeze over. There`s just too much rushing water, with 23 million gallons falling every minute during the winter. (voice-over): Last month, adventurer, Will Gadd, took advantage of all that ice, climbing 147 feet in about an hour. The only time Niagara Falls stopped flowing entirely was in March, 1848, blocked by an ice jam, that allowed people to walk on the riverbed. The landmark area is on track for one of the coldest Februaries on record. And the ice isn`t expected to melt entirely until May. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE NIAGARA PARK VISITOR 3: It`s gorgeous. I think they`re even more beautiful frozen than in the summertime. DREYER: Dylan Dreyer, NBC News, Niagara Park, Ontario, Canada. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: Coming up, the man known as the "King of Revenge Porn" is going to plead guilty to federal crimes. That`s next. The man known as the "King of Revenge Porn" has agreed to plead guilty to hacking and identity theft charges, according to federal prosecutors here in Los Angeles. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Hunter Moore, operated the Web site, Isanyoneup.com, a forum for people to post revenge porn. The U.S. Attorney`s Office says that Mr. Moore, quote, "operated the Web site, where he posted, among other things, nude or sexually-explicit photos of victims." "The pictures were submitted, without the victims permission, for purposes of revenge. To obtain more photos to populate the site, Moore allegedly instructed an accomplice to gain unauthorized access to, in other words, hack into victims` e-mail accounts." "Moore then posted the illegally obtained photos on his Web site without the victims` consent. The indictment alleges that e-mail accounts belonging to hundreds of victims were hacked." The "King of Revenge Porn" faces a mandatory minimum of two years in jail, but he could be sentenced to up to seven years, and also could have to pay a half a million dollars in fines. Joining me now, Mitchell Matorin, an attorney who specializes in Internet law, including revenge porn. And, back with us again, defense attorney, Brian Wice. Mitch Matorin, we`ve talked about these issues before. What`s interesting about this particular prosecution is he`s not really prosecuted for running a revenge porn site. It`s actually a more basic kind of crime that he got caught. Just explain that. MITCHELL MATORIN, ATTORNEY SPECIALIZING IN INTERNET LAW: That`s right. And I think that, you know, this indictment and the guilty plea is important. But it`s an indirect attack on the revenge porn issue. Mr. Moore was indicted for hacking into people`s computers and paying people -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- to hack into people`s computers in order to steal the photographs, which were then posted on the Web site. He was kind of a pioneer, if you will, in the revenge porn industry. Right now, it`s become so popular that there`s really no need to pay anybody to hack into people`s accounts or to hack in at all. People, you know, voluntarily go there and post pictures that they`ve located themselves, either by hacking or not. And so, the operator of the Web site itself doesn`t have to do the types of activities that Mr. Moore was indicted for and that he pled guilty for. So, this is -- it`s important, but I don`t think the importance should be overstated in terms of the problem of revenge porn as a whole. O`DONNELL: Brian Wice, this is like getting Al Capone on tax evasion charges. (LAUGHTER) WICE: The "King of Revenge Porn." Think about that for a second, Lawrence. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Yes. WICE: That`s like being the coolest Osmond brother. I mean, when he goes on down -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- to the federal correctional institution, he`s going to be a really popular guy. Look, it`s not just the defendant in this case that I really think is unconscionable. It`s the chuckleheads who enabled him, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- the guys who helped really fund his lust for porn. You know, these are the guys, in my estimation -- and look, I`ve been a criminal defense attorney for 30 years and I`ve represented the good, the bad and the ugly. But I try to stay away from the stupid. This is a guy -- (LAUGHTER) -- who was trying to break into prison -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- as much as some of my clients are trying to break out. And I think, there`s a special level of "Dante`s Inferno," not just for Hunter, but for the guys who enabled him, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Yes. And, Mitch, talk about how -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- this is actually protected activities. He`s not stealing anything and hacking, which is really what he`s gotten caught on. But you can run a revenge porn Web site in a completely legal manner. And explain how that is protected legally. MATORIN: Well, under the Communications Decency Act, which is a law that has a very good purpose and serves a very good -- serves a very good purpose for legitimate businesses, a Web site operator cannot be held liable for -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- things that other people post on the Web site. Now, the reason for that is so if somebody posted defamatory article, or something like that, on a Web site that`s operated by somebody else, the owner of the Web site itself is not going to be held liable for that. The person who posted it is held liable. The problem with the revenge porn sites -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- is that they deliberately set out to make it impossible to determine who posted that information. And they go ahead and they Passively host it. They invite people to post the pictures. They make it easy for them. They refuse to track the identity of the people who are posting. And then they just make it available. And then they claim that they`re immune, under federal law, for being held liable for that. And they`re actually technically right. The law, until it`s changed to remove that immunity, these attacks based on criminal prosecution of Mr. Moore, or the state laws that are being enacted to go -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- after the people who are actually doing the posting. They`re really indirect ways of attacking the real problem, which is that these Web site operators do it for fun and profit. (END VIDEO CLIP) And until you take away the fun with prison terms and take away the profit with financial liability, they`ll continue doing it. O`DONNELL: Mitch Matorin, could you -- could you rewrite the law so that it would make this kind of Web site impossible, but not harm -- not do any harm to all the rest of the Web sites out there that have input in them from users that they do not control and that could then also possibly getting snared. I mean, how do you adjust this law. MARTONI: Well, I think the easiest way to do it will be simply to carve out Web sites that host nude and sexually-explicit photographs of people without the permission of the people who are being depicted. That would leave, you know, free the Amazon.coms or the Trip Advisors or the other Web sites that host product reviews or other posts where people might say things that -- that are defamatory or otherwise. And, at the same time, it would allow prosecution, criminal prosecution, or civil liability for the operators of the Web sites themselves. O`DONNELL: Mitch Matorin and Brian Wice, thank you very much for joining me tonight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) With Congressional delegations traveling to Cuba, momentum is building for removing the embargo, with Nancy Pelosi and Conan O`Brien in Cuba on the same week. How long can the embargo last. (END VIDEO CLIP) The Russian band, Pussy Riot, released their first song in English. And it`s called "I Can`t Breathe." The song is dedicated to Eric Garner, the man who said those words 11 times before dying in a police chokehold on Staten Island. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PUSSY RIOT, RUSSIAN BAND: In New York City. I need to catch my breath. O`DONNELL: In the video released in Russia, Pussy Riot`s Masha and Nadya are buried alive in a Russian riot police uniforms. The American version shows protests in New York, at the scene of Eric Garner`s death. You can find links to both versions on our Web page. On Pussy Riot`s YouTube page, they write, "This song is for Eric and for all those from Russia to America and around the globe who suffer from state terror, killed, choked, perished because of war and state-sponsored violence of all kinds, for political prisoners and those on the streets fighting for change. We stand in solidarity." (END VIDEO CLIP) Up next, change coming in Cuba. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and eight other -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- House Democrats concluded their two-day trip to Cuba today after meeting with Cuban -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- Vice President Miguel Diaz-Canel. It was the first time the vice president received an American delegation. Cuban officials are expected in Washington next Friday for a second round of talks to reestablish diplomatic ties with the United States. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) The United States cannot complete normalizing relations with Cuba through presidential action alone. The Senate will have to confirm an ambassador to Cuba, and Congress will have to repeal the trade embargo on Cuba, which has been enforced since 1962 but was not actually written to law by Congress until 1996. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: I do believe that there is strong bipartisan support in the Congress of the United States to lift the embargo. REP. NYDIA VELAZQUEZ (D), NEW YORK: We have a lot to share, and a lot that we can benefit from. And I hope that this is seen as we see it, as a bipartisan effort that should be embraced by the two countries. REP. JIM MCGOVERN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: The best way to promote human rights is to accelerate this new process. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now is Ann Louise Bardach, a reporter and author of "Without Fidel" and "Cuba Confidential." Annie, it`s an amazing week to go from -- we had Senator Klobuchar down there, who`s sponsoring the Repeal the Embargo -- ANN LOUISE BARDACH, AUTHOR OF "WITHOUT FIDEL": That`s right. O`DONNELL: -- bill in the Senate. Conan O`Brien, Nancy Pelosi. That`s just one week in Cuba now. BARDACH: Exactly. That`s why it`s been going for several weeks now. And, next week, we have negotiations in Washington to try to move this further along. Basically, what we`re seeing here is a Cuban charm offensive. They know the President of the United States cannot lift the U.S. embargo, so what they`re seeking to do is charm one Congressional vote at a time. So, they`re very focused on that. And then, we have a second agenda, which is the summit, the upcoming summit in April in Panama, which will be the first time that Obama, or any American president, will be shaking hands with Raul Castro. So, that`s the big main event. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And so, everybody is kind of frantically playing their part to try to move this along. And there`s a lot of pieces that have to happen before that April summit. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And the dynamics seem to be very much two-way. I mean, when I watched Senator Claire McCaskill go down there, the video of her in Cuba was, she`s trying to charm that island into buying everything that Missouri makes. BARDACH: That`s right. O`DONNELL: It`s all about agriculture, you know, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "You want to get our agricultural products down here." But there`s already an agricultural opening to Cuba. BARDACH: That`s right. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And so, what I`m saying, when you see Nancy Pelosi, I mean, she`s -- it doesn`t -- I don`t see someone who needs to be sold -- BARDACH: No. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: -- on opening this -- opening up our relations with Cuba. She`s already there, those Democrats who are going down there are already there. They do have some Republican counterparts, but how will this line up politically in the House and in the Senate. BARDACH: Well, you`ve got to remember, there is a Cuban-American contingent in the U.S. Congress. There are eight of them. (END VIDEO CLIP) The three senators -- the only three assigned -- O`DONNELL: Marco Rubio from Florida, Bob Menendez, New Jersey -- BARDACH: And Ted Cruz. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. BARDACH: And they are not on-board with this. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. BARDACH: That`s three senators. The only Hispanics are Cuban- American. Then you have another five Cuban-Americans in the House. And they`re also not on-board. So, they can create a bit of mischief here, and a bit of deal-making. The big issue is human rights, you know. The criticism of the Obama deal is that the U.S. didn`t get anything for this. What I would argue is they got rid of a big headache. (LAUGHTER) You know, they had a 50-year headache. O`DONNELL: Here`s what I get about this -- what did the Obama administration, or any administration, get from Saudi Arabia ever -- BARDACH: Exactly. O`DONNELL: -- on human rights. And, I mean, how does this suddenly become something that`s applied uniquely to Cuba in dealing with it in international relations. BARDACH: Well, this has always been this special, unique relationship, like the special Cuban Immigration policy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Cubans -- any Cuban can come to the America, no problems. Day one, you`re in. Anybody else, nothing. So, we`ve always had this unique relationship, when it`s just really a vestige-old relic of the old Cold War. Now, the other thing to really watch on this trip is, is the urgency to get Cuba off of the state-sponsored State Department terrorist list. Because if they don`t -- O`DONNELL: It`s the only thing that was arguably weirder than the embargo. It`s just amazing. BARDACH: That`s exactly right. And many of us have been arguing this for a long time when I worked at Brookings on this. This is the first thing to go -- especially in the day and age of ISIS and all this Islamic extremist terrorist group, -- the idea -- (LAUGHTER) -- that Cuba, you know, Cuba, you know -- the sugar violence is a threat. O`DONNELL: It`s the government -- it`s the State Department of the United States, saying we`re not really serious when we talk about terrorism because we put Cuba on the list of state-sponsored -- there`s only four of them. BARDACH: Right. O`DONNELL: And this is one of them. It`s just the craziest thing they do. Annie, we`re out of time. I`m sorry, that`s -- BARDACH: OK. O`DONNELL: -- going to have to be the last word. Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 021901cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 93 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 20, 2015 Friday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 20, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Hampton Pearson GUESTS: Anthony Rodriquez, John Nichols, Bob Fioretti, William "Dock" Walls, Andrew Whitehead, Mike Robichaux SECTION: NEWS, DOMESTIC LENGTH: 7169 words HIGHLIGHT: Mounting pressure and strikes from low-wage workers forced Walmart and other big-name company to increase the hourly pay of their employees. Mayor Rahm Emanuel angered many minority voters after his controversial decision to shut down 50 public schools in lower income neighborhoods. Business owners in the gulf still feel the damaging economic effects of the oil spill, yet a new court ruling could put B.P. on the hook for $13.8 Billion in fines. The B.P. oil spill prompted scientists and researchers to carefully investigate the correlation between the toxic chemicals, wildlife abnormalities, and even human health problems in the gulf. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from for New York. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULZT: Walmart get an A for effort, but Walmart pay raise would roll back income inequality. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The nation largest retailer giving up pay raise to hundreds of thousands of its employees. DOUG MCMILLON, PRES. AND CEO OF WALMART: This company was you probably know has always been a people business. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The move comes after years of protest. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Slightly that Walmart and other companies are increasing wages because they have to. SCHULTZ: And later Rahm Emanuel faces headwinds from tough challengers in the Chicago mayor`s race. PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Everybody knows that, you know, he is passionate and he is tough. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mayor Emanuel is short of the votes he needs to avoid a run-off. JESUS "CHUY" GARCIA, CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF CHICAGO: He essentially has catered to the rich and powerful. MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL, (D) CHICAGO: And I stand up for the people who this administration leaves behind. WILLIAM "DOCK" WALLS, CHICAGO MAYORAL CANDIDATE: The needle has not moved on Rahm Emanuel`s behalf. SCHULTZ: Plus, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill", a breaking development. GLENN GILLYARD CARR, RIGGS & INGRAM, LLC: Personally, I just think that B.P. been taking as much time as they can, retaining as much capital as they can. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is never going to be properly corrected. ROCCO SCALONE, GULF COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN: Everything is dead, barnacle, sea grasses, all dead. SCHULTZ: You`re living on a hope and a prayer. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s all I`ve got, it disappoint me. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHUTLZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We`re going to start with what we hope is a growing trend among companies in this country to raise wages. It`s great news for workers in the American economy. This week Walmart lead the way announced that they would be raising their hourly minimum wage to $9 an hour. OK. Let`s hear it for Walmart. But wait a minute, they`re not alone. Aetna, Ikea, and Gap, they`re all in this game raising wages. Hey, is this the free market at work or is this time to stop the embarrassment. Earlier today, President Obama addressed the booming American economy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Over the past five years, as Debbie said, the longest stretch of private-sector job creation in American history... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yeah. OBAMA: ... businesses adding nearly 12 million new jobs. And in perhaps the single most hopeful sign for middle-class families in a very long time, wages are beginning to rise again. So America is coming back. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Don`t you get a feeling that Democrats are like the most modest people on the face of the earth. I mean what would Republicans if they had the power be doing and if they were behind these numbers. I mean look at Wall Street today, another huge day. Today, the Dow closed 154 points up at 18,140. It`s the Dow`s first record closed. Yes, another record closed. But the first record closed of 2015. Economist on the roll, rising wages are proof that activism and protest work. Now, we`ve had a big discussion about income inequality in this country. And in recent years, minimum wage protest have taken a hold right out in front of Walmart and fast food chains have had workers walk-off the job and retails stores have been under enormous pressure to "Hey, let gives these folks a raise". Now, I think Walmart can do better. I think $9, OK. But wait a minute, look at their profits. Now, $9 an hour comes out to just over $18,700 a year. The poverty line for family of three is at $19,790 a year. So we`re still in territory that really isn`t great. $9 an hour didn`t cut it. Workers are protesting for $15 an hour and they deserve it. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, he is working hard at this hour in Iowa. He released a statement saying this, "The Walton family which owns Walmart is the wealthiest family in America and it is absurd that thousands of their low-wage workers are forced to use programs like food stamp" -- which of course Republicans hates -- "Medicate and subsidized housing. Walmart should not be paying starvation wages, while this is a step forward and a response to grassroots activism across the country, this is nowhere near enough". I agree, how can you argue with the numbers? Walmart -- good for them, I hold no animosity toward them. They posted at enormous $16.4 billion profit just last year. What do you with that kind of money, what are they doing with 16.4 billion? Well, I hope they got more coming for the employees. The income gap in America still growing by the day $1.75 and hour raise from Walmart just I don`t think is quite enough. This chart tells us a story. I guess this is our new voucher chart. This chart shows growth of household income from 1967 to 2012. Since 1967, the top 5 percent grew in income by 88 percent. Middle income household have grown under 20 percent. In 2012, the top 20 percent took it more than half of all income in the United States. There is your gap. Its number like this that force Walmart and I say force Walmart to stay out of the news and stop the protesting out in front of their front door. Hey, we got to do something, it`s good for business. Now, to the executives of Walmart, they got to be thinking, "Well, I guess this is just a cost to doing business. I guess we better do it". The pressure got to him, public is not stupid. 40 percent of American`s don`t shop at Walmart. Now, maybe they`ll pick more business because of this, they can`t lose. At that kind of profit at $16.4 billion a year where is the downside? They know that Walmart felt guilty and that the P.R. move on and was not good. So conservatives, here`s what they going to do. Well, they`re going to say, "Hey, this is the free market at work. Why in the world we need minimum wage and unions are bad". Don`t let Walmart fool you. They can afford to pay these workers a heck a lot more than $9 an hour. It was almost in admission of guilt all along that they knew they could do better. And executives are saying, "Well, it was in the works for a year." What do you got in the works now, for next year? Because it looks like Walmart is going to have another great year. The day after they do this, the Dow closes at record and Walmart is up 78 percent. I`m just giving you the numbers. Get your cellphones out. I want to know what think. Tonight`s question, "Do you think minimum wage protest made a difference?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment at our blog at ed.msnbc.com and also @WeGotEd.com and we`ll bring you the result later on in the show. For more, let me bring in Anthony Rodriguez of OUR Walmart who is a Walmart employee, and also with us tonight John Nichols, Washington Correspondent of the Nation Magazine. Gentlemen, great to have you with us. Anthony, you first. ANTHONY RODRIQUEZ, OUR WALMART: Yes. SCHULTZ: How is this news fall on your shoulders? How are the employees reacting to this news and what do you make of it? RODRIQUEZ: I think it`s a great beginning. The pressure is really getting to Walmart now. It`s a great start, don`t get me wrong. I think it would change a lot more if they start giving those $13 in full-time. SCHULTZ: So are you full-time and are you -- so a lot our associates` full-time? RODRIQUEZ: No. I`m actually part-time and a lot of those associates are part-time as well. They do have to fight for hours. SCHULTZ: What do you mean? RODRIQUEZ: Well, recently they`ve cutback on a lot of associates` hours. They`ve try to give them more hours in a remodeling project we have. So they cutback their hours right after December going into January, they cut all their hours made them asked and beg for hours. And then all of a sudden, got this big idea to make the remodeling crew, had people signed up to get 40 hours a week. SCHULTZ: What is this sound like John Nichols? Great to have you with us. JOHN NICHOLS, THE NATION: It`s good to be with you. And it sounds like the struggle of workers in retails across this country, you know, that the jobs with justice movement has been promoting a retail workers bill of rights. And one of the things they`ve been saying is that wage increases are vital and $9, $10 an hour in much of America does not get you near where you need to be to get by but they also saying that -- yes... SCHULTZ: But we just heard a Walmart employee tell us they`re cutting hours. So somebody is doing. NICHOLS: Well, that`s key. SCHULTZ: . somebody is doing the math here that maybe it might not be that much of the bottom line to operate these stores. I don`t know. I`m just speculating. NICHOLS: Well, and here where it gets. This is the significant part. If we`re talking about really improving the condition of workers and making sure that they can get above the poverty line. Yes. They need a good hourly wage, but they also need a lot of other protections to guarantee that they can bid for and get full-time work... SCHULTZ: Yeah. NICHOLS: ... to guarantee that they hours will be clearly stated, so they`re not called in at the last minute... SCHULTZ: I mean, this is... NICHOLS: The fact to the matter is, this is a start... SCHULTZ: Is this the cost of doing business -- John, is this the cost of doing good business? I mean, its better do this and have all these protests, you know, by the way other companies are doing it too. NICHOLS: This is the result of collective action. The fact to the matter is that if workers like the young man that we have on the show with us today and others, had not going out and courageously said that they just can`t make it on this low wages, that they can`t make it with these conditions. This wouldn`t be happening. And so it maybe the cost of business... SCHULTZ: Yeah. NICHOLS: ... but it is a cost that was increased by the courage and the commitment of workers to go out and demand better condition. SCHULTZ: And, Anthony, do you think your activism had anything to do with this? RODRIQUEZ: I think OUR Walmart have a lot to do with this. As we pushing forward, fighting for what we think is right. I think it had a lot to do with them (ph), I think Walmart is feeling the pressure now, so they`re trying to do something about it. And we`re going to keep giving on that pressure `til we can get $15 an hour and give full-time. SCHULTZ: What`s $9 mean to you? You`re at 18 -- just over $18,000 a year with that, if you work 40 hours a week. RODRIQUEZ: That doesn`t really help me support my family at all. I have two-year-old son. I have a fiancee. I support for both of them and that`s not really cutting it at all. SCHULTZ: So the protest is going to continue? RODRIQUEZ: The protest is going to continue `til we get $15 and full-time. We`re not going to settle for anything less than that. SCHULTZ: OK. John Nichols, the union busting is pretty well documented by some of these companies. Does this slow that down a little bit? NICHOLS: Not necessarily. I think that in many ways, this is an acknowledgment that these companies have a problem. That America recognizes that we`ve got a big wage gap. We have an income inequality issue, and that with a booming economy, you need to share the prosperity. So doing these wage increases, definitely is a way of trying to ease the pressure but the fact to the matter is, that workers ought to recognize that if a company is willing to do this, to make the big announcement, then there`s a lot more concern behind that. This is not the time to back off. SCHULTZ: Yeah. NICHOLS: This is precisely the right time to push forward and ask for fair wages and fair working fees. SCHULTZ: It sounds, Anthony, you got them to move, and you can get them to move, and you`ve proven you can get them to move, so now is the time to really to go even double down on your efforts. I mean, I think that there might be that school of thought, how do you see it? RODRIGUEZ: I think that`s a great idea. We`re going to keep going forward. I mean, it seems like it`s working now. Like I said, it`s a great start and we`re not going to quit now. SCHULTZ: All right. Gentlemen, I want to switch gears. John Nichols, stay with us. I want to play a clip of Scott Walker refusing to distance himself from Rudy Giuliani`s controversial comments on President Obama not loving America. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BECKY QUICK, CNBC SQUAWK BOX CO-ANCHORWOMAN: You were at this dinner last night where Rudy Giuliani spoke. You were sitting just a few chairs away when he said, "I do not believe and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I don`t believe that the President loves America. He doesn`t love you and he doesn`t love me. He wasn`t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up to the love of this country". What did you think about those comments because they are raising a story this morning? GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: Yeah. I mean, the Mayor can speak for himself. I`m not going to comment on what the president thinks or not. He can speak for himself as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I mean I just find that outrageous, that he is so intimidated by the right-wing. He doesn`t know what to say. Now, we all know that Walker is very well defined anti-union, slashing public education against workers. This guy has no problem finding himself on some issues but he couldn`t find himself on this one. John, what do you make of that? NICHOLS: Scott Walker published a book about a year ago entitled "Unintimidated." And he claimed that he was a guy who is going to speak his mind, be a straight talker no matter what. That`s how he is selling himself as a potential presidential candidate and yet, on the simplest of all issues, simply saying, "Look, I believe my President loves our country." He couldn`t do it. And you really have to ask yourself, you know, where is the dare there with this guy? SCHULTZ: Yeah. NICHOLAS: If he is so intimidated by donors and powerful players, how can you expect him to lead as a president? SCHULTZ: It`s almost been like he is been ordered, don`t you say a damn word that`s worth anything about our President if you want to get this nomination. I mean, you have gut to make country hate his policies everything else. I mean it sounds like he`s been coached. I mean -- you mean to tell me that Walker -- I mean, we -- do we not, John, have one of the most complete and one of the most highly vetted processes in this country when it comes to picking a president? NICHOLS: We sure do. And, look, here`s the bottom line. I`ve known Scott Walker for a long time and I don`t believe that Scott Walker thinks President Obama doesn`t love this country. SCHULTZ: Yeah. NICHOLS: And I really find it troubling that he`s so managed now that he just can`t say that simple statement. SCHULTZ: Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate it. I want to get that end because, John, of course, you`re Wisconsin connections. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us on Facebook. We appreciate that. We want to know what you think. Coming up, two candidates want to defeat Rahm Emanuel as Mayor of Chicago. They`re going to join us live. There`s quite a race in Chicago. And later, developments on the B.P. court case plus, we`re going to take you back out on the gulf our series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill" continues. We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought that they would get it contained and cleaned up and life could go on for us but it seemed to go on and go on and go on and the oil keep coming and it got worse and worse. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I have confidence as a voter and as a resident of Chicago that he`s going to continue to do a great job. I`m glad he`s my Mayor and I`m glad he`s going to be my Mayor for another four years. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: OK. So how do beat that endorsement? Welcome back to the Ed Show. Tonight, we`re talking to two of the mayoral candidates trying to derail Rahm Emanuel`s reelection bid. It`s going to be an uphill battle according to the numbers as you saw the President travel to Chicago on Thursday to give his former Chief of Staff a Powerhouse Endorsement. Mayor Emanuel needs to hit 50 percent plus one benchmark in order to avoid a run-off election on April 7th with the second place finisher. So the later poll looks like this, out of the Chicago Tribune showing Emanuel with 45 percent, 18 percent of the voters said that they`re still undecided in the last leg of the race among black residents. Emanuel seats at 42 percent, one-fourth of black voters said that they`re undecided. That`s as big number with black residents making up a third of Chicago`s population. They`re seat to play a key role in deciding whether Rahm Emanuel faces a run-off. Emanuel angered voters with his decision to close 50 public schools of the city, most in minority neighborhoods on the south and west sides. Some residents felt that he was picking and choosing neighborhoods which alienated a lot of minority voters. A couple of candidates with us here tonight. Joining me is Bob Fioretti and also Dock Walls candidates for mayor in Chicago. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. Bob -- excuse me, Dock you first. Describe Rahm Emanuel`s time as Mayor. What does he done wrong? Why are you challenging him? WILLIAM "DOCK" WALLS, CHICAGO MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Rahm Emanuel have not taking care of those voters who need help most including our homeless, our senior citizens, 97 percent of the young black men between the age of 18 to 25 who are unemployed in the city of Chicago, those voters who living check to check, the disabled, Rahm has not done anything to make life better for any of them. SCHULTZ: Bob, you have called Rahm Emanuel, "The most destructive Mayor of this city has ever seen", explain that. BOB FIORETTI, CHICAGO MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Well, first of all, this city is headed in the wrong direction. And thanks, Ed. That is the quote that I`ve used and it`s true. He has declared war essentially on communities of color. He`s all but declared war. When he presided over the CHA, he saw the destruction of more housing units that have never been replace here in this city. And when we talk about income inequality and what is happened here in this city, you know, we keep leading the charge for $15 an hour here in this city and it`s important. Yes. He did a $13 an hour increase but it doesn`t take effect and really until before the next mayoral election in 2019. Rahm Emanuel stands for the things and he try to wipeout the Progressive Caucus -- when he was in Congress. At the same time, he has have tried to extinguish progressive voices in the city council by establishing tax that are aim to destroy them. Rahm Emanuel... SCHULTZ: Yeah. FIORETTI: ... is in the pockets of big Wall Street bankers and Wall Street bodies over there. He is not for the average person. We need to build the middle-class based upon solid foundations and that is not what`s happening under this administration. SCHULTZ: Dock, what about $30 million war chest he`s got. I mean, how can any of you compete with going against the numbers like that? WALLS: Well, the interesting thing about me is I have a million dollars message. My opponents all have millions of dollars but then, I resonating with the voters. I mean, people understand that Rahm Emanuel, Bob Fioretti, Jesus Garcia, Willie Wilson, all millionaires and they don`t connect with the average voter. Rahm Emanuel`s $30 million is not enough. He probably needs $70 million given all of the damage he`s done to his image, his reputation, his record. He is not stood for average people. He is disaffected and alienated a whole lot of voters including those parents who send their children to schools in the City of Chicago. Those police officers who serve in the streets of Chicago don`t get the support from... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WALLS: ... Rahm Emanuel. Everybody is unhappy with. SCHULTZ: All right. Mr. Fioretti, yesterday, President Obama designated the Pullman Historic District a national monument. Now, I understand that you were not invited to the event despite your worked with this Historic Pullman Foundation. What was your role and why weren`t you invited? Do you think you should have invited? FIORETTI: Well, obviously, I should have been invited but that`s besides our point. I know how petty Rahm Emanuel is. And I`ve seen that when I build -- help build the school in the South Loop and he had a ribbon cutting. But then we, the community, had ribbon cutting forward and everybody turned out. SCHULTZ: What was your role? FIORETTI: I was the president of Historic Pullman Foundation when the fire occurred. I`d tell the replanting come down there for saving America`s treasures. I retained $10 million to save the Clock Tower. I was active voice to making sure we were billing tourism down there. And I`ve actually should have been the place for the Obama Library because it was just a few blocks away from where they it opened it up... SCHULTZ: So you think that Rahm Emanuel (inaudible) to that on purpose because of this election? FIORETTI: Oh, I had heard that that my name was definitely submitted to the White House. So yes, it was. Because I think Rahm Emanuel doesn`t want to appear on stage with any of us. Rahm Emanuel really doesn`t want to debate. He hasn`t been at any of the community forums and he doesn`t want to deal with the issues that affect day-to-day people here in this city. SCHULTZ: Mr. Walls, what is the black vote going to mean in Chicago considering the fact that there were 50 public schools closed and economically challenged neighborhoods? WALLS: 47 percent of the voting population is black. And... SCHULTZ: So they`re going to go with Emanuel or you think it will make a change? WALLS: Oh, no. No. They`re going in the other direction. You see all the candidates really appealing to the black community because it`s the black community that will decide this election. Its black history month and people are taking this seriously. This is the most exciting elections in recent history. Rahm Emanuel has lost the black vote. He can`t get it back. The others have seeking the black vote but on the one person who`s being connected to the black community, who speaks to the issues of the black, white, Latino and Asian community on evenhanded basis. I don`t need an election to show up and represent the interest of people. People know I`ve been out here fighting... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WALLS: ... for them for a long time. SCHULTZ: Mr. Fioretti, do you think that the black community will decide this race? FIORETTI: Well, I hope people come out. So far, the early voting shows that we`re at all time low. I hope we get beyond 30 percent of people. The problem is people in this city have one foot out. They want to leave this city. They don`t feel comfortable. The quality of life hasn`t improved and a lot of them especially city workers, police, fire... SCHULTZ: Yeah. FIORETTI: ... are planning their retirement elsewhere and not here in the city. SCHULTZ: All right. Bob Fioretti and Dock Walls, great to have both of you gentlemen with us tonight. Thank you so much. WALLS: Thank you, Ed. FIORETTI: Thanks sir. SCHULTZ: We invite (ph) Rahm Emanuel to come on the program. We haven`t got a yes yet. Still ahead, we continue our series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill." Plus, we`ll take another look at stories making headlines around the country. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And welcome back to the Ed Show. The White House announced today that 800,000 customers who signed up for healthcare online were given the wrong tax information. The administration says that they will send out corrected tax forms by the first week of March but the mistake could delay refunds for some customers. They`re asking people who have already filled -- or excuse me, filed for their refund to contact the Treasury Department. To Virginia, where the former first lady Maureen McDonnell, was sentenced this afternoon to a year and a day in prison. McDonnell and her husband former Governor Bob McDonnell were both convicted of corruption back in September. Governor McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison. Their lawyers are appealing to both verdicts. And I want to recap what has been an awful week for the North American oil industry. We have seen multiple oil disasters occur in just the last seven days. Over the weekend, a train carrying crude derailed and caught fire in Ontario, Canada. On Monday, another crude oil train went off the track and exploded in West Virginia. And on Wednesday, the ExxonMobil oil refinery in California went up in flames. In the State of North Dakota saw a handful of oil spills this week that are being blamed on, "suspicious activity. We`re told those spills may have affected wetlands. In a note tonight about my social media, until today we have been operating two Twitter accounts, the WeGotEd Twitter account has been my personal account. Well, that`s history and it`s no longer active. Managing two accounts was just really not fruitful in some ways. I invite all of you who followed the @WeGotEd now to follow me @edshow. And yes I will distinguish which tweets are directly from me and thanks for the follow -- @edshow. There`s lot more coming up. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Hampton Person with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks end the week with a rally. The Dow surges 154 points to close at a new record high. The S&P adds 12 also leading a new high, the NASDAQ climbs 31 closing within striking distance of the 5,000 level. Investor shared news that Greece breached the deal with creditors to extend the countries bailout for another four months. And bankrupt RadioShack has gotten court approval to sell leases on more than a thousands stores. It`s closing by the end of this month. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: And we`re back. This week we`ve chronicle the lasting affects, the Deepwater Horizon disaster has had on gulf region. Now, a new court ruling means B.P. could be on the hook for $13.7 billion in fines. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier rejected B.P.`s attempt to reduce the fine. They could pay under a violence of the Clean Water Act. B.P. argued the law cap define it $3,000 per barrel spilled. Judge Barbier rejected the claim and agreed the federal government`s maximum penalty of $43,000 per barrel. This leaves B.P. liable to pay up to 13.7 billion dollars base on the judges ruling that over 3 million barrels of oil leaked into the gulf during the spill. A B.P. spokesman said the company disagrees with the decision and is considering their legal options. Judge Barbier has not yet decided how much the company will pay. Back on the Gulf Coast, many business owners have already paid the price because of the spill economic and environmental impact. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please we had high goals for this restaurant to, you know, it was doing 2 million a year, it was great, and if you will mom and pop operation that (inaudible) my son and I and we were just having a wonderful time even ended good (ph) and then and all of a sudden... SCHULTZ: Five years after the oil disaster businesses have been lost and lives have changed forever. KEN PALMER, FORMER RESTAURANT OWNER: Spill took place. Sales dropped 45 percent to 50 percent, couldn`t make payments to the bank. And the bank after three months to four months took the property back in December 2010. ROCCO SCALONE, GULF COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN: I`m more upset in my heart that they did what they did to the gulf. Seen and saw (ph) what I did because what I put down on the bottom, I could be after generation to fish on. SCHULTZ: People who depended on the gulf as their economic engine, their livelihood. Say they`re left with nothing but debt, stress and lost dreams. Rocco was a commercial fisherman and a steward of the gulf. Over the years, he constructed what`s known as living racks (ph) to support fishing. That`s all gone. SCHULTZ: Here`s the Deepwater Horizon. SCALONE: That`s correct. SCHULTZ: 54, 55 miles from where we`re now. Where were you operating? SCALONE: I was operating right here on this area. Tampa (ph) Clearwater is here. Apalachicola Bay is right here. I concentrated my racks (ph) in this area here. All these little Xs are where my racks (ph) are. Some of them down here, I`ve got some over here. What we concentrate -- I concentrated them over her because the oil platforms, they not allowed to drill in Florida waters. That the oil platform stopped at the Florida boarder... SCHULTZ: OK. SCALONE: ... so I concentrated my stuff over here to build structure for the fish SCHULTZ: Are there other guys that do what you do that are out of business. SCALONE: Yeah, a lot of them, a lot of them. Let say (ph) -- just out of the Clearwater area out, out of the one marine that work out of, four captains just packed in, so that`s a -- so the boat packed (inaudible). SCHULTZ: It`s interesting in your commercial fishing operation, you created habitat that drew the fishing in. SCALONE: Exactly. Exactly. SCHULTZ: That`s all gone? SCALONE: Yeah. It`s all -- the hole is still there. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SCALONE: But all the resources are on it, the (inaudible) fish, the -- everything that was there is gone, barnacle, seagrasses, urchins, clams, oysters` gone. SCHULTZ: It`s almost hard to find the words when at no fault of your own you`ve lost everything and are left with just memories. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In order to fix the spot out, it`s everywhere. RUSTY HEFT, FORMER RESTAURANT OWNER: What they did to the Gulf Coast and our community is that, they`ve put a lot of people in a standard of living that was far below what they were accustomed to. And like us, have had a very difficult time trying to recover. People are doing things that they would have never done, had their livelihood not been affected that B.P. spill. SCHULTZ: What do you doing now? SCALONE: I`m retired. I got out of business. I retired and move to Georgia, move up to Atlanta. SCHULTZ: Do you want to retired. SCALONE: No. Oh, no. SCHULTZ: Do you love what you do? SCALONE: Oh yeah, been on near shore all my life. I got pictures of me -- at two months old in a bassinet on Long Island Sound. I got six year on Coast Guard, Four years on two ships, two stations on Long Island Sound. In 1985, I get out. I was here and all of these in 1986 in clear water. And I`ve been here ever since. SCHULTZ: Do you think B.P. has clue of who you are? SCALONE: They don`t care. It`s not that they don`t know. They don`t care. SCHULTZ: So you`re leaving on a hope and a prayer? PALMER: Yes sir, most definitely. That`s all I got at this point. SCHULTZ: And five years ago, you had no idea this is where you were going to be. PALMER: Not at all. SCHULTZ: And when that oil spill took place, within hours did you know what the future held for you? PALMER: No, sir. I didn`t. I thought that they would get it contained and cleaned up and life could go on for us, but it seemed to go on, and go on, and go on and the oil keep coming and it got worse and worse. SCHULTZ: This wharf in Niceville, Florida was a thriving business. And then the oil spill took place. And almost instantly lives were destroyed, things changed and future dreams just erased. This folks think that life has just played a dirty trick on them. HEFT: My wife is 75 and still working because our income was affected. I`m 71 and still working because our incomes were affected. Our retirement goals are affected because B.P. hasn`t come to the play (ph) and fix things. BRENT COON, BRENT COON & ASSOCIATES: Look at Rusty`s (ph) place here. They built this, blood, sweat and tears, 15 years of their lives went into it and after the spill it was all taken away. Not just that they lost money, their livelihood, their careers, the heart and soul of everything they built was taken away from them. SCHULTZ: And what hope do you have that this is all going to be corrected? COON: Very little. SCHULTZ: Very little? COON: Very little. This is never going to be properly corrected. SCHULTZ: What has life been like for you the last five years? Describe what you`ve been through? PARMER: It`s like starting over with a mountain of debt so that you can`t start over and being in limbo and waiting for B.P. do the right thing. And make us whole, so to speak, so that we can start over. You know, over the last years has been difficult, very difficult. Because before that occurred, the oil spill, you know, we`d on this place for 13 years and it`s been open since 1976. So it had a great name and did a great business here in the area. SCHULTZ: Life was good. PARMER: Life was good. SCHULTZ: Ken Parmer and his business partner lost the wharf they operated for 13 years in Niceville, Florida. The oil came to their deck and the rest is history. How immediate was the damage to your business? PARMER: A week, right afterwards, the fears of contaminated seafood. You could smell the oil in the area if were out here on the deck, and it was a very strong toxic oil smell. The guests stopped eating seafood because of the worries of the dispersants and the oil contaminating the seafood. SCHULTZ: So you have moved on in your career and -- but you have this banknote just hanging over your head? PARMER: Yes, sir. I`ve moved on, you know, as a restaurant manager but certainly making, you know, a lot, lot less and the dream of being your own boss has gone at this point. COON: Whatever money they lost from the spill is much greater than their true lost because they lost their livelihood. They`ve lost their business. SCHULTZ: What is left is irreversible personal damage. What you`re thinking when you saw those pictures on T.V.? SCA:ONE: I went it right at the wellhead? SCHULTZ: Yeah. SCALONE: I was almost in tears. I can say I was almost in tears because that`s where I live. It`s not like I only worked out there. OK. When I`m off shore for 10 days, that`s where I`m living. So I don`t throw anything over the side. Everything goes in a trash can. My friends are all around even though they`re over the horizon. They`re all friends of mine, our fishermen. Somebody gets in trouble. You need hamburger or something, sure I`ll give you hamburger but then come on over, all right. Then that happened, and within the first two minutes they dumped more oil in the gulf than I`ve ever -- in my life time (inaudible) anywhere. What I going to do is just keep it going so that my kids would have something in their later life and now I got nothing. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: And coming up on Monday, our biggest story in the series on our final story -- restitution, where is the Money?" We have invited representatives from B.P. on the show all week. They have thus far declined our offer but the invitation remains open anytime. B.P. has directed us to their website the stateofthegulf.com. Coming up, I`ll talk to a professor in environmental studies and a physician on what they are seeing in the gulf. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And coming up on Monday on the Ed Show the series continuous, "The Gulf Today 5 Years After The Spill". We`re examining the Deepwater Horizon Settlement Program. Many businesses saw a catastrophic economic lost after the oil spill and the majority are still waiting for payment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCALONE: No one down there where I was fishing that I`ve got any restitution. SCHULTZ: And have you gone through the process? SCALONE: I`m still going through the process been lied to, been told, "OK, we`re going to give you this one on this day" and nothing. OK. We have to wait but we need more information. We need more of this. We need this. I don`t know how much information I can give you gentlemen. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Addressing the toxicity of oil is tricky business. After oil disasters like the B.P. Deepwater Horizon Spill, it`s a challenge to learn the full scope of impacts on human health and the environment. B.P. has pointed us to numerous studies that show no correlation between health impacts and the spill. Other studies and some doctors and environmental scientist (ph) tell us a different story. Researchers from NOAA studied the effects of oil on bluefin and yellowfin tuna. The tuna exposed to contamination measurements based on the gulf showed heart development abnormalities. B.P. discounted the study because it was performed in a lab. B.P. Senior Vice President Geoff Morrell said, many of the studies that activists push are far removed from the reality of the resilient gulf environment. A different study of our researchers at LSU and U.C. Davis concluded lab research on oil spills can work. Their study showed the genes of killifish exposed to oily sediment from the gulf had developmental abnormalities. Heart defects, DNA damage and other changes. The lab results corresponding with real world outcomes and we have invited B.P. to join us all week to discuss all of these issues surrounding the spill but they of course have decline. B.P. did direct us to their blog at stateofthegulf.com. The blog reputes the U.C. Davis study and points to an October, 2014 study that found no minimal long-term impact on killifish. Joining me tonight is Dr. Andrew Whitehead. He`s a Professor in the Environmental Toxicology Department at U.C. Davis and author of the Killifish study. Also with us tonight is Dr. Mike Robichaux. He is a physician from South Louisiana who has treated over 100 patients who were exposed to the products of the spill. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. Dr. Whitehead, you first. What`s your reaction to B.P.`s Senior Vice President Geoff Morrell saying that many of the studies that activists push are far removed from the reality of the resilient of the gulf environment. What`s your reaction to that? DR. ANDREW WHITEHEAD, PROFESSOR, U.C. DAVIS: Well, it`s important to know that science is an innovative (ph) enterprise that we sort of build evidence for many studies over many years. And a lot of people are studying what`s going on in the gulf. Our first study that we published on the effects of the oil spill was criticized by B.P. because it was a field study. And so -- and that wasn`t based in sort of controlled conditions in the lab. And now B.P. is criticizing other studies because their lab studies are not field studies. And so, this is a strategy by responsible parties to try and, you know, cloud the issue. But all of the work that has done so far, both field studies and laboratory-based studies have clearly shown that the effects of the oil spill are correlated and causative (ph) for the kinds of developmental defects that we`re seeing in killifish which like, you`ve mentioned earlier, are cardiovascular, development defects, their hearts aren`t formed properly, the cardiovascular systems aren`t formed properly. And that doesn`t bode well for a fish`s health. SCHULTZ: Would you say that this is rock solid? WHITEHEAD: No science is rock solid. And this is the language of science that sometimes opens the door to the spread of misinformation by, you know, parties that have other self-interest. These scientists never say, this is it for sure. But the weight of evidence is very clear, that there`s a very strong correlation, causatively. We know oil cause this kind of effects. We know we saw these effects in the field, in the lab, coincident with the arrival and timing of oil, the effects that we see in killifish and that the NOAA folks that you`ve mentioned before saw in their fish were -- at the kinds of doses that we saw all over the gulf with the spill. So I think the evidence is very strong. But no scientist will ever... SCHULTZ: OK. WHITEHEAD: ... tell you with a slam shut down (ph). SCHULTZ: Dr. Robichaux, we had you on earlier of this week. You`ve referred to the testimony that you gave about the sick patients in court. You`ve said that you were ignored after our segment. B.P. contacted us reiterating the district judge discounting your evidence. What`s your response to that? DR. MIKE ROBICHAUX, SOUTHERN LOUISIANA PHYSICIAN: Well, I didn`t actually make a presentation in court. I -- presented information to them previously and what has called the declaration. What was really interesting about that meeting in the court house was that, the Plaintiff Steering Committee which represented the victims of the spill and was appointed by the federal judge, Judge Bob Barbier, had (inaudible) that their consultant, a very distinguish doctor (ph), Ed, was a -- had never seen a patient, had never seen a single patient with problems down here. But he made his presentation based upon information he gotten from doctors down here and he believe that they were telling the truth. On the other hand, I had seen over 100 people that I`ve put detox program and the program itself is immaterial (ph). But I`d seem 100 patients at least 25 days in a row. So I had 2,500 patient days of experience with this and my experiences were ignored whereas, this absentee physician and scientist was given a sway over my position with this. It was rather humorous if they weren`t so sad. SCHULTZ: OK. ROBICHAUX: And we have -- the thing I want to emphasize is we have some extraordinarily sick people that are still sick from this problem. SCHULTZ: And Dr. Whitehead, B.P.`s Geoff Morrell also said, advocacy groups that are pushing a narrow one-sided perspective, many of them cherry-pick facts and promotes studies that paint an incomplete and inaccurate picture, and they continue to blame B.P. for any and all environmental problems afflicting the gulf. What`s your reaction to that? WHITEHEAD: Well, of course B.P. isn`t responsible for any and all the inflections that are the affecting the gulf and that`s an overstatement of the issue. B.P. is also -- or have responsible for a cherry-picking criticisms of studies. I have read -- many of their criticism of studies and they`re just this guilty as anyone, have cherry-picking data. And I`d like to reiterate, the scientist aren`t advocates here. And this is pretty much straight out of a playbook that`s been around for decades. And the playbook basically says that when it comes to things like a big tobacco and smoking, when it comes to CFCs and the ozone hole, when it comes to fossil fuels and climate change, all that big business has to do is, throw some dust in the air to confuse the issue. And that`s what we`re seeing here. SCHULTZ: OK. WHITEHEAD: We see a lot of illegitimate criticism of science that together across multiple studies is forming a picture of what`s going on in the gulf. SCHULTZ: All right. Dr. Andrew Whitehead and also with us tonight Dr. Mike Robichaux, I appreciate your time so much. Thanks for this. And that is the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 21, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022001cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 94 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 20, 2015 Friday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST Giuliani`s Patriot Games; Taking Mosul Back From ISIS BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Eugene Robinson GUESTS: David Ignatius, Ken Pollack, Michelle Bernard, Dana Milbank, Keith Carson SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7877 words HIGHLIGHT: Whatever point former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani was trying to make about President Obama`s lack of patriotism or love of country has been consumed by talk about Giuliani himself. As many as 20,000 Iraqi military and Kurdish forces could be involved in the fight to retake the key city of Mosul, which ISIS captured last June. STEVE KORNACKI, GUEST HOST: Patriot games. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Steve Kornacki, filling in tonight for Chris Matthews in New York. "Let Me Start" tonight with those patriot games that Rudy Giuliani is now playing. Tough talk started as a shot at the president`s love of country, and things have only spiraled from there. It began as an attack on what Republicans see as a weakness for President Obama, the soft talk about the root causes of terrorism. The cool and calm way he tends to talk about terrorism prompted Giuliani to say this. "I do not believe that the president loves America. He doesn`t love you. And he doesn`t love me. He wasn`t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country." Whatever point Giuliani was trying to make has now been consumed by talk about Giuliani himself. "America`s mayor" has responded by launching an all-out media blitz. In the face of criticism, he has upped the rhetoric even higher. This was Giuliani on a tear last night on Fox News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MEGYN KELLY, HOST, "THE KELLY FILE": Mr. Mayor, do you want to apologize for your comment? (LAUGHTER) RUDY GIULIANI (R), FMR. NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Not at all. I want to repeat it. The reality is, I -- from all that I can see of this president, all that I`ve heard of him, he apologizes for America, he criticizes America. I think that is a perfectly reasonable opinion, that the president in his comments, if we look at all his rhetoric, has not displayed the kind of love of America, the kind of love of American exceptionalism that other American presidents have displayed. I`m right about this. I have no doubt about it. I do not withdraw my words. We haven`t even mentioned some of the communists and leftists who educated him as a young man! But all we need is Reverend Wright, 17 years in that church, and that man condemned America over and over and over again, and he remained a member of that church? (CROSSTALK) KELLY: ... wasn`t there for those sermons. GIULIANI: The other parishioners didn`t tell him about it? (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: In other interviews, he`s offered some head-scratching reasons for these kinds of comments. We`re going to get to those in just a minute. Meanwhile, though, the fallout continues to grow, now includes Giuliani`s former administration staff member, Mike Paul, who said this about his former boss. Quote, "I believe his comments were disrespectful to President Obama, his family and America." Mike Paul joins us now, along with Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist from "The Washington Post" and an MSNBC political analyst. So Mike, let me start with you. A former aide to Rudy Giuliani -- we have your words there criticizing him for this. You know this guy. You worked up close with him. Do you recognize this man? Have you seen this Rudy Giuliani before? MIKE PAUL, FMR. GIULIANI ADMINISTRATION STAFFER: I haven`t seen this Rudy Giuliani before. And the reason why I haven`t seen this Rudy Giuliani before is that we were working on city issues and we weren`t working on national issues and global issues. And I have to say, you know, I`ve got to keep it a hundred (ph) here, like Larry Wilmore says on Comedy Central, but this is no joking matter. You actually saw the mayor with a nervous laugh while he was on Fox News. And I actually think that this is an abomination, what he`s saying. I want to separate myself as far as possible from him when I hear him say things like this. KORNACKI: Well, where -- where do you think it`s coming from? I mean, so there`s a separation, you`re saying, between city stuff and the national stuff, but I mean, this is clearly something he feels strongly about. He`s had opportunity after opportunity to take this back. PAUL: That`s right. KORNACKI: Instead, he keeps going further. So it certainly -- I get the sense he`s thought about this a lot. He`s thought about questions like this a lot. And you never got any inkling that Giuliani felt anything like this? PAUL: Here`s what I see. I see a man that is still very interested in being relevant within the political process nationally. We`re gearing up for a presidential campaign, and he wants to make himself relevant. These are my opinions as to what he`s doing. And I think as he`s scratching and trying to hold onto some relevancy, I think he put his foot in his mouth. He`s going to continue to realize, especially in a city like New York and a state like New York, which continues to be his base, by the way, where three fourths of the people that live in New York City, for example, people like Gene and I fully know, are three quarters people of color. This is his base. This is the place that he governed for more than one term. And you have a president that is now -- the president of the United States, as he so wisely and articulately said during his State of the Union, has won twice. Respect the man. Respect the presidency of the United States, the seat that you, yourself, Mr. Mayor, were running for. I don`t think that you want to also have comments that come back to bite him. His family is also feeling this. You know as a mayor that your family and yourself were attacked personally. There`s no reason for personal attacks. Keep it from a policy perspective and from a political perspective, but do not attack the man personally. He obviously loves his country enough to have not only run once but twice, and won both times. Be respectful. KORNACKI: All right. Well, Giuliani is adamant that his attack on President Obama does not reflect any racial prejudice. This is what he told "The New York Times." He said, quote, "Some people thought it was racist. I thought that was a joke since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools. Most of this he learned from white people." Gene Robinson, I wonder what you make of the point that Mike was just making there, Mike saying he thinks this is Rudy Giuliani catering to a national Republican conservative base. What do you make of that? EUGENE ROBINSON, "WASHINGTON POST," MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, I think somebody should tap him on the shoulder and say, Stop digging. You know, as he tries to explain this and justifies it, he digs himself a deeper hole and sounds more ridiculous. And frankly, that`s the way he sounds to most of the country. I think if he`s playing to anybody, if there`s anybody you can play to with this, it`s the far-right fringe of the Republican Party, the fringe that is just irreconcilably opposed to President Obama and everything he stands for, everything he ever was or ever will be, who just can`t stand the idea that he`s president. Those weren`t the people that Giuliani sought to represent when he ran for president. So you know, in terms of a base, I think he`s forsaken what used to be his base, and what he`s going for now, I don`t see where that gets him, except further and further out on the fringe into irrelevancy. KORNACKI: Well, Giuliani defended his comments also on Sean Hannity`s radio show yesterday. Let`s take a listen to that. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) GIULIANI: President Obama didn`t live through September 11. I did. President Obama didn`t almost, you know, have a building fall on him. Myself and my police commissioner and my fire commissioner did. And I lost 10 of my very close friends. Excuse me, it`s a little bit emotional for me. But it`s also real. These people are dangerous. When they start chopping the heads of Christians off, when they start bombing Jews, we`re -- we`re -- we`re moving in a direction that`s exceedingly dangerous. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So let`s talk about the politics of it here for a second, Gene, because this all started at an event where Scott Walker, Republican presidential candidate, was in attendance. He`s since been asked about this -- OK, you were there. Rudy Giuliani said this. He showed no interest of wading into this. A lot of these other Republican candidates have now been asked about it. They`re sort of trying to talk a fine line of not condemning Rudy Giuliani on this. So we say he`s walking towards the fringes. At the same time, he`s put himself smack in the middle of this Republican presidential race. ROBINSON: Well, they`re running for president and they -- they -- look, what is the first thing they run into is Iowa, where you have to be far right to have a chance to win. And so, you know, understandably, they`re approaching this in a sort of gingerly fashion. But ultimately, they`re all going to be asked about it and they`re going to have to comment on it. And let me say one thing about what Rudy Giuliani said in that clip. You know, 9/11 was a national tragedy. It wasn`t just a personal tragedy... PAUL: That`s right. ROBINSON: ... for him. It was a tragedy for the whole country. President Obama did live through 9/11. I lived through 9/11. I -- you know, many hours later, as I`m driving home from "The Washington Post," I go across the bridge and see the plume of smoke over the Pentagon, where people who I know had lost relatives and lost relatives on those planes. So he cites it as a personal tragedy, as if somehow, he owns 9/11. He did a good job as mayor. You know, leave it at that. Let`s commend him for that. But it`s everyone`s tragedy. KORNACKI: Yes, I wonder, Mike, again, somebody who knows him, somebody who`s seen him up close -- I mean, we all know 9/11 in terms of the public`s image of Rudy Giuliani. It has everything to do with what happened that day, with his leadership on that day, that sort of thing. But it also seems like -- to hear his comments here, it seems like that might have changed him in terms of -- in terms of how he presents himself to people. PAUL: He`s been told by many an aide and by many that are close to him after 9/11 that he needs to be more humble with his approach of talking about it. He had the fire union, for example, make an ad, a very powerful ad, the New York -- FDNY fire department`s union, who came out against him because he has positioned himself as America`s mayor, and that he made a lot of money and he made -- rebuilt his reputation off of the backs of others. I actually think that he has lost the throne of being able to be successfully called "America`s mayor" anymore, quite frankly, not only because of his recent comments but the way he positioned himself after 9/11. The best approach, the best way to describe yourself after 9/11 is to say, There were men and women who put their lives on the line in the city that I governed, but they did the work. They are the ones who sacrificed themselves. And a large percentage of the money that he`s made and a large percent of the reputation he gained needs to go back to those men and women. KORNACKI: So what kind of -- Gene, in terms of the legacy here, you`re talking about for the moment is he marginalizing himself, but right, he will always be connected. When we look back at history, this dark day in American history, September 11, 2001, Rudy Giuliani and what he said and what he did that day in the immediate aftermath, that they will always be an integral part of that story. At the same time, this is where we are, you know, 13 years later. What kind of legacy do you think he`s ultimately working toward here? ROBINSON: Well, he`s writing new chapters in that legacy, and they`re not favorable ones, frankly. And yes, we will always remember him on that day. We will remember him as brave and stalwart and in command and all the things he was on that day. I have those recollections. It was the day of my life I was proud of Rudy Giuliani. I was proud of George W. Bush after -- right after 9/11. But the mayor -- I think, you know, it`s absolutely right that he is forfeiting his status as "America`s mayor," and these new chapters in the legacy that he`s writing are really -- it`s just really a shame. It`s really a shame. KORNACKI: Yes. Well, we`ll see now. Early days of this Republican presidential race, we`ll see when these candidates start coming to New York for money and for endorsements, too. We`ll see if Rudy Giuliani is still a part of all that. Anyway, though, thank you now for -- to Mike Paul, Eugene Robinson. Appreciate you both joining us. And coming up, inside the battle plan to retake Mosul from ISIS may involve U.S. ground forces. Also, you may be ready for Hillary, but they`re not ready for a coronation. It`s a big debate brewing in Hillaryland over the dangers of breezing through the Democratic nomination without a real fight. And the Oscars are this Sunday. For some folks, there`s a big cloud hanging over Hollywood`s biggest night due a lack of diversity. The red carpet will be the whitest it has been since 1998. Plus, is it cold enough for you out there? The big chill across America is setting records from New York all the way down to Miami, leading to some incredible pictures. That is coming up in what we`re calling our "frozen sea (ph) lock (ph)." This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. KORNACKI: The Department of Justice is fighting back against a Texas judge who ruled in favor of a stay against President Obama`s executive action on immigration. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The Department of Justice has made a decision to file a stay in this case. I would anticipate that they will file documents at the district court level on Monday at the latest. We believe that when you evaluate the legal merits of the arguments, that there is a solid legal foundation for the president to take the steps that he announced late last year to reform our broken immigration system. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Now, if granted, a stay would set aside the judge`s ruling Monday and protect about four million immigrants from deportation. Be right back. KORNACKI: We`re back with news of the battle that is coming in Iraq. As many as 20,000 Iraqi military and Kurdish forces could be involved in the fight to retake the key city of Mosul, which ISIS captured last June. A senior U.S. official told NBC News that they will be backed by U.S. air strikes and possibly American ground troops. It`s expected to begin as early as April. Questions, though, do remain. Is the Iraqi military ready? What role will American ground troops actually be playing. And why exactly is the U.S. letting the plans leak at all? What happened to the element of surprise? Jim Miklaszewski is NBC`s chief Pentagon correspondent. He joins us now. So Jim, start with the strategy here. They`re putting this out there. You`ve got the second largest city in Iraq. You`ve got the Kurds to the north. You`ve got the Iraqi army to the south. What is the plan here that they have to take that city? JIM MIKLASZEWSKI, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, you`re not the only one asking the questions as to why they would release this publicly. Late today, Republican senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain -- McCain being the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sent a letter to President Obama complaining about this, saying that it revealed detailed plans of a potential operation that could jeopardize the lives of U.S., Iraqi and coalition forces. And they asked the president, saying those responsible have jeopardized our national security interests and must be held accountable. Now, officials here will tell you that by releasing it in advance, they`re trying to put the ISIS fighters in a defensive crouch for some period of time and give some of those 1.5 million civilians in that town time to leave before any operation begins, Steve. KORNACKI: Well, so is the idea there that instead of having ISIS maybe spread a little bit, ISIS is being contained within the city, trying to fortify it for the next six weeks? MIKLASZEWSKI: That`s one of the reasons they give. But I can tell you there are serious doubts that this plan would work, in the short term anyway, because it would be carried out by some 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqi military forces with about 3,000 Kurds. And nobody yet has any confidence that the Iraqi military would carry out the job. After all, when ISIS first swept into Iraq about nine months ago, you know, the Iraqi forces just threw down their weapons and fled. So there`s not a whole lot of confidence that the Iraqis can carry it out without some serious support from either the Kurds, and of course, the U.S. military. And there could be a possibility that U.S. ground -- the soldiers that would call in air strikes would -- could be on the ground but not involved in direct combat, or that special operations forces could be called on any rescue mission or to go into Mosul and take out Iraqi (sic) leadership. Those plans, however, would require the approval of President Obama. KORNACKI: All right, thank you, Jim Miklaszewski at the Pentagon. Appreciate that. And for more on this, I`m joined now by Ken Pollack. He`s the author of "Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb and American Strategy" -- he`s a former CIA analyst -- "Washington Post" columnist David Ignatius, who just returned from the region. David, let me start with you. Jim Miklaszewski just set it up there very nicely, very well. This is the same Iraqi army that basically fled last year when confronted with ISIS. Is there any reason to believe the Iraqi army is in better position right now to go in and to take back the second largest city in Iraq? DAVID IGNATIUS, "WASHINGTON POST": The army, from what we hear, has better officers, has had additional training, is better motivated. There`s no question that the change from the Maliki government to the Abadi government has led to better oversight of the army. That said, it strikes me that this plan for a quick attack on Mosul ignores precisely the questions that Jim Miklaszewski raised in his report. First, the idea that this Iraqi army force would be joined by the Kurdish Peshmerga -- it goes contrary to everything I heard in my travels from the Kurds. They feel that entering this largely Sunny Arab city of Mosul outside of Kurdistan would create political problems for them and for the Iraqi government. That`s just for starters. The strange thing is, they`re in a position now to squeeze Mosul. They have cut off much of the road access to the city. ISIS can`t resupply. They`re being ground down. It`s a strange time to rush this operation, before, according to the people I talk to, it`s really ready. KORNACKI: Well, so, Ken, if this is the timetable, if we`re looking at like six weeks from now there`s this aggressive attempt to retake the city, it does raise the question -- and we were talking about this a minute ago -- if this Iraqi army is not up to the job, if it quickly proves that it hasn`t improved enough from last year, what happens then from an American standpoint? Are we talking about ground troops? Are we talking about a significant U.S. military presence to make sure this operation that we have now telegraphed doesn`t fail? KENNETH POLLACK, FORMER CIA MILITARY ANALYST: Let me make a few points, Steve. I think you have got a bunch of different stuff in there that is worth responding to. First of all, let`s remember, what they have already said is that they`re not going to be using the newly trained Iraqi armed forces. What they`re going to be doing is relying on existing Iraqi formations that have done a much better job. We should remember part of the Iraqi army collapsed back in June. Another part of the army was battling ISIS in Anbar, fighting very hard, retaining its cohesion and really stalemating ISIS in Anbar. And it`s those forces that they`re now talking about using up in Mosul, so the better forces. Second point, I don`t think anybody is talking about American ground forces in Iraq. I think it`s very clear. President Obama has said over and over and over again he`s the guy who was elected to get the U.S. out of Middle Eastern wars, not to get us into new ones. This new authorization for the use of force, he inserted this language which I find bizarre about no major offensive operations, I think, again, as a way of making it clear that he doesn`t want to do this. But I think the last point that`s worth thinking about is the politics of all of this. And there are many dimensions of that. First, there`s the attack that David was already alluding to. Mosul is a Sunni city. Most of the Iraqi military is Shia and most of the fighting that`s been done by the Iraqi military has been done by Shia militias, who are really not welcome in Mosul. But you have got a prime minister in Baghdad. I was in Baghdad last month. And you have got a prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, who is trying very hard to do the right thing, but he believes that he`s going to be judged by whether or not he can take Mosul by the spring. I think that that`s a questionable assumption. I put all of the Iraqis, including the prime minister, to the test on why they believe that, but it`s a very widespread perception. And I think that`s the most important thing that is driving this timetable is the prime minister`s own belief that his political fortunes hang on whether or not he can retake the city in the spring. KORNACKI: Well, David, how likely is it that this is the timetable that everybody sticks to, that we really are looking at six weeks, give or take a few days, six weeks from now, this offensive begins? How likely is that? IGNATIUS: My own guess is that it`s not going to happen in six weeks because it really is rushing things. Talking today to officials, senior officials in the administration and to a senior Iraqi official, what I was hearing was that some delay is likely. I think Ken is right. Prime Minister Abadi needs a win in general, with ISIS on a roll from Libya to Iraq in recent months. There`s a desire the take this big prize back. But my guess is that cooler heads will prevail. If it`s not possible, and I don`t think it will be, to use significant numbers of Kurdish forces, as Ken suggested, even if you use the more experienced Iraqi security forces, Iraqi army forces, why rush it, when you risk what would be a really embarrassing and damaging setback? KORNACKI: But, Ken, quickly on that, to follow up on what just David was just saying there, though, if, as he says, cooler heads prevail and this is not brought about in the next six weeks, now that it`s out there, now that it`s been telegraphed, does it look like a win for ISIS if the next thing we hear is, you know what, actually, we`re not ready for this, we can`t beat them right now? POLLACK: Well, hopefully, what you will see at that point in time if they do make the decision to delay the operation -- and as Dave and I are both suggesting, there are real strong rationales for doing that -- but if they do, they will mount small operations elsewhere. And, look, I think the truth is, I hope that they were lying to all of us when they announced this campaign against Mosul with this level of specificity. It does run contrary to kind of all judgments about military operational security. And I think that there are lots of different ways to spin it. And I think that you have been seeing Iraqi forces making gains here and there on the ground, some of them quite important. As David pointed out, just last month, they cut the crossing from Syria into Mosul. That was extremely important. So, I think that there are ways to mount local offensives, smaller offensives into other parts of the ISIS-controlled territory and nevertheless create this sense, which Prime Minister Abadi needs and President Obama perhaps too, that the military campaign is making progress, it`s building up steam, without necessarily taking on what could ultimately be a very big problem in Mosul if the situation isn`t right for that offensive. KORNACKI: All right, thank you, Ken Pollack, David Ignatius. Appreciate that from both of you. And up next, the winter of our discontent. Much of the country finds itself in a historic deep freeze. We just smashed a 120-year-old record in Washington. It is going to get worse up and down the Eastern Seaboard. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "FROZEN") IDINA MENZEL, ACTRESS (singing): Let it go, let it go. I am one with the wind and sky. Let it go, let it go. You`ll never see me cry! (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right, welcome back to HARDBALL. That was Queen Elsa from Disney`s animated film "Frozen." With record-low temperatures across the country today, it feels like a real-life eternal winter. In fact, police in Kentucky are blaming this recent cold snap on that famed Disney character, posting a fake warrant for her arrest to Facebook yesterday. It reads -- quote -- "All points bulletin. Harlan City Police Department has issued an arrest warrant for Queen Elsa of Arendelle. Suspect is a blonde female last seen wearing a long blue dress, is known to burst into song `Let It Go.` As you can see by the weather, she is very dangerous. Do not attempt to apprehend her alone." With temperatures 15 to 40 degrees below average right now, the so- called Siberian Express is punishing regions in the Eastern and Central United States today. Check out this massive ice formation at Niagara Falls, though the flow of water hasn`t completely stopped. It actually hasn`t done that since 1848. The ice there still is not expected to melt entirely until -- get this -- until May. Near Buffalo, a fountain in Letchworth State Park is frozen solid. You`re seeing that there. It`s towering 50 feet into the air like a giant ice sculpture. It`s amazing. Take a look at this photograph. This is the imprint from the grill of a Jeep Grand Cherokee left behind in a sheet of ice after that vehicle pulled out of a North Carolina parking lot. Joined now by Keith Carson from The Weather Channel. Keith, how cold it is out there? (LAUGHTER) KEITH CARSON, THE WEATHER CHANNEL: Oh, it`s brutal, Steve. And, by the way, that picture, I put it up on Twitter yesterday. And in the Photoshop world, people didn`t believe it until I showed them a couple of different angles of that ice grill, and different name for an ice grill, not the rap kind of ice grill. And let`s talk about what is going on windchill wise. Take a look at this, Boston four degrees, but it feels like 17 below in Buffalo. It feels like two below in Chicago. And this cold air got all the way down into the Southeast earlier this morning. So, contrast what`s going on in the Eastern United States to a place we usually consider quite cold, Alaska. And most of Alaska, maybe Fairbanks the exception, is warmer than what we`re seeing across the East. It`s a very persistent pattern we have been for the past couple of weeks. We call that a trough in the East and a ridge in the West. And that`s going to continue tomorrow morning. Each one of these dots represents where we think we`re going to see a record low temperature tomorrow morning, Newark coming in at 7:00, Windsor Locks coming in at five below. You head down into parts of the Carolinas, Richmond, you`re coming in around 10, in Virginia, Norfolk coming in around 11. We are going to see these temperatures into the single digits one more morning. But, overall, I don`t see any pattern change here. We looked into the midrange forecast seven to 10 days out. It`s the same story. Somebody`s warm. It`s the West Coast. But the East continues very cold. Take a look at what happens as we head into next week. We get these little lobes of cold air from Canada just continuing to sink down all the way Tuesday, Wednesday. By the way, some computer models spinning up another nor`easter, another storm system with snow on Wednesday. Come back around to next Friday and this map looks pretty much the same, the Rockies the dividing line. To the east of that, we`re seeing that cold air and to the west is where we`re seeing the warmer stuff. So, I don`t see any real change to the pattern here, unfortunately. People are tired of it in the East. We`re going to have to deal with it a little bit longer. And in the short term, that cold air is setting up some ice in some unlikely places, Nashville, Memphis, Little Rock. Steve, we`re actually getting some snow down here at The Weather Channel headquarters in Atlanta. You know what happened last time we saw snow in Atlanta. So, we will see what happens. KORNACKI: Wow. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: This is the first time in my life I -- in the middle of February, I have eve thought to myself, I would rather be in Anchorage. Some bad news you had there too. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Anyway, but thank you to Keith Carson with The Weather Channel. Good luck with that snow in Atlanta, by the way. I`ll tell you, I would probably still rather be there than in New York City. Anyway, up next, why some of Hillary Clinton`s supporters want to see a competitive presidential primary in 2016. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. A fire is burning at Dubai`s Torch Tower, one of the tallest residential skyscrapers in the world at 79 stories. There`s been a full evacuation and no injuries reported yet. The dispute at West Coast ports is still unresolved as a deadline looms. And Labor Secretary Tom Perez has told both sides that if a deal is not reached, talks must continue in Washington next week. And U.K. counterterrorism officials are searching for three teenaged girls who may have run away and traveled to Syria -- back to HARDBALL. KORNACKI: All right, welcome back to HARDBALL. Despite some recent negative headlines for Hillary Clinton, Democratic National Committee members who gathered in Washington this week say they simply don`t care. They`re still ready for Hillary. There was some divide, however, over whether Hillary should face a competitive Democratic primary in 2016. Even Democrats who are supporting her said it would be good for the party if Hillary faced a test, this according to Politico. Bob Mulholland -- that`s a Democrat from California who was wearing a "Ready for Hillary" pin said -- "I want an all-out battle all the way to June. Cordelia Burks, vice chair of the Indiana Democratic Party, who is supporting Clinton, said: "I wish we would have some other candidates running. I think it would give the nation the opportunity to have a debate." By Jim Burn -- he`s Pennsylvania`s Democratic chairman -- he said, "Hillary does not need a primary." And Stanley Grossman -- he`s a Democrat who lives abroad -- said, "I think what we need is absolute unity." For more on the debate over whether a debate is what`s needed for the Democrats, let`s bring in the roundtable. Jamelle Bouie is with Slate. Michelle Bernard is president of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics and Public Policy. And Dana Milbank is an opinion writer with "The Washington Post." So, to me, this says all you need to know about the state of the Democratic Party for 2016. They interviewed four people there. Two of them said they want a competitive primary. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Two said they don`t. They`re all backing Hillary. You can`t have a competitive primary unless there`s people out there saying, here`s the other candidate we want, Dana. DANA MILBANK, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Yes. MICHELLE BERNARD, FOUNDER, BERNARD CENTER FOR WOMEN, POLITICS AND POLICY: Yes. MILBANK: Yes. No, it`s true, Steve. In a sense, it`s almost as if it`s an incumbent president running again. That`s really the feel that it has right now. I`m certainly of the view that it would be good for the Democrats and good for Hillary Clinton if she had some competition. That doesn`t mean a bloodbath, like it was in 2008, but it could be just somebody to keep her on her toes, somebody to keep her in the news so that she`s not forgotten while the Republicans are out there, and somebody to keep her in the game, because she is going to have to be formidable when she gets to the fall. KORNACKI: Do we think -- do we think the Clintons, Michelle, on some level -- I mean, look, she was told in the run-up to 2008 and probably believed she was the inevitable Democratic nominee, there`s no way anyone else out there is going to be able to touch her. And then the next thing you know, she`s in this race with Barack Obama and she can`t win. So I imagine she`s haunted by that to some degree. At the same time, this is clearly not a situation where you have somebody like Obama breathing down her neck. Do you think on some level the Clintons do actually look at this and say, yes, she at least needs a sparring partner for the next year? BERNARD: Well, I don`t think they look at it and say she needs a sparring partner. I think probably how they`re looking at it is, there`s no reason for her to make an announcement now. You know, competition is always a good thing. And I think that the Clintons would probably understand that. She doesn`t need it. She is -- I can`t imagine who would -- who could possibly catch up to her in the polls at this point in time. And, from that standpoint, there really is no reason for her to formally announce and get into the race. On the other hand, what could come out of a -- out of a good competition on the Democratic side are new ideas, and also, you know, as we saw during Hillary Clinton`s book tour, she was not absolutely prepared for primetime and she could use the practice to get ready for whoever she inevitably is going to be going up against in the Republican Party should she actually take the ball and run with it. KORNACKI: Yes, I mean, Jamelle, I`m trying to ask myself the same question. I can`t come up with who would be the strong -- maybe not strong enough to beat her but strong enough to give her a real credible challenge in 2016. I struggle with the names. I also struggle with, you think back to 2008 and there was Iraq. I mean, there was a huge chunk of the Democratic base that was never going to forgive her for Iraq. Where is the content with Hillary right now on the base? Is there anything you can point to, hey, this is the issue that could animate something? JAMELLE BOUIE, SLATE: I think the biggest source of discontent with Hillary right now in the Democratic base is just her connections to Wall Street. She, for most of her career, has been known as a centrist Democrat, with close ties to high finance. And so, that is the kind of thing that can form the base of a challenge to her primary candidacy, but the problem is the one person in the Democratic Party who best represents that discontent has already said she`s not going to run, has been -- KORNACKI: It`s Elizabeth Warren, right. BOUIE: It`s Elizabeth Warren and she`s been adamant about the fact that she`s not going to run. So, that -- you know, I don`t know who else can capture that energy. My thought is Vice President Biden decided to run, I think he would be best positioned to provide some sort of challenge to Clinton, but that`s really about it. KORNACKI: Boy, a big risk for Biden, too, from a legacy standpoint. If you`re a sitting vice president and you run and get trounced like that, that`s a risk. The chairman of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire, home of the crucial first primary in the nation. He was actually on HARDBALL earlier this month. And even he played coy about whether there should be fierce competition and even debates on the Democratic side. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS MATTHEWS, HARDBALL HOST: Should there be as a matter of principle, debates heading toward the Democratic primary next year, a year from now? Should there be as a matter of principle, debates? RAYMOND BUCKLEY, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEM. CHAIR: Well, there have to be more than one candidate to be able to have a debate. And we don`t know if there`s going to be more than one candidate at this point. MATTHEWS: Are you supporting the idea of debates? I`m going to say this until you answer me. As party chair, do you want to see debates in the New Hampshire primary if there are multiple candidates? BUCKLEY: If they`re legitimate candidates, sure. I can imagine if they`re legitimate -- MATTHEWS: Why are you so hesitant? Are you so afraid of Hillary Clinton and her peeps that you won`t just say, damn it, we need to have debates, this is the Democratic Party, we believe in debates? Say it, please? BUCKLEY: Well, we don`t know if the secretary has decided to run or not. So, it`s a little premature. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Michelle, I think we know the answer whether she`s decided to run or not. I do think, you know, Bernie Sanders, he actually looks like he might run. I remind people he has to become a Democrat first, slight technicality there. But let`s say he goes ahead and does that, Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton debate, is there some risk for Clinton there? I mean, he`s a feisty guy. BERNARD: He`s a feisty guy. I mean, the risk is that -- there are a couple of things. I think the major risk is that there are progressives and people who are truly on the very far left of the Democratic Party that are going to have questions about Hillary Clinton`s candidacy and the legitimacy of how, quote-unquote, "liberal" she is. Questions will arise about the fact that the Clinton foundation has now gone against its previous policy of not accepting money from foreign governments and they`re doing that now. So, you`ll see people on the left begin to question that. And, quite frankly, whether it`s Bernie Sanders or not, I actually believe that Mrs. Clinton`s candidacy in whatever form it takes is always going to be haunted by the ghost of Elizabeth Warren. We live in a populist country right now. People love her. Elizabeth warren may say she`s not running but so will Hillary Clinton. And I think time will tell. I think that Elizabeth Warren could possibly be talked into running. And that would be the danger for Hillary Clinton, only because there are many progressives who are looking for new and different ideas. KORNACKI: Dana, do you see the possibility? Elizabeth Warren, you know, made pretty definite statements here. Do you see the possibility? DANA MILBANK, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, it`s not just the statements that she`s made, it`s her staff. And she`s not doing anything to prepare for it. But there is this huge energy there and the progressives are not necessarily enthusiastic about Hillary. And that`s why having some sort of a competition pulling her more in a populist direction would actually be good for her in the end. So, maybe it is a Bernie Sanders, some sort of a sacrificial lamb put up there and, you know, allows himself to be co-opted by Hillary Clinton. KORNACKI: Well, I`ll let you tell Bernie he`s the sacrificial lamb and see you deal with that reaction. Anyway, roundtable is staying with us. Up next, with the Oscars just two days away, the Democratic congressman from North Hollywood wants to meet with the Academy`s president about the lack of diversity in this year`s ceremonies. So, has all this talk about Oscar politics been justified? This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. KORNACKI: The former first lady of Virginia was sentenced today for solicitation and violation of federal public corruption laws. Maureen McDonnell will serve up to one year and one day in prison following her conviction in September of last year. She and her husband, former Governor Robert McDonnell were found guilty of accepting $170,000 in direct payments as gifts and loans. Bob McDonnell was sentenced up to two years in prison just last month. Be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK KORNACKI: All right. We are back. This year`s Oscar discussion has been dominated by lack of diversity among the nominees. The whiteness of the nominees is most pronounced in the high profile categories -- best actor, best actress in a leading role, best supporting actor, best supporting actress. California Congressman Tony Cardenas who represents North Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, that`s where the movie industry is king, he`s angry about that lack of diversity. Cardenas wrote a letter to Cheryl Boon Isaacs. She`s the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, she`s an African-American. He writes in part, "I write to express my shock at the lack of diversity in this year`s Oscar`s nominees. I want to work with you to improve diversity in the academy membership in the entertainment industry." Back with the HARDBALL roundtable right now with Jamelle, Michelle and Dana. Jamelle, I`ll start with you. It is striking, those major categories we just looked at there when you just put the pictures up and take a look, it becomes clear, wow, that`s basically an all-white roster you`ve got there. Where do you think this comes from? BOUIE: I think this is partially a pipeline problem. You know, if you look at the films that were -- if you look at the top ranked films in 2014, not just ones given the best picture nomination, but the ones that were kind of in the running before you even knew the nominations, there just weren`t that many films that had sizable casts with people of color that had leading actors and leading actresses who were people of color. So, even before you get to the whole process of choosing which is the best picture, or which of these movies might be the best picture of the year, you have -- you just don`t have very many non-white actors in that pool of films. Then after you get from there, I think you have to look at just the composition of the academy electorate, the kind of people who are choosing these nominations. I`ll say for my part that there are some choices that I find just kind of baffling. Not for reasons of diversity even but just for reasons of craft. There are directors and actors who clearly deserve some sort of nod and didn`t get one. And I think it has a lot to do with who exactly is making the nomination, which is a group of mostly older white people. KORNACKI: Yes, that`s interesting. I think we have the statistics here. The academy voters are 94 percent white, 77 percent male. At the same time, what Jamelle is saying there, is when you just look at this, every year it seems -- I can go through my picks from the last 20, 30 years, how did they ever nominate this actor, how did they ever not nominate this actor? There`s always this subjective thing where, you know, that`s ultimately -- this is like judging a figure skating contest in the Olympics. It is not a basketball game where you keep score. It is judges sort of giving their opinion. So, is that really where the issue lies here, it is in the composition of who`s casting those ballots? BERNARD: I don`t know. It`s not just a matter of who`s casting the ballots. Obviously that`s important but they really, regardless of the racial makeup, they are a representative of the culture and how the country at large feels. And if you look at how the country has been doing over the last year or so in terms of race, we have a lot of problems in every part of the United States society and culture. One of the things that you have to ask yourself or at least I ask and I think that the rest of -- that the non-voting academy members should be asking themselves is how do you have a movie like "Selma," for example, where the director has done something extraordinary. It is one of the first times I can remember in American history where you watch a movie about the civil rights period from the perspective of a woman and you not only see a portrayal of Martin Luther King as a man but you actually see the civil rights movement from the perspective of women and women take the helm in that movie, how Ava DuVernay was not nominated, one has to ask. How the fellow who portrays Martin Luther King in Selma, which to me is a movie that stays with you forever is not nominated in the best actor category. All I can ask myself is if there is some sort of race fatigue because last year was such a big year for "12 Years a Slave." Are there people in the Academy who sit back and say we`ve got race fatigue, we did too much politics last year, we did race last year, so we`re done with race and we don`t have to -- we don`t have to pay attention to the people of color who deserve awards in 2014? KORNACKI: Well, 2014. We`ll see with all the debate this has generated this year if that produces changes for 2015. That would be the story after the Oscars. Again, they`re on Sunday night. Anyway, thank you to Jamelle Bouie, Michelle Bernard and Dana Milbank. Appreciate you all joining us. You are watching HARDBALL, place for politics. KORNACKI: And, finally, let me finish tonight with this. If you`ve been following the early phase of the 2016 presidential campaign, it`s what they like to call "the invisible primary", then you`ve probably heard all the buzz about Jeb Bush, about his shock and awe fund-raising strategy, working feverishly behind the scenes, tapping his family`s massive network of Republican friends and allies, raking in some serious money. The idea of all this, of course, to create an early demonstration of massive and overpowering strength, one that will scare off rivals and make clear to everyone that Jeb Bush is on his way to being the Republican candidate for 2016. I see a problem with there strategy though. Problem is his last name. Maybe not for the reason you`re thinking of. Instead, it has to do with the Republican Party, with the base of the Republican Party, the Tea Party and how they think of George W. Bush`s presidency. The key to that, when George W. Bush was elected in 2000, the GOP base was with him. He was their candidate. They were with him even though he talked like a moderate. He talked about compassionate conservatism. Remember all of that? Well, the right was fine with that in 2000 because they wanted to win. Bill Clinton had beaten them in the government shutdown. He had beaten them in the 1996 election. He had beaten them in impeachment. Every attack Republicans hurled at Clinton only seemed to make him more popular. So, Republicans wanted their own Clinton. They wanted someone warm, someone who wouldn`t scare off voters, and that is why they turned to George W. Bush. But what did they get? What did the GOP base get for eight years of president George W. Bush. If you ask them now, they`d say at the didn`t get much. They`d say they got more government. They got new agencies, new programs, more spending. That`s what compassionate conservatism meant, after all. Then they got an economic meltdown, the GOP wipeout in 2008. And, of course, they got Barack Obama. That`s what they got for going with the moderate in 2000, for making winning their priority back then. That`s how to understand the Tea Party. Yes, it is the Republican base revolting against Barack Obama, we know that. But it is not just that. It is also the Republican base revolting against the idea of doing what it did with George W. Bush ever again, of going with the moderate just to win. The Republican Party is a very different place today because of George W. Bush. Now, here is his brother, borrowing his old playbook, trying to talk like a moderate but he may find that this party, the Republican Party that emerged from George W. Bush`s presidency is not interested in going down that road all over again. That`s HARDBALL for now. Chris Matthews returns to the anchor desk on Monday. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 21, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022001cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 95 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 20, 2015 Friday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 20, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton; Ed Schultz GUESTS: Jason Johnson; E.J. Dionne; Ryan Grim; Angela Rye, Abby Huntsman, John Burns, Tara Dowdell, Toure, Crystal McCrary SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 6941 words HIGHLIGHT: GOP Senator Marco Rubio has said clearly he doesn`t agree with Giuliani. Scott Walker said he`ll let the mayor speak for himself. Bobby Jindal said the gist of what Giuliani said is true. Ted Cruz declined to comment. Rand Paul declined to comment. President Obama on fire today talking about Republicans bamboozling folks with middle class talk. REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Tonight`s lead silence from the GOP today. The startling response from Republicans to Rudy Giuliani`s ugly smear that President Obama doesn`t love America. A deafening no comment. And the pressure is building after Giuliani stood by his insult. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Mayor, do you want to apologize for your comment? RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Not at all. I want to repeat it. The reality is from all I`ve seen of the president, all I`ve heard of him, he apologies for America, he criticizes America. He talks about the crusades and how the Christians were barbarians. I don`t feel it. I don`t feel this love of America. The president and his comments, if we look at all his rhetoric has not displayed the kind of love of America, the kind of love of America and exceptionalism that other American presidents have displayed. I`m right about this. I have no doubt about it. I do not withdraw my words. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: There is no way to spin it. These are hateful slurs from a fading Republican desperate for relevance. It should be easy for fellow Republicans to reject this. And this morning MSNBC`s Joe Scarborough warned 2016 GOP hopefuls, they can`t let it hang over their party. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC MORNING SHOW HOST: Are we really going to go through another cycle where Republican candidates are too stupid to get out of the way of the stupidest people in their party that keep them from winning presidential elections by spewing hatred instead of telling people how they`re going to get back to work? It`s not enough to say we`ll let Rudy Giuliani speak for himself. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Today it looks like yes, there may be another cycle of this. So far only GOP Senator Marco Rubio has said clearly he doesn`t agree with Giuliani. Scott Walker said he`ll let the mayor speak for himself. Bobby Jindal said the gist of what Giuliani said is true. Ted Cruz declined to comment to us. Rand Paul declined to comment to us. Indeed we still haven`t heard from most of the big name 2016 Republicans including Jeb Bush who we also reached out to. They aspire to be leaders of the free world, but they`re in no rush to stand up to irrelevant Rudy Giuliani and is only hurting the GOP brand and showing they`re not serious about change. Joining me now are E.J. Dionne and Jason Johnson. Thank you both for being here. E.J. DIONNE, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Good to be here. JASON JOHNSON, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR: Glad to be here, Rev. SHARPTON: E.J., before we get to the silence of Republicans, I mean, what`s going on with Rudy Giuliani? What do you make of these comments? DIONNE: Well, I mean, these were appalling comments. And I have to say I was surprised. I thought we might be done with this. The president`s not on a ballot any more. There`s absolutely no reason to say it. it is so wrong. And I tell you, the thing he said that really bothered me and the way even more than he does a lot of America, which is absurd on its face, is he wasn`t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up. What in the world does that mean? What kind of code is there as if he lived in Indonesia? Is it a comment on who his mother was? I mean, what does that mean? I was just astonished by it. SHARPTON: Well, Jason, I see you shaking your head. I mean, what is it a code for, using E.J.`s term? JOHNSON: He`s that black guy in the White House that I never liked. That`s the code speech. And really I think what Giuliani should recognize from his ridiculous statements and Republicans are should realize as well is this is not a winning strategy. It`s not just poor leadership, it`s not a winning strategy. One of the high points of the 2008 presidential election was when John McCain countered one of his own supporters and said, look, Barack Obama I disagree with him, but I would never question this gentleman actually loves his country. You would think Republicans would be smarter by now. SHARPTON: No. Let me go to that in a minute because I think that`s a very important point. Let me play this for you. John McCain, who I disagree with, did have the courage that we are not seeing any Republican contender have. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can`t trust Obama. I have read about him and he`s not -- he`s an Arab. He`s not -- no? SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: No, ma`am. No, ma`am. He`s a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that`s what this campaign is all about. He`s not. Thank you. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, E.J., I never thought I would miss John McCain, but this is the kind of leadership you can respect even if you don`t vote for. And we`ve not seen that now. Senator Rubio did say On the Record he disagrees with Giuliani. But none of them have come out and shown what John McCain said in a crowd of people where he could have been heckled. None of them has shown that kind of moral strength. DIONNE: No, that was very gutty in McCain. He got criticized by some people to his right for saying that. JOHNSON: Right. He did. DIONNE: And Marco Rubio, God bless him. I mean, he was very straight up, said almost exactly the thing John McCain said. And I think, you know, there are two things about this. What does this say Republicans really think of their own people? Because this is their judgment on their own base. And what they`re saying is their own base believes this stuff? That doesn`t show a lot of respect for your base. But what they also don`t get is there are plenty of people who are not liberals and people who didn`t vote for President Obama, but they`re uncomfortable and unhappy when politicians talk like this. So I think they`re definitely making a mistake with middle of the road voters, but also I think it says terrible things about their analysis of their own party. SHARPTON: Well, Jason, let me go back to another point you were commenting on. Giuliani told "The New York Times" his comments weren`t racist. He says, in fact, some people thought it was racist. I thought that was a joke since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools and most of this he learned from white people. This isn`t racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism. Now, I mean, how do you react to that aside from the race part and aside from the fact that the grandfather he`s talking about that brought him up was a World War II veteran who fought for the country, is he condemning anti-colonialism? I thought all of us were anti-colonialism. I don`t even understand the logic of what he`s saying here. JOHNSON: Obviously Rudy Giuliani doesn`t even understand the level of criticism he`s throwing out. Number one, I`ve never heard of the school in Hawaii being called white schools. That`s the first thing. But second, you know, on the one hand, it is President Obama wasn`t raised by people like you. And on the other hand while he was raised by white people in the Midwest, on one hand, you know, President Obama`s a horrible dictator, on the other hand, President Obama is a feckless coward in the face of ISIS. You know, Giuliani represents a throwback in the Republican party to let`s just keep throwing things at President Obama. And this is where it ends up being a strategic problem. He`s not on the ballot in 2016. And if they keep wanting to bash President Obama, that will make it easier for Hillary Clinton to say, see, look at these guys trapped in the past. I represent the future. SHARPTON: Now E.J., one of the more striking parts of Giuliani`s interview was about 9/11. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANI: President Obama didn`t live through September 11th. I did. President Obama didn`t almost, you know, have a building fall on him, myself and my police commissioner and my fire commissioner did. So excuse me, it`s a little bit emotional for me, but it`s also real. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, I`m totally, what is that supposed to mean? DIONNE: Well, I think, if we weren`t mayor of New York, if we weren`t in New York city when 9/11 happened, we didn`t feel it. I mean, the whole -- Rudy Giuliani in that period gained national notoriety and a lot of respect because every American felt hit by 9/11. And so, for him to say that, it is very hard to figure out what he`s trying to say. SHARPTON: I was in New York that day. In fact, it was the mayoral primary day. I was in New York that day campaigning. I was in a way to finance the run against Rudy Giuliani. Does that mean I didn`t love America? I mean, the logic of that -- what I`m trying to find out, I said he was a fading Republican desperate because there`s not even any logic to any of these things, he is saying. JOHNSON: I think maybe we shouldn`t be looking for logic here because I`m not sure there isn`t any. Why can`t the relevant guys running today in the Republican party condemn it? That`s my real point. SHARPTON: But why can`t the relevant guy is running today in the Republican Party condemn it. That`s my real point. DIONNE: Yes, no. And I think they should be out there. And I think it would be in their long term interest to be out there. But only Marco Rubio is doing it. SHARPTON: Now, Jason, in terms of the 2016 Republican hopefuls, "Mother Jones" writes, this could be an opportunity for Jeb Bush to speak out. Quote, "Jeb Bush, could, if he`s smart, he will, taking a public stand against Giuliani would cement his position as the adult in the Republican field." Jeb Bush is trying to run as the so-called moderate. Why haven`t we heard from him on this, Jason? JOHNSON: Because I think if there`s anything we`ve seen in last eight years there`s not much political hay to be made of being the adult in the room. You know, President Obama has been the dad in chief of the Republican Congress for years and that hasn`t necessarily helped him. I think any presidential candidate who actually cares about this country should come out and condemn these comments. But I think Jeb Bush, in particular, I think he like Hillary Clinton in some respect. He is I don`t want to say anything that`s remotely controversial right now. I just want to slide into eventually announcing that I`m running for president. Because he believes long-term if he just ignores things like this, it won`t come back to haunt him. So, you know, strategically, maybe Jeb Bush thinks it is a good idea. I think from a leadership standpoint and statesman standpoint, it`s kind of cowardly and it really ruins the kind of public discourse we need to have in this country going forward. SHARPTON: Well, E.J. Dionne and Jason Johnson, thank you for your time tonight. Have a great weekend. DIONNE: And you too, Reverend. JOHNSON: Thank you. You too, Rev. SHARPTON: Coming up President Obama on fire today talking about Republicans bamboozling folks with middle class talk. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is this old saying that you can`t just talk the talk. Donna? You got to do what? You got to walk the walk. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Plus, as we get ready for the Oscar, we look at remarkable year of performances and also a year of serious snubs. And I`m giving out my weekly report card. What grade will Sarah Palin get tonight? It might surprise you. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: Some exciting programming news to share. Next Wednesday MSNBC and Telemundo`s Jose Diaz-Balart is moderating a town hall with President Obama. The president will answer questions directly from the audience and through social media. You can submit questions right now with the #Obamatownhall. And we asked our social media fans what they would ask. Mike wrote on facebook, we can -- what can Democrats be doing now to increase voter turnout in 2016? Krixx posted, what do you deal with the attempts of adversarial undermining and attacks on your authority? Good question, Krixx. Michael asks, what do you see as the future of labor unions? Again, that town hall is Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on MSNBC and Telemundo. Please keep the questions coming in either on our facebook page or tweet us @politicsnation. SHARPTON: No matter what your political party, there`s no denying the U.S. economy is bouncing back. More jobs, higher wages, the auto industry`s back and the deficit`s down. This all happened on President Obama`s watch. And in a strong speech to the DNC today, he cheered our progress and reminded the crowd about the naysayers we`ve seen along the way. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We were told by our good friends the Republicans that our actions would crush us, explode deficits, and destroy the country. I mean, I want everybody to do a fact check. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That`s right. They predicted chaos, not a comeback. But they - - but they are doing it all over again. Now that they`ve been proven wrong. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Now that their grand predictions of doom and gloom and death panels and Armageddon haven`t come true, the sky hasn`t fallen, chicken little`s quiet, the new plan apparently of congressional Republicans -- and this is progress -- the new plan is to rebrand them self as the party of the middle class. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Everyone from John Boehner to Ted Cruz to Jeb Bush is talking about income inequality in the middle class these days. But what does it actually mean? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: If you`re just trying to repackage the same top-down economics and use the words "middle class" attached to it, if you`re just going to keep on cutting taxes at the top and not raise minimum wages for folks who are struggling, then it`s just spin trying to bamboozle folks. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Real change from the GOP would be great, but that`s not what we`ve seen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I`m encouraged that they`re speaking about middle class and speaking about wages, but there is this old saying that you can`t just talk the talk. Donna? You got to do what? You got to walk the walk. Tell us how you`re helping middle class families because we got an agenda and we know it works. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: If the GOP wants us to buy this new message they`re selling, they`ve got to start walking the walk and so far all we`ve heard so talk. Joining me now are political strategist Angela Rye and Ryan Grim, bureau chief for the "Huffington Post." Thank you both for being here. RYAN GRIM, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, HUFFINGTON POST/MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Reverend. ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: Angela, was the president`s speech today a road map for Democrats for how to talk about their agenda? RYE: You know, Rev., he laid out this road map before the election in November. He`s been very clear not only about his economic record but about how Democrats should talk about it. The problem is they didn`t follow the road map. They did not follow that trail. They ran in the other direction, which is why we suffered the greatest consequences ever in this election. But what I will say to you is that today, he did lay out some very clear talking points based upon his accomplishments. And that`s what talking points and a message should be about, they should be about your priorities. Hence his little bit of shade to the Republican party for them talking the talk and not walking that same walk. SHARPTON: Ryan, Republicans are in a tough place. They were against the policies that got the economy moving. So what can they say now? GRIM: Well, what they can say now is exactly what they are saying that actually they deserve credit for all this and, you know, they saw all of this coming. You know, and you can tell the president is kind of really feeling it when he goes into his kind of stand-up comic routine. He gets the crowd chuckling and he kind of feeds off of that. And he was doing some of that. And riffing off of how Republicans said, well, actually the reason the economy`s kind of surging right now is that Republicans were elected to take over the Senate and people were so happy about that, that magically the economy just started booming. So, you know, that`s absurd and the crowd can laugh at it, but what`s underneath that is the broader Republican strategy to just say it and just to repeat things. SHARPTON: Let me show you, Angela, one of them that`s been saying it, that`s just been talking the talk and that`s Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell. Listen to what President Obama said about him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Our Republican leader in the Senate, as he was coming in, after having tried to block every single thing that we`ve done to strengthen the economy, starts looking at job numbers and says, you know, it`s getting better because we just got elected. And people are feeling more optimistic. Which -- OK. I diplomat don`t know that`s how the economy worked, but maybe. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: You know, I mean, does McConnell claiming credit for the recovery pass the laugh test, Angela? RYE: You know it doesn`t pass the laugh test, Rev. And we also know since Mitch McConnell`s not a scientist, he`s clearly not an economist either. So the president jabbing him there was a good one and an effective one. I think it would be interesting to see like what type of middle class economics are you really touting when the only concerns you`ve had is my capital gains the fact is too high and my CEO bonus wasn`t quite large enough. At some point your rhetoric has to match the policies that you push and they won`t even consider a minimum wage raise in the Senate and the house. So, this would be all very interesting. SHARPTON: You know, Ryan, besides taking credit for the recovery, lots of Republicans all of a sudden have discovered and become interested in inequality. Listen to some of this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Today Americans across the country are frustrated. They see only a small portion of the population riding the economy`s up escalator. SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: I will tell you. Hard working men and women across America are hurting. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: This so-called one percent that the president`s talking about have done quite well. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Frankly, the president`s policies have made income inequality worse. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But they`re against minimum wage hikes, they`re trying to take away health care. How can they be worrying about inequality, Ryan? GRIM: I mean, it`s a real credit to kind of, you know, the progressive movement and to a more populous movement that Elizabeth Warren has been spearheading, that they`re kind of forced to even talk that talk. Clearly, like you said, they`re not walking it yet. They`re not following up those sound bites with. And so, therefore, you know, we should raise the minimum wage or therefore we should hike taxes on capital gains and dividends. It kind of stops at that point. But getting to that point is meaningful because it opens up space where things can start to happen. You know, look at what Walmart did, you know, in raising its minimum wage. You know, it`s not high enough. But getting it up to $9 an hour, that`s a real benefit. And that comes from a political movement, political pressure put on Walmart by its own workers, from outside unions, responding to that. And they`re responding to the same energy that people like Ted Cruz and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are feeling. Mitch McConnell probably wanted to spit after he used the phrase "one percent" but he did it anyway because he knows that`s where the politics are right now. SHARPTON: But Angela, we`re not seeing the policy. RYE: No. SHARPTON: We`re not seeing the legislation. They control the Senate and the congress. If they were serious, why don`t they come forward with some policy and make it law? RYE: Well, Rev., it would be very hard to do that and keep their base happy. I mean, whether you`re talking about the fact that DHS funding runs out next week and they`re holding that up because of, you know, their inability to get their party to move on immigration reform or the fact that, again, they won`t even consider a minimum wage increase or the fact that they balk at tax breaks for poor people or they won`t even consider family medical leave. I mean, this is all very crazy. They never supported these policies, so we can`t expect them to do it now even so, they are using Democratic talking points. SHARPTON: Angela Rye and Ryan Grim, thank you for your time tonight and have a great weekend. GRIM: You too. RYE: You too. SHARPTON: Still lead, is the vice president running a stealth campaign for 2016? Also, buzz about the academy awards this Sunday. All the talk about the stars and the snubs. But first, Reverend Al`s report card is next. With a surprise appearance from Sarah Palin. ANNOUNCER: It`s time now for Reverend Al`s weekly report card. SHARPTON: Welcome, welcome to all my students. This week, let`s get right to it. First grade tonight goes to Rudy Giuliani. He claimed President Obama doesn`t love America. Then bizarrely tried to defend it. Tonight Rudy gets an "I" for irrelevant. And I don`t really need to say anything other than that. My next student tonight is Governor Sarah Palin. It was good running into her on the SNL red carpet. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: We are the direct opposites of American politics, but we`re here tonight. SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: But you know what, we both love America so much, right? SHARPTON: That`s right. PALIN: I mean, it`s Americana all the way and respect for the entertainment value that they provide our society. SHARPTON: And they spoof both of us. And I defend the fact that she actually sees Russia from her house. PALIN: Oh, good! See! I`m going to kick you in the shins. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Tonight, I`m grading both Governor Palin and myself. We get a "D," but it`s not what you think. "D" for defying expectations, because that`s what we did on the red carpet. And I`ll throw in an "F" for fun, too. Like I always say, we can disagree without being disagreeable. My final student tonight is an 11-year-old girl named Rowan Hanson. She wrote a letter to D.C. comics saying, "I`m a girl and I`m upset because there aren`t many girl superheroes. Girls read comics, too, and they care." Here`s what she told the "today" show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: It`s not like the male superheroes are better than the female superheroes, but there are just more of them. If batman gets to wear armor, then why doesn`t wonder woman get to wear armor? And I know that she`s kind of invulnerable, but it would still be nicer if she didn`t wear a bathing suit all the time. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It looks like D.C. comics is paying attention. They sent rowan a sketch of a superhero they designed after her. And it kind of bears a striking resemblance to someone else we know, but I digress. Tonight, rowan gets an "S" for super. She`s got the super power of passion on her side and we expect big things in her future. Thanks to all my students tonight. Class dismissed. ANNOUNCER: That`s tonight`s edition of Reverend Al`s weekly report card. SHARPTON: It`s time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight MSNBC Abby Huntsman, legal analyst John Burns and democratic strategist Tara Dowdell. Thanks to all of you for being here. TARA DOWDELL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thanks, Rev. JOHN BURNS, LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: We start with the rights attack on President Obama from Rudy Giuliani now and from others over the years claiming he doesn`t love America. Maybe this is just a simple mistake. I mean, maybe they just didn`t listen to the speech he made today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: It`s about making this nation we love more perfect. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Come to think of it, maybe they never heard anything he said ever. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America. America, this country that I love. The best days for this country we love are still ahead. I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. We live in the greatest nation on earth. Thank you, America. God bless you. God bless this United States. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Abby, the President doesn`t love America? How is this even a question right now? ABBY HUNTSMANM, MSNBC HOST: Yes, this is a statement that has really gotten under my skin because I asked the question where respect has gone in this country. I mean, to claim the President does not love America is about the most unpatriotic thing anyone can say. And coming from Rudy Giuliani, I don`t think he realizes that he`s still someone that people look up to in the party and to say something like that at a time when the GOP is really trying to broaden their tent, it doesn`t look so good. What he`s doing is, he`s trying to get some headlines, he`s desperate for some attention. But it makes me sad about the fact that we can say these things and somehow that`s okay. I am happy though about the backlash. Because I do think people are saying, look, there is a line that we draw in the sand where we say, you know what? That`s probably something that we shouldn`t say. We can disagree with the President on things but to say that he doesn`t love America, that`s going too far. SHARPTON: Strong words Tara from Abby and Abby is a republican and my friend. HUNTSMAN: That`s right. SHARPTON: Tara? DOWDELL: Yes, well, first of all, I agree with Abby in the point that Rudy Giuliani is in desperate need of attention. He hasn`t met a microphone that he hasn`t loved. So, Rudy Giuliani is definitely doing this for attention. But part and parcel of this is not just his need for attention, this is also part of a messaging strategy that the republicans have been doing for the last six years. He`s not the first person to say this and I guarantee you he will not be the last to make some iteration of this statement. This is messaging. This is a way, if you say it over and over again, then it will plant a seed in people`s mind. That`s the goal of this type of thing. Especially when you hear it being said across the party by numerous people. SHARPTON: John? BURNS: Yes, no, I completely agree with Tara and Abby. And I think Rudy Giuliani is just trying to stay relevant. But I think it`s really bad leadership for the Republican Party. No one is coming out to condemning this publicly. I think someone needs to come out and condemn it publicly. It`s also poor strategy. We all know that the President is not on the ballot in 2016. So, clearly the republicans are still living in the past and it`s going to leave the door open for some democratic candidate to come forward and say, hey, the republicans are living in the past, I`m focused on the future. And I just think it`s really, really poor strategy for them. SHARPTON: You know, Abby, I`ve got to ask you, are you surprised that some of the republican leadership and especially some of the major nominee or those that will pursue the nomination haven`t come out and condemned Rudy Giuliani other than Rubio? HUNTSMAN: Yes, I mean, I think they feel like they`re in a tough place. You look at Scott Walker, who doesn`t really want to talk about it, he sort of skirts the issue and says, you know, I love America and I know there are republicans and democrats, independents that love America. But as you know, Rev, there are a lot of these folks that are campaigning in 2016, they`ve got to appeal to the far right and their folks in the primaries that love this type of rhetoric. So, I can understand why they`re not coming out and speaking up about this, but I do know that there are a lot of folks that would say, no, this is not right. They don`t agree with that. I with there are more that we`re speaking out about this. But unfortunately, as of right now, they`re not. SHARPTON: Yes. No, I understand it. I understand it`s political cowardice. Next up, democrats and 2016. Senator Warren has repeatedly said she`s not running, but it hasn`t stopped people from talking about it. Of course, there`s lots of buzz about Hillary Clinton, but no official word yet. And then there`s Vice President Joe Biden who says he`ll make a decision by the summer. But check out his travel schedule. In the past week alone he`s been visiting the battleground or primary states of Iowa, South Carolina and North Carolina. Tara, Biden 2016, is it possible? DOWDELL: If I say that Biden wants to run, that`s like saying the sun came up this morning. Does Biden want to run, is water wet? He absolutely wants to run. Now, the question is, will he run? And I think the biggest problem for Joe Biden, because I think he would run in a heartbeat, the biggest issue for him is right now just how formidable Hillary Clinton is looking in the polls at this particular point in time. But what I think we see him doing is he`s clearly testing the waters. He`s going into these states to try to see what type of reception he will get from the people in those states, from party leaders in those states, from grassroots activists in those states. So, this is clearly strategic. And he`s definitely advancing a strategy on this front. SHARPTON: Abby, this could be a lot of fun, though. HUNTSMAN: Yes, you know, I don`t think he`s running. I think the writing`s on the wall that he`s not actually going to go through it. That he`s not going to run against Hillary Clinton. I mean, let`s be honest about that. I think he loves the attention. And this is sort of the fun time for people like Joe Biden where they can sort of have the media speculation about them, they can be in the headlines, they can be talked about, they don`t actually have to put forward a campaign or announced they`re running. That`s when it really gets difficult. Look, I would love for Joe Biden to run, I would love for Elizabeth Warren to run. I think it makes for a really fun debate. All you have right now is Hillary Clinton, you`re going to have the republicans with like 50 candidates. So, you know, I think it might be interesting to have someone beyond Hillary run. It would make for a better debate. And she would be better equipped to handle a general if she has to go up against someone in the primaries I think. SHARPTON: John, quickly I`m going to break. But you want to get in here. BURNS: Yes, no, I agree, I think Hillary Clinton is going to have to show some serious weakness to leave an opening for Joe Biden. And look at, he`s really not weighing on any on the groundwork, he hasn`t established any type of Pac, he hasn`t really hired any key staffers that would be needed in the primary season. So, I don`t really think he`s on the run. SHARPTON: Abby, John and Tara, thank you for joining the conversation tonight. Have a great weekend all of you. HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Rev. BUNS: Thank you. DOWDELL: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: And be sure to catch Abby on "THE CYCLE" weekdays at 3:00 Eastern right here on MSNBC. Coming up, the countdown to the Oscars is on. So many movies to celebrate, but it is also been a year of controversy in Hollywood. That`s next. SHARPTON: The Oscars will be handed out Sunday night. It`s been a year of remarkable films. "American Sniper" dominated the Box Office and dominated the national conversation. "Boyhood" broke new ground shooting over 11 years, showing a young man growing up with divorced parents. And "Selma" took us back to a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement of this country. All of these films should be celebrated. And all the great actors and actresses up for Oscars should be celebrated. But it`s also been a year of snubs. It`s easy to see. Not one minority actor is nominated. That is nothing to celebrate. That`s a problem. A problem that needs to be addressed. Joining me now is Toure, a host of "THE CYCLE" here on MSNBC. Thank you for being here tonight. TOURE, MSNBC HOST, "THE CYCLE": Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Toure, I want to get to your picks and what to watch for, but when the nominations came out last month, the lack of diversity was a big story. How is Hollywood dealing with this? TOURE: I mean, Hollywood is dealing with this by making promises about what they`re going to do in the future, but I don`t think they`re going to see any difference. There`s a process for how you become an academy member and there`s a process, an institutionalized process for how you get to be a consistent member of the town, as they call it. And it`s very difficult. It`s more difficult to break there than it is to break into Congress. SHARPTON: Well then let me push you on that point because "The Washington Post" says, Hollywood and Congress share a lack of diversity at their recent best Oscar nominees were twice as diverse as Congress. TOURE: Yes. SHARPTON: At their worst, they had zero minority nominees this year. Congress is four times more diverse than the nominees. And the academy that votes on something you referred to, the academy that votes on these awards are 93 percent male, 76 percent white and the average age is 63. I might, in full disclosure, the Los Angeles branch of my group National Action Network is picketing the academy about the issue of the academy that makes these selections or not diverse enough. I mean, how do we change that when the process is so in itself so limiting? TOURE: You know, it`s very hard to change that. I mean, this is an important issue because the films that come out of Hollywood and as well as the independent community making films, they`re very important because they shape in part how we see America, how we see ourselves, so we have film that are consistently showing black people looking bad, being criminals, this sorts of things. That`s bad for our self-image, that`s bad for the way white Americans see us. So, this is a very important issue, but it`s very difficult to change, Rev. And I don`t have the solutions right here. I wish I did, or if I did, I`d be out in Hollywood helping you implement them. You know, you see Tyler Perry is out there creating his own film studio working outside of the Hollywood system and, you know, making change himself and making films that a lot of black people love to go see. But, you know, I mean, this is going to be a very difficult problem similar to how do we further integrate Congress, how do we further integrate Wall Street, I mean, these are very difficult issues. SHARPTON: And one thing is we`ve got to keep raising the issues. Let me switch to the academy awards itself. Who is your pick for favorite picture? TOURE: Well, best picture will go to "Birdman." And that was my choice for the best film of last year. It was an amazingly made piece of art. And I enjoy this discussion of a man who feels like he`s at the bottom creatively, career wise, trying to find a way to bring himself back up and use Broadway as a launching pad to get back on his feet and his career. He`s also got the family problems going on. I love "Birdman." I watched it several times. So you know, I`m happy to see that win, if it does go on to win and it looks like it probably will. Beyond that, you know, it seems like the actor awards are already engraved. I mean, it looks pretty certain. SHARPTON: Yes. Who would you pick for best actor? TOURE: Well, I mean, I would give it to Michael Keaton, but it looks like Eddie Redmayne has got that locked up. Looks like Julianne Moore from "Still Alice" has the best actress category locked up. You know, J.K. Simmons will almost certainly win best supporting actor, which is interesting because he`s got a leading actor size role in that movie, so they were smart to put him in the supporting actor category. SHARPTON: But nothing for "American Sniper"? I mean, everybody is talking about that. That`s the talk of the country. TOURE: I mean, you know, it`s doing a huge amount of business, but does that mean that it`s a great film? I think that everything that "American Sniper" accomplished creatively was done better by "Hurt Locker" in terms of showing us at war, in terms of showing at how he dealt with being at home and dealing with, you know, PTSD at home. I think "American Sniper" is a good picture, but it`s not a great one. SHARPTON: All right. Well, Toure, thanks for being with us tonight. TOURE: Thank you. SHARPTON: And you can catch Toure on "THE CYCLE" weekdays at 3:00 p.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC. We`ll be right back with a powerful film about achieving dreams and never giving up. It`s an inspiring story you`ll want to see. Stay with us. SHARPTON: Developing news tonight, police have arrested a man accused of setting off a bomb outside a Colorado Springs building last month. The suspect told investigators he was targeting an accountant in the building, not the NAACP office, as many had suspected. No one was injured in the explosion. We`ll be right back. SHARPTON: To many kids growing up in the inner city, basketball is more than a game. It`s a life path. The documentary "Little Ballers" follows a team of young New York City boys on their journey to the National Amateur Athletic Union Championship and reveals what working hard on the court can lead to off the court. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Anything that keeps kids off the street is very important. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It`s important for me for him not to be a statistic. UNIDENTIFIED BOY: This is what I need to do in order to get to a professional level or to do good to get into scholarship to get into college or high school. UNIDENTIFIED BOY: I want to be one of the best NBA players that ever. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Growing up in the hood and poverty, the only way out sometimes is to play basketball or some type of sport. UNIDENTIFIED BOY: So I tell my mom we`re going to get out of here, I mean that, we`re going to get out of this neighborhood because it`s very bad. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now is the director of "Little Ballers" Crystal McCrary. Crystal, thanks for being here tonight. CRYSTAL MCCRARY, DIRECTOR, "LITTLE BALLERS": Thank you for having me so much. It`s a pleasure. SHARPTON: Tell me what did you learn about inner city boys and basketball? MCCRARY: Well, the thing that I learned about the young men in this film and really urban youth that play basketball is that it offers them hope. It`s transformative. It offers many of these young men who otherwise might be seduced by gangs in their community, it offers them a sense of family. It offers them some place to go. It offers them structure. It offers them an opportunity to get fit, to be competitive, but more than anything, the team has become a family to them. SHARPTON: Now there`s so many NBA stars in the film. Amar`e Stoudemire is the executive producer. He played in this league growing up. How did it impact his life? MCCRARY: I mean, he grew up in Florida and a challenging upbringing where basketball really was a lifeline for him. Even for kids that don`t make it to the NBA -- because, let`s be honest -- SHARPTON: Yes. That`s what I was going to ask you, because everyone is not going to make it to the NBA. MCCRARY: That`s right. SHARPTON: What does it do for other kids? MCCRARY: That`s right. I mean, you`re right. Most kids are not going to make it to the NBA. But, you know, 10 million kids play high school ball, 2,000 get division, one scholarships, 60 get drafted and 30 make the team. So, you know, you do the math. It`s not going to happen. SHARPTON: Right. MCCRARY: But it does so much more. I mean, it offers them an opportunity to learn, to work through adversity, to learn to have teamwork, to keep them off the streets, to get an education. And that`s one of the reasons I really wanted to tell this story. I wanted to show how diverse boys and girls through basketball, through sports can be brought together and have their lives expanded. SHARPTON: Now, the team also provides male role models to some boys who may not have them. I want to play a clip from the film of the coach talking to his team. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You have come together as a team. That`s something that you should be proud of. Each and every one of you guys has something unique about yourself that you brought to this team. To this family. We`re not a team, we`re family. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Crystal, how important is the idea of being not just a team but family to these boys? MCCRARY: Oh, it`s tremendously important. I mean, even for the boys in the film who, yes, they have families, they have their fathers there, they have step-fathers or maybe they`re from divorced families, with Coach Billy who you just saw in that clip, Coach Billy is a wonderful role model for these young men and has been coaching on the AAU Circuit for 15, 16 years. And he`s made it a point of staying involved in these young men`s lives throughout high school and helping them to realize that even if they don`t go pro, which as we know most won`t go pro, they can get an education, they can become an orthopedic surgeon, they could, you know, become a trainer on the team, they can do a wide array of activities that still involved the games that all of these boys love so much but they just don`t necessarily have the role models in their lives to help get them to that point. SHARPTON: Well, "Little Ballers" airs on nickelodeon sports next week. Crystal McCrary, thank you for your time tonight. And thank you for this important film. MCCRARY: Thank you so much for being there. And if you can`t watch it, put your DVR on. SHARPTON: Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. Have a great weekend. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 21, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022001cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 96 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 20, 2015 Friday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 20, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes, James Peterson, Jared Bernstein GUESTS: Nicholas Confessore, Janet Mock, David Edelstein, Tom Colicchio SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8137 words HIGHLIGHT: Rudy Giuliani`s nuclear meltdown continues. President Obama took a victory lap on the policy that was supposed to be his party`s biggest liability, Obamacare. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: You know, President Obama didn`t live through September 11, I did. HAYES: Rudy Giuliani`s nuclear meltdown continues. JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I feel sorry for Rudy Giuliani. HAYES: Tonight, why Giuliani`s injective is just a sign of things to come for Republicans. MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Do you think you hurt the Republican brand? GIULIANI: I do not think I did. HAYES: Then, a big victory lap for the president. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Their grand predictions of doom and gloom and death panels and Armageddon haven`t come true. HAYES: Plus, Uncle Sam says eat less meat and big meat has a cow. Tom Colicchio on the new government food guidelines. And from the "Selma" snub to the sniper hype, we`ll preview all the Oscar drama. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She`s been murdered and you think I did it. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight, Rudy Giuliani continues to stand by a claim he made at a closed door dinner with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker that President Obama does not love America. The growing controversy is shaping up as the first test case in what promises to be a nasty Republican presidential primary fight. Critics accused Rudy Giuliani of racism, including Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen who quipped on Twitter that maybe Giuliani thinks America loves America three-fifths as much as Giuliani and his pals. Giuliani, for his part, told "The New York Times" he couldn`t have been racist because the president, quote, "was brought up by a white grandmother, a white grandfather and went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people." Giuliani added this isn`t racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism. At FOX News last night, Giuliani was asked if he wanted to apologize for his comments. He said he`d rather repeat them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANI: The reality is, I -- from all that I can see of this president, all that I`ve heard of him, he apologizes for America. He criticizes America. He talks about the crusades and how the Christians were barbarians. It leaves out the second half of the sentence that the Muslims were barbarians, also. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Former New York City mayor also went on Sean Hannity`s radio show last night where he invoked September 11th to claim he understands terrorism better than the president. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) GIULIANI: President Obama didn`t live through September 11th, I did. President Obama didn`t almost have a building fall on him, myself and my police commissioner and my fire commissioner did. (END AUDIO CLIP) HAYES: At the White House today, Press Secretary Josh Ernest did the obvious -- the president does in fact love his country -- before launching into a lament for the man once known as America`s mayor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EARNEST: It`s sad to see when somebody who has attained a certain level of public stature and even admiration tarnishes that legacy so thoroughly. And the truth is I don`t take any joy or vindication or satisfaction from that. I think really the only thing that I feel is, I feel sorry for Rudy Giuliani today. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The current mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, was not so overstrained. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL DE BLASIO (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I think it`s pitiful. I think it is unfair for anyone to question our president`s patriotism. I find it a cheap political trick for Rudy Giuliani to question the president`s love of country. That is just stooping very, very low, even for him. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In the "New York Daily News" today, Giuliani biographer Wayne Barrett noted Giuliani`s claim the president was, quote, "not brought up the way you and I were, the way you was brought up, through love of this country", and pointed out Giuliani`s dad served jail time and was the bat- wielding enforces for a loan-sharking operation, an upbringing that let`s just charitably say it would have been a much bigger political obstacle for Barack Obama than it proved to be for Rudy Giuliani. Joining me now, James Peterson, an MSNBC contributor, director of Africana studies at Lehigh University. James, is there any method here, do you think? Like I can`t figure out, the fact that he`s doubled and tripled down on this and seems very comfortable spouting this, is this some sort of strategic thing, or is it just wounded pride that he refuses to just say that was a dumb thing to say? JAMES PETERSON, LEHIGH UNIVERISTY: Chris, it is a little bit perplexing. I kind of feel like same kind of deal with like Boehner and the Republican Congress around the whole Netanyahu speaking thing. I don`t understand what`s to be gained politically here behind -- besides the sort of retrograde Republican red meat base sort of motives that I thought died out at the last presidential election. I mean, it`s really troubling. I think there are many people on the right who take personal issues with this particular president. But it is sad and tragic that six years in, two years into his second term, that networks, radio networks, television networks will still give former mayor Giuliani a platform to espouse this kind of misguided unfortunate criticism of the president. It doesn`t make sense politically to me, beyond the fact that Giuliani is given an additional platform to speak out against these things. And sadly, Chris, there`s still -- that red meat base still exists. There`s still an appetite for this type of negativity directed at President Obama. HAYES: One thing that struck me was that line where he said, look, he was raised by white folks who went to white folks so this can`t be racism. It is socialism or anti-colonialism. PETERSON: Chris -- (CROSSTALK) HAYES: Comment on that first. PETERSON: Chris, first of all, I hope that we are all anti- colonialists! HAYES: That`s the point. PETERSON: I have no idea what world Mayor Giuliani is living in. I mean, we know what the consequences are of colonialism all over the world. And, by the way, some of the deepest and most profound problems that we have around the world right now are the consequences and side effects of colonialism. We should all be anti-colonialists. I don`t understand that as a critique. By the same token, Chris, I`m not sure I understand socialism as a critique from the right either. There is plenty of socialism in this country for their corporate friends and for the corporate welfare system that exists here. The reality is, if you want to critique socialism, you should go right to Wall Street. HAYES: So, on this anti-colonialism note -- I just want to note as a historical matter. The notion that patriotism, American patriotism is the opposite of anti-colonialism is a bit odd given the fact that the original patriot Founding Fathers -- PETERSON: Hello! HAYES: -- were anti-colonial based who represented the first anti- colonial revolution on the planet! It is literally the foundational doctrine of the country! PETERSON: Chris, Chris, by American historical definition, Founding Fathers were anti-colonialists. I`m sure Giuliani has to agree that the Founding Fathers are the supreme Americans, even though they allowed slaves and didn`t allow women the right to vote or people to own property for the most part, they were anti-colonialists. How in the world is that somehow now antipatriotic? I have no idea. It is Orwellian double speak. HAYES: So, I guess the question becomes like what -- I don`t know. There is something about this that is remarkable insofar as we`ve come to expect it, it`s part of what`s been the tenor of conversation about Barack Obama for six years. That now it becomes this kind of test case. I mean, this is to me we`re seeing a little window into what the 2016 campaign is going to look like. PETERSON: That is very disturbing to me, Chris, because remember, this is the Republican Party that had the autopsy, that dissected their problems. This is the Republican Party that felt like the kind of faux pas that Rick Perry had made and that Mitt Romney had made around these issues of race, around poor folks were mistakes they didn`t want to make. They`re supposed to be expanding the tent, thinking more globally, thinking about shifting demographics. This kind of petty, inaccurate, ignorant attack on the president is not indicative of the kinds of things that they as a party have said they were prepared to do post-the last presidential election. It doesn`t make political sense in any way, Chris. HAYES: James Peterson, thanks you so much. Have a good weekend. PETERSON: You, too, Chris. HAYES: It has been fascinating to watch how the likely Republican presidential field has responded to Giuliani`s comments. Scott Walker, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz all punted. Chris Christie`s office did not respond to our request for comment. Bobby Jindal jumped in yesterday with a statement of support for Giuliani. Well, Marco Rubio, to his credit, said he believes the president loves America. And there`s Jeb Bush whose team sent ALL IN this statement when we asked for one. "Governor Bush doesn`t question President Obama`s motives. He does question President Obama`s disastrous policies." Next week, Bush is heading to the Conservative Political Action Conference. But he won`t give a speech. Instead, he will sit for a 20- minute question and answer session. And while that could be uncomfortable at times, don`t expect Giuliani style partisan bomb-throwing, because Jeb Bush`s connections, fundraising prowess and central place in the party architecture mean that while his rivals are engaged or feel they have to engage in pandering, he can try to run a campaign like his brother`s in 2000. If you recall, back then, the conservatism was passionate and the middle did not seem quite so toxic. Joining me now, Nick Confessore, political reporter at "The New York Times." So, here`s my theory. The reason that Jeb Bush is going to be strong here has nothing to do with Jeb Bush. It simply has to do with the fact that the institutional weight that he brings to bear means that he can ignore the impulses of this primary. Like this stuff, right? Not saying the president doesn`t love the country, punting on evolution, because he`s just so confident that he`s going to have the money, the resources, the connections and the name to get him through, and that becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy for his own electability. NICK CONFESSORE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It`s quite a theory. Look, you`re certainly said it right if you`re Bobby Jindal, right? The reason you are out of the box with the answer to a question that no one -- HAYES: No one asked you! CONFESSORE: Is that that`s all you got. You can`t raise that much money at this stage. You`re in the second or third tier of candidates. You are from a small state. You got some problems at home. I think that you know, what we`ll see for most of the candidates is, look, this guy Giuliani is not going to run for president. I`m not going to defend his remarks. I`m running my own campaign. It is actually a very easy thing to do as Rubio showed today when he said, I think the problem is the policies, not the person. HAYES: Yes. So then the question about Jeb to me is, he amassed a huge amount of gravity in a short period of time. Part of that has come at the expense of Chris Christie. You got a great piece about Chris Christie that`s really sort of remarkable, because basically it says Chris Christie is having a problem right now with his donors not for any bridge-gate reasons or anything, just because like his people skills have been terrible. CONFESSORE: I think there is -- you know, I heard from one donor who said I think Chris has been watching too many of his own YouTube videos. There`s a sense that like he believed in his own charisma, his own hype, and he takes a little bit for granted or at least he has with some of these people his own base of support. He doesn`t think he has to work as hard. Jeb Bush, he`s working very hard. He`s making four and five phone calls to the same people over the course of weeks. He is wooing them, he`s sending notes. He`s being a very aggressive and assiduous in courtship, which is quickly giving him a big advantage -- HAYES: Yes. CONFESSORE: -- among this existing pool of big money people in the country. As we discussed before, at the current moment there are only about like 300 or 400 of them, and maybe 200 at the very top level. Jeb Bush probably has half of them. You know? HAYES: It`s crazy to imagine, it is like this election in miniature. CONFESSORE: Yes. HAYES: This sort of 1 percent election that happens before like the rest of us can get anywhere near -- CONFESSORE: What`s great about CPAC is we`ll finally see a Jeb Bush talk to some actual activists and voters. He`s been talking to donors for a month and a half in dozens and dozens of closed door meetings. Question is, what happens on first contact with a bunch of activists on the -- HAYES: Right. And does he go the route of repudiation? Right? Because he`ll get red meaty questions, right? My feeling is always what you say to the Bush people, they`re the last -- the people around George W. Bush are the last people to engineer a victory for a Republican to get them to 270, got them by the hair of their chinny chin chin in 2000. They didn`t win the popular vote. They had to have Florida delivered to them by the Supreme Court. That said, that race people forget was run to the center. It was all about don`t balance the budget on the backs of the poor, compassionate conservatism, humble foreign policy. I think that`s the kind of race that Jeb wants to run this time. CONFESSORE: He wants to run it on immigration and education, but I think a big thing here is that he has a party to attain. This wasn`t true for his brother. His brother pretty much shut out all the contenders. But there also wasn`t this cleavage in the GOP back then that you see quite in the same way now. Jeb Bush has said over and over again I`m not going to run if I have to change who I am. We`re going to see in the next couple of weeks how true that is. HAYES: You also I think the Giuliani thing is indicative of the issue that`s going to bedevil the Republican primary field which is, when you`re running for president you have to be in front of cameras all the time. So, issues like -- you know, there`s sometimes things pop up and we`ll contact offices. They just don`t get back to us, right? But when you`re out and there`s reporters around, you have to answer for everything, right? So everything that crops up -- Kasie Hunt`s going to be there with a microphone in front of Chris Christie or Marco Rubio. She`s extremely good at doing that, has been doing it all cycle so far, asking that question. And you`re not going to be able to avoid her. CONFESSORE: Yes. I mean, the good news, again, like, Giuliani is not running for president and these other guys are going to have to deal with their own policies and their own issues. It is going to be hard. Like it`s a thoroughbred thing. You have to be ready to take all comers. You can`t duck and dodge questions when you`re running for president, period. HAYES: Nick Confessore, thank you very much. Really appreciate it. All right. Another disappointment for Obamacare doomsayers today. Plus, if you feel like this country is being sucked into yet another war, you`re right. It is partly the media`s fault. I will tell you why, ahead. HAYES: All right. Breaking news: there is a burning skyscraper in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. It`s quite an image there. Hundreds of people were evacuated, they`ve been evacuated, from one of the world`s tallest residential buildings, according to "Reuters". The building is actually called the Torch Tower. Flames shot out from two sides of the building as glass and metal fell down from a tower that`s 79 floors above ground. Residents of two other nearby buildings were also evacuated, a witness said. Authorities have no immediate word of the cause of the fire. NBC News has contacted the Dubai Marriott Harbor Hotel and Suites, which is directly across the street from the Torch Tower. A member of the concierge said, we can see the fire but have not been told to evacuate by the police of fire department. We can see police and fire departments on the scene. Smoke and flames are billowing from the windows at the Torch Tower. We are telling our guests to keep their windows closed. We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We were told by our good friends the Republicans that our actions would crush jobs and explode deficits and destroy the country. Their grand predictions of doom and gloom and death panels and Armageddon haven`t come true. Sky hasn`t fallen. Chicken Little`s quiet. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Speaking at Democrats winter meeting today, President Obama took a victory lap on the policy that was supposed to be his party`s biggest liability -- quite possibly the most controversial item American policy of the last five years, even in a generation in certain ways, Obamacare. And now that it`s the law of the land, it is largely seen to be working, the president joked that Republicans seemed to have forgotten the apocalyptic scenario they predicted Obamacare would unleash. Lots of people remember, however, including Vox.com`s Sarah Kliff, who made a handy list of exploded Obamacare prediction this week. Republicans predicted that health care costs would skyrocket and then premiums came in lower than expected. Republicans predicted it would blow up the deficit -- but the deficit has dropped under Obama`s presidency even as the Affordable Care Act has been implemented. And as a percentage of GDP, the deficit is now below the average of the past 40 years. Republicans predicted that Obamacare would destroy jobs but job growth has continued as Obamacare`s been rolled out and last year was the best year for job creation since 1999. After a disastrous Web site launch, Republicans predicted government would never be able to pull it together and get millions of people enrolled in health insurance plans. But a surge in late enrollments basically made up for the troubled rollout. At one point, Republicans were predicting it wouldn`t actually get more people insured. This is true, they said this -- that it would just shift people on to different plans. But new polling shows the uninsured rate is dropping quite significantly under Obamacare. And perhaps the biggest, baddest prediction Republicans made was that Obamacare would destroy American free enterprise, that it would harm businesses, it would strangle with burdensome regulations. A new reporting from "Bloomberg" today from the heart of American enterprise tells a different story, as Obamacare is being greeted with a collective shrug. Quoting Bloomberg, "Obamacare is putting such a small dent in the profits of U.S. companies that many refer to its impact as, quote, `not material or not significant,` according to a Bloomberg review of conference call transcripts and interviews with major U.S. employers." Joining me now, Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and a former chief economist for Vice President Biden. Jared, where does what`s happening now line up with your own personal predictions of where this law would be? JARED BERNSTEIN, CENTER ON BUDGET & POLICY PRIORITIES: It lines up very well, particularly regarding the last part you talked about, the Bloomberg piece today about businesses. When the law was designed, I was there at the time, one of the things that we wanted to try to do was make this as least disruptive as possible for businesses because America`s unique in this way, as you know. Most people of working age get their health insurance through the job. So, that`s a very big deal. If you want something to get over the legislative hurdles that that plan had to get over, you`ll have to work with the employer community to make sure that it isn`t disruptive to the business model. So, in fact the way the law was written, it was to minimize the impact on businesses, many of whom were already providing health care, those who weren`t were not going to be required to do so in many cases. So, I can`t say I`m very surprised about that. HAYES: There`s also the degree to which the cost curve is being bent. I mean, this was the thing -- BERNSTEIN: That`s surprising. HAYES: Yes, that is surprising, right? I mean, this is something -- in some ways remains a little bit, sort of like the drop it crime -- it remains a mystery. There are alternating theories why it is happening. What is your understanding of this? I mean, in some ways, this should be the most celebrated because we just spend as a total way, way too much on health care in this country. BERNSTEIN: Absolutely. I mean, I can tell you that from conversations with the president, before he was president, that his major motivation for trying to bring Obama -- what`s now Obamacare to fruition was precisely this point. I mean, the guy just really doesn`t like inefficient spending and the fact that we continue to spend twice as much as a share of GDP relative to our competitors on health care without better outcomes is obviously a huge fiscal issue. Now, when I say that I think it is surprising how much this cost issue has evolved in a favorable way, I`m not saying that I didn`t think that the bill would have this impact on cost. It`s the magnitudes. Let me give you one extremely impressive number that I really haven`t heard thrown around very much. Back in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office told us how much health care was going to cost over the next 10 years and it was many hundreds of billions of dollars. It did not include Obamacare, and Obamacare ain`t free. Now, when they re-estimated the cost of health care, it`s going to be $600 billion less, according to their projections, than it was before Obamacare was in place. That`s the magnitude of the savings. HAYES: That -- do you feel like people understand that? At a certain level, this is the classic example of the press doesn`t -- the media doesn`t cover the planes that land, just the ones that crash, right? There is no conflict over Obamacare. We covered the Web site rollout because it was a smoking roon, and we don`t cover this. But it is amazing the sort of quiet that surrounds what has been among many metrics a tremendous success. BERNSTEIN: I once asked a journalist friend of mine this question -- why no articles about how well this is working. And he responded, well, where`s the fun in that? So, look, I think that this is -- not to be a fiscal wonk about it, because it is not just fiscal wonkery. If we`ve -- if this progress against the rising cost of health care continues, people have to realize how much fiscal oxygen that gives us -- HAYES: Right. BERNSTEIN: -- to devote resources to so many other things that are important. So in many ways, the president`s original motivation for pursuing this path is precisely this issue and it`s being realized, as you suggest, more than people can imagine. HAYES: There is an item today about healthcare.gov sending users the wrong tax information. About 800,000 people got the wrong tax information -- BERNSTEIN: Right. HAYES: -- which is a screw-up, we should note as we`re talking about how successful it`s been. BERNSTEIN: Right. HAYES: And to me, it highlights one of the other sort of hidden parts of the iceberg here that we briefly saw surface during the Web site rollout is, when people say this is complicated, it is incredibly complicated. In some ways, it`s kind of a marvel that the amount of different working parts have been brought together to create the system as smoothly as it has been created. BERNSTEIN: I think that`s right. And this is a screw-up. Luckily, it doesn`t affect nearly as many people as what you correctly called the disastrous rollout. But it does mean that some people are going to have to delay filing their taxes because they got incorrect information based on their subsidies and that is, and kind of year-one glitch that, in my humble opinion, shouldn`t occur but does occur. In the scheme of things, it is the kind of thing that the IRS is going to be able to fix I think pretty handily. But a couple of -- but, you know, about 800,000 people will have delayed returns. HAYES: Yes. And if you`re one of those people, I think you have every right to be angry. BERNSTEIN: I agree. HAYES: Jared Bernstein, thank you very much. BERNSTEIN: Thank you. HAYES: It seems like U.S. dietary guidelines are always changing. Eggs are good for you. Well, wait, eggs will kill you. So, then, why should we follow the latest set? I will ask celebrity chef and MSNBC`s newest correspondent Tom Colicchio, ahead. Stick around for that. HAYES: Last night, we showed you a chart. And if you think the U.S. is being sucked back into the quick sands of Iraq, this chart might cause you further concern. Show support for the use of U.S. ground troops against ISIS exceeding 50 percent for the first time, and as you can see, rising over time. That chart didn`t happen on its own. Two things have driven this chart to look the way it does. One, is ISIS` graphic slickly produced propaganda meant to make people loathe and fear them. Brutal murders put on tape spread as far and wide as they can. And the other thing that`s happened is the media exercising little, if any, discretion or sense of proportion in broadcasting those images -- the eagerness to carelessly, breathlessly cover those atrocities with a tenor that`s increasingly detached from the magnitude of the threat itself. It can be illustrated by the media`s treatment of ISIS` leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNDIENTIFIED FEMALE: And the head of this band of savages is a man named Abu al-Baghdadi, the new Osama bin Laden. And when Baghdadi left the camp Bucca where the worst of the worst were held in Iraq, he threatened his American jailers saying, "I`ll see you in New York." UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He said this, quote, "I`ll see you guys in New York." BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDETN: One U.S. official tells CNN he is, quote, "a psychopath, headstrong, a religious zealot with an apocalyptic end of days vision." UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I don`t care if you live in Beaumont, Texas, New York City or Anaconda, Montana, you need to be afraid. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Now anyone consuming this over the last six months can hardly be faulted for thinking ISIS is on its way to Cleveland prepared to murder its citizens. We`ve seen this before. In the run-up to the Iraq war, a period now almost unanimously seen as a low point for American journalism. The media spending hours, day in, day out, talking about the threat of Saddam Hussein. And not just the threat of weapons of mass destruction, later debunked, but what about a monster Saddam Hussein was. And that latter part, well that was never debunked, because he was a monster, an absolute monster. That was part true. As true as the stuff about ISIS being barbaric and monstrous is true. But what we learned from 2003, I thought, was that someone or some entity being monstrous and horrible and evil is not a good enough reason to go to war with them. And it looks like we`re about to repeat that mistake. HAYES: Big day for eaters. The brand-new dietary recommendations from the nation`s top nutrition panel, which convenes every five years and helps to set federal nutrition guidelines, contains stark warnings about our national obsession with sugar. Right now Americans consume 22 to 30 teaspoons of added sugar a day. To put that into perspective, the USDA estimates we are consuming about 70 pounds of sugar per person per year. A new report from the dietary guidelines advisory committee recommends we cut back our sugar consumption to 12 teaspoons a day, per adult. And in a move that angered meat producers, the panel also recommended the U.S. population should be encouraged and guided to consume dietary patterns that are lower in red and processed meat. As far as what we can eat, the panel says that coffee is for the most part OK -- awesome -- three to five cups a day can be part of a healthy diet -- or you know 15 to 30 like I do. And the panel dropped its long-standing recommendation to limit cholesterol rich foods. Vice chair saying, quote, "for many years the cholesterol recommendation has been carried forward, but the data just doesn`t support it. Here to help us make sense of the new guidelines is Tom Colicchio, chef and MSNBC`s very first food correspondent. Welcome aboard, Tom. TOM COLICCHIO, MSNBC FOOD CORRESPONDENT: Thank you. HAYES: I`m very excited, too, that I`m going to be hosting Top Chef next year. So, that`s very exciting all around. OK, so here is my feeling about these nutritional guidelines, it does feel like you get pinged around by them. They change from year to year. There was this period of like fat is bad and carbohydrates are good. And then this huge change now where fat is good and carbohydrates, particularly sugars is bad. So how do we make sense of that? COLICCHIO: Well, I think you`ve got to take a step back and look at - - sort of the 1970s when Earl Buck (ph) famously said get big or get out. And what did that do? We created huge sort of subsidies to grow more corn and more corn and more corn. What did we do with all this corn? We turn it into a sweetener. So right around 1980, the recommendations were to lower the intake of fat. And so what are the process -- the companies that make processed food? They take the fat out and replace it with sugar. HAYES: Because -- from a taste perspective, right? Like those were two sources of taste. You take the fat out, you have got to replace it with something. COLICCHIO: You`ve got to replace it with something: replace it with sugar. So, now people are eating a low-fat diet but still putting on weight. We have an obesity epidemic and that goes right back to sugar. So, this shouldn`t be a mystery to people. And so -- but then, you know, the real issue though is people don`t follow these dietary guidelines. And so how do you create the incentives for people to stop eating sugar? Are should we tax it? Now they did this in Berkeley. They passed a soda tax in Berkeley, a similar measure failed in San Francisco. Soda industry spent about $9.1 million to defeat that. And last week there was a bill that went through the California legislature to tax soda in California. So maybe the answer is not so much the guidelines, although it is great to have these guidelines, but somehow we need to change behavior. HAYES: Well, part of what`s weird about the soda tax debate to me gets back to this issue that you raise which is we`re subsidizing so much, the creation of the sweetener on the front end. It is such a weird system where we`ll grow all this corn, turn the corn to corn syrup, put the corn syrup in stuff, and then we`re going to tax it on the back end. COLICCHIO: And then spend $180 billion a year in health care costs because of it. HAYES: Right. The sugar stuff, does it seem -- the sugar stuff, I saw the documentary. I`ve watched the Robert Lustig (ph) has this amazing YouTube talk which we can put up on our Facebook page, Facebook.com/AllInwithChris,that talks about sugar almost as kind of a poison. I mean, do you buy the literature on sugar right now? COLICCHIO: Yeah. I really do. My brother, for instance, he was diagnosed with diabetes, my older brother. And he decided he didn`t want to go on medication and stripped sugar out of his diet, lost 60 pounds and he`s no longer diabetic. HAYES: And the diabetes rates. I mean, that is pretty clearly linked to sugar as well. How much of what comes out of these nutritional guidelines is massaged by lobbyists? I mean, that`s the other thing, right. When we think about this process, we know behind the scenes you`ve got everyone working every angle on what those guidelines are going to look like. COLICCHIO: Again, the CNR debate is coming up, you know, school lunch. And these guidelines are squarely aimed at school lunch. 30 million children a day are eating lunch in the school rooms and they are trying to cut sugar out of the school rooms. What`s going to happen, the lobbyists are going to fight this tooth and nail. Lobbyists are also going to fight recommendations for sugar because who`s going to -- who is out on this one? The soda industry. And so, lobbyists are going to be churning and burning right now. HAYES: As a -- when you think about this flavor question, it sort of is interesting to me. Right? Like the fat/sugar thing. As someone who -- as a cook, right, like how do you think about that when you`re thinking about the sources of flavor in a meal or if someone is cooking at home. COLICCHIO: Well, it`s a -- you can use sugar in putting together a recipe and you know after a while you start to understand what it does, it rounds out some flavor but you try not to do it because it really is a copout. You don`t need to. It was like years and years ago when cream went into everything, because it is easy to make a sauce with cream. It`s much easier to do that than to make a reduction out of stock and things like that. And so... HAYES: So it becomes a sort of flavor short cut. COLICCHIO: It is a short cut. And that`s why I think there is such an appeal for Asian food, especially. It is very sweet. You have a combination of sweet and salty and acid, and it all works together nicely but you don`t realize it, you don`t recognize it. And if you`re cooking without sugar, you have to actually almost be a better cook. You have got to get those natural sugars out of the food through cooking as opposed to through adding. HAYES: You know, the other day I was looking at -- you know, I have a toddler and a 10, almost 11-month-old. And toddlers, like toddlers, like she loves ketchup, right, so it`s like eggs, we`ll give you ketchup. And like you don`t realize how much sugar is in ketchup until you pick it up and you`re like, oh, I`m just taking your -- I`m just dousing -- the reason you like this so much is I`m dousing sugar. COLICCHIO: But that`s actually evolutionary. That -- you know, we`re actually born with sugar receptors that are actually more developed early on because back when we were cavemen, the alkaline things that were bitter actually would kill you. And so it was a way to actually evolve and survive. HAYES: And that`s why those kids go -- that`s why it`s so dangerous - - dangerous -- but why it is so easy to give kids a bad unrounded meal is because they are trained by evolution to go for simple carbohydrates. They want french fries and ketchup. That`s all they want. And you have got to say no. Tom Colicchio, whose new show on Shift by MSNBC Stirring the Pot will start in the spring. Thanks for joining us. Great to have you, man. All right, what John Kirirakou, the only official who ever went to prison in connection with the CIA`s torture program learned from being in prison. Plus, how many political statements will the Academy Awards make on Sunday? There will be a lot of good opportunities. That`s ahead. HAYES: All right, there`s been an arrest in the January pipe bombing of a building that housed the NAACP in Colorado Springs. But, and this is important, the suspect, 44-year-old Thaddeus Murphy, reportedly was not targeting the NAACP that was in that building complex. Instead, Murphy reportedly told the FBI he was angry at an accountant who he believed had destroyed his tax records and who apparently operates out of the same building as the NAACP. According to an affidavit filed in district court, Murphy told the FBI he flipped out because of his financial problems and built the pipe bomb as a warning to the accountant. He has now charged been charged with arson and being a felon in possession of firearms. HAYES: Two very strange bedfellows just announced a highly unlikely partnership: Koch Industries and a left leaning Center for American progress are coming together to back a new organization called the Coalition for Public Safety advocating for criminal justice reform. In an age of non-violent trench warfare in congress, this seems to be one area where conservatives recognizing mass incarceration is part of big government, and liberals, recognizing its disproportionate impact on people of color and the poor, can find and are finding common ground. When it comes to criminal justice, there are two Americas: the America that rarely, if ever, has occasion to interact with the courts of the prison system and the America for whom those institutions are just part of life. And in my reporting career I`ve talked to some people from the first group who ended up crossing into the second and every single one of them have been shocked by what they found. One of those people is the former CIA officer I interviewed this week John Kiriakou, the only official to have served time in connection with the agency`s torture program. He just came home from a low security prison in Pennsylvania where he was sentenced after pleading guilty to intentionally disclosing the name of a covert agent. And he told me about his time behind bars. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN KIRIAKOU, FRM. CIA AGENT: It was a shock at first but I`m a wiley guy and I was highly trained by the agency and I`m not generally afraid of anybody. And so I used the skills that the CIA taught me over the years to what I call survive and thrive in prison. I made strategic alliances with Italian members of a certain popular subculture. HAYES: OK. KIRIAKOU: And we became very close. Once I was identified with the Italians, I was pretty much OK. I did well with the Aryans because I`m not a child molester and I`m not a rat. Those are two pretty much death sentences in prison. And just after I got to prison, Louis Farrakhan, of all people, made a very complementary statement about me in the Nation of Islam`s newspaper. So, a representative of the Nation of Islam in prison, which really in prison is more of a gang than a religion, came up to me and said you`re OK in our book. So, I was able to make these strategic alliances and I actually had a very easy time with it. HAYES: What was it like to be away from your three kids and your wife? KIRIAKOU: That was the hardest part. Every prisoner is allowed 300 telephone minutes a month if he can afford it. And so I was able to call for 15 minutes every other day and my wife and kids came to visit me every month. They were 8, 6 and 1 coming into a prison and being body scanned and having to put their shoes through the x-ray and then -- in one case being frisked, in another case being thrown out because of overcrowding. So it was hard month to month. That was the only thing that was really a challenge to me was getting along without my family. HAYES: What was it like the day that you got out? KIRIAKOU: It was really great. And you know, I was really blessed in prison, too, because the Italians had a big dinner for me and the Bloods -- you know, the street gang, the Bloods, the Crips and the Bloods, the Bloods had a nice dinner for me. I went back to my bunk and I said to my cellies, well, this is it. Tomorrow morning, I wish you guys all the best. Some of them are going to get out and some are probably going to die in prison. HAYES: What do you feel like you learned from prison? KIRIAKOU: I learned that our prison system is utterly broken. I learned that our prison system is inherently racist. I learned that judges have no concept whatsoever of time. For me, I got 30 months. I served 23. I learned my lesson. I`m sorry. I`m ready to go home. But if you grew a little weed in your yard, you`re going to do at least seven years. If you grew a little bit more than a little weed in your yard, you may be doing 30 years. It`s a lifetime. Congress needs to do something to address that. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES; Last week I visited a prison in Texas and I sat down with Rodney Reed who was convicted in the 1996 rape and murder of a woman named Stacy Steith (ph). He is scheduled to be executed in just under two weeks. That interview and the questions about his impending execution will be part of an All In America special next month. But you can see part of what Rodney Reed told me about life on death row right now on our Facebook page. Facebook.com/AllInWithChris. HAYES: Oscar time is here this Sunday. While the best picture race appears to be neck and neck between the films Boyhood and Birdman, much of the intrigue around this year`s award centers on the political controversies over American sniper and Selma. Hollywood reporter has an amazing interview today with an anonymous Oscar voter who describes her own brutally honest ballot, but in the process reveals the lot about the Academy and politics in Hollywood. Joining me now Janet Mock, host of So Popular on Shift by MSNBC and David Edelstein chief film critic for New York Magazine and commentator on CBS Sunday Morning. All right, I want to get to this Anonymous ballot voter first, but let`s just talk about favorites heading into this, what you think -- what you think the favorites are and what your favorites are? JANET MOCK, SO POPULAR: Well, I think Birdman is going to win all the top prizes. I think it already did that at the Producer`s Guild Award, the SAG Awards, and also the Director`s Guild Awards. HAYES: Which have increasingly become better predictors. MOCK: And kind of -- it swept all of those, so it kind of feels as if those branches are the ones that are voting for the Academy, then most likely it`s like that one is going to be the shoo-in for best actor, or director and also picture. HAYES: So you think -- do you agree with that, David, is that your sense of? DAVID EDELSTEIN, FILM CRITIC: Sadly, I like Boyhood but I think Birdman is going to trump it -- Boyhood -- I think it is a Birdman year. HAYES: The Boyhood thing is fascinating, because I can`t remember a movie that felt like it got as unanimous critical raves as that film. Like it was really exceptionally reviewed. And then there is this sense that you hear scuttlebutt that, like, oh its gimmicky or something. What happened to Boyhood`s mojo? EDELSTEIN: I don`t know. People have complained about the pacing of the movie. They`ve reacted to the critical buzz. I think in some ways some of these movies are better when people discover them on their own. When you send them to them, they go, wait a minute. What`s the big deal? Whereas Birdman, there`s no doubt it`s a spectacularly made movie. I mean it beats you into submission. And eventually you just want to go, OK, OK, you win. HAYES: What is your feeling about Boyhood? MOCK: I loved Boyhood. I think both Birdman and Boyhood kind of had this -- both had gimmicks, right. One was like single shot, then Boyhood had the whole 12-year thing. I liked Boyhood. It wasn`t my favorite. I love Patricia Arquettes and the adults in it, but I think that there was a piece of it that felt -- the documentary piece around the young people didn`t really resonate with me as much. HAYES: All right, so let`s talk about this anonymous voter. I guess Hollywood Reporter is doing a series of these I think. So here is a little -- this is about the kind of the sense a lot of people, that Selma had been snubbed, particularly the director not getting a best director nod, even though the film got best picture. As far as accusations about the Academy being racist, yes, most members are white males but they are not the cast of Deliverance. They had to get into the Academy to begin with so they`re not cretinous, snaggletoothed hillbillies. When a movie about black people is good, members vote for it. But if the movie isn`t that good, am I supposed to vote for it just because it has black people in it. Here`s what I about it this, it is every reason to hate Hollywood and the Academy from both the left and the right. The right thinks they`re a bunch of elitist liberals that look down at red America hence, snaggletooth hillbillies. And people on the left think that they`re basically a bunch of sort of like snobby white males who don`t get the diversity and its importance. EDELSTEIN: Chris, I just want to say, my view transcends politics. I just think they have bad taste. HAYES: Well, what do you think -- how representative do you think this is? MOCK: I think what it shows to me, how specific every single piece of her perspective was and how subjective she was. I think that of course demographics are an issue. I think of course Ava DuVernay probably wasn`t nominated as she said to Entertainment Weekly because she didn`t know a single person from her branch who was -- yes. And so I think a large piece of it is the demographics. The other piece of it is, it is highly subjective. This woman -- this anonymous woman kind of talked about how she loved Michael Keaton because he was nice and down to earth. And he will never have a chance again so she`s going to vote for him. HAYES: This is a really important point, right? Because it`s like there`s some way in which we think the -- there`s some objective criteria or like this is the grade, the final grade everyone gets. It is just a bunch of people. Like you could get another thousand people, have them all say -- and it is not clear that that would be any better or worse. EDELSTEIN: Chris, I have to say this. You know, there have been times when I`ve walked into the voting booth and I`ve looked at the judges and I`ve gone, that`s a nice name. That name is -- I don`t know about that name. That`s what I got the feeling, that`s about the kind of thought that goes into a lot of these Academy ballots. HAYES: Do you think they all have time to watch the stuff? That`s also my question, right. If you`re in the Academy, like are you making sure all the sound editing stuff, that you`ve watched all those films and you`ve made notes to yourself about what has the best sound editing? EDELSTEIN: Tell now, because of screeners. You cannot tell -- it used to be that people had to go and sit in a screening room and they couldn`t at the 15 minute mark go, well, this is kind of boring or speed it up. And a lot of the films really the power of something like Boyhood is to be in that space watching it with other people. It changes everything when it goes into the home and a person, a voter, has the element of control, meaning the remote... HAYES: That is a really good point. You could just sample -- you could cheat it. I saw 15 minutes of Birdman, I saw 15 minutes of Boyhood, I got the gist. American Sniper. So there is this -- it`s sort of Amazing me they`re like polling American Sniper, like America wants American Sniper to win. It is the most illegally downloaded movie. It`s... EDELSTEIN: Oh, that`s American. HAYES: I know, I love that. That`s a great stat. It has done incredibly well at the box office. What do you make of its chances on Sunday night? EDELSTEIN; I don`t think it is going to win because I think it does run counter to the politics of the Academy, un-American libtards that we know they are. Sorry, I`m just quoting my mail. But you know, Bradley Cooper has a chance to slip in. First of all, he`s extraordinary -- he`s well liked. He`s extraordinarily good. He manages to be kind of rock-hard and yet vulnerable at the same time. And the only category that really is up for grabs seems to be best actor. Keaton is the favorite. But there`s Eddie Redmayne who`s close behind. They could cancel each other out. I`m talking like a political pundit here rather than somebody who is making artistic judgments. HAYES: But that`s what we`re talking about, right. What do you think about American Sniper? What -- particularly I think of the politics of it in terms of how the Academy is thinking about it in that way? MOCK: I think what`s interesting for me in American Sniper and the new polling, of course it is getting hype because a lot of people saw it. HAYES: Right, that`s a really good point. MOCK: $300 million box office now? Like that`s insane. That`s a lot of money, that`s a lot of eyes on it. And I think also for me the piece that bothers me a little bit is the way that it`s a war film that`s depoliticized, right? So I think there is a lot of the context that`s gone and that many people have seen it, but probably doesn`t... EDELSTEIN; Depoliticizing is politicizing. HAYES: This has been argument around it to the degree to which it is. But it also strikes me if I were the political consultant of the Academy I would say like do yourself a favor, give American Sniper the Oscar and pat yourself on the back for like how much you are playing against type. But I don`t think we`re going to see that. Janet Mock and David Edelstein, thank you very much. Enjoy the Oscars That`s All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow show starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 21, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022001cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 97 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 20, 2015 Friday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 20, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Julia Nutter, Steve Benen GUESTS: Rashad Hussain, John Tsioris, Rocky Martin SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7464 words HIGHLIGHT: Interview with Rashad Hussain, special envoy for strategic counterterrorism communications at the State Department. President Obama speaking at the Democratic National Committee`s winter meeting today and having a very good time doing so. A gigantic apartment building in Dubai was on fire. CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Do you watch the Oscars every year, Chris? HAYES: Absolutely, 100 percent from the beginning to the end. MADDOW: Really? HAYES: Yes, always. MADDOW: Do you have opinions on whether or not it`s better from year to year, and host to host instruction structure? Or is it always great? HAYES: No, I don`t think it is always great. I think like -- the years when I can find the time to watch most of the nominees and cram that in are the years I enjoy it the most because then I feel worked up. And I feel like -- otherwise I feel like I`m watching two college football teams play that I didn`t go to either school. MADDOW: Right. HAYES: And I`m just like, I don`t know, you know? MADDOW: I think that`s my problem with the Oscars. The Grammys, I`m right there. With the Oscars, I`ve never seen anything. HAYES: If you don`t have a dog in the fight, it is harder to get amped up about it. MADDOW: Exactly. It`s like watching cricket between two countries I`ve never been to, in my case. Anyway, thank you, Chris. Have a good weekend. HAYES: (INAUDIBLE) (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. OK. We got a lot coming up tonight. It`s Friday night, so we have also got a lot of news dump. We`ve also got a lot of news and we`ve got a really, really good guest here tonight for the interview, somebody who`s doing his first live television interview since getting a really important job in the government. But here we go, it is an unusual source of hope for three British families tonight that had the city of Istanbul in Turkey has no freaking idea how to deal with large amounts of snow. Much like our cities here in the Southeast that got whacked by snow this week -- and the cities -- you know, nothing against the cities but they have no idea how to deal with it. Much like what`s going on in the American Southeast this week. Istanbul in Turkey is also not used to getting a ton of snow but they got like a foot of snow this week. They shut down the airport. They diverted tons and tons of international flights, including some that were already in the air before they got diverted. One shop keeper in Istanbul got so upset by a group of guys having a snowball fight outside his shop that he stormed out of his shop and stabbed a guy. Apparently, he did not realize that snowballs actually are not a deadly threat either to him or his shop. People who live in Istanbul don`t have snow tires or four-wheel drive cars. They have no idea who you to drive in the snow. In one day this week, when they got the heaviest snowfall, officials in Istanbul reported more than 800 car crashes in the city in that one day, 800. But Istanbul being shut down by snow right now, it`s a minor weather story in its own right. It is a major story, a major potentially life or death story for the three families of these three teenage girls from England. These three teenage girls told their families in England on Tuesday morning that they were going off to school. Two of them are 15 years old. One is 16 years old. They`re all good friends. They`re all "A" students in high school in Britain. They told their families what they were going to school. What they did instead was turn up at Gatwick Airport in London. They got on a Turkish airways flight to Istanbul. Their families now believe they were planning to land in Turkey, and then cross the border from turkey into Syria to go join ISIS. And the families` major source of hope right now is that they may be able to stop these girls by virtue of the fact that Turkey has been socked in by this huge snowstorm and that has pretty much stopped anybody from being able to travel anywhere efficiently in big parts of that country and that is their hope. That is their hope right now. Today, the metropolitan police in London made a public appeal for anybody who might know anything that might stop these three British schoolgirls before they get to Syria, before they get to ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: The three girls walk through security at London`s Gatwick airport showing no hint of their intentions. They flew to Istanbul, bound for Syria, officials fear, to join ISIS. Shamima Begum, 15, Kadiza Sultana, 16, and another 15-year-old whose parents asked not to be named raised alarm bells when they didn`t come home Tuesday night. RICHARD WALTON, METROPOLITAN POLICE: These three families had no idea of the intentions of their daughters. No idea whatsoever that they were going to be traveling to Turkey and that they intended to go to Syria. REPORTER: They were known as normal teenagers, good students. But on Begum one Twitter account Sunday, a message to a female ISIS member, a known recruiter, asking for a private conversation. The three girls are known to be close friends and in the same form here at Bethnal Green Academy. But it has emerged that they were also friends with a fourth girl who traveled from Gatwick last December. She`s in Syria now and it`s thought her journey may have inspired them. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: That`s reporting both from NBC News and from ITV in London today. About these three London schoolgirls about whom the British police have issued a public alert, hoping that these girls can be found before they end up with ISIS in Syria. Also today, NBC just put together some remarkable reporting. They found a 16-year-old boy who had joined ISIS in Syria as a 15-year-old. He became one of ISIS` child soldiers. He was wounded fighting alongside is and everything. He ultimately, though, became disillusioned and he quit ISIS. NBC`s Jamie Novogrod found this kid in hiding in Turkey and just did this remarkable interview with him. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES NOVOGROD, NBC NEWS: Sixteen-year-old Khaled (ph) says he is lost and on the run. We found him in this Turkish city near the border with Syria. He agreed to an interview on the condition that we not show his face. KHALED (through translator): I`m not afraid here but I`m afraid of ISIS. NOVOGROD: Khaled was once part of ISIS. He didn`t like it so he escaped. ISIS calls its child soldiers "Lion Cubs of the Caliphate". It celebrates them in propaganda videos like this one. Children are trained to use a rifle, given classes in religion, and taught to love ISIS and hate its enemies. Then, the children are sent into combat. For Khaled, that day came sooner than he expected. His camp was attacked only two weeks after he had first picked up a gun. Four ISIS fighters were killed. Khaled was shot in the neck. He was terrified and he missed home. His mother heard he had been wounded and she found him at the ISIS camp. What did she say to you? KHALED: She said, "Take care of yourself." NOVOGROD: He can`t continue telling his story without crying. Two months later, Khaled managed to escape across the border to Turkey. He now lives in hiding, sleeping in a cheap hotel. What would you say to a young person who came up to you and said, "I`m thinking about joining ISIS." KHALED: I will tell him my whole story. I will tell him don`t do it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Jamie Novogrod giving that remarkable interview for NBC News today. Whether it is boys from Syria, like that 16-year-old kid, or teenagers from the West, apparently like these three girls from East London whose parents are desperately looking for them right now, ISIS brags about using young people using teenagers, using kids. They do it in those propaganda videos. They also do it online in their social media presence. Here for example is a pro-ISIS Twitter account, posting a picture of child soldiers from an ISIS propaganda video and the tweet says, in English, there you can see it, "The bravest of men here are between the ages of 11 and 13. The sleeping lion is now been awoken." You can see from the stats there, didn`t get a huge amount of traffic. That tweet was retweeted 20 times. It was favorited 12 times. But you know what else that tweet got? It got a direct response from the U.S. State Department. On the State Department Twitter account that`s called "Think Again/Turn Away", they respond directly to that guy`s tweet, that guy bragging about the ISIS child soldiers and calling those 11-year- old kids "brave men." Look at the State Department response. They`re writing directly to this guy. "It takes men with absolutely no honor to rob children of their innocence, encourage them to kill, use them as cannon fodder." Just sort of fighting it out online, right? Having this argument online about these child soldiers, these kids. ISIS does these super slickly produced propaganda videos. They have a big slick social media presence. It is part of how they are able to recruit Muslim kids from all over the world so aggressively. And it`s interesting, the most visible fight against ISIS in that space online where they operate so effectively, the most visible fighters against them online have actually been the hackers who hate them. You might remember right after the "Charlie Hebdo" attacks in Paris, the hacker collective "Anonymous," the Guy Fawkes mask as their symbol, they basically declared online war against ISIS after the "Charlie Hebdo" attacks. They put this video saying any organizations or enterprises linked to ISIS or the "Charlie Hebdo" attacks should expect a massive reaction from Anonymous. We are tracking you down, we will find you and never leave you any rest. They did this threatening video. They published a big long list of Web sites and Twitter accounts that they said were affiliated with ISIS and were ISIS supporters. And Anonymous, this group, just systematically started taking all of these things down, just knocking them all offline. I remember the first day they posted this stuff, we went through the list of all the Web sites, we`ve been trying to get to one, they had all been knocked offline. Well, now, they started another round of that. Anonymous has posted a new list of hundreds of other Twitter feeds and social media accounts that they say are linked to terrorists and terrorist propaganda, specifically to ISIS. And as hackers, Anonymous has targeted those Web sites and those social media accounts and knocked them offline. But you know, they really are just an anonymous collective of random hackers, right? I mean Anonymous is really nothing official. And as they have been going after is online and knocking off all of these Twitter accounts and social media accounts and Web sites, they have also recently in the last few days given a friendly nudge to governments and to companies like Twitter -- saying, hey, if we`re just a bunch of hackers doing this at home in our pajamas and we can attack ISIS like this, you can, too, governments of the world. How come you guys are not doing more of this? Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANONYMOUS: Greetings, citizens of the world, governments and corporations. We are Anonymous. First, our message to ISIS. ISIS, we will hunt you, take down your sites, accounts, e-mails, and expose you. This time, we will expose your new Twitter accounts. With our last operation, ISIS, we show the world and especially governments, it`s not that hard to fight back ISIS online. So, why no government doing it, they don`t know how, or they don`t want to. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: It is so weird to engage with the talking computer voice Guy Fawkes mask guy, right? But there is how Anonymous communicates. And Anonymous is basically saying here, hey, we are able to totally disrupt ISIS online. Why do we have to do this? Shouldn`t governments be doing this? But then they make a very specific offer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANONYMOUS: We`re giving you new accounts that ISIS members and supporters have created since then. We`re not trying to tell you how to do your job, but just trying to help out. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: We`re just trying to help out. Yes, your friendly neighborhood, global, shadowy network of spooky hackers. I mean, it is really nice that they`re against ISIS, right? They`re going to destroy somebody online. If you had to pick one, you`d have them destroy ISIS online, right? But Anonymous is also basically challenging governments and also tech companies, saying that what they`re doing is not that hard. More can be done to shut ISIS down in terms of their online presence, their online propaganda, their online social networking. Well, this week the U.S. government said -- basically, the U.S. government said, yes. The U.S. government this week said they are upping what they are doing against ISIS online, in terms of ISIS` online recruiting and their online presence and their online propaganda. And the U.S. government has just put a new guy in charge of those efforts. He`s the newly designated -- wait, I have to get this right, it`s a long title -- special envoy for strategic counterterrorism communications at the State Department. He is the first American Muslim to hold this job or any job like it. His name is Rashad Hussain and he`s our guest tonight for "The Interview." This is his first live American TV interview since taking over this new post. Mr. Hussain, congratulations on your new gig. And thanks for being here. RASHAD HUSSAIN, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY: Thanks for having me, Rachel. MADDOW: So, let me ask you a layman`s question here, layman in terms of not understand being the overall strategy here. Do you fight ISIS online by taking their stuff down, by closing their accounts, by trying to wipe them off the web, or do you fight them online by leaving them up but trying to compete with their message instead? HUSSAIN: Well, the challenge that we`re facing online is that terrorists around the world are in many cases using perverted interpretation of Islam and they`re playing off the grievances of people around the world, particularly disaffected young people and trying to recruit them to their ideology. They are offering a message which they say provides a sense of purpose, a sense of meaning and a sense of religious obligation. So, it`s our obligation to work with our international partners around the world to provide an alternative message and to promote positive alternatives. We want to amplify facts that we believe speak for themselves. And if you hear the voices and the arguments of former radicals as the ones that you just profiled on your show, and you hear the voices of Muslims around the world that have rejected their message and you amplify the fact that Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of terror attacks overseas, and we believe that we can provide a counter message that as powerful. Now, there are parts of our government that will do the more covert parts of this project, taking down Web sites and things like that. But our focus and what we are doing is working with our international partners and coming up with initiatives to prevent violent extremism, to also work in the online space to coordinate our messaging as the United States government. And so, we believe that there is a role for government. But, obviously, there is a huge role for civil society and there`s a huge role for our partners around the world, often times which will be in many cases credible with audiences in their immediate geographical regions. MADDOW: Everybody says that ISIS is so good at their online presence. Obviously, we can see from the quality of their propaganda films that they`re very good at video editing and special effects, stuff like that. But in terms of how they recruit online and how they reach people online and the way their message resonates online, why are they -- why are they so effective? What is actually so good about what they do? HUSSAIN: Well, we have to acknowledge the fact that they are playing off of grievances that in many cases are widely held around the world. They`re playing off the grievance of Muslim suffering. They say that 200,000 to 300,000 people have been killed in Syria and they make the point that the world isn`t doing anything about it. We have to counter those facts, put the right facts out there. They play off this notion of the caliphates which many Muslims around the world look at and, quite frankly, those that are uneducated don`t understand. So they make this argument that once the caliphate has been established, that Muslims around the world have to go there and fight. Now there are people that have grievances around the world and may be disaffected for a number of reasons, and that combines with this violent ideology they`re putting out and creates a dangerous combination. There`s grievances about lack of opportunity, economic opportunity. There`s political grievances in many cases against their own governments for suppression, political expression, for violations of human rights, for violations of freedom of religion, for example. And so, they play off those grievances and try to have a hook which provides a sense of meaning and purpose and religious obligation which in many cases can be very powerful. MADDOW: Can I ask you one specific question about something that emerged in the news today? There were some reports today that al Arabiya has obtained some really specific identifying personal information about Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, about the self-proclaimed leader of the caliphate and ISIS. That sort of thing -- I mean, whether that information turns out to be true, is that sort of thing potentially strategically helpful, making that kind of personal information about ISIS leaders, public, is that a way of going after these guys? Is that a way of interrupting their self- aggrandizing narrative about themselves? HUSSAIN: I think one of the most powerful techniques that we can use, is to use their actions. I mean, their actions and the facts speak for themselves. Look what they`ve done over the last months. You`ve seen brutal executions in Libya. We`ve seen the Jordanian pilot that`s burned alive. There is nothing in Islam which permits this. In fact, these actions are prohibited. To the extent, they are recruiting young Muslims from around the world, we have to be clear when they are calling people to defend Islam and Muslims, that what they`re actually doing is harming Islam and Muslims more. And it`s oftentimes our partners around the world, governmental partners and more importantly, non-governmental partners that will be essential in making that message. I have had the opportunity to have honest conversations with Muslims around the world. What they`ll tell you is that they`ll acknowledge that many of these actions are happening in different parts of the world in the name of Islam. But they`ll also say that what`s also true is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject these actions, Muslims are overwhelming the victims of these actions. Incredible Muslim voices and leaders have spoken out. But despite that, Muslim communities around the world are often the targets of unfair treatment because of actions that are occurring in the name of Islam. So, Muslims are constantly having to play defense on these issues and deal with discrimination whether they`re trying to go about their own daily lives and their careers. They do believe that they have an obligation to speak up with this and they`re doing their part, but there is a challenge. It`s what the president and secretary have called a generational challenge. It`s something that we`re going to be working on over the next couple of years. MADDOW: Rashad Hussain, the new special envoy and coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications at the State Department -- Mr. Hussain, again, congratulations on this really important new job. Thanks for being here tonight. I appreciate it. HUSSAIN: Thanks. Great to be with you, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. Fascinating stuff. Imagine if that`s your job -- make ISIS sound dumb in the world. You know what I mean? Like make their arguments not stick anymore. That`s incredibly important work. And, you know, it feels like the government lass to make a decision to try to do that. And it makes sense as a strategy whether it comes to actually the tactics of how you do it, it`s fascinating stuff and an incredible task that people couldn`t have even imagined a role for our government in doing, even one generation ago. All right. Lots more ahead in tonight`s show, including President Obama showing what I believe is fair to call undisguised joy in public. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRICIA MCKINNEY, TRMS SENIOR POLANNING PRODUCER: Hello. It`s swag time. OK. Possible gifts for winners. MADDOW: I think you`re trying to sell me something. MCKINNEY: I know, yes. So we found this thing. I don`t even know. It is a clock and the numbers are all in the wrong place and nobody knows. MADDOW: It doesn`t have a battery in it. MCKINNEY: It does work. We had a battery in it. MADDOW: With the battery from it, it spins at least, even though we can`t -- MCKINNEY: It does work. We have no memory of why this is part of our show. MADDOW: OK. MCKINNEY: OK. This is a blast from 2010. MADDOW: Oh! That`s the coloring book. We did a segment on this. MCKINNEY: Yes, it`s actually, what I like it is full of pages colored by RACHEL MADDOW SHOW staffers. MADDOW: People do this like a little time-out? MCKINNEY: We covered this on the show. Nobody will cop to this, the one who actually colored it. But we have people colored it and look, there`s a little paint, there`s no Senate -- MADDOW: Go, Tea Party! MCKINNEY: Yes, that could be fun. MADDOW: OK. Yes. MCKINNEY: Then the last thing is we found this briefcase. The puppet play house representatives it says but we can`t open it because we can`t -- MADDOW: It`s locked? MCKINNEY: It`s locked. Well, we got one side to open so you can kind of peek in. MADDOW: You can peek in and make sure -- but the other side -- MCKINNEY: The other side we can`t get open. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Oh my God! We are so sending this! We have to make sure whoever we send it to is kind of cool with the mystery. Or handy with a lock. MCKINNEY: Or handy with a lock. I think tonight`s player could be good with that. MADDOW: Ding, ding, ding. MCKINNEY: That`s excellent. MADDOW: So, we have some visually striking breaking news tonight from the city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Look at this. Just a few hours ago, we started getting first reports that this gigantic apartment building in Dubai was on fire. I am not saying this to be cheeky or anything but the name of this building is The Torch. That`s what people call it. It is the actual name, the Marina Torch. The Torch is a huge building. It has 79 floors. Eyewitness reports tonight say the fire started around the 50th floor. Maybe even a little higher. If you know anything about firefighting challenges, that is a freakin` nightmare. The fire appears to have broken out on the 50th floor or thereabouts in the predawn hours. Local time. Officials in Dubai say everybody`s been evacuated from the tower. People say there are no reports of injuries at this time. "Reuters" is reporting this in addition to the hundreds evacuated from the burning building itself, residents of at least a couple buildings nearby were also evacuated for their safety. One witness told NBC News tonight that the fire at one point spread about 15 floors beyond where it started, driven up into the other parts of the building by what he described as a huge wind. He said he lives on the 27th floor and when he looked out his window he saw fire raining down from the windows above. In these booming cities like Dubai where construction has been going so fast and the buildings are rising so tall, there has been a question as to how safe the buildings are to be inside in the event of a fire. Now, it appears that another question is whether it is safe to be near a skyscraper that`s burning like this. People in Dubai tonight describe watching not just flames, but also debris falling from this giant tower and into buildings nearby and into the street. Tonight`s blaze is the fourth large fire in a residential tower in the Emirates since 2012. After the last one, one expert warned publicly that about 70 percent of the very high-rise buildings in Dubai are wrapped in construction material that is considered to be highly combustible. We don`t know yet whether that estimate includes this specific building, the Torch Tower. But Dubai is a city of super, super tall buildings. And even among Dubai`s many super tall skyscrapers, this one that caught fire tonight, it stands out. The Torch is the fourth-tallest building in Dubai that is designed for people to live in. But again, the news tonight is that a very large fire broke out in the skyscraper in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, broke out overnight, apparently somewhere around the 50th floor. We are told tonight that residents were evacuated safely. At this point we don`t have any reports of injuries. But we`re joined right now by John Chorus. We just showed one of his tweets, in fact. He lives across the street from the Torch. He was evacuated tonight once it caught fire. Mr. Tsioris, thanks so much for joining us. I know it is very late at night there. Thanks for being with us. JOHN TSIORIS, DUBAI TOWER FIRE EYEWITNESS (via telephone): Hi, Rachel. Thanks a lot. It`s my pleasure. MADDOW: How did you find out that the fire was happening? What did you see? TSIORIS: Well, actually, I was asleep because it was 3:00 a.m., and basically the room came quite bright so at that point I was also starting to hear fire alarms and police are out there and the fire departments. So, from the noise and everything, but mainly because the room was litten. I eventually woke up and I opened my balcony door. I`m actually on the 45th floor, so I`m very close to the actual fire where it took place, a matter of 100 feet or so. MADDOW: Wow. TSIORIS: Yes. It was over there, right in front of me. MADDOW: Could you tell how much of the building was involved, how many floors, or how much of the building`s circumference was affected? TSIORIS: Yes. So, actually, when I woke up, it was only about two to three floors. But it really accelerated quite fast in a matter of like 20 to 30 minutes, at most. It reached I think like 15 floors above. So I was actually quite worried so actually myself and two more friends of mine, we started to evacuate, to leave the neighboring building. MADDOW: Mr. Tsioris, Dubai is so famous for its incredibly tall skyscrapers and for the speed with which they`ve gone up in a very short number of years. In terms of this fire tonight, and you getting out and people in that building getting out, did it seem like there was an orderly, well-understood way that the authorities were handling this and keeping people safe? Did it feel like they had it under control once people realized what was going on? TSIORIS: I think overall the civil department reacted quite well and we see that also from the fact that the fire was extinguished quite quickly. Yes. I think overall my feeling was good, although I did get worried some time from the sparks, pieces of debris were falling from around, I don`t know, 500 feet. MADDOW: Yes. TSIORIS: Because I was on balcony, I was still seeing quite a few people walking if the area where the debris was falling. MADDOW: John Tsioris, who was across the street, only about 100 feet away from the skyscraper in Dubai tonight, and who is safe. We`re told that everybody has been safely evacuated from the scene tonight. The skyscraper fire, just alarming to see these pictures. Mr. Tsioris, thanks for helping us understand what happened. Good luck to you tonight. TSIORIS: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: All right. Wow. Those pictures are incredible. Again, the bottom line with that fire is that it is extinguished now. It burned for a few hours, not exactly sure of the extent of the damage to the building. But miraculously, or at least happily, no damage there. All right. We`ve got a lot still ahead tonight, including the Friday Night News Dump and a first here on this show: half-priced Canadian underpants make the news today. And therefore, make their RACHEL MADDOW SHOW debut. My mom will be so proud. Stay with us. MADDOW: Last year in early September, the former governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, and his wife, were both convicted on multiple felony corruption charges. He was convicted of 11 felonies, she was convicted of eight. For those convictions, Governor Bob McDonnell was sentences to January to serve two years in federal prison. His wife, Maureen McDonnell, was sentenced today. But not before the sentencing judge excoriated Governor Bob McDonnell and his defense team for having used a, quote, "throw mama off the train" defense in trying to excuse his crimes by blaming the whole thing on her. Well, today we found out what Maureen McDonnell`s sentence will be for her crimes. And that`s coming up. MADDOW: So, apparently, one of the things that happens in year six of a presidency -- at least in year six of this presidency -- is that a high proportion of the time that a president gives a speech now, he seems like he`s have something the time of his life. The man just seems happy. He seems like he`s having a good time and enjoying being president. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And now that their grand predictions of doom and gloom and death panels and Armageddon haven`t come true, sky hasn`t fallen. Chicken Little`s quiet. (LAUGHTER) The new plan apparently of congressional Republicans -- and this is progress -- the new plan is to rebrand them self-as the party of the middle class. Not making this up. Our Republican leader in the Senate, as he was coming in, after having tried to block every single thing that we have done to strengthen the economy, starts looking at job numbers and says, you know, it`s getting better because we just got elected. And people are feeling more optimistic. (LAUGHTER) Which -- OK. I didn`t know that`s how the economy worked, but maybe. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Obama speaking at the Democratic National Committee`s winter meeting today and having a very good time doing so. The Democrats are about a month in to this new Congress in which they are the minority in both houses. So, President Obama was there, in part, today to turn their frowns upside down. But also to basically set the tone for how he thinks Democrats ought to wage their side of the argument, heading into 2016. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I always find it curious that when a Democrat`s president, deficits go down, Republican`s president, and then deficits are going up, and yet they try to take on the mantle of fiscal probity. Our auto industry is firing on all cylinders. None of this is an accident. It is not an accident that America is creating jobs faster than any time since the last time a Democrat was a president. (APPLAUSE) It`s not an accident that our manufacturers are creating jobs for the first time since the last time a Democrat was president. (APPLAUSE) It`s not an accident that health care inflation`s running at the lowest rate in almost 50 years and that our deficits are falling faster that they have in of 60 years. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you, Obama. OBAMA: Thank you. (END VIDEOI CLIP) MADDOW: The president basically gaming out for his fellow Democrats in public in this on-camera speech today, how he thinks they ought to fight for the next election, even though they lost the last one. One of the policies on which congressional Republicans are now fighting President Obama the hardest and with the highest stakes is also one of his most popular policy moves and it garnered some of the biggest applause in this speech today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: And stop trying to deport millions of striving young kids who just want to earn their shot at the American dream like the rest of us. Help us fix a broken immigration system. There are a lot of ways to help the middle class. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: On that issue, on immigration, the president is giving himself another chance to make a public case at a really crucial time next week. You know Jose Diaz-Balart? You know Jose Diaz-Balart. He`s the host of "THE RUNDOWN" here on MSNBC on weekday mornings. He`s also one of the main anchors on Telemundo. And on Wednesday, Jose got the get. Jose`s going to host a town hall with President Obama live at Florida International University in Miami. It is going to air here on MSNBC at 8:00 on Wednesday night. If things keep going the way they are between now and then, between now and that town hall on Wednesday, that town hall with Jose on Wednesday is going to be basically on the eve of the Homeland Security Department shutting down. Republicans in Congress say they are willing to shut down the whole Homeland Security Department as a protest against President Obama`s executive actions on immigration. So, that fight is happening in Congress right between Congress and the White House. That fight is also playing out in the courts. This week, a federal judge in Texas blocked the president`s new immigration policies. But next week, in just a few days, the president is also going to take that fight over immigration and over homeland security and all the rest to a third venue, to the court of public opinion. That is going to be Wednesday at 8:00 right here. Jose is such a badass for getting this get. It is very exciting. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: Happy Friday. And now, here`s the thing. This is the best "Here`s The Thing" we have maybe ever done. Watch this. "Here`s The Thing." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUBTITLE: And now, here`s a thing -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a clarification from you as to the validity of a vote from a member who leaves a seat during the vote, then returns to it in order to vote. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is the member for Winnipeg Center want to respond to the point? PAT MARTIN: I guess, Mr. Speaker, I have a -- I realize I did inadvertently leave my seat briefly in the middle of the debate. I can blame it on a sale that was down at the Hudson`s Bay. They had men`s underwear on for half price. I bought a bunch that was clearly too small for me. I find it difficult to sit for any length of time, Mr. Speaker. So, I apologize if it was necessary for me to leave my seat briefly but I did not mean to forfeit my right to vote. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: And that is a thing that did happen today in the Canadian parliament. If there is a version of the too tight cheap underpants excuse, that has ever happened in American politics, please let me know, rachel@MSNBC.com If that`s ever happened anywhere in American politics let me know and that will be a "thing." We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FORMER GOV. BOB MCDONELL (R), VIRGINIA: I just want to say that I appreciate very much Judge Spencer`s mercy and leniency for my wife today as he granted to me a month ago. I`ve been a lawyer for 25 years and sometimes juries get it wrong, and I believe with all my heart that they got it wrong in this case. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The reason that Virginia governor Bob McDonnell was talking to the press today is because he`s not in prison yet. He has been sentenced to two years in federal prison but the courts have allowed him to stay free on bond while he is appealing his case. Governor McDonnell was convicted in September of taking lots of money and lots of luxury items for himself and his family in exchange for helping out the Virginia businessman who gave them all that cash and all that stuff. His defense was basically that, yes, he did take all that stuff, including the white Ferrari and all the rest of it. But his defense was that he shouldn`t be blamed. But his defense was that actually it is the lady in the passenger seat who is really the one who did it. Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, retained separate defense lawyers when they were put on trial even though they were tried together. And his defense strategy was basically to blame the whole thing on her. Basically his play was that as the governor`s wife, Maureen McDonnell technically wasn`t a public official so she couldn`t technically be corrupt or take bribes because she was just a private person. The idea was that if he could blame it all on her, maybe neither of them would get nailed. They both got nailed. They both were convicted in September. And when Bob McDonnell was sentenced in January, the judge rebutted that defense. The judge said from the bench, quote, "While Mrs. McDonnell may have allowed the serpent into the mansion, the governor knowingly let him into his personal and business affairs." Well, today it was Maureen McDonnell`s turn before the same judge. Federal sentencing guidelines had her looking at up to 6 1/2 years in federal prison for her felonies. The judge facing Maureen McDonnell said to the court that the defense in this case had gone from the "let`s throw mama under the bus" defense to the "let`s throw mama off the train" defense. Maureen McDonnell told the judge today, quote, "I am the one who let the snake into the mansion, the venom from that snake has poisoned my marriage, has poisoned my family and has poisoned the commonwealth that I love. I`m the one that opened the door and I blame no one but myself." So, the guidelines called for more than five years in prison. Her defense was calling for just community service. In the end, what she got today was one year and one day. The extra time is important because you can`t qualify for time off for extra behavior unless your sentence is longer than a year. So, giving her that extra day actually means she might get out a couple of months earlier that she otherwise would. Where she`s most likely to serve her time is at Alderson in West Virginia, which you might remember at Martha Stewart`s one-time prison home. As to when Maureen McDonnell will start her sentence, we don`t know yet. Her husband has been allowed to be out on bail while he appeals. She presumably will ask for the same treatment. But now we know the bottom line result of this effort to blame the wife for the governor of Virginia`s corruption troubles. The bottom line result is that she is going to prison, but he is also going to prison. And the commonwealth of Virginia is one step closer to putting them finally into the rear-view mirror. MADDOW: A very, very important thing is about to happen. Yay! It`s the Friday Night News Dump. Ha, ha! Producer Julia Nutter is here to help me dump this week`s news all over some unfortunate soul. Hello, Julia. JULIA NUTTER, TRMS PRODUCER: Hi. MADDOW: Julia, who is playing on the Friday Night News Dump tonight? NUTTER: Tonight, we`ve got Rocky Martin. MADDOW: OK. NUTTER: He`s from Hatfield, Indiana. He`s an electrician, married 29 years. And he fishes in tournaments. MADDOW: You`re kidding? Rocky, it`s very nice to meet you. ROCKY MARTIN, CONTESTANT: Thank you. MADDOW: What do you fish for? MARTIN: I fish for bass. I seen on Friday that you had a fish, it was -- looked like a white perch to me. MADDOW: It was a white perch. An unusually large white perch, if I don`t say so myself. But you fish for bass. Do you do any ice fishing or do you only fish when it`s open water? MARTIN: No, we don`t get the thick ice, nope. MADDOW: Well, if you ever want to come out here in New England way, maybe if we make better friends, I`d invite you. I just got a new auger. So, anyway, Rocky, thank you for being here. It`s nice to have you here. MARTIN: Thank you. MADDOW: I`m going to ask you three questions. You get two or more right and, Julia, what will rocky win? NUTTER: This very fancy mini-cocktail shaker. MADDOW: Teeny tiny, no worries. And if you do get all right, if you get all three right, or if you only get one right and we just need to give you a consolation prize, because we feel bad, we also might send you something random that we found in our office, Rocky. It`s particularly random tonight. I`m sorry ahead of time. What is our random office swag? NUTTER: It`s a briefcase we can only open halfway. We`re not quite sure what`s in it. MADDOW: We`ve had this brief case for a while, one of the locks we have busted open, the other one, we don`t know. We`re really sure it`s not dangerous, but other than, we don`t actually know what we`re sending you. Is that OK with you? MARTIN: Yes. MADDOW: Yes, OK. We also need to bring in Steve Benen, lord of Maddow Blog. He`s the guy who determines whether or not you got the right answer. Steve, meet Rocky. STEVE BENEN, MADDOW BLOG: Good evening to both of you. MADDOW: Good evening. Good evening. MARTIN: Morning -- evening, Steve. MADDOW: All right. Let`s go with our first question. Our first question, Rocky, is from Monday`s show. On Monday`s show, we talked about Senator Rand Paul. He recently told the Chamber of Commerce that he holds a college degree, which it turns out he does not actually have. He does have some degrees, but he doesn`t have the one he claimed to have when he spoke to the Chamber of Commerce recently. Rand Paul claimed to hold a college degree in which field? Was it (a), chemistry, (b), ophthalmology, (c), biology, or (d), acting? MARTIN: I am pretty sure it`s (c), biology. MADDOW: Steve, did Rocky get that right? BENEN: Acting is the funny answer, but let`s check the segment from Monday`s show. MADDOW: OK. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Rand Paul does not have a degree in biology. The amazing thing is nobody said to him at this event. Senator Paul, do you have a degree in biology? He just volunteered that. (END VIDEO CLIP) BENEN: It`s true. What Rand Paul said was wrong, but what Rocky said is correct. C is the right answer. Rocky is one for one. MADDOW: All right. Rocky, well done on question one. Remember, you have to get two right to win the actual prize, or you might have already won some junk. So let`s go to question two. So, let`s go to questions. This is also from Monday`s show. We learned that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used to have a seat mate at the State of the Union Address who she relied on to pinch her if she started to fall asleep. Which of her fellow justices was Ruth Bader Ginsburg`s designated pincher? Was it (a), Justice David Souter, (b), Justice Sandra Day O`Connor, (c), Justice John Paul Stevens, or (d), Learned Hand? MARTIN: That would be (a), David Souter. MADDOW: Steve, what`s the right answer to that one? BENEN: Let`s check the tape from Monday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, U.S. SUPREME COURT: David Souter was when he was on the court, he sat next to me. He could sense whether I was beginning -- my head was beginning to lower, so he would give me a pinch. (END VIDEO CLIP) BENEN: The correct answer is A. And Rocky is correct again. MADDOW: Well done, Rocky. I thought learned hands being pinchy would have distracted you. But I could distract you. All right. This is a little twist. For your last question, Rocky, you have a choice. I have two prepared. Do you want a politics question or do you want a weather question? MARTIN: Politics. MADDOW: Politics, OK. The answer to the weather question was Portland, Maine. Just so we`re going to do the politics question. All right. This is from Thursday`s show, so yesterday show. We talked about the reaction among Republicans to Rudy Giuliani saying this week that President Obama does not love America. Now, one Republican presidential hopeful responded to that comment by volunteering a statement saying he agrees with Rudy Giuliani about that. Which Republican presidential hopeful did that? Was it, (a), George Pataki, (b), Scott Walker, (c), Ben Carson, or (d), Bobby Jindal? MARTIN: D, Bobby Jindal. MADDOW: Steve, you got the answer for us? BENEN: Yes, I have friends in Louisiana, he`s attention-starved, is Bobby Jindal and he has the correct answer once again. MADDOW: Well done. All right, Julia, you do that math. Did Rocky win? NUTTER: Yes, he totally wins the cocktail shaker. MADDOW: You win the cocktail shaker, and, in fact, you get extra credit, you win the briefcase we can`t open, Rocky. If you do get it open and there`s something notable in there, I hope you let us know. MARTIN: Did you see my prop? MADDOW: Your prop? What`s behind you? What is it? Is it an owl? (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: You`re my man. Rocky, thank you for bringing the owl. Thank you for winning all that junk. Really nice to meet you and I would like to be in touch with you about bass in the future if you don`t mind. MARTIN: Thank you. MADDOW: Well done. All right. That was awesome. The owl right behind him. If you want to play for a cocktail shaker or some worthless junk we have around the office, please send us an e-mail. The email address is Rachel@MSNBC.com You have to tell us who you are, where you`re from, and why you want to play the Friday Night News Dump. There is cheap stuff in our office with your name on it, I swear. But now, you have to go to prison. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 21, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022001cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 98 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 21, 2015 Saturday SHOW: UP with STEVE KORNACKI 8:00 AM EST UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI for February 21, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Kristen Welker, Kerry Sanders, Kasie Hunt, Joan Walsh, Victoria DeFrancesco Soto GUESTS: Michael Kay, John Stanton, Jonathan Capehart, Ben Domenech, Robert Costa, Howard Dean, Ben Domenech, James Glassman, Rocco Dispirito, Reynolds Wolf, Janice Hahn SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 15693 words HIGHLIGHT: The big headline at this hour, President Obama`s new Defense Secretary Ash Carter, landing in Afghanistan early this morning. This, a surprise trip after only a few days on the job for Carter. That is unless Congress acts and Congress returning from another recess in just a couple of days. With the hours ticking down, we have yet to see any real indication that they are going to act in the coming week to avoid the DHS shutdown. This morning`s "New York Times" looks behind the scenes at what preceded Giuliani`s remarks this week including the detail that the former New York City mayor wasn`t actually scheduled to speak at that event or even to attend it. But since those comments came to light, Giuliani has been unapologetic, even defiant, telling the same "Times" reporters on Thursday that his remarks weren`t racist because President Obama`s mother was white. Safe to say that President Obama was in a pretty good mood when he spoke at yesterday`s DNC winter meeting in Washington. Easy to be in a good mood when your approval rating is on the rise, the economy has created more than million jobs in the past three months. President Obama coming under attack this week for not calling the terror threat an Islamic terror threat. Jeb Bush gave a speech in Chicago on Wednesday, a speech in which the former Florida governor tried to play up his foreign policy chops by playing down his family ties. Interview with U.S. Congresswoman Janice Hahn of California. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Ground troops to fight ISIS? All right. And thanks for getting UP with us on a busy and very cold Saturday morning. The big headline at this hour, President Obama`s new Defense Secretary Ash Carter, landing in Afghanistan early this morning. This, a surprise trip after only a few days on the job for Carter. We`re going to get into what he`s doing there and why this is important in just a moment. Also ahead this morning on the show, though, Rudy Giuliani proving to be the energizer bunny of controversy. He hasn`t stopped talking about President Obama, what he is saying now. That is ahead. Also, pressure is on this weekend for Chris Christie to decide whether he`s going to go ahead and run for president. If it`s not too late for him to do that now. New reporting suggests he may already be missing out. Details on that coming up as well. And also, President Obama weighing in on how he thinks democrats can win in 2016. A message he believes democratic candidates should use if they`re going to keep the White House after he leaves the White House. All of that, much more, again, a very busy Saturday morning in just this hour of our show. But we begin this morning with that breaking news, the surprise visit to Afghanistan by the new Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. Carter just wrapping up a joint press conference with the Afghan president in Kabul. And the headline out of that gathering is that Carter`s saying that he and President Obama are weighing an extension of the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEC. ASH CARTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: President Obama is considering a number of options to reinforce our support for the President`s security strategy including possible changes to the time line for our drawdown of U.S. troops. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: It`s not just the U.S. presence in Afghanistan that`s getting a second look right now. On Thursday, Pentagon announcing a battle plan to retake Mosul from ISIS. The second largest city in Iraq. A plan to retake that. That would involve potentially U.S. ground forces. Here`s what Secretary Carter had to say about that in Afghanistan just a little while ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CARTER: Of course I`m open. I`m always open to advice from our military commanders about what the best way to achieve success is. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: As all of this plays out around the world, there are also very real concerns here in the United States this morning about fighting the threat of terrorism on our shores. Another shutdown is looming. This one that would eliminate homeland security funding. Funding for that cabinet department. The deadline to keep the Department of Homeland Security open is this coming Friday. That means six days for Congress to act before that clock and that money that comes with it runs out. Many moving parts to get to on these stories this morning. Let`s go first to NBC`s Kristen Welker who joins us live from the White House. So Kristen, this surprise visit by the new defense secretary to Afghanistan. What is the goal the administration`s hoping to get out of this? KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Look, it`s significant. I think the fact that the newly minted Defense Secretary Ash Carter, made Afghanistan his first trip underscores a couple things. Steve, first of all, the fact that the United States support on is not only feeling more optimistic about the future of Afghanistan but also the fact that the U.S. has a much closer partnership with the new Afghan government than it did with the former government of President Hamid Karzai. Now, Secretary Carter said today that this more hopeful outlook is one of the key reasons that the Obama administration and the President is considering slowing down its troop withdrawal. The President is in discussions, discussing a range of options with top officials, and he`s going to make that a focus of his meeting with the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani who`s scheduled to visit the White House next month. Now, the Obama administration believes the new unity government, which is led by Ghani, has opened new possibilities not only on the political front but also in terms of security on the ground. Now, just as a reminder, Steve, about where we stand in terms of troop levels, the current plan is to cut troop levels in half by the end of this year and then to get that number to zero by 2016, and there are currently about 10,000 U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan. Now, President Ghani, as you heard Secretary Carter say, is advocating for a slower troop withdrawal to help train and assist Afghan forces who are still struggling to combat the Taliban there. Now, the President is having discussions about everything from the pace of the troop withdrawal to also the pace of base closures there. It`s been 30 years since U.S. forces first invaded Afghanistan. But of course, it remains a critical foreign policy problem, particularly given the fact that you still have remnants of al Qaeda there. Also, Steve, there`s concern that ISIS could be thinking about expanding there. Currently they`re sort of focused in Iraq and Syria, but there`s some deep concerns that they could be looking at Afghanistan as its next front. So a lot to unpack but certainly significant that Secretary Carter made Afghanistan his first stop -- Steve. KORNACKI: All right. Some very interesting reporting there Kristen especially about the potential for Afghanistan with ISIS. Thank you for that report from the White House. Appreciate that. U.S. troops have been out of Iraq even longer than they`ve been out of Afghanistan now. But as we mentioned, according to Pentagon officials, they could soon be heading back. On Thursday, the U.S. Central Command official revealing to reporters a new plan for a massive assault against ISIS in Iraq. A battle to retake that country`s second largest city this spring, as soon as six weeks from now. ISIS has controlled the city of Mosul since its rapid expansion across Iraq last summer. American forces are now training Iraqi troops for battle. U.S. forces will lead the air campaign that`s being telegraphed this week. Officials are leaving open the possibility that U.S. ground forces might also take part. Yesterday Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham sent a letter to o the White House blasting the administration for unveiling their battle plans. If not the substance of what they`re planning to do. Quoting from their letter, these disclosures not only risk the success of our mission but could also cost the lives of U.S., Iraqi and coalition forces. That from senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Here to discuss the newest effort to beat back ISIS, we have Michael Kay, he`s a retired Royal Air force officer. So Michael, thanks for being here. You can take us through this better than anybody I think but here`s the map. You see the city of Mosul here, second largest city. What is it that we`re talking about doing right now to take back that city? MICHAEL KAY, RETIRED ROYAL AIR FORCE OFFICER: Yes, I think it`s absolutely key. When we first look at Steve, we have to just look at sort of the geopolitical environment really. Because we`re talking about these 25,000 Iraqi forces, but it`s not just Iraqi forces on the ground in this region. Who have we got? We`ve got, this is the Kurdish region of Iraq. Hundred and ten thousand Peshmerga forces occupy this area. They will be absolutely key in the fight to retake Mosul. Who else have we got? We`ve got these populist mobilization forces. They`re Shia-backed forces all coming in from Iran. I know again, up to 100,000 expected to be in this region. KORNACKI: These are militia forces? KAY: Right. And these basically came about during Saddam Hussein`s reign. Exiled Iraqi Shia formed the Bader organization, existed in Iran to begin with, but during the fall in 2003, that`s when they merged and came into Iraq. And then we`ve got in Baghdad, we`ve got the Iraqi forces. Forty five thousand at the moment. And then you`ve got the ministry of interior forces, around 35,000. And then there`s a $1.6 billion U.S. train and equip program that`s going on at the moment which will add another 45,000 Iraqi forces. So that`s the geopolitical environment at the moment. And obviously we`ve got the Islamic State in Syria and it`s the Islamic State last June, 2,000 fighters that came into Mosul, took the Iraqi forces by surprise. The Iraqi forces capitulated, and now we see Mosul under siege by ISIS. KORNACKI: Right. And that raises a couple questions here. The first as you say, so last summer this Iraqi army was not up to the job. It was not ready to face ISIS. There`s been more training from the U.S. since then. They`re telegraphing this now. Is there reason to believe the Iraqi army is better positioned now to do what it couldn`t do a year ago? KAY: Well, I think it`s a great question. I think the new government al- Abadi is absolutely key to this. But what is really key to this is making sure that the governance aspects of what happens once Mosul is taken back are sorted out. There needs to be conversations between the Peshmerga, between the Iraqi forces. There needs to be acquiescence of some form of existence in Mosul once ISIS is eradicated from there. And then there`s a question of this forces as well. If we go to the next slide Steve and have a look at actually Mosul itself. KORNACKI: We can do that. This is the city of Mosul. KAY: Right, this is the city of Mosul. I think what`s really important here is you`ve got Baghdad 260 miles to the South, Iran, 150 miles to the east, and then Raqqa, which is the self-proclaimed capital of the Islamic State in Syria. That`s about 300 miles away. What`s absolutely key here, Steve is if we can just press on that is, we`ve got Syria over here. And there`s a main supply route which comes something like that. From al Raqqa. And this has been used to supply the fighters, the I.S. fighters in Mosul. Now, earlier on this week, the Kurdish fighters actually cut off that main supply route. And what we`re starting to see here is, do you remember Petraeus` doctrine, the shape, clear, hold, build. What`s going on here is they`re shaping the environment for this attack. The absolute important key thing about attacking Mosul from Iraqis` perspective and the western perspective is counterinsurgency warfare in an urban environment is probably one of the hardest things that a soldier actually can do. I mean, we`ve seen it in Fallujah, we`ve seen it in Afghanistan. Once in an Urban environment, it`s really, really difficult. And then we`ve got to look at the clash rule. So, what happens when these airstrikes are going in? So, let`s rewind back to the AUMF, President Obama mentioned. And he spoke about some specific aspects to what the AUMF included. Two, which kill be key to this operation. Special Forces. Special Forces will be used to isolate Mosul on the key lines of communication coming out. You`ll have snipers, you`ll have people positioned around the area that will be taking off. Those Islamic State militants that are actually isolating Mosul. And then there`s the KTACs, the Joint Terminal Air Controllers, the forward air controllers. These will be absolutely key. And they`ll embed those potentially with the Peshmerga and the Iraqi forces. And that will allow people on the ground to talk to these superior Air Forces of the coalition and actually get the precision munitions in on various aspects because there are pockets. This warfare is all about pockets in an urban sprawl. And it`s incredibly hard to know who`s where and when. KORNACKI: Very quickly, though, just on this issue of telegraphing this ahead of time, announcing hey, we`re going to do this maybe in six week, is that a good idea? KAY: Look, there`s two ways of looking at it. You can look at it in the stance of, you`re telegraphing to the ISIS militants in there, this is what we`re about to do. This is -- we`re coming to get you. So it`s kind of like a propaganda campaign if you like. There isn`t going to be anything like any serious data, any intelligence. They`re not going to let any of that go, timings, who the forces are, where the forces are going, the size of the forces. That`s the keep it that we need to keep wraps on and I think the Pentagon will keep very close wraps on that. It will probably be a night raid because of the use of night-vision goggles and so on and so forth. And then we`ve got the predators up ahead as well, I`ve got the night imagery intelligence also. So, you know, I think telegraphing it isn`t necessarily giving the game away because you haven`t got the specifics involved but it could be a good propaganda campaign to sort of let ISIS know that we`re not messing around here. There`s two ways you can look at. KORNACKI: They`ve certainly delivered some kind of a message this week. But thank you to Michael Kay, we really appreciate the time and the insight this morning. KAY: Thank you. KORNACKI: Here in the U.S., there is concern about whether we will be able to keep our domestic security operations going for even another week. We are now officially just six days away from the Department of Homeland Security running out of money. That is unless Congress acts and Congress returning from another recess in just a couple of days. With the hours ticking down, we have yet to see any real indication that they are going to act in the coming week to avoid the DHS shutdown. Not that its operations would fully shut down. We should be clear here. The essential functions of DHS would actually continue. That means agents have borders. Agents at airports, emergency response for things like natural disasters. That`s about 200,000 people. They would be working without pay in the event of any shutdown. At the same time, about 30,000 administrative employees would be furloughed. They would be told to stay home. They would not be paid. State and local law enforcement would also be hit, too, losing access to federal funding for staffing and for equipment. So what can we expect Congress to do in the coming week? Will they do anything, and who will be blamed if there is a shutdown in next week? Joining me now to answer those questions, we have BuzzFeed`s Capitol Hill of Washington Bureau Chief John Stanton. John, bottom-line, we`re a week away right now from this February 27 deadline. What are the odds we are going to see a shutdown at the end of this week? JOHN STANTON, BUZZFEED: Oh, pretty good. There`s a chance that they might be able to fund some way forward with a short-term extension on funding before Friday, but I kind of doubt it at this point. It seems like both sides are pretty comfortable where they`re going towards except for maybe a set of republicans who are sort of looking at this entire train wreck trying to figure out how they got themselves into this situation. But you know, House republicans certainly don`t seem to be in any kind of mood to make any sort of deals. And democrats, you know, are looking at the polls. They`re looking at sort of who`s been blamed for the shutdowns in the past and they`re feeling like they don`t have to do a whole lot. KORNACKI: All right. Well, that`s it. You mentioned the last government shutdown everyone remembers in 2013. The polling on that was clear. Republicans being blamed for that. There was some new polling we can show you came out this week. This was a CNN/ORC poll. Who would you blame if there`s going to be a DHS shutdown? And by a 53 to 30 margin, you see people saying, republicans in Congress. So, what is the logic, John? When you talk to republicans, particularly in the House, what is the logic in the face of polls like that for why it would be different this time? STANTON: Well, I think part of what they`re looking at is the fact that, you know, DHS is not, you know, the parks service, for instance, right? Like, if there`s a shutdown involving DHS, it`s not going to really affect your average American all that much. All of the things to keep us safe and secure, they`re going to continue to get done. DHS doesn`t have a lot of, you know, sort of reach into your everyday life. And so, I think they`re thinking that a lot of people probably won`t even notice that there`s a shutdown of DHS going on. And, you know, they also realize, I think that particularly for their base voters and in these House districts where they have now been redrawn to the point where most of the voters and a lot of them are just base voters. They want them to do this because they view what the President has done on immigration and on health care and other issues as executive overreach, and they want them to pick this fight with the White House. And so for members of the House, in particular, this is not a bad situation for them to be in politically. KORNACKI: All right. Well, as we say, the countdown is now on. Congress coming back in a few days, and we will see what happens. As John Stanton is telling us this morning, in the likely event of a shutdown occurs. Thank you to BuzzFeed`s John Stanton for joining us this morning, really appreciate that. And still ahead in the show this morning, President Obama delivers a fiery speech to leaders of his party. This just as they start to focus on who should replace him in 2016. Details on that drama. Plus, how did Rudy Giuliani go from being a unifying national figure in the days after the 9/11 attacks to challenging the President`s love of country? That story is next. Stay with us. KORNACKI: Today is the third day since Rudy Giuliani openly questioned whether President Obama loves America. At an event for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. And this morning the fallout shows no signs of abating any time soon. This morning`s "New York Times" looks behind the scenes at what preceded Giuliani`s remarks this week including the detail that the former New York City mayor wasn`t actually scheduled to speak at that event or even to attend it. Also that Giuliani wasn`t aware there were reporters in the room when he began speaking. But since those comments came to light, Giuliani has been unapologetic, even defiant, telling the same "Times" reporters on Thursday that his remarks weren`t racist because President Obama`s mother was white. And then saying this in an interview with FOX News` Megyn Kelly. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Mr. Mayor, do you want to apologize for your comments? RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Not at all. I want to repeat it. The reality is I -- from all that I can see of this president, all that I`ve heard of him, he apologizes for America. He criticizes America. KELLY: But to say that he doesn`t love America, I mean, that he could view foreign policy as a democrat might view it and through a difference lens than you a republican might see it, you can understand the differences between you, but to condemn his patriotism, to question his love of America? GIULIANI: I`m not condemning his patriotism. Patriots can criticize. They`re allowed to criticize. I believe his initial approach is to criticize this country and then afterwards to say a few nice things about us. I think that is a perfectly reasonable opinion. But the President, in his comment, if we look at all of his rhetoric, has not displayed the kind of love of America, the kind of love of American exceptionalism, that other American presidents have displayed. I`m right about this. I have no doubt about it. I do not withdraw my words. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Giuliani then invoking the controversy over Obama`s former Chicago Pastor Jeremiah Wright, as another reason why he believes the President doesn`t love America. The White House entering the fray late Friday with some crocodile tears. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Many of you have been in the room when the President`s delivered speeches where he`s talked about his love for this country or how the United States is a force for good in the world. In fact, it`s the greatest force for good that the world has ever seen. And so I can -- you know, we continue those examples. Many of you have been in the room when these delivered remarks like that, both in this country and around the world. More generally, I can tell you that it`s sad to see when somebody who has attained a certain level of public stature and even admiration tarnishes that legacy so thoroughly. And the truth is I don`t take any joy or vindication or satisfaction from that. I think really the only thing that I feel is I feel sorry for Rudy Giuliani today. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And last night on Sean Hannity, Giuliani inferring that Obama is acting presidential more than being presidential. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANI: He may love America. I don`t know. In his own way. When I listen to his language, I hear language of a man who is never talking about the greatness of America. So he`s not a cheerleader for America. He`s a critic. It`s as if he were a movie critic as opposed to the guy acted in the movie. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right. And here now to talk about this, we have MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart, he`s a columnist with "The Washington Post." Also, our panel for today, Ben Domenech, he`s publisher of The Federalist and senior fellow at The Heartland Institute. MSNBC political analyst Joan Walsh, editor-at-large for Salon. Victoria DeFrancesco-Soto, MSNBC contributor and professor at the University of Texas` Center for Mexican- American Studies. So, Jonathan, let me start with you. Look, obviously, extremely inflammatory, the way that Rudy Giuliani brought this up this week, and that is sort of from a political standpoint, that`s the beginning and the end of this. You know, it`s tough to win an argument when you start with, does the President love the country or not. But when he starts defending himself and he starts trying to explain what he`s saying, he`s saying basically it seems at the heart of this, that he thinks President Obama thinks about, looks at and talks about America in a way that is different than past presidents, Reagan, Clinton, Carter he names there. Do you think there`s anything to that, the idea that he talks and thinks about America differently than previous presidents have? JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: No. Rudy Giuliani is lying. And anyone who`s been paying attention to Barack Obama since he wowed the democratic convention in 2004 knows how much the President loves this country. From the moment he ripped into our consciousness during that speech, he made it clear that only in America could his story be possible. He`s been saying that since he`s been president. So Rudy Giuliani is trying to run in quicksand in this. And the thing that I find most disturbing is that no republican of any stature whatsoever has come forth and condemned him or at least pushed Rudy Giuliani to either get off the airwaves with this line of argument or force him to apologize. You know, Rudy Giuliani is mentioning Reverend Jeremiah Wright. President Obama, when he was a candidate, had to give an entire speech on race because of something his former pastor said in a sermon where he wasn`t even present. So for Rudy Giuliani to continue to go down this road I think tarnishes him. I think Josh Earnest was absolutely right. It`s rather sad and pathetic, but it also tarnishes the Republican Party even further. KORNACKI: Well, let me ask you, Ben, about that. What`s your reaction to what he said, to how republicans have handled it? BEN DOMENECH, THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE: No, no, no. KORNACKI: Speak for all of that. DOMENECH: So the other day, Steve, as I was watching one of the better musicals about the 1888 election, the one and only genuine original family band. KORNACKI: There`s more than one? DOMENECH: Yes. And you have the Grover Cleveland backers on one side and the Benjamin Harrison backers on the other side and they`re basically spouting the same or it`s very similar agendas. But when one side says it, it`s dismissed as A, that`s politics. And when the other side says it, it`s oh, no, that`s statesmanship. I think that when you see both parties come to this sort of issue, they`re just espousing the things about America that they view as most conforming to their vision of what America ought to be. President Obama ran explicitly on transforming the way the country was viewed in the world because of those aspects of America that he wanted to be appreciated. Rudy Giuliani has his vision of America that I think is very different from the president`s. KORNACKI: But when you`re crossing the same that the other one doesn`t love the -- (CROSSTALK) DOMENECH: I heard that Mitt Romney didn`t love the country because of his investments last time around and Mitt Romney loves America. Look at that kid loves cake. I mean, come on! JOAN WALSH, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I don`t think anybody said that about Mitt Romney. I think it`s different when Rudy Giuliani goes around and says, this President doesn`t love America. First of all, he`s uttering the president. We`ve seen this since he became president. And second of all, I find it amazing, as Jonathan does, that no one has stepped up -- this guy is becoming -- he`s a Donald Trump -- (CROSSTALK) Can I just finish? I didn`t jump in on you. He`s the Donald Trump of this cycle. And now Scott Walker has taken a page from Mitt Romney, and he won`t -- his language is almost identical. I don`t condemn, I don`t condone. They can defend themselves. KORNACKI: Yes. We should say, Scott Walker wouldn`t really weigh in on this anyway. We did hear Marco Rubio did come out and say, he does think President Obama as no doubt, President Obama loves the country. So, there`s been some, you know, nuance here, I can tell the republicans are addressing -- VICTORIA DEFRANCESCO SOTO, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Rudy Giuliani is digging his own grave. He has cast himself in the Palin, Trump wing of the Republican Party. There`s that one moment when we thought hey, maybe he`s a different type of republican. He`s progressive on social issues. But you know what? He has become irrelevant. No one has to come out in his defense because he is putting himself away. KORNACKI: Has he changed, Ben? Rudy Giuliani who was mayor of New York, I remember he was sort of the liberal Rudy Giuliani, the national republicans didn`t like him. And this seems more like -- it seems he`s farther to the right than we`ve ever really seen. DOMENECH: You know, I don`t really think of it is something that`s on an ideological spectrum. I think he has an opinion about the way the President views the country, that`s different than a lot of other people. But the way I would put it to you Joan is, I do think there`s ways that politicians love the country in different ways. I think Hillary Clinton maybe thinks about America in different ways than the President does. Now, that doesn`t mean that he doesn`t necessarily love it any less than she does. I just think that they think about its history in different ways. KORNACKI: Right. Certainly if you`re going to talk about it as a politician, though, saying that the other one doesn`t love it, boy, that gets you into trouble. But Jonathan, I`ll give you the last word on this one. CAPEHART: Well, you know, look. I hope at some point someone other than Marco Rubio will come forward and say that can we all just start at the baseline that everyone who`s sitting in the -- the person sitting in the Oval Office and all the people who are going to run to replace him in 2016, 2017 all love the country. And then let`s take the discussion and the argument from there. To say that the President doesn`t love the country and then to defend yourself saying that what I said wasn`t racist because he was raised by white grandparents and had a white mother only compounds the offense that Rudy Giuliani has made. KORNACKI: All right. "The Washington Post`s" Jonathan Capehart, appreciate you getting up and joining us this morning. CAPEHART: Thanks, Steve. KORNACKI: Still to come today, want to know how cold it`s been without having to actually go outside? Well, that`s NBC News meteorologist Dylan Dreyer in Upstate, New York. She`s standing next to a geyser that turned into a frozen skyscraper. We`ll also go live to Ohio as where snow is adding to people`s misery this weekend. And next, your former first lady and you`re heading to prison, why you may be better off getting a longer sentence. We`ll explain. That`s next. KORNACKI: All right. A lot going on in the world this morning. And to get caught up on some of the other headlines people are talking about with today`s panel, and we`ve got our big index card friends here to go through some headlines. Let`s start with this one. This is from "The Washington Post" this morning. If you`re picking up that paper, you are reading about the ex-Virginia first lady who gets a prison term of one year and one day, that`s Maureen McDonnell. The wife of former Governor Bob McDonnell sentenced Friday to a year and a day in prison. Now, the significance of this, instead of just getting a year, getting that extra day put on there, with the extra day, if the sentence is over a year, you`re eligible to get out early on good behavior. If it`s just a year, you`re there for a year, if it`s a year and a day, you might be there for a lot less. So actually, this is a good -- this is a good development, I guess, for Maureen McDonnell. DOMENECH: Well, as a Virginian, you know, it`s been amazing to just sort of see this whole story play out. You know, Bob McDonnell is obviously someone who was, you know, close to having some maybe presidential aspirations, was viewed as maybe one of the future leaders of his party. And it`s been just insane to watch this case play out up close and all of the craziness with the gifts and everything. KORNACKI: And you`re right, 2012, he was on the VP list. People were saying, hey, if Romney doesn`t win in 2012, here`s your guy for 2016. WALSH: He was walking around that convention like, you know, he was going to be there -- DOMENECH: Gave probably one of the better State of the Union response speeches, too. WALSH: Yes. KORNACKI: Yes. One of the only ones that wasn`t a disaster, I guess. Here`s another headline. This from NBC News. Does the cold stop crime? It says the country -- it says yes, apparently it looks that way. Police calls are down in Memphis. Major crimes have plunged in Boston. Boston with about 20 feet of snow right now. New York City just celebrated 12 days in a row without a murder, that is the longest stretch since 1994. And they started collecting data. Research from 30 years of data shows that crime decreases as everything goes down when the temperature drops. Right? Nobody wants to leave, nobody want to do anything. SOTO: I don`t know how you guys function. You know, in Texas this week, there was a cold snap. The high was 40 degrees. And I didn`t want to get out of bed. How do people function? KORNACKI: And yet you came to New York. SOTO: And yet I came to New York. That`s how much I love you, Steve, okay? KORNACKI: That is very nice of you. We turned the heat up a little bit for you. Let`s get to one more headline this morning. This is from FOX Sports. This is Joan Walsh, the baseball thing here might be interesting. This MLB and union announce a pace of play rules change for next year. So hitters have to keep a foot in the batter`s box between pitches. Pitching changes are timed. Managers have to make instant replay challenges from the dugout. Joan, the goal here is to cut the average length of a game from three hours and eight minutes to what, three hours and two minutes? WALSH: Exactly. I mean, they tried this -- I`m agnostic about it. I don`t think it`s a terrible idea, but they tried this in the Arizona fall league. It cut an average of ten minutes from games. So they go from, you know, a little over three to a little under three. That`s still really long. I like that -- I like the replay. I think we saw a lot of bad calls overturned. But there is that element of stalling and waiting for your guy, you know, and we had Shawon Dunston, San Francisco Giants were very successful. We knew who the guy was, we knew what he was doing. And the Manager Bruce Bochy is out there killing time with the umps, talking to his coaches, waiting for that guy to watch it maybe the tenth time and say okay, make the challenge, or don`t. That did burn up the time. KORNACKI: And this is why I could never -- of all the major sports, baseball is at the bottom of my list. You go through a three-and-a-half hour game, and guess what? There`s 161 more. (CROSSTALK) If you want me do a three-and-a-half hour game, give me the NFL. You get 16 games a year, they all matter, I`ll sit through that, you know, baseball, 161 more of these, folks. Let`s do sit there and watch them -- WALSH: You need to be alone with your thoughts and take in the big picture more, Steve. We`re going to a game. KORNACKI: Yes. Well, okay. We`ll go to one game. Shrink the season to one month. That`s my goal. Still ahead this morning, why one congresswoman says she is giving up on Washington. See if that`s the start of a trend. We will talk to her later on. And next, blinded by the light. Why Chris Christie`s confidence is reportedly getting him in trouble for a presidential bid. Stay with us. KORNACKI: This could end up being remembered as the weekend Chris Christie`s dream of winning the White House in 2016 unofficially died. Some of the best political reporters in the country now writing that Christie appears to be losing the all-important battle for early money. "New York Times" detailing many complaints of republican donors and strategist, they tell them Christie doesn`t return their phone calls, he arrives late for meetings and ask if he has all the time in the world. Christie, they report, quote, is convinced that his raw talent and charisma can overcome the political obstacles in his way. Meanwhile, NBC`s Perry Bacon Jr. getting word of the governor`s donor troubles in the northeast last week. The "Washington Post" Robert Costa reporting another defection of a prominent New Jersey republican to Jeb Bush. That`s Nicholas Brady, he`s a former treasury secretary, also an interim U.S. senator from New Jersey, he`s a longtime ally of the Bush family. Amid all of this came word this week that New York Jets` owner Woody Johnson, his team plays in Christie, he`s viewed as a kingmaker for potential republican nominees, that he is also going to be backing Jeb Bush. And he attended a fund-raiser, in fact, for Bush on Wednesday night. When Jeb Bush appeared to make the first move toward a White House bid last month. The clock started ticking for everyone else to get busy and to cultivate the same pool of top donors. But is Christie getting squeezed out before this race even officially starts? Robert Costa, national political reporter with "The Washington Post" joins the panel this morning from Washington. Robert, you had some very interesting reporting this week on the struggles Christie is facing now. So, here we are, we are in the middle of the invisible primary. These defections from his home state, donors having questions about him. How serious trouble is Chris Christie in right now in this process? ROBERT COSTA, THE WASHINGTON POST: It`s early in the process, so I think Governor Christie could certainly come back. But you`re a political junkie for New Jersey. You know when Tom Keane Sr., the former governor, when Joe Kerlow, she was state senator, Christie`s 2009 campaign chairman, when their reluctance to sign up for a 2016 campaign, that spells trouble if you`re Chris Christie. KORNACKI: And so, what is, the reporting this week -- and this gets to something I have noticed about Chris Christie is, you know, this is a guy who is supreme confidence in his own skills to basically walk into any situation and change that situation to his favor. And I have seen him. In his defense, I`ve seen him go into hostile crowds in New Jersey, college students during the Iraq war and 45 minutes later these students loved him, a republican. So, I can see how he starts to believe that. But is there more of a plan than just hey, the power of my personality is going to ultimately, you know, get me through this? COSTA: Well, he really believes his skills as a retail politician will enable him to eventually rise in the polls and with republican primary voters. But he also believes he has this RGA, Republican Governance Association Network that he capitalized on last year raised millions and millions of dollars. Not all of those donors will be with him. He thinks he`s established enough of a national donor network. And you add that to his personality. He thinks Bush may stumble. His people think Bush may stumble, and they`re not so sure Scott Walker is going to continue to rocket ahead. KORNACKI: So, we should say this was a response to all this reporting from Christie`s -- one of his top advisers Mike DuHaime telling "The New York Times," the fact is there is not a finite pool of donors as some seems suggest this on the word of New Jersey donors may be defecting. Also there was this, an interesting tweet from "New York Times" columnist Ross Douthat, conservative columnist of that paper saying, "The best time to run for President is almost always when lots of people are urging you to run for president, not the cycle after that." Basically making the case there that Christie had his moment. WALSH: He missed his moment. KORNACKI: In 2011. And this wasn`t it. WALSH: Yes. I mean, this seems so delusional, this seems like delusional Christie to think, of course, there`s not a finite pool of donors. That is true. There`s lots of rich people. He needs one big rich person to get behind him and he could go far. But the fact you have Tom Keane, I know they have falling out, sounding very much like he`s going to go with Bush. I know he said he`s neutral right now. You know I think that his strength was that he was going to -- he was going to walk away with the Wall Street donors, that he was right here, he was a candidate of Wall Street, he was the moderate. And when you have Jeb Bush rolling these people up so early, it really leaves very little room for him. SOTO: But the republican primary voters, I`ve never bought the story that they`re going to fall in love with Chris Christie. You bring that New Jersey/Tony Soprano character down to Texas, down to Arkansas, down to Tennessee, and it doesn`t stick. I believe that he never had a shot in the first place regardless of how much money he would have gotten. DOMENECH: The path I think for Christie was always very narrow. And the real challenge for him I think is that unlike Rudy Giuliani who had sort of a similar experience, I think that the problem for him was always that he is so much about personality, it`s the real thing that he has going for him as opposed to a record that he can point to, as opposed to being able to ensure that he`s going to appoint conservative judges or something like that to, you know, help on some of his other weak points. He really only had that Wall Street money in terms of his backing, and I think that that really creates a problem. KORNACKI: So, Robert, what happens now? You know, Jeb Bush has this huge behind-the-scenes push for money. When do we see a public move from Christie? Does he have an announcement of candidacy? Is anything like that coming on the horizon? COSTA: They make a great point, that for a lot of time Christie`s personality has been at the core of his political persona. But watch what Christie does on Tuesday. He has a major budget address in Trenton. He`s going to return to pension reform. I remember when you were covering this Steve back in 2010, this is what made Chris Christie, all these battles with the teachers over the pensions and for public employees. He`s going to try to come back to that issue, make it his policy focus ahead of 2016. KORNACKI: Interesting you mention that because that`s the other bit of news this morning we should squeeze in here. "The Wall Street Journal" reporting, Christie suddenly stepping up, ramping up his activity back in New Jersey. This is a governor who spent a lot of time out of the state. You say he has that speech coming out Tuesday. Now suddenly planning a bunch of town halls in New Jersey. So, interesting potential sort of strategic shift there. Anyway, "The Washington Post`s" Robert Costa, appreciate you joining us this morning. Thank you for that. And still ahead on the show, the one word President Obama isn`t saying about our fight against ISIS and that is drawing criticism from the right and a little bit on the left, too. And next, another weekend, another major winter storm. We`re going to go live to Ohio, just bearing the brunt of the storm as we speak. KORNACKI: All right. If you`re in the Midwest or the northeast this morning, there`s a good chance you`re waking up to bitter cold temperatures yet again. And you probably won`t be surprised to learn it looks like the cold`s going to be sticking around for a while longer. Forecasters say another arctic blast early next week is going to keep temperatures 15 to 30 degrees below normal. And that could last -- get ready for this -- all of next week. And in Ohio, parts of that state could also get up to eight inches of snow by the end of today. NBC`s Kerry Sanders joins us live now from Perrysburg, Ohio, near Toledo. So, Kerry, snow, freezing temperatures, no end in sight. Good morning to you. KERRY SANDERS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It`s miserable. It`s snowing but not that heavily. It`s about 18 degrees which is, of course, cold, but think about this. Yesterday morning, it was negative 12. So this is actually pretty good. The only down side, of course, is that we`re not going to get above 32 in this area, according to forecasters, until next month. So it`s going to be freezing. So the only thing that they can do is make lemonade when you get lemons. And so there`s the international ice carving association competition taking place here. And here we see -- I`ll step out of the way -- here we see Neptune, or I should say frozen Neptune from the frozen sea. Really normally a lot of people would come out and enjoy watching these guys make these sculptures. This began as a 300-block piece of ice, and boom, there it is. And there`s going to be some more carving today. But at this temperatures really very few spectators. But I can tell you one thing. The guys who are doing the carving say these cold temperatures make their artwork that much better. KORNACKI: I was going to say, I know nothing about the world of ice sculpting, but if you are an ice sculptor and temperatures are going to be freezing for the next month, your work`s going to be preserved. You must be pretty happy. That`s got to be a sad job when you`re the ice sculptor - - SANDERS: Think about it. These things will eventually melt, but they`ll be there for a while, absolutely. You know, the one thing -- one upside there is their artwork is not going to melt away that quickly. KORNACKI: Nothing sadder than melting artwork. Anyway, thanks to you, Kerry Sanders, for that report. And try to stay warm out there today. As warm as you can. Anyway, still ahead in the show, is Jeb Bush really his own man when it comes to foreign policy? We`ll going to take a closer look at that question. Also, what President Obama said to get the Democratic Party fired up as it prepares for its first election in eight years without him. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: So America`s coming back. We have risen from recession. We have the capacity to write our own future. We`re better positioned than any other nation on earth. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Safe to say that President Obama was in a pretty good mood when he spoke at yesterday`s DNC winter meeting in Washington. Easy to be in a good mood when your approval rating is on the rise, the economy has created more than million jobs in the past three months. The President accusing republicans of jumping on his populous message now that things are looking up a little bit. For more on that and the other things that President Obama had to say in yesterday`s speech, I`m joined now by MSNBC contributor and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a former chairman of the DNC. So, Governor Dean, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. So, it`s interesting to listen to the President`s speech yesterday in the context of this is the start of a presidential campaign to pick his successor, seems to be in a way sort of laying out the terms that he wants the 2016 debate to be contested over. FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I think he`s also protecting a legacy which is going to turn out not to be too bad at all. But the truth is, he`s going to be eclipsed as soon as the campaign really gets going in earnest. And that`s probably just as well. Not because his numbers are going to be bad, because I think they`re going to continue to get better, but because this is really about the new president, not about the President we`ve had. So I think this is sort of a booster speech. I think it`s a good thing that he gave that speech. But I`m hoping that this election is not going to be about the past. It`s going to be about the future. And I think that`s what -- my suspicion is that`s what Hillary Clinton is hoping, too. KORNACKI: I wonder from your standpoint, too, the democratic side looking at 2016, the republican line against the Obama administration for most of his presidency has been about the economy, for understandable reasons. But now that there are signs that the economy is improving a little bit and at the same time there are more concerns, I think, now about the President`s leadership on foreign policy, at least if you look at the polls on this. Is there`s a concern among democrats that maybe this becomes a foreign policy election in a way that hurts them? DEAN: It hope it does become a foreign policy election. There`s nobody more capable in this country than Hillary Clinton in terms of foreign policy. So if it`s a foreign policy election, we win. Now, it`s not going to be a foreign policy election. The truth is elections are almost never foreign policies. The Iraq war did have a big effect on George W. Bush`s presidency. Vietnam obviously had an enormous effect both on Nixon and Johnson. But generally speaking, wars and foreign policy do not play very significant role in American elections at all. And, you know, if the republicans want to make this about foreign policy, bring it on. Because they don`t have a single candidate that knows very much about foreign policy. And we have the person who probably knows more about foreign policy than anybody else in America who is qualified to run for president. KORNACKI: Well, let me bring the panel in on this. You know, alluding maybe to Hillary Clinton. I think that might be who he`s talking about right there. That`s the interesting subtext of this meeting. The democrats gathering and traditionally this would be the part where the future of potential candidates for 2016 and all their talking, this does seem like a party that`s decided on Hillary Clinton. I mean, the big debate that emerged from the stories that I`m reading is, Hillary supporters who say, we don`t want her to have an opponent in the primaries and the Hillary supporters who say, we do want her to have an opponent. They`ll be saying, we want the opponent though. WALSH: Right, very few people, the draft Warren people, to be fair. But no, and Elizabeth Warren is not running, as we discussed many times before. So, it looks like it will be Hillary. Whether people want her to have an opponent or not. KORNACKI: So what kind of message do you think -- is it going to be a continuity message, is it going to be, you know, we improve this country, this administration that I was part of improve this country over eight years and I want to continue it? Or is it separating herself from that? WALSH: I think she`s got to do both. I mean, I think she can`t separate herself too much and he shouldn`t be separating herself in, you know, a Rudy Giuliani way or in any kind of coded way because then that pushes away the democratic base and the African-American base which still has some hurt feelings over some of her behavior in 2008. So she`s got to be careful. There`s not much to run away from. Nonetheless, it`s got to be about the future. It`s got to be about a vision of the future. And figuring out what is going on with income inequality. The growth is not leading to rising incomes, and it hasn`t for a long time. KORNACKI: Quick thought. SOTO: It`s not so much about running away from a legacy but running to this populous message because I think many democrats are nervous that she isn`t left of center enough. And that`s why I think this speech was so important. It set up the context for her to be seen in that light. And you add in the recent meeting with Elizabeth Warren. KORNACKI: Ben. DOMENECH: I would actually agree with Governor Dean that it would be good for Hillary Clinton to have this be a foreign policy election. I think that the real problem is her ability to connect on issues of wage stagnation and the problems that people have had under this economy for so many years. There are worries about the future related to that. And I think that that`s really the disconnect that may be a problem for her otherwise. KORNACKI: All right. My thanks, as always, former DNC chairman, former Governor Howard Dean. Another full hour of news and politics straight ahead. Stay with us. KORNACKI: Bush 45? (MUSIC) KORNACKI: All right. And thanks for staying with us this Saturday morning with lots still to get to in the hour ahead. President Obama coming under attack this week for not calling the terror threat an Islamic terror threat. We`re going to take a closer look at the terminology in the fight against terrorism. Is what we say just as important as what we do? What is that whole debate all about anyway? Also with that shutdown threat looming that we told you about last hour, one member of Congress has announced her plans to resign in favor of running for what is usually a pretty low-level office back home in California. She says it`s just too hard to get anything done in the gridlock of Washington. She`s here to discuss her plans, maybe the start of a trend there with other members of Congress. We`ll talk about that. Also, some candidates for president are preparing for the physical rigor of running for the highest office in the land by watching what they eat. Chef Rocco Dispirito is going to be here to talk about what you do when you`re running for president and you want to eat healthy. How can you actually pull that off? We want to begin with Jeb Bush`s -- not with his protein-packed diet, excuse me, but with the meat of what he is now saying about foreign policy. A speech in Chicago on Wednesday that gave us our first look at what Bush would hope to accomplish diplomatically as president. A speech in which the former Florida governor tried to play up his foreign policy chops by playing down his family ties. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I love my brother. I love my dad. I actually love my mother as well. I hope that`s OK. And I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions that they had to make. But I`m my own man, and my views are shaped by my own thinking and my own experiences. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Jeb Bush`s platform also likely to be shaped by the thinking and experiences of his growing team of foreign policy advisers. For that the governor appears to be in line with his father and his brother. Aides telling NBC News this week that Jeb Bush is consulting with 20 veterans of past Bush administrations. Among them, his father`s secretary of state, James Baker, also Paul Wolfowitz, the major architect of his brother`s Iraq policy. "Politico" naming his brother`s secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, as another adviser. This team put together by advisers that served both his father and his brother. Of course, common for any top tier candidates to draw heavily from previous administrations of the same party. In this case, the administrations just happen to be all Bush administrations. From the speech itself, it seems that Bush is prepared to have the United States play a greater role in current conflicts in places like Ukraine and Syria than it already is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I have doubts whether this administration believes American power is such a force. Under this administration, we are inconsistent and indecisive. We have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. We definitely no longer inspire fear in our enemies. The great irony of the Obama presidency is this: someone who came to office promising greater engagement with the world has left America less influential in the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And MSNBC political correspondent Kasie Hunt was in Chicago with Governor Bush for that speech. She joins us now from Washington. Kasie, thanks for taking a few minutes. So, let me ask you in terms of the goal here, we heard in the run-up to the speech, a lot of emphasis was on that line he was going to use that "I am my own man", trying to separate himself from his brother, from his father, especially his brother, though, given his brother`s poll numbers. When you look at the content of this speech, a very sort of hawkish foreign policy approach, in a lot of ways mirrors what his brother would have said ten years ago. Did he succeed in separating himself? KASIE HUNT, MSNBC POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, Steve, I think that while those headlines were, as you say, "I am my own man" and all about how Bush is trying to differentiate himself, it was very difficult to tell on the merits where it was that he would break with his brother`s foreign policy or with his father. I think that you`re right, that the larger concern is, you know, back in 2008, President Obama essentially came to office because of the deep opposition to this policy. And that list of advisers, I will say that the Bush camp points out that there are no former Romney or former McCain advisers available to consult with on matters of foreign policy. But I think it will be a question of who he listens to ultimately. I mean, that list really runs the gamut from Paul Wolfowitz on the one hand, to former Secretary of State James baker on the other. And that`s a pretty wide range. And he isn`t likely to be listening to all of those people at the same time. But this list also, in many ways, it lines up with that sort of shock and awe policy that the whole of the Bush campaign is running at the moment. I mean, they are trying to really push back, head off these potentially a dozen other candidates. And this list is sort of a comprehensive one of the current foreign policy establishment. And many of the other camps viewed the release of this list that way. KORNACKI: Yes, I mean, if you want to find a foreign policy veteran from a Republican administration not headed by a Bush, you`ve got to go back more than a quarter century at this point. Maybe cut him a little slack there. But, Kasie, let me also ask you about some of the thinking -- we were talking about this a little last hour -- the thinking of people around Bush and the Republicans in general when it comes to the role of foreign policy in the 2016 campaign, in their attempts to say we`ve got to change parties in the White House, what are they thinking on that right now? HUNT: Steve, I think that this is becoming a central place to be in opposition to President Obama. And I think it highlights two things. First, this idea that the base is still very much opposed to the president, very much energized by opposing the president. But also think about who they`re likely going to face in 2016. And that`s Hillary Clinton. And so this is really the place where if they can go after and define the president`s foreign policy as something that just the base is completely opposed to, they can tie her in with that. It`s sort of -- it becomes a one, two punch, if you will. And I think you`re starting to hear this very hawkish line from almost every candidate on the Republican side. The exception, of course, being Senator Rand Paul who may draw the sort of libertarian, anti-war, anti- boots on the ground, sort of more isolationist corner of the Republican Party. But he`s sort of out there by himself right now. You have Marco Rubio focusing on foreign policy, talking a lot about this. Obviously Jeb Bush. So, I think that they`re all sort of in the same line here on this issue at this point. KORNACKI: All right. MSNBC`s Kasie Hunt, joining us from D.C. this morning. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. HUNT: Nice to see you, Steve. KORNACKI: All right. For more on Governor Bush`s speech this week, the panel is back with us. Ben Domenech with "The Federalist" and the Heartland Institute, MSNBC political analyst John Walsh with "Salon", and MSNBC contributor Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, a professor at the University of Texas. So, I want to start with you guys on this attempt to be his own man, to be different from his brother, and at the same time, dealing with the question of Iraq. And that came up specifically in a question and answer after the speech. I want to play that clip and then talk to you guys about it.\ Let`s listen to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: There were mistakes made in Iraq for sure. Using the intelligence capability that everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction was not -- it turns out not to be accurate. Not creating an environment of security after the successful taking out of Hussein was a mistake, because Iraqis wanted security most -- you know, more than anything else. But my brother`s administration, through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that any president`s done because there was no support for this. And it was hugely successful. And it created a stability that when the new president came in, he could have built on to create fragile but more stable situation that would have not allowed for the void to be filled. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So what I`m hearing there is an attempt to basically acknowledge hey, look, my brother`s administration made mistakes on this. They ultimately did a good thing, and then it was the Obama administration that came in and really bungled it. Is that -- is that a message that you can sell outside of the Republican base? BEN DOMENECH, THE FEDERALIST: Jeb Bush has the unique challenge of running not only on his own record, but on the records of two other people whose name he shares. I think that the reality is he is his own man. He`s very different from the other Bushes. He`s very much an introvert. He`s very detail-oriented. But I also think the American people are largely not going to consider him as his own man when it comes to foreign policy. They will presume he shares the same views as his brother even if he doesn`t. And I think making arguments like this is fine, but I think ultimately it may not matter as much if he ends up going up against Hillary where both of them on foreign policy are sort of known quantities from the perspective of the American people. It`s not like -- it`s not like there are going to be assumptions that are going to benefit or hurt one person more than the other. KORNACKI: I guess that makes me wonder, too, Joan, if it is a Hillary/Jeb Bush thing, I mean, being judged by the memory of the husband in one case, the brother in the other case -- WALSH: I think it`s really different for Hillary. She was our secretary of state. So, she does have a record to run on, like it or not. Now, I come from the progressive wing of the party, skeptical of military might. She was a hawk on Libya and on Syria. We`ll see how much she talks about that. But I think it`s going to be very hard to run, more hawkish than Hillary, and yet be palatable to the American people and not be a warmonger that`s going to promise to put boots on the ground and scare people. So, I think they have a tough challenge with her. SOTO: He was very uncomfortable during those remarks. I don`t know if you noticed that. It wasn`t until he got into the Q&A that he lightened up a little bit. Even then he was still really nervous. However, this is his first go nationally at a major foreign policy speech. He is a very smart man, and he is going to get better. He is going to figure out how to walk both sides of the street with this. So, I wouldn`t dismiss Jeb Bush, and I think a lot of folks say, well, he`s just tied to the anchor of his brother and his father. Keep your eye on him. He is going to find a way to maneuver this. KORNACKI: I do -- maybe, Ben, maybe you`ve heard some of this sort of in the conservative side or whatever, but is there an instinct at all among people who think hey, you know what, conservatives who might say hey, I kind of like Jeb Bush. I think he`s his own man. I don`t have a problem. But they also, you know what, what you`re saying, the country`s not going to see it that way. Let`s not go down this road when we`ve got nine other choices. DOMENECH: I think the one thing that will be different and it will be interesting to see how this plays out, is whether Bush actually comes across as a bit more of a foreign policy realist than maybe some of the other people who are running. Certainly, Marco Rubio this week was kind of trolling Jeb Bush with comments that he`s smart enough to learn about foreign policy. You know, as a senator, Rubio obviously thinks of this as sort of an area that he owns. I think there is some calculation going on like that among conservatives and there`s skepticism about the way voters in the general election may view Bush. But I also think that they think that because Obama has made so many mistakes when it comes to the Middle East, you see the poll numbers of un-approval when it comes to his approach to ISIS, that that may actually benefit the Bushes. KORNACKI: Well -- DOMENECH: It may sort of put that in the rearview in a more positive way. KORNACKI: That`s the other thing I`m wondering about. You know, there was this -- for really 10 years in this country, post-Iraq, I think there was this very broad shared view of -- like you`re saying, skepticism -- the idea of the U.S. intervening almost in any context. And now the polling numbers that I`m seeing, first of all, confidence in Obama`s strategy on ISIS, there`s a plurality who don`t have that. But more to the point, you ask about boots on the ground against ISIS, we`re now seeing over 60 percent of these people in these polls saying they want some level of boots on the ground. And that to me sounds like, that`s a pretty considerable shift from five, 10 years ago. WALSH: Yes, it is. It is. And I don`t think it`s very realistic about what kind of boots on the ground it would require. So, you know, that`s a shaky number. If boots went in, if troops went in and things went bad, you`d go back to those anti-Iraq -- KORNACKI: It suggests to me that maybe there is somebody like Bush presenting him now in this context versus a couple years ago, people might be less resistant to the Iraq -- WALSH: He`s not going to be prepared to do it right away, so they can dream that it`s going to help. DOMENECH: Remember the expression that his brother made. You know, his brother was anti-nation building before he was for it, you know? (CROSSTALK) DOMENECH: And I think that that`s -- that`s really where Republicans are. They`re fine with using the American military to kill people who they think are bad guys. They`re not fine with nation building. And I think that`s really going to be the concern within the primary that Jeb has to battle against. SOTO: There are also economic concerns. So, we`re looking at foreign policy right now, but the Tea Party base really rose up in opposition to Bush`s spending. And as we were talking about earlier with Chairman Dean, elections tend to be about domestic policy, about bread and butter issues. And some of these Tea Party folks are going to say what about all that spending? That`s going to be one of the bigger problem areas for Jeb Bush. KORNACKI: I love the point you`re making. It completely dovetails with my point. It`s true, the Tea Party didn`t exist back then, but the Republican base in 2000 made a calculation, we`re going to go with George W. because we want to win. That means if he`s going to move to the middle and everything, that`s what we have to do to win. And then, eight years later, they said, well, what did we get for all that? They say, we got more spending, we got an economic collapse, we got record low approval -- SOTO: A bigger challenge. KORNACKI: Yes. And so, now, that`s what a Tea Party is. It`s partly against Obama. It`s also against the idea of having another George W. Bush. That`s tough for Jeb. Up next, is how we talk about terrorism just as important as we fight it? And later, staying on message while staying in shape when you`re running for office. We`ll get that done from chef Rocco Dispirito. So, stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism. GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith, but ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for. OBAMA: And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. BUSH: Our war is not against Islam or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil. (END VIDEO CLIPS) KORNACKI: President Obama coming under some attack this week for his failure to link Middle East terrorism directly to Islam and not just from Rudy Giuliani. Like President Bush before him, President Obama making it clear that the U.S. is not at war with Islam. Speaking before an international gathering at the State Department on Thursday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Obviously, there is a complicated history between the Middle East, the West and none of us, I think, should be immune from criticism in terms of specific policies, but the notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie. And all of us, regardless of our faith, have a responsibility to reject it. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: But others contend that not talking about the extremists who can now be found within Islam -- radicals who say they are fighting in the name of Islam -- makes them all but impossible to fight. Journalist Graeme Wood causing a stir this week when he wrote in "The Atlantic" about the fundamental religious ideas driving ISIS. So, how should we be talking about ISIS in the newest front in the fight against terrorism? Joining the panel now is James Glassman, who served as undersecretary of state for public affairs in the George W. Bush administration. He`s now visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. James, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. So, let me get you to weigh in on this question because I`ve heard it so many times this week, I think we all have, the idea that the president not saying specifically Islamic terrorism, Islamic extremism, that he`s somehow showing that he`s blind to the threat or unwilling to acknowledge the threat -- do you think there`s anything to that criticism? JAMES GLASSMAN, FORMER UNDER SECY. OF STATE: Not very much. I mean, you know, one of my former State Department colleagues said this is all Groundhog Day. I mean, we went through this in the Bush administration. We had this debate many years ago. And we came down on the side of using the term "countering violent extremism," CVE. And I certainly understand what some people -- the objection of some people to what President Obama is saying. But I think the most important thing is a level of understanding. We`re not fighting Islam, as President Bush said, as President Obama said. What we are fighting is an ideology that`s based on certain precepts and certain interpretations of Islam. And unfortunately the English language is not very good at expressing that in a couple of words. What`s really important, though, is fighting the ideology. And that`s what I wrote about in "Politico" this week. And finally, I think after six years, President Obama seems to be getting around to doing that. And that`s what we need. We need a war of ideas. KORNACKI: So, I`m curious, what is it that you see him doing now that you haven`t seen him doing in the last six years? GLASSMAN: Well, in substance, not a great deal, but he did -- he just had a three-day conference focusing on CVE. Some of his language now points to an understanding of the importance of ideology. David Cameron certainly understands that and has talked about it for quite a while now. He seems to be trying to invigorate a very small institution within the State Department. But really, is there the will? Is there the kind of drive from the president toward fighting a war of ideas? There certainly was during the Bush administration. I don`t see it now. And I`m kind of baffled by it. I actually have to say, because this is an administration which, in its campaigning and in its policy-making, has been quite skilled at the arts of persuasion. KORNACKI: Let me bring the panel into this. On this domestic political debate we`ve been having about using the term "Islamic" or not using the term -- the "New York Post" put a blindfold on him, is he blind to what`s really going on here. Is there a case to be made for why he should be doing that? WALSH: I don`t see it. And I have never heard anyone who`s criticizing the president say what he`s doing wrong or what he should be doing and would be doing if he used the term "Islamic." it`s not like he`s going over there and oh, he`s bombing churches and synagogues because he can`t focus on Islam. What would he -- what would this word get him? I know what it would cost him. KORNACKI: Where does it come from on the right? DOMENECH: You know what? I disliked this when President Bush did it and I dislike it when President Obama does it. I think people bend over backwards as to how we`re supposed to be talking about crazy homicidal lunatics who want to establish their own nation state and run everything from the Middle East. I really don`t care how we necessarily talk about them, just in the sense that I understand the context of you don`t want to foment any anti-Islamic action here domestically at home. I can understand that. But I think what that "Atlantic" article was getting to and, you know, the key line from my perspective is, you know, imagine it David Koresh had 8 million followers as opposed to, you know, the tiny groups of cults that you see in other places. I -- from my perspective, this is just kind of a side debate that doesn`t really have to do with the issues involved. And like James was saying, I have yet to see kind of the concrete action. I think this is why the plurality that you mentioned earlier is skeptical about how his response is going to ISIS because they feel like he hasn`t been forceful enough. I don`t know if that has anything to do with language. SOTO: It is a tiny fraction. There are 1.6 million Muslims in this world and only about 30,000 are members of ISIS. So, relatively speaking, it`s inaccurate to say we`re going after Islam, we`re going after Muslims. GLASSMAN: Can I jump in? KORNACKI: Yes, go ahead, James. Yes. GLASSMAN: You know, the president was absolutely right when he talked about we are not at war with Islam, as President Bush did. And that was not an idle statement. The fact is that the most pernicious idea that`s abroad in the world today as far as I`m concerned is the idea that the West is at war with Islam. And it is quite widespread. It is -- it`s not just the terrorists who believe that. So, we need to be conscious of that, although I don`t think the best way to be -- to fight that is to say oh, no, no, we`re not at war with Islam. There`s lots of other things we can do. And I related them in my "Politico" piece. And I have to say I did some of them when I was at the State Department. So, I think we need a serious effort at fighting bad ideas and inspiring the 99.999 percent of Muslims in the world who are -- who are not terrorists, and many of whom are young people who are looking for meaning in their lives. But I don`t think -- and I also don`t think we should shy away from supporting and proselytizing even about our own values. KORNACKI: All right. James Glassman, former executive director of the George W. Bush Institute -- thanks for taking the time this morning. Appreciate it. GLASSMAN: My pleasure. KORNACKI: All right. Still ahead, why one congresswoman is so sick of Washington, she`s willing to give up her seat. She`ll be here just a little bit to tell us why. And next, could another "Indiana Jones" movie be on the way with a much younger Indy? The details are next. KORNACKI: All right. Back with our panel. Got some more headlines from around the world, more things people are talking about this morning. Let`s look at "The New York Times," a story about Hillary Clinton beginning the process of vetting herself. She has hired a firm called New Partners that is going to perform self-opposition research for her possible campaign. They`re going to look through Hillary`s history at the speeches, donations, public record of the six years since she was last a candidate. I guess that`s smart. WALSH: I guess it`s smart. It seems like it`s a little late. Doing something that they started, I don`t know, a year or two ago. So that worried me a little bit. KORNACKI: Yes. Certainly the media has been doing a little bit of reporting about the Clinton Foundation. WALSH: Right. KORNACKI: About some of the donations, some unpleasant stuff there. I wonder if that`s triggered this or precipitated it. SOTO: She`s the most vetted person. I mean, first, going back to her husband and then her run in 2008. And now, again, I doubt there will be anything major that comes up. WALSH: I think this issue of the foundation is going to remain an issue and is kind of relatively unexplored territory. And I think she -- I say this as someone who admires her: she showed in her book tour a lack of comfort, dexterity in talking about how she makes her money, how much money, and those are things that are legitimate questions and are going to be mined by her opponents for sure. SOTO: I think it was stylistic, though, more than substantive. I think foundation folks were aware that she was going to potentially run, and I don`t think there`s anything murky there. But I think the way she was presenting herself doesn`t -- KORNACKI: When you start talking about, you know, foreign governments and the sort of financial arrangements and things that maybe if you`re president, if you`re subject to different laws might look a little different, you know? I think that stuff starts to look messy to people. There might be a side of the Clintons that remind them of. What else do we have here? We -- this is from "The New York Times" to Deadline Hollywood. Steven Spielberg hopes to direct Chris Pratt in an "Indiana Jones" reboot. They`re going to I guess Disney is going to make this. Spielberg hoping to direct. Chris Pratt, "Parks & Recreation," "Guardians of the Galaxy." It`s a really good movie. I saw that one recently. New "Indiana Jones", no Harrison Ford, though. Can you have "Indiana Jones" without Harrison Ford? DOMENECH: Yes, you can. I think it says something good about America that Andy Dwyer can go from like being on "Parks & Rec" and "The Lego Movie" and "Guardians" and all these big things. I mean, talk about for Indiana Jones. WALSH: It`s a great country. KORNACKI: "Parks & Rec" character is the guy that fell into the pit. Now he`s going to be strangling -- SOTO: No Harrison Ford cameo? WALSH: There`s got to be a cameo. KORANCKI: There`s got to be. WALSH: Is it going to be his dad? There`s got to be something. DOMENECH: Just as long as it isn`t another origin story. I`m tired of origin stories. KORNACKI: The last one in 2008 was the last "Indiana Jones" with Harrison Ford. You`re starting to see the age there. I was, like, yeah, I guess they`re not going to be able to do another one of those. Let`s see what else we have here. This is from Victoria`s part of the country, the Austin American-Statesman." Ken Paxton asks the Supreme Court to void same-sex marriage. The attorney general filing to the State Supreme Court yesterday an emergency motion trying to get the state`s first gay marriages, they just started trying to get them avoided. What is going on down there, Victoria? SOTO: So, there`s a toe in the door for the same-sex marriage movement in Texas. And the thing is that Texans are split half and half when it comes to gay marriage. There`s a sense that Texans are overwhelming against gay marriage because of the gay marriage amendment in 2005 where 75 percent of the voters voted for Prop 2. The thing is, there was only an 18 percent turnout rate. So, only 18 percent of registered voters in Texas, so translate that into 10 percent of Texans voted for gay marriage. KORNACKI: Well, plus, how much has changed in ten years since then, you know? SOTO: Exactly. KORNACKI: States that were voting it down ten years ago have -- WALSH: And also, they really want to break up the marriage of a woman who has ovarian cancer? SOTO: They do. DOMENECH: I mean, this is the attorney general in a state that does have - - it`s a constitutional amendment, correct? SOTO: It is. DOMENECH: State constitution against this. And this is a judge and a local clerk. From my perspective, as you say, there`s so much more openness to this, I would be curious to have that vote again in Texas. And I think -- one of the things that I think is sad, I think if you had waited long enough, I think a lot of these states would have voted for it itself. WALSH: A lot of people said that about segregation, too. DOMENECH: Well, I think maybe in this case, I think that there`s something that`s healthy that`s better about sort of going through the process of convincing people to go along with this as opposed to just having a situation where a local clerk makes a decision. KORNACKI: The backdrop for all this, of course, is the Supreme Court`s going to be weighing in on this fairly soon. There`s a school of thought that the Supreme Court, you know, wouldn`t have -- if the Supreme Court says this is illegal, they wouldn`t have done it ten years ago. They waited for two-thirds of the states basically to come to this point. DOMENECH: I think the Supreme Court is gong to end this. KORNACKI: I think that`s the wide assumption right now. We`ll see what happens. Thanks to my panel for today, Ben Domenech, Joan Walsh, Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, I appreciate you all being here. And still ahead, what do you do when working in Washington has become too much of a mess? One congresswoman who`s taking a radical step will be here to share her plan. And next, chef Rocco Dispirito is here. He`s going to be weighing in on the run for the White House. It will all make perfect sense in just a few minutes. So, stay with us for that. KORNACKI: If Jeb Bush seems a bit more svelt these days, he may be able to credit his new diet. At a fundraiser in Florida last week, the former governor mentioned that he started following the paleo diet late last year. It`s a diet that encourages you to eat like cavemen did, no grains, no beans, no dairy, no donuts like we have right here, but plenty of meat, lean meat, as well as egg, fruits and vegetables. Bush is following the diet so strictly that according to "Politico", he turned down a piece of birthday cake at a fund-raiser, opting to just eat the blueberry on top of it. There are also new federal dietary guidelines out this week. So, how do they jibe with Jeb Bush`s new dietary regime, and also what about the corn dogs and the state fair staples and all those campaign trail treats that seem to be a requirement on the road to the White House for any presidential candidate out there? Nobody said winning the White House would be easy, but Jeb`s comment at that fund-raiser left us wondering, what is the best way to eat when you`re planning to run for president? Renowned chef Rocco Dispirito says it`s possible to, quote, "Cook Your Butt Off", and he`s not just speaking metaphorically. His new cookbook features healthy recipes you can make at home. And he is here with us today. ROCCO DISPIRITO, RENOWNED CHEF: What`s up? How are you? KORNACKI: Perfect person to address this. DISPIRITO: Yes. KORNACKI: I was talking to people on this our team this week, the paleo diet, I`m still a little confuse by it. But they said everybody knows about this now. What`s the cliff`s notes on what a paleo diet is? DISPIRITO: It`s based on what cave man from the Paleolithic Era ate, right? They were hunters and gatherers. There was no modern agriculture at that time. They disappeared 10,000 years ago and modern humans emerged. Then we started to plant things and process foods. And before the advent of modern agriculture and processed foods, we hunted and gathered and ate meat, berries. KORNACKI: But they died at 21 years old, didn`t they? DISPIRITO: They did but that was for other reasons. I wasn`t there. I can`t give you the full stats. There is some legitimacy to watching what you eat, first of all, 67 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. You just spent two hours talking about ISIS. And you should know that obesity killed 300,000 of Americans last year. How many did ISIS kill? Our own system -- food production system and our own diet is the greatest threat to the American way, in my opinion. KORNACKI: All right. DISPIRITO: But I think you could draw an inference from how the candidates conduct themselves in their diet to how they lead. I don`t think it`s unfair to say that a candidate who`s actually thinking and conscious about what he consumes is more likely to be more conscious about other things. KORNACKI: So how do they do this, practically speaking? Because, I mean, the rigors of running for president, you`re not sleeping the way you should be sleeping. You`re sleeping in a different place every night. DISPIRITO: It`s a marathon. KORNACKI: Every event wants to feed you. This is the best chef in our town. You`re being insulting if you don`t eat all this stuff. Remember there`s that scene of Romney in 2012, they served him cookies and he said, what, did you get these from 7-Eleven and insulted everybody there. You`ve got to play along. How can you do one of these diets, and like Jeb, how can he have the paleo diet and run for president? DISPIRITO: There`s no question Jeb probably has someone preparing food for him every day and sending him on his way or someone taking care of that for him. It`s very difficult to run for office and also prepare all your meals. So, that`s something I do for my clients. And when my clients are out at state fairs and have, you know, temptations like the corndog, I say, you know, pretend you`re a supermodel, push the food around on the plate and say funny things, you know. And then go home and eat the real food. They don`t really eat those things on a regular basis. KORNACKI: Is it OK to take a bite? DISPIRITO: Of course, it`s OK to take a bite. You can`t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everything in moderation. I love that Jeb is even thinking about his weight. Governor Christie, you know, he`s a man who`s struggling with his weight. Do you think it will have an impact on his chances for presidency? KORNACKI: He`s lost a considerable amount of weight, too, actually. DISPIRITO: He has. You know, I`d love to help him get to his weight-loss goal at some point. But I think that how well you preserve yourself is an indication of how you might try to preserve our nation. KORNACKI: Let me ask you this. For a candidate or anybody who`s sort of on the run and traveling around a lot, what`s a good basic -- what would you give them as a good meal for the road? DISPIRITO: You have to have a plan in place. You can`t just go in there and wing it. It`s like government, right? You can`t show up in office and wing it. You have to have a plan, a strong point of view, a set of core values and principles that will help guide you. And you have to be making conscious choices. Just like running the government. And part of the plan might be bringing things, having things sent to you or knowing what`s good to eat in the cities you go in. Also advocating for yourself in a restaurant. When you walk in a restaurant, remember, you`re in charge. You`re the customer. You`re paying for the service. So, if you`re on paleo, you simply tell the chef, hey, I want protein, no grain, no gluten and just make it happen. KORNACKI: Gluten. What is gluten quickly? I still don`t know. DISPIRITO: Gluten is a protein found in wheat, barley and rye. The problem with gluten is two things. Number one, the genetically modified gluten that we eat today is very different than the wheat we ate 50 years ago. The other problem with gluten and wheat, it`s in such high proportions now, is that it becomes toxic at high levels. And what it does is causes leptin resistance. Leptin is a hormone that tells us we`re full. When you eat foods that contain a lot of gluten, it causes leptin resistance, meaning that hormone, that fullness meter is shut off. So, we eat and overeat and overeat and overeat. And the more bread we eat, the more foods containing gluten we eat, the more we crave them. KORNACKI: Bread is delicious, though, on the other hand. DISPIRITO: I see you`ve done a good job with the donuts today. KORNACKI: These are good. They`re half gone already. Give us another 20 minutes, they`ll be all gone. Anyway, my thanks to chef and book author Rocco Dispirito. Appreciate you joining us this morning. You can see his new book right there up on the screen. Up next, we`ll go live to Boston where residents are not expecting more snow at least for the time being. It doesn`t mean the forecast is an encouraging one. Stay with us. KORNACKI: It`s not even 10:00 a.m. yet on the East Coast, and the morning is already off to a messy start for much of the country because of the terrible winter weather we`ve been having everywhere. Northbound I-75 in Georgia, that`s near the Tennessee state line, it is closed this morning due to several accidents caused by icy roads. For the first time in almost a month, New England is not, repeat, not bracing for a weekend blizzard. The region has been hit by four major storms in recent weeks. It doesn`t mean, however, that New England shouldn`t be bracing for something else. The Weather Channel`s Reynolds Wolf is live for us in Quincy, Massachusetts. That`s just across the river from Boston. A lot of snow behind you there, Reynolds. I don`t see any in the air today. Are things looking up at all? REYNOLDS WOLF, WEATHER CHANNEL: Dude, I`ll tell you, the only thing that`s really looking up for the time being are the snow levels. You look behind me and they`re really up high. We are going to get a little precipitation in the forecast. Now, the deal is we might see some snowfall later tonight and into tomorrow, then switch over to rain. But we`re talking about the possibility of one to two, maybe as much as three inches of precip. Nothing in comparison like you mentioned with the snowstorms we`ve had over the last several weeks. If you look behind me, though, you`ll also notice another feature. You see these roofs, these houses, that`s one of the big problems that we have. Keep in mind, we happen to be along Kent street here in Quincy. A couple of these houses, especially the one over here behind me, that house -- we spoke with the homeowner. The roof on the house was actually built by her great-grandfather when he came home from the civil war. So, yes, we`re talking about places that are really old and the roofs not designed to handle the sheer weight. Can they handle snow? Absolutely. Can they handle that much? I don`t think so. The other issue on a lot of these houses, and, you know, this could be Quincy, but they could be any other community that you have around Boston, New England, and you`re dealing with much of the same thing. Heavy snow, we`ve got the ice dams on the roofs. It`s a headache for so many people. And let me tell you, my man, for these folks that call this region home, spring cannot get here soon enough. Let`s send it back to you. KORNACKI: No kidding. Yes, a lot of history there, the city of presidents. John Quincy Adams, John Adams from around there. Anyway, thanks to Reynolds Wolf. Appreciate the report. Not everyone seems to mind this miserable weather. A zookeeper in Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden shot this video of two red pandas playing in the snow. Red pandas are native to the Himalayas. They also love the cold and the snow. It`s a video not surprisingly that`s gone viral. It`s a perfect antidote to the winter blues, maybe. More than 900,000 people have shared it now on Facebook. Coming up next, what do you do when you`ve had it with gridlock in Washington? Well, Congresswoman Janice Hahn is doing something completely unexpected. She joins us on the other side to tell us what that is. Stay with us. KORNACKI: California Democratic Congresswoman Janice Hahn announced this week that she`s giving up her seat in the house in order to run for the Los Angeles County board of supervisors. Very unusual move in politics. She says she`s making that move because, quote, "There`s virtually zero cooperation between the two parties. It`s not the kind of government I grew up. I can do more for the Los Angeles region on the Board of Supervisors." It may not be as quite as dramatic a step backward as it might sound as "The L.A. Times" reports seats on the L.A. County Board of Supervisors are among the most coveted, safe and powerful positions in the nation, so powerful in fact the supervisors are actually sometimes called the five kings. The job even pays better than Congress, too. Congresswoman Hahn joins us now from Los Angeles. So, Congresswoman, thanks for taking a few minutes. Is this -- is this a commentary really a decision on what Washington has become? REP. JANICE HAHN (D), CALIFORNIA: Hi, Steve. Well, you know, it is. Washington, D.C. is mired in gridlock. There`s so much partisan bickering. It`s not the government I grew up with. My family has been in local government for about 70 years here in Los Angeles. And while I thought I could do something in Congress to reach across the aisle, to work on bipartisan issues, it`s more and more difficult to find any cooperation, and I just think I can do a lot more coming home to Los Angeles and working with my constituents with only four other people on the county board of supervisors. KORNACKI: So, you have been in Congress since 2011. Is there a particular moment in that time where this just sort of gelled for you, where it was like, look, I`m not going to get done when I wanted to get done here? HAHN: Well, I think it hit me when it first came in 2011. That was the summer, August of that summer was when we were fighting over whether or not we should put this country into default by raising the debt ceiling and paying our bills. And then we went into that super committee with 12 people who couldn`t come into a decision. So, then, we went into sequestration and I think that hit me. I thought, you know what, I didn`t come to Congress to represent 700,000 people and have automatic triggers that would slash and burn spending of really important departments in this country. And, of course, now, we`re on the brink of defunding the Department of Homeland Security if we won`t go along with the idea of agreeing to deport about 5 million people. So, it`s kind of this brinkmanship. We`re always on the edge of shutting down the government, defaulting, defunding, and I actually believe government has a role to play in people`s lives. It can be positive. I think I can have that kind of experience back home in Los Angeles. KORNACKI: What is -- what is the source of the breakdown you`re describing? You have had these conversations with different members down there. Where does it stem from? HAHN: You know, I`m not exactly sure, but I do know that I hear about the good old days in Congress, the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O`Neill. The days where there was disagreement between the two parties, but there was more of an effort to find common ground, to work on the other side of the aisle, to allow amendments from the minority party as you move forward in agenda for the country. But that`s just not happening. And clearly, the American people have told us they are disappointed in us. We have about a 9 percent approval rating, which I think used to be family and friends. I`m wondering if that includes family anymore approving of what we`re doing. So, I think the American people deserve more. I certainly think the residents of Los Angeles will benefit from me coming home and working on all the same issues, but actually getting something done. KORNACKI: Giving up a seat in Congress, giving up a seat in the national capital for local office. Interesting to see if this is a trend that others start picking up on as well. We`re going to see what happens with your experience. Congresswoman Janice Hahn, thank you for joining us. Appreciate it. HAHN: Thank you. KORNACKI: All right. And thank you for getting UP with us today. Join us again tomorrow morning starting at 8:00 a.m., when Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota will be here to discuss the president`s efforts to combat homegrown terrorism in places like her state. And don`t forget to join MSNBC on Wednesday. Jose Diaz Balart will be hosting a town hall with President Obama in Miami. That is on Wednesday night at 8:00 p.m., you are not going to want to miss that. Mark your calendar right now. Right now, you`re going to want to stick around for "MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY". So, have a great weekend. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 23, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022101cb.450 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 99 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 21, 2015 Saturday SHOW: MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 10:00 AM EST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY for February 21, 2015 BYLINE: Melissa Harris-Perry, Kerry Sanders GUESTS: Heather Hurlburt, Jamal Simmons, Christina Bellantoni, Jim Arkedis, Ilyasah Shabazz, Janny Scott, Adam Cox, Cesar Vargas, Sayu Bhojwani, Ben Ferguson, Kimberle Crenshaw, Wade Davis SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 14786 words HIGHLIGHT: Panel discusses notions of strong foreign policy in American discourse. Next, interview with author of the book about Ann Dunham, mother of President Obama. Next, interview with Ilyasah Shabazz, daughter of Malcolm X. On Monday, a federal judge in Texas blocked the president`s executive actions, putting the program on hold just before immigration officials were going to start accepting applications. But the White House is wasting no time, and on Monday, they`ll be asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to block the judge`s ruling. A new study highlights the lives of black girls. MELISSA HARRIS PERRY, MSNBC ANCHOR: This morning my question, what do the president, Rudy Giuliani and I all have in common? Plus the daughter of Malcolm X on the anniversary of his death. And the fight over just who runs this place. But first, once again, the GOP offense is all about framing defense. Good morning, I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. Nerdland, we begin with news. But it`s not exactly breaking news. But it is a phenomenon tens of millions of us are experiencing this morning. Teeth-chattering, face-numbing, bone- chilling cold. It is no joke. Yes, it`s winter and yes, it`s supposed to be cold and snow is not uncommon in the northeast this time of year. But this? This relentless stretch of winter storms grouping much of the U.S. is something else. The air mass responsible for much of it arrived from Siberia. Gee, thanks, Putin. Yeah, we`re talking really cold. Now, sure, we can try to embrace it like these red pandas at the Cincinnati Zoo, but let`s face it, we`re not equipped like they are. See those bushy ring tails? They use those as a wraparound blankets. But these are pandas are natives of the Himalayas. I mean I`m just saying. We, humans, are left to deal with the brutally brutal cold in other ways like in Kentucky where the Harland City police department tried to arrest Elsa from "Frozen." And this shady character under fire for being the harbinger (ph) of freezing cold misery. OK, not really. Both of those cases were just attempts to make the situation a little more bearable. It`s our human nature. I mean we`re trying to find the silver lining somehow, because the reality is this series of winter storms has been merciless. Meteorologists say this week ranks among the most intense arctic outbreaks so far in the 21 Century for the eastern U.S. At least 25 people have died in this latest cold snap. 18 of them in Tennessee. At least 500 daily record lows have been broken over the last few days and more record lows are expected today. Below average temperatures will continue in much of the Midwest and northeast and the weather channel forecast shows more than a dozen locations in the northeast and mid-Atlantic that could shatter record lows this morning. Now, we`ll have more on this dangerously cold winter weather later in the show. So stay inside, stay warm, turn on the TV, because you`ve got a lot to get to this morning. This week it was hard to distinguish the real headlines from "The Onion`s" satirical headlines. When Vice President Joe Biden made news for his behavior of the swearing in of the new Defense Secretary Ash Carter. It wasn`t quite diamond Joe, the inappropriate uncle alter ego who makes frequent appearances on "The Onion,", but he was exhibiting some major boundary issues with the secretary`s wife Stephanie resting his hands on her shoulders and leaning in close, I mean really close to whisper something in her ear. Now, among the Internet means and mockery of Biden`s hands on approach, it was his daily collar headline. News sec Def can`t even defend his wife from Joe Biden. OK, it may be a joke, but this notion that by leaving his wife exposed, the secretary has failed in one of his most basic duties of his position. And actually, it gives it the heart of American expectations, for those we hold responsible for safeguarding national security. Americans have long equated a robust national defense with a paternal great protector standing between us and whoever or whatever might cause our nation harm. And we have historically imagined the vulnerability of that threat as distinctly feminine. That narrative that was used during both world wars and U.S. military propaganda that sold recruits on the idea that their service abroad was needed to protect women and children back home. In American leadership it was most fully embodied by President Theodor Roosevelt who projected his beliefs about masculinity and military might on to the national identity and foreign policy under his ideology of speak softly and carry a big stick. In fact, some of Roosevelt favorite manly man pursuits, hunting and horseback riding and war making give him a lot in common with a foreign leader who attracted a devoted following from fans in American government who believe that our current foreign policy approach really needs a shot of testosterone. Russian President Vladimir Putin`s own fondness for slaying wild beasts, bare-chested horse play and invading other nations made him an attractive alternative last year for critics of President Obama`s approach to foreign policy. The same President Obama who in matters of domestic policy has been accused by opponents of an aggressive overreach, that amounts to an imperial presidency, but in all matters foreign is cast as a weak leader who emboldens our enemies with his inability to man up. "New York Times" columnist David Brooks distilled that critique down to a single question last April on "Meet the Press." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID BROOKS, "NEW YORK TIMES": And let`s face it. Obama whether deservedly or not, does have I`ll say it crudely, but a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad, somebody like Putin? (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: With the improving economy leaving few easy domestic targets for Republican presidential contenders, foreign policy is likely to become a recurring theme in the 2016 election. And in this moment, where a strong foreign policy is equated to a strong performance of masculinity, we can expect candidates competing to answer that question. Is he tough enough? But what does that mean in an election where one of those he`s is very likely to be a she? Hillary Clinton may be entering the race bringing along all of her secretary of state credentials, but she`ll also be dragging the baggage from her failed attempt at winning a presidency by invoking the image of vulnerable women and children to make the case for herself as great protector. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone? HILLARY CLINTON: I`m Hillary Clinton and I approve this message. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: And to make things even more interesting, she might be facing a Republican opponent who is carrying his own baggage. A presidential legacy that includes a spectacular failure. That was swaggering approach to foreign policy. It`s in association with the former Florida governor Jeb Bush is clearly very well aware of as this week he tried to carve out a masculine identity distinct from his brother`s while also painting the current administration as weak kneed and incapable. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: I have doubts whether this administration believes American power is such a force. Under this administration we are inconsistent and indecisive. We have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. We definitely no longer inspire fear in our enemies. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Joining me now is Heather Hurlburt, director of New Models of Policy Change at the New America Foundation. Jim Arkedis, who is president of 4dpack.com. Jamal Simmons, consultant for the Raben Group. And Christina Bellantoni, editor-in-chief of "Roll Call." So, Christina, I`m going to start with you. Is this election going to be a tough enough foreign policy election in part? CHRISTINA BELLANTONI, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, ROLL CALL: Yeah, in some ways. I think that it was in 2008 as well. I mean think about the very first distinction between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they got on the debate stage in South Carolina in 2007. Who would sit down and directly have conversations with our biggest enemies. And Barack Obama says, yes, I would. And that became the biggest flash point in that campaign and it was Hillary Clinton who was saying Barack Obama wasn`t tough enough. And then, of course, fast forward, she becomes his actual global ambassador to carry out his foreign policy. But the conversation here is just so bizarre because it`s not as if -- as the leader of the United States you`re ever going to have hand to hand combat with somebody. Like are you ever going to physically instill fear in someone? HARRIS-PERRY: Well, but this actually came up. Right? I mean in this sort of discourse about ISIS and whether or not our president was as powerful and manly as the king of Jordan, who basically was like, hey, I want to go, get in the fighter jet, right? I mean there was a way where initially that idea of being a veteran was a standard for running for the U.S. presidency in a post-Vietnam world that, you know, basically after Clinton it hasn`t been true. But I guess I`m wondering whether or not we`re going to return to a moment where we see foreign policy as a kind of masculine swagger as opposed to an Obama philosophy that has been about a willingness to have conversation in. JIM ARKEDIS, CO-AUTHOR, "POLITICAL MERCENARIES": Well, it`s mostly about the mix between the masculine and the feminine, right? Like there are times when we have to be tough and there are times when we have to talk, right? And we have to use some of the soft power elements of our national power. And this is everything from economic aid to ensuring that democratic institutions are built abroad. These are the elements of our national power that don`t get -- kind of get short shrift in our national debate. We have to get to a point where we understand as a country that we have to have the institutional fortitude to endure, building these capacities abroad over the long-term and as Americans we don`t necessarily have that patience all the time. HARRIS-PERRY: OK, so but it`s one thing to talk about what the actual policy is and it`s another thing to talk about what the strategy in the context of a campaign is. And I guess part of what I`m constantly surprised by is this sense that Americans still think Republicans are better at foreign policy. That they are stronger and tougher. JAMAL SIMMONS, DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANT: Well, right. I think you started to get to it a second ago, which is this hangover from the post-Vietnam era. I mean this is particularly an issue for the baby boomers, I think. Right? So, you start -- I`m old enough now to remember when Bill Clinton was running for president, when I worked for him, and he was being called the draft dodger. He got attacked for going to Russia when he was a student. That tried to imply he was a Russian covert spy that was, you know, sleeper agent. I was in his room the morning he found out about it. He was just baffled. And I worked for (INAUDIBLE) who got attacked this way, and I worked for, you know, I saw John Kerry get swiftboated this way. I mean this is particularly a thing that Republican baby boomers go after Democrats on. I`m not sure it has the same resonance in generations after them. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. SIMMONS: But Giuliani really speaks for a very different generation when he goes after the president on this. Of this sort of older, white, middle class guys who are used to seeing a president, you know, kind of swing the flag around and show how big it is. Around every . (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: Swing that flag and how big is your flag pin? SIMMONS: Exactly. HARRIS-PERRY: It`s interesting that you said it, because Jeb Bush is in a different category. I want to listen for a moment. Because here`s Jeb Bush, who is going to have to because his last name is Bush, account for the fact that his brother was president during a time that many people think of as a bad foreign policy time. Let`s listen for a moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH: There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure. Using the intelligence capability that everybody embraced about weapons of mass destruction was not -- turns out to not to be accurate. My brother`s administration through the surge, which was one of the most heroic acts of courage politically that any president has done because there was no support for this and it was hugely successful. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, you know, the language here mistakes were made, intelligence capabilities and everybody embraced at the time. I guess part of what I`m wondering then, when we think about like the actual worker of foreign policy and we think about the politics of it, how we can smoosh away some of the politics so that we are making decisions in our elections based on what is reasonable foreign policy? HEATHER HURLBURT., DIR., NEW MODELS OF POLICY CHANGE: Well, the reason these politics have been so hard to smoosh away is that they really are coming from our sort of rat brains. And it turns out frustratingly it`s even bigger, frankly, than just post-Vietnam, that we do at some very primal level you still have 40 percent of Americans and 32 percent of Democrats saying that men are better leaders on national security. That we are primed in some way about the daddy party and the mommy party. And, you know, the way we can deal with that is for women candidates and progressive candidates to be very aware that that`s an issue and find their own way of saying, hey, I`m the pioneer woman with the gun at the door or whatever it is. But . (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: When Hillary did that, when she did, I`m sorry, when now -- did that. What she became the Annie Oakley, it actually didn`t work for her. In fact, what we most needed from her to have won that primary was -- I`m sorry about that Iraq vote. SIMMONS: But see, but here`s the thing about Hillary, which is different. Hillary Clinton tried to run . HARRIS-PERRY: OK, hold. (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: We`re going to talk more about . (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: News developed overnight with this country`s brand new secretary of defense. I want to bring that story to you - when we come back. HARRIS-PERRY: Just days into his very first week in office, new Secretary of Defense Ash Carter traveled overnight to Afghanistan where today he`s meeting with U.S. troops and talking with Afghan leaders about how to ensure lasting stability as those troops withdraw from the country. In a joint press conference with Afghan President Ghani, Secretary Carter said one possibility maybe to extend the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ASH CARTER: Our priority now is to make sure this progress sticks. That is why President Obama is considering a number of options to re-enforce our support for President Ghani`s security strategy, including possible changes to the time line for our draw down of U.S. troops. That could mean taking another look at the timing and sequencing of base closures to ensure we have the right array of coalition capabilities to support our Afghan partners. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, you know, there`s the secretary of defense, we`re reminded that the Obama administration is still going on, right? SIMMONS: Right. HARRIS-PERRY: But we`re already gearing up for 2016. And so, talk to me about the Hillary Clinton of it all here. SIMMONS: So, I have a little bit of a different take on Hillary, which that I think that Secretary Clinton had a very different problem in 2008 than other people. Her campaign was particularly worried about running her so that she looked strong. She`s going to be the Margaret Thatcher in this race, right. But it`s -- down, Americans already knew Hillary Clinton was tough. They already knew she was strong. What they didn`t know was what drove her, what passions she had. And it wasn`t until she had that moment in New Hampshire where she started to tear up that everybody said, oh, wait a minute, there`s a person inside of there that we might actually connect with. I think that changed the trajectory of her campaign. So, she actually doesn`t have to worry about. Nobody is tougher than Hillary Clinton and nobody is going to be. The question is what does Hillary Clinton want to do for the country and make it a better place? HARRIS-PERRY: So, it`s interesting, you know. I keep suggesting that I think there`s going to be a woman on the Republican ticket, probably not at the top, but likely as a VP candidate. And I`m wondering are there models, particularly if the Republican Party is the daddy party, I wonder if those models of women running in the Republican Party who do this defense think differently? HURLBURT: Well, the first person I would point to is Joni Ernst, who frankly struggled at the beginning of her campaign to attract women. By the end, pulled 50 percent of the female vote. Talks about -- she is -- veteran, talks about her military service. Looks tough, but also looks very feminine. And you remember as Jamal said, she - the Clinton folks have always been worried that somehow looking tough makes you look unfeminine. And the difference, frankly, between being a boomer and an X- er, is you don`t agonize about that anymore. (LAUGHTER) HURLBURT: Ernst is a big one. Kelly Ayotte, who is a military wife. And again, I don`t love her positions on issues. HARRIS-PERRY: No, right, that`s a different question. HURLBURT: She sits on Armed Services. She does a great job. ARKEDIS: She`s from a swing state. HURLBURT: She`s from a swing state. ARKEDIS: Even if it`s a smaller swing state. HURLBURT: Yeah. BELLANTONI: Martha McSally. So, she just won this very contested Arizona House race and she used her experience to really make it a local race about this Air Force jet at the horizon, it`s got like a weird name. And this is exactly what she put down and the Republican leaders all point to her. And to Joni this can be the future. And it`s a generational change more than it is a shift in who the types of people are. HARRIS-PERRY: Now, I want to pop back just a little bit on this idea of how we use the military. Because (INAUDIBLE) for the key insight that our foreign policy has been entirely militarized. Ebola outbreaks, send the military. Earthquake in Haiti, send the military, tsunami in South East Asia, send the military. I guess I`m wondering, so, you know, if I`m sitting here trying to say, let`s have a more complicated way of thinking about what our foreign policy is, or even what our notion of defense is, but now the military is the one thing that can globetrot for the U.S.? ARKEDIS: Yeah, of course. I mean think about how we got here, right? The Cold War ended and, of course, it was all military all the time after the Cold War as it should have been. The Clinton administration came in and there was a peace dividend. They had the opportunity to draw down the military budgets. And then 911 happens, and then all of a sudden, the military basically gets a blank check to do whatever we want. Now, any time that there`s a crisis around the world, military or otherwise, just as you said, it`s sort of the globetrotting logistical expertise. It`s almost like it`s the UPS of the United States foreign policy where you have a problem. The military has somehow, somewhere, everything that you would need to try and solve that problem. So, it`s easy to call on. SIMMONS: This is exactly what -- this is right. And as a politician what you want to go after is you are looking for somebody with credibility. So in all the other pieces of government, the American public feels like they can`t do anything. The military functions. So, you can -- and you know why people believe that? Because the military advertises. They spend millions of dollars advertising every day. HARRIS-PERRY: I have to say, I have all the feelings about the "American Sniper" movie, I try to be very calm, when we had talked about on the show, but I do keep wondering in part like "The American Sniper" film and, you know, sort of what it`s doing -- right now is in part contributing to where we`re going to in 2016 around this idea of like the sole man who will protect us all. More to come, I promise, just on this topic and also about the most monumental thing that happened all week. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: When people spew hatred towards others because of their faith or because they are immigrants it feeds into terrorist narratives. If entire communities feel they can never become a full part of the society, in which they reside it feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists pray. We need to build and bolster bridges of communication and trust. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: That was President Obama speaking Thursday at a White House conference on violent extremism in a speech that advanced his foreign policy doctrine of approaching radicalism as the question of diplomacy and human rights. How womanly of him, right? (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: I mean it did - it felt like that`s precisely the thing that comes into critique. But when I hear it, I`m like, well, yeah, I mean if you keep engaging only in this military way, then you will keep sort of creating the underpinnings of the violence. HURLBURT: And if you talk to four star generals, you know, Petraeus will tell you day and night, you can`t kill radicalism. You have to do this -- we, the military, is the smallest piece and this stuff Obama is talking about is the bigger piece. And yet our politics has gotten so detached from military reality that we have had - you have had generals out there saying this stuff. You have had generals out there saying close Guantanamo, saying don`t torture. And it has no dent, because we have created this bizarre political culture of machismo that reality doesn`t touch. BELLANTONI: And at the same time like expert after expert will tell you that if you go to some rural community in a country that might hate America and you educate the women and you get the women to get out there and contribute to the economy or make sure the girls stay in school, that tamps down violent extremism 25 years from now. ARKEDIS: Here`s the crucial link between America`s domestic policy and our foreign policy and our values and our interests, right? We`re talking about equality of opportunity and freedom of expression. Those are the core values that basically this country holds near and dear. And so, those values should form key parts of our interests in foreign policy because when we spread those values, we should do it subtly and slowly and work for change over time as opposed to at the barrel of working under a howitzer, as we did in Iraq. Like the idea is, that basically, stability spreads and stability ultimately creates a safer world. SIMMONS: So, it`s also a political reality here, too, though, which is that Americans want a strong protector sitting in the Oval Office who will do what it takes, slay any dragon, to keep the country safe. HARRIS-PERRY: I mean literally, President Obama ran on, it`s like the second time, I killed Osama bin Laden. Like, you know, yes, I`m going to talk to my enemies, but then I killed Osama bin Laden and he just kept reminding of it. SIMMONS: So, he has to . HARRIS-PERRY: I killed Osama bin Laden. SIMMONS: He has to keep doing that. And sometimes he can lean a little more on the intellectualism side and I think that starts to make people feel like oh, wait a minute, is he really tough enough? Because you put on remember what you did four years ago -- what you did, you know, four days ago. HARRIS-PERRY: But the intellectualism - I guess this is part of my point about my worry about the kind of renewal of masculinity discourse. Is it - to be intellectually tough is to be tough. To do this kind of work, to plant the seeds with women, that is potentially even harder work than doing the work -- I mean, certainly. The work of the military is extremely hard work. But like that this is a kind of foreign policy that I think we have to start to respect as tough. HURLBURT: Well, look, we`re going through a cultural moment in the U.S. about what toughness is, what masculinity is, how, you know, as we`re a more diverse society, a more open society, how do people who have defined themselves in a certain place by what it means to be male, how does that fit with us? And those folks are really uncomfortable. HARRIS-PERRY: When you say, we are in a cultural moment, I just want to underline that this is a true fact that you have said. Why do I know this? Because Shonda Rhimes is doing this right now on "Scandal." If you have been watching "Scandal" I know -- you want "Scandal," you know that Olivia Pope has been like kidnapped by these people, so in this week it all came to ahead. And the big question was, should President Fitz have sent people to war? To save Olivia, and here`s what she had to say about it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UF: When the true test came along, when I was taken because of you, you go to war? You sent thousands of innocent soldiers into harm`s way, some of them to their death, for one person. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I had to save you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You didn`t save me! I`m on my own! (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: There`s just no question the woman is more powerful. (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: And she was like don`t go to war for one person. This is like -- I mean on the one hand you have to say, you know, in evening TV show, but this does seem to be like a cultural moment we`re grappling with here. SIMMONS: And we may be grappling with it a little bit more in the costs, right? (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, I see. SIMMONS: When I go home to Michigan, I mean some of the . HARRIS-PERRY: I live in North Carolina, I feel you. SIMMONS: They are a little more kind of -- the lines are a little more starkly driven. And I think, you know, somebody is banging on it. This is where Hillary Clinton is right. If someone is banging on your door, trying to get in your house, somebody has to get up and figure out what`s going on while, you know, the police . HARRIS-PERRY: But if somebody is banging on the door . SIMMONS: That might be your mom. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: If somebody is banging on the door . (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: Banging on your door, you just run out - and don`t talk first. And particularly in Michigan they should be clear about this. You might shoot the wrong damn person, you might shoot the innocent young woman standing on your front porch. Quite lively. Thank you to Heather Hurlburt and the rest of the panel is all sticking around. We have so much to say today. If you`re watching us, and the Nerdland, hashtag on Twitter right now, you know that Obama loves America is trending all thanks to New York City mayor, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. That`s next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: On Wednesday night Republican Governor Scott Walker was supposed to be the headliner at a Manhattan dinner. But a former New York City mayor and 2008 GOP alpha ran Rudy Giuliani stole the headlines when he said "I do not believe and I know this is a horrible thing to say, by I do not believe that the president loves America. He doesn`t love you and he doesn`t love me. He wasn`t brought up the way you were brought up, and I was brought up through love of this country." Giuliani was right. That was a horrible thing to say. And he got called on it. But rather than apologize or moderate his tone or just back up off my president a little, Giuliani decided not only to double down, but to go in on the president`s mama. To "The New York Times" Mr. Giuliani explained, "Some people thought it was racist. I thought that was a joke since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools and most of this he learned from white people." And then to CNN, "There`s a real attempt to make it a racial criticism. It has nothing to do with race. He was brought up by the -- by a white mother and white grandparents." Again, Mr. Giuliani is right. President Obama`s mother and grandparents were white. But it might be worth noting that in this country, a person born to an African parent and a white parent could be legally enslaved until 1865. Then in 1896, the Supreme Court established that doctrine, that separate but equal in the case of Homer Plessy, a New Orleans creole of color, whose ancestry was only a small fraction African. And from 1877 until 1965, a person with those two parents would have been subject to segregation and public accommodation, schools, housing and employment. In other words, having a white mother is not an automatic shield from the effects of racial injustice, but Mr. Giuliani`s school yard taunt of your mama don`t love America gives us an excuse to learn more about the woman who bore and raised our president and the lessons she taught him about this nation. The president`s mother was in the words of her biographer, a singular woman. Joining me now is author of "A Singular Woman: the Untold Story of Barack Obama`s Mother", Janny Scott. So nice to have you back in Nerdland to talk about Ann Dunham. JANNY SCOTT, AUTHOR "A SINGULAR WOMAN": Nice to be here. HARRIS-PERRY: You write about Ann Dunham as an anthropologist and a global citizen. Someone who did community organizing on behalf of the poor around the world. Is it possible that she contributed to a kind of jaundice eye for her son looking back on America? SCOTT: I would not say that. I mean it`s very hard to know how any parent influences their child. You can talk about the parent, you can talk about the child, but to make the link is difficult. But Ann Dunham never -- she lived half of her adult life abroad, mostly in Indonesia, but she never renounced her citizenship. She`s never been on the record in any way as being critical of the United States. And I think in many ways her experience abroad led her to an appreciation of what was in the United States. So, what she grown up with. She had a very American childhood in many ways. Her parents were from Kansas, she moved around the country and lived in different places, ended up in Hawaii. And from there became an anthropologist and ended up in Indonesia through -- a series of life events, not a conscious decision to depart from the United States and leave it behind. So, I would be very surprised if that experience that he had with his mother in any way jaundiced him towards this country. HARRIS-PERRY: As we were talking about, your experience as a child leaving abroad, now in a far less communist country . (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: You were in London, after all. But I just thought it would be useful to reflect on that. ARKEDIS: No, it`s absolutely true. And obviously, I will thank my parents until the day I die. I lived in London for four years as a 10 to 14-year- old, very formative years, and that gave me the perspective and my interest in the international relations and politics. I was saying earlier, I remember my very first political moment was when Ronald Reagan came to the United Kingdom and had a state visit with Margaret Thatcher. And they gave a press conference in front of Number 10 Downing Street, and I was captivated by the issue. And then also through those four years, my parents took me around Europe and I got to see new countries and experience new cultures and experience new languages. And that was wonderful. And that`s helped make me who I am today. HARRIS-PERRY: And I thought it might be worth listing. President Obama talks about his parents a lot, actually. So, I want us to listen to President Obama talking about his mother in 2008 before he was president and then I want to pop and listen to him talking about his father and the ways that they thought about the country. Let`s listen for a moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree. Who once turned to food stamps, but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships. Through hard work and perseverance, my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, in 2004 he`s talking about his dad coming as a student from Africa to a magical place, America, and his mom who endures a lot of difficulties, but seems to come out on the other side of it as saying therefore this is a place where hard work pays off. BELLANTONI: In addition to that, all the things we talked about in the last segment about laying diplomacy and understanding other cultures that comes from understanding other places and exactly what you were getting at. But think about how many Americans brag they have never been anywhere and don`t even have passports, right? You know, I`m married to someone who was born in Singapore, raised in Australia, lived in London when we met. And he understands the world in a different way. He`s seen many, many different things and places and cultures. And that`s the same thing about Barack Obama. He`s able to have understanding of the places where he lived in Indonesia, of some of his family in Africa. This is a very different kind of understanding of the world that helps you relate to other cultures and maybe expand your diplomatic interests. And that`s the key to how we`re supposed to run a strong foreign policy. HARRIS-PERRY: So on the one hand, I love this notion of kind of an experimental nature, but there`s also it seems to me, a kind of cosmopolitanism beyond experience that`s simply about saying having a critique of one`s nation does not mean not loving it. SIMMONS: Right. And when you`re listening to Rudy Giuliani, not to talk about him too much, but he is really a voice for a very particular segment of the United States that`s really wrestling with what`s happening in this country. HARRIS-PERRY: How right. This is not the America . SIMMONS: This is not the America we were promised, right? This is not the America they were raised in. And I think when they see Barack Obama he is a living, breathing example of what`s happening to the country that they thought was going to exist. And he`s reacting to that. HARRIS-PERRY: But now, I want to dig in on that a little bit more. Because still to come, President Obama on how his parents helped provide him the path for the Oval Office. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped my life, and it is on behalf of them that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as president of the United States. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: My parents shared not only an improbable love. They shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name Barack, or blessing, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren`t rich because in a generous America you don`t have to be rich to achieve your potential. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: That was Senator Barack Obama, so young, back in 2004 delivering the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. And, you know, I wanted to go back to `04 because it`s the first time that most of the nation meets the man who is going to become President Obama. And he puts his parents right at the center of that narrative and he says, in giving me this name they are suggesting that America is a good place. And in, you know, dreaming big dreams for me, they nonetheless see America as a good place. And I wonder about how he deploys them politically. Because we`re all there irritated with Mr. Giuliani for having the words about people`s mama. But on the other hand, President Obama has always asked us to think about his parents when we think about him. SCOTT: Yes, it`s true. In the campaigns they have always been carefully packaged to serve a certain purpose. The notion of a new kind of America, an America that combined the old America of Ann Dunham`s family with the new America of immigration and, you know, Africans and whatever, of his father`s family. But it`s - there are far more complicated story than that. You know, she`s always been a bit of a problem for him. You know, she`s this anthropologist who lives half of her life in Indonesia and even now in the end of his second term Giuliani is bringing her up as a kind of weapon against him. So, they are a very sort of volatile situation for him. HARRIS-PERRY: I also feel like -- and maybe this is just -- maybe this is me reading too much of my own self into it, but I have a mother who is a white woman who grew up in out west in Washington, in Spokane, Washington, went to Burgham (ph) University, grew up as a Mormon girl. And you`re not a white woman who raises an African-American child who has a strong racial identity without confronting American inequality. Like there are a few people who could tell you more about race and inequality and what`s wrong and good about America but my mom, because to be a white mother of a black child is to confront that. So I feel like when you bring up Ann Dunham, those are fighting words because we know what those women had to confront. BELLANTONI: And from his own telling in "Dreams from My Father," it`s more his grandparents in that influence. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. BELLANTONI: But the conversations come from them and he went right at this also during the campaign of how his grandmother said things that would make him uncomfortable and that his grandfather would sort of guide him along and confront this very different place. And in Hawaii where he spent a good amount of his life as well, you`re confronting like a different sort of, you know, the tribes, the native population there and then how that feels so distanced from the mainland. I mean it`s all distanced. HARRIS-PERRY: Let`s listen to him talk about his grandmother here for a moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I think about my grandmother who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She`s the one who taught me about hard work. She`s the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. (END VIDEO CLIP) SIMMONS: You know, what`s really interesting, I always -- I have a suspicion. I haven`t seen data on this, but I have a suspicion, that a part of the reason Barack Obama was able to get elected president was because there was so many families like yours, where all of a sudden there are these brown children sitting at the table that these parents and grandparents who never had to face these issues in a very personal way, but when a fight for the loved one at their table. And now they saw Barack Obama as sort of the kind of growing up of these people and their families. And so, this level of integration that`s happening at a very familial level in a country, causes people to ask questions about who we are and what we are dealing with that they never really had to ask. HARRIS-PERRY: Not unlike marriage equality and the ways, in which as in communities where people come out and they realize that their cousin and their brother and their sister are in a community that is in a circumstance of inequality. And they are like, well, for my people, here we go. Thank you to Janny Scott and to Jim Arkedis. Also, thank you to Christina Bellantoni. Jamal is going to be back in our next hour. 50 years ago on this day, we lost Malcolm X. And in today`s "New York Times," his daughter says of today`s movement he would bemoan the lack of sustained targeted activism. She joins me next. HARRIS-PERRY: 50 years ago today, the man Davis called our living black manhood was assassinated. El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz, or Malcolm X was just 39 years old. In those brief years, he had actively and purposely transformed himself from a young hustler to a charismatic spokesman for the nation of Islam to a serious man of faith and an independent global revolutionary. Malcolm spoke at universities around the world. He debated foundational for the rights activists - He addressed worshippers in mosques and crowds on street corners in Harlem. But history may best remember him for these words. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MALCOLM X: We want freedom by any means necessary. (APPLAUSE) MALCOLM X: We want justice by in means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary. We don`t feel that in 1964 living in a country that is supposedly based upon freedom and supposedly the leader of the free world we don`t think that we should have to sit around and wait for some segregationist congressman and senators and a president from Texas in Washington, D.C. to make up their mind that our people are due now some degree of civil rights. No, we want it now, or we don`t think anybody should have it. (APPLAUSE) HARRIS-PERRY: Less than a year after that speech on this day in 1965, three gunmen rushed the stage at the Audubon ballroom in Harlem where Malcolm X was speaking and shot him 15 times. Legendary actor Ozzie Davis eulogized Malcolm as our own black shining prince. Malcolm`s legacy is the subject of a new book, "X: A Novel" by his daughter who was only three years old at the time of his death. Ilyasah Shabazz joins me now. ILYASAH SHABAZZ, AUTHOR, "X: A NOVEL": It must be a hard day. You were three years old in there. SHABAZZ: Actually I was 2 1/2. HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah, and your father was killed. That`s very young. Do you have memories, even just visceral ones of him? SHABAZZ: I talk about it in one of my books. I think in "Growing Up X", I just have flickering images. You know, I remember this big, tall man. You know, obviously, and these big beautiful pearly white teeth that would pierce through an enormously beautiful smile. HARRIS-PERRY: I wonder in this moment, you pend these pretty intense op-ed for "The New York Times," in which you suggest that your father would have both support and also critique for the current black lives matter. You right, in part, "He`d agree that black lives matter, indeed, but also note that the uniform police officers who disagree are not likely to be persuaded by a hash tag." What are the things that he would offer as critique of the black lives matter movement? SHABAZZ: Well, I think that, you know, my father was a result oriented person, clearly. And I think, you know, this is what we get to recognize and appreciate in Malcolm today. So I think that he would want to see what is our end goal and how have we resolved institutionalized racism? You know, this - the injustice that continues even 50 years later. HARRIS-PERRY: This idea you wrote about, that hands up on the one hand, is indicative of that very strategy of making a black body unprotected. SHABAZZ: Right. Right. That`s right. We just have to have solutions. I think that we all need to come to a roundtable, have a discussion, a plan, organize, strategize, have some resolution. HARRIS-PERRY: You know, I thought a little bit about the legacy of your father in these past weeks as we have been, of course, talking about the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. in the context of the "Selma" film. Even the legacy of LBJ, because of the context of "The Selma" film. And so, you know, here you have, it`s a young adult novel. It`s written in your father`s voice as young person. And I think, OK, autobiography of Malcolm X is one of those must reads and then we have Manning`s text, on which, you know, offers a different kind of academic historical. What does this novel, "X-Novel" do for your father`s legacy? SHABAZZ: First, I want to say that the young lady that I wrote the book with, Kekla Magoon, is just amazing. She`s just amazing. But what this book does it allows -- because it`s historical . HARRIS-PERRY: Historical fiction. SHABAZZ: Historical fiction. Because it`s historical fiction, it allows the reader, the young reader to go on the journey with Malcolm`s, you know, Malcolm`s trepidations, Malcolm`s - just his conscience, his thoughts, and ultimately Malcolm coming into grips with his own self and understanding that we all have a purpose in life. And so, you know, if anything, we want young people to understand that they have a purpose in life. That life isn`t just about, you know, existing and accumulating a lot of wealth or material possessions. It`s about giving something back. And so we find that Malcolm, you know, goes on to become this amazing dynamic dynamic human rights activist. HARRIS-PERRY: He would have had this critique that you suggest that black lives matter, I wonder what would he say about how America right now is talking about world Islam. SHABAZZ: Oh, my gosh, I couldn`t tell you. I couldn`t tell you right now, but, you know, I`m actually happy that President Obama, you know, he said that this isn`t about Islam when we have all these terrorists killings. It`s about individuals who happen to be Muslims. HARRIS-PERRY: I so appreciate the book. I appreciate your presence here on what must be a tough anniversary. And I do have to tell you I met Ms. Betty Shabazz, Dr. Betty Shabazz, on the day I graduated from college, and it has such an impact on me for exactly the words you just said. Life is about some sort of purpose. You`re supposed to be doing something. SHABAZZ: That`s right. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I appreciate hearing that from you on this day. SHABAZZ: It`s an honor, I have to tell you. I love you, I admire you and I`m so happy that I could be here today on my father`s memorial day. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you. Thank you, too, Ilyasah Shabazz, and coming up next, the new power struggle between the White House and the courts and the millions of people caught in the middle. And a former NFL player, Ray Davis is here to talk about his new campaign. This is Love. There`s more at MHP show at the top of the hour. Thank you. HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. Here`s a head line for you. It`s cold. Tens of millions of you are waking up staring at your phone`s weather app in disbelief. Minus 5 in Johnstown, New York. Minus 16 in Massachusetts. This recent slew of winter storms has delivered a double-edged sword. First, the good, sledding like my little girl AJ here. Many of us have grabbed our snow gear and headed outside for some fun. She`s like what in the world? Now, North Carolina rarely sees much snow, especially the kind that really sticks. So, my older daughter, Parker and I, made the most of it. NBC News wanted in on the fun too pushing #itssocold. The news network asked folks to finish that system with their own personal deep freeze story. And the results were cooler than cool, ice cold. Check out this hitchhiking snowman. Can we catch a ride too? This woman found her iced coffee had been frozen solid. Or how about this snow-dusted playing a game of where`s Waldo? So, that`s the good. What about the bad and the ugly? Well, the winter storms have pummeled some areas, one right after the other. Places like Boston are still struggled to dig out. The dangerous conditions are being blamed for the deaths of at least 25 people, 18 of them died in Tennessee. Officials say more than half of those deaths were due to hypothermia. The others were car accidents on icy roads. Parts of the south are bracing for more ice and freezing rain. Areas that are unaccustomed to such unusual conditions. And it is not over yet. Another winter storm is incoming and it`s expected to be widespread, impacting parts of the south, northeast and even Midwest. You stay with us. We`ll have more on this record-shattering weather later in the hour. But right now, we turn to the latest challenge to President Obama`s action on immigration. The ongoing battle over immigration reform has raised an important question that has little to do with actual immigration policy. Just who runs this country? I mean, is it Congress? The president? Some judge at the border city of Brownsville, Texas? What happens when all of those folks disagree? In this case, immigration -- one Chamber of Commerce passed an immigration reform bill that would create a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. That was in June of 2013. The other chamber, not so much. So, the president acted on his own after warning Congress repeatedly that he would do so. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you don`t do it, I`ve got legal authority to make improvements on the system, I`d prefer and still prefer to see it done through Congress. In the absence of congressional action, I intend to take action because it`s the right thing to do for the country. If House Republicans are really concerned about me, taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Last November the president announced executive actions that would allow up to more than 4 million undocumented immigrants to stay in this country without the fear of deportation. The new rules would apply mostly to the parents of U.S. citizens, as well as more immigrants who came to this country as children known as dreamers. It`s an important and big change, one that would affect a third or more of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the U.S., the one that the president performed this act unilaterally. And that left many in Congress in an uproar, claiming that the president was far overstepping his executive power, and trampling on the separation of powers. Now, the president`s opponents in Congress are trying to exert their constitutional power. Republican lawmakers are attempting to dismantle the president`s executive orders with amendments to a $40 billion piece of legislation that would fund the Department of Homeland Security. Senate Democrats are filibustering the bill until Republicans take out those riders, and Republicans are blaming Democrats for the delay. A bill for funding the Department of Homeland Security is going to expire in a week. But according to Republicans, this fight over immigration reform isn`t really about immigration reform. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: This is not about actually the issue of immigration. What it is, is it`s about the president acting lawlessly. REP. STEVE SCALISE (R), LOUISIANA: We`re going to bring legislation to reestablish the rule of law, make it clear that it`s the Congress, not the White House, who writes immigration laws. GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R), TEXAS: This issue in this lawsuit is not about immigration. The issue in this lawsuit is about abuse of executive power. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: If you`re with us in the first hour, you remember the Republicans say the president is too weak and now he`s too strong. But anyway, this week, Republicans scored a victory when the third branch of government weighed in. On Monday, a federal judge in Texas blocked the president`s executive actions, putting the program on hold just before immigration officials were going to start accepting applications. The judge said that the president and Department of Homeland Security had stepped far out of bounds. He wrote, quote, "The DHS secretary is not just rewriting the laws, he`s creating them from scratch." The White House is wasting no time trying to undo this, and on Monday, they`ll ask the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to block the district judge`s ruling. Joining me now: Adam Cox, professor of law at NYU, Cesar Vargas, who is co- director of the Dream Action Coalition and a contributor for the Hill. Jamal Simmons is back, Democratic consultant for the Raben Group, and Sayu Bhojwani, who is founding director of the New American Leaders Project. Thank you all for being here. Adam, walk me through the judge`s decision just a little bit. What`s he claiming that the president did wrong as a legal matter? ADAM COX, PROFESSOR OF LAW, NYU: Well, so, the most important thing to recognize about the decision is the difference between what the court did and what he said. So what the court did is legally small and technical. He didn`t say that the president`s program oversteps his executive authority, or tramples on the powers of Congress. All he actually said was that the administration is supposed to go out and get public comments before they actually initiate this program. That`s the holding. But what he said was much broader because the opinion is laced with rhetoric suggesting that he does, in fact, think that the president you usurped his authority. HARRIS-PERRY: OK, I just walk me through before we move on because the other thing I found fascinating is apparently they kind of shopped around for this particular judge. I guess I -- being not a lawyer, I didn`t know this was a thing one could do. COX: Yes. So, in a case like this, you know, when off large number of states suing the federal government, they have their pick of fora. And that means they can go out and pick a judge who they think is going to be sympathetic to their case. That`s precisely what happened here and it`s no different in what happened in the lower court litigation about the Affordable Care Act. So, there are striking parallels between both contexts where, you know, partisan politics gets converted into a crisis in the lower courts can generate an opinion that then drives the political debate and changes the narrative. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So, on the one hand, we had the Republicans saying this is not about immigration. This is about this imperial president who is so weak -- but whatever. This is about this imperial president, this is about an overstepping, this is about a constitutional crisis. But the effect is, in fact, on immigrant families. CESAR VARGAS, CO-DIR., DREAM ACTION COALITION: Yes, absolutely. For me, last time when I was here, it was -- I told about how excited my mom was that she was going to be able to qualify. And, you know, it was very sad actually telling them the day of the decision that she had to wait. My sister had to wait. So many other immigrants had had to wait because, you know, to be with their families. So, for us it was about making sure they knew this is all about immigration. Republicans are using the courts to fight this political battle on immigration reform. The fact is, 11 presidents have taken similar action, Republicans and Democrats. And all of a sudden, it`s about the constitutional crisis. So for us, we`re going to make sure that our communities are protected and reality is that for us, it`s great to see my mother, my sister and so many immigrants out there that they are resilient, that they`re ready. They`re going to say, this is something temporary and we`re going to continue to fight and we`re going to continue to apply. HARRIS-PERRY: So, this really does leave me with a bit of a question. I want to think of myself as a political scientist who cares about a set of principles, about how things get done in the context of politics, in addition to the outcomes. So, but I do find myself in a reality where, for example, progressives will cheer the court when it basically upholds ACA, but then hate the court when it got the voting rights amendment, who will say we really want to make sure that these lower court judges don`t do something unless it`s marriage equality in Alabama and then we`re thrilled. Is there a way to separate out our politics and whether or not we think it`s a good decision base on what we want for a policy, from sort of what`s good practice for a constitutional democracy? SAYU BHOJWANI, FOUNDING DIR., NEW AMERICAN LEADERS PROJECT: Well, I mean, I`m so glad you brought up the ACA because that is one element of this practice that has been in place. There`s an overlap of 21 states between the 27 that sued around ACA and the 26 that sued around the executive action. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, really? I wonder what that overlap is. Could it be Republican governors? BHOJWANI: But this 26-state lawsuit also includes five states that have the whitest population in our country, including Maine. What does Maine really even care about what`s happening around immigration since such a small portion of their population is immigrant? And to some extent, I think there is a general concern that we do need to have as liberals about where immigration and issues of people of color fit into our broader agenda, right? Like what -- how can we create better bridges around the immigrants rights movement, the gay rights movement and other social justice issues. Where do we create greater consensus around what we need to do about black lives matter and all lives matter and discrimination matters. HARRIS-PERRY: I`m surprised at how much support there is. I mean, Jamal, I see when I look at this, I see that when we do this immigration poll, December of 2014 from Pew Research, 70 percent allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in this nation. But only 46 percent support executive action. So, if I`m a Republican, no wonder I say this isn`t about immigration. Of course, you`d say that because there`s 70 percent support for it. This is about the bad president because only 46 percent support for him. SIMMONS: Right. And this is what gets them in trouble and why they can`t win the White House, because they don`t -- HARRIS-PERRY: To the end, I love it. SIMMONS: They don`t listen to the 24 percent of people, the delta between that 46 percent and 70 percent of people who support immigration. So, in fact, what you have is a country that`s already ready to make this decision. It`s ready to move. And here`s the thing. What we`re talking about is we`re talking about Latin American immigration, because I grew up in Michigan. The place is overrun with Canadians. Nobody is worried about those Canadians, right? Nobody is worried about waitresses and East European waitresses in New York City nightclubs who are overstaying. Those aren`t the issues. People are talking about the fact they are concerned about having so many other Hispanics in the country. And that is what we have to sort of grapple with. There`s a racial element to this that Republicans don`t want to have to deal with but until they do, they won`t be able to win. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, fascinating. I love you win the nerd award for calling the difference between the 70 percent and 46 percent, the delta. Up next, President Obama is not standing alone. The attorneys general do have his back. We`ll talk to one of them when we come back. HARRIS-PERRY: Twenty-six states led by Texas sued the Obama administration to stop it from enacting the president`s executive orders on immigration. They claim the executive orders will hurt the states financially. For one, by flooding their DMVs with new applicants for driver`s licenses. But not all states agree. The attorneys general of another 12 states and the District of Columbia shot back with their own brief in the case, arguing that the executive actions will benefit their states plenty. Thank you very much. The leader of that effort is Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who joins us live from Seattle. Attorney General, tell me how, how does your state benefit from president`s executive action? BOB FERGUSON, WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL: First, thanks so much for having me on your show. I really appreciate it. And there`s multiple ways in which Washington state and then other states benefit. First and really foremost, in my state alone, there`s 100,000 individual who stand to benefit from the president`s actions. I`m their lawyer, and it`s important they have a chance to come out of the shadows and earn those wages that they are entitled to. The types of jobs they can work for, not under the table as well. So, it`s important on a human level as well to get them out of the shadows and back in our democracy in the full way. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, we were looking at the data post-DACA, which was the initial deferred action, that 79 percent of the DREAMers are actually earning more in better jobs, which likely means paying more taxes to their states and also that 41 percent of them returned to college after dropping out. So, yes, there`s a human side there, but it also feels like that`s a substantive social and economic piece. FERGUSON: Absolutely. We laid that out in the brief that we put before the court was that economic benefit that you`re referring to. In Texas, for example, in the next five years, if the president`s actions are allowed to go forward the state of Texas will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional tax revenues in the same way that my state will as well. We thought it was important for the judge to hear those benefits all around the country from that standpoint as well. HARRIS-PERRY: It`s interesting when you invoke Texas because former Texas A.G., now Texas Governor Greg Abbott, had something different to say back in December on "Meet the Press." Let`s take a moment and take a listen to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ABBOTT: If this abuse is not stopped, it will erode the Constitution that has attracted so many people to this country for generations. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Mr. A.G., do you believe that this will erode the Constitution? FERGUSON: No, quite the opposite. I think the action taken by the president is fully consistent with our Constitution and fully consistent with having folks who have come to our country get them the legal status that will bring them in to get the jobs, the wages they can participate in and fully contribute back to our society. I think that`s what`s critical here. I do think General Abbott, now Governor Abbott has it wrong. I think when he was attorney general, he was once asked to describe his job, he said, I get up in the morning, I go to work, I sue the Obama administration, I go home. This was the most recent of those actions. And I`ll leave it to your viewers to decide what the motivations were behind that. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So, hold one minute, Mr. Ferguson. FERGUSON: Sure. HARRIS-PERRY: I want to come out to you because that idea, we heard Ferguson say early on I`m their lawyer. And then we compare that to Mr. Abbott saying, oh, I get up and go sue the Obama administration. Is there a way to make this about immigration, about people, but also about the law in this sense? This is the job of folks. VARGAS: For us, it`s really bringing it back to the story. And I think the attorney general really said it precisely. This is about the families, about the people working, about the people who are paying taxes. I don`t know about you, for me, since I get excited, on April 15th I have to pay taxes. I get excited to pay taxes because it`s me contributing to the country. This is my country, I`m an American, I`m undocumented now. But for me, I came here when I was 5 years old. This is my home. I want to make sure this Constitution continues to provide freedom and liberty to generations to come. So, Texas definitely got it wrong. But at the same time, we know that the nation is way ahead of what Texas is, is way ahead of how we`re going to proceed this nation for generations. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Adam, you know, algebra and the law are different. Help us to understand how 26 attorneys general could be on one side. Another group could be on -- is there not just a legal answer here? COX: Well, unfortunately, I mean, as we have been discussing, like the legal arguments have been used so much in the service of politics that that explains the divide among the attorneys general. It is really Republican states, it`s red states versus blue states. But the law is actually pretty clear here, right? The law makes clear that because the government is as immigrants know not actually providing legal status, right? It`s huge practical benefits for immigrants who can come out of the shadows, but, fundamentally -- and this is what some folks are afraid of, these actions could be reversed by future administration. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. COX: And given that fact, it was just wrong of the district court to say what the president did was legal benefit on 4 million immigrants. HARRIS-PERRY: A.G. Ferguson, just to come back to you before we have to take our break here. Is there one -- is there one piece of this ruling that makes you more optimistic or more pessimistic about what`s likely to happen next? FERGUSON: I think at the same level, there`s nothing about the ruling that surprised me. I think your guests talked about this judge being selected by the plaintiffs. I agree with that. And to be perfectly honest, I`m not surprised by the ruling at all. This will ultimately be decided by the Fifth Circuit. Or even ultimately by the United States Supreme Court before we`re done. So, it was not a surprise from my standpoint at all. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in Seattle, Washington, this morning. FERGUSON: Thanks. HARRIS-PERRY: Up next, just who is welcome and who is not? I`m bringing the rest of the table back in. HARRIS-PERRY: The United States immigration policy has long made judgments about what kind of people we allow in and which we turn away. And it`s not all your tired and poor and wretched, teeming on the shore, President Obama frequently points out that he only wants to help those that are worthy immigrants. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We`re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security -- felons, not families, criminals, not children, gang members, not a mom who is working hard to provide for her kids. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, I get the politics of it, I really do. For those of us that have criminals in our family, I don`t know that distinction between families and felons, just initially struck me as, whoa, so now you have to be better as an immigrant than an American has to be simply by being born here. BHOJWANI: Well, and knowing obscure facts that you have to know to pass the citizenship test. I mean, I think that -- HARRIS-PERRY: Not that I wouldn`t be happy for American citizens to also know those things. I mean, I think that -- BHOJWANI: Right, exactly. I mean, look, I think that you`re right on target, right. The president needs to use some certain type of rhetoric, but then that rhetoric does perpetuates certain images that he`s walked a really fine line for a very long time. I think it`s important also for us to remember who is welcome changes over time, like once we really welcome low wage labor and all of a sudden, it was like shut it down and we needed high skilled labor and 1965 opened up the doors to many people. Now, we`re upset about who is here for low wage labor. So, there`s a moving target about who is welcome and who is not. And so, it`s really dangerous to play that rhetorical line to perpetuate the imagery that we`re already problematizing, you know? HARRIS-PERRY: And in part because it`s not the Canadian nurses, right, overrunning the Detroit hospitals because there is a racialized aspect to this. SIMMONS: There`s absolutely is. It`s helpful to pull back and get historical perspective. I was struck by a column in "The New York Times" about George Washington`s slave catcher and an African-American woman who had gone up north to New Hampshire to get away from him. The similarities of the struggle of these escapes Africans brought here to work and left and they started families and had communities, but they were always living in the shadow of being shut down by these folks who want to return them to another place -- HARRIS-PERRY: Did I tell you how much I love that you quoted that? I just met her on Thursday night at the University of Delaware and was asking her about the fact that this woman married, right, she married a free man of color, but it did not protect her as a matter of status and it was very much like being an undocumented who could at any point just kind of be captured and set back. SIMMONS: So, here`s a Founding Father who we all look at as this great American, but he`s shrouded by this dark legacy. The question is in our era, are we going to be shrouded by the legacy of how we treated undocumented citizens or undocumented people in our country and not welcoming them in and giving them a chance to live their lives. HARRIS-PERRY: I`m so happy you brought that up. OK, that said, I want to look at the new DACA requirements, because you talked a little about it. So, how does it feel to pay taxes, a very idea of exciting thing, of thinking of yourself as an American. So, DACA requires that you`d be in school, that you graduated from high school, obtain the general GED, or honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or Armed Forces, have not been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor. I get it, right? I do. But I also feel like -- but given that we know how likely those kinds of policings are in precisely these vulnerable communities, it continues to feel to me like we`re setting up a kind of multitier system of who gets to be here. VARGAS: It`s such simplistic rhetoric, right, when you say felonies, not felonies. The reality that some states like Arizona, Sheriff Arpaio, one of the most anti-immigrant sheriffs who pretty uses the law to target felons. He charges them with felonies for just working with a fake paper or fake identification. So, now, this person who -- this woman who was working to pay for school, to pay for her family is now charged as a felon and convicted as a felon -- HARRIS-PERRY: Even though it`s a status offense. It`s not some kind of a crime that is likely to harm another person. VARGAS: And really, that`s why it`s so important the rhetoric, the politics and when we go back to the stories. We`re talking about a mother who was recently deported for that. So, I think the president has a tough job, but at the same time, it`s about making sure we`re not simplistic to say families or felons, because our immigration is so messy, that we need to clarify, we need to clean it. The president took this action to elevate as many people out of the shadows, but making sure that we implement and give opportunity not just for the dreamers, but for the law students, for all workers, the parents who couldn`t go to school. HARRIS-PERRY: I guess part of what I`m wondering here is part of what happens is because immigration is under the Department of Homeland Security, this is that kind of post-9/11 moment where we begin to see every foreigner as a threat on our shores. SIMMONS: No, absolutely true. And I think what the president is doing, as you alluded already is he`s dealing with the politics of this. And the politics of this is, if we try to save everybody, we could lose the opportunity to save a lot of bodies. So, he`s going for what he can do at this particular moment and it is -- it`s politics. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I wonder if there`s a state by state strategy given there is so much pushback against this president. I mean, one of the things progressives had to do is take it out of the president`s hands, not because they don`t think it`s good at it, but just because it causes such pushback. Is there a state by state strategy? BHOJWANI: Yes. Since 2006, there`s been an increase in the number of bills in order to address integration, right? States can`t technically do anything, but they can do a wide range of things. They can when allowed undocumented immigrants to get driver`s license. They can provide in-state tuition to undocumented students. And we are very concerned about seeing -- we want to see more voices like ours in-state legislatures to push for that agenda because this was a very conservative action on the part of the president, and even when we have immigration for all, and we fix the system, there`s a huge range of activities that is needed for integration to happen so that everyone can feel like they can access what is available to them in America. HARRIS-PERRY: To be part of the big American story. Thank you to Adam Cox and to Cesar Vargas. Also, thank you to Jamal Simmons and also to Sayu Bhojwani. A quick programming note: something you absolutely will not want to miss. This Wednesday night at 8:00 p.m., MSNBC and Telemundo will present an exclusive town hall with President Obama on the issue of immigration hosted by MSNBC`s own Jose Diaz-Balart. Now, something monumental happened this week. I`m so excited. That story is next. HARRIS-PERRY: On Thursday, President Obama made a monumental announcement when he launched an initiative called Every Kid in a Park. The program will allow all fourth graders and their families to visit national parks free of charge for a full year. Additionally, three new national monuments will be created including the Pullman National Monument which the president dedicated Thursday afternoon while visiting Chicago`s Pullman Historic District. President Obama spoke about the town`s origins, industrialist George Pullman and the men who worked on his trains. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: This site is at the heart of what would become America`s labor movement. And as a consequence, at the heart of what would become America`s middle class. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, at the heart of the labor movement and the country`s middle class were the Pullman porters, the men who left the Jim Crow South to work on Pullman Company trains, serving passengers in first class sleeping cars between the 1860s and 1960s. The porters work became a movement. They joined together as the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters in 1925, and it became the first African-American labor union. The porters were also an integral part of the civil rights movement. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: It was those Pullman porters who gave the base by which A. Philip Randolph could convince President Truman to desegregate the armed forces. It was those porters who helped lead the Montgomery bus boycott, who were the central organizers of the march on Washington. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: And now, those porters deservedly so, will be honored in Chicago`s first national park, a testament to their legacy, their leadership and their labor. Up next, pushed out, overpoliced and underprotected. A new report on the lives of black girls. HARRIS-PERRY: Consider these recent head lines. A 6-year-old girl handcuffed for throwing a temper tantrum inside a classroom in Milledgeville, Georgia. In Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a high school honor student suspended for carrying a pocket knife. And in Henry County, Georgia, a 12-year-old nearly expelled for writing on a locker room wall. These are the harsh punishments delivered to students who are black girls and their stories are not uncommon. Twelve percent of black girls are suspended from school versus just 2 percent of white girl girls. And although black boys are more likely to be punished in school, black girls are more likely to be suspended. A new study highlights these discrepancies and implications, "Black Girls Matter: Pushed out, Overpoliced and Underprotected", was co-authored by Kimberle Crenshaw, who joins me now. Crenshaw is a professor of law at Columbia Law School and founder of the African-American Policy Forum. Kim, it`s so nice to have you here. We were just talking about how the report on the one hand is beautiful but also very troubling. And I`m wondering -- are there any particular findings that were surprising for you? KIMBERLE CRENSHAW, FOUNDER, AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY FORUM: Well, Melissa, we knew that there were dis-proportionality in terms of suspension and expulsion that African-American students suffered from overall. What we weren`t prepared to see was how great the disparity between girls. So, we looked in New York City and we saw that black girls were ten times more likely to be suspended or subject to discipline than white girls, and in Boston, it was 11 times. Now, that`s consistent overall, but let`s recognize that the disproportionality between girls is actually greater than the disproportionality between boys. So, to the extent this is a racial problem or a problem of racial discrimination, girls should be front and center in this conversation because they are experiencing high rates of racial disproportionality. HARRIS-PERRY: So, what do you say to someone who says, well, maybe the girls are just badder, and they just deserve to be punished? CRENSHAW: Well, that was one of the things, of course, we had to consider. It was why we decided, in addition to looking at data to actually sit down and talk to some young women who had been pushed out of school to get some of their stories. They told us precisely these kinds of stereotypes. That we are perceived to be loud, to be aggressive, to be unladylike. Teachers aren`t invested in us. Their basic role is to discipline us. And that`s consistent with some of the research that suggests that black girls tend to be viewed as unladylike, and so, some teachers, black as well as nonblack, see their role as trying to shape their behavior into more appropriate behaviors for women and girls. So, in that way, they are facing both gender kind of norming, which comes from a gender project and racial stereotypes because blackness is associated with aggressiveness. So, it`s an intersectional problem that they are facing. HARRIS-PERRY: I want to take a listen to the attorney general of the United States talking about this issue, not specifically around girls, but around the racial disparity and the effects that it has on longer term. Let`s take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: We will continue to work with allies, like the Department of Education and others throughout the federal government and beyond to confront the school to prison pipeline and those zero tolerance school discipline policies that really do not promote public safety and that transform too many education institutions from doorways of opportunity into gateways to the criminal justice system. A minor school disciplinary offense should put a student in the principal`s office and not a police precinct. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, is that what`s happening? They are being put in a principal`s office, but instead in a police precinct? (LAUGHTER) CRENSHAW: Well, actually, sometimes, the police precinct is in the school. I think people don`t realize that police are now in the school. When you have police in the school, it`s like if you`re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you`re police officer, you saw indiscretion, the kinds of things that happen between students look like a criminal justice problem. So, we have seen some of the consequences of that. I think one of the things we don`t realize is how girls are particularly positioned. We talked to one girl who had had gotten arrested for a fight, then she was put on probation, so every time she came to school late, she got a ticket. When the ticket accrued, she ended up being arrested and eventually wound up in solitary confinement. So, these are the kinds of -- we`re talking literally -- HARRIS-PERRY: For being late at school? CRENSHAW: Yes. We`re talking literally about the school to prison pipeline. It`s not, you know, a metaphor. It`s real. HARRIS-PERRY: There`s so much more in this report that at the core, it is this idea that black girls matter, too. We can`t just assume there are girls programs and race programs. But we have to look specifically at that intersection. Kim Crenshaw, thank you so much for this report and for helping to get this information out there. Before we take a break, I do want to get an update on the record-shattering cold that`s creating dangerous conditions for millions of people across the country this weekend. At least 25 deaths are blamed on this latest arctic blast and another widespread round of ice, snow and freezing rain is on the way. Joining me from Perrysburg, Ohio, NBC`s Kerry Sanders. Kerry, we`ve got a condition on your scene. I mean, it`s snowing like on you right now. My goodness! KERRY SANDERS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it`s been coming down since early this morning. It`s certainly picked up. We have about an inch on the ground and it`s possible we could see according to forecasters, up to six, maybe nine inches all the way over from this area near Toledo over towards Cincinnati. The good news is that temperatures are up, 23 degrees, still cold, but the temperatures are up. It was negative 12 yesterday before you factored in the wind-chill, that took it down to negative 21. There are some folks who are finding a little bit of upside to all of this and those are the ice sculpture folks that have gathered here for the international competition. This is Neptune or, I guess you would say, frozen Neptune from the frozen right now. But, Melissa, you know, there are some people who are actually saying, this is great because the temperatures are up. I`m thinking -- 23 degrees, not so great and really kind of put a punctuation on the end of that, it`s not going to get above freezing until next month. They are in for a little chill here for the coming days and beyond. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh. SANDERS: So, they`re in for a little bit of a chill here for the coming days and beyond. HARRIS-PERRY: Man, am I ready for spring. Kerry Sanders in Perrysburg, Ohio, doing the hard work today while the rest of us are warm and toasty right here in 30 Rock. But enjoy the ice sculptures. SANDERS: I will, and you know what? There`s a sand sculpture contest in Mexico. I think I`ll go there, next. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, you can go there, next. Still to come this morning, the hit show "Empire" is playing to a particular stereotype about the African-American community. But a friend of this show former NFL player Wade Davis is working to change all that and that`s next. HARRIS-PERRY: "Empire", the hit new show on FOX, keeps getting bigger, drawing in 12.5 million viewers Wednesday, coming in a close second to the highest rated drama on TV, AMC`s "The Walking Dead." Now, devoted fans know it`s a primetime soap opera filled with glamour, music and cash, but the heart of the story is Terrence Howard`s character, Lucious Lyon, the hip hop mogul pitting his sons against each other, one of whom he rejects because he`s gay. Now, the story line and the reaction is generated head lines focusing on how show creator Lee Daniels wants to expose homophobia in the black community. But a new campaign is challenging the notion that African-Americans are more resistant to same-sex relationships than other groups. "This is Luv" is a multimedia campaign accepting LGTBQ acceptance in the black community and it is culminating in a town hall discussion tomorrow at the Human Rights Campaign of Washington, D.C. The events will feature retired NBA star Jason Collins, son of Magic Johnson, E.J. Johnson, and Nerdland favorite Michael Denzel Smith, Aisha Moodie-Mills and many more. Joining me now, one of the people behind the campaign, "This is Luv," former NFL player, Wade Davis. You know you are in intersectional space when like the whole Nerdland crew is there, you know, who is down for this. But talk to me a little bit about this campaign as a way to push back against this powerful stereotype that black folks are more homophobic than others. WADE DAVIS, FORMER NFL PLAYER: You know, one of the big issues for us is that there`s such a pervasive narrative that we don`t love each other. And it was really shocking to me that people only focused on Terrence`s relationship with Jamal -- HARRIS-PERRY: And not Cookie. Or baby boy? DAVIS: Exactly. Or his brothers, right? So, 75 percent of his family structure loves and embraces him. And we said, you know what? We have to control the actual narrative. There`s an African proverb that says, until the lion has a historian, the hunter will always be the hero. We don`t have a historian. So, our goal with myself and Darnell Moore (ph) and (INAUDIBLE) is to say, how can we change the narrative, add to it. And "This is Luv" campaign has just been blessed by so many different people. HARRIS-PERRY: So, when you talk about narratives, this is literally people telling their stories. And instead of these being the stories of "I came out and was rejected and abused," these are stories of "My family has embraced and loves me." DAVIS: Oh, yes. HARRIS-PERRY: Tell me a favorite story or a surprising one. DAVIS: So, there was a young girl that I used to work with at the Hetrick- Martin Institute, and she was a young lesbian. And based on her gender expression performance, I`m pretty sure that her mother that she was a lesbian. But she said, I`m going to run away from home because my Caribbean mother who`s black will never accept me. So, I see her six months later and I said, how`s everything going? She says, oh, ciao, my mother knew I was a lesbian the whole time and she loves me. That speaks to the fact that our young kids are growing up never believing that they will be loved. So, we have to change this narrative. We have to add to the narrative, because what lead to this is showing is true, but what everyone is writing about is also true as well. HARRIS-PERRY: So, this is so interesting, this idea that that is in part is what is at stake for LGBTQ youth of color in particular, that if we keep perpetuating that you will certainly be rejected, then in fact, you may be more likely to closet or shield yourself than if we say, well, you are more likely to find some space, some made family or some actual family, kind of bio family that, in fact, does love and support and find a pathway with you. DAVIS: Yes, and also the LGBT community in general is rather racist, if I`m being honest, right? So, if you have black kids who are leaving their black family and can`t find family in the LGBT community, where do they actually go, right? So, our goal is to say that hey, there is someone in our community that will love you and embrace you. And even in the "Empire" show, you can even see Lucious Lyons is growing and evolving around his love for his son, just like our president did, just like my mother did. So, there is love there, and it just may not happen overnight, but it`s a process. HARRIS-PERRY: I wonder, in fact, you know, we were just talking to Kimberle Crenshaw about the ways in which black girls are overpoliced, how they`re pushed out. And I also wonder if there are sort of notions about masculinity, notions about femininity and particularly high stakes for black folks about being a real man or being a real woman. How is it -- and it sounds kind of silly -- but how is it that love helps you to navigate those rigid notions about what is the right way to be? DAVIS: I always say that love erases that space between you and me, right? So, if we can show each other love, if we can show off vulnerability, right, and know that vulnerability is a strength, right, that showing someone in your intercommunity is actually a space of love and kinship, then we can move past these sexist notions of femininity and masculinity. HARRIS-PERRY: Tell me more about what`s happening to tomorrow`s event. DAVIS: Yes. So, we have Darnell Moore, Aisha Moodie-Mills is going to moderate the panel. We have a town hall of young people there who are not just going to be talked to by our special guests but can talk with. We want it to be a conversation, an actual sharing, where people can say, my family, my community, people who look like me actually really do love me. HARRIS-PERRY: It`s nice. You know, February is that intersection between the month where we celebrate love, right? DAVIS: Right. HARRIS-PERRY: On Valentine`s Day. It`s also Black History Month. But sometimes as we`re doing our black history thing, we`ll fail to talk about the heroes and sheroes in our community who are also part of the LGBT community. Any names we want to call as remembering in Black History Month, of queer folks who have made such a difference? You know, Bayard Rustin comes to mind. DAVIS: James Baldwin, there are just so many. But I want to celebrate our current ones -- HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. DAVIS: -- like you. It is such a pleasure to have you be such an ally to me and to everyone else who is doing this work and to celebrate us in such a public way. So, thank you so much. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you. And I will give that love right back to the members of my family, who loved at every point. And to my -- particularly too my niece, Chris, who I know is a young lesbian African-American living in Chicago right now, is navigating her space. And I see her doing it. She should know -- we all love you deeply, Chris. Thank you to Wade Davis. And don`t forget to check out his campaign at Facebook.com/thisisluvproject. Now, that`s our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. I`m going to see you at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. And OMG! Tomorrow`s show will be on Fleak. We`ve got a table of millennials. Now, these young people are undergrad and they`ve agreed to look up from their devices just long enough to join us on set. And let us know whether or not they plan to change everything or not. So, grab your bae and tune in Sunday morning. After all, YOLO. Now, it`s time for a preview with "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT." LOL, Alex, do you have any idea what I just said? THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 23, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022101cb.451 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 100 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 22, 2015 Sunday SHOW: UP with STEVE KORNACKI 8:00 AM EST UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI for February 22, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Kristen Welker, Reynolds Wolf, Jamie Novograd GUESTS: Amy Klobuchar, Bob Dold, Jim McDermott, Christina Bellantoni, Robert George, Basil Smikle Jr., Danny Vargas, Jose Antonio Vargas, Ben White, Christianne Boudreau, Svante Myrick SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 15550 words HIGHLIGHT: The Mall of America confirming that it has increased security, after being named as a target in an apparent video by a Somalia-based terror group. It`s the same group behind the 2013 attack in the mall in Nairobi, Kenya. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC ANCHOR: Can the president`s executive action survive? All right. Good morning. Thanks for getting up with us today. A lot to come, a lot to talk about. A lot of news happening, around the world and around the country this Sunday morning. A lot we`re going to be getting to starting with the breaking news overnight. The Mall of America confirming that it has increased security, this after being named in an apparent video by a Somalia-based terror group. It`s the same group behind the 2013 attack in the mall in Nairobi, Kenya. We`re going to have much more ahead this morning on that. And Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, she represents the state where the Mall of America is located, she is scheduled to join us next hour. Also in the news this morning, making headlines, more signs in Ukraine that the cease-fire is unraveling before our eyes. The United States and Britain both now discussing the possibility of new sanctions against Russia. This just a week after that cease-fire supposedly went into effect. And here in the United States, the fight continuing over President Obama`s executive action on immigration. A battle that could end up cutting off funding for the Department of Homeland Security only five days from now. We`re on shutdown watch officially this week. And Scott Walker seems to have turned his Rudy Giuliani problem into a Scott Walker problem by saying he doesn`t know whether President Obama is a Christian. We`re going to be taking a closer look at exactly what he said. Also, the Oscar frenzy goes to the new heights this morning. It`s going to be looking a little bit at maybe a gambler`s guide, or better`s guide to tonight`s Oscars. Why does it always seem that there are few very real surprises that win and a lot of sure things that do come in. But we begin this morning with President Obama fighting back on two fronts for one of his top priorities. With his immigration actions now under fire from both Congress and from the courts. The president scrambling to rally the public, trying to protect policies that would defer deportations of as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants. These are policies that Obama implemented unilaterally because he says of Congress` refusal to act. The president heading to Miami this week, on Wednesday, to speak with that city`s immigrant community. It`s a town hall event that will be moderated by our own Jose Diaz Balart. It`s going to air in prime time in fact right here on MSNBC on Wednesday night. At the same time, the Obama administration is also upping its legal battle. Just in the next 24 hours they plan to ask a Texas federal court to block last week`s ruling that would postpone Obama`s immigration actions. It was being described as the most aggressive legal approach available to the White House after that set back in the courts. Immigration fight has also prompted the latest battle on Capitol Hill. Republicans insisting that a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security also include a provision that would block Obama`s immigration actions from taking effect. House Speaker John Boehner saying that Republicans will let the security agency, the DHS, shut down just five day from now rather than let the president`s planned actions continue. That some voices in his party are calling for a different approach. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R ) ARIZONA: It`s not a good idea, Joe, to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. And we should be working together despite the obstruction of our Democratic colleagues to resolve these issues that we don`t shut it down. And now we have got a perfect reason to not shut it down because the courts have - decided at least initially in our favor. Joining me now with the latest on the war over immigration, we have NBC White House correspondent Kristen Welker. So, Kristen, as we say two fronts in this. There`s the public opinion, there`s the battle over the shutdown, also talking about the legal battle here. What is the White House trying to do this week? KRISTEN WELKER: Well, first, Steve, to the legal battle, look, as early as tomorrow, as you pointed out, the Obama administration is going to file that emergency injunction. KORNACKI: Do we lose - it sounds like we lost Kristen Welker there. We will try to get her back, and try to get you more of an update on what the White House is looking to do specifically on immigration this week. Meanwhile, though, as we`re saying the battle over the president`s immigration policies at least would leave millions of undocumented immigrants in limbo unsure if they will be shielded from deportation as the president intended before his action was blocked by that court. You may remember the name Astrid Silva. She`s a dreamer from Nevada. President Obama shared his story when he announced his executive actions to defer deportations for people like her and her family three months ago. Here`s what she had to say this week. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ASTRID SILVA: Our families are waiting for any type of relief. We need to make sure that they`re allowed to stay in this country. And every single day that passes by as one day less that our families are able to live in peace and to live without the fear of immigration coming and knocking on our doors. Because now our community doesn`t know the date. Now our community doesn`t know if this is going to happen. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And joining me now to discuss President Obama`s immigration actions and what their delay means, journalist and filmmaker Jose Antonio Vargas, founder of "Define America" and executive editor of the new "L.A. Times" project "Emerging Us." And also with us this morning, Republican strategist Danny Vargas, no relation there. He`s a former chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly. So, Danny, let me just start with you with the big political question of the week. It certainly seems like we`re heading towards this DHS shutdown, showdown. Republicans in the House, and then as many in the Senate as well basically saying, look, we would rather shut down, deny funding to the Department of Homeland Security this week than implement - then have the president implement any of these immigration policies. Do you think that`s the approach the Republican Party should be taking this week? DANNY VARGAS, GOP STRATEGIST: I don`t. I really think - and good morning. I think the Department of Homeland Security is an incredibly important department. I think it needs to get funded. I think the judge`s ruling gives us, I hope, some breathing room in order to allow DHS to get funded and hopefully, at the same time, allow the Republicans in Congress and the Senate to craft their own version of immigration reform. There was a set of legislative solutions that the Republicans and the House were putting forward last year that never got anywhere in the Senate. Now if there is a Republican controlled Senate, I`m hoping that we`ll be able to move forward with a piecemeal approach to immigration reform that provides some more of a permanent solution that I think Jose and I are both interested in seeing for this population. KORNACKI: Well, let me ask you about that, Jose, because, you know, as Danny sort of gets to there, one of the criticisms from some Republicans at least of the president on immigration, on his executive actions, he`s taking on immigration, is that he sort of - they would say he sort of short-circuited the legislative process. That hey, we could have had some kind of reform in Congress. Marco Rubio is ready to do something in 2012. JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS, EXEC. EDITOR #EMERGINGUS: Until he wasn`t. KORNACKI: Well, so, what`s your take on that? JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: My take on that is, for far too long the Republicans - I mean President Obama gave too much ground to the Republicans. That`s why he deported what - more than 2 million people in six years, right? I mean he deported that many people because he kept saying, look, let me work with Congress. Let me work through this way. Let me make sure we`re following this in a matter that the American public would support which is going through Congress. Well, that didn`t work, right? I mean how many times did obstructionists in the Republican Party try to stop any sort of movement and development on this issue? This is the same party, by the way, that says that, you know, Latinos have cantaloupe legs. This is the same party that has been saying ... KORNACKI: This was - You`re talking about a comment from Congressman Steve King from Iowa. JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: And so, it`s really hard to keep saying, let`s wait for the - you know, for Congress to get its act together when they don`t even want to acknowledge the simple facts about this issue. I`ve read, by the way, this stay that the Texas judge, you know, issued last week to stop this. By the way, I`m one of the 5 million people who would benefit from something like this. This is the kind of policy that I`m waiting for, so I can go see my mom, hopefully this spring after 21 years, right? And now, of course, politics is happening. Does the judge know that there are 1.7 million undocumented people in Texas who in 2010, the latest year available, paid $1.6 billion in state and local taxes? Just in 2010. Does he even know how much we contribute to the state economy? To the national economy? Because that`s nowhere in that 120 pages. DANNY VARGAS: Steve, let`s be honest about it. We live in a republic, we do not live if a monarchy. We have a president. We don`t have a king. We have a legislative process that affords the people and its representatives to craft a law. And it`s up to the executive branch to faithfully execute those laws, right? If there`s a demand to change the laws, then we have a process by which we can do that. I`m one that - I`m an advocate of immigration reform. I think we absolutely need to do it for the needs of our economy, for the needs of our security and for, frankly, our nature as a country to be able to move forward with immigration reform, but it has to be done in a legal way. I think the undocumented population deserves a permanent solution with the force of law behind it. KORNACKI: OK. Let me -- DANNY VARGAS: The executive action is a Band-Aid approach. At best, as they sugar rush, it doesn`t provide the level of security. KORNACKI: All right. I understand that, but let me - but let me just follow up on that for a second. Because this is - when we talk about the executive actions from the president, we`re talking about sort of two phases here. There`s sort of a broader thing that he announced a few months ago. That`s now been put on hold by this court down in Texas. But before that, in 2012, he did this thing called deferred action, DACA, they call it that has benefited not as many people but that has benefited and currently is benefiting a large number of people in this country. The question is would you as a Republican, now that the president has done this would you like to see that rolled back? Those protections that now exist for these people rolled back? DANNY VARGAS: What I want to see, I want to see a solution that is worked through Congress. I want to see a permanent solution to our immigrant system writ large. Our immigration system is broken. And it`s not just about the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, it`s about a system that doesn`t need the needs of our security or our economy. I want to make sure that we have an immigration system that meets the needs of the United States of America. KORNACKI: Right. Jose ... JOSE VARGAS: Danny, and I completely agree here. We completely agree. But the problem is how do we get this Republican Congress -- now that you control both houses, what do we do now? I mean I completely agree with him that we need a permanent solution, that this is nothing - but until something happens, what do we do? Do we deport 1,000 people every day? Do we roll back this DACA that has now made undocumented people go to college, pay taxes, contribute to this country that they call their home. Is that what do we do now? I mean ... DANNY VARGAS: No, what we need to do, we need to let the system play itself out. We have never had a situation in the last several years where there`s the Republican controlled House has had the opportunity to work with a partner in the United States Senate. The Democrats in the United States Senate have blocked what the House is trying to do. There are two houses of Congress, they have to be able to work together and reach a consensus, reach an agreement as to how to move forward. The House wants to move forward with a piecemeal approach, with multiple bills, the Senate wants to move forward with a large, comprehensive bill. Those are two different approaches. The two Houses need to be able to come together. And now that there are Republicans in control of both Houses, hopefully we can move forward with that. What the president did with the executive action was to - that process and he frankly poisoned the well for us to be able to actually move forward in a consensus approach. KORNACKI: Jet me just ask you, Jose, we talked about - we have the legal situation right now, that`s unresolved. We have the political situation. Who knows if Congress can or will do anything in the next couple of years. Are you optimistic when you look at what you want out of this, are you optimistic that that`s going to happen? JOSE VARGAS: And I think more than the legal, in the political - we have the moral bankruptcy here that`s happening, right? I mean this is an issue that`s impacting people`s daily lives. And yet, we see it played, this kind of - I mean look, a lot of us, a lot of us were expecting this judge, given that he`s been a conservative judge, who`s been rallying against immigrants in Texas for years, so, we knew this was happening, right? But the fact that the predictable partisan politics is being played, phrases like spoiling the well, I mean we`ve heard that so many times, right? I think the American public, who, by the way, majority of whom back the president`s action, I think they understand that`s something has to happen. And that unfortunately, you know, toxic politics like this is preventing something from actually moving forward. KORNACKI: Well, it`s going to be the story to watch this week. As we say that shutdown clock basically is in effect right now. We will see what happens in Congress, we`ll see how the public reacts to that. My thanks for this morning to Danny Vargas in Washington, Jose Antonio Vargas. Again, their relation - emerging us. And thanks for coming in this morning. I appreciate that. This programming reminder, that President Obama will be talking more on this issue with our own Jose Diaz Balart this week. Jose moderating a town hall with the president in Miami on Wednesday. He will be taking questions from those in attendance, but also from people who send them in over social media. So if you have a question for President Obama, send that using the #obamatownhall. And be sure to watch MSNBC at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday night for that town hall. Still ahead this morning, Hollywood`s best and also Hollywood`s worst. We are going to be celebrating those who are celebrating - then up next, is I don`t know still an acceptable answer for a politician who`s asked whether President Obama is a Christian. More on who exactly is in hot water right after this. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSON: The mayor can speak for himself. I`m not going to comment on what the president thinks or not. He can speak for himself ... KORNACKI: Did you agree with those comments? Did you agree with those comments? Were you offended by those comments? What was your reaction when you heard them? WALKER: I`m in New York. I`m used to people saying things that are aggressive. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Wisconsin governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker on Thursday trying to say as little as possible about Rudy Giuliani`s inflammatory remarks about President Obama`s love of country remarks that were delivered at a Walker event where Walker was present. Now, this morning a new controversy involving Walker, this time about President Obama`s religion. Walker telling two "Washington Post" reporters yesterday afternoon, that "I don`t know whether the president is a Christian." "I`ve actually never talked about it or I have not read about that. I`ve never asked him that. You`ve asked me to make statements about people that I have not had a conversation with about that. How could I say if I know either of you are a Christian, he`s talking to two reporters there. To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and increasingly they dislike the press. The things they care about don`t even remotely come close to what you`re asking about. Walker`s spokesperson later clarified that "Of course, the governor thinks the president is a Christian. There also comes a little - this also comes a little bit more than a week after Walker made headlines by telling a British interviewer that he would "punt on a question about whether he believes in evolution." Walker has been surging in Republican polls lately but the way he`s handling the new media scrutiny is prompting questions about whether he`s ready for prime time. Conservative writer Matt Lewis saying in a new column this morning, "Campaigns are crucibles, if the last couple of days are a harbinger of things to come, he`s in trouble." On the panel this morning to talk about this and a lot of other stuff, we have Robert George, editorial writer at "The New York Post," Basil Smikle Junior, political strategist and professor at Columbia University, and Christina Bellantoni, editor-in-chief with "Roll Call." So, three times as a trend, three times as a charm. I don`t know, three times as a story. So, here`s Scott Walker. It`s evolution a couple weeks ago, then it`s the Rudy Giuliani comments and now it`s is the president a Christian. And we just read through everything he says to those reporters, and it`s followed up by a spokesperson saying about eight words. Of course, he`s - President Obama is a Christian. Hasn`t Walker learned at this point? That`s how you answer a question like this? CHRISTINA BELLANTONI, "ROLL CALL": Well, and also, let`s say you want to criticize the president. This is what confounds me about this. There`s a million things you could say. President Barack Obama loves this country a ton, he`s the worth president we`ve ever had. Or he loves Texas more than he loves anything else. Whatever. And so, you get into this, you tie yourself in knots, which is all the media is going to talk about for the next four days. He`s going to keep getting the question asked of him. I`ve been covering Barack Obama since 2006. This is a question that has continued to come up. And so, it`s feeding into this like little quiet narratives, and he`s trying to make some broader point about this is the press` fault for you asking the wrong questions. You can shut it down. KORNACKI: And that`s the point that Matt Lewis, again, a conservative writer in this piece is making. He`s saying, conservatives say hey, you don`t ask these questions, the Democrats, you don`t ask him about X. And he`s saying well, hey, if that`s true, or that isn`t true, put that aside, because if you`re a presidential candidate you have to know better than this. ROBERT GEORGE, "NEW YORK POST": Yeah, and it is - just give me a minute, it is rather early, it is rather early in the game. It is also kind of a got you question. It`s kind of funny, it said, you know, President Obama`s Christianity questioned. It`s like so, you know, but why was the question asked in the first place especially when he`s not running - when he`s not running again? But yeah, that`s the thing. If Scott Walker does want to run for president, he`s going to be focusing on the fact that Barack Obama is not going to be running again, as far as I understand. You know, you are not allowed to run for a third time. So, you know, it shouldn`t matter. So he said - just said, look, he is a Christian. He`s going to be out of office in two years, I want to talk about the future of the country. End of story. KORNACKI: But I guess the significance of the moment, it is early, but then it`s also, we always call this the invisible primary. GEORGE: Right. KORNACKI: This is that moment when it`s all these Republican donors, and all these sort of opinion shapers in the party are sizing up all these candidates, they are taking sides, and then that has a huge effect on who end up being in contention a year from now. I looked at somebody like Scott Walker, as we said, the last few weeks he has really gotten a surge in the polling. You know, there`s polls in New Hampshire that - of Jeb Bush. He`s moved ahead in some polls in Iowa, and so now, when he starts handling questions like this, I think the risk there was this influential people in his party start looking at him and saying, I don`t know, maybe we get some other options here. BASIL SMIKLE, JR., POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Yeah, that`s absolutely right. And then sort of going back to your point. There are these quiet narratives, as you say, that are being spun. And I think this was his attempt to sort of test one of those narratives and it was clumsily done. And the reality is that the more that he keeps tying himself into that, the more that he keeps stepping into this, I don`t see a tightening of his message or his narrative. And to me that, I think the Republicans broadly are going to look at him and say, well, not only do you have to start explaining yourself a little more, but I think just the American -- the voters are going to ask the same question. KORNACKI: And this - and now the - I mean, again, so OK, there`s the conservatives who say, well, the press is asking these got you questions and everything, but at the same time when he handles them this way this will only invite the press to ask more questions. I was talking to (INAUDIBLE) or my produce this morning, say, is somebody going to ask him now, was the president really born in Hawaii? Are we going to start getting that? But then how does he handle that? You know? BELLANTONI: And then, the other part of this, is he`s about to hang out President Obama for the winners - the meeting with the president - on the governor, you know. (CROSSTALK) BELLANTONI: And you`ve also got this - net for CPAC. And so, whether or not, people are asking this question of every candidate, you know that every candidate that gets on stage is going to be able to respond to the media and saying they are bringing up dumb controversies. But it still keeps the issue alive. And you do, you - it`s exactly tying yourself into a pretzel for no reason. And I - I think the reporters shouldn`t be asking this question either. I mean it`s kind of dumb. It`s something for a debate stage, right? SMIKLE: But ... BELLANTONI: You get all ten Republicans, and you say, look, you know, is this an issue that`s settled or not settled? SMIKLE: But I would also argue that if you have individuals like Rudy Giuliani who was still - who are out there and who are making a lot of these comments that all it does is it keeps these questions out there, keeps the reporters and the media active. And it would - it gets to a point where candidates like Walker and others are going to have to say, you know, the same thing they did to African Americans for a long time, are you going to repudiate Louis Farrakhan? They are going to have to do exactly the same, the same thing. So, I think to the extent that Republicans want to keep along the sort of straight and narrow path, they`re going to have to push people like Giuliani sort of out of the picture. GEORGE: Yeah, but the other aspect of this is, though, I think Republicans in general do get frustrated by the idea that they have to somehow speak or repudiate every other Republican, not just whether it was a former mayor of New York, but, you know, some - you know, I don`t know, dog catcher in Dubuque, Iowa or something like that. Or he said this. Do you agree? You know, do you agree with that? And I think they do get kind of tired of those - of those kind of got you questions. But this is not the - a way to respond. KORNACKI: Right. I mean as - you can get tired of it, but it just seems like presidential campaigning 101, if you don`t want stories like this, especially if you have just gone through this twice in the last two weeks. And somebody asks you that. I would think strategically you would ... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: question differently. Right. But anyway, still ahead in this show, and a lot of other things, too, Jeb Bush entering this morning 2016 fray. It was no accident. We`re going to go inside the very methodical planning of Jeb Bush`s presidential bid and the shock and awe strategy. That`s what we are going to call it, but next, we will catch up with some in the morning`s top end lines, including the branding of Hillary 5.0. Oh my god. Stay with us. KORNACKI: All right, there is a lot going on this morning. We are getting caught up on some of the other headlines making news in the country around the world with our panel. This is our catching up segment. I love this one. They give me these index cards, I read them. I`m surprised by the headlines that you guys react. It`s very funny. So ... (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Let`s see what we`ve got here. This is the "Washington Post," and the headline, marketing wizards crafting Hillary 5.0. Clinton`s recruited consumer marketing specialists for her expected presidential run. One adviser has marketed brands like Coca-Cola to younger and more diverse customers. Now, advisers are old friends who dreamed up the "Don`t mess with Texas" - slogan, in campaigns for Southwest Airlines and (inaudible). 5.0. First of all, I`m trying to think what exactly the first four of them were. And second of all, I don`t know, marketing Coke, now you are marketing Hillary Clinton? BELLANTONI: I actually will defend this. It is - it sounds dumb, but this is how a lot of voters vote. They vote with their gut who would you rather have a beer with, whatever, and it`s also, when you test the negative messages, this is how like, for example, Mitt Romney, you have a certain sentiment about him that, you know, people feel. So, if you can find anything that reinforces that narrative. That can help torpedo a campaign. And so, it`s done just as much for negative testing as it is for let`s ... SMICKLE: It`s weird that they`re yes, it`s weird that they are talking about comparing big macs to Chipolte in - in the conversation. But what do you think about Hillary Clinton, but there is ... BELLANTONI: Both are high calorie. SMICKLE: Both high calorie. But - but there`s a precedent for this. If you read "The Selling of the President", if I remember correctly. KORNACKI: That was Nixon. SMICKLE: That was Nixon. KORNACKI: Yeah, you don`t want that precedent. SMICKLE: No, I don`t want that precedent. And which is odd, but apparently this does work. KORNACKI: Yeah, but so - how do you market Hillary Clinton? I mean everybody knows, everybody`s got to - who does ... GEORGE: Yeah, but that`s - I think that is actually part of the problem. And you are talking about - you are talking about somebody when 2016 comes around, you know, who has been on the stage for, you know, 25 years. And it seems to me that just the fact they`re calling it 5.0 just kind of shows you how many different iterations there were. BELLANTONI: The 18-year-olds of the election in 2016, will not be familiar with her, and so this is also partially that. They`re reintroducing her to a whole new ... KORNACKI: Let`s hope for her saying, that whoever this - this person is from Coca-Cola, was not the new Coke person. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Let`s see what`s else is in the headlines here. The Associated Press, the AP, "Birdman" flies high at independent spirit awards. Michael Keaton wins best actor. "Birdman" wins best picture. Apparently, this was at - held at a beach site tent at Santa Monica. Oh, boy. But apparently, this is a good harbinger. Everything is a harbinger, right? For the Oscars. But I guess last year all the independent spirit award winners also won the Oscars. So, here we are, it`s Oscar night, it`s all "Birdman." I haven`t seen the movie. But it looks - I don`t know. GEORGE: Right now they are saying, that it`s between "Birdman" and "Boyhood." And "Boyhood" is kind of like sort of the love - kind of the love letter to filmmaking because it took 12 years to film. And, you know, as the young man grew up and so forth. So, it`s not surprising that would be the thing that the old guard in Hollywood loves. Whereas "Birdman" just definitely has this, you know, this independent sensibility about it. And, you know, the beautiful ... KORNACKI: It`s about the industry, right? It`s about ... SMICKLE: Well, they are both ... KORNACKI: No, "Boyhood" is more about - it`s about growing up. Because ... SMICKLE: Plus I think there`s sort of a redemption in it. Because as we were talking earlier, we are both science fiction and comic book fans, and to see Michael Keaton having played Batman and to sort of come back in this role ... KORNACKI: Almost winking at his own background. Exactly. SMICKLE: There`s something wonderful about that. KORNACKI: I just see - again, I haven`t seen it. I don`t like that they do the subtitle thing for it. It`s "Birdman, or the Art of Learning" - something like that. Anyway, I`m against it. (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: Here`s and (INAUDIBLE) my lawn. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: 89-year-old Steven Kornacki shakes his fist. All right, both on Friday, sitcom writers - Mindy Kaling (ph) tweeted, coming soon to the Mindy project, father Michael O`Donnell. And you can see in that photo, Stephen Colbert. And yet Stephen Colbert will be on her show, we are all waiting for his next sort of public appearance, and you could see as well, but yeah, Stephen Colbert is apparently growing a beard. The Co-beard, or do they pronounce the Co-beard? BELLANTONI: It`s just the most talked about story on the Internet this week, which as a, you know, a political journalist makes me a little sad. But it is - people care. They care what he looks like, they care when his next - is going to be. They really care what the show is going to be like, and you know, you couple this with Stewart leaving, I mean it is like this massive attention focus on these two guys on what`s next. KORNACKI: Yeah, it is this massive crater, I guess, for Comedy Central, 11 - you know, 12 o`clock timeslot. Those two for, you know, ten years now, and now suddenly, both gone, or will be both gone. GEORGE: To comment on the beard, the beard was great. KORNACKI: Beard is great. (LAUGHTER) GEORGE: This is great. BELLANTONI: It is appropriate for the season. KORNACKI: Yeah. It`s interesting to see it come in gray, too. It`s, you know, it`s - the surprise, I guess. Anyway, that is - that is it for right now. We have more of these coming next hour. Still ahead, though, how one northern city was encouraging potential visitors to just stay away in favor of this? And next, Jeb Bush`s launch for president may have seemed like a shocking surprise. We`re going to find out how it was anything but that. That`s right after this. KORNACKI: A few months ago no one seemed to know if Jeb Bush was even interested in running for president. He was a former governor who had last run for office more than ten years ago. It was talked that he wasn`t exactly clamoring to get back in the game. Then, seemingly out of the blue, just nine days before Christmas, Bush suddenly pounced announcing that he had "decided to actively explore the possibility of running for president of the United States. That surprise announcement left his competition flatfooted, forced to scramble, to speed up their own decisions, their own fundraising, their own campaigning. Mitt Romney, he was forced to think things over, he opted out. Chris Christie now he`s struggling to compete with so many would be donors defecting to Bush. In a new article, Ben White of "Politico" reports that all of this was by design. It was a careful and elaborate plan more than a year in the making that allowed the former Florida governor to grab all the cash and all the oxygen in the critical point in the race. And Politico`s Ben White is the co-author of that article. He joins us and the panel on the set right now. So, Ben, thanks for taking a few minutes. So, I`ve seen the label "Shock and awe." This is the shock and awe strategy by Jeb Bush. Take us through it exactly where this came from. This was more than a year in the making? BEN WHITE, POLITICO: Well, it started sort of November of 2013. He came up to New York and gave a speech at the Securities Industry Association annual meeting. A lot of Wall Street people there. And he talked about a number of issues that made people think he is going to run for president. So, a little chatter started on the Wall Street, this guy is really serious about it, all of his speeches took on more sort of political importance. He said, look, I don`t have the infrastructure out there do this, I need to pull back, start to put together a team to - look at running for president. And he`s also said, look, I have got some controversial stances on issues that are not going to be selling well with the Republican base, on immigration, on common core. I need to figure out, is there a path for me to the Republican nomination without changing those principles? So, he spent a year putting together his team, Sally Bradshaw and others, Mike Murphy in California, the headman. You know, coming up with the strategy for I`m not changing these principles, so I`m going to need to raise a ton of money very quickly to be able to ... KORNACKI: How much are they talking about here? Sort of hundreds of millions ... WHITE: 50 million to 100 million. I`ve talked to a lot of people who think he could go over that number. KORNACKI: And he wanted to raise that by when? WHITE: He wanted to raise that by end of the first quarter. So, end of March - 100 million. KORNACKI: So, a month from now, they are thinking, did Jeb Bush might have $100 million in ... WHITE: Somewhere between 50 and 100. Yes. And then more that`s come after that, but he`s raising it a $100,000 ahead fundraisers. It`s not just in Wall Street, but elsewhere. KORNACKI: $100,000 per person. WHITE: Per person. Yes. So, this a lot of money that he`s putting together. But he knows he`s going to have to run a lot of ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, elsewhere, to try to explain to people why common core is not necessarily a bad idea, why comprehensive immigration reform is not a terrible thing. So, he can actually go out there. I mean the idea is, raise all this money early on, so then he can go do retail politicking in Iowa, get some of those numbers that are low with the base, get them up, because that`s going to be his real problem. KORNACKI: Yeah, New Hampshire has got one television station. So, I think 100 million is going get you far there. Well, Christina, what do you think of that as a strategy? What do you think of that? BELLANTONI: Well, in some ways I think it`s possible that he can do it. It`s also - his team really thinks that he has the likability factor nailed down. Like yes, he`s going to have to answer questions about his last name. You are seeing him address that all week, but they know, he`s out there. He can connect to his people on like kind of a human being level. They listen to him, they have the - yes, I think that he is telling me the truth factor. And that`s all from testing in the focus groups just like Hillary Clinton is doing right now. And so, yeah, I think it`s going to shock and awe if he really does raise that much money. KORNACKI: Robert, what I always think about with this strategy is what his brother did, what George W. did, basically, in 1999 heading into 2000. It was a huge wave of cash. Like six people quit the race after he put his fund-raising numbers out that year. But the difference that I`m seeing is, the Republican Party is in such a different place now. That with Bush, with W, he talked about compassion and conservatism, and they wanted to win. They were fine with it. With Jeb, when he starts with common core, all these things, they were a lot more sort of - they were a lot more focused on purity right now. I wonder if Jeb sells the way George W. did. GEORGE: It`s going to be a little bit - a little bit a lot harder. Money makes it a little bit easier to frame, to actually - to get that message out there, put - and the thing is, though, that George - excuse me, Jeb - Jeb Bush has a way of, I think, selling himself, making himself look different from his brother. Yes, it`s going to be tough making the case within the party. But when he comes - if he comes out on stage with his family, he has a way of personalizing the immigration issue in a way that no one else can. And it may not sell perfectly with the pure base, but keep in mind, with such a wide open field, and if he`s got money, there`s really kind of percentages that he just needs to convince in Iowa. KORNACKI: Right. And you don`t necessarily need 50.1 percent in a crowded primary. Well, Basil, that idea of in the line from Jeb Bush that`s been used is the idea of being willing to lose the primary to win the general election. Basically not falling for all the traps that Mitt Romney fell for in the primaries in 2012. When you look at this as Democrat, you look, at Jeb Bush and say, that is the toughest guy we could face next year? SMICKLE: You know, it`s interesting, because I do - I do think on paper he might be a really tough candidate to beat because he does bring in the immigration conversation in a way that a lot - in my mind, a lot of other Republicans can`t. But one of the things that I wonder about him, going back to sort of the Republican base, is I`ve always thought that Rand Paul, interestingly enough, was the one, if he wanted to, and if he had the time to move the party in a direction that made him a strong general election candidate. I`m not sure, particularly with things like common core, if Jeb Bush, even with all his money, can actually move the base of the Republican Party. And especially if you have folks to the far right really upset and feeling disenfranchised, which actually shares the sentiment with people on the far left. KORNACKI: Yeah. I have the same doubt about that. Ben, let me ask you this, though. How is the rest of the field reacting to this? OK, so Mitt Romney is forced to act fast. He`s out. Chris Christie, we are seeing all these stories about donors going to Jeb instead. What effect is this having on the other Republicans? WHITE: It`s on enormous - obviously, you mentioned Romney, looked at it, saw all his donors going to Jeb, said there`s not a window for me. Chris Christie having a lot of trouble with Wall Street fundraisers. But there`s not a lot of big names. Woody Johnson, that owner of the Jets going to - Jeb Bush, you`ll see a lot more of that. They worked very hard to pull all the Romney supporters over to them pretty successfully. I think the rest of the field, obviously, sees an opportunity to go well to his right, like Walker does, Rand Paul does, the rest of them do. And there`s definitely opportunity that one of them could take Iowa. The Bush strategy is, fare decently in Iowa, second, even third is OK, as long as you are up near the top. Win New Hampshire, win South Carolina, and then run the table on Super Tuesday and the big states. So, and for Walker, you have ... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: South Carolina, it sounds like a very tough place. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: In New Hampshire. WHITE: South Carolina, a little harder. KORNACKI: Can these other - but can these other candidates - look, so Bush is going to raise maybe the most money. How competitive can the other ones be? How competitive can Rand Paul be? WHITE: They can`t be that close. I mean Rand raises great small dollar donations, does really well at - with that stuff on the lower dollar donation. So, it`ll get you to 100 million. He`ll have enough money. He`ll have probably one or two really big ticket supporters. But you mentioned Walker and his troubles recently with some of these comments about Obama, plays well with the base, does not play well with the rest of the establishment, Republican Party, who says, look, if we go with a guy like this, there`s a danger that he blows up terribly in the general election. So, do we hold our nose and say, OK, Jeb is not with us on everything, but he can win. Let`s stick with him for ... GEORGE: If Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee, there`s this weird - there`s a weird - there`s a place where Jeb and Hillary kind of need each other. Because the dynasty thing gets ... (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: It`s my dynasty neutralizes your dynasty. (CROSSTALK) BELLANTONI: And then get your third party candidate. KORNACKI: There you go. (LAUGHTER) GEORGE: Those are always fun to talk about. KORNACKI: My thanks to Politico`s Ben White for joining us this morning. I appreciate all that. And to the rest of my guests, we`ll see you again in the next hour. Still ahead, though, whether you call it "Birdman" or this is the subtitle, "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance," this is the full title of the movie. Will we be calling that movie the big winner tonight? And next, we are going to go live to snow-covered New England and show you an angle of the damage that you probably haven`t seen. So stay with us. KORNACKI: Just a few minutes ago, Tennessee officials announced three more weather related deaths. That means at least 21 people in that state have now died since last Monday because of the arctic blast known as the Siberian Express. Storm this time, though, did manage to spare New England another huge accumulation of snow. But what New Englanders did get piled on top of the eight feet that were already there, this is a drone shot look at all of the rooftops just outside of Boston in Somerville. City officials there trying to check on whether they are in danger of collapsing. And the Weather Channel`s Reynolds Wolf is live for us right now in Quinzy, Massachusetts just outside of Boston. REYNOLDS WOLF, THE WEATHER CHANNEL: Absolutely, guys. And I`ll tell you, snow is coming down as we speak right now. And it`s not really that powdery stuff. It`s the stuff that adheres pretty well, you know. It makes perfect snowball, that kind of thing. What`s interesting is because it sticks together really well, it does a great job of sticking up on roofs. So, although the snow looks - looks beautiful, looks pretty it`s as welcome as being diagnosed with scabies. It`s nasty stuff, guys. Let me show you - all of this is kind of nasty. We have had some warmer temperatures, which means that a lot of the ice on the roadways is turning to slush. That`s the good news, however, we still have plenty of the frozen stuff on many of the roofs that you have in the area. And speaking of roofs in the area, we`ve had, let`s see, I think 119 roof collapses alone in Massachusetts, which is really bad. It`s not really as much of an issue on the houses or structures that have the pitched roofs, but more like the roofs that are kind of flat like this one on this business across the way. What`s interesting, too, is you see this located right next to a cemetery, where, again, they have been just buried, buried in the heavy snowfall. What`s lucky, though, is we`ve had a lot of trucks that have been coming through, like this gentleman. Came on through. Sir, just come on through, there you go. Tall skinny pedal on the right moves you forward. There you go. And they have been moving out about making sure the roads are in pretty good shape. And all things considered they are fine. As we are getting close to record breaking snowfall. Latest totals that we have from Boston last night, let`s see. It was 1.1 inches of snowfall, which means that for the season, we`re at 99.8. There`s a chance we could get to the century mark today and possibly we are getting a lot closer to that record of 107 inches for the season. The season, this winter that will never end. Guys, we`ll send it back to you. KORNACKI: All right. Reynolds Wolf in Quincy, Massachusetts. I said Quincy, by the way, I grew up there, I shouldn`t have - it`s not Quinzy, it`s Quincy. I always get that wrong. My apology. WOLF: Strong on the "Z." Absolutely. KORNACKI: My apologies to the people - anyway, and good job playing traffic cop, dear Reynolds. That was very impressive. WOLF: There you go, madam. KORNACKI: Sure things and long shots. For once, I`m not talking about sports. I`m talking about the Oscars. They are tonight. We`re talking about them next. Stay with us. KORNACKI: All right, well, guess what today is? Today, Oscar day. Tonight, Oscar night. All of the - you know, best movies, best actor, all that stuff. So, we thought we would give you a bit preview. If you`re trying to enter your pool at work or at your party tonight, or something like that, we would give you a little bit of guide on who to bet on, who not to bet on. And the person to do that for us today, Jesse David Fox. He`s the senior editor at Walter. And he`s going to take us through a better`s guide to tonight. So, Jesse, thanks for joining us today. JESSE DAVID FOX: Thank you for having me. KORNACKI: Let`s get right to it. So, first major category we want to get your opinion on, best leading actress. Best actress in a movie. Here are the nominees, handicapped... JESSE DAVID FOX: This one is done. I mean it was done about four, or five months ago. But Julianne Moore is going to win. The only way it won`t happen is if Matthew McConaughey just like goes rogue and says Reese Witherspoon, because they are friends, like? Julianne Moore is going to win. KORNACKI: So, why is that such a sure thing? What about her performance makes this so much better than these others? FOX: It has to do with two things. One, she`s playing a person that has a disease, which is like a very popular Oscar thing. She plays a person who has early onset Alzheimer`s. Also, she`s has never won before. And there`s lots of -- they like to award people who had long careers where they might deserve it. And also, it`s considered a weaker race. She had a strong performance. It really was never close. KORNACKI: Julianne Moore. If you have your pool at home, pick her. Otherwise you are going to fall behind. Best actor? Is this one closer? FOX: It is closer. It`s actually very close. Eddie Redmayne is probably the favorite. It`s a very showy role. He again plays someone with a disease. KORNACKI: He plays Steven Hawking. FOX: Yes. Big transformation. Though some could say Bradley Cooper has a chance because this movie made a lot of money, and that matters to people. And "Birdman" could, Michael Keaton could win, probably because of the redemption story, probably because if "Birdman" runs the table, if they start winning a lot of awards, then Michael Keaton will win just because he`s part of -- KORNACKI: You have given us the three could wins. I want the -- FOX: Eddie Redmayne I think will win. KORNACKI: That`s who you are betting on. So we have a little bit of a wild card here. Sound mixing. We just wanted to throw in an unconventional one, because I think sometimes during the ceremony, you`re watching this and they announce the category, and your main question is, what does that category even mean. There`s sound editing, and there`s sound mixing. What does sound mixing mean? What is the difference there? FOX: It`s great. Sound mixing is actually one of the more exciting - basically, sound editing is creating sounds, and sound mixing is how loud that sound will be compared to the others-- KORNACKI: These require separate categories? FOX: Sound editing was invented with the visual effects. These are called sound effects. Sound mixing I guess at some point they split. Sound editing always goes to war movies. They like the sound of bullets, so "American Sniper" should win. Sound mixing often goes to movies with music. So "Whiplash" actually is a favorite for that. But sometimes the categories are combined, because Oscar voters also don`t know the difference. "Birdman" has a chance, because, again, if it runs the table. "Whiplash" won the BAFTA for it, and usually BAFTA`s are a pretty good indicator. KORNACKI: All these indicators, we heard there is an independent one (inaudible). Here`s one everybody knows about. Directing. "Boyhood," and "Birdman" are the two big pictures here. Is this a race between those two? Does anybody else have a chance? FOX: It is a race between those two. Director and best movie are usually paired. The last two years, it`s been a split. If "Birdman" is the favorite that would give Richard Linklater a chance. However, because "Birdman" won the director`s guild, and director`s guild is a pretty good indicator of who`s going to win, I think it will go to "Birdman." KORNACKI: This is one of those things. You`re watching the ceremony, they will give out director before best picture. FOX: If "Birdman" wins, I think it`s sewn up. At this point, we`ll get to it, but I think "Birdman" -- KORNACKI: We shouldn`t kill the suspense. We have one more to get to, the one everybody cares about the most. Best picture. Again, race between these two? Does "Selma" have a chance? FOX: No, "Selma" has no chance. There`s an outside chance of "American Sniper." Some people say maybe "Imitation Game" could surprise, because there are a lot of older voters, and "Imitation Game" is the type of thing that appeals to them. But it really is a two-film race. Really it`s a one-film race. At this point, "Birdman" won directors guild, screen actors guild, producers` guild. The producers guild has predicted the winner for the last 8 years or so. It will be really hard for "Boyhood" to win. It would be a great surprise. "Boyhood" premiered at Sundance. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: If you have the Oscar ballot, who are you voting for? FOX: I would vote for "Boyhood," I think what they did was more impressive, and also I didn`t really like "Birdman." KORNACKI: I have not seen "Birdman," I have some opinions about the subtitle, whatever that is. It`s very pretentious. FOX: Also, what it did is it made fun of Hollywood and almost dared them to vote for it. It worked. They made fun of Hollywood, and they`re like, we`ll show you. We`ll vote you for best picture. KORNACKI: I`m cheering for "Boyhood" with you. I believe in the upsets and the underdog. We`ll what happens. My thanks to Jesse David Fox, really appreciate it. Up next, another full hour of news and politics, including the latest on an apparent terror threat against the Mall of America, in Minnesota. And Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar will join us live, stay with us. KORNACKI: Thanks for staying with us this Sunday morning. Another packed hour of news still to come. Including reports this morning that the Mall of America in Minnesota is increasing security after being named in a terror video. All the details on that in just a moment. We`ll be asking Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar about that. She`s here to discuss President Obama`s plan to combat home-grown terrorism in places like the Twin Cities. Also, one mother`s incredible story about what happened when her son traveled to Syria to join ISIS militants. We already talked about the Oscars this morning, as well, we`ll also be getting to something called the Razzies. You probably heard of those before. It`s the same weekend that Hollywood celebrates its best, it also chastises its worst, and with apparent good reason. Based on the list of honorees this year. And anywhere, but here today we will talk about the mayor whose tourism board encouraged visitors to skip upstate New York this brutally frozen winter for the Florida Keys instead. We will begin this hour with that new video released overnight from the Somalia-based terror group, al Shabaab. It names western shopping malls as potential targets, including Minnesota`s Mall of America, right here in the United States. In 2013, this is the same group that claimed responsibility for an attack on a mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in which 67 people were killed. For more on the latest on this video, let`s go to NBC White House Kristen Welker. What do we know right now about the video? KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS: Here`s what we know so far. According to top U.S. officials, al Shabaab, the group you just mentioned, released a video calling for attacks on shopping malls in Canada, the UK and the United States. Those who have seen the video say in it, the terror group references that attack on the mall in Kenya, which left more than 60 dead. In a statement last night, a spokesperson for the National Security Council tells me quote, "protecting public safety and national security is our highest priority. We are aware of the reported call from al Shabaab for Westgate style attacks against shopping centers around the world to include in the United States." In recent months, the FBI and DHS have worked closely with our state and local public safety counterparts and members of the private sector to include mall owners and operators to prevent and mitigate these types of threats." So Steve, essentially officials here are stressing that their security posture has not changed in the wake of this video because they are already on heightened alert when it comes to mall security and also protecting other places that draw large crowds. Meanwhile, the Mall of America also released a statement saying that the mall is aware of that video. And that quote, "we will continue to monitor events with the help of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. We will continue to follow this situation along with law enforcement, and we`ll remain vigilant as we always do in similar situations." A little bit of background on al Shabaab. It`s a Somali based terror group that has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks, including a suicide attack in a hotel in Mogadishu on Friday. That left 25 people dead. The terrorist group has recruited heavily in Minneapolis. The city has the largest Somali population in the United States. Now law enforcement officials say they don`t believe there`s any specific threat against the United States, but still they continue to investigate this video. They are taking it very seriously. KORNACKI: Kristen Welker, appreciate that this morning. President Obama is not just going to be putting a heavy focus on immigration reform this week as we already discussed during the show today, but he`s also going to continue to emphasize the need to tackle the problem of violent extremism, including home grown terrorism right here in America. Three cities were named this week as communities of focus, the greater Boston area, Los Angeles and Minneapolis. As we have already reported, and you just heard from Kristen Welker, the Mall of America outside of Minneapolis now increasing security after being threatened in an apparent video from the Somalia based terror group, al Shabaab. At least 15 young people from the Twin Cities area joined ISIS just this past year. This according - excuse me, statistics from the FBI. The first American killed while fighting for ISIS was 33-year-old Douglas McCain, he was from Hennepin County in Minnesota, before he was recruited. Hennepin County holds the largest concentration of Somali immigrants in the nation. Young people are often a target of recruitment by Al Shabaab and by ISIS. The aims of the White House program in Minnesota are this: to improve law enforcement relationships, to create jobs. Over half of the Somali born population of working age in Minnesota are unemployed. And also, trying to build out relationships with fractured communities. This is how the president characterized that notion this week. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: In Los Angeles and Minneapolis, and Boston, these are partnerships that bring people together in the spirit of mutual respect. And create more dialogue and more trust and more cooperation. If we`re going to solve these issues, then the people who are most targeted and potentially most affected have to have a seat at table where they can shape and strengthen these partnerships. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Here to talk about countering violent extremism in the United States, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. She attended the White House summit this week. Our panel is also back with us. Robert George of the New York Post, political strategist Basil Smikle Jr, and Christina Bellantoni, with "Roll Call." Senator Klobuchar, we want to get to the agenda here on preventing home grown terror, but we also want to get your reaction to this story out of your home state, this apparent Al Shabaab video mentioning perhaps the Mall of America in your state. What is your reaction to that, and have you had any communication with Washington about its response to this? SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN.: Thank you so much, Steve. As you know, this just came out yesterday. This is something we`ve seen before, sadly, in Minnesota, where we have seen al Shabaab target usually young men in our community. They did it with an actual video where they were showing a plane ticket from Minneapolis, St. Paul to Somalia to fight with the terrorist group. We`re seen these slick videos before. It`s one of the tools of their trade, and our FBI and law enforcement is ready to respond. They upped the security at the mall. And I think as you noted, this is also, the threat was made regarding a mall in London, a mall in Canada. This is what this group does. That is why we have been focusing not just on going after the evil of ISIS overseas, but also the home-grown terrorism. The fact they are targeting young men in our own communities, not just in Minnesota, all over the country. KORNACKI: In Minnesota, this is talking about your experience there. Where are they targeting? How does this work? How do they go and get - you mentioned some of the propaganda there, but how do they recruit in your community? KLOBUCHAR: What we have found, Steve, I used to be the chief prosecutor for Hennepin County so I`ve been involved in some of this for quite a while before I was the U.S. senator. They tend to use the Internet. We have not seen as much mosque recruitment as you might have seen in other places. They use the Internet, go after young men. The parents often don`t know it`s happening. That`s why the answer has got to be from the community. I will say, we are proud of our Somali community in Minnesota. We have half the Somalis in the country in Minnesota. And they have helped us with these cases. There were actually 20 indictments against people participating in Al Shabaab, there has already been nine convictions over the last few years, and there have also been some recent indictments involving those recruited to go fight with ISIS. So we know this is a real problem in our community. But the Somalis in our community, they are serving in elected office, they are running businesses. They are a part of fabric of life in the community and also part of the solution. KORNACKI: I want to get to the panel. Robert George, I know you have a question. GEORGE: Senator, Robert George with the New York Post. Here in New York, we had some of these controversies where the NYPD has monitored mosques here in the city and in New Jersey, as well, and there`s been controversy about the idea of violating potential civil rights. How do law enforcement agencies engage with the community and try and identify problematic actors that might be laying in wait? KLOBUCHAR: Our U.S. attorney, Andy Luger, has made very clear that the community outreach that`s part of this latest effort is separate from the law enforcement work that goes on. But I will say that building these relationships, I certainly found this when I was chief prosecutor, having those relationships with the community, so people feel comfortable coming to the police, the Minneapolis police chief and St. Paul police chief and our elected sheriff, we`re all out there in Washington at the summit with the president this last week. They have hired officers who are Somali, that can relate to the people in the community, that makes a big difference. And all of those agencies have hired Somali officers, and they have also built the relationship with the community, so there`s a trust with the community. If you don`t have that, you can never build these cases. BELLANTONI: Senator, Christina Bellantoni with Roll Call, you talk about the community, and there is a large Muslim population both in Minnesota and neighboring Michigan. I wonder how the killings in North Carolina might complicate this outreach, trying to get the community involved to find those bad actors with all of this concern about this possible hate crime in North Carolina? KLOBUCHAR: Exactly. And I know that`s being investigated. That was a horrible, just a horrific crime. Of course I`ve spoken to many of the Muslim people in our community about that. They take it personally. It was a very, very bad thing. That being said, one of the things I learned over time, we in Minnesota, a regular citizen, a pilot actually called to law enforcement, to their attention Moussaoui, as you remember, the 20th hijacker, who was imprisoned before 9/11. And one of the things we did after that, the U.S. attorney and I, the Bush appointed U.S. attorney at the time, we spent a lot of time going out to the Muslim communities, and meeting with them. And building that kind of trust. There were hate crimes against them at that time. We made sure that those were prosecuted, that they were brought out in public so you have that kind of trust build up so the people don`t feel they`re alone. That can also lead to reactions that are not going to be helpful for public safety. You have to be there for them and you have to understand that not every one of these people is involved in this. To the contrary, most of them are law abiding citizens. No parent wants their kid to go over to Syria and fight for ISIS, no parent wants their kid to go to Somalia to fight for al Shabaab and become a suicide bomber. That`s how you have to look at this as you work with the community. SMIKLE: Senator, Basil Smikle, Columbia University. My question is, given this conversation about terror, I imagine it`s difficult to extricate that conversation from a lot of the larger conversations in Washington, D.C., around immigration and what to do with respect to the middle class and providing opportunities to grow and expand the middle class. How do you see, how is that conversation taking place in your state? KLOBUCHAR: I think our state actually has a very low unemployment rate. We are working very hard. We want to get more help for some of these kids that have -- potentially the ones that will be recruited and make sure they`re graduating from high school, that they`re getting jobs. I think every community has the same problem in the inner city. But overall we have really tried to focus on that employment piece of it. Apart from that, I`m glad you raised that immigration issue, because when we get back to Washington now, my Republican colleagues have a choice. We have the homeland security funding. And with the latest threat and the latest video, that needs to get funded. Secretary Johnson has been very clear about this. We need to fund our homeland security and not weigh it down with extraneous matters and poison pills related to immigration issues that really are not related to the funding of homeland security. That is what happened over in the House. It came over to the Senate. And I think -- I hope this latest video and some of the things we`re seeing overseas will bring a lot of my Republican colleagues, who I know many of them didn`t want to have these immigration provisions built into this bill, that we can pass a clean bill and get this done. KORNACKI: Senator, we were talking about that earlier. The clock is on, we`re basically five days away right now, what are the chances you see right now of a DHS shutdown at the end of this week? KLOBUCHAR: I hope given what we have seen, nothing but escalating violence overseas, I hope this -- and now threats on our own homeland, on a mall in our own country, I hope that will bring my Republican colleagues to the table and enable us to pass this bill. I don`t really think there`s another choice. I think there is plenty of time to try to work on comprehensive immigration reform. I really believe we need to get it done. But they are basically have decided to try to debate this on a bill that is not related to it. They`re talking about dreamers, and all those kinds of things, when in fact this is about homeland security. We should pass this clean bill and fund our homeland security and not furlough security workers. KORNACKI: Amy Klobuchar, Democratic senator from Minnesota, thanks for the time this morning, appreciate it. KLOBUCHAR : Thank you very much for having me on, Steve. Look forward to being on again. KORNACKI: Great. Still ahead in the show, young men and women choosing to run away to Syria in order to join ISIS and also the families they leave behind. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would you say to a young person who came up to you and said I`m thinking about joining ISIS? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will tell him my whole story. I will tell him don`t do it. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: We`ve been talking about stopping homegrown terrorism. How to target ISIS propaganda that`s luring young men and women in America to jihad. NBC`s Jamie Novograd sat down this week with a young man recruited by ISIS in Syria when he was just 15 years old. He recently escaped across the Turkish border. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JAMIE NOVOGRAD, NBC: Halid was once part of ISIS. He didn`t like it, so he escaped. It all started, he says, because he wanted revenge against the regime of Bashar al Assad. His neighborhood was under attack. ISIS offered food and medicine. They gave you a bit of hope. You wanted to join them. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We hoped they would become strong and fight the regime. NOVOGRAD: So at the age of 15, Halid joined the ISIS child army. ISIS calls its child soldiers lion cubs of the caliphate. It celebrates them in propaganda videos like this one. Children are trained to use a rifle, given classes in religion, and taught to love ISIS and hate its enemies. Then the children are sent into combat. For Halid, that day came sooner than he expected. His camp was attacked only two weeks after he had first pikced up a gun. Four ISIS fighters were killed. Halid was shot in the neck. He was terrified and he missed home. His mother heard he was wounded and she found him at the ISIS camp. What did she say to you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She said take care of himself. NOVOGRAD: He can`t continue telling his story without crying. (END VIDEOTAPE) KORNACKI: Now overseas this morning, a desperate search continues for three British teenage girls thought to be traveling to Syria to join ISIS militants. The families of two of the girls issuing public appeals this weekend for them to return home. The girls were on a break from their school in London when they flew to Turkey this week, where it`s feared they crossed the border into Syria. According to United States officials, roughly 150 U.S. citizens have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria to support armed groups there since the start of the conflict in 2011. The Canadian government says they are aware of more than 130 people suspected in taking part in terror related activities in Syria, Iraq and other countries. One Canadian mother who participated in this week`s White House summit, Christianne Boudreu, knows all too well how this happens. Her son, Damien Claremont (ph), converted to Islam as a teen, then traveled to Syria to join ISIS militants, losing his life there over a year ago. Her son`s radicalism motivated Boudreau to help other parents and communities look for the warning signs and to help prevent the next generation of homegrown terrorists. She joins us now live from Calgary. Christianne, thank you very much for being here. Really appreciate it. I think I would just like to start, I think the thing most people are most curious about to begin with is, your story. How did your son, a western teen, become an ISIS militant? What was the process like? CHRISTIANNE BOUDREAU: I think it was a combination of things. So, when he converted to Islam, he was -- it was 2008. He was only 17. So changes didn`t start happening for him until much later in 2011. At that time, he just changed where he was living, met a different group of friends. I think the ideologies were introduced to him, and then he was led to the Internet to just reinforce those messages, and research. KORNACKI: At what point does he tell you he`s going to go overseas? BOUDREAU: Well, in 2012, in the summer of 2012, he brought up that he wanted to go back to school, he wanted to go to the university to study linguistics and Arabic, and he wanted to do that in Egypt. I did not question it because I really encouraged travel, getting to know other cultures before settling down to open his mind. So we had no reason to think he was going anywhere else. We had never heard of foreign fighters. We had never heard of Canadians joining these groups. So we were quite surprised to learn much later that he didn`t go to Egypt, that he had gone to Turkey and crossed into Syria. KORNACKI: So at what point did you find that out? Was it -- was he in contact with you while he was over there? Did you only find out after he was killed? What was that process like? BOUDREAU: He went over in November of 2012. We stayed in contact on the telephone every two, three days. I believed he was in Egypt. No reason to question him. And then the last phone call we got was December 23, 2012. He just kind of went off the radar. At the end of January 2013, our security intelligence here in Canada showed up at our home and started questioning us about, you know, do we recognize any these photos of other gentlemen? I said it didn`t matter, that Damien was in Egypt, he was not in Canada. They said that`s the problem. We`ve been watching him for almost two years with a group of young men, and we suspect he`s actually gone to Turkey, gone to a training camp, and then crossed into Syria. At that point, I didn`t hear from Damien again until the end of February, which we remained in contact up until June of 2013. KORNACKI: When you look back at it, were there warning signs that you look at now and you say I wish I had seen this? Other parents should be looking for this? BOUDREAU: Yeah, if I had known what to look for, that there was a concern, maybe the red flags would have been there. His behavior started to change. He started becoming much more rigid in his beliefs, he was agitated all the time, he wouldn`t come to the table if we were having a bottle of wine. He started discussing western media, how it was portraying lies, that what was going on in the Middle East, we were not doing enough. We were being selfish, and people were being tortured and killed. And we weren`t doing anything about it. You could see the agitation there. You could see he was starting to look at other things, other parts of the world. KORNACKI: Did you ever -- you mentioned you were still in contact with him about two years ago. Did you ever have conversations with him where he talked about this at all? BOUDREAU: Yeah. When he finally did contact me again at the end of February of 2013, at that point I didn`t let him know that the security intelligence had been in. But I did say I noticed the country code on the phone and that it indicated he was in Syria. He admitted it. He came clean at that point. He said, mom, I have to be here. I have to do something productive with my life. And I`m trying to save women and children who are being tortured, murdered and raped. And that the Bashar al Assad regime, trying to fight against them to save people. Over time, you could see changes in him. He would go on a couple of field trips or a vacation, as he called them, and he became colder, emptier, more distant. KORNACKI: Do you, from a -- there was a summit you attended this week in Washington from a public policy standpoint. Are there things you look at that the government, whether it was in Canada or the United States, can and should be doing to prevent this from happening to anyone else? BOUDREAU: We definitely have to start on the preventive side. The costs for military and everything, it`s a Band-Aid, it`s reactive. You can only do so much for that. We need to educate our young children so they build up resiliency and understand how these people are trying to reach out to them and try to counter that, to deliver some models so they can speak to it. So with Extreme Dialogue, that`s what we`ve done. We created the resource guides, the films to raise those questions, to offer opportunity for our kids to discuss it at a younger age and be prepared. We can`t be with them 24/7 when they`re on their iPads, on their smartphones, and we can`t watch over everything that they do. With all the outside influences, it`s important. We also have to prepare resources to support them, to strengthen them, to strengthen our communities so we`re prepared for this. KORNACKI: All right. Christianne Boudreau joining us live from Calgary this morning, really appreciate the time. Thank you very much. BOUDREAU: Thank you. KORNACKI: Still ahead, just how miserable has this winter been in the northeast? It`s so bad that one city`s tourism bureau is actually encouraging people to stay away from that city. The mayor of that town will join us in a bit. Also, we talked about the best in film making this year ahead of the Oscars, now it`s time to talk about the worst. That`s next. Stay with us. KORNACKI: We`re back with our panel now. Another edition of catching up. My favorite index card says let`s see what`s in the news. Let`s take a look at "People." "People" magazine. The Razzies. This is the anti-Oscar ceremony every year. Cameron Diaz, Ben Affleck bring home the Raspberries. It`s on the eve of the Oscars. Hollywood has fun doling out awards for the worst performances of the year, starting with Kirk Cameron, who won both worst picture and worst actor for "Saving Christmas." I didn`t see many good reviews for this one. BELLANTONI: I think the last thing he was in that was any good was "Growing Pains." (CROSSTALK) GEORGE: He was brought in at the late end of the run as the cute new kid because the other ones were aging out. KORNACKI: Had a good run. (inaudible) "Who`s the Boss." What else? Cameron Diaz, got the worst actress for "The Other Woman" and for "Sex Tape." BELLANTONI: "Sex Tape" was a terrible movie. I actually watched this on an airplane. They edit out all the good parts, basically. It`s an even worse movie without the sex. KORNACKI: I imagine it`s a very short movie, too. (CROSSTALK) GEORGE: Didn`t Cameron -- isn`t she the only person who showed up for the Razzie? (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Here is another one. Last one here, the worst supporting actor, this was for four different movies, Kelsey Grammer, Dr. Frasier Crane was in "Expendables 3," "Legends of Oz," "Think like a Man," "Transformers 4," and for that quartet, he got -- GEORGE: In fairness to him, he has big alimony payments, you have to take a check. What are you going to do. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: Very little watched show on the Starz Network. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: He`s better on TV. Let`s see what else we have here? This is from Bloomberg. It says here is what the DNC thinks will help Democrats win more elections. The party`s 2014 midterm election autopsy. It came out yesterday. Says the party has a messaging problem because no one knows what the party stands for. I`d say that`s a messaging problem. This is the new thing, I guess, when a party loses an election. The Republicans did this in 2012, they said, well, better change your views on gay rights and you better do immigration reform. No immigration reform. Now the Democrats say this is a values based narrative, that is what they need. They need more of an outreach to white southern voters. GEORGE: The interesting thing is, one of the things that the Republicans did do actually looking at that autopsy is go out and recruit more minority candidates, recruit more women candidates, and that turned out to be successful in 2014 at the state level and in terms of electing two to Congress as well. If the Democrats do seriously look at that, yeah, they are going to have to figure out what the party stands for. But sometimes these autopsies can bear fruit. BELLANTONI: It`s the most diverse group of House Republicans as well. Not just the two prominent female senators. With this issue, you go for an autopsy. The Democrats when you talk to them, they say if we stand for the middle class, if we say we`re the party that cares about your economic well-being, we are going to win. And that`s what they`ve been saying for like 10 years, and in some ways it works and then in the midterms they get totally wiped out. SMIKLE: Part of the problem was they didn`t really develop the infrastructure. Not only did part of this report and other folks talking about it said they didn`t focus on any of the down ballot races, which is insane, but the fact of the matter is, in this social media age, going back to 2008, the president`s campaign was about creating a movement around him. And because it could be so segmented and so specific, it`s hard to bring other folks and other candidates along in the process. So you develop no state party infrastructure. KORNACKI: My solution for the Democrats, wait for the next presidential election. They seem to do much better in the presidential races than the midterms. Maybe it`s as simple as that. I know Republicans will probably disagree with that. Did not have time for this one, LeBron James wants to host "SNL " again. I was hoping to talk about that. There it is. OK. (inaudible), Robert George, Basil Smikle Jr, Christina Bellantoni, appreciate you all being here. Still ahead on the show today, the surprising travel tips being given out by the city of Ithaca, New York. The mayor joins us. And next, we examine the possibility of boots on the ground in Syria, more boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe, stay with us. KORNACKI: If the Obama administration does decide to slow the U.S. exit from Afghanistan, that is something the new defense secretary, Ash Carter, now suggests might happen. If the U.S. does decide to make that move, it may be the case that the American public is more open to the possibility than you might think at first. This poll, looking at right here, asked about ground forces to combat ISIS, not the Taliban, but still, the majority of those surveyed by CBS News this week say that they favor the U.S. sending boots on the ground into Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS. That is a 10-point jump since October. That is also an 18-point jump just since September. Similar resulsts in the NBC News Marist poll conducted just a few days earlier, with 54 percent there saying that they want their member of Congress to vote to authorize military action against ISIS. So here we are, nearly a dozen years after the invasion of Iraq, even longer since U.S. forces began attacking Afghanitan. And here now, attitudes seem to be shifting in America, with a nation that was war-weary not long ago, growing more and more comfortable with the idea of sending troops overseas, sending troops to the Middle East. So what does that mean for America`s role in the fight against ISIS? Joining me now are two members of Congress, Democrat Jim McDermott of Washington state, Republican Bob Dold from Illinois. Thank you both for being here this morning, and Congressman McDermott, let me ask you that. The American people seem to be shifting in the direction of a little bit more of an interventionist direction here. Do you agree with that shift? Is that something you yourself had felt as you look at ISIS? REP. JIM MCDERMOTT, D-WASH.: I am very uncomfortable with it. In 1991, George Bush led us into the Gulf War. In 2001, George Bush II led us into that war, and now we are talking about an extension which goes beyond the end of Obama and into the next presidency. Suppose it`s Jeb Bush, OK? We`ll have the third Bush war. The real question is, what is going to happen that`s going to end with the sentence that says, after this happened, the troops came home? When will we have success? It`s not in that AUMF. KORNACKI: On that, this is the authorization the administration submitted to Congress for the fight on ISIS. Is that something right now you`d be voting against? MCDERMOTT: I would be very uncomfortable with the one that`s on paper right now. It`s going to go through a lot of debate and a lot of action in the Congress, so I can`t say what exactly I`m going to do, but the one that`s on the table right now, I am not supportive of. KORNACKI: Congressman Dold, let me ask you about that, what is your appetite as a member of Congress when it comes to boots on the ground to fight ISIS? REP. BOB DOLD, R-ILL.: Let me just certainly say that hearing from my constituents, there`s no question that people are starting to say this is an extremist organization that is beheading people, and frankly when they threaten our president, when they behead an American, they are an enemy of the United States and our allies. I do think that fatigue cannot be something that we take into account when we talk about our national security. KORNACKI: How do you look at this authorization the White House has submitted? It`s sort of a working document maybe at this point, how do you look at it now? DOLD: I look at it as it`s actually too narrow from my perspective. If we`re going to put men and women in harm`s way, we need to make sure we`re giving the president all the authority to do whatever is necessary for what may come up. I think the authorization for use of military force that has been presented is too narrow at this point. KORNACKI: That`s an interesting thing. The gap here between both sides. This doesn`t necessarily break on predictable partisan lines, but you got one side that says this is maybe too much they are asking for. The other side says, as Congressman Dold did, too little. Congressman McDermott, let me ask you, is there a scenario, is there something the administration could have put on paper, is there something you could hear in terms of intelligence or strategy that would make you more comfortable about a more expansive commitment? MCDERMOTT: I would have to hear an awful lot more about who they think ISIS really is and how do you fight an ideology. Protestantism has many kinds of Protestants. ISIS is a part of Islam, it is an ideology, and you are fighting an ideology, and that`s hard to put down. People believe in that, they`re willing to give their lives for it, and when we walk in there, we better understand exactly who we`re going to fight. Because we`re not going to the Second World War or Korea or Vietnam or any place else. We`re going against an aspect of Islam that is very dedicated to what they believe. I think it`s very hard to construct a way in which we could go in and wipe them out. KORNACKI: What about this idea, Congressman Dold, you can`t fight an ideology with a military? What do you think of that? DOLD: Listen, defeating an ideology is obviously very, very difficult, as my friend from Washington noted. What ISIS does have is they have a set territory. They`re now controlling about 6 to 8 million people, and they draw some of their power actually from those resources that we actually do have a defined area, unlike al Qaeda. I think we have to, when I talk about the use of military force, giving the president all the options, we want to make sure all the options are on the table if we`re putting men and women, American troops in harm`s way. That`s up to the president, the commanders on the ground in terms of what the best use to achieve victory is. I would agree that I would like to see more about what that strategy is. Because I don`t want to put men and women in harm`s way without a clear path for victory. KORNACKI: What are you hearing from your constituents? We show these changing poll numbers. I`m getting the sense that the stories about the beheadings, the nature of ISIS, has changed the psychology of this country as it relates to troops and to war. What are you hearing? DOLD: That`s exactly what we`re hearing, what I`m hearing on the ground. When you march 21 Egyptian Christians down to the beach and behead them, when you behead journalists, it starts to change what people realize, that this is absolutely going to be something that comes and impacts the United States. Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, Secretary Hagel, all have come out to say this is, you know, an organization that we need to step up and do something about. They encouraged the administration to take action earlier. This is absolutely something that the United States needs to take a leadership role in. And we need to act now. KORNACKI: All right, Jim McDermott from Washington state, Bob Dold from Illinois, appreciate both of you getting up this morning. Thank you for that. Still ahead, the mayor of one snow-covered upstate New York city will try to convince us to go there in the dead of winter, really wants those tourism dollars. Next, we will go live to Dallas where there isn`t any snow on the ground yet, but that could be changing. KORNACKI: The Dallas/Ft. Worth area is under a winter storm warning this morning. Forecasters predicting sleet and ice for part of the country that really is not used to dealing with that. The Weather Channel`s Mike Seidel is live for us in Dallas. Mike, snow today, is that really happening down there? MIKE SEIDEL, WEATHER CHANNEL: We`re not going to get any snow here in Dallas. We`re getting a lot of snow right now on the far range, Bolder and Denver, those areas. We`ve had a lot of flights canceled out of Denver International Airport. But here in north Texas, it`s all about the temperature profile. And we`ll have some warm air aloft. I think it will be freezing rain and then a lot of sleet. This area only averages 1.2 inches of solid precipitation, snow and sleet, a year. They`re not heavily equipped to deal with it. But they have loaded up the trucks, the salt Turks, the sand trucks, and putting down the brine solution. The big issue here is this, just about every interstate, every freeway is elevated. Look at all that concrete. The cold air surrounds the surfaces and they freeze first. We always tell you to watch the elevated surfaces. Well, that`s just about everything here in Dallas-Ft. Worth. So we have rain coming in, in the next couple of hours. About 10:00 tonight, midnight, temperatures will fall down to the magical number of 32. And that`s it. Once we hit freezing and then go into the 20s, it will stay below freezing well into Tuesday. So even though the sleet and freezing rain will end later tomorrow, maybe early tomorrow evening, even into Tuesday we will have issues. We won`t have any sun, we`ll have the daylight certainly, but without the sun and temperatures staying below freezing until Tuesday, this place will shut down. I know this will be a travel nightmare tomorrow in Dallas/Ft. Worth. And we got ice predicted as far east as Birmingham, Alabama with this system. This one will not come up the coast. So those of you in the northeast, no worries, just cold and dry for most of this coming week. KORNACKI: Don`t worry in the northeast, except about those 100 inches of snow already in your backyard. Anyway, Mike Seidel in Dallas, appreciate it. Snow in Dallas - well, not snow in Dallas. There was snow in Dallas on Thanksgiving Day `93, big NFL game that day. (inaudible). Screwed everything up. Up next, you would expect the tourism bureau to urge you to visit a place like this right now, except when that tourism bureau is more than 1500 miles away. We`ll explain that after this. KORNACKI: The dead of winter has many of us dreaming of getting away to someplace warm, someplace tropical, someplace like Ithaca, New York? Well, not really. Ithaca`s tourism bureau, though, is looking to be anywhere else these days. One of the funniest stories I saw this week. For a time this week, the visitIthaca.com website was actually encouraging would-be travelers to go to the Florida Keys instead. "That`s it," the web site read, "We surrender, go to Key West instead." The web site also said "please come back when things thaw out. Really, it`s for the birds here now." Message has since been taken down. Local businesses and ski operators were reportedly not too happy with it. We thought we`d invite Ithaca`s mayor to our show to defend his city this morning. He accepted the invitation, so joining us now from cold, snow-covered Ithaca, New York, is Mayor Svante Myrick. Mr. Mayor, I don`t know if you did this or this is just the backdrop behind you, but I`m noticing there`s snow on the window and a palm tree drawn into it. Is that a subliminal message here? MAYOR SVANTE MYRICK, (D), ITHACA, NY: I wish I could take credit for it. Honestly it`s students here at Cornell University. We actually just found this on campus and thought it was the perfect backdrop for today`s conversation. KORNACKI: So where do you come down on this? Should people -- I don`t know who would be thinking of traveling to Ithaca right now. Should they go to the Florida Keys right now? MYRICK: No, of course not. I mean, here`s what we thought, and I have to say I can`t take credit for the decision. Bruce Stoff (ph) has earned his salary and then some over at the Tuppence (ph) County visitors bureau with this idea, but I stand fully behind it. Look, we know that upstate New York is a wonderful place to be year round. If you don`t mind the cold, there`s so much to do here in the winter in Ithaca and in the surrounding area. You can visit the Corning (ph) museum of glass or the Johnson art museum here in Ithaca, visit Greek Peak and the ski resorts here. But we also knew that in February, particularly with this cold snap, people weren`t looking for us. People were not thinking about Ithaca, New York. So we had to find a way to draw attention to all the offerings we had, and we said why not tell the truth. KORNACKI: Draw attention to it by saying go somewhere else? MYRICK: And it worked. We were averaging 1500 hits a day on our website. After this broke, we had 120,000 hits in one day. Because we were telling the truth. Which is that if you want to go to Key West, I don`t blame you, part of me wants to go myself. And of course right now the weather is much better there. But we still have things to offer here and we needed to find a way to bring attention to it, and it worked. We did just that. KORNACKI: So is there -- there was a statement, I guess, from the chamber of commerce or the tourism council in the Florida Keys saying it was unconventional, but they appreciated it. Are you expecting that in the middle of the summer, Key West or the Florida Keys is going to say hey, you know, enough sun, enough warmth, go up to Ithaca. Are they going to return the favor? MYRICK: I don`t know. We certainly don`t expect them to, but they have been very gracious and they have played along with us quite well. In fact, they have gotten so much attention from this marketing campaign that they have reciprocated. They have offered free nights, hotel nights in Key West in vacation packages that we can raffle off up here to the charity of our choice, so they have been very generous and helping us play along here. KORNACKI: This sounds like the birth of some great sister cities, twin cities kind of relationship. Give it to us very, very quickly here, it`s the dead of winter, it`s 9 below zero, there`s 100 inches of snow outside. What do you do in Ithaca? MYRICK: What do I do in Ithaca? I stay indoors mostly. But we`re a hearty people. We are people that are used to the cold weather and are used to taking it in stride. My brother lives in Dallas and is seeing his airport shut down right now. We are used to this. We see this every winter. So we go skiing, we go snowshoeing, we go to the chilifest on the commons on our downtown outdoor pedestrian mall. We make it work for us. Frankly, we look forward to spring, summer and fall, which -- during which you couldn`t find a more beautiful place to be. KORNACKI: There it is, the mayor of Ithaca, Svante Myrick, getting in all the good stuff about his home city. There`s some publicity for them. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for getting up with us today. Programming reminder, MSNBC`s Jose Diaz-Balart will host a town hall with President Obama on Wednesday. You can send questions using #obamatownhall. Then be sure to watch MSNBC Wednesday night at 8:00 pm. for that town hall. Up next is Melissa Harris-Perry followed by "Taking the Hill" with former Congressman Patrick Murphy, and we will see you on this show next week. Have a great week. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022201cb.450 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 101 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 22, 2015 Sunday SHOW: MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 10:00 AM EST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY for February 22, 2015 BYLINE: Melissa Harris-Perry GUESTS: Peter Noguera, Moin Nadeem, Aja Brown, Jamira Burley, David Tafuri, Amaney Jamal, Khalid Latif, Jacqui Lewis, Sherman Jackson, Kelvin Betances, Poy Winichakul, Gabriel Marshall, Lili Gil Valletta, Crystal McCrary, Thuy Linh Tu, Vanessa Deluca SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 14679 words HIGHLIGHT: On Monday, an Oklahoma House committee approved a bill to stop the state from funding advanced placement history courses, which would have in effect banned A.P. history from being taught in the state of Oklahoma. Interview with Mayor Aja Brown of Compton, California. The administration is misidentifying the enemy and their motivation. That`s why it`s so important that we recognize that these people are being motivated from different parts of the world by a spiritual or theological motivation, which is this radical, Islamic ideology. According to the census bureau, the millennials, people born roughly between 1981 and 1997, my God! Will soon eclipse the boomers, thanks to a boost from immigration, the millennials will reach 75.3 million this year. The new documentary "Little Ballers" follows four 11-year-old New York City kids as they and their coach set out to win the amateur athletic union national championship. The NBA finals of youth basketball. This week Beyonce fans were abuzz over a few photos that were supposedly unretouched version of Queen B`s 2013 L`Oreal ad campaign. They showed the singer with bright red lipstick, laugh lines and get this, identifiable pores. MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST: This morning, my question: Are we at war with Islam? Plus, the millennials are coming, the millennials are coming! And the big dreams of little ballers. But, first, learning history as a way to advance our placement. (MUSIC) HARRIS-PERRY: Good morning. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry and there`s just one week left in the month of February, which means you still have another seven days to celebrate Black History Month, leaving plenty of time to get to Googling and bone up on the accomplishments of notable African- Americans. Like Garrett Morgan, the son of formerly enslaved parents, who was the first person to apply for and receive a U.S. patent for a traffic signal. Ida B. Wells, a journalist, advocate for women suffrage, and activist who led a tireless crusade against lynching in the 1890s. Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, the first physician to perform and successfully complete open heart surgery on a patient in the United States. Or Marian Anderson whose soaring voice earned her the distinction of being both the first African-American to perform with the New York metropolitan opera and the first to perform at the invitation of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt at the White House. And the list goes on. But, of course, African-American history, which is to say American history, is much more than a listing of little known names and facts. Any honest interrogation of that history means not just gathering a collection of trivia about individual Americans but also engaging with the historical moments in which these people lived -- which in the case of African-Americans could mean grappling with the fact that many succeed in spite of, not because of the conditions of their lives in this country. Or in the case of, for example, one of our nation`s most beloved Founding Fathers, learning that American history lessons are often complicated and conflicting. We know that, yes, George Washington was the champion of freedom and liberty who led our nation through the war for independence against Great Britain. But a closer examination of history also acquaints with the George Washington whose story was told in "New York Times" op-ed this week. The Washington who on the eve of the American Revolution owned a plantation and 150 human persons as slaves. Who, when one of those people escaped to freedom, spent nearly the rest of his life using his considerable resources to find and try to re-enslave her. These are indisputable facts of American history. But what is in dispute is how we deploy these facts in our telling of the American story. As we saw this week in Oklahoma where American history became the target of lawmakers who didn`t like the way that story is being told in classrooms throughout the state. On Monday, an Oklahoma House committee approved a bill to stop the state from funding advanced placement history courses, which would have in effect banned A.P. history from being taught in the state of Oklahoma. The A.P. program, which is owned by the college board, offers high school students an optional university level course of study and the opportunity to earn college credit or advanced placement in college bypassing a final exam. In 2012 the college board revived the curriculum framework for A.P. history and the Oklahoma lawmaker who proposed the ban said the revision emphasizes what is bad about America and omits the concept of American exceptionalism. But the collection of historians and instructors who wrote the framework say they were guided by input from teachers who felt that the old version of the test prevented them and their students from exploring in any depth the main events and documents of U.S. history. That it caused them to rush their students in a quick march through a list of historical events, with too few opportunities to understand the why of U.S. history. Or to make its deeper meanings come alive to students. In other words, they made the changes to avoid the kind of teach to the test learning that can leave students knowing a lot about how to take an American history exam, but very little about American history. On Wednesday after two days of national attention and criticism from educators, the lawmaker behind the bill said he would rewrite it to clear it up, and said he was very supportive of the A.P. program. But similar claims about the inefficient patriotism of A.P. history have been made in Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas, which means that for now at least the classroom will continue to remain the site of political battles over the American story. Joining me now from Los Angeles is Pedro Noguera, who is a professor of sociology at New York University, an executive director of Metropolitan Center for Urban Education. And joining me via Skype is Moin Nadeem, who is a junior at Jenks High School in Oklahoma whose petition is asking lawmakers not to ban A.P. classes and it gathered more than 10,000 signatures in 24 hours. Let me start with you, Professor Noguera. This big question: why is teaching American history so fraught? What`s at stake in this battle? PEDRO NOGUERA, PROF. OF SOCIOLOGY, NYU: Well, good morning, Melissa. Many things are at stake. American history has been contested for a long time. Which version do we tell? Do we tell the parts that you just started with about America`s experience with slavery, about our treatment of Native Americans, do we focus only on the wars that we`ve won or on the activities of great presidents. The real challenge is how do you tell the complex story of America in all its richness and provide students with a critical understanding of its history? So, teaching history itself is a challenge. But this particular legislation is about prescribing a version of history that is politicized and, I think, dangerous to students. And we`ve seen this, as you pointed out, happening in other places as well. In Texas where they try to ban the teaching of revolution, in Jefferson, Colorado, Jefferson County where they try to meddle with the curriculum. So, the politicization of our curriculum, particularly of history, is something we`ve seen in many places. HARRIS-PERRY: Stick with me for a second. Moin, I want to come to you on Skype. You know, I thought it was fascinating that you took to political action here to change.org actually address the question of what was being taught in A.P. history. Why take that tact? Why did you make that decision? MOIN NADEEM, JENKS HIGH SCHOOL: I mean, I originally had seen stuff and my school tweeting about it. My original reaction was this can`t be allowed to happen. This should be allowed to happen. And I didn`t think it would happen, it thought something would, that it`d be blocked or something like that. But then I realized that it was an 11-4 vote by the House education committee and stuff was already in motion so I decided to do something about it. The easiest way to do that was create a petition. HARRIS-PERRY: Do you feel like you`ve had a bit of a victory with the decision on the part of a main lawmaker to pull back? NADEEM: I mean, I would call it a small victory. It is a victory, but they are still considering rewriting the course and still performing action against the course. HARRIS-PERRY: Stick with us. Professor Noguera, let me come back to you a second, because it does seem that part of this is about history and the teaching of history. Part of it also feels like a bigger question of pedagogy. Given that part of these revisions initially were about wanting to push students to engage with American history rather than to simply kind of learn the list, learn the names and the dates, have we moved in this kind of test as the one marker of whether or not you know something, have you moved to a place where we actually don`t want students to learn ideas, we really just want them to learn facts? NOGUERA: Well, I think that is also a concern here that`s been raised. That is, that you want to use history, the teaching of history to motivate people to learn more about their country, and to engage the students intellectually in the learning of history. I would say too often we`ve done it as a collection of facts and students are bored and disengaged and that`s one of the reasons why many Americans know very little about history, they know very little about geography, we`re engaged with the Islamic world. Most Americans know very little about Islam or that part of the world. So, there`s a real problem in the way we teach history and the way we have approached this subject. At the same time, the danger we`re seeing here in Oklahoma is the politicization and the attempt by politicians to describe what our kids are learning in school. I would hope all parents, educators would see the danger of this, because when you start to see attempts from politicians to impose a particular ideology on our children and our schools, this is really, I think, a very ominous sign that we all should be wary of. HARRIS-PERRY: Moin, would you agree that we don`t know enough about history, that the way that it`s being taught might actually make it boring on irrelevant? NOGUERA: I think that very often that -- HARRIS-PERRY: Hold up, professor. Let me get Moin in real quick. NOGUERA: I`m sorry. NADEEM: Definitely. I feel like I`ve done both the old test and the new test. The new test is just a conceptual based test where they`ll ask you more about what happened, less about what happened but more about just line analyzing parts of the stuff that happened. And I think it`s making you think critically, which is a great skill to have, and less of just regurgitating facts. Whenever I take the old test, it`s easier because I can memorize facts right before the test and get an "A", but it`s not better for me and the new test is educating us more about curriculum. HARRIS-PERRY: Professor, let me back to you on one last thing here. Obviously, a big issue this week was the comments of former Mayor Giuliani about our president saying that he doesn`t love America, that he was taught not to love it. And it seems to me to some of that is happening in this pushback against the A.P. curriculum, this idea that somehow this A.P. test will teach students to hate America rather than love it. What do you make of that? Why are we afraid to critique our nation even as we learn about it? NOGUERA: Again, it comes from a very narrow sense of what patriotism is. You know, Brian Stevenson (ph) just did a study on lynching across America and showed over 4,000 cases of lynchings in the country. Should we omit that from our history? I don`t think so. I think we should teach our history in a way that allows us to look closely at what`s been wrong, at the same time at what needs to be done to create a more equal and just society. So I think that the challenge is going to be to ensure that our kids get exposed to a range of ideas, that they learn how to continue to study themselves, how to continue to search for answers to some of the problems facing our country. And when you look at someone like Rudy Giuliani`s comments, you really get a sense that there`s another group out there that wants to try to drive a very narrow agenda. They had similar reaction to when President Obama spoke at the prayer breakfast about the -- about the importance of acknowledging Christianity`s role in perpetrating terror both in the Americas and abroad. So, we have to not be afraid of looking at our history and asking what can we learn from this, and what can we do differently in the future to ensure these kinds of atrocities don`t occur again? HARRIS-PERRY: Indeed. To not know your history is to be doomed to repeat it. Thank you to Dr. Pedro Noguera in Los Angeles, California. Also, thank you to Moin Nadeem in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Thanks for Skyping with us early this morning. And stay right there, everybody. The mayor changing what we expect to become straight out of Compton. But, first next, my letter of the week. HARRIS-PERRY: As potential 2016 presidential candidates gear up for what may very well be a campaign against a former U.S. secretary of state, many GOP hopefuls are looking to burnish their foreign policy credentials. For many would-be candidates, that means taking a trip to London and inevitably making some embarrassing misstep on vaccines or evolution or imaginary no- go zones. But for one, foreign policy is more than just a weakness to shore up, it`s a veritable minefield to be navigated -- which is why my letter of the week is to former Florida governor, Jeb Bush. Dear Governor Bush, it`s me, Melissa. This week you, brother of George and son of other George, finally told us where you stand on the one political issue most identified with the Bush legacy -- war. In the lead-up to your big foreign policy speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, you distanced yourself from the policies of your brother by saying, quote, "I am my own man." In that speech you even went so far as to acknowledge that when it came to the Iraq war in particular, there were mistakes made. I did note the use of passive voice there. But still, admitting that there were mistakes in your brother`s foreign policy and promising a new direction is a hopeful sign for those who were worried you might just retread your brother`s disastrous wars. But then we learned just who is helping you form your new, fresh, independent views. And as "The Washington Post" illustrates in this handy Venn diagram, a lot of people from early administrations. One name at the nexus of this graph sticks out like a sore thumb, Paul Wolfowitz. Now, Governor "I`m my own man" Bush, I can see how you might think an adviser from the administrations of Ronald Reagan, your father and brother may have the type of history that would make them a strong foreign policy adviser for you. But if you want to talk about how mistakes were made during the Iraq war, then look no further than Paul Wolfowitz. Here are just a few of the pieces of advice from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz during your brother`s presidency. Now, he advised on how U.S. troops would be received in Iraq. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL WOLFOWITZ, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: These are Arabs, 23 million of the most educated people in the Arab world who are going to welcome us as liberators. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Then he advised on what the war would cost. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WOLFOWITZ: We`re not dealing with Afghanistan, that`s a permanent war of an international community. We`re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Hmm. He then advised on necessary troop levels. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WOLFOWITZ: Some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq are wildly off the mark. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Talk about wildly off the mark, he also advised on what we`d see in a post-war Iraq. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WOLFOWITZ: There`s been none of the record in Iraq of ethnic militias fighting one another. We have no idea what kind of ethnic strife might appear in the future, although it has not been the history of Iraq`s recent past. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: OK. That, Governor Bush, is the man you have picked to be your consigliore -- wrong on Iraqi reaction to U.S. presence, wrong on the cost of war, wrong on the needs on the ground, wrong on the ethnic relations in post-war Iraq, but apparently just the ride choice to be back in your inner circle. Governor, if you want to convince us that you are your own man, you might want to start by getting your own advisers. Sincerely, Melissa. HARRIS-PERRY: More than 25 years ago, hip-hop legends NWA bursts onto the scene with their debut album, "Straight Outta Compton." This summer, the hotly anticipated film about the group will premiere. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me tell you what I see here -- a lot of raw talent, swagger, bravado. People are scared of you guys. They think you`re dangerous. But you have a unique voice. The world needs to hear it. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: NWA made Compton, California, iconic in the American imagination and over the decades, Compton has remained a signature space. But the indelible images of inequality, poverty and violence have tended to obscure the rich tapestry of community, families and political organizing in Compton. Now, one woman is the face of a changing image of Compton. Aja Brown was elected mayor in a landslide victory in 2013 and she is the youngest mayor in Compton`s history. With degrees in public policy and urban planning, Mayor Brown has launched ambitious initiatives, what she calls her 12-point plan involving new construction, budget reforms, music and education programs. She even sat down with rival gang members to call for an end to violence. Compton Mayor Aja Brown joins me now from Los Angeles, California. So nice to have you, Mayor. MAYOR AJA BROWN, COMPTON, CA: So great to be here. Thank you for having me. HARRIS-PERRY: So, talk to me a little bit. What do you see are the strengths that are already in Compton on which you hope to build? BROWN: I think our largest strengths are the people. We have such a rich history in the city of Compton and our people have rich talent, amazing history and dynamic sense of community, in addition to Compton`s location. We`re directly in the center of Los Angeles County where eight miles south of Los Angeles, east miles east of LAX, the international airport, we`re also located directly north of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And so, we have four freeways that surround us, we have light rail, heavy rail. And so, Compton truly is in the center of where trade and logistics has really been quietly a big central focus for the entire region. What we`re doing now is capitalizing on that location advantage and attracting new companies to invest and also bringing a large number of jobs to the Compton community. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I`ve tried to spend a lot of time trying to get young people in my classes, especially young women. I think about running for office. What made you decide to jump into a race to be mayor? There was already an incumbent in the position, right? BROWN: Absolutely. I was discontent with the leadership in my community and I was raised by a single mother that never complained about anything. Her biggest message to me was if you don`t like something, you can change it. And so, I decided to step into the mayoral race and I really came with something very simple and basic, which is a plan for growth and a plan for recovery. I met people where they were, listened to their issues and created a platform that was built on tangible plans to transform our community. HARRIS-PERRY: So, talk to me about what some of those tangible plans are. Tell me a little bit about this 12-point plan that you are working with. BROWN: It`s really a well-rounded perspective of what the needs are in any community and really focuses on financial and fiscal health. So, we`ve been able to, as a collective body, reform our political and budgetary practices. We`ve also been able to attract economic development into the community. We have large companies that have invested in the city of Compton that are going to provide major jobs in the city of Compton as well as policy changes. One of the biggest things that I was able to implement was a 35 percent local hiring policy but it also has a provision for job training so that when we have the 35 percent set aside, peach el also have the ability and we make the provisions to get people trained so that they can be hired in these opportunities that we know u coming down the pipeline. We also address things that will change our infrastructure for years to come. We didn`t have a capital improvement plan, all the things that you need to be able to maintain your infrastructure and also plan for future things and growth that you need in your community. And so, it was really about identifying the challenges and making provisions to never be in the same position that we were in. When we think about what makes communities unsafe or feel unsafe, it`s usually the conditions that surround it. And so, we`ve been cleaning up our streets, mitigating graffiti and also putting responsibility on private property owners and also, the people in the community. So, it`s really a collective effort. No one person can change any community so I really focused on mobilizing the various stakeholders in our city, and picking issues we all can work on together. And I think -- HARRIS-PERRY: All of us Gen X-ers who are looking forward to this film from the east coast or the southeast who were first introduced to Compton through the music of NWA, who first saw those images during the L.A. riots, you know, sort of the post-Rodney King of Compton burning. How do you intervene in that very sticky picture of what Compton is, to give us the picture of the Compton that you have in your mind? BROWN: Well, Compton has made significant changes, even in the last five to seven years. We have new retail options, we have a beautiful shopping center, we have a beautiful state-of-the-art community center, we have new transportation centers. We have new facilities and a new investment in really the way that our city has continued to develop. And so, when people come into the city of Compton, the biggest thing that they always communicate to me is that they are surprised. The image that they had in Compton was really etched in stone, but that was a quarter of a century ago. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. BROWN: And so, any place would have some type of change within that time frame and so they`re really surprised that Compton is not the place that they thought that it was. HARRIS-PERRY: I mean, hey, Ice Cube is making family music and Dre is selling Beats. So -- BROWN: Absolutely. And I always tell them people, especially young people, they don`t necessarily identify Dr. Dre as being a rapper, they know him as a music mogul or producer, and now, a significant business person. So, things have changed, and nothing ever stays the same. As you said, Dr. Dre and Ice Cube, they are family men, they`ve been married for many, many years, and they are very, very successful. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Compton mayor, Aja Brown, in Los Angeles. We`re going to be keeping our eyes on Compton. BROWN: Thank you. HARRIS-PERRY: Still to come this morning, I have been reading Urban Dictionary all week in preparation of our round table of millennials. But first, how we talk when we speak of Islam. HARRIS-PERRY: Know your enemy. It`s the first tenet of "The Art of War." The United States is at war and has been for some time, but do we know our enemy? According to the president`s request for authorization from Congress, authorization for a war that`s already been going on for seven months, the enemy is, quote, "The terrorist organization that has referred to itself as the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant." Now, the president`s request also endeavors to explain why ISIS is the enemy. The group is responsible, he says, for, quote, "despicable acts of violence including mass executions, rape, forced marriage, religious persecution and the murder of civilians." Yet some claim that President Obama does not know his enemy, that he is literally turning a blind eye to them because, they say, the president has not emphasized enough that the enemy calls itself Islamic. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: What undermines the global effort is for the president of the United States to be an apologist for radical Islamic terrorists. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: The administration is misidentifying the enemy and their motivation. That`s why it`s so important that we recognize that these people are being motivated from different parts of the world by a spiritual or theological motivation, which is this radical, Islamic ideology. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PETER KING (R), HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: These aren`t animal lovers, these aren`t environmental advocates, you`re talking about people who are motivated by an Islamist ideology and we have to zero in on that. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: President Obama addressed the criticism head on at a White House Summit on violent extremism this week. The president acknowledged the debate over the words he is using and argued that calling the enemy radical Islam is playing into the enemy`s hands. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Al-Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam. They`re not religious leaders, they`re terrorists and we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Joining me now are Imam Khalid Latif, who is the executive director and chaplain for the Islamic Center at NYU, the reverend Dr. Jackie Lewis, senior minister at Middle Collegiate Church, David Tafuri, who is a former State Department official and a former Obama campaign and foreign policy adviser, and Amaney Jamal, associate professor of politics at Princeton University and author of "Of Empires and Citizens, Pro- American Democracy Or No Democracy At All." David, are we at war with Islam? DAVID TAFURI, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, the president is right to choose his words carefully. He`s been trying since his speech in Cairo in 2009 to reach out to the Muslim community and to Islamic countries. He rightly perceived that the gap between the Islamic countries and the U.S. grew under the Bush administration and he needs to bridge that gap. When we talk about terrorism, we need to be careful about not conflicting Islam with terrorism. Many terrorists, for instance, the ISIS terrorists and ISIS has become an umbrella organization from everywhere, the terrorists are committing acts many times for other reasons and using Islam as an excuse to commit those acts. So he is to be correct to be careful in his wording, but we do need to know our enemy. HARRIS-PERRY: So this feels to me like there are all of these sorts of aspects of what`s at stake here, and part of it to me seems like a part of our foreign policy but also our domestic policy. So what happens if in fact the president were to follow the kind of urgings of some on the right to declare war not on ISIS or not even on radical extremists but instead on Islam? AMANEY JAMAL, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: That`s a huge problem, right, because to declare war on an entire religion that encompasses or includes over 1.7 billion people is a very difficult thing. It`s just outrageous. I mean, we in the Muslim community are also urging the government and President Obama to do something about the war on terror but not against Muslims. We see ourselves very much involved in the war against terrorism. This is a -- this is a problem that affects the entire global community and so it`s a war against terror and we`re on the side of the war against terror. HARRIS-PERRY: So when you say -- it`s interesting when you say, okay, for many Muslims, we see ourselves as engaged in this on the side, for example so listening to the president who makes a very similar argument, but still leaves me with some discomfort in this. Let`s just listen to a moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT OBAMA: Just as leaders like myself reject the notion that terrorists like ISIL genuinely represent Islam, Muslim leaders need to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam that there`s an inherent clash in civilizations. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So it leaves me feeling like, OK, on the one hand, yes, right, I get that he`s saying the identity itself is not the dividing line. On the other hand, it does feel like this is not about Islam and yet you Muslim leaders have a specific responsibility. JAMAL: It`s like basically we have to apologize for this group of terrorists in the Levant, who have seized on an opportunity to conquer some land and institute this very regressive, barbarian theocracy in the name of Islam. I don`t understand why we specifically have to apologize for it. We recognize it`s a problem. It`s a huge problem. It`s one that we`d like to be involved and figure out what the solution is, but we can`t expect every member of the Muslim community, leader, child, woman, to keep apologizing for something that we have no control over. HARRIS-PERRY: Imam, I think part of what gets lost here is that the human beings whose bodies are most bearing the brunt of the terrorism of ISIS are in fact Muslim bodies. IMAM KHALID LATIF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE ISLAMIC CENTER, NYU: Yes. I think what people fail to understand the consequences of the actions of people like ISIS and terrorists like ISIS are victimizing more Muslims than anybody else. Not just in terms of muted voices that around the world have been condemning the actions of ISIS, but literally brutal, atrocious killings every single day that are taking the lives of many innocent individuals. HARRIS-PERRY: I wanted to point out -- I want to listen for just a moment to a former president, to George W. Bush right after 9/11 talking about with whom we are at war. Let`s take a moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying in effect to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: That`s -- I mean I`m not normally a big let`s play some George W. Bush sound, but he sounds actually more like President Obama than the words that others are pushing President Obama to be saying right now. REV. DOCTOR JACQUI LEWIS, SENIOR MINISTER, MIDDLE COLLEGIATE CHURCH: I think that`s right. I think it was prophetic and right on, Melissa. Every religion has a pocket of terrorists. Tonight, we`re going to look at "Selma" being up for Oscars and next month I`m going to be on that bridge for the 50th anniversary. Look, right then and there is a duality in Christianity. On the bridge are Christians moved by love to get liberated and to work for justice. At the bottom are Christians imprisoned by hatred and fear and they had a clash and that clash is violent. I think whenever love meets fear, there`s a clash of violence. I think that`s what`s happening right now. I don`t want to hear Christianity in the same sentence as the Ku Klux Klan any more than I think the president wants to put Muslim Islam in the same sentence as ISIS. HARRIS-PERRY: Up next, the way that we talk about violence about Muslims. First, here is the president on the real culprits in the fight against terror. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT OBAMA: The terrorists do not speak for over a billion Muslims, who reject their hateful ideology. They no more represent Islam than any mad man who kills innocents in the name of god represents Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism. No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Last Tuesday, three young people in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, were killed, shot to death in their own home, their promising lives cut short. The victims, newlyweds and the wife`s sister were all Muslim. The women both wore head coverings as a sign of their faith. Local police first said the murders were the result of a dispute over parking spaces in the condo complex where the victims and the suspects were neighbors. The victims` families rejected that description. A sister of one of the victims appeared last week on this program and explained why it is so important to her that the murder be considered a hate crime. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it`s important, regardless of the outcome, to call it that because it changes so many things, because this wasn`t an isolated incident that just happened to my family. We live in a time where today it`s socially acceptable, it`s politically advantageous to demonize Muslims. It`s not OK. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Now the FBI and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division are investigating whether the triple murder was a hate crime, motivated by hatred for the victims` religion. Joining us now from Los Angeles is Sherman Jackson. Professor Jackson is the director of the Center for Islamic Thought, Culture and Practice at the University Of Southern California. Professor Jackson, I wanted to have you here in part because I wanted to talk to you about this idea of that intersection between hate crimes, between identity-based violence and really to have you help us remember who are American-Muslims? When we say Muslims in America, who are we talking about? SHERMAN JACKSON, CENTER FOR ISLAMIC THOUGHT, CULTURE AND PRACTICE, USC: Well, thank you, Melissa. Yes, thank you, Melissa. We`re talking about an amalgamation of people. There are two mainstreams of Muslims in America. You have Muslims who are African-American descent and that history starts from the very beginning of America. In fact even before America was America there were Muslims among the slave population before America was America. Then we have, of course, Muslims who immigrated to this country from the Muslim world. That`s more of a 20th century phenomenon but the Muslim community in America is a very diverse community. HARRIS-PERRY: Hold with me just one moment, Dr. Jackson. I want to come out to you because the other big story this morning, David, is actually out of Minneapolis and is about this idea of the mall of America, which is a real sort of like American iconic version of capitalism and who we are and we go and shop being targeted. I just want to play -- we had my colleague, Steve Kornacki, had someone on and I want to connect these things for you. Hold on for me. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is something that we have seen before sadly in Minnesota where we have seen Al-Shabaab target usually young men in our community. This is what this group does. That`s why we have been focusing not just on going after the evil of ISIS overseas but also the home grown terrorism, the fact that they are targeting young men in our own communities, not just in Minnesota, all over the country. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So here`s what`s hard for me. On the one hand, OK, our young people are being targeted by these outside terrorists. On the other hand, the story out of North Carolina is young Muslims being targeted by someone for a hate crime. I guess, I don`t know how to reconcile these so that we`re making good policy, both foreign policy and domestic policy. TAFURI: Well, the possibility and likelihood that young people in the U.S. are being targeted and recruited by ISIS and other fanatical groups is of great concern and we need to do a lot to protect our young people against that. We`re far away from the centers and headquarters of the terrorist organizations, but they can still reach us and they`re very, very good at social media, at getting their message out and at recruiting people through the internet, and using their catastrophic events in order to recruit people. So we need to be very, very careful. At the same time, with respect to the UNC Chapel Hill event, we need to take a deep breath, investigate exactly what happened. The media reports so far are not clear as to whether the gentleman who committed these atrocious crimes, the murder, was motivated by hatred for Muslims or by other things, parking disputes and that type of thing. And certainly we need to make sure that we have the facts. The truth is very important in this case. HARRIS-PERRY: Sure, it is. I mean, it`s part of why it`s powerful. The Department of Justice went immediately there. You invoked "Selma" earlier and this idea that the federal government ought to intervene, but even that language of a parking dispute, as we heard from the victims` family, is a painful way of thinking. Why would you call it that when this seems to be what`s happening here? JAMAL: Well, Melissa, these -- what`s going on here, whether the youth of the Muslim community are being targeted or the hate crimes against this couple and the sister-in-law in North Carolina, this is all part of the same phenomenon, which is this. You have rising levels of Islamphobia in the United States. You have since 9/11 hate crimes against the Muslim community have increased over five times. You had in the same week after North Carolina. You had a mosque burnt down in Texas. You walk in New York you see billboards that basically dehumanize Islam. We know that terrorists succeed in recruiting when they can locate this affected youth populations. That`s why they`re recruiting so well in Europe where the Muslim population is ghettoized and where you have a racial divide overlapped with religious divide. That community is heavily Somali-American, black American, and they are aggrieved. They have been marginalized with a double whammy, both black and Muslim. HARRIS-PERRY: Dr. Jackson, I want to bring you back in on being slammed with that multiple identity when we come back. HARRIS-PERRY: This week three teenage girls disappeared from their homes in London and are suspected to be on their way to join ISIS in Syria. We`ve seen their pictures for days. Three young women, two of them wearing head scarves, markers of the Muslim faith. Dr. Jackson, I want to come to you on this because Amaney gave us this whole point about where there`s a racialized identity and religious identity, both of which ending up being markers for being targeted. JACKSON: Yes, but I think that -- look, Muslims are very good at dealing with multiple identities like anybody else. There are white Muslims. There are black Muslims. There are Arab Muslims. There are Asian Muslims. But I think the real issue here is the importance of getting the language right. If we start talking about Islamic terrorism, then we send the message there`s something normative in Islam about terrorism. That Islam as a religion dictates to all Muslims that they should be terrorists. This reinforces stereotypes about Muslims and I think it leads to the kinds of hate crimes, assuming that it was a hate crime that we saw in North Carolina. That`s on the one hand. On the other hand, I think it`s really important to be careful. If America is at war with Islam, then it is rational for people to assume that Islam is at war with America and that too feeds into all of these stereotypes. So I think if we want to talk about an isolated minority of Muslims and what they`re doing, that`s one thing. But I think it`s very dangerous to attribute this stuff to Islam as a religion. HARRIS-PERRY: Imam, would you like to jump in on this? LATIF: I would agree with Dr. Jackson. Not only would I think it`s dangerous, it is dangerous. Aside from the three young people who were executed in North Carolina, we have had a school in Houston that was burned down. There was a young man in Canada, who was shot through his apartment door. Two people who were asked if they were Muslim in Michigan and when responding in the affirmative, they were stabbed repeatedly, and this is all just in the last week and a half, two weeks, we`re not talking about the last five or six months or even years. And I think one of the things that becomes challenging is we look at extremist voices elsewhere and are only focused on what`s coming out of ISIS and the rhetoric there. We`re not dealing with extremist voices at home. We`re not putting in check individuals who very at times irresponsibly just get onto national television. They have running political campaigns, claiming that this is a Judaeo-Christian country. Islam has no place here. We should fear Islam. We should fear Muslims and we wonder why it is that people feel no qualms about mistreating Muslims how they do. LEWIS: We need to acknowledge that any religion that puts hate speech in the mouth of god is no religion at all. We need to build relationships, partnerships, relationships across faith into religious correlations. My colleague standing on a pulpit praying about how black lives matters in our clerical garbs to me gives me hope that we can through our relationships change the story. I want America to be at war with hate. HARRIS-PERRY: To be at war with hate rather than to be at war with Islam. LEWIS: Think about that 17-year-old Muslim boy who organized a circle of people to stand around a synagogue in Oslo that to me what my Muslim colleagues are all about. That`s where we see the love. That`s where we see the power of justice at work. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to Sherman Jackson in Los Angeles, California, this morning. Thank you also to Imam Khalid Latif and also to the Reverend Dr. Jackie Lewis. Also thank you to David Tafuri and to Dr. Amaney Jamal. Coming up, we`ll ask a table full of millennials what`s their plan for their future and for ours. And Beyonce and the pictures they don`t want you to see. There`s more nerdland at the top of the hour. HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. And this hour we`re starting with Barbie. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Hats and gloves and all the gadgets gals adore. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Barbie dressed for swim and fun is only $3. Her lovely fashions ranked from one to five dollars. Look for Barbie, wherever dolls are sold. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: That was Barbie`s TV debut. It aired in 1959 during the Mickey Mouse Club. And while the ad looks mostly unbearably old-fashioned now, Barbie was actually kind of revolutionary. At a time when other dolls on the market looked like babies that little girls were expected to grow up and take care of, well Barbie was a teenage fashion model who quickly slipped into other careers. A flight attending and a business executive, and even an astronaut for years before Neil Armstrong landed on the moon I might add. She was a huge hit among a new generation of girls. A generation born into a world of post-war affluence. A generation that would go on to consume with zeal and influence the economy for years to come, thanks to its sheer size. I am, of course, talking about the baby boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, they numbered 78.8 million at their peak. This demographic shift was accompanied by a shift in the aspirational American lifestyle. Enter the suburbs, the interstate, prepackaged baby food and children`s menus at restaurants. Along every step of their life cycle, marketers and retailers were quick to cater to the material demands of the boomers. When the boomers became teen, they drove the cranes for blue jeans. Later, the generation desire for dressier pants that fit like jeans. Lead to the creation of Dockers. That`s right, we all have boomers to thank for the introduction of workplace casual. Boomers entered their prime earning years in the 1980s, a time when income rates plummeted. And excuse me, income tax rates plummeted. And for most of that decade, the stock market soared. Credit cards took up residence in everyone`s wallets and boomers regularly called the wealthiest generation continued to spend. According to Neilson, when it comes to buying stuff, just good old consumer packaged goods, baby boomers buy 49 percent of all of it. And yet this consumer generation is far from ready for their golden years. They carry more credit card debt than other generations. On average, well over $5,000. The majority of them are not financially prepared for retirement. More than a third of boomers still are working and have saved less than $50,000. This may be one reason a growing number of boomers say they`ll continue working well past the age of 65. Cue the intergenerational bickering. Resentments against boomers has been bubbling for years. But perhaps reached a vocal pick during the recession. When there was a perceived battle for jobs between younger and older workers. Add to that mix that this aging group is primed to put a real strain on Social Security and Medicare, and you get headlines for claiming that boomers have destroyed the economy and left behind a disasters` economic legacy. And they`re not going anywhere soon. They still number almost 75 million, making them a force to be reckoned with on Madison Avenue and Washington, D.C. for years to come. But they`re getting a little competition. According to the census bureau, the millennials, people born roughly between 1981 and 1997, my God! Will soon eclipse the boomers, thanks to a boost from immigration, the millennials will reach 75.3 million this year. So what`s that generation like? What do they want? What do they care about? What are they saying on twitter? That`s what we`re going to find out this morning. Joining me now, Jamira Burley who is co-founder of GenYNot. Kelvin, is it really Betonce like Beyonce? KELVIN BETANCES, SENIOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: It`s Betances. HARRIS-PERRY: Betances. Okay. Who`s a senior in Computer Science of NYU. Poy Winichakul who is co-founder and co-director of Launch Progress, political action committee. And Gabriel Marshall, who is a stand-up comedian and Army Reserve Captain. And Lili Gil Valletta who is co-founder and president of XL Alliance. So, Lili, I`m actually going to start with you. Who are these boomers and how did they suddenly become such a dominant proportion of the population? LILI GIL VALLETTA, CO-FOUNDER, XL ALLIANCE: Well, the boomers, as you were describing so well, set the stage now for the next generation of leaders, which is millennials and anyone who wants to win in today`s America must become relevant with this generation that is close to 80 million strong, $200 billion in buying power and represent the future of our country. Where we have a generational disconnect is between the boomers today that are the decision-makers of America, whether they`re in politics or in business, in trying to understand what is it that it takes to get to the heart of millennials, which is the future of an America that gets me really excited, highly diverse, very energetic, very committed to social issues and I just praise you for having this conversation today because it`s about time. HARRIS-PERRY: And they are really diverse, right? Forty percent people of color, 14 percent first gen immigrants, but the other thing is you guys seem not to consume quite the way that the boomers do. Right? So, we were looking at your student loan debt. You`ve got a $17,000 median student loan debt with only a $10,000 median net worth. What are you guys going to buy to keep the, you know, the whole thing moving here? GABRIEL MARSHALL, STAND-UP COMEDIAN: Well, I think that our generation is caught up in tech a lot, so we`re interested in phones. We spending a lot of money on phones. I think the iPhone is the highest grossing device in our country right now. So we`re really focused toward tech but like you said -- HARRIS-PERRY: What about houses, cars, also the kinds of things that have driven that American economy? MARSHALL: Well, I`m probably a different case because I came into the military right at the time of the housing collapse so I actually had finances to buy a home. So I bought a home which now has doubled in value since the housing crash but I think that I`m atypical compared to most millennials. JAMIRA BURLEY, CO-FOUNDER, GENYNOT: So, one thing I would say is that I agree with you is that millennials are investing in ways in which they can continue to stay connected. So, whether that`s computers, whether that`s other forms of technology. But the reason why we`re not investing in houses and cars is because, one, we like the idea of mobility. The idea to move throughout society freely and be able to interconnect. And we feel boggled down by those materialistic things. But also I would say, automobiles, we`re connected by a number forms of public transportation that wasn`t accessible to our older, seasonal generation. Oh, my God, did you just -- (LAUGHTER) No disrespect, but it wasn`t accessible to the older generation and so we are more connected than ever before. HARRIS-PERRY: But you talked about being more connected and also wants to be more mobile, you are also much less likely to marry, in that age group of 20 to 34. In 1960, 77 percent of those folks were married. 2013, only 30 percent married. Is that about the mobility? But are you missing connection? Like you end up connecting in ways that are digital as opposed to human? BURLEY: I would say it`s both. I would say, I mean, our parents and grandparents married for very different reasons why young people are marrying today. We don`t feel the financial constraints of our parents. What we do feel is that we also have time to make decisions that are going to impact us much longer. POY WINICHAKUL, CO-FOUNDER, LAUNCH PROGRESS: I also think it`s about women entering the workforce. Right? So, there are a lot more women -- my mom worked and I think a lot of families right now need those two incomes. And we`re seeing a lot more women in the workforce and so I think that has to do -- that also plays into the fact that, you know, folks are marrying a little bit later and we want to -- like Jamira said, we like this mobility. We want to be able to explore. I think the technology pieces really played into opening our world views and being interested in learning about more different types of people and different types of opportunities rather than settling down. HARRIS-PERRY: So Lily, I heard you obviously defined this generation as diverse. We`ve heard here also this idea of mobility of a different way of engaging with one another. Does that -- does that resonate with the research that you`ve done on this generation? VALLETTA: Exactly. And I just wanting to weigh in on that because I don`t want people to get concern about the fact that millennials are not going to drive the economy. What happens is that the drivers for them to spend and get engaged are completely different than their previous generations, which is going to up the game and the requirements for corporations, marketers, politicians to become relevant with them. You need to be socially responsible, you need to be transparent. You need to have a two-way dialogue and not just sell to them. And in all the research that I`ve done with many fortune 500 companies that I work with that try to dissect the mindset of them, you know, it`s very simple. You`ve got to get first to the heart, then to the mind, then to the wallet, of the millennials. So I think that the space is wide open for us to have a thriving economy. It`s just that the models of common business have to change. We`re starting it to see with companies like Tom Shoes, with charity water and the dynamics of how that raises money for a great cause. That`s a perfect millennial case study of what the future entails. Like I said earlier, it will take those boomer decision-makers today to bring the millennials to positions of power and understand that what worked last year or ten years before is not going to work for the next ten years to come. HARRIS-PERRY: So, it`s interesting because you`re a computer science major, right? BETANCES: Yes. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So when I hear that, that first started happening in my generation, we`ll go train people in computer science. But I think that the way that training has happened had shifted dramatically because exactly of some of the things that Lily is talking about. So it was once you would go learn a particular language or particular platform. You`d go learn how to write linux code or something. But I presume as you`re thinking about being a computer scientist now, it`s with a very different notion of how computing will operate. BETANCES: Yes, definitely. Now that we are talking, you know, about how millennials will drive the economy, I would say a lot of millennials, and mostly like for example me and my peers, we`re actually more focused in trying to be entrepreneurs. I think millennials are the generation that`s the most entrepreneur driven. You can kind of see the entrepreneur craze of shows like "shark tank" and the entrepreneur scene in NYU is exploding right now. Like we have a brand new entrepreneur center. We have a pitch fest where we pitch our ideas which are going to -- and I personally, like my life goals after college is not to quickly settle down, but to be a little bit more mobile, maybe check out different small companies, learn as much from them as I possibly can so I can then later start my own thing. HARRIS-PERRY: So it`s not about getting a job, it`s about creating a business and that may take some kind of mobility across space, not just sort of one good job, one space, one house. BETANCES: Yes. HARRIS-PERRY: Stick with us, everybody. So much more from our millennial panel. Thank you to Lili Valetta this morning. I appreciate your energy and your research around this generation. And up next, millennials don`t have cable. So, I`m going to ask these young people why they are trying to put me out of a job. Next. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, oh, oh, hey. Typically when guests come on their show we ask them to put their phones away but today I actually asked my millennial guests to feel free to tweet or take a selfie or do whatever else your tech driven heart desires. As we can see, some of them have been doing it all morning and, after all, they`re millennials. Research surveys tell us that you guys sleep with your phones by the bed and even post status updates from the bathroom. And there is no question that technology use is a defining characteristic of the millennial generation so let`s just embrace it. But selfishly, I do have to admit that I have one really important concern about this attachment to smartphones and the online world. Millennials watch less TV than baby boomers. Hundred and seven hours a month, 174. So my young demographically desirable friends, is there anything I can do to convince you to get a basic cable description to include MSNBC? Because you guys are changing how information is consumed and entertainment. MARSHALL: I think we want it on demand. We want it at our fingertips. I don`t think that you`re going to get our generation to subscribe to one way of getting our information. We want our media at our fingertips when we want it and right then, immediacy. BURLEY: And we also not only just want it on demand, we want it so it`s not watered down and sugar coated. Right? We want the facts and we want it immediate. And that`s the good thing about twitter and Facebook. But you only have a limited amount of characters and so people get right to the point, get the information that you need and you`re able to make a decision based on that information really fast. HARRIS-PERRY: Okay. So, I just want to push on that just a little bit. Because I think part of what happens when folks hear that, is they hear, oh, this generation is selfish. Selfish and demanding in this kind of immediacy and they also hear, oh, they have short attention spans. And I`m thinking, so here you are, someone who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces. You are many things but selfish is not one of them and yet you`re like, look, I want my information when I want it. And I hear you saying, no, it`s not about a short attention span, it`s just about distilling it down. BURLEY: Exactly. And that`s one of the things I hate when people say about millennials that we`re selfish. I know young people who have dedicated their lives to the social movement to people that they will never meet. And so, to say that we are generation that don`t care about other people I think is very -- it`s false. It`s very false information. And so we want our information in a way that we can then go back and give it to another young person where they can take it and run with it. We don`t want it watered down. We don`t want two hours of content where we feel like really only 15 minutes that actually applies to us. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. But you do want two hours of content, right? BURLEY: We just wanting it broken down in a way that`s digestible for us. MARSHALL: Well, I think it`s really easy for every generation to malign the next. Even if we learn that -- they were at Woodstock partying it up, you know, does that make them lazy or crazy? No. We are a busy generation. I think we`re a very driven generation and that`s why we expect information to be at our fingertips because we`re doing a million different things and we don`t always have time to block out, you know, 10 to noon to watch something so we`ll go online when we have time and get our information that way. HARRIS-PERRY: So, are there principles to engaging your generation? Because undoubtedly there are executives sitting in every television, you know, news administrative suite right now asking, okay, how do we get these young people who are guests actually to watch our shows? BETANCES: Yes. I think definitely something intrinsic about the millennial generation is like older generations who only had one identity which -- in person identity, millennials have two. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, you`re online. BETANCES: Yes. We have an online identity, cyber-identity and we have an in-person identity as well. And a cyber-identity, you know, it`s not only your Facebook status or your Instagram account, it`s how you portray yourself online, which is in and of itself a whole different thing. HARRIS-PERRY: So is it your online selves or your real selves that we can actually get to engage, particularly with the political and social world? WINICHAKUL: I think it`s definitely a mix of the two. The big thing about millennials is we don`t -- or at least for me, I don`t like being categorized as just a woman, as an Asian-American, as someone who went to a liberal arts college or whatever it is. It`s a blend of all these identities. And I think because we live in such a digital age, my in- person is very connected to how I portray myself online how I write and how I speak both in characters and also in person. And I think you have to look at someone now as a whole person and that`s what we -- you know, in leadership positions too I think you have to look at -- you need people who understand how to look at people in holistic positions. HARRIS-PERRY: So, when we come back, I want to ask exactly about that, whether or not millennials will lead differently both in the political world and the business world. How when you all are the boss? It`s going to look different. So, after the break, millennials in the movement and just where they stand on a variety of issues today. HARRIS-PERRY: Everyone knows millennials like a good listical. Thanks Basty. So now I`m proud to bring you our very own Nerdland listical. The three things you need to know about millennial political activism. Number one, half of millennials call themselves independents, though they overwhelmingly vote for democrats. That said there`s now a group called millennials for Jeb. Not sure what to make of that but, you know, just thought you should know. Number two, when it comes to some of the day`s big issues, millennials are liberal, except of course when they`re not. Sixty eight percent support same-sex marriage. Sixty nine percent think marijuana should be legal but only 56 percent believe that abortion should be legal compared to the 59 percent of the old, that`s Generation X. Number three, millennials do care about people other than themselves. Three-quarters of them report, giving at least a small gift to nonprofits and 57 percent of them do some sort of volunteer work. More than any other generation. Sorry to anyone who was hoping for an item about cats. The nerd behind the scenes here just couldn`t find research on that one. So, let`s start with this idea of political leadership. What is millennial political leadership like? What doesn`t mean how you all engaged in the political world? WINICHAKUL: Sure. So, for me I really got involved with politics and I think that young people have a really huge voice in politics. Right now there are not a lot of people who look like us in elected positions. But we have so much potential from our world view or engagement empowerment with technology and the past events that we`ve had to grow up in, wars, 9/11, the great recession, we have a whole different world view that`s not being shared and that perspective is not being heard in leadership positions, political leadership positions. And for me I think we can take that leadership role. We have a place to lead the country and share our perspective, to create policy. Jamir was talking earlier about how we are the leaders of our movement and we are the voices and we should be heard that way. And I definitely agree. HARRIS-PERRY: And Jamir, this seems like an important point to me. That you grow up in a post-9/11 world. You grow up in a world that is marked by war and you also grow up in a world marked by economic downturn and now a world marked by a set of social movements that have an online component. Is hashtag activism real activism? I know you are actually doing work that connects what`s happening online with things that are happening out in the streets? BURLEY: Yes. I mean, whether you tweet once or whether you tweet 200 times about a specific issue, we want you at the table because you have to understand every person has a viewpoint, has an experience that needs to be shared with a larger movement. And so I think for people to say that #activism doesn`t exist, no. Because a person`s timeline is based on the people who like their content. And so, when you`re able to reach a new audience, it`s able to influence a new population of people that you would have never normally been able to reach. Recognizing that a young people want their information in a way that`s very different than our parents` generation and so you give it in a way that`s 140 characters or you can give it on your phone or your laptop. HARRIS-PERRY: You want to jump in here. MARSHALL: Well, I was just going to say the idea that we`re not active I`m not sure where that`s coming from. The 2008 election was a perfect example. The generation really pushed President Obama over the edge in that election. I myself worked for his campaign while I was in college and we were very active. And he was the first person to kind to do that grassroots social media campaigning, which I mean we saw the effects of that. And every campaign since has had to model after President Obama`s campaign. BURLEY: It`s interesting that he mentioned that because 2012 actually marked the third -- the third election in a row where millennials came out in more than 50 percent. So people always say that we don`t vote, but we do. Numbers show it. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. And in fact, this is the first generation where young people are voting at rates that are consistent with older generations, right? So that very first group who actually got the right to vote post- Vietnam in fact didn`t use that right to vote at the same level as young people but this generation is. And yet, I wonder, does voting feel like enough? Is this the generation who on the one hand elects President Obama twice, but then, maybe do you end up feeling like you know what? The vote is insufficient. We still feel like there`s enough injustice in the world, even when we do get the candidate that we want. BURLEY: Yes. There was recently a poll done by the U.N. and a number of large organization called, the my world survey and it not only surveyed young people here in the U.S. but also abroad. And we have such a huge distrust of government. And so, not only are we electing people but we`re now putting precautions in place to hold them accountable. And that means starting that on grassroots organizations or calling them out on twitter. HARRIS-PERRY: So that idea of being able to elect someone and yet hold them accountable, feels to me like that could be the great contribution that millennials could make that potentially is quite different than what we`ve had before. That said, could you all please get cable. Please, so us olds can continue to work. Thank you to Jamira Burley and to Kelvin Betances. Also to Poy Winichakul and to Gabriel Marshall who I want to point out, used to be a page here at NBC. Still to come this morning, Beyonce flawless as ever and the modern standard of beauty. But first, little ballers with big dreams. HARRIS-PERRY: For some sports are more than a game. They represent an opportunity for a better life. Still, we know the chances of becoming a professional athlete are slim. The odds of a high school basketball player making it to the NBA, three in 10,000. With such unlikely outcomes, some argue that young men, especially young black men should consider other role models. Take this. Immediately after the election of President Obama, one commentator wrote I hope that all children, but especially black kids, will consider Obama a worthy role model. Too many black kids see sports as the only way out of the inner city. Now, there is no doubt that President Obama is a very worthy role model, but it might be worth remembering that the President himself adores basketball and credits the sport with giving him direction, discipline and the experience of being on a team. Also worth noting that making it to the NBA may be a long shot, but it is still way more likely than being elected president. Just saying. So instead of setting up a dichotomy between life goals and sports aspirations, how about seeing the connections between them. The new documentary "Little Ballers" follows four 11-year-old New York City kids as they and their coach set out to win the amateur athletic union national championship. The NBA finals of youth basketball. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED BOY: AAU stands for Amateur Athletic Union and it`s basically like the NBA for kids. UNIDENTIFIED BOY: What I love most about basketball is being with my teammates. My teammates are like brothers to me because when we win or lose, we`re still happy because we played together. UNIDENTIFIED BOY: I want to be friends with them even when we`re not playing basketball for my whole life. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Now, while it remains to be seen if the films "Little Ballers" will one day become NBA legends or president, the film makes clear that for these boys basketball means hope. Not for stardom or money necessarily, but for better relationships, better education and a better future. With us now is the film`s Director Crystal McCrary. So, Crystal, is this a movie about basketball? CRYSTAL MCCRARY, DIRECTOR, "LITTLE BALLERS": It`s a movie about basketball. It`s a movie about how sports can transform a young person`s life. It is about offering hope. I mean, I`m glad you brought that up. It`s about offering hope in many ways. It`s about building a family where oftentimes there is none or building an extended family and offering structure to our young youth. And that is something that I thought was so important to try to capture in this film. I wanted to show how basketball could offer hope for the kid Tyreke and get him off the streets of Brownsville where gang violence is prevalent in his life. HARRIS-PERRY: Let`s listen to Tyreke because he has a very compelling voice. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED BOY: I want basketball to take me to the NBA so I can have a lot of money and get the things that I want. So when I tell my mom that we`re going to get out of here, when I tell her that, I mean that. We`re going to get out of this neighborhood because it`s very bad. (END VIDEO CLIP) MCCRARY: Yes. I mean Tyreke is certainly one of the more compelling stories, and they all are. All of these boys that I chose to profile in the film, one of them being my son, who his bond with basketball is one that he has to control his emotions, it`s something that he works through, through sports and to adversity. And then the young boy Kevin, for him it`s about getting an education. For Judah it`s really hope for his entire family, it really saves his family`s life in terms of offering hope after his father has lost his job and it brings them altogether in something positive and constructive that they can do. But I think that with all of the issues that we are having in urban communities with the, you know, failing public school system in urban communities, high poverty, over policing of communities, I by no means am saying that basketball is the only way out. Let`s get that straight. HARRIS-PERRY: Right, right. MCCRARY: It could be a chess club, it could be a debate club, it could be any number of activities for kids to help keep them off the streets. HARRIS-PERRY: But there is something about, I will say, so it could be a chess club and for some kids it will be the chess club, right? But, you know, as I was watching, I was watching how many of the little sisters were cheering along. And so for me, AAU basketball is all about the girls` side. My niece, Chris like, was a serious AAU baller all from Chicago in middle school. And I look at it and I think there is something about the physicality of it. There`s something about the, like, actually moving your body, getting that aggression, that energy, that emotion for your son out. So it could be the chess club, but there is something about the game of basketball. MCCRARY: Oh, yes. And there`s something very, you know, connected within basketball in our community. It`s an inexpensive sport. It`s not a country club sport. Anybody can pick up a ball. And you can, I mean, my son, there have been times in the park he hasn`t had a ball. He`s taken his shoe off to try to put it in the hoop because it`s something that`s so deeply connected for him. And I`m glad you brought up the issue with the girls. I mean, I`m doing a girls documentary now where I profile girls playing basketball with Skylar Diggins, who`s in the WNBA. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, good! MCCRARY: And it`s incredibly important for us to understand that with youth sports, it`s more than the winning and the losing. It`s really about how they can transform their lives, how they can take this and build it to something else. We know they`re not going to probably make it to the NBA, but it offers so many other opportunities. And I hope what people see in watching "Little Ballers" is they understand it`s a film they can watch with their families, it`s a film that they can take away something that, you know, offers them hope. Something that brings them an enlightenment and also as a filmmaker and mother of three children, I wanted to make responsible programming. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I want to see one more piece from the film and then ask you a quick question about that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: There`s nothing wrong with a dream. It`s the exploitation of the dream. Somebody has got to be that one in 10,000 that makes the -- that reaches the NBA or the NFL. I mean, somebody has got to be that. Now with AAUs and that kind of thing, there now is a track, there`s a track to get from the right grammar school program, the right junior high program, the right high school program, the right college program and then the NBA. It may not happen, but there is a track. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So that notion of the AAU as a track could be seen as a positive. Obviously you put that voice in there for us and could also potentially be described as a negative. There are these moments that I love that are the big tournaments. And I mean, again, my niece was in AAU so I can smell the gym even while I`m watching it. And, you know, I think there`s something about it that`s wonderful and also something about it that`s, whoa, this is youth basketball people and look how many people are so invested in it. MCCRARY: Well, I feel that was important, I love that quote from Bill Rhode (ph). And I felt it was important to show the different perspectives that even though you might be playing basketball at what we think at 11 and 12 years old for these boys that are deeply passionate about it and these girls that you are playing at the highest level, invariably the 11-year- old, 12-year-old prodigy is not going to be the best in high school. They`re certainly not going to be the best in college. And if they make it to the NBA, then they have hit the lottery. But I felt it was important to show Bill Rhode`s voice or Travis King, the agent for Amar`e Stoudemire who is the executive producer of the film that gives us the great statistic about 10, 11 million kids play high school basketball. There are 2,000 division, one scholarships, 60 guest drafted in the NBA and 30 will actually make the team. So, I think if we look at that lens, that it gives the kids in the film a perspective that even though they all think they`re making it to the NBA, let`s be realistic about what the chances are, but still these boys are at the last age of innocence. Also let them enjoy that. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. I have to say, my favorite part, as we go, was the video and the pictures of them on the road together and what it means to be a bunch of 11-year-olds staying in hotels, eating together in restaurants. You just get a sense of how big that experience is. Crystal, stay with me, hang out for a little while longer. I want everyone to know that you can catch "Little Ballers" on nickelodeon on Wednesday, February 25th, at 9:30 p.m. And you really do want to watch this with your family. Up next, did you see the pictures of Beyonce that went viral this week? We`re not going to be showing (INAUDIBLE) after me but we are talking about flawlessness. HARRIS-PERRY: Tonight is the night of the 87th annual academy awards. Celebrities from around the world gather on the red carpet for Hollywood`s biggest night. There will be plenty of familiar faces sporting glamorous ensembles from -- dresses to custom made style Chanel gowns. Yes, there will be many examples of beautiful actors wearing beautiful things from a range of designers. But in the days of who wore it best fervor, beauty seems insufficient. They have got to be perfect. Extensions on eyelashes, and for the hair, aroma therapy facial and detoxifying diets, extra hours in the gym. I mean whatever the individual celebs, secrets red carpet, preparing maybe, the point is, as Julia Roberts once explained, it takes a village, it really does. A series of photos taken off the red carpet have reminded us of why apparent perfection is paramount for many women in the spotlight. It started with an unretouched photo of supermodel Cindy Crawford that popped up on twitter last weekend. Now, Marie Claire says, the images are pre-edited version for a December 2013 cover story picture. Former Marie Claire Mexico in Latin America. It seems to have been a leak. But the picture shows a chic fur coat on a body of a 48-year-old woman. A woman with wrinkles and sun spots and cellulite that, well, human beings have. While Marie Claire along with many other publications has celebrated the unretouched Crawford photo for being real and gorgeous. And while twitter users may have praised Crawford for the inadvertent honesty of the leaked photo, social media was not so kind about the picture of another celeb, Iggy Azalea. After paparazzi photos of the artist wearing a bikini while on vacation in Hawaii were leaked. Twitter only so much body criticism that the 24-year-old, 24-year-old emcee who has withstood her fair share of twitter feuds announced that she had enough. She told her twitter fans, quote, "I`m taking some time away from social media. I need to be happy and it`s too negative and draining." Directly addressing her critics, Azalea also wrote apparently it`s shocking and unheard of to be a woman and have cellulite. Now, while the pressure of an anti-cellulite fat for your perfectionist culture, push some to shun social media and avoid the internet, there are also some women who try to use the web to promote healthier body images, women like photographer Jade Beall who launch as I called a beautiful body project. Five weeks after her son was born. The site shows unretouched pictures of Beall and many other women standing proudly with their post-pregnancy bodies exposed and their children by their sides. Beall`s goal was to inspire feeling irreplaceably beautiful as a counter balance to the airbrush, photo-shopped imagery that dominates mainstream media. This week even Beyonce got caught up in the good, the bad and the ugly that emanates from the airbrush Photoshoppped culture that Beall described. More on that when we come back. HARRIS-PERRY: This week Beyonce fans were abuzz over a few photos that were supposedly unretouched version of Queen B`s 2013 L`Oreal ad campaign. They showed the singer with bright red lipstick, laugh lines and get this, identifiable pores. You know, we`re not going to show you the pictures on this program because, after all the Beygency seriously rang the alarm over one fun site, audacity to leak the less than flawless images of Beyonce. Fans hassled the owner of the site so much the publishers quickly released this statement. Due to the distain of the beyhive we removed the photos. We were just posting the photos to share the fact that our queen is naturally beautiful, at the same time she is just a regular woman. Now, of course, there`s also the fact that L`Oreal has not yet commented on the pictures authenticity, but the beyhive`s actions were powerful. If twitter is any indication, I`m sure many fans understand and appreciate Beyonce`s more human side, flaws and all. But it also makes sense that her people want to protect her image. I mean this is Beyonce. I mean, we know she uses wind machines and the makeup team, strategic lighting, backup dancers, all to create the image that is Beyonce the performer. It makes sense the beyhive want to preserve the illusion. For example, I know that my people here at Nerdland would never let the whole audience see me before I`m -- wait a minute. Oh, come on, guys. Thank you. That`s right. Protect the image. That`s right. Much better. Joining the table to talk about Beyonce and the pressure to be flawless in the age of Photoshop are Thuy Linh Tu who was associate professor of social and cultural at NYU. Vanessa Deluca, you might have remember her, it`s Vanessa Bush in previous opportunities here in the show, who`s editor in chief of "Essence Magazine." And Crystal McCrary from "Little Ballers" is also still with us. So nice to have you all here. Vanessa, exactly what is the big deal? I mean, we are all imperfect. Is this shocking to find out? VANESSA DELUCA, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, ESSENCE MAGAZINE: This is not shocking at all. I mean, anybody who takes a selfie on a cell phone these days knows that, you know, uses a filter is basically doing the same thing that happens when celebrities are retouched. I mean it doesn`t really -- everybody knows what it is, what this is, right? Like it`s not shocking to find out that a picture, an image has been enhanced in some way. HARRIS-PERRY: Although it`s an interesting point. That even when we take our selfies, we use filters on them. And I wonder, are we out of touch with what an actual human body looks like? What a woman`s face at 41 actually looks like? THUY LINH TU, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, NYU: I think in some ways yes. I think we live in an edit culture now, right? It`s like, nobody wants Google glasses, they want the whole google screen, right? (LAUGHTER) TU: And you know, I think, the more we sort of tear down our celebrities, right, the better we feel about our own flaws. But actually what happens is the exact opposite. Is the more that those flaws are reviewed, the more we have to work to actually become better than those flaws, right? Overcome those flaws. HARRIS-PERRY: So, it`s interesting even to think of them as flaws. One of the favorite things for me happening in the world right now is "how to get away with murder," and the way that the kind of vulnerability of the naked face and the natural hair is being used in part as a plot element. And when I look at her, at Annalise Keating in this moment, I don`t feel flaws, I fell like man, this is doing a new thing for me. MCCRARY: I love that Viola Davis is all herself in the film. And you see the natural hair. You see it with that make-up. First of all, she`s gorgeous! HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. Right. MCCRARY: She`s a gorgeous woman! But you`re right, I mean, particularly with social media, we are living in this environment where you can`t even take a photo -- I`m new to social media in terms of Instagram, but I have one girlfriend, and whenever I take a photo of myself and put it up on Instagram, she will text me the edited version of that photo. HARRIS-PERRY: Here you are, looking better! MCCRARY: I`m like, I`m 45, I`m proud, I have three kids, I just had one two years ago, I`m okay with those flaws. I mean, yes, is it natural to all of us to want to look better? HARRIS-PERRY: Sure. MCCRARY: But I think that it`s gone a little bit too far. DELUCA: Well, I mean, what really is upsetting to me is how, I mean, I call them digital drive-bys. I mean, people like get to the point where they feel that they can comment on any and anything about you, without really knowing you. And it`s just our humanity is somehow getting lost. I mean, I wrote a whole editor`s letter about this in January, where we are so cruel to each other in this space, especially in social media, that we`ve forgotten how to appreciate just our humanness. HARRIS-PERRY: You know, it`s interesting that you say that. I mean, the point I was making earlier about Iggy Azalea is being just 24. And I mean, again, she has been in some beef on twitter about her race, about her music, but something about being called fat or being called ugly, boy, it just goes to like a core place in who you are as a woman. And I guess I wonder, why is that still so powerful for us? That the ugly or the fat is still somehow more powerful than the "dumb" or the "bad artist" or something? TU: Well, you know, I think women are judged on their physical looks. You know, we`re interested in men`s moral failings, but we`re very interested in women`s physical failings. Right? And this has a really long historical trajectory. You know, we talk about twitter, but hello, what about the mirror? Right. When the mirror came into our homes in the 1950s, you know, we had a disease called acne. We never had that disease before! HARRIS-PERRY: Wait a minute, back up for me a second. We didn`t have mirrors in our homes as a standard -- TU: As a standard part of our bathrooms, right? And we never thought of bumps on our skin as a disease. Right? As something that needed to be fixed. Right? So, you know, these things are all historically produced, right? But there is a long history for a lot of women to build on. HARRIS-PERRY: So then I guess, so then I guess I wonder, so there will be no critique of Beyonce brooked at this table. We are clear about that. But let me ask this question. There is something about sort of Beyonce`s public fabulousness. And it`s something that we love and celebrate here on this show in part, but then I wonder, okay, is that very fabulousness in the context of having had a baby and having had a husband and, you know, us first meeting her whenever she was, what, 16 years old and now she`s a more grown woman, is her ability to be so fabulous through all of that, when the rest of us are still, you know, aging like regular people, is actually problematic or is it meant to be celebrated? MCCRARY: Well, I think on one hand, yes. When you look at the leaks, it`s L`Oreal that were leaked, among other photos that were leaked as well. When you look at the cosmetics industry, which is a 50 billion plus industry that sells a fantasy. That sells this vicarious living. So you have that at play here, combined with the very devoted beyhive fans of Beyonce. And of course the Beygency is always at play here. But when I look at things through the lens of now having a 12-year-old daughter, I look through at the lens of I want my daughter to accept her flaws. She doesn`t have to look perfect all the time, she doesn`t have to have her clothes, you know, up to here. I want her to be able to be a little girl and to celebrate that. And there`s something about seeing these photos of Beyonce, which by the way she still looks incredibly gorgeous! That`s the things, I was like, these are retouched? What`s the problem? Even the bumps, which are minuscule, it really doesn`t matter if they`re big or not, she still looked stunning inside and out. So I want my daughter, I want all of our daughters to see that and appreciate it. DELUCA: I mean, I think what we respond to with Beyonce, is not just, you know, she`s obviously naturally beautiful, but she has such confidence. That confidence really, I mean, it like pours out of her. And when you see that, you want to -- you want to get on board. And then the songs are about girl power and about, you know, we run the world. I mean, this is, you know, you want to have that for yourself, right? HARRIS-PERRY: And for -- you know, I have to say, I have been following obsessively the "Essence" Instagram feed. Because you guys have been, you know, the black women in Hollywood. DELUCA: We all wish we were there. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, I know, I`m like, just straight hating, all week, because I wish I was there. Right? But as I was looking at the women on that feed, I thought, they look different to me than what we`re going to see at the 87th Academy Awards, not just because they`re women of color, but because there are skinny ones and tall ones and short ones, and more full figured. And I wonder, is there something about women of color that allows maybe more -- different kinds of ways of thinking about what is beautiful and sexy and desirable? DELUCA: Well, when you look at various studies, I mean, when you`re now looking at different groups, predominantly, black women will always say, we feel good in our skins, we`re comfortable in our space, we`re fine with how, I mean, no matter how we look. No matter what our shape or size. That is not true of the mainstream. For the most part, mainstream groups. HARRIS-PERRY: So this is a gift that we give to all women. You are flawless, just however it is that you woke up. Thank you to Crystal McCrary and to Thuy Linh Tu and also to Vanessa K. Deluca. That is our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. And a quick reminder, there`s something you absolutely will not want to miss this week. This Wednesday night, 8:00 p.m., MSNBC and Telemundo will present an exclusive town hall with President Obama on the issue of immigration, hosted by MSNBC`s own Jose Diaz-Balart. I will see you next Saturday, 10:00 a.m. Eastern. But right now, it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT." Hey, Alex! ALEX WITT, MSNBC HOST, "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT": Do you miss me, because I`m so far away here in LA -- HARRIS-PERRY: I do! I miss you and I`m too I`m jealous and totally hating! Because you are out there and we are here in the snow. WITT: I know, I know. However, it is rainy and drizzly, and I`m like, it`s all good! Compared to what we`ve got going there on there. Anyway, thanks so much, everyone. Let`s get to this, because one of America`s biggest malls named as a possible target in an alleged terror video. We`ll going to show you how security is being tightened today. Also a question of faith. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker under fire for what he said about the President`s religion. Is this a case of here we go again? And an extensive look at the many controversies surrounding the best picture nominees at tonight`s academy awards, from accusations of bending the truth for a better script to the complaints about "Selma`s" lack of nominations. And "Birdman" versus "Boyhood," we`ll going to have it all coming up for you in just a few minutes. So, don`t go anywhere. I`ll be right back from L.A.! THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022201cb.451 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 102 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 23, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 23, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, John Yang, Steve Clemons, Mary Thompson GUESTS: Jim McDermott, Ruth Conniff, Randi Weingarten, Brent Coon, Mike Papantonio SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7653 words HIGHLIGHT: House Republicans` decision to attach immigration amendments to the DHS funding bill threatens the nation`s security, especially in light of threats by Al Shabab. Governor Scott Walker embraces his role as union- buster making him an incredibly. Hollywood`s biggest night turned into a political moment, as many award winners used their acceptance speeches to discuss women`s rights, incarceration and self-acceptance. The legal wrangling for many business owners and residents along the gulf coast enters year five, as their lawyers fight hard to get restitution. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tonight, extremist put American malls on high alert. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Threat of violence had major shopping centers by the terror group behind the deadly attack in Africa. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The FBI and Department of Homeland Security say there is no known specific or credible plot. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Terrorist like Al Shabab looks for some targets (ph). JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: We`re in a new phase in global terrorist threat right now. SCHULTZ: And later, five years after the spill, the legal battle for restitution wage is on. GLENN GILLYARD, CARR, RIGGS & INGRAM, LLC: So the review process was really become an overkill of what it was intended. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They use their political connections, they use their P.R. machine, they take advantage of the court systems. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re trying to discourage everybody from common good (ph). GILLYARD: I think they`re running out of clock. SCHULTZ: Plus, Scott Walker`s union-busting legacy gets national attention. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: When we talk about our record results, I got to tell you the Wisconsin way is working as well. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When we saw the significant dropped off of leadership. WALKER: You would laugh for that , that`s all right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He took on the unions and he survived. WALKER: If you`re not afraid to go big and go bold, you can execute results. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We start this evening with a new threat here at home. This weekend, the terrorist group, Al Shabab called for attacks on shopping malls in the United States, Canada and U.K. Al Shabab was the same group responsible for the 2013 attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. The cease (ph) lasted three days and left over 60 people dead. This weekend`s video specifically mentions Minnesota`s Mall of America. On Sunday, Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson said the public needs to be vigilant. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHNSON: I`m sure that security at this particular mall will be enhanced in ways visible and not visible. But it also involves public vigilance and public awareness, "if you see something, say something" has to be more than a slogan. CHUCK TODD, JOURNALIST, POLITICAL DIRECTOR OF NBC: But at this point, you`re not telling people not to go to the mall? JOHNSON: I`m not telling people to not go to the mall. I think that there needs to be an awareness, there needs to be vigilance and, you know, be careful, obviously. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: But we are in a new phase. What is that mean? At this time, there has been no specific threat made in the United States. For more, let me bring in NBC News Correspondent John Yang in Minnesota tonight. John, what`s the latest? JOHN YANG, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Ed, so far maybe its terrorist threat fatigue (ph) what shoppers seem to be taking and in strive. Store managers I`ve talked to said that foot traffic has not decreased, and people are still coming to the mall. One person we talked to earlier today is a family who came from Kansas for his week-ender (ph) shopping -- by the way, the father, incidentally, is an army veteran who was a guard at Guantanamo. He said, he thinks the Americans are tired of it all. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, it something keep in the back of your minds but really it`s just a bunch of, you know, scared people in Middle East trying to call something err (ph) than work so. (END VIDEO CLIP) YANG: But security officials are not taking this widely, they say they are doing things that can be seen and increase foot patrols on the mall by police and by mall security, also K9 units patrolling the mall. But also in ways that can`t be seen. They`re also urging that vigilance that Secretary Jeh Johnson talked about science reminding people if you see something, say something, all in order to be prepared in case something does happen. Ed? SCHULTZ: John Yang, reporting tonight from Minnesota. John, thank you so much. The video from Al Shabab comes as Congress is at a standoff over Homeland Security Funding. We`re just four days away from a partial government shutdown. Later in this hour, the senate is expected to vote on DHS funding. The bill is expected to fail after a democratic filibuster. Earlier today, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the Congress needs to do their job. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHNSON: Overall, a shutdown of Homeland Security would have serious consequences and amount to a serious disruption in our ability to protect the homeland. To those in Congress who maybe contemplating, punting or kicking the can a few weeks down the road, I must remind you that the consequences to this department if we remain on a continuing resolution are also severe. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The bill gridlock because House Republicans attached immigration amendments to the Homeland Security Funding bill, the amendment strip funding from President Obama`s executive order to protect undocumented immigrants. As of today, the President`s immigration executive orders are being held up in a Texas court anyway. And the Department of Homeland Security shuts it down the blame, certainly, I think should go on the Republicans. A new CNN poll shows 53 percent of American`s blame Republicans for all of these, 30 percent would blame the President and of course, 13 would blame both. I might be a 13 percenter tonight. Senator Lindsey Graham knows Republicans are playing with fire. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: I agree with the Texas judge who said that the executive orders were illegal. I hope Republicans will come together and back the court case, file a frame (ph) of the court brief whether court and fund DHS. I am willing and ready to pass a DHS funding bill and let us play out in court. The worst possible outcome for this nation is to defund the Department of Homeland Security given the multiple threats we face to our homeland and I will not be part of that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: I would go along with that. And of course, if no action was taken, Department of Homeland Security Funding will end Friday night at midnight. This time, Republican obstruction could affect the security of the homeland. And they wonder why we hate Washington? The security of this country is now a political football and I would venture to say that few Americans think the nation security should be guided by a political calculation of winners and losers. Let me tell you. There will be no winners. Only losers if we have to bicker over the security of this country. Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Will you blame Republicans if the Department of Homeland Security shuts down? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can leave a comment on our blog at ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in this show. And of course, you can get my podcast at wegoted.com. It`s available free 24/7. The security of the country, we`re even going to argue over that. And I think the Democrats too -- have a little bit of blame here as well. Both sides are wrong. Just fund the security of the country and be done with it. And let everything else play out in court. For more, let me bring in Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington and Steve Clemons, MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-Large for The Atlantic. Gentlemen, good to have you with us tonight. STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Great to be with you, Ed. SCHULTZ: Let`s go back. Congressman, we`ll start with you. What is a new phase here? How did you take that comment from Jeh Johnson? REP. JIM MCDERMOTT, (D) WASHINGTON: Well -- he`s, obviously, speaking the truth. Here you`ve got 300,000 people of the Department of Homeland Security, 275,000 are declared important enough to be -- they have to stay on the job but they`re going to get paid. So next Friday, or next Saturday, or next Monday or whenever, they`re not going to get a paycheck. So you`re putting people through a lot of agony. We ultimately (ph) know that the Republicans are going to cave in. There is no question. SCHULTZ: Well -- so, is this another defeat the President at all cost moments for the Republicans to... MCDERMOTT: That`s... SCHULTZ: ... put immigration on the table to muddy the waters for defending the country? MCDERMOTT: Even Lindsey Graham, Ed, says that we had to let the courts working out and funded agency and let it go on and do its job. Americans don`t care whether its Republicans or Democrats, they want the government to work. SCHULTZ: Yeah. MCDERMOTT: And what we`re saying is, we`re going to shutdown FEMA. Now, you`ve got snow 10 feet deep in Massachusetts and you`re saying, we don`t want the emergency cable have (ph) any money. SCHULTZ: It also affects the coast guard. Steve Clemons, does this make us vulnerable if we don`t get it funded? What is it mean from a security standpoint? CLEMONS: We just had threats against the Mall of the America in Minnesota. We have concerns about sleeper cells in the United States. That`s just the beginning, the tip of the iceberg of the kinds of things the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for around the country. You know, it would be nice, Ed, if Rudy Giuliani would come on the show and question the patriotism of those GOP leaders that are undermining the security of the nation and have him ask them, do they really love the United States. That would be a nice turn around. SCHULTZ: You know, I`d just think that Rudy Giuliani has diminished himself so much by this. What the media is missing and me included, I should have done the story tonight -- go back to September 10th... CLEMONS: Right. SCHULTZ: ... 2011 and see how popular Rudy Giuliani was in this town before the attack... CLEMONS: But the point... SCHULTZ: ... and he would still -- well, we just leave that there. But the point he`s making I think is well-taken. He is trying to just focus (ph) the country on a number of fronts. So that`s not the point... CLEMONS: And I think the point you`re making -- and the point, Ed, is that, we have many people in Congress that are willing to sort of walk away from a responsible stance about the security of the nation over a small bowl of issue that`s being dealt within the federal courts. SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: It`s outrageous. And when you talk about in this climate, people`s love of the United States, their degree of patriotism, I think that focus needs to fall directly on those people that are threatening to defund the DHS. SCHULTZ: Congressman, President Obama addressed the economic impact of the DHS shutdown today, just a moment ago. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Unless Congress acts one week from now more than 100,000 DHS employees, board of patrol, court inspectors, TSA agents, will show up to work without getting paid. They all work in your states. These are folks who -- if they don`t have a paycheck, are not going to be able to spend that money in your states. It will have a direct impact on your economy and it will have a direct impact on America`s national security. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The President today speaking to the Governors across the country, there at the White House, they`re all at the White House. He, of course, is having a conference with them. What does this do state finances? I mean, it would seem to me, Congressman, that some Governors might connect with people such as yourself not, you know what I`m saying. I would talk to the Representatives of Washington and say "Hey, wake up on this deal". MCDERMOTT: But, you know, Ed. If you try and put yourself in the shoes of the people who were being impacted by this, we found that we had two coast guards (inaudible) a man and a wife were both in the coast guard. They aren`t going to have money to pay their mortgage on the end of the month or next month. Now, these people are working to protect us all over the place and we say to them, you`re not worth it. We`re not going to pay you. We`re going to use you as a pawn (ph) in our fight with this president. That is not fair to the government employees that are going to affected by this and this going to effect money for states. I mean, people don`t have salaries, they can`t buy things, they don`t. SCHULTZ: Yeah. MCDERMOTT: . pay the sales tax. It runs right down the road. I mean, it is a stupid and their going to ultimately back down. SCHULTZ: Do you believe that Steve. Do you think their going to back down? CLEMONS: I don`t know. I know that I -- when I hear people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham making so much sense and John Boehner saying, hey, you don`t believe me, we`re going to shut it down. I mean at certain point, John Boehner won`t have credibility any longer unless he does pursue the shutdown. And I agree with you, I`m probably with the 13 percent because I think the White House is saying, bring it on. We would love you to carry the responsibility for putting this people out of work and endangering the security of the United States. SCHULTZ: We just say -- can we find an issue that we can isolate where the Congress can work together. I mean, if we can`t do it on the security of the country. What can we do or not? CLEMONS: Right now... SCHULTZ: This is -- Steve, isn`t this the best example of dysfunction if it does shutdown? CLEMONS: Yeah. I mean it`s so sad to me because, you know, I was a director of Nixon Center years ago, I share that with people. I work for the Democratic Center during the Senate. There was a time when people over a great number of issues much more (inaudible) than today, would find a pragmatic middle, the way to move the nation forward, not be gridlock on everything. And the problem we`re seeing is not necessarily between Democrats and Republicans. It`s between Republicans and Republicans. They have inner caucus fight which is so profound in-depth and it`s. SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: ... it`s so deadly I think and so devastating for the United States, on not just this issue but issue after issue after issue. SCHULTZ: And finally, Congressman, your comment on immigration -- you just play out on the court says it right now. So why would the Democrats filibuster this? MCDERMOTT: I think what they`re dealing with is that, you can`t get anything out of the House. You got 46 members in that Freedom Caucus who can stop John Boehner from doing anything. And they simply -- there`s no reason to work on this issue if the House is not going to back down from this but absolute shutdown. SCHULTZ: We`ll let me use TPP as an example. There is just a bunch of Republicans in the House that are going to vote against Fast Track because they don`t want to see the president have any authority at all. I mean, I think that this -- for this probably has something to do with it too, your thoughts quickly on that. MCDERMOTT: It`s always. It`s been for the last two and a half years. Don`t allow Obama to win anything. SCHULTZ: Yeah. MCDERMOTT: And that`s been the bottom line. And Mitch McConnell came on and the first thing he said when he became majority leader, "There will be no shutdowns in the Congress". SCHULTZ: Yeah. MCDERMOTT: Well, we`ve already had one and now we`re heading for the second one. SCHULTZ: Congressman Jim McDermott, Steve Clemons, great to have you with us gentlemen. Thanks so much. CLEMONS: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: You can get my podcast at wegoted.com, it`s free 24/7. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen, share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us on Facebook. We appreciate that. The WeGotEd Twitter account, its history. We can only do one, @edshow. Thanks for signing up. Coming up. Scott Walkers street credit with conservatives and giving him cover in the national media gauntlet, yeah. Plus, we wrap up our series on "The Gulf Today 5 Years after the Spill". Tonight, we take a look at legal battle for financial restitution. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GILLYARD: I think their running out of clock. They have appeal this thing that they first agreed to through various courts. And the Supreme Court finally denied their appeal in December of this past year, which started a six-month clock running. So as of June 8th all submitted claims will have to seize. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is pretty rough around the edges when it comes to being a national candidate early on. I mean some of his answers on foreign policy and faith are simply evasive and quite often strange. But he`s America`s number one union-buster and that is the attraction. To get a sense how dangerous Walker is, look no further than his own state in the latest union numbers out of Wisconsin. Of the 26 states that do not have right to work-to-law in place, Wisconsin had the third highest percentage drop in union membership between 2010 and 2014. According to the figure released by the of Bureau of Labor statistics, the Wisconsin`s union membership fell by 11,000 to 306,000 in 2014. It`s a slight rebound from the state low for union membership in 2012 when it was 293,000 workers. Union members made up 11.7 percent of the state workforce of 2014. That`s down from 14.2 percent in 2010. The year before Governor Walker took office overall, Wisconsin saw an 18 percent drop in membership between 2010 and 2014. So that chart tells the truth. This all comes as a result of Walker`s passage of Act 10 which limited collective bargaining rights for most public sector union workers. Now, Wisconsin could go even further in the fight against workers. On Tuesday, the Wisconsin States Senate slated to take up right-to-work bill after the bill was quietly released on Friday afternoon. Like it or not. Like it or not. Walker has accomplished what he set out to do. He disseminated unions at his own state. Walker might not be ready for prime-time of the cameras but he is entering the field with a level of street cred and he is tried and tested when it comes to union-busting. In fact, he maybe number one in the nation. Good for him if that`s what`s you`re into. The fact to the matter is, it`s not a question about jobs in Wisconsin or how the economy is because the overall mission for the conservative movement in this country is to deplete the Democratic base and get into the union as what it`s all about and that`s what Walker has been able to do. For more on this tonight, let`s go to Ruth Conniff, Editor-in-Chief of the Progressive Magazine, also with us tonight, Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers. And Randi, I want to start with you on this because in numbers published recently, your union in Wisconsin has lost membership since Walker has come in and I know that there`s an effort to try to reinvigorate the membership. RANDI WEINGARTEN, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: Right. SCHULTZ: What`s the state of NAA (ph) in Wisconsin? WEINGARTEN: Well there`s -- look, you know, what`s -- this is what -- you can -- first of all, thank you for having me on. And what`s really interesting is that, when you talk to people all throughout the country, you know, our members want unions. In fact, our union even with everything that`s happened in Wisconsin, has actually grown in the last two years because people want to voice and -- but they want a real voice. And so what happened is, Walker basically, you know, pulled the rag out from everybody. People were used to bargaining in Wisconsin and he made it so hard that you saw a huge drop in membership. That`s exactly what he wanted but what we are seeing is you`re charts to show (ph) as well, is that people really want to voice so that we`re starting to slowly, you know, gain ground again but... SCHULTZ: But his mission, to reduce union membership that`s really what he wanted to do. WEINGARTEN: Oh, always (ph). I mean, it was... SCHULTZ: And, of course, obviously, he`s got the legislature to help him on all of that. WEINGARTEN: Right. But remember, Ed, as you so well-covered, you know, he -- the unions, you know, in 2010 when he was first elected said, we`re going to meet your demands about the budget and he said, no. I just want you not to have a voice. So what happen is, he took away everybody`s voice and then he cut public school aid and then he cut higher ed aid and he cut pay equity. And so basically what he wants... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WEINGARTEN: ... is to not have a middle class in Wisconsin and you have one of the most (inaudible) states. SCHULTZ: What do I`m missing here? The guy wins three elections in four years, de does exactly what he says he`s going to do and I`m trying to get union membership up. I mean, I believe in that. I believe in collective bargaining but, Ruth, this has to have an impact on the Democrats and the liberals in Wisconsin. What`s the end game here? RUTH CONNIFF, THE PROGESSIVE MAGAZINE: Well, I think the end game is topple (ph). I think the reason that Scott Walker is the Koch brother`s favorite candidate is, as you pointed out, it`s very helpful to disempower the Democratic Party when you cut off funds from unions and organizing strength from unions that directly reduces the competition for the right. And secondly, it suppresses wages. I mean, the Economy Policy Institute has done studies... WEINGARTEN: Exactly. CONNIFF: ... to show that all workers, not just the union members, lose wages and right-to-work stage which Wisconsin -- it looks like we`re about to become as weak (ph), you know. So, $1,500 a year less for every worker, union or non-union, so you have a disempowered, disenfranchised workforce. It`s a lot easier if you`re big corporation or billionaire and you want to get as much money for yourself as you can... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CONNIFF: ... to operate in that environment. SCHULTZ: OK. Now, I said in my opening that some of his answers are strange. You know, according to a national review at last week`s off the record dinner, Walker made the claim that his stance against unions in Wisconsin would be a signal of toughness to Islamic Jihadists and Russian`s -- Vladimir Putin. I mean that just -- I mean this -- Ruth, this is but a biggest stretches we`ve seen on the national scene, isn`t it? CONNIFF: It is so strange. I have to tell you, I watched Walker`s speech and Iowa with my 13-year-old daughter who marched with their teachers in the protest here. And to see him described these folks who came out (inaudible) drivers, firefighters cut (ph) as basically as terrorist, right. He is comparing these people to ISIS. WEINGARTEN: Horrible. CONNIFF: You know, my kid couldn`t believe it. And it`s just bizarre rhetoric and that really is the point that he`s making is that, ordinary working folks are terrorist and that they`re scary and that he`s been very brave to standup... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CONNIFF: ... to this people. And it`s a parallel universe, you know, this is... SCHULTZ: Well, maybe things will be different `16... CONNIFF: ... the middle class. This is our teachers. SCHULTZ: Maybe things will be different in `16 -- turning now to troubles in Clinton land. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation dropped it self-imposed ban on accepting funds from foreign governments. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is now claiming those donations would give foreign governments undue influence if Clinton becomes president. Priebus warned the donations could expose the American people to the demands of foreign governments because they dumped massive sums of cash into her foundation. What`s your response to this, Randi? I mean, clearly, the Koch bothers have funded groups that have attacked... WEINGARTEN: Right. SCHULTZ: ... public education, people that they give to, obviously, they expect something back. So here is Reince Priebus trying to draw a parallel here. Your thoughts on that. WEINGARTEN: Right. So I love it, like 48 hours after Scott Walker, you know, met with the hedge funds. He decided he is going to go after, you know, workers in Wisconsin and then Reince Priebus does this. The Clinton -- Foundation has said that they`re going to do the right thing if Hillary Clinton runs for president. When she was Secretary of State, they intake any money from foreign governments, since she has not been Secretary of State, they`ve done a whole a lot of good work. In fact, they`ve actually done real job creation with union pension funds... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WEINGARTEN: ... where we`ve worked together to try to build, you know, rebuild our infrastructure, try to create jobs and try to have good, you know, returns on the money and she has also done a lot of work in terms of... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WEINGARTEN: ... early childhood so this them carping. SCHULTZ: Ruth, have you this, because I got anything else on Hillary right now. They`re looking for something big time, so they got to go to this fun (ph) which is done in men`s work around the globe. CONNIFF: I welcome the Republicans intense scrutiny of the dark money. I think that we should all be concerned about undue influence, foreign or domestic on her politics, and that we should be concerned about democracy and empowering ordinary people, ordinary citizens to have a voice. So I think we should get all the stuff out on the table and we should talk about it... SCHULTZ: All right. CONNIFF: ... who is really funding candidate. SCHULTZ: Ruth Conniff and Randi Weingarten, great to have both of you with us tonight. Thanks so much. Coming up, a very political night at the Oscars. And later, the legal fight for gulf residents continuous five years after the spill. We continue our especial series ahead. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Well, it was politics at the Oscars last night as Hollywood`s A-list stepped out to honor each others work and bring light to some of the important causes, I guess. Topics range from women`s rights to incarceration and we were reminded to stay weird. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PATRICIA ARQUETTE, ACTRESS: It`s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America. JOHN LEGEND, SINGER SONGWRITER AND ACTOR: There are more black men under correctional control today than were under slavery in 1850. LAURA POISTRAS, FILM DIRECTORY AND PRODUCER: The disclosures that Edward Snowden reveals don`t only expose a threat to our privacy but to our democracy. ALEJANDRO INARRITU, FILM DIRECTOR: The latest generation of immigrants in this country, I just pray that can be treated with the same dignity and respect of the ones who came before and build this incredible immigrant nation. GRAHAM MOORE, SCREENWRITER AND AUTHOR: When I was 16 years old, I tried to kill myself because, and I felt weird and I felt different, and I felt like I did not belong. Stay weird, stay different and when it`s your turn and you are standing on the stage, please pass the same message to the next person who comes along. Thank you so much. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Well, it was the most political night I`ve ever seen at the Oscars. I appreciate all your questions tonight in our Ask Ed. We have question pertaining to this, it comes from Julie. Do you think that celebrity speaking out about issues helps the causes? That`s an interesting question. Does it help the causes? In order words, in anything happen today in regards to anything that was said last night? I don`t know, but when it comes to watching and I think it`s probably 50- 50, probably as many people are turned off by that as they are turned on by it, whatever works. There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. MARY THOMPSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Mary Thompson with your CNBC Market Wrap. The Dow falls 23, the S&P in flat, the NASDAQ at 5 points. Shares of Boeing shed more than 2 percent dragging down the Dow. Goldman Sacks downgraded the aerospace giant to a "sell", saying the company is exposed to aircraft demand risk. Existing home sales fell more than expected last month sliding 4.9 percent to a nine-month low. And Apples closes at a new high bringing returns market cap to $775 billion, that`s more than twice sack (ph)of ExxonMobil.] That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Tonight in our final installment of our series, "The Gulf Today 5 Years after the Spill", we examined the legal battle for restitution. The legal nightmare for many business owners and residents along the gulf coast is now in year number five. Lawyers representing clients have millions of information and stories to tell beyond. I spoke with Glenn Gillyard, a partner in the Accounting Firm that structured the now contested B.P. settlement. Residents along the coast share their stories of tangled legal proceedings and lost business. Five years after the disaster, residents have concerns about B.P. meeting their obligations and honoring their pledge. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No more tar balls. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four to five largest companies in the world are oil companies. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They basically lied to the American public about what they intended to do which was to take care of these people. SCHULTZ: Five years after the oil spill, many coastal resident and business owners are still seeking the compensation B.P. agreed to pay. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Top executives from B.P. at the White House today. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know what the consequences are the fed would up to obligations (ph)? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After a meeting that went twice as long as scheduled as administration officials hammered out details with B.P., the President emerge (ph) to announce the $20 billion fund paid for B.P. to cover damages from the disaster. OBAMA: B.P.`s liabilities for the spill are significant, and they acknowledge that fact. The people of the gulf have my commitment that B.P. will meet its obligations to them. ROCCO SCALONE, GULF COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN: No one down there where I was fishing that I`ve got any restitution. SCHULTZ: And have you gone through the process? SCALONE: I`m still going through the process, been lied to, been told, "OK, we`re going to give you this one on this day" and nothing. OK. We have to wait but we need more information. We need more of this. We need this. I don`t know how much information I can give you, gentlemen. GILLYARD: Well, if review process was really become an overkill of what it was intended. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Glenn Gillyard is an accountant at the Firm Carr, Riggs and Ingram. Gillyard himself along with the firm helped design B.P.`s original settlement plan. GILLYARD: We were involved in the initial negotiations and we help write this settlement. We`ve felt like we were creating a butterfly but it`s been morphed into a buzzard because of the overkill and looking at the details. SCHULTZ: Chip Wasson is a business owner battling the oil companies` legal backlog. CHIP WASSON, OWNER, THE LOGO PLACE T-SHIRT SHOP: And we were told that we weren`t affected by the oil spill, we were a tourism related business. Because of our tax return, we were considered wholesale, their methodology said (ph) that we were considered tourism. We thought that, it`s now avail and then finally said that, fine, we`ll take care of formula that you`ve agreed to, just compensate special what your formula says we are owe (ph). MIKE PAPANTONIO, HOST RING OF FIRE RADIO: When every one of the claims processes, they would appeal virtually everything, Ed. We had an appeal going up to the fit circuit almost every two months there would be a new appeal. WASSON: As I`ve heard of what it should have been, right, we were at the point of we needed some relief... SCHULTZ: Sure. WASSON: ... and decided that was better than continuing five-year (inaudible) fund and we`ll take your number. SCHULTZ: And then they bought on that? WASSON: And then, three days prior to them issuing the payment, they filed appeal and stop all of the process. Until since then, it`s now five years hosting (ph) in the oil spill and we`re still waiting for the restitution. SCHULTZ: According to the official court authorized Deepwater Horizon Claim Center, nearly 300,000 total claims have been submitted for economic and property damages from the spill. Just over 80,000 claims have been paid, that`s 27 percent. Five years after the spill, 73 percent of claims have gone unsettled. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They don`t want to pay and they don`t. They use their political connections, they use their P.R. machine, they take advantage to the court systems to delay all the dilatory plea and (inaudible) a lot of good hardworking people out of business. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re paying for oil spill related clean-up costs. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you take a $200,000 claim and you get questions on $25 repair invoice. You realizing that either way you go, it has no impact on the claim. But it simply slows the system down and bunks (ph) the system down and requires more data and more information from the claimers. SCHULTZ: Over 100,000 total claims have been submitted for business lost, under 15,000 claims have been paid. That`s 13.8 percent, 86.2 percent of business owners have seen nothing from B.P. Several claims from coastal residents and businesses remained tied up in court. B.P. began fighting against the settlement they agreed too. In a massive advertising campaign, they highlighted flagellant claims. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But now B.P. Vice President Geoff Morrell says the oil giant is getting soak by business with loses that are not link to spill. GEOFF MORRELL, B.P. VICE PRESIDENT: We`re talking about a wireless phone company store that burned to the ground and shutdown before the spill. DAVID BARBERS OWNER, BARBERS SEAFOOD: They paid some people, but the other people like me they haven`t paid. And the several -- we`re a direct -- we`re direct hit on the oil spill, where in the seafood business and, you know, it really affected our business. KATHY RIVERS OWNER, CROSSFIT DESTIN: If it`s the tourism and destin (ph) in San Rosa is slowed down or shutdown. The locals can`t make money. So the locals can`t support the local businesses. KEN PALMER, FORMER RESTAURANT OWNER: Spill took place. Sales dropped 45 percent, 50 percent, couldn`t make payments to the bank. PAPANTONIO: They`re trying to discourage everybody from coming forward. SCHULTZ: Well, that was my next question. Why have there been so few claims in such a mammoth environmental disaster? 1PAPANTONIO: Yes. What B.P. figured out from the very beginning was, if we can scare people into not coming forward, if we can do full page ads in newspapers, if we can go the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, where say that people who are bringing these claims are committing fraud, what does that do? It scares everybody away. SCHULTZ: So the advertising campaign out there was designed to discourage people, to make them think that it`s a very exhaustive process and it`s not worth it. PAPANTONIO: That -- yeah. What they try to do, is they try to put together a program to where it looks so impossible to participate, number one, and that by participating, number two. The claim that might be committing fraud, that was their whole angle. SCHULTZ: B.P. appealed their original agreement. Their request was thrown out. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Inaudible) as Supreme Court refused without any explanation to consider B.P.`s claim that the settlement administrator was paying victims that weren`t harm by the spill. So it looks these coast guard (ph) just keep backing up. PAPANTONIO: And if you could imagine. B.P. picked the person who was supposed to run the settlement process, they picked him. And now, when he started paying money, they`re now arguing that they want to get rid of him. PATRICK JUNEAU, SETTLEMENT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR: What really attracted me to this job but I didn`t need to do it. My grandkids, family, things to do, in this case and what we`re doing here is going to leave a footprint for the entire nation for the next 100 years, is this how massive things of this nature can be or should be handle. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They had multiple appeals already. They try to appeal against the almost $10 billion settlement on economic of damages related to the spill. They feel that the settlement arbitrator is handing out too much money to people who actually didn`t lose anything during the spill. GILLYARD: I think they`re running out of clock. They have appeal this thing that they first agreed to through various courts, the Supreme Court finally denied their appeal in December of this past year, which started a six-month clock running. So as of June 8th all submitted claims will have seize. PAPANTONIO: B.P. has run out of their tricks. They`ve run out of being able to tell the lie. In the committee that put this together, the settlement committee that put this together has just every step of the way beat them down step by step. And now, you know what? They`re out of things to do. SCHULTZ: So they`ve made agreements and now their now backing out of those agreements? PAPANTONIO: Yes. SCHULTZ: And leaving people hanging who thought they were going to get some restitution. PAPANTONIO: Up to this point, that`s what they`ve been able to do. But right now, they`ve extinguished their right to go to the Supreme Court, they`ve extinguishes their right to go to fit circuit in a lot of ways. So now they`re cornered, they have to leave. SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: . with the lie that they`ve told. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: We have invited representative from B.P. to join us on this program. They have declined every night, the offer stays open. The invitation always remains. B.P. has directed us to their website thestateofthegulf.com. Still ahead, I`m talking with two lawyers about the legal fight for financial restitution five years after the spill. B.P. claims that they have paid over $13 billion in settlement money. We`re looking at the numbers, next. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We just wrapped up or series the "The Gulf Today 5 Years after the Spill". You can view the entire series on our website, msnbc.com/the-ed-show, and you`ll find all five parts of our series along with interviews and more information. Catch up, re-watch it and share with your friends. Still to come, Attorney`s Mike Papantonio and Brent Coon, join me live for the latest in the legal fight in the gulf. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, earlier in this program you saw the conclusion of our series "The Gulf Today 5 Years after the Spill." The legal struggle for many residents and businesses is far from over. According to data from the court authorized Deepwater Horizon Claim Center, only a fraction of the claims have been paid out. In the statement B.P. told us, they paid out $13 billion on claims to individuals, businesses and government entities. This includes payments made as part of B.P.`s claims process, the gulf coast claims facility and the court supervise settlement program. The data shows that the program has issued initial determination notices with regard to approximately 80 percent of the claims filed to date. In addition to claims, B.P. has also spent to date more than $14 billion on response and clean-up. You can find the full statement on our website B.P. has issued several payments but many more hardworking coastal residents are still only left with their losses. Joining me tonight two attorneys who have worked directly with the claimants during the legal battle for restitution, Brent Coon of Brent Coon and Associates, and Mike Papantonio, Ring of Fire radio host and America`s attorney. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight. Brent, you first. The numbers from the Deepwater Horizon Claim Center and B.P. are so different. Who is telling the truth? BRENT COON, BRENT COON & ASSOCIATES: Well, I wouldn`t believe anything that B.P. says, Ed. First, go back 10 years very briefly. They were convicted, convicted a felony manslaughter for killing 15 people in Texas City. They killed 11 more in the Gulf of Mexico and what the court said was grossly negligence (ph) of conduct. Their last CEO was convicted a perjury in London and the last CEO that was here said, he was going to stay `til the finish and that there were only leaking 1,000 barrels of oil (ph) a day out when it turned out to be 50,000, it`s a lie. SCHULTZ: So this statement, you know, and I mean, they`re saying B.P. says they paid over 13 billion in claims and $11 billion to individuals and businesses. Yet, the Deepwater Horizon Claim Center those numbers don`t match up. Why is that? COON: Well, I think it`s a shell game. Some of that money has been paid out, some claims that have been paid. Note two things there, one is for the people that have been paid, B.P. now says they`re owe that money back. They`ve actually followed the motion. It`s all on appeal that they`re entitled to the most -- they`re entitled to the moneys back over the few people they`ve already paid. And (inaudible) that`s a small fraction on people that they`re owed. And it`s just like someone that would say, we`ll I paid my utility bill sometimes so I should be able to keep my... SCHULTZ: Yeah. COON: ... utilities all the time. These guys pay a few of their bills on few of their time but they`re not owe enough to paying everyone that they owe, all that they owe... SCHULTZ: All right. Mike... COON: ... in fact the DOJ dismissed their trial for $14 billion that they owe the government that they won`t pay. SCHULTZ: Mike, what`s your impression to these numbers? Why are they different? PAPANTONIO: Well, they need to tell to their shareholders that they`ve only paid a quarter. They say $14 billion. There only about a quarter of a way there but they`ve to lied to their shareholders and that`s part of the problem. What they haven`t paid for is thousands of miles of coast that they`ve obliterated. They haven`t paid for the hundreds of species of fish and sea life that they disseminated. They haven`t paid for the hundreds of miles of wetlands they`ve destroyed. They still haven`t paid a dime for natural resource damage. They haven`t paid up to $14 billion in claim water fund that Brent is talking about. They haven`t done one single thing voluntarily like stroking checks because they care about the biggest environmental disaster... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: ... in history that they caused. SCHULTZ: What`s the original Gulf Coast Claims Facility run by Ken Feinberg fair for gulf residents and businesses and what happened to that Brent? COON: Yeah. I think it was fair. I think that the Feinberg program, what I like about it was you could go to the program, submit your claim and negotiate a value for it and if a claim that did not filled up was a faired number, he was allowed to reserve that claim and go to court. SCHULTZ: What happened? COON: Most of the time is -- well, they pulled the money off the table. And B.P. committed $20 billion to fund promised to (inaudible), promised or what else, they would fund, that would $20 billion one year into it. When no one was looking they shut the program down. SCHULTZ: Yeah. COON: It took $16 billion in unpaid benefits off the table. SCHULTZ: OK. Mike, if they took the money off the table where is the president? Where is the Obama administration? Where is this boot on the neck of B.P.? PAPANTONIO: It`s almost like he forgot about it honestly. I think Brent would agree. It`s almost like the President forgot what`s going on down here in the Gulf Coast. It was a big show, you know, it comes out of the room $20 billion. B.P. knew that that was about a quarter of what it was going to cost for the total damage but it came out acting like this was a big event. It hasn`t been a big event for people who have lost so much. Let me just tell you something and really quickly. If this company believes in what they were actually saying... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: ... they would appear on your program... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PAPANTONIO: ... and they would look into a camera with people like us on the other side and they`d be honest about the fact that they cannot be proud about what they`ve done because they live in a criminal conduct kind of culture and we`re seeing on the Gulf Coast right now. SCHULTZ: What about the claims administer right now, Patrick Juneau. Is he been doing a good job, Mike? PAPANTONIO: He`s doing a great job. The man is working under impossible odds. Everything Juneau does is appeal. This hasn`t been Juneau`s fault and it hasn`t been the committee`s fault. Look, one day we`re going to have -- Brent Coon is going to be in trial, (inaudible) man to man with B.P. but while he is doing that the committee is doing everything they can to get everybody paid as quickly as they can and... SCHULTZ: OK. PAPANTONIO: ... Juneau is doing everything that he can (inaudible) going to be done with these people. SCHULTZ: And, Brent, how much hope do you hold out that rough number here, the other 70 percent of the people are going to get restitution? COON: You know, I think those that are in the claim process now, the majority of them are going to eventually get somewhat tragic, sad news and disappointing this because it is a pay for wiping process that Mike talked about. Unfortunately, B.P. to date got the better hand. They run out... SCHULTZ: OK. COON: ... of appeals but they want some battles in those appeals for the people that have remaining toward claims which we hadn`t talked about... SCHULTZ: All right. COON: ... there will be another day for them hopefully. SCHULTZ: Brent Coon and Mike Papantonio, great to have both of you with us tonight. And again, we have invited comment on this program from B.P. They have repeatedly declined. I appreciate you, gentlemen, being with us tonight and I will have a commentary on all of this tomorrow night on the Ed Show. That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022301cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 103 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 23, 2015 Monday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST Terror Group Calls for Mall Attacks; Petty Hate Machine BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Eugene Robinson GUESTS: Michael Kay, Laith Alkhouri, Matt Schlapp, John Lewis, Susan Page, Lauren Fox, Clarence Page SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8495 words HIGHLIGHT: Al Shabaab, a Somali terrorist group, calls for lone wolf attacks on places like Minnesota`s Mall of America. Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP contest for who can hate President Obama the most. CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: The terrorists point at our heart. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. Tonight, we Americans have been threatened with a terrorist attack in our country`s heartland, not Baghdad or Damascus or Benghazi, but the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota. The threat comes from al Shabaab, a Somali terrorist group. Homeland Security`s Jeh Johnson has warned shoppers out there to be particularly careful when visiting the giant mall, and that warning is a real and present proof that the experts think this call to attack is real, deadly real. On "MEET THE PRESS," Secretary Johnson said people should be vigilant, and if they see something, they should say something. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEH JOHNSON, DHS SECRETARY: I`m sure that security at this particular mall will be enhanced in ways visible and not visible, but it also involves public vigilance and public awareness. "If you see something, say something" has to be more than a slogan. CHUCK TODD, MODERATOR: Like, at this point, you`re not telling people not to go to the mall. JOHNSON: I`m not telling people to not go to the mall. I think that there needs to be an awareness. There needs to be vigilance. And you know, be careful, obviously. It`s a new phase. We`re in a new phase right now, and that involves public participation in our efforts. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: So we start tonight with this call to arms right here at home from a Somali-based terror group al Shabaab as federal officials call for increased vigilance. You just heard it. For more, I`m joined by Michael Kay, a former senior British officer, and Laith Alkhouri, a senior analyst at the Flashpoint Global Partners. Gentlemen, thank you. Let`s go to the practicalities of being a shopper tonight, as we speak, in real time, in Minnesota. What does "be vigilant" mean to a regular person? You`re not carrying an Uzi, like an Israeli IDF member. You`re all by yourself. You`re unarmed. You`re in a shopping mall. What can you do in any way to protect yourself from a terrorist attack, Michael Kay? MICHAEL KAY, FORMER BRITISH OFFICER: Chris, well, the way that we measure this threat assessment is capability versus intent. And whilst al Shabaab have demonstrated they`ve got all the intent in the world, I would question their capability. And the reason for that... MATTHEWS: What about our capability? Why are you giving people advice that doesn`t seem to make any sense? What is a person -- I`m going back to my question, Michael. What are you supposed to do if you`re a shopper, Mr. and Mrs. America, and you`re out there buying something you need for the kids or something, some shoes. How do you act vigilantly in a shopping mall? I don`t know how that -- what do you do to be vigilant? KAY: Chris, I don`t think it`s up to the -- I don`t think it`s up to the shopper to be able to sort of defeat the next incoming attack. What I think this is a reminder is, is that there should be the emphasis on Department of Homeland Security and their capability versus foreign policy. Department of Homeland Security -- they should be looking at their intelligence capability. They should be looking at the police authorities. They should be looking at immigration and making sure there are resources and funded. They should be developing relationships within the Muslim community. They should be going back through their records and identifying who these lone wolves might be because if your look back to "Charlie Hebdo," those people were known to the authorities many years before the attacks actually happened. So this is a holistic approach that we need to take. Now, going to your question, you know, vigilance is absolutely key. Hezbollah used a very sophisticated network of ordinary people in south Lebanon to be able to communicate things that they don`t necessarily think are right. You need a pair of eyes and you need a cell phone, and that then gets reported through a network. We now live in a new world order, and everyone has a responsibility, whether you`re a shopper, a policeman, part of the security forces, to report something if you see something which is a little bit untoward. And that involves a cell phone and it involves communication. MATTHEWS: OK. Today State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki called the al Shabaab video a scare tactic. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEN PSAKI, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN: Our view is it`s propaganda. Of course, we need to remain vigilant, as always is the case. But the point of this video was to instill fear. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Laith, is this a call to arms to people? It seems to me if it was meant to be a call to a sleeper cell that`s ready to go into action, we wouldn`t know about it. Is this just a call to people who are potentially sympathetic to the al Shabaab call, Somali-Americans who are living up in that area? There are a lot of them. What kind of communication is this? Is it an order being given or a call to arms to regular people to join the fight? Can you tell? LAITH ALKHOURI, FLASHPOINT GLOBAL: Yes, I believe it`s the latter. I believe it`s a call for so-called lone wolves to attack soft targets. MATTHEWS: To become lone wolves. ALKHOURI: Or to become... MATTHEWS: To become them. ALKHOURI: Of course, to become lone wolves. But you know, in a way, you`re inciting them. You`re giving them so-called reasons. You`re urging them to do so. But it`s not only about malls, it`s about soft targets in general, whether it`s schools, theaters and malls. So the idea here is to inspire those, you know, alleged or potential lone wolves to, you know, buy a gun from the gun store next door and launch an attack. You know, the difference here is that it might cause a lot more havoc in America, even if it`s one of two people are killed versus 67 people killed in Kenya. MATTHEWS: Well, what happens if nothing happens the next couple days? Will it be like North Korea after that movie came out and nothing happened? All of a sudden, we laugh at it. Are they risking mirth, people saying, What a bunch of jokers. The Shabaab group can`t do anything. They say they`re going to attack the mall, nobody does anything. What happens then, Laith? And then back to Michael. ALKHOURI: Look, I don`t think Shabaab has the operational or tactical capability to pull off such attack at this point. I think they have the, you know, communications and the capability to try to inspire individuals, especially in the Somali diaspora in Minnesota and other areas, or to Muslims in general who might adhere to their ideology. I just don`t believe they have, you know, a sleeper cell waiting for a signal to attack. MATTHEWS: Michael, what do you think -- what do you think of the chances of some kid, usually someone in their early 20s -- that`s the normal time you get to be activists as sort of a paramilitary person -- just saying, You know what? I wasn`t going to do it until I heard this call. I guess I`m going to go blow something up. It doesn`t seem like something that would make a person move on a dime to become a terrorist, to become a lone wolf, just to be called to do it. KAY: No, Chris, we`ve got to be careful here not to sort of spin ourselves up into a frenzy. We`ve got to take a step back and look at the realities of what we`re seeing. And that is, most of the people that commit these atrocities, as I said before, are known to the authorities -- "Charlie Hebdo," for example. Disenfranchised persons do not turn overnight. It takes a long process. There was a great interview done on one of the Canadian jihadists, and that was a long process over a number of years of going into prisons, then coming out, going to mosques, meeting toxic imams within mosques, and sort of developing it over a period of time. Again, it goes back to this capability versus intent. There might be the intent there, but the capability certainly isn`t there. And I think it`s something that we need to just look at holistically. It is a wake-up call in terms of, you know, we`ve got to make sure that the DHS isn`t being held ransom by the Republican Party, for example, when it comes to leveraging those type of things. We need to make sure that the DHS is appropriately funded and manned and resourced, if not moreso than what we`re doing on the foreign policy side because tackling the indigenous problem, where jihadists and lone wolves have American passports, is as equally difficult as trying to tackle it overseas. MATTHEWS: Well, I just think it`s very important. I think you have to -- we have to respond to the level of urgency that`s been delivered to us by the secretary of Homeland Security, when he, in this case -- it`s a he -- goes on national television on a major Sunday program and says, We got to be vigilant, this is coming, I think we got to take it seriously. anyway, this comes during a fight -- and you`re right on this fight, Michael -- a fight over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The president warned Congress today not to let it lapse, not to let it run out of money. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Unless Congress acts, one week from now, more than 100,000 DHS employees, border patrol, port inspectors, TSA agents will show up to work without getting paid. It will have a direct impact on your economy, and it will have a direct impact on America`s national security because their hard work helps to keep us safe. And as governors, you know that we can`t afford to play politics with our national security. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Secretary Jeh Johnson of Homeland Security made a similar plea. Let`s listen to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHNSON: The clock is ticking. And as I stand here, there is nothing from Congress to fund us beyond that point. A shutdown of Homeland Security would have serious consequences and amount to a serious disruption in our ability to protect the homeland. This is no way to run a government. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, several Republicans this weekend also warned it would be a mistake to hold up funding for the department. Let`s watch them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I hope my House colleagues will understand that our best bet is to challenge this in court, that if we don`t fund the Department of Homeland Security, we`ll get blamed as a party. SEN. BOB CORKER (R), TENNESSEE: I do believe in this time, where we have the kind of threats that we have from all over the world, we certainly need to make sure that Homeland Security is fully funded. And my guess is we`ll figure out a way to make sure that happens this week. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I remember the last time we shut down the whole government -- this would obviously be Homeland Security. The last time we shut down the whole government, we turned away 600,000 visitors to our national parks here in Arizona. I don`t want to see that movie again. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Interesting sanity there, Laith. But the simultaneity of these two events, the possibility of a shutdown of Homeland Security at the very time we`re getting a threat in the heart of the country, not in Benghazi, but in Bloomington, Minnesota, right on the northern border there of that state, it seems to me very bad timing politically to be doing something like this. ALKHOURI: I think it`s absolutely bad timing, and I think it`s almost disturbing to think that shutting Homeland Security in any way would do benefit to the country or even to the world. Look, what the -- so the presidential nominees will not have protection in 2016 simply because we`re going to shut down Department of Homeland Security? Look, I think the Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of immigration, absolutely needs to be on top of its game because, you know, you have to sift through all of these applications for immigrants who are coming to this country in scores, and of course, some of them could potentially be dangerous. They could be potentially posing a threat to our national security at home. So shutting down DHS would be absolutely disturbing. MATTHEWS: I think a lot about the American culture has to do with us here. We have a hard time focusing on events far from our shores, but we do focus very well on places like Minnesota. Anyway, the family of Kayla Mueller is speaking out for the first time. In an interview with the "Today" show today, her parents remembered their daughter as a caring humanitarian. And this, by the way, brings it home to people like me, this young woman, how good she was as a person, a person of the world, and what happened to her. But let`s watch her parents. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARSHA MUELLER, MOTHER: She was loving. She was joyful. She was peaceful. CARL MUELLER, FATHER: Kayla taught us so much. And I think that`s all I remember about Kayla other than my little girl. M. MUELLER: We want the world to help us let Kayla still use her hands to give to the world and to help the people that are suffering, and especially the Syrian people right now because they have been through so much. And that`s where Kayla`s heart is right now. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Laith and Michael, last thoughts on that. I`ll tell you, when this comes home to me, it comes home when -- you know, we had the war with Iran, (sic) the first Gulf war. It was about humiliating our hostages, but they didn`t kill any. They all came home. There was a level of civility even in that mess. And Saddam Hussein -- I don`t think he had a particular fight with the United States. That`s why I had a real problem with that whole war. But this in our face. These kinds of threats. And of course, the killing, the beheading, the burning alive of people has gotten to me, I have to say, and I think it`s gotten to the American people based upon what I`ve seen in terms of how people are willing to vote for a use of force resolution in a way we haven`t been gotten to before. First Laith, and then Michael. ALKHOURI: Well, I think, first and foremost, my heart goes out to the family of Kayla Mueller. It`s such a tragedy. But a group like ISIS, which has absolutely no value for humanity or for humans, generally speaking, the -- you know, ISIS has killed more Muslims than any other -- than people from any other religion out there. So they don`t have, you know, mercy on their own people, they don`t have mercy on anybody else. And I think the United States has to deal with an iron fist when it comes to ISIS because this group is only expanding and it`s finding acceptance among certain communities out there. And soon enough, we`re going to realize that ISIS is in 30 or 40 different countries without us realizing it. MATTHEWS: OK. Yes, e-mail me a definition of an iron fist. I want to study it. Really. Please do that because I want to know what the iron fist looks like. I`d like to see how we can do it. Anyway, Michael Kay, last thought about the emotional impact on this country. It seems like they`re trying to get at us, these terrorist groups. They want to get at our souls. KAY: Right. Look, one thing I wanted to point out here, Chris, is that long before these beheadings of aid workers and journalists started to occur, the biggest humanitarian problem in contemporary history had already started to occur, millions of refugees flooding out of Syria, over 200,000 violent deaths in Syria. There`s paralysis at the United Nations Security Council, which just goes back to it`s the people of Syria that are getting hit hard here. We need to go back to the root of the problem, which is Assad. Foreign policy in the U.S. needs to start developing relationships, whether we like it or not, with Russia because Russia is key in order to get any sort of movement on Security Council resolutions, and Iran because the only reason Assad is still in power is he`s got support from Russia and he`s got support from Iran. And they`re the relationships that we need to start being clever about. The nuclear conversation with Iran -- that needs to be developed to link in something to do with Syria. Unless we have a political roadmap, as I`ve said a million times before, Chris, then we will still see ISIS growing, metastasizing and infecting the rest of the world. MATTHEWS: Thank you so much, Michael Kay, as always, and Laith Alkhouri. Thank you, gentlemen, for your expertise. Coming up -- you want to know about that fight among Republicans running for president is all about? What`s it all about? It`s about who can hate President Obama the most. And Rudy Giuliani proved it by questioning the president`s love of country. Is there someone in the Republican Party who will blow the whistle on this crap? And that`s the right word for it. Plus, politics at the Oscars. "Selma" didn`t win Best Picture, but there was a powerful moment when singer John Legend, one of my personal favorites, said the Voting Rights Act is under attack. Civil Rights leader and hero John Lewis is coming here, right here at this table, to talk about it tonight. And Scott Walker, the Republican flavor of the month for 2016, has shifted hard right, hard right on abortion and personhood. What game is he playing? He played it down when he was running for governor again last fall, but now he`s all the way over on the hard right -- a little too nimble, I think, a little too switcheroo for my liking. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with the contest of hate, as I said, you`re watching right now among the Republican candidates for president. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, authorities are still searching for those teenage girls from London who landed in Turkey last week and are thought to be trying to make their way to Syria to join ISIS. Their families are pleading with them to come home. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RENU BEGUM, SISTER: She didn`t take anything with her. I`m just clinging onto the bits that we have, and we just want her to come home. If you watch this, baby, please come home! Mommy needs you more than anything in the world! You`re a baby! (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Boy, that`s human. "The Wall Street Journal" today reported that the flow of foreigners to ISIS hasn`t diminished. According to "The Journal," a U.S. intelligence agency reported last week that despite greater Western efforts, foreign fighters are streaming into Syria and Iraq to join the extremists. An estimated 20,000 foreign militants there include at least 3,400 Europeans. About 100 in Syria are believed to be from here in the U.S., which is quite disturbing. And we`ll be right back after that. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. The right -- the right wing of this country has questioned President Obama`s birthplace, his religion, his patriotism, and now Rudolph Giuliani has put another notch in his belt by going after the president`s love of country. Giuliani said that he doesn`t -- he doesn`t hear President Obama talk about his country`s greatness. As "The Washington Post" noted over the weekend, quote, "He must have muted the sound whenever Obama spoke." Well, here`s the president`s love of country in his own words over the years. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), ILLINOIS: I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me and that in no other country on earth is my story even possible. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) OBAMA: But I also know how much I love America. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. I`m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. It reminds you about what makes this country so great, why I love this country so much. We are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on earth. You helped the United States of America become what we are today, the greatest democratic, economic, and military force for freedom and human dignity that the world has ever known. I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Yes, he`s never said anything about loving the country, not a word out of that guy. Anyway, the right on the fight -- or the fight on the right still consumed with its hatred of President Obama, are they? Will anyone stand up for him or it, or is there no limit to how hard they`re pushing? Eugene Robinson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for "The Washington Post," who I believe will be writing on this tomorrow. I`m hunching it. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: And Matt Schlapp is the chairman of the Conservative Political Action Conference, known as CPAC. But it`s coming up now. He was also the political director under President George W. Bush. Let me let you go first. MATT SCHLAPP, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS: Yes. MATTHEWS: What do you make about the statements by the president? SCHLAPP: Well, you did your homework. I wish you had shown that to Mayor Giuliani. I just think we have a lot of disagreements, right vs. left. A lot of us conservatives have huge disagreements with President Obama. I don`t know if we have to go there. Why do we have to question his patriotism? I just feel like there`s enough disagreement. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Let`s try to -- as David Gregory would say, let`s unpack it a little. SCHLAPP: Yes. MATTHEWS: Giuliani is not stupid. Why did he do it? He is not stupid. Why did he do it? SCHLAPP: Well, I mean, it was a closed press event. MATTHEWS: Who`s he playing to? SCHLAPP: Well, it was a closed press event. MATTHEWS: Who was he playing to with that line that Obama doesn`t love the country the way we were taught to love it? SCHLAPP: OK. OK. You know what he`s doing. MATTHEWS: Tell me. SCHLAPP: He`s playing to some of the worst fears that are out there in the country, but also is he`s speaking at an event that he thinks is closed press. MATTHEWS: Rich people? SCHLAPP: And he`s not the only -- and President Obama, they cling to their religion and their guns. Sometimes, when you don`t think there are cameras in the room, you let it hang out there a little bit more and it`s irresponsible. And the mayor shouldn`t have done it. MATTHEWS: The funny thing is, that`s my idea of a glimpse of reality. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: What I think Obama did, he was talking a very elite crowd in San Francisco who look down on those people. I know who he was talking to. In this case, I think he was talking to a lot of second-generation, maybe first-generation Americans, guys with some wealth, Republicans -- East Coast Republicans tend to be that way. EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Who have one -- who have a very specific version of patriotism, a version of love of country. Of course, we all have our different versions of love of country, but that -- you know, it all adds up. MATTHEWS: I know that version because it was mine growing up. It`s Irving Berlin. It`s Kate Smith. It`s God bless America. It`s not conditional. It`s not about any flaws. It`s, I love this place. And it`s so simple. ROBINSON: And I could say the same thing, except mine`s different from yours, right? MATTHEWS: Yes. It ought to be. ROBINSON: So, but it`s -- exactly. And it has to be. But it`s basically the same. MATTHEWS: Well, you couldn`t vote. ROBINSON: So... (LAUGHTER) ROBINSON: No, I couldn`t vote. And, you know, my parents couldn`t vote. (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: Yes, maybe this... (CROSSTALK) ROBINSON: It`s a different experience. That`s what makes America great. We`re all different kinds of people. We all believe in the same thing. We all believe in the country. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Anyway, let`s talk about this, because here`s a moment, I think -- I think -- first of all, I hope that -- I have had mixed relations with John McCain. I really salute what he did for our country. There`s no doubt. We all do, what he did... (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: How could you not? MATTHEWS: How could you not? And when he said to that woman, he`s not an Arab, I`m not going to play that game, he ought to get the Kennedy Center -- what do they call it, the Kennedy Library or -- profile in courage just for that. SCHLAPP: Yes. MATTHEWS: Anyway, the 1992 presidential campaign -- you may not like this -- Bill Clinton publicly rejected, well, in this case, the extremist wing of his party, which was being energized by hip-hop artist Sister Souljah. Now, the lyrics here are important to what he challenged, but here`s Clinton. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL CLINTON, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You had a rap singer here last night named Sister Souljah. I defend her right to express herself through music, but her comments before and after Los Angeles were filled with the kind of hatred that you do not honor today and tonight. Last year, she said: "You can`t call me or any black person anywhere in the world a racist. We don`t have the power to do to white people what white people have done to us, and, even if we did, we don`t have that low- down, dirty nature. If there are any good white people, I haven`t met them? Where are they?" Right here in this room. That`s where they are. (APPLAUSE) CLINTON: I know she is a young person, but she has a big influence on a lot of people. And when people say that -- if you took the words white and black and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Boy, is that -- I didn`t realize -- I didn`t remember how hard it was. That`s a punch to the gut. ROBINSON: He went hard. MATTHEWS: And Jesse Jackson was in that room, and never forgot it. ROBINSON: He went hard. It was -- he turned that into a defining moment. He turned it into a political event. So, I`m waiting for... MATTHEWS: What was he saying? I`m not a knee-jerk lefty. I`m going to find trouble. If I see trouble on my side... ROBINSON: I`m not a knee-jerk lefty. I`m with you, too. Just, I want us all to go together. SCHLAPP: I know where you guys are going on this. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. You know exactly where we`re going. (CROSSTALK) ROBINSON: I`m waiting. I`m waiting. I`m waiting. (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: Whoa. Whoa. MATTHEWS: Why didn`t Jeb -- why didn`t Jeb say something when Rudy said something? SCHLAPP: You`re going too far too fast. Where is the Barack Obama Sister Souljah moment? When has he said to the base of his own party in a public way no? He hasn`t done that. He has governed completely different than other... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I know you guys gave him a hard time for going back to the Crusades. Why don`t you go back to this week? (LAUGHTER) SCHLAPP: OK. OK. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Why didn`t somebody step up? It could have been Lindsey Graham. It could have been anybody. A couple of the people just took a bye on it. The new word is punted. A lot of people punted on this, like Walker, Scott Walker. But some -- Jindal just jumped on it with both feet, saying, yes, yes, pretty much. SCHLAPP: I read the comments of Governor Pence. He was straight on. MATTHEWS: What did he say? SCHLAPP: He said that this was inappropriate, and we shouldn`t question the president`s patriotism, period. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Pence? (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: Well, Jeb Bush came out with a statement. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Oh. ROBINSON: No, no, no. (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: I think it`s fair to say that Walker and Jindal did take a punt. ROBINSON: They`re on one extreme. The other extreme would be... (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: I wouldn`t use the word extreme. ROBINSON: I didn`t hear Pence`s remarks, but I heard Marco Rubio, who was very forthright... SCHLAPP: Marco was great, yes. ROBINSON: ... and said, you know, you can`t question -- now, as I recall, Governor Bush said, well, one shouldn`t question the president`s motives. SCHLAPP: That`s right. ROBINSON: It doesn`t quite say what he thinks those motives are. He didn`t quite answer the question, do you believe he loves America? MATTHEWS: OK. Scott Walker is the flavor of the month. Why didn`t he say something (CROSSTALK) ROBINSON: Better than Walker, better than Jindal. MATTHEWS: Why didn`t Scott Walker say something? We`re going to talk about it later. Everybody`s loving Scott Walker now, because he`s the new version of the old. SCHLAPP: That`s right. MATTHEWS: He`s the new establishment. Here`s what he said. "You should ask the president what he thinks about America." And he added: "I have never asked him, so I don`t know." What a high school answer. I have never asked him, so I don`t know if he loves the country. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: What is this Mickey Mouse answer? (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: And his team -- and his team realized it right away and they called the reporter right away and said, he wasn`t questioning... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So, you`re the clean-up crew for the clean-up crew. SCHLAPP: No, no. (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) ROBINSON: What the governor meant to say was... (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: Look, let`s face it. You know this. These guys who we have been talking about, our deep bench, are starting to run for president. They`re starting to do their public campaigns. And it`s going to be growing-up time and they`re going to make mistakes. And, by the way, Hillary Clinton is making a few herself. MATTHEWS: You`re flying all over the room here, aren`t you? Let me just tell you something. SCHLAPP: It goes both ways. MATTHEWS: Somebody once told me, a friend of mine who is a senator now, he said, the galloping horse of history rides by, you better get in that saddle. That horse is gone now. SCHLAPP: That`s right. MATTHEWS: Somebody could have stood up within 24 hours of this and said, that`s not my America talking like that, and they would have been a hero. ROBINSON: Which is a good point, because... (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: I think Marco Rubio came the closest to that, in all fairness. ROBINSON: He did. He did. A successful presidential campaign, right, is taking advantage of those opportunities. MATTHEWS: He said he has no doubt Mr. Obama loves America. ROBINSON: And Rubio came the closest of jumping on the horse. SCHLAPP: That`s right. MATTHEWS: Well, let`s get Rubio... (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: So, let`s give him credit. MATTHEWS: Profile in courage, to the extent that we`re able to extend that award, we give it. (CROSSTALK) SCHLAPP: I don`t know if he wants it from you, Chris. He`s kind of doing a different thing right now, you know? MATTHEWS: You can get that one from anybody. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: And don`t knock me. You will never be back... (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) SCHLAPP: Oh, I`m so sorry. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: I`m just kidding. Sort of. (LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You were well-behaved tonight. Thank you, Matt Schlapp. Anyway, thank you, Gene, as always. Win a Pulitzer Prize, so you can sit next to this guy. And John Legend and Common won the Academy Award last night for best original song. Here`s what they said during their acceptance speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN LEGEND, MUSICIAN: We say that Selma is now, because the struggle for justice is right now. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. LEGEND: We know that the Voting Rights Act that they fought for 50 years ago is being compromised right now in this country today. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: When we come back: Civil rights icon John Lewis will be here with us. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was quite a moment. That was, of course, the great John Legend and Common performing "Glory," their song from the film "Selma," which won best original song at the Academy Awards last night. "Selma," of course, the movie, depicted the civil rights story of the Selma-to-Montgomery march in 1965, which ended in violence after Alabama State Troopers attacked demonstrators crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. While those events took place 50 years ago, John Legend last night reminded viewers of the telecast last night that the fight for voting rights continues. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LEGEND: We say that Selma is now, because the struggle for justice is right now. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. LEGEND: We know that the Voting Rights Act that they fought for 50 years ago is being compromised right now in this country today. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: U.S. Congressman John Lewis of Georgia led that march in Selma 50 years ago. He`s now the author of a series of -- they`re called graphic novels called "March" about the history of the civil rights struggle in this country. And the second book in that series just came out last month. And I have got it right here. And you can have it right now. It`s called "March." Mr. Lewis. REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: Yes. MATTHEWS: I worked on the Hill, so it`s always going to be Mr. Lewis. It`s not even Congressman Lewis, because that`s the way they... (CROSSTALK) LEWIS: Oh, you can call -- Chris, you can call me John. MATTHEWS: No. Well, but I don`t -- I like honorifics. But let me ask you about "Selma." That guy, how did he -- he -- I wasn`t close to Dr. King. You were. He seemed like Dr. King to me. I thought the guy was unbelievable. LEWIS: Well, the guy, he became Dr. King. MATTHEWS: Yes. LEWIS: He became the embodiment or the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. He did an unbelievable job. Chris, I love the movie. I have seen it on several occasion, and I cry. Just, it is so real. He makes it so plain and so simple, like Dr. King did. I would attend Dr. King`s church in Atlanta from time to time when he would be preaching. And his father would say, son, make it plain, make it real. And Dr. King had the ability, the capacity, to make it real. "Selma," the movie, made it real. MATTHEWS: I love the way Dr. King said it`s all in the paper. LEWIS: Yes. MATTHEWS: It`s in the Constitution. LEWIS: Yes. MATTHEWS: It`s in the Declaration. (CROSSTALK) LEWIS: Yes. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... make it real. You`re in the movie. And I thought the guy looked like you as a young guy. What did you think of the guy playing you in the movie? You were one of the heroes. You were SNCC back then. LEWIS: Yes. I thought he did a good job. When I first met him on the set, he was wearing a trench coat, a backpack, and that`s what I had on, on March 7, 1965. I wanted to say to him, boy, give me my backpack. Let me have my trench coat. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: And the bloody part of it, when you got hit by the cop, by the troopers, did that feel like it happened? Did that look like it happened? LEWIS: It did happen. It was real. I remember being hit. And the scar is right here. My legs gave out. I fell down. MATTHEWS: There he is. LEWIS: And I thought I was going to die. I thought I saw death. I thought it was my last nonviolent protest. MATTHEWS: As I mentioned, you led -- Mr. Lewis, you led that march in Selma 50 years ago next month. We looked back in the archive and found an interview you gave that day. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LEWIS: We`re marching today to dramatize to the nation and dramatize to the world that hundreds and thousands of Negro citizens of Alabama, but particularly here in the Blytheville area, denied the right to vote. We intend to march to Montgomery to present said grievance to Governor George C. Wallace. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: You were so young, and yet you had that conviction, that assurance of the cause. LEWIS: Well, Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks inspired me to grow up. I first heard Dr. King and Rosa Parks in 1955, when I was 15 years old. It seemed like Dr. King was saying to me, John Robert Lewis, you, too, can do something. You can make a contribution. And I would ask my mother, and my father, my grandparents, my great-grandparents why. And they would say, that`s the way it is. Don`t get in the way, don`t get in trouble. But Dr. King inspired me to get in trouble, what I called good trouble, necessary trouble. And I have been getting in trouble ever since. MATTHEWS: You`re a hero. Here we are. The book, the new book is called "March," book two. You can get this. This is for younger people and older people. It`s a good way to get the history and get in a way you`re going to spend a couple hours and you will have it all in your head. That`s the best thing I can say about any book. A couple hours, you have got it all in your head, all that history. Thank you, John Lewis. LEWIS: Thank you. MATTHEWS: U.S. congressman from Georgia, one of the best there ever has, there ever was. Up next: Scott Walker always played down his opposition to abortion. But now he`s running for president, he`s done a 180 on this one. This guy`s a little too tricky, I think. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker rises in the 2016 presidential primary polls, and he sure is, he is starting to shift gears on the controversial issue of abortion. When Governor Walker was running for re-election just last year against a pro-choice woman, he struck a softer tone on the issue. He sounded compassionate for women considering an abortion. Even ran this TV ad advocating to leave the final decision in these matters to a woman and her doctor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: I`m pro-life, but there`s no doubt in my mind the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy is an agonizing one. That`s why I support legislation to increase safety and to provide more information for a woman considering her options. The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Our priority is to protect the health and safety of all Wisconsin citizens. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: But now that Walker is trying to woo Christian conservatives across the country in the primaries coming up, he`s underlying his pro-life bona fides and sounds quite different. When Walker took the stage in front of Iowa conservative activists just a few weeks ago, he bragged about his staunch pro-life credentials. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: Since I`ve been governor, we passed pro-life legislation and we`ve defunded Planned Parenthood. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And according to "The New York Times," when Walker met privately with a group of Iowa Republicans, he highlighted his early support for a personhood amendment which defines life as beginning at conception and effectively, of course, prohibit all abortions and, in fact, some forms of birth control. Joining the roundtable right now, in fact, comprising it: Susan Page is Washington bureau chief of "USA Today", which be you go on the road like I do, it`s always on the door of the hotel, no other newspaper, always "USA Today", except on weekends. And Lauren Fox is a reporter with the "National Journal." That`s heavy. And Clarence Page is an opinion writer with the "Chicago Tribune", who I believe owns a Pulitzer Prize. Gentleman and ladies, what do you make of this flip-a-roo? I mean, personhood means forget about it. There aren`t going to be any abortions or anything like, even not going to be IUDs or anything. There`s not going to be anything. SUSAN PAGE, USA TODAY: I don`t think it`s exactly a flip. MATTHEWS: Oh, tell me how. PAGE: It`s more like a slide. It`s like before he was saying, I`m pro-life, but I believe in, you know, letting a woman and doctor make the decision. Now, he`s saying, I`m pro-life. MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. My dad always said he was pro-life, but, of course, it`s up to the woman eventually, ultimately. That`s pro-choice. If you let the woman decide and you don`t outlaw abortion, it`s up to the woman. If you are pro-life, you want to outlaw abortion. That is what it is. It isn`t your religious belief. My religious beliefs are pro-life. It`s what you believe the law or the Constitution determines. LAUREN FOX, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Well, this is what becomes the classic Republican catch-22, right? Is that when you are running in a state like Wisconsin, which is a more moderate state, you have to appeal to the left in order to win and some independent voters. When you are going into Republican primary, all of a sudden it changes what you need to be doing, and I think he`s certainly trying to get some of those evangelical voters. MATTHEWS: What would a conviction politician do in such a circumstance? A conviction politician? FOX: I think when you first -- when you first make that choice, it has to be the choice you stick with all the way, but this was the classic Mitt Romney problem we saw in 2012 and even before that with him when he was the governor, he was a much more moderate -- MATTHEWS: I was for it before I was against it. Clarence, being the other male on the panel here, we have a little disadvantage in the fact we don`t have a direct involvement in the abortion decision. CLARENCE PAGE, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Got that right. MATTHEWS: In many cases. In some cases, it`s a shared decision. But, I mean -- C. PAGE: Men barge into this decision, anyway, don`t we? MATTHEWS: I believe pro-choice means you don`t outlaw it. C. PAGE: Right. MATTHEWS: And pro-life means you outlaw it. If you saw it`s up to the woman, you`re pro-choice. I think that adds deceptive then. C. PAGE: Well -- MATTHEWS: Deceptive, if he`s a pro-lifer. C. PAGE: You can say charitably, Scott Walker is in a brilliant position. He`s both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. He`s a conviction politician when it comes to being pro-life, but the practical matter, he will be pro-choice in order to get votes. But, you know, I mean, look at Ronald Reagan. He was antiabortion, but what did he do besides appointing some -- MATTHEWS: OK. Let`s go back to reality here. Supreme Court`s going to decide any change in Roe v. Wade if there is any -- Webster in Pennsylvania case, the Casey case. It`s always nuanced but it still comes down to no undue burden. You can`t put undue burdens to a woman making that ultimate decision like he said in the ad. So, he starts picking -- we have some older people on the Supreme Court now including the liberals who are the oldest. What happens if he gets in there and says, oh, I`m back to the personhood amendment Scott Walker? I`m not the it`s up to the woman Scott Walker. How do you know which one you`re electing? S. PAGE: That`s a dilemma for voters, right, because -- MATTHEWS: He could solve. S. PAGE: He could solve it by being clear. MATTHEWS: He could tell us what he is. Everybody knows the aging reality of the Supreme Court. Who gets to pick the next one? Who retires? C. PAGE: The cat is out of the bag now. We know now how he feels about the Personhood Amendment, whether it has a chance of passing, which it doesn`t. If he`s that pro-life, you`d be really deceived to believe he`s going to appoint a pro-choice justice. S. PAGE: I think it`s is one of the things we`ll try to find out more during the campaign, because what we have now is a report which could be true. But he hasn`t exactly stood up and proclaimed this from the mountaintops. So, he`s -- if he`s running for president as he seems to be doing, he`ll have to submit himself to questions. He`ll have to be in debates. He`ll be pressed on issues like who would you appoint to the Supreme Court? MATTHEWS: Can I ask a woman`s question? You probably know about reproductive information which a lot of men don`t know. Of all the eggs that are fertilized, you know, after conception that attach to the uterine wall, are these people under the Constitution this guy wants to write? Are they people? Are they citizens? What are they? FOX: Well, I think that`s what Scott Walker -- MATTHEWS: Not every fertilized egg, not every conceived egg ends up attached to the wall and becoming a person. So, what do you do with this information? Do you ignore it? FOX: I think this is where Republicans, politicians in general can get into trouble here. MATTHEWS: Science? FOX: This is the classic Todd Akin problem. And we saw it. MATTHEWS: OK. Science shouldn`t be the enemy of any politician. Anyway, thank you. The roundtable is staying with us. And up next, the Academy Awards get political last night. They sure were. I was thinking Patty Shieski (ph) years ago saying "stop the politics." Well, they had the politics last night. Depends which side you`re on whether you liked it. And this is HARDALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, is Kentucky still Clinton country? Bill Clinton carried the Bluegrass State in `92 and `96. But Hillary Clinton campaigned for Allison Lundergan Grimes in last year`s Senate race, but it didn`t help. Grimes lost to Mitch McConnell by double digits. Well, still, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear says Hillary Clinton has a shot, a shot in Kentucky. In an interview over the weekend he said, "It will be tough, it won`t be easy but I think she`ll have an opportunity to do that." We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PATRICIA ARQUETTE, ACTRESS: It`s our time to have wage equality once and for all, an equal rights for women in the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: We`re back. And, of course, that was a powerful moment. That was Patricia Arquette rallying call there, she won the award for best actress, for women`s rights last night. She was one of several Oscar winners who used their speech to spotlight political issues and personal causes, let`s face it. Anyway, documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras who won for her film "Citizenfour", talked about privacy and government surveillance. Julianne Moore who won best actress for her role in "Still Alice", a great movie brought attention to the fight against Alzheimer`s. And the director of "Birdman", Alejandro Inarittu, talked about the treatment of Mexican immigrants in this country, and he was rather funny. Let`s watch him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ INARRITU, BEST DIRECTOR, "BIRDMAN": I want to dedicate this award for my fellow Mexicans and the ones who live in this country who are part of the latest generation of immigrants in this country. I just pray that they can be treated with the same dignity and respect of the ones who came before and build this incredible immigrant nation. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And he also said, the funny line, it wasn`t there, was when he said, I`m the second Mexican in a row to win an award, they`ll probably create further restrictions on immigration. Anyway, we`re back to our round table: Susan, Lauren and Clarence. Where are you on political speech? S. PAGE: You know, sometimes -- I think sometimes it can be cheesy like when Marlon Brando had the Native American woman. MATTHEWS: Who he hired. S. PAGE: Whatever. But I thought they were stemmed from the movies in which most cases -- MATTHEWS: Patricia Arquette was. S. PAGE: Right, and well, the Alzheimer`s one, and the ALS one. I mean, those were speaking from experiences that they had gained by making these movies. So, I thought it was kind of nice. MATTHEWS: You mean "The Godfather" wasn`t about Native American rights? S. PAGE: Well, in a way. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: I think that`s a good argument, because I think Patricia Arquette apparently, I had forgotten it, but in "a boyhood", she has an experience -- FOX: She`s a single mother, yes. MATTHEWS: -- of getting less than she should have gotten. FOX: Right. And, you know, I think one of the things that we saw was so many of these issues are being debated and talked about on Capitol Hill. I mean, what is overshadowing Capitol Hill this week, but a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security all tied up because Democrats and Republicans can`t agree whether or not the Obama administration overstepped his hand on the executive action, excuse me, on immigration. MATTHEWS: I was thinking of a conservative Republican watching the show last night for three hours, and I`ve got a feeling they`re probably say to themselves, this is why I`m a Republican, they were so liberal, so PC, the guy running around his underwear, the guy running -- the underwear scene, I`m sure a lot of them said, OK, Harris, you`re very funny, you`re very, you know, impressive, but this wasn`t necessary. I think they`ve already attacked him all day today. C. PAGE: Somebody did a poll, maybe it`s "USA Today", I don`t know, but conservatives wanted "American Sniper" to win, and liberals wanted "Birdman" to win. You saw who won. But I think -- S. PAGE: I wanted "Boyhood" to win myself. C. PAGE: Yes. Well, you know, well, I wanted "Selma" to win. FOX: We all have favorites, yes. (CROSSTALK) C. PAGE: How you`re going to say, the politics don`t have anything to do with your choice of the best movie. Everybody did. I remember Siskel and Ebert, my dear late friends -- MATTHEWS: In the newsroom. C. PAGE: They used to always say that Hollywood votes not for the best picture, but the picture they want Americans to think Hollywood would make if money wasn`t a consideration. That`s why you see quality level of these movies. You don`t see the big blockbuster moneymakers. MATTHEWS: I think "Birdman" was about an actor, too. Anyway, I also thought that and "American Sniper" were both great. Anyway, Susan Page, Lauren Fox, nice to have you here, and, Clarence, as always. And you as always. And when we return, I will finish with the contest of hate that is going on among Republican candidates for president. Who can hate Obama the most? And that is the game they`re fighting. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this contest of hate we`re watching among the Republican candidates for president. How much do you, how much can you hate President Obama? It`s like old time events at the country affair. You pick up a big hammer and see how hard you can bring it down. The guy who gets to bell the ring and ring the loudest is the stud of the walk. I`ve said what I thought of Rudy Giuliani`s comment about Obama not loving the country, but loving it the way -- not loving it the way that he, Rudy, and others like him were brought up to. Well, that`s Rudy and it`s never easy to take back what you`ve said. But what truly astounds me here is the dittoing of his remark by Republican candidates for president. They have time to talk and think, to talk to people, to hear people react to the Obama doesn`t love America talk, and yet, with all of the advantage of time and thought, except for Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, they`ve either agreed with Rudy or refused to give out a significant comment. The answer foretells what`s coming in the long battle for Republican presidential nomination. The battle line seems to be who hates Obama the worse? And who is positioned out there with the deepest contempt for the president? Not simply as a political adversary, but as a man. Look, if this continues to be contest, count on a sad straw (ph) to Cleveland next summer because the right wing of the Republican Party may be looking for its champion hater of Barack Obama, while most people are looking for a strong, can do leader who comes from somewhere near the political middle, politically, and can make the compelling case that he or she can take this country where it wants to go, to greater opportunity for our children, to greater security for us all. And yes, to less stupid, wasteful, disgusting crap fights over the kind of Mickey Mouse stuff that Rudy had just thrown into the arena. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" start right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022301cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 104 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 23, 2015 Monday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 23, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Dana Milbank GUESTS: Loretta Sanchez, Jim Arkedis, Joan Walsh, Eric Guster, Faith Jenkins, Allison Samuels, Shaun Robinson, Alyona Minkovski SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7131 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama said that blocking the DHS funding will have an effect to American economy and safety. The terror group Al Shabaab upload a video to call an attack including the American mall in Minnesota.; Some of the Republicans agreed to Rudy Giuliani`s claim that President Obama does not love America, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker has their own statement.; Republicans` favorite line when being ask about global warming, "I`m not a scientist" and they refer to Dr. Willie Soon. REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Breaking news tonight, moments ago Senate Democrats pushed back against Republicans` latest attempt to tie up security funding over the president`s executive action on immigration. It`s the fourth time Senate Republicans have tried to use Homeland Security Funding as a bargaining chip to stop the president`s executive action. And while they keep playing politics, with just four days away from a department shutdown, President Obama said that would hurt our economy and possibly our safety. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Unless Congress acts, one week from now, more than 100,000 DHS employees, border patrol, court inspectors, TSA agents, will show up to work without getting paid. Now, they all work in your states. These are folks who if they don`t have a paycheck are not going to be able to spend that money in your states. They will have a direct impact on your economy and it will have a direct impact on America`s national security because their hard work helps to keep us safe. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: DHS keeps us safe, and we need its protection especially now. On Saturday, the Somali terrorist group Al-Shabaab put out a video calling for attacks on western malls including the mall of America in Minnesota. Officials have stepped up security at the mall and said there are no specific plots against it. But Al-Shabaab has -- was behind the attack against a mall in Kenya in 2013 that killed more than 60 people. And Homeland Security`s Secretary Jeh Johnson isn`t dismissing the threat. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEH JOHNSON, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: On a specific place. We`ve got to take that seriously. I would say that if anyone is planning to go to the mall of America today, they`ve got to be particularly careful. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The Department of Homeland Security needs to be completely focused on issues like this. Not on whether Republicans will give it the money to keep doing this work. Joining me now are Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, Democrat of California, who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee and Jim Arkedis, a Truman Fellow and Former Pentagon Counterterrorism Analyst. Thank you both for being here. JIM ARKEDIS, THE TRUMAN PROJECT FELLOW: Thanks, Rev. REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you. SHARPTON: Congresswoman, four days until the Department of Homeland Security runs out of money. I mean, let me ask you, do you think your Republican colleagues will really let it shut down? SANCHEZ: Well, we didn`t think that a year and a half ago when they shut down the government for, I believe it was 18 days. Their essential people went to work and then what happened was that we ended up having to pay those people who didn`t even go to work during that time. So what we understand about shutdowns is it`s not efficient, it`s not effective. And for the Republicans to be holding the Department of Homeland Security as hostage when we really need them, threats are changing all the time, Reverend. You know, we saw what happened in Paris, for example. SHARPTON: Yes. SANCHEZ: And our department has to change according to that. And when these Republicans continue to do a CR or don`t fund what`s going on over the fact that they don`t like immigrants, I mean, that is the most ridiculous thing that I`ve seen in a long time. SHARPTON: Jim, we`ve heard there`s no specific plot against the mall of America. ARKEDIS: Correct. SHARPTON: But what kind of monitoring are U.S. security agencies doing there right now? ARKEDIS: Well, everything comes through the National Counterterrorism Center, which is based out in Tysons Corner, Virginia, all reporting from the CIA, NSA, DOD and FBI ultimately goes through there. Then anything that is deemed credible gets passed along to the Department of Homeland Security. And remember several years ago under the Bush administration when we had those color-coded terrorism alerts? We don`t have those anymore, but DHS does have a mechanism called NTAS, the National Terrorism Advisory System, whereby they write a memo that says here`s the threat, here`s what`s going on, here is whether it`s imminent, here`s the level of credibility. And then they pass that information along to local law enforcement in Minnesota who can take appropriate measures to ensure that proper personnel or dedicated to defending against this issue. SHARPTON: Congresswoman Sanchez, a CBS poll found 60 percent, 60 percent of people think a DHS-Funding Agreement should be separate from immigration policy. And even some Republicans don`t want to have this fight. Listen to what Senator Lindsey Graham said this morning. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: For God sakes don`t shut down the premiere homeland security defense line called the Department of Homeland Security. If we do, as Republicans, we`ll get blamed. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Will Republicans get blamed if this is shutdown, Congresswoman? SANCHEZ: Absolutely. I mean, we need these employees. We need this front line. There are challenges every day. There are attacks that could happen that they`ve thwarted over and over. There are -- just knowing that we have them on the front line makes terrorists think twice before they go and do something. And if we believe that in four days they`re -- you know, only essential, or we`ll send some of them home, then that`s and the particular time when a terrorist might say, OK, now`s the time to attack. I think it is very dangerous for the Republicans to be doing this, and I hope that Americans understand just how dangerous -- they`re doing over a philosophical issue. SHARPTON: Let me pick-up on that. Well, let me pick-up on that with you, Jim -- ARKEDIS: Sure. SHARPTON: -- because the mall of America is in Minnesota. ARKEDIS: Right. SHARPTON: Now, there`s been any number of instances of residents traveling overseas to join extremists from Minnesota. From 2006 to 2011, 27 Somali- Americans from Minnesota traveled to fight in Somalia. ARKEDIS: Right. SHARPTON: Since 2013, 12 people with ties to Minnesota traveled to Syria. And just last week, a Minneapolis man was indicted on charges associated with supporting ISIS. I mean, how big is the concern over lone wolf actors in this, Jim? ARKEDIS: Well, so here`s the thing. There is a large Somali Diaspora in the twin cities area and there`s certainly as you just mentioned have been reports of these individuals going to Somalia and training with them. Now, the concern is that in a Paris-type situation where individuals travel to Somalia, spend a few months or maybe a few years learning sort of the tricks of the trade. Then they return back because they have American passports and then they`re sort of left to their own devices and there`s no -- there`s no connection where some from Al Shabaab calls them up and says, OK, now it`s time to conduct the attack. So the concern is that as they learn things in Somalia, they can go back to Minnesota and sort of conduct their normal lives and use what they`ve learned in order to execute an attack when they feel the time is right. So when we see a video like this that obviously increases that concern. The other side of that issue, and this is really important for people to understand, is that there`s been a host of terrorist activity throughout the world over the course of the last several months. So people are nervous. A lot of these groups, ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, elsewhere, are all of a sudden competing for recruits and money and publicity. So there`s the concern that someone could return to Minnesota, but there`s also the issue that this group is just trying to puff out its chest and saying, hey, don`t forget about us, either. And at this point, I would, while not being able to discount the idea that a Paris-type attack could occur in Minnesota, I would lean more toward the latter of the sort of publicity stunt angle on this. SHARPTON: But we can`t depend on that, Congresswoman, can we? I see you shaking your head. SANCHEZ: You know the problem is that you have something called the Mall of America. I mean, think about the headlines. It`s a perfect name for somebody to go. So we need to be vigilant. You know, the most important thing for Americans to understand is we are in a new age and we have been for quite a while now, and we need to be vigilant. We`re the best eyes and ears that we have, is each of the individuals as we go about our daily business. And that`s the way that we actually, you know, when there`s something funny that`s going on and we report it, it turns out that most the time, you know, it was something that could have been very serious. So -- SHARPTON: But Congresswoman, while we`re being vigilant, we also don`t need to try to blanket and vilify a whole community. SANCHEZ: No, of course not. SHARPTON: Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson talked about that this weekend. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHNSON: We have to deal with it in a new and different way that involves a whole of government approach and involves working with state and local law enforcement, working with the community, working with community leaders to hopefully persuade people who might be inclined in this direction to turn away from violence. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Congresswoman, you are on the committee of homeland security. What kind of work on the ground needs to be done in these communities? SANCHEZ: Well, I will tell you, for example, out here in Orange County, California, we probably have the second largest Arab/Muslim community in the nation, if not the second, at least the third. And we work very diligently within the community. I mean, Mosque leaders are constantly talking to young people who attend telling them that, you know -- and it`s true, Islam is not about this extreme terrorism going on. We -- getting them involved, getting young people, getting people, you know, these lone sorts of people, these people sort of out of touch. Getting them involved in community, getting them -- you know, my father used to say, or the old adage is, idle hands are the devil`s workshop. So making sure that they are involved. And more importantly, making sure that communities who might have a different religion or have a different look that they -- that they are involved and part of the overall community fabric so that there`s understanding between groups. That is a very important thing that we work on every single day out here in Orange County, California. SHARPTON: Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and Jim Arkedis, thank you both for your time tonight. ARKEDIS: Thanks, Reverend. SANCHEZ: Thank you. SHARPTON: Coming up, a jaw-dropping moment in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. What his housekeeper found beneath his mattress before the killing. Also the GOP`s Rudy Giuliani problem, you got to hear what one of his top defenders on the right is saying about the controversy today. An activism at the Oscars, Hollywood`s biggest stage became a platform for change. What does it mean for the future of social justice? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN LEGEND, AMERICAN SINGER AND ACTOR: We say that Selma is now because the struggle for justice is right now. We know that right now the struggle for freedom and justice is real. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Got a question for the president? Use the #Obamatownhall to submit your questions for the big event this Wednesday. My colleague, Jose Diaz Balart is moderating a Town Hall with President Obama, answering questions directly from the audience and social media. That`s Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC and Telemundo. You know I have a lot of questions for Rudy Giuliani. He`s digging a deeper hole. Maybe he just needs a hug. That`s next. SHARPTON: We`re back with the GOP`s sorry attempt to explain Rudy Giuliani`s claim that the president doesn`t love America. Today, Giuliani, himself, wrote, quote, "My blunt language suggesting that the president doesn`t love America notwithstanding I didn`t intend to question President Obama`s motives or the content of his heart." But on the same day he wrote that, he also said this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I`ve said it may be 30 times before, but somehow this time it hit a nerve, maybe because the president is on such defense about his unwillingness to face Islamic extremist terrorism. And to this man has a different view of America than most American presidents had. I think he just looks at us differently. He doesn`t have the same emotion about this country and the same understanding of it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Rather than backing down, Giuliani is leaping even further into the deep end. And take GOP Governor Bobby with the Jindal, who today finally said the president does love America, but in the next breath, he said the president doesn`t deserve to be president. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: The president loves America. He loves our country. There`s no doubt about that. I think that the president has really disqualified himself to be our commander in chief because he will not -- not only identify this threat but take the steps that are necessary to defeat this threat. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: President Obama has disqualified himself as commander in-chief, really? And now GOP Governor Scott Walker is doing it, too backing off his statement that he doesn`t know if President Obama is Christian. While fund-raising off the controversy, the truth is Republicans are still beholden to the far right fringe, and they`re still not playing it straight. Joining me now are Dana Milbank and Joan Walsh. Thank you both for being here. DANA MILBANK, THE WASHINGTON POST WRITER: Hi, Reverend. JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Dana, this weekend the New York papers quoted me when I said Rudy Giuliani needs a hug. Meaning he`s, you know, a faded guy, just looking for some attention. MILBANK: Yes. SHARPTON: But what`s the solution for all of these other Republicans? MILBANK: Well, it`s awfully not good of you, Reverend to give him this attention because he`s obviously crying out. SHARPTON: Well, I want to keep giving him attention. I think -- I think, it shows how they won`t confront something that should be easy for them. MILBANK: That -- it`s very gracious of you. You know, as I think we`ve discussed, the problem really isn`t Rudy Giuliani, it`s how the rest of the party is reacting to it. SHARPTON: Correct. MILBANK: And, you know, particularly the people who would be president, who would be the party`s nominee. Now, and Jindal, I think stepped in it quite a bit there, but not as bad to the extent that Scott Walker has done and actually now bringing up this old cockamamie thing about is the president a Christian? That`s speaking to really the most venomous parts of the Republican primary electorate, and sort of giving a wink and nod to the more hateful elements of the party. So, you know, it`s one thing to be Rudy Giuliani or something of a has-been and is definitely in need of your affection, but an entirely different thing for a guy who`s a serious contender for president to be playing this game. SHARPTON: Now, Joan, you know, I mentioned the Governor Scott Walker and his campaign, and in line with what Dana`s saying, what is really relevant to me is the top Republican candidates running in 2016, their reaction to it. Giuliani I think is a has-been looking for a hug. But I mentioned Scott Walker because his campaign team is fund-raising off the controversy, sending out an email saying, quote, "He refuses to be drawn into the sideshow of answering pointless questions about whether and how much President Obama loves our country. Now is the time to stand up against the publicity hounds and the journalistic pack and help Governor Walker fight back." I mean, does this reveal what`s really going on here, Joan? Republicans believe their base response to this ugly rhetoric. WALSH: Yes, I mean, I think if we look back at 2012, we`ve now got Rudy Giuliani playing the Donald Trump role. He`s kind of the carnival barker, he`s shamed himself. He doesn`t care. He`s saying -- he`s the id. He`s saying what other people maybe won`t say in quite the same way. So then you`ve got the Giuliani primary, Rev. We`re living through the Giuliani primary where you do have people like Lindsey Graham, like Jeb Bush, like Rand Paul, like Marco Rubio who have distanced themselves, who really don`t want to go all the way there and maybe hope that the Republican party can beat the Democrats without demonizing the president. Then you`ve got Bobby Jindal, hugged Giuliani, then steps back, then says an even nastier thing, and Scott Walker who some people are calling the front-runner. I can`t quite see this, but he`s doing very well in polls. Having this, what really is a strategy to say these are unimportant questions and I shouldn`t have to answer them, and then to go to his email list and say, give me money? SHARPTON: Right. WALSH: Because I`m engaging with it. And I`m trashing the liberal media to boot. SHARPTON: And let`s not forget, Dana, it`s now routine to hear these attacks from Republicans in Congress. Listen to GOP Congressman Tim Huelskamp and what he said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. TIM HUELSKAMP (R), KANSAS: Don`t forget this was not a man educated in our American system. He learned all kinds of things wherever he was educated. He spent times in Indonesia and their schools there and this is exactly what they caught there, if not probably close to what he believes. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, last time I checked accidental colleague, Columbia University and Harvard University were very much American educational institutions. MILBANK: Yes. SHARPTON: But are we going to hear any of the GOP leadership in Congress condemn remarks like that any time soon? MILBANK: Remarks taking us right back to the Madrassa. I thought we have dealt with that seven or eight years ago. So, we`re hearing precious little of people pushing back against that. And that`s why the presidential race really brings us into focus because you always have the Tim Huelskamp and the others in the background on the fringes making this noise. So for the Democrats it`s delightful, delicious, and de-lovely to see the leaders of the Republican Party being forced to answer to this sort of thing, and it is going to go on. They either need to repudiate it, not every single gotcha statement, but they need to repudiate that element of the party and risk their own fortunes in the presidential race, or embrace it and essentially disqualify them in a general election. SHARPTON: You know, Joan, it took most of the 2016 GOP candidates two days to respond to Giuliani`s comment, picking-up on your last statement. But here`s where things stand now. I like your political nose on these issues. Four have said it`s wrong to question whether President Obama loves America. Two have withheld comment. And one, Bobby Jindal, first claimed the gist of what Giuliani said is true, but then said the president loves America. If this was a test for 2016 Republicans, how did they do? WALSH: Well, I think what we see -- I`m very interested in what Scott Walker is doing. Because I`m going to be honest, Rev. I have consistently underestimated him. I thought he could be defeated. He`s come back. So I`m going to give him that credit. I thought all this weekend, oh, this is stupid; he`s not ready for primetime. Dana says he`s disqualified himself. I hope he`s right. However, I think he sees a place for himself in the establishment primary going after the donors with being to Jeb Bush`s right. That he can be the guy who marries the right wing -- I`m the right wing candidate but I`m also the establishment candidate. That hasn`t happened. They haven`t been able to put that together in one person. He thinks he can be that person. I don`t know if it`s possible. That`s what he`s doing. SHARPTON: Yes, Jeb Bush, we haven`t heard from him all weekend. Jeb, where are you? Dana Milbank and Joan Walsh. MILBANK: He needs a hug, too. SHARPTON: Thank you both for your time tonight. MILBANK: Thanks, Rev. WALSH: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Coming up, social awareness was the big winner last night. Common and John Legend`s powerful performance of "Glory" brought tears to many in the theater and across the country. But first the Las Vegas murder suspect makes his first appearance in court today in shackles. The "Justice Files" is next. SHARPTON: When it comes to denying the human impact of global warming, Republicans has sit down to a science. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If climate change is a problem, and do you believe it is or not? Do you believe --? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m not a scientist. I don`t know the science behind climate change. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Well, listen, I`m not going to -- I`m not qualified to debate the science over climate change. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: What is your take on global warming? Climate change? I`m not a scientist. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I`m not a scientist. It`s their favorite line. And when they do actually talk about scientists, they usually point to people like Dr. Willie Soon. He`s the darling of the right wing climate denier caucus. He says greenhouse gases just aren`t that bad for you. Senator Inhofe has repeatedly cited his work over the years, the same Senator Inhofe who once said this about climate change. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JIM INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: The fact that all this is happening is due to manmade gases I really believe is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The greatest hoax ever perpetrated. And to back him up, he pointed to people like Dr. Soon. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) INHOFE: These are scientists that cannot be challenged. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I`m not too sure about that, senator, because "The New York Times" reports Dr. Soon has accepted $1.2 million in funding from the fossil fuel industry which he hasn`t disclosed in most of his scientific papers. Interesting, a guy pushing back on climate change debate while getting paid by oil and gas companies. Well, I`m not a scientist, but I can sure spot a potential conflict of interest when I see one. So, nice try, but don`t even try to deny this one, because we got you. SHARPTON: I`m not too sure about that, Senator, because "The New York Times" reports Dr. Sun has accepted $1.2 million in funding from the fossil fuel industry which he hasn`t disclosed in most of his scientific papers. Interesting. A guy pushing back on climate change debate while getting paid by oil and gas companies. Well, I`m not a scientist, but I can sure spot a potential conflict of interest when I see one. So, nice try, but don`t even try to deny this one, because we gotcha. It`s time now for the "Justice Files." Joining me tonight, criminal defense Attorney Eric Guster and former prosecutor and host of "Judge Faith" Faith Jenkins. Thank you both for being here. FAITH JENKINS, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thanks, Rev. ERIC GUSTER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you. SHARPTON: Now to a developing news story on that Las Vegas murder. The man accused of killing a mother in a hail of gunfire stood shackled as he faced a judge for the first time today. His lawyers saying today Erich Nowsch was acting in self-defense. Nowsch faces murder, attempted murder, and gun charges. Las Vegas police say he killed Tammy Meyers after she and her armed son followed him. They`d been involved in a reported road rage incident earlier that day with her. A new police report reveals how Nowsch was acting after the arrest. It said "he told friends he fired shots" at Meyers. One of those friends even says, "he seemed excited and happy" about it. But when police asked Nowsch about the shooting he denied it all. Faith, they`re claiming self-defense today. What do you think? JENKINS: I still think that there are more questions than answer in this case. But here`s what we do know. We do know that this defendant was in his car. And when you`re looking at a self-defense claim, you`re looking at I had to defend myself, I had to shoot, it was my life or theirs. So, the real question is, did the son of this woman who was killed, did he fire first? Because we know that he had a gun. SHARPTON: Right. JENKINS: He fired at least four shots. Who fired the first shots? That`s going to be a key question, but at the end of the day, this defendant drove to this woman`s house. She was shot in her driveway. Why did he drive to her house? Was it to pursue her? It`s hard to get a self-defense claim when you pursue someone and then shoot 22 times. SHARPTON: So he Eric was the one was pursuing. How does that shape, as Faith raises the question, how does that deal with his self-defense claim? How does that impact that? GUSTER: It makes self-defense harder, but they pursued him first. The lady went home, got her son with a gun, then went after him. And there`s more to this story, Reverend Al. There is something else we just don`t know yet, because there is some other type of relationship or something else because when a person goes after someone like that, it`s not normal. And then the son told his mom, call the police, and she did not. She refused to call the police. JENKINS: Well -- SHARPTON: Wait, I want to bring this in. The "Las Vegas Review Journal," this is important, I think, to get your, both of your responses to this. They wrote that Tammy Meyers` son tried to convince her to call police rather than going out to chase a car involved in a previous altercation, according to an arrest report. Now, how will that one fact make a difference if this goes to trial? JENKINS: Well, obviously you don`t advise someone. If you`ve been in some kind of road rage incident to get in their car and try to find and follow the person. But that`s not a crime, right, that`s not against the law. If you want to follow someone, maybe you want to get their driver`s license, maybe you want to report it, even if you want to confront them, that`s not necessarily a crime. Now, the fact that her son got a gun, did he show that gun, did he brandish that gun, did he menace the defendant? Those are questions that need answered. SHARPTON: The fact he told her, let`s call the cops, don`t pursue it, does that have bearing at all? GUSTER: Well, it will have a small bearing, Reverend Al. This is why. When the person says there`s danger, let`s call the police instead of pursuing this person, then that goes to mitigation as far as what will happen with the young man who`s been arrested? SHARPTON: Right. GUSTER: Will they look at this and say this lady should not have gone and chased him? And the son is essentially saying with that testimony, don`t go chase him and she did anyway. SHARPTON: All right. Let`s go to a major reversal in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial before we run out of time. Text messages the judge initially threw out of the case are now back in. Hernandez and two other men are accused of killing semi-pro athlete Odin Lloyd in 2013. Right before Lloyd died, he and his sister exchanged text messages. Lloyd wrote to her, quote, "You see who I`m with?" And "NFL, just so you know." NFL was apparently the nickname for Hernandez. The judge says the jury can hear about the messages, but not find out what they say. Prosecutors say the texts set up a timeline of the night and pinpoints locations. But the defense says it`s worse to let the jury wonder what Lloyd wrote. What do you think? JENKINS: I think that -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Speculate, Mr. Lloyd is saying help, you know, I`m being kidnapped, I`m going to be killed. I mean, they can speculate something which is totally unfairly prejudicial. We don`t have any ability really to counter that. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: They can find that at 3:23 he was still alive, and after that, he was to longer alive which would be consistent with other witness testimony, so in terms of its relevance, I`d say it`s extremely relevant. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Eric, will the text messages help the prosecution? GUSTER: They will help the prosecution because when a jury has to start imagining things, they -- it does -- their imaginations will literally run wild because on the defense side, we want the jury to know information instead of guessing and imagining and conjecturing things and that`s what will happen in this case. JENKINS: Well, the defense should concede and let the text messages in if that`s what they`re concerned about. They fought to keep these text messages out. SHARPTON: The defense did. JENKINS: Yes. So now the judge is saying, we will let the time and location of the texts come in and the defense is saying -- SHARPTON: But not the content. JENKINS: But not the content. So, if they`re so concerned, then let the content in. We`re not going to get it both ways. The prosecutors, it`s important for them to set up a timeline here. Those 58 minutes when Lloyd leaves with Hernandez and when Hernandez comes back without him. Those text messages will help establish that Lloyd was in the vicinity of where and Hernandez was in the vicinity of where Lloyd was murdered. GUSTER: Could the judge kept the text messages totally out. SHARPTON: Right. GUSTER: So, the defense -- this is one of those things in trial that you have to make that decision. They may let them because the jury is already going to know that he sent texts. SHARPTON: Eric Guster, Faith Jenkins, I`m going to have to leave it there. Thank you for your time. JENKINS: Thanks, Rev. GUSTER: Thank you. SHARPTON: Still ahead, social justice at the Oscars. Was last night a turning point for how we think about celebrities and activism? Also, did the academy snub the memory of Joan Rivers? A Special Oscars edition of "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: Time now for a Special Oscars edition of "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, journalist and author Allison Samuels, "Access Hollywood" Shaun Robinson, and "HuffPost Live" host Alyona Minkovski. Hollywood`s brightest stars shined during the Oscars last night. And as actors accepted their trophy, one theme stole the spotlight from all of them. Activism. The speeches ranged from civil rights, to suicide awareness, from immigration to equal pay for women. Patricia Arquette kicked things off with a speech that made many women, including Meryl Streep, proud. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PATRICIA ARQUETTE, BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE: To every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else`s equal rights. It`s our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) (APPLAUSE) SHARPTON: Then came the most powerful and emotional performance of the night. John Legend and common singing the song "Glory" about racial injustice. The images of the Selma to Montgomery march flashed on stage. It brought everyone to their feet, and some in the audience to tears. Then came the speech where legend reminded America that Selma is now. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN LEGEND, SINGER: We know that right now, the struggle for freedom and justice is real. We live in the most incarcerated country in the world. There are more black men under correctional control today than were under slavery in 1850. When people are marching with our song, we want to tell you we are with you, we see you, we love you, and march on. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Shaun, what do you think of these powerful statements? SHAUN ROBINSON, HOST, "ACCESS HOLLYWOOD": Well, Rev, I was there last night, and I got to tell you, the ceremony was a little bit long. However, I think that the Oscars, it`s all about moments. And some of those moments that you just showed, those were the ones that we will be remembering and talking about I think really for years to come. Common and John Legend`s speech was so touching and really included information that made a lot of us go, wow, you know, I did not know that. And I know that a lot of people say that the Oscars is not the place to make these so-called political speeches, but I think it is exactly the place because otherwise it just becomes, you know, award, joke, award, joke. And I really like the fact that these actors stand up, they take a stand on an important issue and get people really thinking about how they can be active in their own lives in terms of a lot of these issues that we really need to care about. SHARPTON: How did it play in the crowd there, Shaun? ROBINSON: Well, it played very well. As you could say, it`s interesting that you say that, because a lot of times what plays good in the crowd does not actually play good on television, but from what I could see, that people, you know, they were giving these standing ovations, when Patricia Arquette talked about equal pay for women and you had Meryl Streep jumping out of her chair and Jennifer Lopez right next to her, I mean, that`s really powerful and it shows that it`s okay to take a stand and to talk about some of these really important issues. SHARPTON: Allison, you cover a lot of entertainment. How do you feel about the using that big platform to deal with big issues? ALLISON SAMUELS, AUTHOR, "WHAT WOULD MICHELLE DO?" Well, I think in a way they sort of had to. Some of the movies -- many of the movies this year were about really powerful subjects like ALS and Alzheimer`s and I think it would have been very hard for Julianne Moore or Eddie from "The Theory of Everything" to get up and not sort of give some type of salute to those people that they were actually portraying. SHARPTON: Yes. SAMUELS: So, I think it made a lot of sense for those people to sort of get up there and actually bring attention to whatever cause that was their passion last night. SHARPTON: Alyona? ALYONA MINKOVSKI, HOST, "HUFFPOST LIVE": Yes, and I agree. If you have that big of a stage, then why not use it? And I think that, you know, often the Oscars as was evidenced this year by the film`s selection they had and then nominees that they ended up with, they`ve been criticized a lot for a lack of diversity, for not really taking the plunge when it comes to dealing with deeper political issues. But at least we saw those who were in attendance, those who were part of the ceremony bringing it up themselves this year. But I do think that the fact that Laura Porters won for "Citizen 4," the best documentary was a big move. They so rarely choose political documentaries. And hearing someone talk about the surveillance day of plotting government whistleblowers was something that, I mean, I certainly applaud. SHARPTON: Allison, wage equality, when Patricia Arquette brought it up, big, big reaction as Shaun said, and a big reaction on social media. SAMUELS: Right. I think it was an important issue, Patricia Arquette, you know, people love her. I think she took her moment and I think the industry has to do more for women, just like they have to do more for other minorities. But I think women are really sort of standing up and saying, hey, look, count us in. We need more directors, more representation in that area, and behind the scenes where decisions are made. So I think it was totally appropriate for her to talk about that last night. SHARPTON: And we need to deal with more diversity in the academy and Hollywood, period. I want to stay on that. SAMUELS: Of course. SHARPTON: But now to a snub that has many fans furious. The late Joan Rivers wasn`t honored during the in memoriam portion of the ceremony. Rivers appeared in several films and revolutionized the red carpet interviewing stars and everyone connected to the film industry. She died in September during throat surgery. The academy said, quote, "Joan Rivers is among the many worthy artists and filmmakers we were unfortunately unable to feature in the in memoriam segment. She is, however, included in our in memoriam gallery on Oscar.com. Alyona, what is your reaction? How did she not make it in? MINKOVSKI: I think that this is a perfect example of the snobbiness of Hollywood, you know, you`re either in the club and you`re part of it, or you`re not, and so for whatever reason, I think maybe because Joan Rivers was just too groundbreaking, maybe because of how edgy she was and everything that she said and did over the years they chose not to include her here. But I think it was a big mistake, it backfiring and everyone noticed. SHARPTON: Shaun, how does it play out there in Hollywood? ROBINSON: Well, a lot of people were surprised. As she was just honored at the last two awards shows. I believe she was honored at S.A.G. with their in memoriam and also at the Golden Globes. And why she wasn`t included in the Oscars, maybe there is some thought that, you know, they just wanted to honor people who were definitely known in the movie industry and we have to, you know, we have to admit that Joan Rivers was known mostly for her standup and in television although she did appear in many movies. So, you know, I take the academy at their word. They say that there were so people that they could have honored. So, whether this was a snub, I`m not ready to go there yet. But definitely a lot of her fans were very upset about her not being included. SHARPTON: Allison, would you go there? Quickly? SAMUELS: Well, I just remember that they did the same thing to Farrah Fawcett and she`d been in a number of movies as well but she was primarily known as a television star and they didn`t acknowledge her the same way that they sort of avoided Joan. So, I think this is just what they do. If you`re not known for movies, they just don`t sort of recognize you in that way. SHARPTON: All right. Everyone, stay with me. When we come back, Lady Gaga stuns the country with her performance. And John Travolta was trending on twitter. Was it creepy or was it all just fun? It`s all ahead. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: We`re back with our Oscars after party panel. Allison, Shaun, and Alyona. Were you Gaga for Lady Gaga`s Oscar performance last night? I mean, we saw a side of the Grammy-winning pop star we`ve never seen before with her vocal tribute to "The Sound of Music." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (LADY GAGA`S PERFORMANCE "SOUND OF MUSIC") (END VIDEO CLIP) Shaun, this surprised a lot of people on twitter. What did you make of her performance? ROBINSON: First of all, Rev, I loved it, and here`s the reason why I loved her performance. When Lady Gaga first burst onto the scene, I mean, it was all about the crazy outfits, arriving in an egg, the meat dress and all this. She has a tremendous voice, and now we`re getting to hear that. It`s not about all the pageantry around her. It is about just her pure vocal ability. The songs that she`s doing with Tony Bennett, I mean, she is -- she really is a force. And that`s why people are so surprised because they didn`t realize that she had this type of vocal ability, but she is a fantastic singer, and I am so glad to see that we are experiencing that now. SHARPTON: Well, Allison, were you surprised? What was your reaction? SAMUELS: I was a bit surprised, but I loved it, and, you know, she just got engaged. I think she`s trying to show all different, you know, aspects of her personality now. And I think it`s the right time to do that. People know the other side of her, but last night I think she introduced a brand new world of sort of interest from fans who didn`t know she could actually do that. SHARPTON: Now, before we go, John Travolta had everyone talking and tweeting. He was trending before the show when this photo went viral with Scarlett Johansson on the red carpet. Many saying this kiss was awkward and uncomfortable. And then a year after butchering her name, he poked some fun at himself on stage with Idina Menzel. But his cheek grabbing might have overshadowed it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) IDINA MENZEL, ACTRESS: Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage my very dear friend, Glom Gazingo. JOHN TRAVOLTA, ACTOR: I deserve that. I deserve that. But you, you, my darling, my beautiful, my wickedly talented Idina Menzel. MENZEL: You got it. TRAVOLTA: Is that right? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Shaun, that uncomfortable for you, or are the people being too critical? ROBINSON: Well, I really, really like John Travolta. He is one of the nicest guys that I have met in Hollywood. I could have done without the cheek grabbing and the hand -- I could have done without that. But, you know what, I knew that this was going to be a time when he was able to come out and redeem himself because, Rev, how many times did you watch him butchering Idina Menzel`s name? You know, probably a lot. So he wanted to -- SHARPTON: Well, Alyona, did he redeem himself? MINKOVSKI: No I certainly don`t think that he redeemed himself. At this point, you have to wonder why they keep inviting him to the Oscars. It made me uncomfortable just having re-watched and re-listen to that clip. And you can see it in Idina Menzel`s face and then her body language as well that she was uncomfortable up there. It`s unfortunate that any of us had to witness it. SHARPTON: Well, Allison, Shaun and Alyona, thank you for joining us tonight on this special edition. And we all want to thank you, Shaun, for you inviting us and our dates to join you at the Oscars last night. We`ll be right back. ROBINSON: Rev, I was looking for you. What was your tux? SHARPTON: Uh-huh. Cut her mic. MINKOVSKI: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: John Legend`s powerful speech last night put a new focus on fighting for justice and equality today. Over the years we`ve seen celebrities use star power to make a point. The academy gave the humanitarian award at the governor`s ball to Harry Belafonte, and it received some airtime at the Oscars last night. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HARRY BELAFONTE, ACTOR: Artists are the radical voice of civilization. Each and every one of you in this room with your gifts, your power, can influence citizens everywhere in the world to see the better side of what we are as a species. Thank you very much. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: We remember Muhammad Ali refusing to fight Vietnam saying his religious beliefs and his conscience would not permit him to fight an unjust war. And more recently, LeBron James made a powerful statement without saying anything. Celebrities have long had the role of raising consciousness in society and in our country and last night was one of those moments to remember. I think all of us have gifts, and celebrities certainly have gifts, but part of having a gift is how you use it to give to more than yourself. As Reverend Joseph Lowery always said to me, that`s the difference between just being famous and being great. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022301cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 105 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 23, 2015 Monday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 23, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes, Michael Steele, Howard Dean GUESTS: Amy Klobuchar, Rebecca Traister, Rembert Browne, Jason Bailey, Glenn Greenwald SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7947 words HIGHLIGHT: Wisconsin governor and likely 2016 presidential candidate Scott Walker is facing major blowback for his unwillingness to say whether he believes President Obama is Christian or loves his country. Al Shabaab joins the propaganda arms race, threatening mall attacks in America. Interview with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: I think the president and the mayor can speak for themselves. HAYES: Taking a page from Sarah Palin, Scott Walker refusing to answer easy questions from the lamestream media. Tonight, Michael Steele and Howard Dean on the first media fire storm of 2016. Then, al Shabaab joins the propaganda arms race, threatening mall attacks in America. But should anyone take the bait? Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar joins me live. Plus, the story of a climate denying scientist who forgot to let everyone know he was funded by fossil fuel interest. And, the politics of Oscar. DONALD TRUMP, BUSINESSMAN: It was a great night for Mexico, as usual. HAYES: An ALL IN Oscar wrap-up you just have to see. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don`t have to say it. HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Wisconsin governor and likely 2016 presidential candidate Scott Walker, who is facing major blowback for his unwillingness to say whether he believes President Obama is Christian or loves his country, today met with the president himself at the White House. A sit down that Walker described as, quote, "a good meeting." Walker was at the White House in conjunction with the annual winter gathering of the National Governors Association in Washington, and on Saturday, he was asked once again if he wanted to repudiate Rudy Giuliani`s comment made at a close door dinner last week with Walker, that the president does not love America. Once again, he punted. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: I think the president and the mayor can speak for themselves. I know I know America and I know there`s people all across the political spectrum, from Republican to Democrats, who certainly do, but that`s something that the mayor and president have to talk about. They certainly can comment on themselves. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Though, the 2016 campaign is still in its infancy, it has already been a roller coaster for Walker who has rocketed up the standings after a wildly praised speech in Iowa last month, before falling back to earth after a series of what appeared to be embarrassing gaffes in which he failed to answer what seemed to be simple, non-controversial questions. Do you accept the theory of evolution? Does the president love his country? And is the president a Christian? If Walker had just answered yes, yes and yes, you know, those aren`t very hard. There is no story. Instead, he has punted over and over. As this weekend, if the president is Christian, Walker responded, I don`t know, telling reporters, quote, "You`ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven`t had a conversation with about that." Essentially, Scott Walker appears to be claiming he can`t comment on somebody`s religion unless he had discussed it with them first, which presumably means if you would have asked him, say, is the pope Catholic, he had to take a pass. Walker has embraced punting so unapologetically, he even acknowledged he was punting when he declined to discussion evolution earlier this month in London. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: For me, I`m going to punt -- I`m going to punt on that one as well. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, really? WALKER: That`s a question a politician should not be involved one way or the other by that. So, I`m going to leave that up to you and -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any British politician right or left would laugh and say of course evolution is true. WALKER: To me, I said, it`s just one of those where I`m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate on other issues. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: There is another possibility here, that Scott Walker`s punting isn`t a gaffe at all, but actually part of the strategy designed to endear him to the Rush Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party. Evidence for that theory comes in the form of a fundraising letter Walker sent out Sunday, attacking the small, petty and pale ideas that the gotcha headline writers for the liberal media, L and M both capitalized, want to talk about. He is also reportedly planning to bring up his media detractors and their gotcha questions in remarks tonight to a Christian media convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Walker seems to be positioning himself as the only potential GOP presidential candidate who can bring together the Republican establishment and his base, while his punt early, punt often strategy maybe satiating the far right, it won`t win over an establishment that wants a candidate who can at the very least offer simple answers to simple questions. Joining me now, MSNBC political analyst Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and MSNBC contributor Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Good evening, gentlemen. Good to have you both. MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hey. HAYES: Michael, let me start with you. STEELE: Sure. HAYES: What is going on here? The two theories, he`s doing this on purpose. The other is, he`s kind of bumbled his way into it and he is reverse-engineering a strategy around it after he did it. STEELE: I think it`s a little bit of both. I think it is -- this is a reflection of what happens when you have early handlers around you that are trying to isolate and insulate and protect a candidate who`s not even announced for office. And so, you sort of get into this vortex and you wind up sort of spinning out of control a little bit. And I think that`s what`s happened here. Look, Marco Rubio says it should have been a lay up. Just answer the question and move on. So, at the end of the day, that`s what should have happened. Look, I can take exception. Why are you asking me questions about evolution and all of this, you know, I`m a governor of a state doing X, Y, and Z? But that`s because the conversation largely in certain circles within the party has denigrated to that. So, now, every candidate on some point to ask that. You know, I would love to hear Democrats and maybe Hillary can talk about how Joe Biden puts his hands on the secretary of defense`s wife`s shoulders a little icky, but that`s not where we are. (LAUGHTER) STEELE: This is the space we`re in now and Republicans have got to give pass this and move to the substance of the argument against this administration and potentially Hillary. HAYES: Michael, I like that response, and even the parenthetical that was ably put in there about Joe Biden and Secretary Carter`s wife. I mean, hey, look, that is a legit question to ask Hillary Clinton, right? STEELE: Yes. HAYES: I mean, the problem for Republicans right now is unlike Hillary Clinton who I think is making the calculation that she has the field to herself and doesn`t have to do all these public events, they all have to talk to the press all of the time because they`re competing for oxygen. So, they`re getting asked things. And, Howard, I sort of wonder if you have any sympathy as a former candidate yourself, as a person on the receiving end of the so-called gotcha questions for the idea this is essentially a game of gotcha. HOWARD DEAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it is a game of gotcha. And my view after I went through it is, look, this is the most important office in the world. If you can`t survive a little gotcha from the press which I grant is very unattractive and makes you mad as a candidate, what are going to do when Vladimir Putin demands Alaska back? So, this is all just part of the deal, right? We`ve got to put up with it. I mean, you better be tough enough to figure out. You know, I always thought that Scott Walker was a rookie and he was in over his head as governor and I can`t imagine him at president. I hope I don`t ever have to. This is an example of that. He doesn`t have an inner compass. What he`s doing is catering. And I agree with Michael. This is some of both. Some of it, he`s been gotcha`d and some of it, he`s catering to the right wing. The trouble with that is he`s going to have the same problem that Mitt Romney did. He`s going to say some things that are hard to live down because the average American voter wants to know they want to know that he thinks he respects the presidency and you can`t respect the presidency if you think he is not a Christian, and he was born in Kenya, and all of this other crazy crap. He is now catering to the crazy wing in the Republican Party. That`s great in the primary but it`s going to come back and bite him in the general election. HAYES: Yes, I mean, we should note that he hasn`t been asked -- DEAN: It`s also going to make him -- if he`s not careful, he`s going to be unavailable for vice president. Now, I think he could beat Jeb Bush, but I also think he doesn`t want, he doesn`t want to go too far out there. He`s not going to be accepted on the ticket at all. HAYES: Well, I should note, A, you mention the Kenya thing, he has not been asked that, but, Michael, my sort of dream of this is a thought experiment in which you ask him increasingly ludicrously obvious questions so that you get to the point you`re like, Governor Walker does the earth revolve around the sun? STEELE: Right. HAYES: Right. And ask the non-political ones. Come on, give a yes - - (CROSSTALK) STEELE: Exactly, Chris, that is the unfortunate part of where we are right now. I would like to see us move beyond that because I think the substance of what these governors have done in their states is worthy of the debate and that`s what they need to get to. HAYES: OK. Let`s talk about the man that kicked all of this off, Rudy Giuliani, and again, this is no ones -- I`m sympathetic to -- I`m really genuinely sympathetic from the right and the left, gotcha questions, et cetera. But let`s be clear, this did all start really with Giuliani saying something that he himself said was horrible and then going around and essentially doubling, tripling, quadrupling, quintupling down on it. Here he is again, he has an op-ed saying, I cannot read President Obama`s mind or heart, and to the extent that my words suggested otherwise, it was not my intention. This is in "The Wall Street Journal". Come on, Michael, what do you think of that? STEELE: You know, look, again, he is trying to pull back after going very, very far out on a limb on this, and it`s unfortunate because I think a lot of us, no matter what your stripes are in the GOP, have such admiration for the mayor, that it really was surprising to hear him go there, because he was the guy who always criticized other Republicans who went there. And so, that was very disappointing in many respects and I think he is trying to recover a little bit from it. And it`s going to be hard for him to do. And now, you got another talking point or rather a sticking point that candidates for the office of the presidency over the course of the next few months are going to have to answer because he opened that Pandora`s Box. HAYES: That`s right, Howard. We made a handy dandy chart on the "does the president love America?" So, we got America Obama hearts USA, Obama does not heart USA, and who the heck knows. Imagine the shrug emoticon there. That is comprehension chart. So for on the record, in what has emerged amazingly, Howard, is kind of an early dividing issue among the Republican field. DEAN: Well, I mean, Rudy is getting a little like Ed Koch did after he was out of office for a while. They both always said whatever came into their mind when they were in office that made them very popular. After awhile, you start to say things that you probably shouldn`t say and I think that`s where they`re all -- you know, I think that`s where we are now, and I think, you know, Rudy realized it and he tried to reel it back in. But he`s not a guy who wants to back on anything, that is not in his nature. So, we are where we are. But this is the kind of stuff that`s going to bug the Republicans. This is the hard part. There is a whole wing of the Republican Party, most of whom are going to support Jeb Bush, who would like to put all this nutty stuff behind them. Does Obama love America? The antigay stuff, the anti- immigration stuff. You know, the women have a class of wine and get fertile and all of that crazy stuff, rape, whatever. They just don`t want to talk about that any more. But this is the kind of stuff that raises that and the media is going to pounce on it and blow it up. HAYES: Yes. Well, you know firsthand how crazy they are, the media, I mean. Howard Dean and Michael Steele, thank you both. STEELE: You got it, Chris. HAYES: How is a video made by a group that has only attacked targets in East Africa saturate U.S. news media? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEH JOHNSON, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I`m not telling people to not go to the mall. I think there needs to be an awareness, there needs to be vigilance, and, you know, be careful, obviously. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: The threatoric versus the reality of threats, next. HAYES: In the depths of February, with terrorism and war dominating the news, the world can seem so crushingly bleak. But every so often, something happened out of the blue to restore your faith in humanity. On Saturday, that`s something happened in Oslo, Norway, where over 1,000 people gathered around the main synagogue to form a human shield, to what participants called a ring of peace. The event was organized by young Norwegian Muslims and was meant as a response for the attacks against Jews in Paris and Copenhagen. One of the organizers told the crowd, quote, "We want to demonstrate that Jews and Muslims do not hate each other. We do not want individuals to define what Islam is for the rest of us." HAYES: Modern terrorism has been defined as a kind of asymmetric warfare, where one guy with a suicide vest has the power to do extraordinary, disproportionate damage. And now, thanks in large part to the sophistication and brutality of ISIS propaganda videos and the willingness of American media to amplify the threats they contained, we appear to be engaged in what you might call an asymmetric war. Witness the video attributed to the Somali militant group al Shabaab that appeared online this weekend, calling for attacks on Western shopping centers, including the Mall of America in Minnesota. Now, unlike many ISIS videos, this one did not show hostages being brutalized or killed. All it apparently took to produce was a decent enough camera, the cost of a katia (ph) and a camouflage jacket, some archival footage and a few minutes of someone`s times to shoot and edit the thing together and put a few graphics on it. And with that, presto, this one video by a group that`s unfamiliar to most Americans and has never carried an attack outside East Africa has managed to completely dominate the news cycle for the past 48 hours. It`s caused law enforcement to step security at the Mall of America and other public places and it`s even led the secretary of homeland security to sound the alarm. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHNSON: Anytime a terrorist organization calls for an attack on a specific place, we`ve got to take that seriously. I would say that if anyone is planning to go to the Mall of America today, they`ve got to be particularly careful. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Regardless of the heightened rhetoric, the U.S. government says there is no evidence of a specific credible plot against the Mall of America or any other commercial sites. Today, a State Department spokesperson called out the video for what it really is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEN PSAKI, STATE DEPT. SPOKESPERSON: Our view is it`s propaganda. Of course, we need to remain vigilant, as is always the case, but the point of this video was to instill fear. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat from Minnesota, where the Mall of America happens to be located. Senator, what do you -- how am I supposed to understand, how is anyone in Minnesota, anyone else to suppose to understand Jeh Johnson saying, if you go to the mall be careful? What do I do with that? SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D), MINNESOTA: Well, I think first, Chris, I think you`ve heard, not just Jeh Johnson, but other homeland security secretaries always talk about being vigilant in public spaces, airports, malls, you`ve heard that before. I think what`s key here is that the FBI had issued a statement saying that people should go on with their lives. You heard the State Department. And Jeh Johnson himself had said people should feel free to go to the mall and feel secure going to the mall and our security has been up there. But I will say this -- for us, you may think it`s some obscure group. We`ve had 20 indictments in Minnesota for people that have aided al Shabaab. We are very proud of our Somali population. We have half of the Somalis in the country in Minnesota, and they have worked incredibly well with law enforcement. But I want you to know, al Shabaab is not an unknown name in Minnesota, because they have tried with other videos -- numerous videos to recruit Somalis in Minnesota to go fight with their terrorist group. HAYES: That`s right. I`m not saying that al Shabaab is obscure in any way. In fact, they`ve been dominant force in the failed state of Somalia for a long time. They`re obviously behind the mall bombing in Kenya, which was brutal and horrific. What I am saying is, they put out this video and there is no, as far as I can tell, public or classified demonstrated capacity to do anything to carry it out. And you have an endless loop of 48 hours of people running around, as if we should take this incredibly. KLOBUCHAR: I think that`s always a good point about things can get exaggerated. But for the people in our state, the workers that worked there, I just spoke to them last night in an event with 500 of them there, they want to snow that our government is behind them. And I was able to tell them what the FBI said. I was able to tell them what Homeland Security says. But do remember that this is coinciding with the debate about funding for homeland security, where we have what we call a clean bill, a bill to fund our first responders, a bill to fund Homeland Security, and we have been dealing with extraneous amendments, and poison pills, and things about immigration that don`t belong on there. And when those workers looked at me last night, Chris, they said, I want to make sure the government is behind us and that we`re going to fund the people that are protecting us at this mall. And so, I do think it is relative in that way, and we want to make sure we`re giving people the protection they need. So, a threat, we don`t know how serious these threats can be at times. It`s very hard to judge. I trust our law enforcement on this. I know when they say they want to up security, they want to up security. And if we`re not giving them the funding to do that, that`s a major problem. HAYES: Is that -- explain to me what the tangible difference between a funded DHS and a non-funded DHS is in the context of the Mall of America. KLOBUCHAR: A number of the workers would have to be furloughed and would have to work without pay, and some of them would actually not be able to work. So, you have people on homeland security workers, you have security people, you have all kinds of workers, and there`s a list that you can probably put up on the air tomorrow night if you like showing who would be furloughed, who wouldn`t be furloughed. But why are we sending that message? However obscured this video is, why are we sending this message to the rest of the world with what we saw in Paris, what we saw with the computer cyber attack in North Korea, why would my colleagues on the Republican side want to send that message to the rest of the world? I don`t think they do. I`m hopeful we will be able to resolve it this week. But all I know is that we`re five days away from shutting down Homeland Security, and that is not the message our country wants to send to whoever produce this video. HAYES: Senator Amy Klobuchar, thank you. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. HAYES: Up next, some breaking news out of Texas. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Do you think you`re going to get a stay? RODNEY REED, GRANTED STAY OF EXECUTION: I`m optimistic. I mean the evidence is there, it is just if the courts are willing to acknowledge this, you know what I`m saying? I really, I`m optimistic, and I have faith that it is possible. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Rodney Reed`s optimism is rewarded. Ten days before he faced execution for the rape and murder of a 19-year-old Stacey Stites. What he told me about his appeal from death row, ahead. HAYES: Just hours ago, the Texas court criminal appeals granted a stay of execution to death row inmate Rodney Reed just less than two weeks before he was scheduled to be put to death. Reed was convicted from the 1996 rape and murder of 19-year-old Stacey Stites. Stites was found strangled to death off the side of a rural country road in Central Texas. Investigators cleared dozens of suspects, including Stite`s then- fiance, a rookie police officer, and the person who is last believed to have seen her alive. Then after the case almost went cold for a year, they got a break. Authorities matched DNA found inside Stites at a time for death to DNA from a local resident named Rodney Reed. It took a jury just hours to convict Reed to rape and murder of Stacey Stites. To this day, Reed maintains his innocence. And tonight, responding to a filing from Reed`s lawyers at the Innocence Project for a new look at the forensic evidence, the Texas court has halted his execution. Just earlier this month, I spoke with Rodney Reed on death row in Levenson, Texas, about his experience there. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Were you scared? I mean you are told you`re being sent to go live with the worst monsters in Texas. The people who have done the most heinous acts and you`re going to be around them. REED: No. I can`t say that I was scared. I can`t say that I was scared. I didn`t want to come here, but I -- I used to fight. I used to be a boxer. And you know a man is a man. A man is going to defend himself. So I was curling up and balling up, and I`m going to defend myself, you know what I`m saying? I was prepared to do that because you know what I`m saying, I was coming here. But once I got here, I mean, some of these guys are like looking at the big picture. Some of these guys were someone else`s neighbor, they`re someone else`s brother, someone`s cousin, someone`s father. You know what I`m saying? You don`t know what may have happened in their lives that brought them here, you know what I`m saying? And just like my situation, I had nothing to do with this case, but I`m here. But as me being on death row, I see there are some guys that have strong innocence claims, and I can`t look at them as the worst of the worst. I just can`t. HAYES: Do you think you`re going to get a stay? REED: I`m optimistic, I mean, the evidence is there. If the courts are willing to acknowledge this, you know what I`m saying? I really, I`m optimistic and I have faith. That it is possible. I don`t entertain the thought of being executed. I don`t, you know? If it happens, it happens, you know? But I`m not looking for that to happen. I mean the evidence speaks for itself. The state knows, they know, this evidence has always been out there. It should not have taken this long. When you have a prosecutor with unlimited resources and the county, your law enforcement agencies, the Texas Rangers, all of these people involved in this investigation and you tell me this evidence wasn`t compiled in the right fashion to where you would know the truth. It`s not right. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Well much more of my interview with Rodney Reed on death row and an in-depth look at his case on "All in America" special report next month, asking the question a Texas court will now be looking at. Is the state of Texas trying to execute a man for a crime he did not commit? You do not want to miss it. HAYES: The 87th Academy Awards hit on equal pay, civil rights, privacy rights, prison reform, immigration reform, suicide, Alzheimer`s disease and ALS, as well as giving us an awful rendition of Everything is Awesome. Before we get to the Oscars, my favorite moment last night, and I really mean this, actually happened on the red carpet. For me it turned out to be the most real interaction I have seen on television in a very long time. Melanie Griffith was asked whether she would see 50 Shades of Grey" which, of course, stars her daughter, Dakota Johnson, who is standing right beside her, having invited her mom to be her plus one at the big ceremony. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MELANIE GRIFFITH, ACTRESS: I don`t think I can. I think it would be strange. DAKOTA JOHNSON, ACTRESS: No, I don`t think so. I think it`s fine. I think that one day you can see it. GRIFFITH: But she`s a really good actress. I don`t need to see that to know how good she is. JOHNSON: All right, you don`t have to see it. I`m like, you can see it, and you`re just like no -- LARA SPENCER, ENTERTAINMENT JOURNALIST: She doesn`t, you know, there is that red room. JOHNSON: Yeah, but I think it`s okay, it`s a movie, she knows that. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Mom! As for the Oscars themselves, Race Under pinned the very first joke by host Neil Patrick Harris and was directly and dramatically addressed by best song cowinner John Legend in his comments about incarceration. NEIL PATRICK HARRIS, ACTOR: Tonight we honor Hollywood`s best and whitest -- sorry, brightest. JOHN LEGEND, MUSICIAN: We live in the most incarcerated country in the world. There are more black men under correctional control today than were under slavery in 1850. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: That`s true. Joining me now is Jason Bailey, film editor of Flavorwire.com, author of The Ultimate Woody Allen Film Companion. Rebecca Traister, senior editor of The New Republic, and Rembert Browne, making his triumphant debut appearance here, staff writer at Grantland. Great to have you here man. REMBERT BROWNE, GRANTLAND: You too. HAYES: So, I mean, you could spend hours talking about the racial dynamics of that entire three-and-a-half hours. Partly because, going in you have basically the whitest set of nominees in a very long time. REBECCA TRAISTER, THE NEW REPUBLIC: In a year where there was a great movie about civil rights. HAYES: Yeah, so there in this year with Selma, right? Then you have the joke to start out by Neil Patrick Harris -- JASON BAILEY, FLAVORWIRE.COM: First joke of the night. HAYES: Okay, how do we feel about that joke? Pro, Con? BROWNE: I`m pro that joke if it doesn`t turn into a terrible ceremony after that. I thought it was going to set up a really biting commentary filled thing, but what happened after that made that whole joke feel very short sided. HAYES: Like we got it out of the way kind of thing. We are acknowledging -- BROWNE: Checkbox. HAYES: Yeah. TRAISTER: The structural planned events did not further address race, except for Glory, except for the performance of the song. But the rest of Neil Patrick Harris, all of the commentary about race then came from people who got on stage and made comments. BAILEY: And to some degree from the people who were in the audience. There was a lot of really interesting writing today about the way that we saw some push back just in the front of the audience in the sheer number of standing ovations for Selma related events. And the idea that we tend to think, Mark Harris, actually, at Grantland, wrote a wonderful piece today where he said we tend to think of The Academy as a sort of monolithic entity, when in fact it is a group of people and there are clearly some people not happy with how that film was treated. HAYES: And Jay Smooth, the great Jay Smooth, had a video today about how is it the case that like, these people who seem so self aware about race in certain ways are so unself aware in other ways, and part of the answer is that they are two different sets of people. Like I`m not sure that John Legend is in The Academy, right? BAILEY: Absolutely. BROWNE: The thing that stuck out to me was when that moment happened, the almost two minute standing ovation for the Selma performance -- HAYES: Which was... Something about it was really magical. TRAISTER: It was incredible. BROWNE: It was magical and it almost made the jokes about the whiteness feel like too real. It was like all right, we`re all admitting that this Selma thing that people from The Academy said wild things. They said like it wasn`t art. They said all of these things about it, but when that reaction happens to a performance like that, it kind of throws salt in the wound about how it was treated in the academy awards. HAYES: And you saw the actor there, David Oyelowo, like sobbing at the end of it, and it felt like there was a bunch of stuff in those tears. I mean not to like, try and read his mind. But he didn`t get nominated for what I thought was a tremendous performance. And then there`s also like, Oh this is too real, this moment is sticking out precisely because -- and then, there is also the fact that it was noticeable how diverse the presenters were, which -- you`re laughing, it`s like okay, I see you guys, I see what we`re trying to do here. And like, okay cool, but then also is this trying, is this just packaging? TRAISTER: And there was failures in the packaging, too. Like using Octavia Spencer as this prop in this ongoing gag that Neil Patrick Harris had which fell completely flat and which used Octavia Spencer in an absolutely -- it was just terrible. HAYES: Neil Patrick Harris all but handed her a broom. I mean the subtext of the skit was like could you be my helper, the way you would to like, a toddler. BAILER: But here`s what that entire Neil Patrick Harris element, when you put that joke, the opening joke that we discussed, up against that bit, it`s like, that is almost a weird metaphor for how Hollywood thinks, it thinks about racism. I.E. let`s acknowledge we`re not racist. I`m aware that there`s a thing but then I`m also going to do the sort of racist bit and not realize that I`m being sort of racist. BROWNE: Which was kind of the moment, I know there is a lot of back story about what happened with Sean Penn closing out the night, making a green card joke -- HAYES: Yeah, I want to talk about that. BROWNE: There is that kind of, like, I`m going to make a little funny racist jab but it`s fine because we`re all friends here. HAYES: Obviously, we`re Hollywood, there`s this kind of idea, and you saw it in of course that sort of infamous anonymous Hollywood reporter academy voter who said we`re not cretinous. Cretinous, rednecks? Yeah, the idea was like we can`t possibly be racist because we are Hollywood. TRAISTER: And there is a lack of, as you`ve said, there`s a lack of self understanding about how it comes off and that was also in the Patricia Arquette speech. HAYES: Yeah, I want to talk about the Sean Penn thing and the Patricia Arquette thing. Do we have the little bit of the Glory ending? Do we have that song? Can we show that and go out on that. (MUSIC) ANNOUNCER: If there has to be a debate about the reality of climate change, and there doesn`t, then there is only one mathematically fair way to do it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANNOUNCER: In the interest of mathematical balance I`m going to bring out two people who agree with you, climate skeptic, and, Bill Nye, I`m also going to bring out ninety six of the scientists. It`s a little unwieldy but this is the only way we could actually have a representative discussion. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: John Oliver would like TV news producers to please stop staging debates on the reality of global warming that make it seem like an equal fight, because, in reality, as demonstrated there, the vast, vast majority of climate scientists agree man made climate change is very real, caused by carbon emissions. and heating the earth. You may have seen a pie chart that demonstrates that very large consensus. You may have found yourself wondering who makes up the other 3%? Who are the people in that little sliver there? Who are the actual scientists publishing academic papers arguing that manmade climate change isn`t real? Well, I`ll will tell you. Climate change skeptics, if we`re being generous, or deniers, if we`re really being honest, are often not all they appear to be. Take for instance this guy. Doctor Willy Soon of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the Washington Post called him the high priest of climate change doubters. He has taken his climate change skepticism to Fox news, as well as to the state of Kansas, where he told lawmakers that climate is not changing in a dangerous way. He has been praised by the likes of the U.S. Senate`s most famous climate change denier, Oklahoma republican, James Inhofe. Well, the New York Times reported this weekend that "though often described as a Harvard astrophysicist, Doctor Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. Doctor Soon is apparently a part-time employee of the Smithsonian, which jointly runs the center for astrophysics along with Harvard, and, according to the Times, he has to bring in his own funding. Well the folks at Greenpeace had the bring idea of submitting freedom of information act request where Doctor Soon`s grant correspondence and you will be shocked, shocked to learn where he`s getting a great deal of money. Quting the New York Times again, "he has accepting more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade, all failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. Doctor Soon has in the past denied that funding from the fossil fuel industry affects his findings, but its all pretty hard to take him seriously standing as he is against 97% of the scientific community. But now, there are 1.2 million more reasons to doubt his work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PATRICIA ARQUETTE, ACTRESS: We have fought for everybody else`s equal rights. It`s our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Patricia Arquette in her acceptance speech for best actress in a supporting role for her role in Boyhood, making a passionate call for equal pay while also setting off a bit of controversy. Still with me, Jason Bailey, Rebecca Traister and Rembert Brown. All right, I -- well, what do we think? I`ll shut up. I, should I mansplain this you, Rebecca? Do you know want you know what you did right and what you think? Let me tell you, here`s the thing you`ve got to understand about equal pay... You go first. You go first, Rebecca. TRAISTER: All right, well, first of all I should say that as she was giving that speech, as it was in process -- or immediately after it ended. I was with Meryl Strep. I was -- I very profanely tweeted my appreciation for that speech. There were some hinky things about it as it was... HAYES: That one sentence. TRAISTER: No, there`s more. She said women who give birth, I was like -- what about women who don`t give birth? There was a weird reference to taxpayers, and then there was a sentence about we`ve all thought -- but I chalked a lot of it up to nervous, locutions, accepting an Academy Award, and I was so happy. You know, people talk about politics at the Oscars, there has not often been righteous, passionate feminism at the Oscars, right. And Hollywood is a profoundly sexist business, and she wasn`t just doing anodyne, you go girl, she was talking about wage equality. And I was like -- yeah, right. Now, I woke up this morning. I saw what she said afterwards, which made some of those hinky things about the speech, she expanded on them. And what she did was basically make the argument that women have stepped up for people of color, and gay and lesbian fights for equality, and that now has to come to into it. And this was an error in several ways. A, it`s time -- now, wait, there is a valid critique with deep historical roots about the order in which social progress has taking place. In fact -- and it goes back hundreds of years. And in back... HAYES: All the way back to the Hillary, Barack Obama primary. TRAISTER: All the way back to Hillary and Barack. HAYES: Which is obviously the source of all of this. TRAISTER: By the way, in addition to fights over the 14th and 15th amendment, second wave feminism was born in part out of the frustrations of women in the other social movements -- the anti-war movement, the student movement, the civil rights movement, who felt forced to take a seat behind other struggles and have their own movements for equality put second. So this -- there is a history of this. However, when you want to make reference to it -- and I`m not even sure that she really meant to, or should have, you don`t put people in groups like that. It`s not women, and people of color, and gay and lesbian. HAYES: The line that struck me when she said it -- and I also thought it was great, but the line about like we`ve been doing it for -- well, what do you really mean by that. And then the sort of explanation afterwards. The question to the, though -- so that here is the question, right? Like, however you feel about how that cashes out, it`s like what is the right reaction to that is sort of my feeling? Is it like a glass half full or a glass half empty, right? Are you like hey, awesome, let`s work on the kind of other stuff or is it like what`s your deal? BROWNE: My take on it is I think we are so used to now the world that happens where someone says something that isn`t spot on, and then we`re like well this is a learning moment and we can all have a dialogue and move forward... HAYES: That is a generous way of characterizing about what happens. (CROSSTALK) BROWNE: I think that is the reality of... HAYES: I`m going to tweet, this is a learning moment. BROWNE: But taking a phrase that gets said a lot on the Internet, a funny phase is when people just got never tweet. It`s one of those things where it`s like sometimes I need to just bring it back a little bit, maybe like do a little reading before I get out there and start making... HAYES: And like -- so you`re saying before we jump into the Patricia Arquette outrage cycle is part of your feeling? BROWNE: No, I`m saying... HAYES: Oh, you`re saying Patricia Arquette never tweet. (LAUGHTER) BROWNE: That`s more of what I`m saying. And I do like the fact that on our biggest stages we want people to make these statements, but I would rather them be made correctly than not be made at all. BAILEY: I feel like any time you can get someone in front of a worldwide audience that`s that vast, and they`re talking about the pay gap, it`s ultimately in that win. And it`s also important to note that this is also an industry where that gap is a big, huge thing where one of the few sort of I think positive things that came out of the Sony hack was that we`re hearing stories now about actresses who are using the information about how they`re not getting paid the same to get equal pay. TRAISTER: Except that if you are going to apply this critique to Hollywood specifically, the wage gap, you`re also not looking at an industry where even that argument about we`ve been there for people of color, because there is huge racism in Hollywood, so that doesn`t even... HAYES: And actually also a wage gap there. TRAISTER: And a huge wage gap exacerbated by being a person of color and a woman, right? so it doesn`t track, especially in Hollywood. HAYES: What were you going to say? BROWNE: Yeah, I think one thing that it does highlight is this idea of, you know, your heart is in the right place, but you haven`t thought about everyone. It`s like, oh, like I`m passionate, I`m focused, I`m excited to like make a stance on something, but you only thought about this group, and this group, and this group and you haven`t really gone around the full circle before you make that stance. HAYES: We don`t have time to play the Sean Penn joke where he basically announcing the best director who said who gave this son of sonofabitch a green card, the Mexican director Inarritu -- did I get that right? BROWNE: No. HAYES: OK. Adele Azim (ph), I believe, was the winner of that? BAILEY: Inarritu. HAYES: Inarritu, there you go. But I thought that joke -- just for the record, I thought the joke was funny. I thought the joke was very obviously a send up of anti-immigration sentiment insofar as he was saying he was parroting the voice of an anti- immigrant person, being like who gave this guy a green card in the moment where it was the most manifestly evident that this immigrant had brought this tremendous talent and value to the country. BAILEY: But here is the problem, there are few people on the Earth less humorous than Sean Penn. HAYES: That`s totally right. That`s why it doesn`t read. BAILEY: Leading up to the joke, he had the disposition and good cheer of a man waiting for his colonoscopy. So the problem with the sort of light-hearted jab at that buddy, the former collaborator, it`s just not going to go over because he is such an essentially humorless human being. HAYES: I actually could have done an entire hour on the Oscars, I now realize. Jason Bailey, Rebecca Traister and Rembert Browne from Grantland, thank you all. All right, up next Glenn Greenwald joins me live to talk about his own Oscar moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS: The subject of Citizenfour, Edward Snowden, could not be here tonight for some treason. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAURA POITRAS, DIRECTOR, CITIZENFOUR: The disclosures that Edward Snowden revealed don`t only expose the threat to our privacy but to our democracy itself. HARRIS: The subject of Citizenfour, Edward Snowden, could not be here tonight for some treason. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Oscar host Neil Patrick Harris`s treason joke right after Citizenfour won for best documentary fell flat for many people. The film, of course, centered on whistleblower Edward Snowden`s revelations about government surveillance. I`m joined now by Glenn Greenwald, the cofounding editor of The Intercept who collaborated with the team behind Citizenfour, and was the prime journalist dealing with and reporting on Edward Snowden. He was there at the Oscars last night standing on stage. So, you had this great account. This is a bit meta, but I think it actually is important. You had this great account of -- there is a Buzzfeed article today, Glenn Greenwald blasts Neil Patrick Harris` treason joke. And I want you to tell the back story behind that. GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: Yeah, I hadn`t heard the joke. I actually went off stage and people told me about it. And I almost tweeted something light-hearted about it, and decided it was too inconsequential even to tweet about. I mean, this is like a sitcom actor who had literally been parading around in his underwear moments before. I really didn`t think it was particularly significant. A couple of hours later at a post-Oscar event, a Buzzfeed reporter saw me and asked me a bunch of questions, one of which was, hey, by the way what did you think of Neil Patrick Harris`s joke. And I laughed about it. I said you`re going to get me in trouble, I`m trying not to say anything about it, but I actually since you asked, even though it was just a joke, I thought it was pretty irresponsible and stupid since Edward Snowden wasn`t even charged with treason, let alone convicted of it, and it`s a pretty serious thing to accuse somebody of that in front of a billion people. Buzzfeed took that one comment, blasted into the headlines to make it seem like I was sort of on the warpath. All day people are saying, no Glenn Greenwald is so humorless. He`s always outraged. And I just thought it was a really interesting anecdote about how sort of internet age media that motivates everybody to take out these single quotes that generate interest and outrage and debate really can distort thing in such a significant way. HAYES: I want to talk more about the significance of this award for Citizenfour, and sort of what it says, but more important than that, what was your tux situation last night? Did you go the rental? You buy? Was there some sort of custom situation? What were you wearing? GREENWALD: Yeah, that is, I think, the most pressing question which I`m thrilled that you`ve asked about. Actually, it was just an emergency -- American Airlines actually lost our luggage, which had our tuxedos in it. So we had to run to the store the night before and sort of do emergency tuxedo buying. So that was the story. HAYES: Was it a -- you weren`t one of these people who is lent some kind of garment that you then had to return. GREENWALD: We were actually lent some and didn`t like any of those, and so we went out and bought it. And for the record it was Ralph Lauren. HAYES: Ralph Lauren. Well, thank you. I`ve now gotten it. This -- I`m hoping this will also be a Buzzfeed article about who Glenn Greenwald. GREENWALD: It will be for sure, no doubt about that. HAYES: What did you think about the significance of the win? I mean, last year -- I remember there were sort of some Dirty Wars, Jeremy Scahill`s, really incredible film sort of about the global war on terror, was nominated. It did not win. I think 20 Feet from Stardom won, which was about backup singers, which was also great. What was your understanding of the significance of this? And what was that moment like when you get up on stage at the Oscars? GREENWALD: I mean, I think it is a testament and the tribute to the film making genius of Laura Poitras, to be honest. I thought it was more of a cinematic award than a political one. But at the same time, I mean, I do think it underscores the fact that people can think a lot of different things about surveillance, the extent to which we ought to be watched and monitored by our government, but I think we all should be able to agree that we shouldn`t have government doing the most significant things in the dark without us knowing and that the debate that this provoked was one that everybody can support, regardless of where you fall into it. I mean, as for being in the Oscars, it`s this disgusting ritual of extraordinary opulence and extravagance. I mean, it`s... HAYES: Oh, stop it, Glenn Greenwald. GREENWALD: No, it is. HAYES: You humorless scold. GREENWALD: But at the same time, you know, it was very surreal. You know, we began the reporting, kind of thinking that our source is going to prison. We were being threatened by the government. And so to be standing there in that setting, and to have that be one of the outcomes of what we did was definitely very bizarre. HAYES: Yeah, I want to reiterate what you said about the artistry of the film, which really is an incredible cinematic achievement, just visually as sort of movie story telling, whatever -- like detach it completely from the politics, even just a story about a person in truly extraordinary circumstances, being documented in real-time, it was, it is incredibly gripping film work. GREEWALD: Yeah, and I mean, we kind of appreciated from the very beginning the human drama of the situation: the fact that there was this 29-year-old kid, very ordinary in every way, who whatever else you think of him, undertook some extraordinary actions that have all kinds of provocative question about ethical duties as a citizen, what you do when you confront something that you think is an injustice, the risk that you`re willing to take as a human being. I think these are all fascinating questions that Laura`s film really brilliantly explores. HAYES: Glenn Greenwald, thank you for your time. If you had Ralph Lauren in the Glenn Greenwald tuxedo bingo, you win. That is All In for this Evening. The Rachel Maddow show starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022301cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 106 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 23, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 23, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: John Stanton, Spencer Ackerman SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7081 words HIGHLIGHT: Republicans in Congress failed to move a bill that was supposed to prevent the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Duke is getting nailed in North Carolina, where they have been illegally leaking millions of gallons of toxic coal ash goo every day in to the state`s waterways. And the reason they are getting nailed for it finally is Duke has been charged with a crime. CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: That is "ALL IN" for this evening. THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: The Glenn Greenwald tuxedo bingo is a game I so want to play. HAYES: I totally just asked Glenn Greenwald what he was wearing and I`m really happy about that. MADDOW: I`m just saying, you know, if we ever set up like pub quiz, if that`s ever you and me, you have now locked us into that game forever and we will give away Glenn`s tux. It`s going to be great. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it, man. And thanks to you at home for staying with us the next half hour. Happy Monday. And today, the news is nuts. For example, what would you get if you combined the values of GM, General Motors, and GE, General Electric, and McDonald`s, and Walmart? What do you get if you combine the values of those four gigantic companies? You would get one Apple. This is crazy. The second largest company in the country is Exxon in terms of its mobile. Apple, as of today, based on its stock price today, Apple right now is valued at more than double the value of ExxonMobil. Apple is GM, plus GE, plus McDonald`s, plus Walmart together. Just as a point of reference, if Apple were a country, Apple would have somewhere between the 19th and 20th highest GDPs in the world. So, Apple would be a little smaller than Saudi Arabia a little bigger than Switzerland. If you want to get to the valuation of Apple as a company right now, add together the entire size of the economy of Iceland, Brunei, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Jordan, Lebanon, Guatemala, New Zealand, Kuwait and Ireland. Add them up and you are not quite at the valuation of one American company. If Apple decided to give the world an allowance, every human being on the planet earth, each individual member of the human species would get 100 bucks from Apple. That is how big Apple computer is with what its stock price hit today. That`s the kind of news day that today is. It`s just nut -- it`s just weird. It seems like you are making it up. Today was also this kind of news day that brought us this from Idaho. I have to say, if you are a toppler watching this program, his, please ask your mom or your dad or whatever responsible adult is nearby if it is OK for you to see the next part, OK? Like I said it is from Idaho. So, brace yourself. This is Idaho State Representative Vito Barbieri. Mr. Barbieri represents an area called Dalton Gardens in Western Idaho. And today in a hearing about a bill that will propose new abortion regulations in his state, Representative Barbieri voted to impose those restrictions, voted that doctors should be prohibited from doing something they already do in Idaho because one of those doctors know let the legislatures decide instead, because the legislators know better than the doctors, particularly when it comes to lady parts. And the delicate matter of where exactly those parts are. Just watch this. This is from the Idaho legislature. They start to talk about colonoscopies and things just go downhill from there. I swear we did not edit this. This really happened today. Because this is what today is like in the news. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) STATE REP. VITO BARBIERI (R-ID): You mentioned the risk of colonoscopy. Can that be done by drugs? DR. JULIE MADSEN: Mr. Chairman, Representative Barbieri, it cannot be done by drugs. It can, however, be done remotely where you swallow a pill and the pill has a little camera and makes its way through the intestines and the images are uploaded to a doctor who`s often thousands of miles away who then interprets that. BARBIERI: Follow up, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: Representative Barbieri -- BARBIERI: Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is with the -- MADSEN: Mr. Chairman and Representative, it cannot be done in pregnancy simply because when you swallow a pill, it would not end up in the vagina. (LAUGHTER) BARBIERI: Fascinating. That certainly makes sense, doctor. (END AUDIO CLIP) MADDOW: Sometimes, there`s nothing to add. Sometimes the most straightforward headlines are all that you really need to tell a story like this. I should tell you this appeared on Representative Barbieri`s Wikipedia page shortly after this incident today. Quote, "On February 23rd, 2015, Representative Barbieri learned that if a woman swallows a pill, it will not end up in her vagina." (LAUGHTER) And then the relevant footnotes, which are accurate. According to "The Associated Press" today, the Idaho bill to add these new restrictions on doctors which Representative Barbieri supported, his bill pass today. Also Representative Barbieri himself is on the board of a crisis pregnancy center. Though, to be fair, when he went to the last anti-abortion crisis pregnancy board member meeting, they were talking about how the baby comes out of the lady`s tum tum. You could see where he could get confused. That guy`s bill passed today, even within shin bone connected to the knee bone problem. That was basically the character of the news today. We are not even getting to the freakishly giant rats the size of cats that are turning up in England and that apparently totally immune to all standard rat poisons. We`re not even getting to that today, which is also in today`s news because for all the things that are hard to believe in today`s news and today was a doozy -- for my money, the single hardest thing to believe in today`s news is something that happened in Washington, D.C. It happened just after 6:00 p.m. Eastern tonight a little while ago. It happened when Republicans in Congress failed to move a bill that was supposed to prevent the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security. This is going to happen. It is looking more likely than not the first major consequences of the Republicans taking over Congress is the Department of Homeland Security will shut down this week because House and Senate Republicans cannot agree on a way to keep it open. By now, we have lived through the sequester, which were arbitrary cuts, including cuts to the military, cuts specifically that were designed to be so bad and stupid that nobody would want them to take effect, but they took a effect any way. We lived through the government shutdown which happened when Republicans held the federal government hostage in order to try to get President Obama to decide he was against Obamacare after all. We have seen the Republican Party do all of that from their position as controlling half of Congress. So, maybe now they control the whole thing, this may not seem as surprising as say British super rats the size of cats or a grown male adult who thinks that babies come from ladies tummies or the stock market saying today that one company has an economy the size of, oh, I don`t know, Saudi Arabia? But in context, this is almost impossible to wrap your head around. The part of the government that grew to become the Department of Homeland Security was created by George W. Bush nine days after the September 9/11 terrorist attacks, in a serious and frankly moving address to a joint session of Congress, President Bush announced this centerpiece policy of his post-9/11 government. What would ultimately become the biggest transformation of the federal government since the post-World War II era. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, THEN-U.S. PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, for the last nine days the entire world has seen for itself the state of our union and it is strong. (APPLAUSE) Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So, tonight, I announce the creation of a cabinet-level position reporting directly to me, the Office of Homeland Security. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge was with tasked with running the Office of Homeland Security. When it came time to make that Office of Homeland Security actually a full cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, Republicans in the House and Senate were basically unanimous in their support for doing that. There were Democratic defections, especially in the House, Democrats weren`t all comfortable with creating this massive new agency with the frankly creepy name. But, you know, Republicans were fully, even chest-thumpingly on board. Homeland security was their thing, right? In the Senate, Republicans voted unanimously to create the Homeland Security Department. Of course they would, right? They are the law and order party, right? That`s historically been part of the heart and soul of the Republican Party, or at least how they want to be seen. Right now, that is getting more difficult to explain. The Homeland Security Department today encompasses 16 federal agencies, including Customs and Border Protection, and FEMA, and the Secret Service, and TSA, and Coast Guard, and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement and lots more. This afternoon, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson gave a press conference where he stood with the heads of those agencies and some employees from the Homeland Security Department, and he basically warned Congress that they are putting the country at risk by shutting down his department. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEH JOHNSON, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: That continuing resolution expires in just four and a half days. The clock is ticking. As I stand here, there`s nothing from Congress to fund us beyond that point. A shutdown of homeland security would have serious consequences and amount to a serious disruption in our ability to protect the homeland. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: On the day of weird news, on a day when a lot of strange things and a lot of hard to believe things happened in the news, the Republican failing to fund part of the government created by a Republican president with mostly Republican support that is supposed to keep the homeland secure that has that for its name. For my money, that is the weirdest thing I have seen in a long time in politics or without. But as of this vote tonight as of 6:00, it looks like this is happening. Joining us now is John Stanton, Washington bureau chief for "BuzzFeed News". John, great to see you. Thanks for your time tonight. JOHN STANTON, BUZZFEED NEWS: Good to be here. MADDOW: John, are you surprised Republicans are allowing this to happen? I guess the 6:00 vote tonight wasn`t necessarily thought of as -- thought of as something that was going to be the solution. I have to admit it is weird to me it has gotten this late. STANTON: I have to admit that`s kind of adorable actually. Given how much they have done to this point. No, it`s not surprising to me at all. What you have to understand is that Republicans, their desire to get in to a fight with Obama over these issues of what they say is executive overreach is really sort of the biggest over-arching issue for them right now. Particularly in the House of Representatives where the members don`t face the kind of electoral pressures that say Republicans in the Senate do or more importantly in a lot of ways 2016 Republicans will. You know, they see this as a winning issue for them. Their base guys are out. They`re telling them this is a good idea. So, they are willing to pick this fight. You know, the fact they have done it several times, gone to the brink on this one and a shutdown and all sorts of brinksmanship, this does not unfortunately really surprise me at all. MADDOW: Well, are they going -- I guess I feel your judgment of my naivete. I can feel it as your friend. I can see it. I recognize it in those eyebrows. But the thing that is -- I will make a case for my surprise, which is that this isn`t shutdown the evil federal government, shutdown the leviathan, the federal government doesn`t do anything good any way. This is like shut down the one part of the government that we will not say a bad word about. Shut down the one part of the government that has a creepy jingoistic name. shutdown the one part that was created by George W. Bush with all but unanimous Republican support that they have never had a word against. I mean, this is like the political equivalent of them banning apple pie. Isn`t there some homeland security specific push back even within their own party? STANTON: There is. I mean, you know, Senate Republicans certainly are looking at the House guys going, look, on the one hand we are saying with wing we need more money and border patrol people down there to handle immigration issues and we are the party of law and order and we`re tough on security and beating up on the president over his handling of foreign policy and, you know, you guys are doing this. This is going to make us look bad. But I think there is this sort of general belief and feeling that this is the moment in which they have to try to fight the president on this issue that has become sort of the issue du jour for a lot of the base, which is a notion of executive overreach on immigration, health care and other things. Once you start to bring in that anger towards Obama, it almost, it overrides everything else that is going on within the party and on the Hill. There is not much room for compromise on the House side. MADDOW: Do you think -- looking ahead at the next few days -- the funding expires on Friday. That will be the shutdown of the department. Do you think they will do something in terms of a short-term extension or something else? Do they want it to be over or where they want it to go as long as possible because they like these politics? STANTON: I think it depends who you talk to, I guess. I think leadership, certainly, the last thing they want is a short-term kind of a situation where they are constantly having to refight this. They want to talk about their economic policies, their education policies, energy stuff. They don`t want to talk about President Obama`s immigration stuff and they don`t want to have this constant brinksmanship that has become their hallmark over the last six years in the House. The Senate side particular, that is the last thing they want to do. But, you know, they`re not going to get a bill passed before Friday that funds the DHS through September, or the end of the fiscal year or calendar year. So, really, it`s either going to be a shutdown over a couple of weeks, probably the best-case scenario for them or this rolling short-term CRs which I think is what they want to avoid at this point. MADDOW: Wow. I know we saw this coming. I can`t believe this is the week and it is actually happening and I bask in your judgment of my naivete. John Stanton, Washington bureau chief for "BuzzFeed News" -- John, thanks a lot, man. STANTON: Anytime. MADDOW: All right. A lot more on the show tonight, including Democrats sifting through the rubble of last year`s elections. Some very good and bad news when it comes to energy and how much you are paying for it, and we`ve got a big story you are not going to see anywhere else on TV tonight. We`ve got a reporter who has blown open a story that has really, really, really upset one big-city police department and that story is ahead here tonight. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUBTITLE: Today in the TRMS production meeting -- MADDOW: The DNC autopsy seven pages. They could have done it double spaced and made it ten, you know what I mean? Come on. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: It turns out this is a crime. This time last year, look, Duke Energy dumped millions of gallons of toxic coal ash sludge into the Dan River in North Carolina. Coal ash is what`s left after you burn coal for electricity. And Duke Energy has decided to just dump that stuff into giant lagoons right alongside sensitive waterways. When one of the lagoons burst and emptied millions -- tens of millions of gallons of this in into the Dan River last year, it coated 70 miles of that river in this toxic goo full of mercury and arsenic and other toxic heavy metals. Now, that river, the Dan River and a few others as well, they don`t stop at the state line. They run both sides of the border, say, between North Carolina and South Carolina. In South Carolina, Duke Energy got sued over those giant toxic ash lagoons. Duke was forced to clean them up. But when the same folks tried to sue in North Carolina, north of the border, the state government in North Carolina stepped in and blocked those lawsuits from going forward. Now`s the part where we mention the Republican governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, for 29 years before he became governor, he was an executive at Duke Energy. So, in South Carolina, they were able to sue and force Duke Energy to clean up these disasters waiting to happen. In North Carolina, with a governor from that company they were not able to sue. Now, Duke is getting nailed for this any way for this disaster, and for the other places across the state in North Carolina where they have been illegally leaking millions of gallons of toxic coal ash goo every day in to the state`s waterways. The reason they are getting nailed for it finally is Duke has been charged with a crime. Nine criminal counts filed by three federal prosecutors against Duke Energy. "The A.P." reporting that Duke will settle with the government over these criminal charges for something around $100 million. If so, that would be the second largest amount any company has ever had to pay for violating the Clean Water Act. And, yes, Duke Energy is a $50 billion company. So, maybe $100 million doesn`t hurt them that much, but it`s something. It is $100 million and it would have been nothing had the Justice Department not stepped in. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: I just to tell you -- we have an amazing piece of reporting to bring you tonight that involves one big city U.S. police department, one national scandal involving the war on terror and one guy who served 23 years in prison for a thing he did not do. The dots connecting those various stories are incredible, and the reporter, who`s breaking the story, is going to join us here live in just a moment. The first time you will see this story on TV. We have been cooking this story and working on it a few days now. It is honestly pretty shocking stuff and it is straight ahead, next. Don`t go anywhere. MADDOW: There is a story that`s been breaking over the last few days that had the most unexpected geographic twist right in the middle of it. It starts in Mauritania. Mauritania is a very large country in West Africa and borders Senegal and Algeria, sort of that neighborhood. Its land area is 90 percent the Sahara Desert. Two months after 9/11, so, September, October, November, 2001, a man walked in to police headquarters in the capital city of Mauritania and he turned himself in for questioning. He had lived in Germany in the past. He had been questioned in conjunction with a bunch of terrorism investigations. And when the police called him after 9/11 and asked him to come in and be questioned again, he said OK. And he came in voluntarily. Now, initially, the U.S. and other intelligence agencies had suspicions that this guy maybe an al Qaeda operator at some level. They didn`t really know, maybe he`s a facilitator or recruiter. But, eventually, they took him to custody and got him to Guantanamo. They sent him to Jordan. He didn`t know where he was going to end up. Where he ended up was Guantanamo. And once he was at Guantanamo, they eventually decided that guy was not a low-level facilitator. They decided he was a huge deal, a huge priority. The Defense Intelligence Agency in 2003 designated him as a having special projects status. And so, they planned a special projects, special interrogation for him. They wrote up their plan, their interrogation plan of what they wanted to do to him. That written plan for what they wanted to do to him ended up in the torture report after the Senate released right up after the 2008 election. A "Wall Street Journal" reporter named Jess Bravin also got hold of it and wrote it up. He describes the interrogation plan as such, quote, "In January 2003, agency memorandum listed interrogation tools that included yelling, strip searches, shaving the head and beard, and 20-hour days. Water could be poured on his head to enforce control. He could be ridiculed, placed in mask, made to wear signs with Arabic labels like liar, coward, animal or dog. Dogs could be brought in to agitate him. The prisoner himself could be forced to act like a dog, collared, barking, performing tricks. He could be treated as a woman and forced to wear a burqa, or confronted with a female interrogator in close physical contact. The plan called for preventing him from praying or alternately forcing him to worship a stag idol. He could be kept in a completely white room to reduce outside stimuli and present an austere environment, or have light filtered through red plastic to produce a stressful environment. Interrogators could question him while using a strobe light to disorient him and add to a stress him or hooded while questioned, thus inducing feelings of futility." They wrote it up in a lot of detail what they wanted to do to him. The request for what they wanted to do to him, it went to General Jeffrey Miller, who was running Guantanamo at the time and he signed off on it. Then it went to the head of the Southern Command at the Pentagon, General James Hill, and he signed off it on it. And then it went to the top lawyer at the Pentagon, William J. Hanes, and he signed off on it. Then, it went to the Deputy Defense Secretary William Wolfowitz. You might remember him from last week, recently turned up on Jeb Bush`s list of foreign policy advisers for his presidential campaign. Paul Wolfowitz was asked to sign off on this plan for the guy he signed off on it, too. And then the plan kept going and upstairs to Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary at the time, and he personally -- Rumsfeld personally signed off on it of what they wanted to do to this one identified Mauritanian guy. As part of this out there plan for this guy, they wrote up -- they wrote up their plans, right, including some very specific stuff they wanted to do to him. They said they wanted to blindfold him and take him out on a boat and drive him around the island, drive him around Guantanamo in the boat making him think he was transported by sea to some other far away and worse prison. The prisoner later said, the man later said they kept a bag over his head the whole time they kept him on the boat. They stuffed him into some kind of straitjacket, and from his neck to ankles, they packed all of the space underneath his clothes, all the space between his bare skin and those clothes with ice cubes. And then once he was packed like that, with ice, with a bag over his head on the boat, they beat the hell out of him. At one point, they showed him a fake letter about how they had arrested his mother at home in Mauritania and they were interrogating her too the way they were interrogating him, and they were thinking of bringing her to Guantanamo, putting her as the only woman in the all-male prison. So, this elaborate plan they had gotten permission from the highest levels. But when it came time to do it, to actually carry it out, who they turn to do it is a Chicago cop. And that`s where the story takes this dramatic, and weird geographical turn, because this guy at Guantanamo, the prisoner at Guantanamo, his name was Mohamed Ould Slahi. On his own terms his case is one of the strangest, most well- documented cases at Guantanamo. He`s still there today, right now. He`s the only person to have published a diary of his time at Guantanamo while he is still in prison there. At one point he was ordered released bay federal judge in 2010. The judge who said the government had never proven any of its claims against him and he must be released. He was not released. Prosecutors at the military tribunals at Guantanamo decided not to bring any charges against this guy, even though he confessed to everything under the sun because he recanted all those confessions and told his interrogators he would say anything they wanted to hear to stop them torturing him. Quote, "I don`t care as long as you are pleased. If you want to buy I am selling." So, there`s this very high-profile case at Guantanamo where his torture is really exceedingly well-documented. In part because it`s written up and signed off all the way to the top. We know everything they asked to do to this guy. We saw the plan they wrote up for him. Senate investigators documented what they actually did to him. The guy himself wrote up what they did to him. Nobody, including the military believes his confessions because they tortured those confessions out of him and now, apparently the plan is to never prosecute or release him specifically because of the way they tortured him and how much we know about that torture. That was all done while he had special projects status at Guantanamo. And the guy who headed him up as a special project, the man who led that special project interrogation, the man who led that special project interrogation that led to Mohamed Ould Slahi confessing to anything and everything, just make it stop, the guy who ran that interrogation is a Chicago police detective, was, at least at the time. Detective Richard Zuley of the Chicago PD. He was a navy reservist when he was sent to Guantanamo and he headed up what has become the most notorious post-9/11 interrogation not conducted by the CIA. After his stint running interrogations at Guantanamo, he ultimately went back to the Chicago PD. He was there until 2007 when he left the police department for another job. Now there`s the question of his interrogations back home in Chicago. His cases back home in the Chicago PD. Like the case of Lathierial Boyd was arrested in 1990 after two men were shot outside a Chicago nightclub. Lathierial Boyd asked to be put in to a lineup after he was arrest. He said he didn`t do it. Nine eyewitnesses looked at him in the lineup and none of the nine eyewitnesses picked him. One of those eyewitnesses told the detectives that he was not the guy, that this guy definitely didn`t do it. But somehow, that information never made it in to the police reports. And Lathierial Boyd was convicted and served 23 years in prison, 23 years before the state looked at his case again and dismissed the charges and set him free after 23 years. That was Richard Zuley`s case. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LATHIERIAL BOYD: I was mounted to the wall and floor. I remained in that room two lineups and I remember I asked after that second lineup, I asked Zuley if anyone had picked me out of the lineup. And he said no. And I said, see, I told you. You got the wrong guy. I haven`t done anything. He smiled at me. And said, we`re charging you any way. It still doesn`t seem real, that I was there and went through all of that. Or that I`m here. It`s -- I`m still trying to -- (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: For weeks now, "The Guardian" newspaper and specifically a great reporter I have known forever named Spencer Ackerman has been digging in to other cases that Richard Zuley worked on now that Lathierial Boyd has been freed. An attorney who worked with him and claims to have more exonerations than any other private lawyer in the United States, she said that she is working with on three other Richard Zuley cases from Chicago. Three other convictions that involved that detective who went from Chicago to Guantanamo and back again, and these hard potentially disturbing questions of how much overlap there was in his work between those two places. Joining us now is Spencer Ackerman. That reporter from "The Guardian" who`s been doing so much digging. I should also say that the Chicago police department has given a statement in response to Spencer`s reporting and our questions to them about it. We have posted the whole thing at Maddowblog.com. I`ll tell you, though, the kernel of it is this, they basically say the allegations and in the guardian`s reporting, quote, "are not supported by the facts." They said they don`t want one individual`s actions from decades ago to obscure the everyday good hard work of the good work of the Chicago PD. Again, I`ll tell you, the full statement is posted online. Spencer Ackerman, thanks for being here. It`s nice to see you. SPENCER ACKERMAN, THE GUARDIAN: Thanks for having me, Rachel. MADDOW: So, I first want to ask about the statement from the Chicago PD. I know they wouldn`t give you a statement for "The Guardian". ACKERMAN: It has ban week now that we have sent them detailed questions about Richard Zuley, about Chicago policing and related aspects of the story and have heard absolutely nothing. MADDOW: We have tried to get a statement from Detective Zuley or from his lawyers. We have not received any response from them. Did you ever get in touch with Detective Zuley or for anybody representing him? ACKERMAN: Repeated efforts went completely nowhere, through spokeswoman for his current job he declined to comment. We pursued further to try to give him every possible opportunity to respond to this story. Absolutely nothing. MADDOW: So, Spencer, the troubling and obvious implication here is there is continuity between what ended up being well-documented techniques at Guantanamo, an interrogation team led by this Chicago detective and potentially interrogations and confessions obtained back home in Chicago. What can you say about the continuity in terms of techniques and what we know how prisoners say they were treated? ACKERMAN: So, these techniques in Chicago a history with a really disturbing and dark legacy of police torture, specifically against African- Americans appear to act like something of a harbinger for what would happen at Guantanamo Bay against Muslim detainees. For instance, Richard Zuley back in Chicago would coerce confessions by the case of a woman named Anita Johnson (ph) who still in prison telling her that she wouldn`t see her family again if she wouldn`t sign a confession. That sounds rather reminiscent of Richard Zuley telling Mohamed Ould Slahi that if he didn`t become either a confessant or a witness against other Guantanamo detainees and against al Qaeda, people he didn`t actually know, his mother would be taken to Guantanamo or his family threatened. That`s a rather unsubtle rape threat, by the way, by sending his mother to the all male environment at Guantanamo Bay. Lathierial Boyd had disconfirming evidence, things like a piece of -- link things like the lineup you mentioned, the fact that other witnesses didn`t see him, the car he drove was not the car seen at the crime and so forth. Ignored by Zuley and at trial, similarly, Zuley ignores a host of disconfirming evidence about Mohamed Ould Slahi and brings together some false information against Slahi. In the case of a guy who`s still in jail in Illinois named Lee Harris, Zuley used that guy as an informant. And slowly but surely over the course of a summer to solve a gruesome 1989 murder convinces Harris to just sort of shade up his story. So it looks more like he was an eyewitness. That sounds reminiscent of trying to get Slahi to confess to things he couldn`t have been present at. MADDOW: Do you think the effort to see if other people were wrongly convicted, who have connections to the Chicago reporter -- the Chicago detective, do you think that effort is likely to turn up things -- something about the Chicago police department that is broader than just him, or is this really specific to his techniques? Are you saying the thing you are saying he did as a detective were his own innovations or was this common practice? ACKERMAN: From what I have heard about Chicago policing, this is a systemic problem, particularly the reliance on confessions, instead of actual physical evidence connecting people to the crime. I would think that in Zuley`s case, really a rather thorough look through his old cases it seems to be in the germinating phases of happening, might in fact find what the state`s attorney in Cook County found in Lathierial Boyd`s case, that people have been wrongly convicted. How far does it go beyond Zuley? That is really an enormously large question. But we have seen over the past -- I mean, look at the early 2,000s when the governor of Illinois threw out the death penalty cases because of how tainted the investigations were. It seems like there is something rotten about criminal justice in Chicago. MADDOW: Spencer Ackerman, reporter if for "The Guardian" connecting the dots I never expected to be connected. Spencer, thanks for helping us your reporting. Appreciate you being here. ACKERMAN: Thanks for having me, Rachel. MADDOW: All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us. MADDOW: On Wednesday morning of last week, in the suburb of L.A. called Torrance, California, there was an explosion that ripped through a gasoline processing unit at an ExxonMobil refinery. That fire and explosion injured four refinery workers, it forced about a dozen schools in the area to go in to shelter in place mode for hours. Investigators are still trying to determine what caused the pressure buildup that led to that explosion. Look at the pictures, though. Look at the damage that it caused. It`s sort of remarkable it wasn`t far worse in terms of injuries, given how big the blast must have been. You can see from these images how this square-like metal structure, it housed an electrostatic precipitator. You can see that that unit was shredded in the explosion. Metal is all twisted and snarled. Residents said the blast felt like an earthquake. So, that explosion on Wednesday, that was a scary thing. It also incidentally halted the production of gasoline at that ExxonMobil refinery. When it comes to our gasoline dependence as a country, when it comes to our gasoline-dependent economy, refineries are a bit of a bottleneck. And in addition to that one blowing up last Wednesday and therefore shutting down in Torrance, California, in addition to that one being offline for that reason, there are a bunch of other refineries across the U.S. right now where the workers are out on strike. Oil refinery employees are now out on strike at 12 different plants in Ohio, California, Texas, Louisiana, the strike spread this weekend to the single largest refinery in the country, in Port Arthur, Texas. By "Reuters" calculations, this means that one-fifth of the nation`s production capacity in terms of refineries is on strike right now. One fifth of our capacity is down because of these strikes, now and indefinitely. These are the steelworkers who are out on strike. One of the major issues they are striking over is safety for the workers at these plants. Pay and benefits, as well but worker safety. Talks are expected to pick up later this week. This is now the largest U.S. oil refinery strike in more than three decades. I know we have all been enjoying the recent stretch of low gas prices in the country that. Is in part due to the raw cost of oil going down because there`s a lot of supply right now, but another part of that equation is the refining capacity we have as a country. That is where one of our bottlenecks traditionally is. And right now one fifth of our refining capacity is affected by this strike. This is a big and still-developing deal. Watch this space. MADDOW: After the 2012 election, the election where Democrats kept control of the White House, kept control of the Senate, managed to pick up a few House seats even actual after the 2012 election where they not only held the White House, they did great on every other level, 2012 election which was great for the Democratic. It was a disaster for the Republican Party. After that 2012 election, Republicans decided to perform an autopsy on themselves to figure out what went wrong. Their 100-page report was sort of refreshing in its honesty. Quote, "Public perception at the party is record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Republican Party represents. Many minorities wrongly think we do not like them or want them in the country." Republican Party autopsy after 2012, it was mostly a diagnosis of the party`s messaging problems, but did include one specific policy recommendation. It said this, quote, "We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform." How`s that going? Republicans in Congress have not only not done that, they are now on the verge, this week, of shutting down the Homeland Security Department because they are opposed to what the president has done in terms of immigration reform. So, yes, Republicans mostly ignored their post-2012 autopsy. But now, it`s Democrats term, because, yes, Republicans got spanked in 2012, but the election before and the election after that, 2010 and 2014, just could not have been worse for Democrats. And so, now, after this 2014 second consecutive midterm shellacking the Democratic Party has produced its own autopsy, which starts with a little devastating truth telling of their own. Here`s how the Democratic autopsy starts. Quote, "We have suffered devastating losses at all levels of government since 2008 including 69 seats in the House, 13 seats in the Senate, 910 state legislative seats, 30 state legislative chambers, 11 governorships." The first step toward fixing a problem is admitting that you have a problem, I guess. But this is a big problem. Democratic Party describing those electoral defeats as devastating. Their solution is this -- and if you take off the back cover which says nothing and the front cover which says nothing, it is a grand total of seven pages. So, nine pages if you count the covers, but this is it. This is their autopsy. Just by way of comparison, the Republican autopsy was 100 pages, but eh, you know, much of the new Democratic report is sort of filled with nonsense platitudes that make no sense the closer you look at them. Quote, "In order to consistently win on every level, we have to reconnect with the reason we want to win and that reason is the people." Chicken soup. So much of the report is that sort of like platitude-ness nonsense. Unlike the Republican autopsy which did recommend that policy change on immigration, this one does not recommend any specific policy changes for Democrats, and at one level, maybe that makes sense them polls leading up to the 2014 elections showed President Obama`s policies were popular, just that Democrats didn`t do a good job attaching themselves to those popular policies. So, there`s no grand policy pronouncement in this from the Democrats. There is, though, one interesting thing. Last week on the show we spoke to a former Democratic congressman named Mark Schauer about a project that he`s heading up called Advantage 2020, the Democratic Party initiative to retake as many state legislatures as possible by the end of the 2020 election cycle so Democrats will be in a position to participate in redrawing all the electoral districts after that year`s big national census. Republicans had a huge year in 2010, their wins at the state level in 2010 allowed them to redraw the electoral districts to their advantage because of that year`s census. Democrats are now trying to get theirs back with this 2020 plan. It was actually possible because of what Republicans did for a state like Michigan to give over half of the votes to Democrats, yet send almost as twice as many Republican members of the House to Washington. So, that Advantage 2020 thing is about undoing what the Republicans did in 2010. It`s about Democrats trying to win state legislatures by the year 2020 to essentially correct what the Republicans did five years ago. And the Democratic Party`s autopsy report, which again is only seven pages long, plus the controversy it identifies this strategy as an imperative. They call it a three-cycle redistricting plan, to allow Democrats to control enough state legislatures by 2020 so that they are drawing the maps, not the Republicans. Democrats say they are coming out with a full-action play in May to build on these seven pages. We will keep an eye out on how they flush out that very, very important single idea. But this is the sort of long-term planning that Republicans have turned into a science. Democrats may be wising up it to now, getting into the game themselves. It`s fascinating to see them try. It`s going to take more than seven pages and two nice covers to get there, though. MADDOW: A whole new era in American politics starts tomorrow, maybe, probably, maybe at least. It`s been almost two weeks since the new Republican-led Congress passed their legislation that would force the authorization of the Keystone pipeline. Right now, that is the job of the administration. The bill that Congress passed would make not the administration`s job anymore. It would make it their own job and they would force the authorization of that thing. President Obama doesn`t want that to happen. He said he would veto that bill. If he does so, it would be the first meaningful legislation he has vetoed ever. He has only vetoed two things in his presidency. They were both small technical things of no political importance. But, now, apparently he`s going to get to do it for real on a big one and soon. And the timing on this is weird. Congress passed that bill, as I said, almost two weeks ago. But then after passing the bill, which President Obama vowed to veto, Congress went on vacation for a week without ever actually sending the bill to the White House. So, the president could veto it. They are apparently going to send the bill to the White House tomorrow, which means that the president`s promised veto may happen tomorrow. I guess the Republicans all wanted to be there in town for veto day. This is a big deal. Both the Democrats and Republicans think that President Obama vetoing this thing is going to be great for them. President Obama has never vetoed any meaningful legislation in the six years he`s been in office, but now that Congress is in control of the Republicans and they are trying to send them bills they know he will not sign, we are now unto a new era in American politics. Welcome to the veto era. Fine weather we are having. It`s all very exciting. That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL". Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022301cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 107 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 23, 2015 Monday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 23, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, David Axelrod, Ezra Klein GUESTS: Stephanie Miller, Michael Tomasky, Rebecca Keegan, Justin Chang, JD Heyman SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7603 words HIGHLIGHT: With terrorist threats being reported against the Mall of America in Minnesota, the Senate today failed once again to pass a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, just four days before the department could shut down because of a lack of funding. Karl Rove is attacking Hillary Clinton and he is using Elizabeth Warren to do it. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Rachel, I`ve never seen you so excited about a four-letter word. Are you going to have a veto party? RACHEL MADDOW, "TRMS" HOST: You know, it`s not that bad an idea. It`s very exciting. We haven`t had any. O`DONNELL: And it`s a real constitutional power. Let`s see it work. MADDOW: Yay, civics. Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: First up tonight, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. They are Washington`s current masters of painting themselves into a corner and they have done it once again. And later in the rewrite, the four-letter word that has more possible means than any other. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: We need a fully-funded Department of Homeland Security. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Unless Congress acts, Border Patrol, port inspectors, TSA agents -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Coast Guard, FEMA workers, and secret service agents. OBAMA: -- will show up to work without getting paid. JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Funding for homeland security shouldn`t be controversial. JOHNSON: It`s bizarre and absurd that we`re even having this discussion in these challenging times. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Inside the Mall of America this afternoon, heightened security. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Shopping centers on alert after a terror propaganda video targeting Minnesota`s giant Mall of America. EARNEST: Congress should do their job. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With the clock ticking, late today, another Senate debate. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The motion is not agreed to. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But no resolution. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: It just doesn`t make any sense. OBAMA: Let`s try to focus on some of the things we have in common. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Still no word on the British schoolgirls believed to be on their way to Syria. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Turkish police are trying to find them and their families are begging them to come home before it`s too late. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At least 11 students at Wesleyan University in Connecticut were hospitalized Sunday after apparently overdosing on a drug known as Molly. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It feels like that can never happen to anyone. But when it does, on that grand of a scale, it`s scarier. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 2015 will be the year when social issues were arguably the star of the evening. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I spoke about regarding incarceration is real. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think we need federal laws that are comprehensive. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was my 45 seconds in my life to get on television and say something. So I thought I might as well use it to say something meaningful. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: With terrorist threats being reported against the Mall of America in Minnesota, the Senate today failed once again to pass a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, just four days before the department could shut down because of a lack of funding. No Democrats voted in favor of moving forward on the House version of the bill. And they were joined by Nevada Republican Dean Heller. Immediately after the vote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered a stand-alone bill that would block any funding for President Obama`s executive action on immigration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MCCONNELL: The new bill I described offers another option we can turn to. It`s another way to get the Senate unstuck from a Democratic filibuster and move the debate forward. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Today, Senator Lindsey Graham warned about the damage a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security could do to Republicans who are now of course in the majority in both chambers. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: For God`s sakes, don`t shut down the premier homeland security defense line called the Department of Homeland Security. If we do, as Republicans, we`ll get blamed. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And John McCain argued that Republicans would be better going through the courts. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We now have an exit sign. And that is a federal court decision saying that the president`s actions unilaterally are unconstitutional. And I think we`ve got a great argument to the United States Supreme Court where it will go. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now is David Axelrod, MSNBC senior political analyst, former Obama senior adviser, and the author of the new book, "Believer". Also joining us is Michael Tomasky, a columnist for "The Daily Beast". We`re joined also by Ezra Klein, editor-in-chief of Vox.com. And here with me in Los Angeles, Stephanie Miller, a syndicated radio talk show host. David Axelrod, we`re seeing something that feels familiar, but this is a new take on shutdown, because it`s only headed towards a shutdown of one department, homeland security, because the Republicans are trying to pass a bill that, in effect, removes the president`s -- neuters the president`s executive orders on immigration in order to fund all of the department. And the Democrats aren`t going to let that happen. How is this going to play out? DAVID AXELROD, MSNBC SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, these are the dogs that caught the car, Boehner and McConnell. They wanted to run the joint. And they`re having to face the reality of what running it means. And they have the same problem they had been having right along, which is they made this bargain with the right wing of their own party, but they can`t control them. And I think the way it`s probably going to work out is they may try and pass some sort of short-term extension and kick the can down the field on the theory that maybe the courts will help. I don`t think the courts will. They did a little forum shopping and found a right wing judge to temporarily throw a wrench in the works, but I don`t think that`s going to last. But I think that may be their way out for now. But I don`t think it`s necessarily going to go away. And this is the first of many problems they`re going to have with this group, the tail that`s wagging the dog here. O`DONNELL: Ezra Klein, if the Republicans don`t figure this out, and they do end up, in effect, putting the Department of Homeland Security in a situation of running out of money, what happens in that department? EZRA KLEIN, VOX.COM: So, DHS is weird in this way. They`re basically -- unlike a normal federal agency. Actually 85 percent of its workers, roughly, would be able to stay on the job for two reasons. One is that a lot of the Department of Homeland Security is funded not by congressional appropriations but by fees. And what`s particularly ironic about it is particularly the part that is funded by fees is the part that does immigration enforcement. So, the particular part of the Department of Homeland Security that the Republicans are angry at would probably be just fine in the event of a shutdown. But the other side is that the way shutdown is usually done as an exemption for workers who are set to protect public safety. And a lot of the Department of Homeland Security workers are classified as essential under that rubric. So, for those reasons, most workers would be able to stay on the job. Now, you would have slow downs in some areas, including some liberties, training and enforcement, bunch of others, but it wouldn`t be like the Coast Guard has to stop working overnight. You`d have a fair amount of people coming to work. And what, again, is particular ironic is the immigration functions would primarily keep going on as normal. O`DONNELL: You know, there`s a phrase that always comes to mind when I watch these situations, it`s something that a very powerful legislator in the House once said to me who you would know, David Axelrod, in a situation. He said, I`m just trying to get this dead cat off my doorstep. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Mike Tomasky, is there anyone in the Republican leadership who knows how to get a dead cat off the doorstep? MICHAEL TOMASKY, THE DAILY BEAST: Mitch McConnell does. You know, he knows a lot of things legislatively and in parliamentary terms. The question is whether he wants to and whether he can. His problem is the House Republicans and the more right wing faction within the caucus because they don`t really care, because they`re probably -- to be perfectly honest -- not going to pay any electoral price if this happens, if there is a shutdown. The Republican Party as a whole, will take a hit, will take the blame. Polls will show, if there is a shutdown of DHS, next week, polls will show that the Republican Party is much more to blame than the Democratic Party. But there`s no repercussion for any of these guys at the polls, because they are all in safe districts. So, so much of what we see going on here, Lawrence, in this case and many others, many others, is a function of the way the districts have been drawn and the fact that these people, almost all represent safe districts and they don`t have to worry about a general election challenge. They only have to worry about a primary election challenge. So, they have to do the most right wing thing they can do. O`DONNELL: And, Stephanie, we have all of this going on when we have the most public threat to the homeland, this reported threat to the Mall of America in Minnesota. STEPHANIE MILLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes. O`DONNELL: And Republicans have been telling us for a long time, you know, Islamic State is on the march, and they`re a threat to the homeland, and we don`t want to fund Homeland Security. MILLER: Yes, and I`m going to Minneapolis Friday, so this is very key for me, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: We`ve got to get this fixed by then. MILLER: It`s all about me. We`ve got to get this fixed. No, but it is ridiculous. And, you know, as your other guests allude to, Lawrence, the public once again is overwhelmingly on the president`s side. They are for this immigration action. They are not for shutting down the Department of Homeland Security. You know, once again, this is going to blow up in the Republicans` face. And we are at a time of unprecedented threats, obviously, and it just, it`s hilarious. As David said, they are the dog catching the car. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what the house Republican chairman of the homeland security, who`s the chair of homeland security, what he had to say about this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX), CHAIRMAN, HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: To the Senate, to what they determine, what they send back to the House, and we will probably see something come back from the Senate this weekend. And we have to make some tough choices. But, Kate, I fully believe that we shouldn`t be playing politics with national security agency like Homeland Security, particularly given the high threat environment that we`re in right now. And it would be irresponsible for lawmakers and policymakers to shut down this national security agency at this very grave time. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: David Axelrod, it sounds to me like he is expecting eventually, Mitch McConnell to get a bill through the Senate that the president actually will be able to sign that doesn`t do any kind of attack on the executive orders. AXELROD: I think that that`s right. And, again, it may just be a short-term extension, but one point on what Michael Tomasky was saying -- it`s not just that they have to run in districts where they have to worry about is a primary. The rewards are misaligned. They actually, in their districts and with their base, that right wing base, there`s actual benefit to doing what the rest of the country doesn`t want them to do, what is clearly irresponsible. And that`s what`s dangerous here. And it, ultimately, the leaders are going to have to figure out where they`re going to draw the line and say, you know what, guys -- because they can stand up to their base members if they`re willing to work with the other side. And that`s what they`ve not been willing to do. O`DONNELL: Mike Tomasky, who`s listening to John McCain and Lindsey Graham in the Senate on this? TOMASKY: I don`t know. That`s a really good question. You know, Lawrence, one interesting thing that has happened to the Senate since last fall`s election is the Republican caucus in the Senate has gotten much more conservative. Now, we haven`t really seen that in action yet, but the Republicans who won, the nine Republicans who won, many of them, six, seven, even maybe eight of them, depending on how you count and how you categorize these things are basically Tea Party Republicans. So, the Republican caucus in the United States Senate has moved well to the right. So, I`ve been wondering ever since the last election night how that is going to play out, and this may be a really good test case to see just how much farther to the right this new Senate is. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to a bit more of what John McCain had to say about it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MCCAIN: I remember the last time we shut down the whole government, this would obviously be Homeland Security. The last time we shut down the whole government, we turned away 600,000 visitors to our national parks here in Arizona. I don`t want to see that movie again. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Stephanie, he`s going to have to see some kind of movie again on this one. The rest of the Republicans don`t seem to remember all that. MILLER: It always seems like weekend at John`s to me. Slap a pair of sunglasses on him. I mean, you know, he was echoing Rudy Giuliani`s comments this weekend, wasn`t he, I`m ashamed of my country, I`m ashamed of my president. You know how low does the bar go where we just don`t care, David, about shutting down the Department of Homeland Security when we`re in the middle of these kind of threats? O`DONNELL: All right. We`re going to take a quick break here. Coming up in the rewrite, the four-letter word that has more meanings than any other -- love, Giuliani style. And next, Karl Rove uses Elizabeth Warren`s words to attack Hillary Clinton. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. (END VIDEO CLIP) (NETANYAHU POLITICAL AD) O`DONNELL: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now using his upcoming speech to the U.S. Congress in political ads in Israel. The ad compares Netanyahu to Israel`s prime minister, David Ben Gurion, who had his own tensions with the U.S. government. Today, two Democratic senators invited Benjamin Netanyahu to a close-door meeting with Democratic senators during his visit to Washington. Senators Richard Durbin and Dianne Feinstein said they issued the invitation, quote, "to maintain Israel`s dialogue with both political parties in Congress". Up next, Karl Rove is actually attacking Hillary Clinton and he is using Elizabeth Warren to do it. O`DONNELL: Karl Rove has found a new way to do a Clinton attack ad. His super PAC, American Crossroads, released this online today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor. The power of well-funded special interests tilts our democracy away from the people and toward the powerful. Action is required to defend our great democracy against those who would see it perverted into one more rigged game where the rich and the powerful always win. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me once again, David Axelrod, Mike Tomasky, Ezra Klein, and Stephanie Miller. Stephanie, there`s that very familiar voice, Elizabeth Warren. And this looks like it`s a tough situation for Hillary Clinton. MILLER: Girl fight! Girl fight! Karl Rove has tried this before. First of all, Elizabeth Warren is not running. She`s one of the many Senate women who have signed a letter urging Hillary Clinton to run. They have just met, as you know, last week in Washington. I`m sure she will wholeheartedly endorse Hillary Clinton. It`s just another Karl Rove chick fight. O`DONNELL: David Axelrod, we asked Senator Warren for a comment on this today, and we got no comment. We kind of expected something along the lines of outrage about having used her voice in this ad. But she hasn`t said anything so far. AXELROD: Yes, that`s surprising to me. I would think she would speak out. The last place I`d think she`d want to be is narrating a Karl Rove Crossroads ad. But I don`t think -- I think this is more mischief making on Rove`s part. I can`t imagine that they`re actually going to run this spot and I think he wants to get some chatter going, you know, probably get some chatter going. But she should certainly want to separate herself out from this ad, which is, in fact, malicious mischief making on the part of folks she doesn`t want to be associated with. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to Robert Gibbs` reaction yesterday on "Meet the Press". (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT GIBBS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think there`s no doubt that the appearances are awkward at best. And they`re going to have to do something in the very short term to deal with this in a way that puts it off the table. Look, Chuck, I think there are a lot of people who have watched the slow roll of the Hillary Clinton campaign, really dating back to last year with a book tour that some wondered why she was doing, speeches that some wondered why she was doing. And, you know, I think, I think from a Democratic perspective, things will get better when there is a formal campaign, but there is a -- you know, there has been a slow roll of concerning headlines for a long time. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Ezra Klein, there`s one political operative who thinks there`s something to be concerned about here. KLEIN: I think he`s right. First, I think this ad is very funny. I think it`s just an online ad. I think Karl Rove is being very cheeky and I think that his PAC has not had an incredible record and he would like to remind possible donors that it`s still around and he`s doing the fairly good job by releasing this ad, it`s way too early for it to actually matter or do any damage to Hillary Clinton. It`s just really about publicizing his PAC. But that said, the attack that is in it, not the part where Warren is voicing it, but the actual attack about the Clinton Global Foundation`s finances I think is a real one. I think that the finances of the Clintons are complicated, have been complicated for a long time. There`s both the money Bill Clinton has raised from all kinds of donors, ranging from folks in foreign government to large corporate donors, and then both his and Hillary Clinton`s speaking fees. And I think when you look at what is likely to be dredged up, when you look at the things that are likely to provide new scandals or tough headlines for them, their policy positions are so well-known and personas so well-known, I think it`s the changes in their finances over the last eight or so or more years that are going to provide a lot of grist for their opponents in the coming election. O`DONNELL: Mike Tomasky, do the Clintons have to take action with the fund for example and announce a new set of contribution guidelines that will feel more appropriate for a potential president? TOMASKY: It depends on how this plays out. They may. I take Ezra`s points. You know, I think that it`s going to be a running story, the finances of the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, to me, right now, it`s a second tier issue. And I think if there`s a huge scandal somehow, then it become as first tier issue, and then it`s something that they really have to deal with. But, yes, campaigns are about the economy. Campaigns are about the future of the country. They`re not really about things like the Clinton Foundation at the end of the day. And besides that, Bill Clinton can come out and say, in response to Karl Rove, yes, OK, I take this money, but look at what I do with this money. Look at the number of lives saves, look at the water projects financed and look all the good work that`s been done. Would you rather the Saudis spend this money funding Salafism around the Middle East, you know? At least they`re doing this, the portion to it they give to me. MILLER: Yes, it`s not a hedge fund. They help poor people. They get AIDS medicine for people. I mean, the Clinton Initiative is not some sort of shady operation. I just think that`s a mainstream media -- O`DONNELL: I don`t think anybody`s found anything questionable in how they use the money. That side of the story is the good side of the story. Let`s look at something that the Bush campaign, we can call it that now on this show anyway, a video that the Bush campaign released today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Radical Islam has increased four-folds in five years. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The doubling of the enemy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ISIS is much more organized than al Qaeda. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ISIS fighters are advancing. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Brand new threats from Iran aimed squarely at the United States. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The White House appears to be turning its back on Israel. LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: The Russia, the danger we`re facing now is the renewal of the Cold War. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s no real strategy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re facing a growing, expanding threat. The strategy that we`ve had is not working. How do we move forward? JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Everywhere you look, you sight world slipping out of control. Under this administration, we are inconsistent and indecisive. We have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. We definitely no longer inspire fear in our enemies. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: David Axelrod, your reaction to that one? AXELROD: Well, that speech kind of got panned last week. But it looks better when you edit it down to an advertisement, I guess. (LAUGHTER) AXELROD: I think that the question is, what exactly are you proposing? Everyone knows the world`s complex and we have challenges, but what are you proposing? The speech last week was primarily to say "I`m not my brother". So, OK, what is your answer to these challenges? And I think that`s where it`s going to get very dicey for Bush or all these Republicans who are quick to say we should be doing something but not quick to be saying what it is we should be doing. MILLER: We should restore a place in the world under George W. Bush? Really? And he`s his own man with 19 of 21 Bush administration advisers? What`s America rising? Some sort of Cialis for Republicans kind of PAC? What does that mean? O`DONNELL: David, go ahead. AXELROD: No, I quite agree with that. The fact that Paul Wolfowitz is on his board of advisers can`t make any American feel really comfortable about where this is going, because that is a group basically that sees all of these problems as a nail and the American military as a hammer, and we`ve seen where that story leads us. O`DONNELL: We`re going to have to take a break -- KLEIN: I think, when you look at that -- O`DONNELL: Go ahead. KLEIN: I think when you look at that ad you see Bush`s problem. It is one after the other clip of things that George W. Bush is partially responsible for. O`DONNELL: Exactly. KLEIN: There`s not going to be an ISIS if there was no invasion of Iraq. You make a big deal of Putin. And you remember George W. Bush saying, I looked into his soul and saw a man of peace. So, Jeb Bush can say, I`m not my brother, but he`s about as closely linked to his brother and as David says, has a lot of the same advisers. It`s hard to see how it resolves into a good ad for him when people begin digging into it. O`DONNELL: All great points. Ezra Klein, Michael Tomasky and Stephanie Miller, thank you for joining me tonight. David Axelrod is going to hang around for a bit. Coming up, you heard Graham Moore last night, talking about staying weird at the Oscars. But he had a lot more to say after that. And that`s coming up. O`DONNELL: The Justice Department is asking a Texas judge to grant the emergency stay that would block his own ruling from last week that put a hold on President Obama`s immigration executive actions. The Department of Justice says it plans to appeal the decision. They government says, the President`s Executive action is an integral part of the department`s comprehensive effort to set and effectuate immigration enforcement priorities. The government asked the judge to decide this by Wednesday. And, on Wednesday, February 25th, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- President Obama will participate in a town hall on MSNBC from Florida, with MSNBC`s Jose Diaz-Balart. The discussion will be mostly about immigration and will air at 8:00 p.m. You can ask questions on Facebook and Twitter using hashtags, Obamarepondez and Obamatownhall. Coming up, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- a little Oscar talk. And in the "Rewrite," I will tell you the meaning of love, and I`ll do it without music. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH, ACTOR: I like solving problems, Commander. And Enigma is the most difficult problem in the world. CHARLES DANCE, ACTOR: No, Enigma isn`t difficult. It`s impossible. The Americans, the Russians, the French, the Germans, everyone thinks Enigma is unbreakable. CUMBERBATCH: Good. Let me try, and we`ll know for sure, won`t we. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Last night, the writer of that scene, Graham Moore, won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for "The Imitation Game," a film about famed British Computer Scientist Alan Turing. After Moore gave his thank yous to the cast and crew, he ended his speech with this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GRAHAM MOORE, "THE IMITATION GAME" WRITER: When I was 16 years old, I tried to kill myself, because I felt weird and I felt different. And I felt like I did belong. And, now, I`m standing here and so, I would like for this moment to be for that kid out there who feels like she`s weird or she`s different or she doesn`t fit in anywhere. Yes, you do. I promise, you do. You do. Stay weird. Stay different. And then, when it`s your turn and you are standing on this stage, please pass the same message -- (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) -- to the next person who comes along. Thank you so much. I love you, guys. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Backstage, after that, Graham Moore was asked how difficult it was to speak about something so personal in front of a worldwide television audience. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MOORE: It was really hard, but it felt -- I don`t know, I`m a writer. When am I ever going to be on television. This was like my 45 seconds in my life to get on television and say something. So, I thought like I might as well use it to say something meaningful. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: What helped you turn it around when you got that low. MOORE: Depression is something that I have dealt with every single day of my life since. But I`m very blessed to have a family that was so supportive then and has been so supportive ever since. My mother, who`s -- I think she`s over there somewhere -- will be sitting next to me tonight. I know, for her, who has seen me at all the stages of this, it was really meaningful. And I feel very blessed to have had friends and family around who are so supportive. And not everyone gets to have that. I am very aware of how lucky I am. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining us now here in Los Angeles is Rebecca Keegan, Film Writer for the "Los Angeles Times," Justin Chang, Chief Film Critic for "Variety," and JD Heyman, Deputy Editor for "People" magazine. That was quite a moment last night. But, I`ve got to say, if it was the Writers Guild Awards, the depression is just assumed. (LAUGHTER) You do not -- you don`t have to mention that at that award, you know. But he really had the most, I think, maybe touching personal moment up there last night. REBECCA KEEGAN, FILM WRITER, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": Yes, there were a lot of personal moments and political moments, and a lot of really heavy topics that people talked about. In addition to the depression, Julianne Moore talked Alzheimer`s, Eddie Redmayne talked about A.L.S. There were political speeches. It was really interesting. O`DONNELL: You know, I made exactly one prediction, and it`s the only prediction I`ve ever made about awards because I could never figure it out. It`s the beginning of the season. I said, you know, "Selma," "Glory" is going to win Best Song. I managed to tweet that right before the "Golden Globes." It`s the most obvious thing in the world. It deserved it. Let`s hear it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN LEGEND, SINGER AND SONGWRITER: When the war is won. Glory. When it`s all said and done. Glory. We`ll cry glory. Glory. Oh, glory. Glory. Oh. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Justin, that was "Selma`s" way of really grabbing the emotion of the night. JUSTIN CHANG, CHIEF FILM CRITIC, "VARIETY": Absolutely. I got chills just watching it just now again. I think it was the best moment of the night for me. And I felt, in some ways, that it was -- the Academy, almost atoning that -- atoning for shutting out, with only two nominations, one of the best -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- and most -- and, you know, just least-rewarded films this season. And the way they left their feet and Chris Pine crying, it was just -- O`DONNELL: But, you know, it really is the power of that song. You know, I cried when I heard it in the theater in New York. (END VIDEO CLIP) I had a chance to hear them do that live at an event in New York. CHANG: Right. O`DONNELL: I don`t know, it must be over a month ago. And the same thing happened. And in the room, when they do that live, it`s absolutely stunning. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JD HEYMAN, DEPUTY EDITOR, "PEOPLE" MAGAZINE: It was riveting in the room. It was amazing. And it`s unfortunate that -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- more people hadn`t seen that and been moved by that in terms of the whole campaign for "Selma." "Selma" just didn`t get the momentum that some of the other -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- pictures had. I think it`s a complicated reason as to why. I don`t think it`s as simple as simply saying it was a racial reason. But there were a lot of problems marketing that film inside Hollywood -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- and getting people in front of it. And anyone who saw that movie in Hollywood loved it. Yet, unfortunately, it didn`t gel. O`DONNELL: And there were mechanics involved that people out there don`t get, which is, they distribute D.V.D.s to all the voters. "Selma" was unable to distribute the D.V.D.s as early as the rest of them because the final cut was late and all that stuff. But, let`s go to John Legend`s speech after winning the Oscar for Best Song. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LEGEND: We wrote this song for a film that was based on events that were 50 years ago. But we say that "Selma" is now because the struggle -- (APPLAUSE) -- for justice is right now. We know that the voting rights, that act that they fought for 50 years ago is being compromised right now in this country today. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) We know that, right now, -- (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) -- the struggle for freedom and justice is real. We live in the most incarcerated country in the world. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) There are more black men under correctional control today than were under slavery in 1850. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Rebecca, sometimes, it`s a reach that, in this kind of moment where you reach out to grab a political issue and pull it into the room, I don`t see how he could have accepted that award without going there. KEEGAN: No, I think you`re right. One thing I think that`s interesting in the context of the "Oscars is so white," sort of controversy that came out around the nominations is, if you looked at last night`s show, there were a lot of minority presenters. Probably, the signature moment is the clip you just played. So, clearly, both the Academy and the producers were showcasing this issue of diversity in a way the nominations overlooked. CHANG: And, sometimes, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- I think, not to the most, best-advised effect. Because, you know, I kind of cringed -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- at the bit with Octavia Spencer. You know, a lot of people were saying, "What is this, `The Help.` Are you treating her like," you know, she`s -- you know, kind of making her perform in a way. And even with David Oyelowo, I thought it was -- there was sort of a strange attempt on Neil Patrick Harris and the writers to -- O`DONNELL: Well, you know, by the way, Neil Patrick Harris mispronounced his name twice. He said Yellow -- HEYMAN: It`s a hard name -- Oyelowo. O`DONNELL: But you know you`re going to have to say it in the show. It`s in the prompter. I mean, it`s not hard to learn. HEYMAN: Practice. O`DONNELL: And then at a show that makes fun at Travolta having mispronounced a name last year. I mean -- HEYMAN: These are the things that we love the Academy Awards for. O`DONNELL: Yes, because we love -- HEYMAN: We do not want to see a smooth Academy Awards. (LAUGHTER) Anybody who tells you that they`re not disappointed in the Academy Awards is not, you know, being a true American. (LAUGHTER) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) You`re supposed to be disappointed in the Academy Awards. That`s part of it. And what`s nice about the Academy Awards is that they resolutely, traditionally, every year, do disappoint us in one way or the other. And it`s a very hard show to execute. There is no -- they don`t capitulate to our modern needs -- (LAUGHTER) -- to be entertained. O`DONNELL: Yes. HEYMAN: And I love that about them. So, without these things, we wouldn`t have, you know, something to talk about, so -- (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And what happens now to "Birdman" with these Oscars. I mean, it`s pretty much run its course, its business cycle, already, hasn`t it. HEYMAN: Yes. CHANG: It will soon may get a boost as the Best Picture winner typically does, you know. And I would say though that, you know, keeping with the disappointment of the show, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- one of the most disappointing things for me is the fact that "Birdman" won Best Picture and Director and Screenplay. And this is a movie that`s funny because you have these speeches which are very personal, people reaching out into the world, talking about important issues that are, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- you know, important to them. And you have the Academy giving an award to a film that, I think, is very inward-looking and very navel-gazing and self-gratifying in my opinion. O`DONNELL: But, you know, I think -- HEYMAN: I think it`s lively, lovely Oscars. O`DONNELL: I think "Birdman" is a brilliant work of art. But I also, you know -- the most important thing was said by Julianne Moore last night when she said the arts are not a competition. I mean, I think "Birdman" deserved to be called the Best Picture. I think, seven or eight other movies deserve that, too, at the same time, you know. I just -- HEYMAN: Correct. It was this -- where else are you going to see a movie like "Ida" celebrated or -- you know, this blend of, you know, cheesiness and incredibly high art is nowhere else in our culture. (LAUGHTER) So, I think it`s good. And I`m proud that "Birdman" that won and I`m proud that all these other movies were recognized. It`s a rare moment in our culture. O`DONNELL: Rebecca Keegan, Justin Chang and JD Heyman, that`s all the Oscar talk we can take for tonight. It`s over for the year. It`s over, that`s it. That`s the last word on the Oscars, said right here tonight. Thank you all very much. KEEGAN: Thank you. HEYMAN: Thank you. CHANG: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Coming up next in the "Rewrite," -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- the meaning of love, Giuliani style. (END VIDEO CLIP) Tonight`s "Rewrite" needs music. It cries out for music, because it`s all about love. But for complicated legal reasons, including the fact that some of these segments live online forever, we can no longer secure the right to use any of the great music of our time on this program. In fact, the only way we were able to just play for you "Glory", the Oscar-winning song last night, is because it is in the news today. But we won`t be able to play you that song, say, a week from now. So, instead of cuing Barry Right -- Barry White right now to sing us into a discussion of love, I`m going to have to go straight to what instantly became the most quoted line any politician has ever said about love. I have to read it to you because there`s no audio recording of it. And here it is -- "I know this is a horrible thing to say. But I do not believe that the President loves America." That was, of course, Rudy Giuliani who said that now famous sentence last week at a Republican event for Scott Walker in New York City. Now, when a politician talks about loving America, you should always ask him or her what he or she actually means. What does it mean to love America. What does it mean to love a country. When I say I love my mother, you know what I mean. If I say I love ice cream, you know what I mean. And you know I mean completely different from loving my mother, or loving my dog, or loving Gershwin, or loving the view of the Manhattan Skyline. Each one of those loves is a completely different kind of love. And yet, we are stuck with the same four-letter word to express them all. If I say I love -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- the Rocky Mountains, you have no idea what I mean. At first, you might think you do, just as you might think you know what someone means when he says he loves a country. But you don`t. When I say I love the Rocky Mountains, does it mean I love climbing them. Does it mean I love climbing them in the winter or just in summer. Does it mean I love skiing the Rocky Mountains, or does it mean I just love staring down at them from 35,000 feet. Well, the answer is I just love staring down at them from airplane windows. But you had no way of knowing that when I said I love the Rocky Mountains. That`s what I hear when I hear politicians say, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- "I love America." I hear a sentence that has no meaning. No meaning, without further elaboration. Elaboration that never comes from politicians. They just say, "I love America." And that`s enough. But what does it mean. What does a Republican politician, Rudy Giuliani -- what does a Republican politician mean when he says, "I love America." Does it mean he loves everywhere, inside the borders of the United States of America. Does it mean he loves Alabama even if he`s never been there. Does it mean he loves Harlem, Greenwich Village, Alaska, Texas. Does it mean he loves Texas even in the summer. Because the most famous Texas Republicans in history flee Texas every summer, to get about as far away as they can. In Maine. Because they apparently don`t love Texas in the summer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) They love Maine in the summer. They cheat on Texas every summer. Poor Texas sits there in the sweltering heat of summer, waiting and waiting for the Presidents Bush to give up their summer mistress and start loving Texas again. If they love Texas at all. (END VIDEO CLIP) When a Republican politician says he loves America, does it mean he loves the American people, all of them, including the ones who don`t vote for him, or the ones who don`t vote at all. Does it mean he loves the people who hate him. Because every American politician is hated by someone. And many of them are hated by millions of people. Unlike politicians, the American people understand that love is complicated. And that love of country isn`t easily defined and might not even be necessary. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Last year, a Pew poll showed that only 28 percent of Americans think that the United States, quote, "stands above all other countries in the world." A big majority of Americans, 58 percent, think that America is, quote, "one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others." When Rudy Giuliani says he loves America, does that mean he loves all Americans, including the people who think that America is just one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others. Or does Rudy Giuliani think those people are crazy and unlovable and a disgrace to their citizenship. (END VIDEO CLIP) A country is a patch of dirt, a bunch of people, and a government. I don`t think Rudy Giuliani is talking about the land mass of the United States when he says, "I love America." I don`t think Rudy Giuliani is talking about all of the people of America when he says, "I love America." And I`m sure Rudy Giuliani is not talking about the government because I know he hates a lot of what the government does, including subjecting to the top income tax rate. So, I have no idea what Rudy Giuliani means when he says, "I love America." Today, in "The Wall Street Journal," Rudy Giuliani tried to clarify what he meant by saying the President doesn`t love America. In an op-ed piece he wrote, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "I didn`t intend to question President Obama`s motives or the content of his heart. (END VIDEO CLIP) But, of course, that is exactly what Rudy Giuliani did. He questioned the contents of the President`s heart, questioned what the President loves. Right after Rudy Giuliani said he does not believe that the President loves America, he actually said, and I`m going to quote here. He said, "And he doesn`t love me." What could that possibly mean. It could mean something romantic but I don`t think it does. But I think it does prove something. I think it proves that when Rudy Giuliani talks about love, he has, and we have, no idea what he`s talking about. There are a lot of gems in David Axelrod`s new book, including the story about when the White House actually considered dropping Joe Biden as the Vice Presidential nominee for the reelection campaign and replacing him with -- well, they did a poll to find out who that should be. That`s next. David Axelrod is back with us. His new book is called "Believer." David, I wanted to go to this passage about Joe Biden, one of the gems that I find so fascinating in the book. I`m going to read it for our audience. It says, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "One day, Biden called me into his stately office down the hall from Oval. `Do you remember that conversation we had at my sister`s house in Delaware,` he asked, recalling the interview, in which he told Plouffe and me that he felt he would be the better president.`" "`Well, you know what, I was wrong. The right person won. He`s an incredible guy and I am proud to work with and for him.`" (END VIDEO CLIP) This was when he knew, David, that there was some rumblings in the White House about the possibility of swapping him for Hillary Clinton on the reelection campaign. And I just want to read what follows that in the book. You say, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) "Swapping Clinton for Biden would have been seen as weak and disloyal. I argued when some on the campaign suggested we had an obligation to test it in polling. When we did, it made no difference. The subject never came up again." (END VIDEO CLIP) What would have happened, David, if Hillary Clinton polled well ahead of Joe Biden for you in that poll. DAVID AXELROD, AUTHOR, "BELIEVER": Well, I could use the old political cop out and say -- (LAUGHTER) -- I don`t want to talk about a hypothetical -- but I think that would have posed a really difficult problem because, well, the bond between the President and Biden is very, very genuine. They`re very close. And, I believe, Biden has been an incredible vice president, as loyal as could be. He`s taken on some really hard assignments -- the Recovery Act, Iraq, and other things. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And I said in the book what I believed, which is, there is no justification, under any circumstance, which is why I didn`t want to poll. But I never really thought that it was going to amount to much. As you know, Lawrence, people don`t vote for vice presidents. (END VIDEO CLIP) They vote for presidents. And I don`t think any change on the ticket was going to particularly strengthen us. So, you know, the whole thing was, in my view, kind of empty exercise. But I`m happy that it worked out the way it did. O`DONNELL: There`s much talk about the passage in the book where you described the President`s real backstage position on marriage equality. But, politically, you didn`t want him to go there because you thought it was better to play a longer game. Now, you know, I find nothing kind of surprising or shocking about that. I guess it`s because I`ve worked inside these kinds of decisions. But, do you understand why people look at that and they think of it as lying, that the candidate`s going out there and lying to the public. And I guess it`s true. But is it -- is it your argument that it`s lying for a higher purpose down the road. AXELROD: First of all, he was always very clear that he thought gay and lesbian Americans should have equal rights, but he acknowledged that there were these concerns in the religious community and he tried to thread the needle with civil unions. But, look, history -- you`re a student of History. History is replete. You know, there were plenty of folks who were angry at Lincoln because they didn`t think he moved fast enough on emancipation. Roosevelt accepted a Social Security bill that essentially -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- excluded most of African-Americans by the way it designated work categories that qualified. And, as you know, he ran as a kind of an isolationist in 1940, even as he was trying to maneuver America into -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- World War II, or what would become World War II. So, yes, I think this is -- that`s how leaders -- they take circuitous routes to get the country where they think the country needs to go. And this President did do that on these issues. O`DONNELL: David Axelrod, I wish we could go on and on. I mostly don`t like this kind of book. This is one of the really, really good ones. If you read one inside the Obama administration book, this is the one to read. Believe it, my 40 years in politics. David Axelrod, thank you. Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022301cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 108 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 24, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 24, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Mary Thompson GUESTS: Jane Kleeb, Robert Kennedy Jr., Bob Shrum, John Nichols, Nina Turner, Michio Kaku SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7395 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama vetoed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline citing dangers to our safety and environment, handing a huge victory to Nebraska landowners. Pristine forests and waterways of central New York and Pennsylvania are at risk if the controversial Constitution pipeline is built. Stephen Hawking weighed in on the need of humans to check our aggressive ways to save ourselves from being doomed. Union woes strike the Midwest with radical right governors Walker and Kasich touting legislation and records fighting against organized labor. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tonight, TPP fast-track could face road blocks in Congress. PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I`m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority... UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Give us fast-track to TPP, well, what`s the TPP. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (D) VERMONT: Bad trade agreements are one of the reasons why the American middle class is disappearing. MARCY KAPTUR, (D) OHIO: This is our moment to stop fast-track and the outsourcing of millions of more jobs from this country. SCHULTZ: And keystone isn`t it the only controversial pipeline project on the map. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The constitution pipeline would connect gas rack (ph) in Pennsylvania, the larger pipeline further north of New York. BRUCE BAXTER, TREE FARMER: Taking away my development rights. They`re taking away my farming rights. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As we work with the landowners and the local governments and once with stakeholders, we will be refining the route. RUSSELL HONICKER: We don`t need more (inaudible) we need to figure out another way to live. SCHULTZ: Plus, the search for life on another planet continuous. Well, a science geek has a dire warning about our own. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can there be life elsewhere. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An ocean that exist on beneath the icy shell of Jupiter`s moon (inaudible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we use the habitable environment. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We start with breaking news. Moments ago, President Obama vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline Bill. The President releasing a statement moments ago saying that because of the act of Congress conflicts with the established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest including our security, safety and environment. It has earned my veto. This is huge win, no doubt about it, for Nebraska landowners who still have eminent domain issues and, of course, environmentalists around the country are going to be applauding the President. Keystone recently passed both Houses of Congress with bipartisan support. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell aren`t happy with the President. They wrote an append (ph) at the USA Today saying, "The allure of a appeasing environmental extremists may be too powerful for the President to ignore but the President is sadly mistaken if he things vetoing this bill will end this fight, far from it we are just getting started." Whatever that means, eminent domain issues could play out for another couple of years in Nebraska. After the President`s veto, Mitch McConnell said that the Senate will consider a veto override on March 3rd. On January 29th, the Senate was five votes shy of the 67 votes needed for an override. But still, even if the Senate overrides this veto you can`t build it because of eminent domain issues in Nebraska. So what is going to happen? Let`s back up a little bit. First of all, this is a serious statement by the President of the United States that he is definitely serious and concerned about climate change and willing to do something about it. Secondly and I`m sure I`ll be corrected on this if I`m wrong, but I`m sure he feels this way. Because he is the first President in a long time that he`s lived up to what he is told the Native Americans that he was aware of their concerns and that he would listen to them. This is a big message of the country tonight despite the polling, despite what the House and Senate does, the President is certainly committed to climate change and the jury is still out for the rights of those landowners in Nebraska. Big win tonight I think for the environment. Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Does President Obama`s veto proved that he is serious on climate change?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment in our blog at ed.msnbc.com. Now, let`s turn now to Jane Kleeb the Executive Director of Bold Nebraska. She joins us by phone tonight. Jane, your thoughts on this, I mean, the President said what he -- he did what he said he was going to do. JANE KLEEB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOLD NEBRASKA: Yeah. So, you know, President Obama absolutely stood up to the Republican Party which, you know, used to stand for property rights, right? But now they do anything that big oil comes knocking on their door to do. And, you know, Representative Boehner and Mitch McConnell continuous to call us extremists. They also called anarchist last week. And, Ed, you`ve the farmers and ranchers. They serve our country in the military. They`ve been growing food for Americans for decades and yet, the Republicans all they can do is call us names other than actually get to the values of the party which is really about property rights. SCHULTZ: What is TransCanada going to do now? I keep hearing stories that they (inaudible) and offers keep going up to the landowners. Tell us about that. KLEEB: Yeah. So, TransCanada, even though a local judge has told TransCanada they cannot use eminent domain until this case now brings -- goes back to the Nebraska Supreme Court. Even with that ruling which is a big victory for landowners, TransCanada is still knocking on the doors of landowners, harassing them, offering them three times the amount of money that they originally offered. Landowners are continuing stand strong, there`s over 100 landowners in Nebraska that will not sign their land way (ph) to TransCanada. SCHULTZ: And what about the veto override? Let say that they do twist a few arms and get 67 override the President`s veto. It still can`t be constructed until these issues playout, correct? KLEEB: Yeah. I mean, even if they pulled some unicorn move in the House and Senate and got enough votes to override the veto. The reality is, that this pipeline will never be built. There is now the huge illegal question in Nebraska about the pipeline route and about eminent domain rights. That will take anywhere from a year to three years. There`s still an ongoing fight in South Dakota where the tribal nation (ph) are standing up for their rights (inaudible) in the South Dakota TUC. So this pipeline would never get built even if they got a permit today. SCHULTZ: And quickly, your reaction to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell saying that they`re going to keep on fighting. What is that mean? KLEEB: You know, they actually have already started some parliamentary procedures just, you know, minutes after the President vetoed the bill in the Senate. They are essentially kind of figure out if they`re going to, you know, use this, attach it to a most passed bill or if they`re going to tried to essentially hold the override a veto vote so they continue a new cycle because this is great for the Republican based, and it`s great for their donors like the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity. So, you know, we`ll be there every step of the way, Ed. SCHULTZ: OK. KLEEB: We`ll continue to fight because we know that this is the best thing for our land and waters to get this rejected. SCHULTZ: Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska, thanks for your time tonight. I appreciate it. And there is news on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the House will likely vote on fast-track authority from the President next week. If the bill passes Congress it would be free and of course free the way for the President to finalize the TPP. It means the deal could be done in almost no time. Earlier this month, the Australian Trade Minister said that the deal could be weeks away. If fast-track is granted by Congress it would be bad for workers, bad for the economy across the board. The President knows that labor leaders, and unions are against the deal and he says that he needs to convince the American people that TPP is a good thing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Those experiences that arose over the last 20 years those aren`t easily forgotten, and the burden of proof is on us, then to be very transparent and explicit in terms of what it is that we`re trying to accomplish. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Delivering in some ways but not delivering this time. The President has not delivered. The White House has been silent on the details of the TPP. Sources are telling neither the President has been mislead by Trade Representative Froman but the President thinks he is too far down the road right now to change his position on TPP. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "The burden is on the White House to demonstrate that this is good for American paychecks." One twist here, the Congressional Black Caucus could make or break this vote. If they split away from the President defeating fast-track is a real possibility. Then you have the Republicans. A lot of Republicans are against the TPP for sovereignty issues. Roughly 20 House member Republicans are against the TPP because they actually think that it is bad for the country and it is. Roughly 40 House members are against the TPP just because the President of United States wants the authority and they don`t want to give it to him, 218 votes are required to pass fast-track. According to Reuters their analysis shows 195 members have strong or moderate backing for the trade deals. Fast-track is 23 votes shy at this moment for passage in the House. The opposition crosses party lines which is strange in itself. This really needs to get to the President`s desk from the standpoint, the message that this is not good for American job. And this is the reason (ph) these kids for outsourcing which of course we don`t need. For more, let me bring in Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio. Congresswoman, good to have you with us tonight. KAPTUR: It`s a pleasure. SCHULTZ: What do you make of the number, the analysis that`s out there about where people are in Congress on this? Does this really right on the shoulders of the Congressional Black Caucus as this is unfolding? KAPTUR: I think that the Congressional Black Caucus is one element and also every member of Congress has live through these trade agreements going all the way back to NAFTA and the President`s come and go. Those who bear the results of the outsourcing jobs in their communities, this has been felt coast to coast. Americans wrecked up a lost of over 47,500,000 jobs just since NAFTA`s passage. Imagine that in every decade over the last three decade and we have $9.5 trillion in trade deficit that means more imports coming in here than exports going out. Those who in favor more of these trade deals are living in an altered reality because the average American has paid heavily for trade deals that don`t work in the interest of the United States of America. SCHULTZ: So there are really no good track records here or whatsoever on our trading history. So why do you think the President`s off-base (ph) on this? KAPTUR: I think that President`s advisers are misleading him. And the President is a lawyer, so he respects the legal process. But you see the agreement is not able to be read by any member. We have to go into a room, they gave a little us a little piece of it but it is need in the whole section. These deals are so important. They`re like treaties. They should not be brought up under fast-track which means Congress can demand, can`t really examine... SCHULTZ: Yeah. KAPTUR: ... can`t understand the full implications of this. And I think, you know, President`s got a few other things on his plate. And what generally happens is the outsourcers gain ascendancy in this kind of very secretive process. SCHULTZ: How tight are the Democrats on this? Those who opposed it? How convinced are they and how stern are they going to be on this? KAPTUR: We are fighting with every ounce of strength in us, because we know what it`s done to this country. America`s lost over two-thirds of her manufacturing jobs and now her service jobs, call centers, all kinds of operations have been outsourced to other countries. Why can`t we have trade deals that create jobs in United States of America... SCHULTZ: Would this hurt Ohio? KAPTUR: ... in the close markets of the world? SCHULTZ: Would this hurt Ohio? KAPTUR: There hasn`t been a trade deal yet that helped Ohio when you look at the bottom line. They`ve all taken jobs away from us. SCHULTZ: Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. KAPTUR: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter, @edshow on Facebook. We always want to know what you think. Coming up. There`s another pipeline fight being wave in America. This one threatens to ruin the pristine stretch of land here on the North East. And if it passes, Americans won`t even benefit from it. That`s ahead. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. There`s another pipeline, some were calling it the Keystone Pipeline of natural gas. Most Americans haven`t even heard of it. However, the debate is all too familiar. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BAXTER: Taking away my development rights. They`re taking away my farming rights. People won`t say put the pipe in, I can`t sell the land anymore. I can (inaudible) trees, I can`t plant trees here. So, they`re warding (ph) my development rights, all for the cost of about one year`s worth of property taxes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That these are good paying jobs, and we`ve been working on this for like three years to get this approval so we can get a shovel in the ground and go to work. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a temporary solution for energy. And we need to live thinking about future generations and not immediately 50 jobs somewhere here or there. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Sound familiar? The regulatory process for the constitution pipeline is almost three years old. The $700 million project aims to go to 124 mile pipeline to transport natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Fields in Northeast Pennsylvania through the forest and waterways of Central, New York. Proponent say the pipeline would create over a thousand constructions jobs and yield millions in local taxes. They claimed it would provide enough gas to power about 3 million homes in the New York and Boston areas at lower rates. Opponents of the project say that it would cost irreversible ecological damage and it leave property vulnerable to invasive species of plants and insects and alter the hydrology of the wetlands. Of the hundreds of landowners affected of the pipeline, about 85 percent have accepted payments in exchange for easement agreements. About 100 landowners have not agreed to deals. The pipeline company has been granted eminent domain authority and it`s expected to take action against those holding out. We`ve heard the story before, now it`s time to speak up. The public comment period on the constitution construction has been extended until this Friday, February 27th. Joining me tonight for on this is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Founder and President of the Water Keeper Alliance. Mr. Kennedy, I appreciate it. Good to have you with us tonight. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, WATER KEEPER ALLIANCE: Thanks for having me, Ed. SCHULTZ: What`s the danger here? Where is the risk? KENNEDY: Well, there is an environmental issue and also there is a, I think, almost a larger issue of our democracy. The growing power of the oil industry to influence our democracy and some of those people that you showed in the clip were people who are landowners, who are -- who woke up one day and found oil industry people on their property saying, we`re going to put a pipeline through your property. We`re going to condemn it using eminent domain. We`re going to take it away from you and you have nothing to say about it because the government of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has found has given us a permit that transfers -- the federal authority, the sacred (ph) authority of eminent domain to a private company to make money for themselves. And as you`ve said, this is not about something that`s going to benefit the American public. This gas -- the terminus of this gas pipeline is right in New York. And all of -- they`ve say that they`re going to ship this gas in New England but all of the gas pipelines that leave right New York, that go towards New England are constrained. They don`t have room for more gas. So it`s very, very clear that this company is actually building this pipeline so they can ship gas to (inaudible) process it at LNG facility and then ship it to Europe and Asia. That`s the same issue... SCHULTZ: So we`re not going to see residents of New York and Boston and the northeast potion of United States are not going to see lower rates on natural gas because of this pipeline? KENNEDY: No. There is no way that that`s going to happen. What this pipeline is about is about enriching a few billionaires by impoverishing the people of New York State. And the bullying that we`ve seen go along with this and the corruption, you know, Eagle Ford is really a rogue agency, it`s a classic, captive agency. It issued this permit illegally. The Clean Water Act clearly requires that you cannot perk (ph) has no authority to issue this -- it`s called a certificate of public convenience and necessity which gives the local oil company and the pipeline company eminent domain to condemn other private property, owner`s property. They can`t do that until the state of New York issues a water quality certification that says that the 289 water bodies, the river, streams and lakes that this pipeline is going to cross will not be permanently harmed by the pipeline. The state has -- had issue that the public comment period is still going on for that so any eminent domain permit is the illegal but perk (ph) when had an issue with anyway. SCHULTZ: OK. KENNEDY: And the company that sued 120 people in the Catskill (ph) have said or in central New Yorkers said "No, we don`t want that pipeline going through our house, through our kitchen, near our backyard where our children play or through our farm fields or whatever. We don`t want it". And yet the company goes on says we don`t care what you want. That`s the most economic root for us and we`re taking it. SCHULTZ: OK. So what about the tax dollars that they keep referring to and how the local governments and local entities are going to be able benefiting from this? KENNEDY: Well, again, it`s a short-term benefit. It`s a very, very short- term benefit and, you know, we live in democracy, the locality is -- they have a choice and local Americans, you know, the right to private property, you know, as Thomas Jefferson said, "It is the basis of American Democracy" and you can`t give private companies. We`re going to do no public benefit for the American people long-term public. SCHULTZ: Yeah. KENNEDY: . I think they permanently give land away that belongs to a private a property owner to a private company so they can enriched itself (inaudible)... SCHULTZ: So, do you think that you can stop this pipeline base on that? Do you think that eminent domain is going to overpower these land owners, these last 100 that are standing tall? KENNEDY: We are hoping that it won`t. We`re using the courts, we`re challenging the decision, water keeper and the local river keepers are challenging the decision of the federal court to allow eminent domain to go forward and have perk (ph) the regulatory agency that simply hand over already to an oil company, to an oil and gas company to steal people, to bulldoze people`s private property rights. SCHULTZ: OK. Robert Kennedy Jr., great to have with us tonight, I appreciate it so much. We`ll continue to follow the story it`s one that hasn`t got a whole lot of national attention. There`s no question about that, but judging from the pictures that you just saw, it looks like the people clearly are engage in this and we will follow it. Thank so much. Coming up, the latest out of California after passenger train derailed this morning injuring dozens. And later, it`s a big day for two Midwest power players with eyes in the White House. Rapid Response Panel tackles today`s top politics and headlines. But next, your question Ask Ed live coming up. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And we`re back. We`re following the breaking news in California where a train has derailed in Oxnard, California 80 miles outside of Los Angeles. Police say a vehicle carrying a trailer hit a Metrolink train bound for Los Angeles. 51 people were injured including 28 who were transported to nearby hospitals. The National Transportation Safety Board is sending a team to investigate the accident. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered his 6th State of the State Address today. Outlining his 2016 budget proposal and what he hopes will be the answer to New Jersey`s fiscal woes. The governor announced an accord that has been reach one of the biggest attractors in the state and that is the Teachers Union, the New Jersey Education Association. Christie also promises administration will contribute $1.3 billion to the pension system, that`s nearly double the current year`s contribution but still far below with the law requires. The New Jersey judge ruled Monday that the full contribution should be more than $3 billion must be made and an additional 1.57 billion must be paid into the current budget. Christie lots of gravitas (ph) and lot of (inaudible). I wonder if he thought the state would be where it is today, when he took over six years ago. With just a few hours left to cast their ballots in Chicago. The Chicago voters are rising to the polls to elect the Mayor, whoever it`s going to be. Rahm Emanuel`s hoping for reelection but he`s reputation as mayor "Mr. 1- Percent" could present a challenge. A run-off is possible if Emanuel fall short of the 50 plus one percent needed to clinch his second term, the poll close tonight at 7:00 Central. And a new survey released today says that President Obama healthcare law has drastically reduced the number of uninsured Americans. The Gallup- Healthways, Well-Being Index found that in 2014, the number of adults with out health insurance dropped to its lower level in seven years. And the trend is likely to continue as 55 percent of those polls say the plan -- they plan to go ahead and get coverage in order to avoid paying tax penalties. We loved hearing from our viewers and our Ask Ed segment. Tonight first question comes from Julie (ph), she want`s to know, "Do you think Republicans will shutdown the funding that Homeland Security so the President can act on immigration?" No, I don`t. I think that those going to be clean bill and I think the Republicans will find a way to fight immigration for instance this time in the court down in Texas. But they`ve got other fish to fry. They don`t want to mess around with the security of the country. Been a lot of talk back and forth and horse trade and talk in everything else, but believe me there`s going to be a clean bill and I think that McConnell said something to that nature today. Stick around Rapid Response Panel is next. We`ll be right back at the Ed Show. MARY THOMPSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Mary Thompson with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks end with gain, the Dow climbs to 92 points, the S&P add 5 and the NASDAQ finish the day with the gain of 7. Fed Chair Janet Yellen testified earlier before the Senate banking committee. She said policymakers were no hurry to raise interest rates as wage growth turning sluggish and inflation is below targets. And some Dow`s gains are due to shares Home Depot. It was nearly 4 percent. Its profit worth 36 percent beating estimates, revenue also came in ahead of forecast. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JOHN KASICH, (R) OHIO: I do want the country as much as I can really in a humble way to tell people about what`s happened in Ohio. And what`s happened in Ohio has been incredibly good. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Yeah, sure has. Thanks to the automobile loan program. Welcome back to the Ed Show. John Kasich, Governor of Ohio, is eager to get a national platform and then tonight, State of the State Address, the governor plans to flown Ohio`s recovery as his own triumph. Over the weekend, he gave a preview to his speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KASICH: What works for us in Ohio? We are running surpluses of 2 billion. We are structurally balanced. I`ve cut the taxes in Ohio, the legislature and I, by the largest tax cut in our history. That`s kind of conservatism. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Kasich`s conservative anthem completely (inaudible) to President Obama`s automobile loan program. And the government funded rescue game of course Ohio`s recovery a great jumps start. Thousands of jobs are created and thousands were saved. Governor Kasich received criticism from Republicans for taking the ObamaCare of Medicaid expansion and make no mistake. He is a conservative as much as they come. His deep tax cuts left Ohio communities in the cold. Kasich signed union-busting a legislation to limit collective bargaining with the teachers and the firefighters throughout the state although that was overturned by the people by an issue of measure. And of course John Kasich wants to appear middle of the road in front of a national audience but he may be the slipper in all of this. Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel Bob Shrum, Democratic Strategies and Professor of Politics at USC, John Nichols, Washington Correspondent of the Nation with us tonight and also former State Senator of Ohio Nina Turner. Nina, you first, what do you make of all these accolades that Kasich given himself. NINA TURNER FORMER OHIO STATE SENATOR: Never let the truth getting away of a good story. I mean... SCHULTZ: Does the state have a surplus? TURNER: Yeah. The state has a surplus but on the backs of local governments. The state has a surplus but on the backs of poor people and middle class people, absolutely, poverty is up and medium income is down. SCHULTZ: What happened to Cleveland? TURNER: Well, Cleveland is one example but all cities but for example Cleveland has $60 million less than it had before Governor Kasich became the Governor, $1 billion worth for cities and towns across the state of Ohio lost in local government funding. That is a lot and that impacts the bottom line of government which is service. SCHULTZ: Bob Shrum, is John Kasich maybe a slipper? He is not getting a whole lot of national attention but he`s got the media democracy (ph) former host overall the other network. He knows how to win elections. What`s wrong with this guy? BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I mean, what`s wrong from my perspective is the first with his claims about Ohio, our economic lunacy. The jobs are not created by a bunch of surpluses. They were created by the economic recovery program, by the (inaudible) by what the President did. But he is -- if he could get to a general election, he might be a very intriguing candidate because he looks a little moderate. I mean, he is very conservative actually but he looks a little moderate, you cited of the Medicaid expansion. And -- but in Republican primaries, he is going to have to move very far to the right to try to get that nomination and then he`ll be far less formidable candidate. SCHULTZ: John Nichols, Kasich wants to elevate an agenda that endangers unions and he has tried that before hasn`t had the success of Walker, what`s it mean? JOHN NICHOLS, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT THE NATION: Well, and there`s a question that Kasich has a better story to tell than Scott Walker. Scott Walker took on the unions and unlike Ohio he was able to pursue his agenda all the way through. It has resulted in surpluses. It hasn`t given Wisconsin a good bottom line. And so, the truth of the matter is that there`s a reality developing in the Republican field that I think it`s a pretty ugly one. And that is, that you sort of get your points by having bitten down unions, by having gone hard against unions and that measure Walker is the winner. SCHULTZ: What about that, Nina Turner? I mean, Kasich win against unions and lost? TURNER: He did. I mean, the people in Ohio overwhelmingly as you know because you came to Ohio with working... SCHULTZ: ... after that, was he workable? TURNER: I mean, he definitely was humbled by that experience and he said so. But there`s a difference between what you say and what you do. So although he has not going after unions, when you look at the budget as it is exist right now, taxes are going up on 60 percent of the folks who pay taxes in the state of Ohio. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent, they`re getting extra $12,000 a year in breaks (ph), you are balancing the budget for people. SCHULTZ: And, Bob Shrum, I think that`s the moderation that you`re talking about? I mean, he loses to unions. He comes back. He`s a little bit more workable. SHRUM: Right. SCHULTZ: He takes a Medicaid, the expansion under Obamacare because he`s popular. The numbers are what they are so let`s just play with this a little bit. If he is the guy for the Republicans, how hard is it going to be to win Ohio for Hillary Clinton? In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton is in statistical hit with John Kasich. Is Kasich the next Republic hope for that state, what do you make of those numbers? SHRUM: Well, listen, he obviously runs better in Ohio than any other Republican, that`s no surprise. He is pretty popular in the state, just want a big reelection. But he what he would have to do to get the nomination I think would make him far less viable in a general reelection in terms of competing against Hillary Clinton. Look, what folks are saying a minute ago is absolutely right. What John Nichols said is absolutely right. Scott Walker is the winner of this anti-union derby. He is the winner among the conservative-based of the Republican Party right now. In the new PPP poll, he`s at 25 percent in first place. Jeb Bush is in third place and that conservative-based. This year may deny (ph) what`s always happen in the Republican Party before which is they nominate the front runner the next person in line. SCHULTZ: OK. SHRUM: They may instead nominate Scott Walker. SCHULTZ: All right. Well, let`s go to Scott Walker. He is the other presidential hopeful for the Republicans and it was a big day in Wisconsin today. This is the scene in Madison, Wisconsin today. Protest outside the capitol legislature (ph) is on a fast-track to make Wisconsin a right-to- work state. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For breaking (ph) the call. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This bill, this mess that they are bringing upon the state of Wisconsin is nothing more than a way to legalized and divide and conquer us within our workplaces. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: John Nichols, a protest looks great but the Democrats... NICHOLS: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... are -- they have no power right now. I mean, depending on what the governor wants to do and what the Republican legislature wants to do, this is slam dunk, isn`t it? NICHOLS: It looks like, Ed. Although we should be very clear that there are some Republicans who are wavering and this is a very mature protest. There were thousands of people out today. They went into the capitol. You can see that many on the rotunda though (ph). They went to the offices, they are very focused on basically three or four Republicans trying to shift them. But the truth of the matter is that, this is classic Scott Walker. Scott Walker said this issue wouldn`t come to the legislature. He said it was on his agenda. He said he was going to stop this thing. Now, they popped on a Friday morning, on Friday afternoon Scott Walker said he was going to sign it. Two days into this week, today, they have the hearing on it. Tonight, they`re going to have a committee vote. Tomorrow, they`re having a State Senate vote. They are rushing this thing through not because it`s popular in Wisconsin, not because it would win a referendum in Wisconsin... SCHULTZ: Yeah. NICHOLS: ... but because they are giving Scott Walker an issue to use in his presidential race. SCHULTZ: And this bill is written right out of the ALEC playbook. I mean... TURNER: Yes. This deception, Ed, he said -- and, you know, that after what John, he said it wasn`t good right then because he was running for reelection but again, he deceived the people. And to drop down wages, we understand that when unions are strong, wages are up not just for union workers but for all workers. It is never the right thing to mess with people`s wages, you know, livelihoods, and how folks out there and the dead of winter saying that this is wrong. This is wrong in Wisconsin. This is wrong all over the country, Ed. It is wrong to drop down wages. SCHULTZ: It`s wrong but, Bob Shrum, he`s winning the battle. The -- what you call the -- and a union-busting derby that`s taking place. I mean, it`s almost like they don`t care about the job numbers. They don`t care about the budget... SHRUM: Right. SCHULTZ: ... just knockout the democratic base so we don`t have to compete against him in the next election. SHRUM: Yeah. What all he cares about is the Republican base. TURNER: Yeah. SHRUM: He is running for President. He has done this not only with unions. As John said, he took a completely contrary position during the election. He`s done this, for example, on the issue of choice when he said during the election. He actually broadcast and ad claiming that he signed the bill that left the decision to a woman and her doctor. He`s now endorsed the person of (inaudible), many is all in for it. And that would outrun not only abortion but many forms of birth control. So this guy cares about one thing and one thing only. That`s getting the nomination of the Republican Party. I think he will be pushed very far to the right, wouldn`t be a great general election candidate. And you know, Ed, I realized this isn`t going to happen but I think Scott Walker`s pretty lucky. He doesn`t face a recall election in Wisconsin now because more and more he`s revealed his two colors. SCHULTZ: I think their election burned out in Wisconsin, he one of three for four years. I don`t think that`s going to happen but I know what you`re saying, the timing is everything. Look, when you look at the model of what the conservatives want to do to drill down on the democratic base, the social networking, the door to door stop, all the things that unions have been able to do. So what are these unions now doing in Wisconsin, John Nichols, to, you know, reinvigorate the troops, so to speak, and get people back in, I hear that they`re dropping union dues and I hear that they`re doing a door to door there. What do you know? NICHOLS: Well, look, they`re looking to the reality that 2016 is a presidential year. Wisconsin is a whipsaw state and Bob knows what that means. In a off-year election, the Republicans do well because it turnouts a bit down and a presidential year turnout goes up. And there`s an interesting thing in Wisconsin. We talk about whether governor could win in Ohio. Governor Scott Walker, there is polls in Wisconsin that show he hasn`t doing that well... SCHULTZ: Right. NICHOLS: ... as a presidential candidate. And so, this is something to understand about the circumstance of the unions. They know they`re getting hit hard, they know they`re taking hits. But, I think they`re thinking very smart about 2016 and 2018. And I think they also starting to recognize that as PolitiFact said today, Scott Walker seems to have a different stand when he`s in a gubernatorial race than when he is in a presidential race. SCHULTZ: Interesting take. All right. Bob Shrum, John Nichols, Nina Turner, great to have you with us tonight. Thank you so much. SHRUM: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Coming up, the future of space exploration. Why astrophysicist Stephen Hawking believes it is the key to human survival. And the one personality trait (ph) he says could end civilization. Very uplifting, isn`t? Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Two-minute drill tonight, up first. Here we go. The fine trend (ph) Marshawn Lynch looking to trademark his famous phase. The Seahawks running back repeatedly told reporters at Super Bowl Media Day, "I`m just here so I don`t get fine. I`m just here so I don`t fine." And now, he is cashing in. The Seattle Times reports that Lynch filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office for the phrase. His Beast Mode clothing line plans to be online and use of apparel within the next month. Good move. On the baseball, on the diamond, a new prospect from Cuba`s making waves. Imagine this, you`re 19 years old that this happens, the Boston Red Sox have signed a 19-year old, Yoan Moncada. The team agreed to a $31 million signing bonus. He`s a switch-hitting great infielder. It`s a big blow to the New York Yankees who were courting Moncada as early as last week. And also he has been reports that Red Sox legend Louis Tiant was from Cuba help seal the deal for Boston. And finally, the heir of the throne, check him out. 10-year old LeBron James Jr. shows he takes after the old man on the hard court. Take a look at these moves from a youth basketball tournament last weekend in New Orleans. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (Crosstalk) (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: From long range, King James took the Instagram to congratulate his son`s team on the tournament win. And we`ll have to wait a few years to see where a junior will be taking his talents. Stick around, lot more coming up on the Ed Show. We will be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FELICITY JONES AS JANE HAWKING: I want us to be together for as long as we`ve got. And if that`s not very long, well, then that`s just how it is. It`ll have to do. EDDIE REDMAYNE AS STEPHEN HAWKING: You don`t know what`s coming. It`ll affect everything. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: It is true. We don`t know wants coming. The real life Stephen Walking has a new theory about the end of the world. The British astrophysicist warns if humans do not check our aggressive ways, we will be doomed. Hawking was asked by a group at the London Science Museum, which of our species shortcomings he`d like to fix. Discovery news reports Hawking responded saying, "The human failing I would most like to correct is aggression. It may have had survival advantage in caveman days to get more food, territory or partner with whom to reproduce, but now it threatens to destroy us all". Hawking noted aggressive behavior along with the -- along the side of the nuclear power that we have, nuclear weapons could end civilization, some humans already looking to find other planets to inhabit if the earth is destroyed, really? We`re all looking to get the hell out of here before it happens. Joining me tonight Michio Kaku is a Professor of Physics in City University in New York. Great to have you with us and I want to congratulate you again on your book. You`re the author of "The Future of the Mind". It was number best seller on the New York Times best seller that was last year. And now it is out today on paperback. MICHIO KAKU, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, CITY UNIVERSITY OF N.Y.: That`s right. SCHULTZ: Congratulation. KAKU: Thank you. SCHULTZ: What`s your reaction to Stephen Hawking on what he is saying? KAKU: Well, you know, we use to throw rocks at each other when we were caveman and cavewoman. Now, we can throw nuclear weapons at each other. And nuclear weapons are proliferating in the most dangerous hotspots in the world, the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, the India, a Pakistan boarder. That`s keeps you up at night wondering whether or not somebody with an itchy trigger finger could setup a nuclear war and just engulf all of humanity. It is really upsetting. SCHULTZ: It`s, but it`s also understandable isn`t it? I mean, it`s conceivable to think about how this could happen as technology advances. KAKU: That`s right. And some people wonder well, how come alien life in outer space don`t land on the White House land and announce their existence. Maybe they, too, discovered nuclear weapons and maybe they could not negotiate peace and could tame their aggressive tendencies. And maybe that`s why they don`t visit us. SCHULTZ: Do you believe theirs life in outer space? KAKU: Oh, I think it`s definite. I think one out of every 20 star in the galaxy have an earth like planet going around it, one in 20. So when you look at the sky at night somebody could be looking back at you. SCHULTZ: What about NASA`s interest in the possible mission to Jupiter`s moon. What`s happening here? KAKU: This is a potential game changer. You know, we`ve spend billions of dollars looking for little green men on Mars, we find nothing not even microbial life on Mars. We afford to get every square inch of Martian real estate. But you see the icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn have oceans. Oceans underneath the ice, so instead of looking for little green men perhaps we should be looking for aquatic life forms underneath the icy cover of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, that`s a game changer. SCHULTZ: If you were totally resource, if you had anything at your disposal to do what you wanted to do with outer space, where would you go, what would you try to accomplish? KAKU: Well, you know, Mars is tempting target, you know, because we are going to be having a large booster rocket in the next decade. Perhaps by the mid-2030s, we may have enough capability to reach the red planet. And in the long-term I think we should be a two planets species. It`s too dangerous to put various species on just one planet. There`s no rush of course, but we should become a two planet species. It`s an insurance policy basically. SCHULTZ: Who would want to live on a planet with no oxygen? I mean, that`s kind of a boring life isn`t it? I mean, you got to have oxygen or we can`t make it. KAKU: Well, we would have to terraform the planet, OK? Meaning that we would have to inject greenhouse gasses to create a greenhouse effect on Mars, milk the ice caps, get water flowing again after 3 billion years and perhaps seeded with genetically engineered algae so that we`ll have a Garden of Eden on Mars. Of course, this will take centuries to do. SCHULTZ: NASA is working to reconfigure the International Space Station for commercial crew missions. Is this a good idea? KAKU: Well, you know, right now we hitchhike on the Russian booster, OK? And, you know, that mean the space program is at the mercy of international geopolitics involving Russia. And we have to reduce the cost of space travel. If you had reusable commercial spacecraft, you could reduce the cost by factor of two to five maybe. If you can simply reused this booster rockets because, you know, it cost about $10,000 to put a pound of anything in orbit. That`s prohibitive. We do not have access to outer space because it simply too expensive, $20 million for any citizen to orbit the earth on the International Space Station -- $20 million that`s what it cost. SCHULTZ: That`s an expensive ticket. Is there much conversation amongst our government officials of what our next move is with space? I mean, you know, we`re trying to get equal pay wage and we`re trying to, you know, do a better job with education and healthcare and everything else and here we`re talking about another world. KAKU: Yeah. Well, you know, NASA is being criticizes being the agency to nowhere. I mean it spins wheels but it doesn`t do anything, doesn`t go anywhere. However, the thinking now it seems to chorales (ph) around Mars that perhaps will bypass the moon and go under the red planet. But it`s a long-term process, you know, like you mentioned, Mars is not a hospitable planet. There`s no oxygen, it`s below freezing, its a frozen dessert. But it could be our future in the long-term. SCHULTZ: What`s the next book? KAKU: I might publish it once, would have to come up with another book. I haven`t thought about it yet but I`ll think of one. SCHULTZ: Sure you have -- you don`t want to announce it here. I think NASA`s one of the greatest things ever happen to this country. I mean, laser technology, the medical advances that had been made... KAKU: Computer (inaudible)... SCHULTZ: ... GPS, everything. I mean, that just -- that`s an easy one. Professor Kaku, thanks for your time tonight. KAKU: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Always great to have you. I appreciate it. And that is the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022401cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 109 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 24, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS for February 24, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Kelly O`Donnell, Ann Curry, Richard Lui, Michael Steele GUESTS: Sen. Claire McCaskill, Sen. Mark Warner, Amanda Terkel, Joseph Califano, Steve McMahon SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8235 words HIGHLIGHT: Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald is apologizing again today about falsely saying that he served in the Special Forces. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell calls for a clean Homeland Security spending bill and a separate straight up-or-down vote on whether to countermand the president`s executive orders on immigration. The United States inches closer to a historic deal with Iran over its nuclear program. CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Big deals. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington. Two huge stories tonight, both pointing to historic breakthroughs. The first involves Homeland Security and immigration. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today called for the Senate to separate the two red-hot issues. He wants a clean Homeland spending bill to meet the midnight deadline Friday on keeping the department running and a separate, straight up-or- down vote on whether to countermand the president`s executive orders on immigration. The second big story tonight is word of breakthrough on U.S. efforts to win a long-term halt in Iran`s nuclear program. We`re going to get to that biggie next. But let`s start with Mitch McConnell`s OK to move ahead with a Homeland Security bill, but also with a separate bill to countermand Obama -- President Obama`s executive orders on immigration. We`ve got NBC`s Kelly O`Donnell to tell us what this all means. Kelly, this is an interesting division. He`s going to have a vote to basically avoid a shutdown Homeland Security spending, but also expose those moderate and conservative Democrats in the Senate to perhaps vote against the president and vote to countermand his executive orders on immigration. KELLY O`DONNELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. Mitch McConnell has come with an idea that would take the heat off of Republicans in Congress and really all of Congress by finding a way to fund the Department of Homeland Security and do sort of the right thing when it comes to being the governing party. But he also wanted to keep the pressure on Democrats and the president over the executive orders on immigration. So he found a path. We don`t yet know if that will work, but what he`s come up with is a willingness to do that funding bill without any restrictions dealing with the immigration order, what`s kind of known in Washington as a clean way to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded for the whole fiscal year. And then on Friday, he says, he wants to hold a vote, much more narrow, to say that Congress would, in fact, stop the president from having the funding just to implement the November executive order -- a limited approach, less than what was in the original House bill, but a way to especially have those centrist Democrats who have publicly said they believe the president went too far, to have to answer on a bill, to be called to really put their name on this. We don`t know if it`ll work, Chris, because Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is saying, Not so fast. I want assurances from John Boehner that House Republicans will go along. And he`s leaning on the fact that sometimes Speaker Boehner has said, yes, he agrees with something, but hasn`t been able to brings his conference along. MATTHEWS: OK, well, it sounds like Harry doesn`t like the way this is going, but it seems to me McConnell is a wily fox here because, basically, as you said, he takes the heat off the Republicans because they`re not holding up funding for Homeland Security in the wake of all these discussions about the Mall of America and things like that. At the same time, isn`t he putting a scorching heat on those moderate and centrist Democrats you mentioned who may well not want to be caught for voting for president`s perhaps overreach of authority on illegal immigration -- immigration? O`DONNELL: Exactly that. And he needs to do something to put the pressure on Democrats because it is so important to Republicans, and especially very conservative Republicans, to use their power of legislating to try to stop the president. And there are so few opportunities for them to do that with respect to those executive orders. So this is a way to say they`ll let the courts deal with it. They`ll fund the department, but they`ll show Democrats a chance to say, Are you with the president or are you not when it comes to that particular executive order, Chris. MATTHEWS: Smart fellow, that Mitch McConnell. Anyway, I`m not sure he`s right, but he`s smart. Thank you, Kelly O`Donnell, for the great report. O`DONNELL: Good to see you. Last November Democratic senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri said this about the president`s executive actions on immigration. Quote, "Our immigration system is broken, and I support a comprehensive plan to fix it, but executive orders aren`t the way to do it." Senator McCaskill joins me now. Senator, if you were to get a freestanding vote to countermand the president`s executive orders on illegal immigration, would you vote to countermand? SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: It`s not that I would vote to countermand. It was I would rather debate and vote on getting rid of his executive orders by Congress doing its job, Chris. We need to debate immigration reform. We hammered out a bill that wasn`t perfect, but it was exactly what we do in a democracy. It was a compromise. We had a lot of Republican support for the bill. We sent it to the House almost two years ago, and they never took it up to debate it. We`ve got to decide whether our job is to play political football with the president, or whether our job is to legislate fixing a broken system. That`s what we should be focused on. MATTHEWS: Well, the Republicans in the Senate, your colleagues up there, seem to want to do anything they can to eliminate what Obama, the president, did last fall. Do you see there`s going to be a vote? Does it look like that the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is going to get his way and have a vote like that? MCCASKILL: Well, first what`s going to have to happen is they`re going to have to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We had need to speak with one voice. Right now, when we are threatened in so many ways, we need to not be playing political games with the funding of Homeland Security. So let`s get that funded. Get it off the table. The Republicans are in charge. They can bring up whatever they want to bring up about immigration the very next day, and let`s debate it. And let`s amend it and let`s try to hammer out a solution. Just overturning his orders puts us right back where we are, with a broken system, with not enough protection at the border, without the kind of resources we need to provide, you know, a lot of industries that are depending on people with Green Cards. We`ve got to fix this system, and that`s what we ought to do. And this is what Congress has gotten so bad at. Our muscles about legislating have atrophied. We need to remember our that job here is to compromise and get legislation passed, not just beat up the president. MATTHEWS: Well, the Senate did a great job with a dozen Republicans supporting you guys. You got a good immigration reform bill. I think it`s really first rate. I wish the House would pass it. But now we`re stuck with a court system that looks like it`s going to declare -- it could well declare what the president did last fall unconstitutional. That leaves you back to square one, as well, just as a vote would do that, wouldn`t it? MCCASKILL: Yes, and that`s the point. I wish that more people would be asking Speaker Boehner, Well, what is your idea, not what upsets you about the president, but what is your solution for the immigration problem? It`s not realistic that we can deport... MATTHEWS: Well... MCCASKILL: ... 12 million people in this country. And so why do we give them a pass? Why can they just be negative? Why can`t they be constructive and come with a plan? It`s a little bit like them saying they`ll repeal and replace health care reform. Have you ever seen replace? MATTHEWS: Could it be... MCCASKILL: I`ve never seen replace. MATTHEWS: Could it be, Senator, if I can be candid -- you don`t have to be -- that they`ve got 218 votes in districts that don`t have a significant number of Latino voters, and that`s what they`re voting. This is an ethnic thing. They figure they can stand hard against immigration, illegal immigration, whatever, because they don`t have to deal with it politically. They just vote against it. MCCASKILL: Well, they need to talk to agricultural interests in this country and they need to talk to the Chamber of Commerce and they need to talk to businesses about whether or not -- and the talent we`re losing in this country because of the difficulty of highly educated people to be allowed to remain in this country. So yes, you know, they`re all in safe districts, and yes, they`re all worried about either their right or left flank, and the moderate people have kind of gone away in the House. But that doesn`t remove their responsibility to be a constructive partner with the Senate, debate bills, compromise on bills and try to pass bills. You know, I don`t think the American people are going to get excited about a Republican majority that just figures out every day a new way to beat up the president. MATTHEWS: Well said. Thank you so much, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Thanks for joining us. MCCASKILL: Thanks, Chris. MATTHEWS: One of the Senate Democrats that Mitch McConnell`s targeting is Democratic senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who has gone on record criticizing the president`s executive actions on illegal immigration. Last fall, he told reporters, "A big issue like immigration, the best way to get a comprehensive solution is to take this through the legislative process." Senator Warner joins us now from Capitol Hill. It looks to me, Senator, like Mitch McConnell has been very much the wily fox here. He`s gotten the heat off his party by saying he`s not going to hold up funding for Homeland Security at this time of theories and worries about terrorism coming at us. At the same time, he`s making folks like you, who are more moderate Democrats, deal with the issue of the way the president handled the issue of illegal immigration last fall. SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: Well, Chris, let`s take them one at a time. You know, the fact is, it would be crazy to cut off funding to Homeland Security. We have 17,000 DHS employees in Virginia alone, the idea of al Shabaab putting out videos, threatening American malls -- this is not the time to stop funding for Homeland Security. And both sides, Democrats and Republicans, had already agreed on the numbers. So this is a simply add-on by the Republicans. Now, at the end of the day, whether this plan that the majority leader has put forward -- I think you`re (ph) still going to be seeing what will happen in the House. If we end up coming back and the House simply sticks back on these conditions, we`ve not made progress. So we need to see a bill get to the president that he can sign before Friday night at midnight so that Americans can go around their daily lives recognizing that Homeland Security`s going to get funded. MATTHEWS: But why doesn`t the Senate just do its job and pass a clean bill? Why (INAUDIBLE) Harry Reid number (ph) -- He`s up to something here, Harry Reid. He is doing something here. You guys, especially him, seem to be worried that you have to vote on this immigration freestanding part of it. WARNER: No, I`m not -- no, I -- listen, as someone who said I wish the president would have done this legislatively, I think they should have taken up the immigration bipartisan bill that the Senate passed, 14 Republicans voted for. And we have already seen now the court put a hold on that action. They`re going to resolve that. I would not vote for that standalone bill that rolls back the November 14 executive order because that executive order, whether it was for dreamers, whether it was for some of their parents, whether it was some of the kids who`ve been previous dreamers who had not been covered by the earlier action -- I think that would have been all part of the immigration reform that I supported in the past. Why would I vote against it now? MATTHEWS: Do you believe it`s constitutional, what the president did last fall? WARNER: I think the courts... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: ... executive. WARNER: I think the courts are going to rule on that. MATTHEWS: Where`s your ruling? WARNER: Hey, listen, that`s why I never became a lawyer and became a business guy (INAUDIBLE) instead. MATTHEWS: OK. One last time. Why doesn`t the Senate do its job and pass a clean Homeland Security bill to fund through the next segment of the -- from now to October 1st? WARNER: Chris... MATTHEWS: Why not just do that and expect the House to do what it has to do? WARNER: Chris, you and I know that -- you and I and a few folks who follow the insides/outsides of who`s up and who`s down are very few in number in terms of House and Senate. What the American people want, what Virginia -- people of Virginia want is they want to make sure that Homeland Security doesn`t go without funding after Friday night at midnight. The only way we do that is if we get a bill that has no riders to the president of the United States so he can sign it. MATTHEWS: Anyway, you`re my kind of Democrat, so I hope it doesn`t hurt you to hear that. But thank you so much... WARNER: Thanks, Chris. MATTHEWS: ... Senator Mark Warner, a reasonable guy from Virginia. Coming up, the United States is inches closer to an historic deal with Iran over its nuclear program, and that news comes just days, of course, before Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s controversial address to the Congress. Plus, Hillary Clinton talks to the women of Silicon Valley. She`s connecting with her base for 2016, women. That`s a big change in strategy from the last time she ran. And what`s next for the secretary of Veterans Affairs? He apologized again today for falsely saying he was in the military`s special forces. He says he was trying to connect with a homeless veteran and has no excuse for making a statement that wasn`t true. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with the upbeat news from Iran, and it is good news. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says the U.S. Senate will take up an override of President Obama`s veto of the Keystone pipeline bill. The president issued the veto late this afternoon. It`s the third of his presidency -- only the third of his presidency -- and McConnell promises the Senate will consider an override no later than March. The Keystone pipeline bill passed the Senate last month by a vote of 62 to 36. And as it now stands, it looks unlikely that McConnell will have the two thirds majority needed to override the president`s veto. And we`ll be right back after this. JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: The policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. And anybody running around right now jumping in to say, Well, we don`t like the deal, or this or that, doesn`t know what the deal is. There is no deal yet. And I caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce. The P5-plus-1 talks have made inroads since the joint plan of action. We`ve halted the progress of Tehran`s nuclear program. We`ve gained unprecedented insight into it, and we expect to know soon whether or not Iran is willing to put together an acceptable and verifiable plan. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That, was of course, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry testifying today. Yesterday, he met with his Iranian counterpart in Geneva, and both sides are reporting progress. And according to some reports, they could be on the verge of a breakthrough. The Associated Press reports, "One variation being discussed would place at least a 10-year regime of strict controls on Iran`s uranium enrichment. If Iran complied, the restrictions would be gradually lifted over the final five years. And one issue critics are certain to focus on, once the deal expired, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level it wanted." Well, those are the facts. The sides are trying to reach a framework agreement by March 31st of this year, but there are plenty of obstacles, including very vocal critics both in Tehran and here in Washington. And Israel`s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, of course, is still planning to speak to the Congress on March 3rd of this, where he`s likely to criticize a potential deal with Iran. NBC News special correspondent Ann Curry is just back from covering the nuclear talks in Geneva. Ann, it`s so great to have you on for anything, but for this hot story -- I am one of those who really is hopeful. I don`t want to go to war with Iran because I don`t think it will ever end. I don`t think we`re going to get tougher sanctions from our allies than we have now, so I think the one route to avoiding a nuclear weapon or an arsenal of nuclear weapons in the hands of the ayatollahs is what we`re doing. Do we have hope now? ANN CURRY, NBC SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think that we do. In the past, what we`ve learned is that not talking to Iran actually doesn`t work, that, in fact, when you don`t talk to Iran, they actually increase the number of centrifuges. They increase their enrichment capacity, so there is (INAUDIBLE) effect. I learned from somebody who was actually in the room -- and imagine this, Chris -- that right after 9/11, then Iranian president Khatami actually offered the United States that he would limit the number of centrifuges to 164 centrifuges. Because the United States was not talking to Iran, we did not take that deal. And now we`re talking about trying to pull back thousands of centrifuges from Iran. So the idea of talking to Iran is actually ultimately going to be safer. The question, though, the big debate that you talk about when you talk about Bibi Netanyahu coming to speak next Tuesday before Congress is, ultimately, what will be the guts of the deal? And as you just heard from the secretary of state, who I flew back with from Geneva last night on his government plane, we don`t actually know the specifics of the deal. And we`ve already been told that even the things that they have agreed to can be changed until they finally sign the bottom line, which won`t be until June. But there is a deadline coming up, as you just talked about, at the end of March. And the interesting thing about that deadline that most people don`t realize, that it`s not March 31st because -- well, probably not because the Persian new year actually begins on March 21st, and just as the United States negotiators refused to negotiate through Thanksgiving, it is highly unlikely that the Iranian negotiators will want to continue to negotiate past the 21st. That new year lasts through April 4th, so that really talks about just in a matter of weeks, they`ve got to nail this thing down if they want to make a political framework that ultimately will lead to the kind of deal you`re talking about. MATTHEWS: Ann, you talked about them reducing the number of centrifuges. I don`t understand a lot of this, but are they retrenching what they have, destroying what they have, or simply agreeing or basically agreeing to a lower number of centrifuges that they`re producing? CURRY: You know, I think the real confusion -- and we talked about enrichment, we talk about centrifuges. It becomes very, very complicated, because it`s really about nuclear science. It`s about physics. And I think it`s hard for people to really understand. I can tell you that the debate is how many centrifuges to allow Iran to still have. MATTHEWS: Right. CURRY: But the real way to understand this is in what you talked about earlier, which is the breakout capacity. How long would it take Iran to build a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon bomb? And currently what we understand is on the table is that Iran would be limited to one year. In other words, it would take them a year. They would have the things, the centrifuges, the enriched uranium, all those kinds of ingredients, that that would -- it would take a year to work with these tools to create a bomb. Now, I need to hasten to add that Iran has insisted consistently that it has no interest in building a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon, that it`s against its faith, it`s again Sharia. It`s a Shia country, a Muslim country, and this has come from the supreme leader. But the interesting thing, the things that it needs to make a nuclear program for what it says are peaceful purposes are the same sorts of ingredients, these kinds of things we`re talking about, the enrichment, the centrifuges, as it will need for making a weapon. So the question really kind of comes down to trust. And so the interesting thing that happened -- interesting sort of step forward that happened during this particular round of talks is for the first time, two other cabinet members came along with those two men you see on your screen -- that`s the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, on the left, and the secretary of state, John Kerry, on the right. Along with them, both of them brought their energy secretaries. The United States energy secretary joined the talks, along with his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Salehi. These two men actually both went to MIT to study physics. In fact, we were told it was possible that they were so close -- that they were there almost at the same time, if not at the same time, though we have not learned whether or not they ever actually bumped into each other or knew each other. These two people are considered just brainiacs on the subject matter. And the difficulty in talking about this politically is that most anyone, most anybody at that table will probably not fully understand unless they have the voice of these highly trained people, every little itsy-bitsy part of that. MATTHEWS: Yes. CURRY: And I use the word itsy-bitsy, because obviously I`m one of those people who don`t -- who can`t claim to understand nuclear physics. I think that those two people being at the table this time, for the first time, brought a degree of comfort and a degree of credibility to the talks. And I think it was clear -- though no one was speaking publicly on the record, it was clear that there was a degree of comfort that their brainpower brought this time, that it created. MATTHEWS: Ann Curry, it`s great to have you on. I am hopeful after that report. Thank you so much. I hope we can avoid a war. I hope we can avoid them ever getting a nuclear weapon. Thank you so much for that hot report. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Up next, 50 years after Selma, we look back on the march that changed America, and the president who helped deliver the right to vote for everyone. It`s all now on the books because of one president, LBJ. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: We`re back to HARDBALL. There`s been a lot of talk this week about Selma, of course, and next week President Obama is going down to Alabama to commemorate that 50th anniversary of the historic event, when civil rights demonstrators were met with police violence at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. Last weekend, the leader of that demonstrations, U.S. Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, spoke on CBS about the legacy of that historic day. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: I don`t think as a group we had any idea that our marching feet across that bridge would have such an impact 50 years later. If it hadn`t been for that march across Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, there would be no Barack Obama as president of the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, Joseph Califano Jr. was the chief assistant for domestic affairs to President Lyndon Johnson. He`s author of the memoir "The Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson," with a new introduction just out. He joins me right now. He joins me right now. Joe, thank you for joining us. Who was the greatest civil rights president? JOSEPH CALIFANO, AUTHOR, "THE TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY OF LYNDON JOHNSON": I think it`s a tossup between Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson. I think there`s no one closer to them, I think, Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation. But Johnson did put a lot of flesh on it with the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in employment and public accommodations, the Voting Rights Act, which, as John Lewis just said, was really a partnership between Johnson and Martin Luther King, and the Fair Housing Act in 1968, in the wake of King`s assassination. I think LBJ has to be way up there. And affirmative action, let`s not forget that. MATTHEWS: Yes. You know, driving down to spring break back at Holy Cross, where you went as well, I remember driving down to the South, through Georgia and places like that, and there were still those "white only" signs at the gas stations and "white only" signs at the convenience stores, even though they were outlawed by that act. They were still floating up there. People hadn`t ripped them down yet. But it shows you how life was. You remember it, what it was like in the early `60s still. CALIFANO: Oh, I know it. Listen, when I came -- I was in Washington in the Navy from 1955 to 1958. The theaters were segregated. Even -- remember the great August `63 march. I was in the Pentagon then. I worked with the -- Walter Fauntroy and Bayard Rustin, two great civil rights leaders, to help the Army`s part of that march and the Justice Department. And I remember we had trouble with the hotels. They didn`t want to take black clients in the hotels, hotels like the Mayflower, all these great hotels. They wanted no part of it. MATTHEWS: Yes. People forget that D.C. was a segregated city, very much so. It was very much a Southern town. Anyway, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, what Johnson signed, passed with four out of five Republicans. People don`t believe the Republican Party in those days, and all but six Republican senators in the entire U.S. Senate. And the Voting Rights Act passed with similar support from Republicans in the House and the Senate a year later. Joe, you live up in New York. You know that city. You know the Northeast. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: What happened to those Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and Jack Javits and Hugh Scott and all those people who totally, utterly building in civil rights? They would be scorned in the party of Reince Priebus, which is out there trying to kill voting terrorists through these I.D. laws. CALIFANO: Well, the I.D. laws, and they have been drummed out of the Republican Party. One of the great things about those years that people forget is that virtually all those civil rights laws and all of those Great Society laws were passed with significant Republican support. They were bipartisan laws. MATTHEWS: So what happened, Joe? Was Johnson right when he said the minute he signed that civil rights bill in `64 he was kissing the South goodbye, but he was also kissing the moderate Republican Party goodbye? CALIFANO: Well, he certainly kissed the South goodbye, although we may see the South start to inch back, because, as he knew, the Voting Rights Act was the most important piece of legislation in his administration, the proud -- the thing he was most proud of. And as minorities and blacks become a bigger and bigger part of the voting bloc down there, we`re going to see a change in the South, maybe not in my lifetime, but within the next 20 years. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. Your book is called "The Triumph and Tragedy." Let me ask you about this important question. Who is Joe Califano going to endorse for the Democratic nomination for the president next year? (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: And here is your chance on national television to do what you wish. Joe Califano now endorses Hillary Clinton or fails to. Which is it going to be? (CROSSTALK) CALIFANO: Let me tell you, I want a bold leader. I think we`re at a situation. We need a bold leader. We have income inequality. We have education inequality. We have climate change. You have a revolution in communications and technology. We need somebody that`s going to go big and bold. MATTHEWS: Keep going. CALIFANO: And I would hope that whoever the Democratic nominee is does that. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: OK. CALIFANO: Not stay in the middle. MATTHEWS: Whoever. You`re endorsing whoever. CALIFANO: There`s no room -- there`s no room in the middle for greatness. MATTHEWS: OK. CALIFANO: You have got to be bold. MATTHEWS: How about -- would you like Elizabeth Warren to challenge Hillary for the nomination? CALIFANO: I would like to see a vigorous Democratic debate. I think it would be a -- it would be a very good thing. But I think whoever the nominee is... MATTHEWS: Would Elizabeth be able to fight that vigorous debate against Hillary? CALIFANO: I think it`s going to be very tough. You know that and I know that, especially with the money you need today. And we`re talking about an election that could be a billion-and-a-half on each side, Republican and Democrat. A $3 billion election, Chris, my God. MATTHEWS: John Podesta will be calling you tomorrow morning, or tonight, Joe, perhaps to discuss this inability of you to get behind the right candidate. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, just teasing. But we are waiting for your endorsement because you`re a powerful voice against the evils of addiction and things like that, but I thought you might favor us with a news announcement tonight. Anyway. CALIFANO: Well, I just want big. Bold is beautiful for me. And I hope that Hillary, I hope any Democratic candidate will be bold. I think that`s -- you know, look at the last century, Chris, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson. They didn`t go to the middle. MATTHEWS: Yes. CALIFANO: They went bold and they brought the middle to them. That`s what the Democratic Party has to do. MATTHEWS: OK. OK. You have had your say, and you have had your chance, and you have blown it. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you. The book is called "The Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson." It`s in paperback with a new introduction by Joseph Califano. Up next: Hillary Clinton is pushing something this time around that she didn`t do last time. And that`s ahead. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. RICHARD LUI, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi. I`m Richard Lui. Here`s what`s happening. Jury deliberations are expected to begin soon in the trial of Eddie Ray Routh. The ex-Marine is accused of fatally shooting American sniper Chris Kyle and another man in February of 2013. A verdict could come as early as tonight. And 28 people were hurt, four critically, when a commuter train hit a truck and derailed outside Los Angeles. And former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says he will not run for Barbara Boxer`s Senate seat. She will not run for reelection next year -- now back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. And this is going to be interesting. Hillary Clinton was back in the spotlight today, late today, speaking before a crowded room at a women`s conference in Silicon Valley out in California, where she was reportedly paid a speaking fee of $300,000, according to "The Washington Post." Well, Hillary Clinton was making her 2016 pitch to what is referred to as the upwardly mobile professional women, or, as some call, them the lean-in voters. And Hillary hit the gender themes hard today, leaning in as a champion for women. Here she is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: My friend Madeleine Albright famously said there`s a special spot in hell for women who don`t help other women. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) CLINTON: So, what you do does not have to be big and dramatic. You don`t have to run for office. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Wow. As NBC`s Andrea Mitchell put it, last time Hillary Clinton ran, she played down her gender, as she tried to prove that a woman could be, for example, commander in chief. Well, this time, her role as mother and grandmother will be central to her campaign, according to her advisers. That`s news. Being the first female candidate likely to become a major party nominee for president is, of course, the change part of Hillary 2.0, intended to mitigate against her age and the fact that she could be or would be the second Clinton if she wins the White House. Well, joining the roundtable right now is Huffington Post senior political reporter Amanda Terkel, former Republican chairman and MSNBC political analyst Michael Steele, and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon. He is really a strategist, by the way. It`s... (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: I got to go to you, Amanda, on this thing, because, first of all, before we went to break, I`m asking you and others here on the panel, on the roundtable, should we call her Hillary? And I guess people -- on the posters were Hillary, first name, because -- to separate it from bill. And we always around here rather causally and somebody abusively at times say W. So we are used to separating people of the same surname by their first name. But I can also -- I also try to say Secretary Clinton. I try to say Senator Clinton, not often. I think she goes by Secretary Clinton, the most formal protocol. Let`s get back to women. She`s not running as just another candidate. She is running, it seems from this, although it was to a group of women, as the woman candidate. AMANDA TERKEL, THE HUFFINGTON POST: Right. She was reaching out to women today who see themselves in Hillary Clinton. They are upwardly mobile women who sit at a table full of men and they think, I`m smarter than all these guys, why am I not in charge? Hillary, I`m sure, has thought that many times. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: But they could be wrong. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: You could be wrong when you -- I mean, I think I`m smarter than everybody, too. I could be wrong. Listen, we`re all guilty. Well, go on. (LAUGHTER) TERKEL: But these are women who are very underrepresented in their field. MATTHEWS: Who doesn`t think they`re smarter than everybody else? TERKEL: I think more men think that than women think that. And I think that they would like to see Hillary break that final barrier, the cracks in the glass ceiling, the glass ceiling finally break. MATTHEWS: Yes. TERKEL: And they`re going to work on behalf of her. They have money and they will fund-raise for her. MATTHEWS: So, do you think, as a journalist or as a person, that if Hillary gets elected president -- as she`s got as good a shot as anybody. TERKEL: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: She`s I think quite plausibly the next president -- that women will behave differently? Like, every time I go give speeches or do a Q&A, every guy in the room has got a question. Women don`t do it. What is -- is that me? (LAUGHTER) TERKEL: It will take a while. I mean, women often don`t run for office, for example, because they aren`t encouraged to run for office. MATTHEWS: How about this? Put your hand up. TERKEL: They aren`t encouraged to run for office. They don`t wake up and look in the mirror and say I see a senator, I see a president. If they see a woman as president, they might start to think that more and be encouraged more and be told, you`re smart, rather than, oh you look so pretty. MATTHEWS: See? STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I have four daughters, I tell them they look pretty and they`re smart. I thought it was very interesting what she was doing today because she seems very mindful of the fact that 53 percent of voters in any presidential race for anything are women. She was very, very explicit about -- MATTHEWS: In California, by the way, it`s about 60 percent of the Democratic Party are women. MCMAHON: The other thing I thought was interesting was she basically said there were two things the next president needs to do. One is make the economy work for everybody, especially the middle class, has been left out, make wage growth a priority again. But the second thing she talked about was, we need somebody who can bring the left and right together, which, you know, people often think of Hillary Clinton as a polarizing figure, but the mother and grandmother in her was talking about -- MATTHEWS: You think that`s the zealot, it`s that Machiavellian, I`m a grandmother, I can make people get along? MCMAHON: I think it`s, I`m a woman, and that`s just another advantage of being woman, because women can bring people together. MATTHEWS: OK, Bobby Kennedy, one of our heroes, most people here, probably yours, too, said, hang a lantern on your problem. If you got a problem, everybody calls you ruthless, don`t try to hide from it. Is being a grandmother, which I`m heard she`s pushing -- she is one, my wife is grandmother, I`m a grandfather -- is a way of saying I`m a little older, but there`s a plus to that? MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it humanizes her. It puts her in the mainstream of conversations at kitchen tables around the country. It puts her in the mainstream of living room where grandmas and granddads are sitting there playing with their grandkids and watching her give a speech. I think that`s something she wants to tap into this time. I was amazed in watching her and kind of smiling, it`s sort of like the where`s Waldo of politics today? Where is Hillary? Everybody wants to talk about -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You could say, she`s where they`re paying $300,000. That`s a heck of a lot of money for an hour. STEELE: She`s not only a grandmother, but she`s a smart businesswoman. So, I think, you know -- MATTHEWS: To get in I think it was like 300 bucks. TERKEL: She`s getting paid to talk to her base. MATTHEWS: Well, that`s cute. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, on Sunday, at the Oscars, we all watch actress Patricia Arquette voiced her loud support and actually got a standing ovation for the issue of equal pay. Here it is to remind of what happened to the Oscars. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PATRICIA ARQUETTE, ACTRESS: To every taxpayers and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else`s equality rights. It`s our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United States of America. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: That`s, of course, Meryl Streep seconding the argument. Earlier today, Hillary Clinton seconded herself Arquette`s call for wage fairness. Here is the secretary. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Women are paid less for the same work, which is why I think we all cheered at Patricia Arquette`s speech at the Oscars, because she`s right. It`s time to have wage equality once and for all. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: So the bills out there, the bill we are fighting over here, is to somehow make it work, wage equality. It`s on the books now, but it doesn`t work for a lot of reasons. TERKEL: Right. This would be a focus of Hillary Clinton`s administration if she did take office. She had the final frontier is equal opportunities for women and girls. She did this as secretary of state. Her argument today was in some ways economic. We can`t succeed as a country economically if we`re only utilizing half our population. And so, we need these family-friendly policies that help not only women, but help men. And I think that will be a big focus, more than it was last time. MATTHEWS: Michael, years ago I got away for writing an article in "The New Republic" about political parenthood, how the made candidates of the Republican Party, your party, is all for guns, and for national defense, capital punishment, tough, macho stuff. The Democratic party is for health care, education, child development, women`s issues. You can say, yes, the mommy and the daddy party. I`m not saying that anymore. But Hillary seems to be very carefully saying, OK, I`ll be the mommy party, that`s the big part of my agenda, and I`ll say it -- health care, education, equal play, I will play that part. I`m not running for general of the armies here. STEELE: Oh, I think that`s probably true, but she`ll get tripped up on it when, you know, the facts come out that, you know, she`s caught in that pay equity gap just like every other employer out there, given what women made in her office as secretary of state versus what -- MATTHEWS: Aren`t those government statutory titles -- STEELE: Well, again, but, yes, but you`re the secretary, you can change that. You can pay -- MATTHEWS: You have that knife in your pocket. You had that ready. (CROSSTALK) STEELE: The numbers are the numbers. And the reality of it is -- MATTHEWS: Do you have the facts on this? STEELE: Yes, I do, and it`s been reported. But again, this is -- this is part of the conversation we`re going to have, and that as she steps out into this light, a lot of these things are going to come out how she handles them playing to that role that you said. MATTHEWS: Do you want to say something here? MCMAHON: Well, first of all, I think Michael is grasping, and her salary is set by statute. But beyond that I think -- MATTHEWS: Not her, her employees, the women who worked in her office. MCMAHON: I think Andrea Mitchell is absolutely right. She was the candidate who happened to be a female candidate for president last time. This time, she`s going to be the female candidate for president, and she`s going to play it. Don`t underestimated second part which I mentioned a moment ago. People are so tired of the gridlock which is represented and embodied by all the men fighting all the time in Washington, and only the women can make things happen. MATTHEWS: It`s just too bad the Republicans don`t have General Petraeus to run, because if you guys had him, he`s a very smart guy and would play the daddy party very well. STEELE: If he decides to run, we`ll be ready for Hillary. This is the least of our concerns at this point, trust me. MATTHEWS: I like the way your eyes flashed there, at least -- it`s very convincing. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us. And up next, what`s next for the secretary of veterans affairs after apologizing today for saying he was not -- well, he apologized for saying he was in the special forces. He was not. I don`t get this one. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: The American people are growing, more supportive of a military campaign against ISIS. According to a new Pew poll, catch this -- 63 percent, about 2/3 approve the U.S. campaign against the militant group. Only 30 percent disapproved. When asked whether they support sending ground troops to fight ISIS, Americans are evenly split now -- 47 percent favor the idea, 49 percent oppose it. By the way, that`s a 14-point swing towards ground troops since October. And I have felt it myself. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald is apologizing again today about falsely saying that he served in the Special Forces. He made the statement while speaking to a homeless man in Los Angeles and his remark was included in a CBS report that aired last month. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: Really? Army, Navy, Air Force? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Army. MCDONALD: Army? What unit? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Special Forces. MCDONALD: Special Forces? What years? I was in Special Forces. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I was in Special Forces. In a press conference today, McDonald called the remark a mistake and tried to explain why he said it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MCDONALD: In an attempt to connect with that veteran to make him feel comfortable, I incorrectly stated that I, too, had been in Special Forces. That was wrong and I have no excuse. My biggest motivation was to connect with the veteran. It was a misstatement. It was a mistake. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, this comes after McDonald also overstated the number of people who have been fired from the V.A. following the departure of Eric Shinseki. But the White House said yesterday it`s standing by him. We`re back now with our roundtable, Amanda, Michael and Steve. Michael, as a fellow Republican, I like to connect with you -- (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: As a fellow GOPer I would like to -- are we feeling connected now? STEELE: This is the seventh sign. Go ahead. MATTHEWS: What do you think of this? We`ve had cases like this all over the media, of course. We know now with Brian. We know it now with, what`s his name, O`Reilly, and there is big debate. But, you know, resume inflation accused or real is all over the place. STEELE: It`s not resume inflation. It is something about people wanting to connect with our military by lying, about what they`ve done, how they served, how they`ve interacted with the military. MATTHEWS: First, you know, Richard Blumenthal, there is a series of candidates who have said, I served in Vietnam. STEELE: Right, I don`t understand what that is. The American people, they get it, they`re not looking for you and certainly I`m sure that the soldier thought now I`m more connected to the secretary that he`s lied to me. MATTHEWS: How about giving him a job? STEELE: Yes, thank you, this guy is a homeless guy. So, let`s start with that idea. So, it`s just an amazing to me that whether you`re in television or in politics or whatever, you feel this is -- MATTHEWS: I don`t want to get into names or media critics, I tried to avoid media criticism of anybody, including people from my network and around it, but is a need to have a macho background for men especially? What about you? You were looking at us as a gender. Is this a men to have a Hemmingway kind of background? They can`t just be a smart guy that made his way to the job he`s in. There has to be a back story. TERKEL: Well, Hillary did this too, dodging sniper fire, dodging -- MATTHEWS: Yes, that`s right. (INAUDIBLE) TERKEL: So, I mean, I think, you know as Michael was saying, there is a little bit of, you want to show that you`re a little tougher. This may be something more common with men. But Secretary McDonald did serve in the military. He didn`t really have to inflate that. MATTHEWS: Yes, 82nd Airborne is not a slouch. TERKEL: Right, exactly. So -- MATTHEWS: Do they jump out of airplanes? STEELE: Yes. TERKEL: I mean, I don`t think he`s going anywhere. I don`t think he`s going to resign. He has it, he`s been in front that he served in the 82nd Airborne before -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: They have a whole discussion about media guys watched over now and gotten in trouble. He must know it is in the air, don`t inflate. MCMAHON: It seems incredible. By the way, I think it`s also a sign that the Obama administration might not have complete and total confidence by the fact that he went out and had a news conference, which I suspect -- MATTHEWS: Somebody pushed him? MCMAHON: Go do your news conference and we`ll talk to you afterwards, and we`ll see how well you handle it. We`ll see if there are follow on stories day after day after day. But I will tell you one thing, you`re probably not going to hear a lot about this on FOX News for obvious reasons, and I think that is probably good for him because Republicans, you know, love to take these things and just pick apart -- MATTHEWS: Why wouldn`t they go after him? MCMAHON: Well, they`ve got their Bill O`Reilly problem over there and they`re standing behind their man there and his embellishment was similar in many respects to this. MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much. Bill, his name is Steve McMahon. He`s a fellow Irishman. You can look at him up. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Amanda Terkel, thank you. And Michael Steele, thank you. We`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: Let me finish with the upbeat news from Iran. My guess is that people running that country are looking at three routes that can them take them into the near and intermediate future. They can go along with a deal that at minimum delays any plans they have for building nuclear weapons. That would end the sanctions and put them back on a road to a strong economic presence in the region. In this way, they could become a major Islamic country in the oil-producing Mideast and could make them a real economic rival of Israel over the long haul. It would give them something real, not the threat of having a nuclear weapon in their hands, but the present reality of economic power and with it, conventional military strength. This would be the smart move I would think from their way of thinking. The two alternatives are to stiff the U.S. on a deal, taking their chance that we could not get -- or we could not toughen the sanctions against them and feeling that we would not attack them militarily or would not help Israel do it. Well, those second and third options don`t seem that sane to me. I think any reasonable person knows that an American president cannot no matter what his ideology let this current government in Iran have a nuclear weapons arsenal. No president could put up with that, and certainly not a left of center president like Obama. So, I`m hoping that the leaders of Iran make the right decision, that the news we got today was real, that there`s now a prospect -- a good prospect of getting a deal that keeps Iran well short of getting nuclear weapons. I know that Bibi Netanyahu disagrees with the approach I`ve laid out, but I bet the majority of Israelis do not. Why? Because once the United States or Israel or both of us go to a hot war with Iran, there is no counting on the consequences. We listened to the neocons when they cheered us into Baghdad. We listened to those who cheered the Bush freedom agenda, as it careened its way into Baghdad. We listened to those who loved the sight of a toppling Egypt and a topping Libya, and hope just as fervently for a toppling Syria. In every case, we got worse than what we had. Let`s hope that ayatollahs in Iran are sane and do the right thing, even as the screwballs on our side of the world cheer for yet another U.S. war with far worse consequences than we can imagine. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022401cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 110 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 24, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 24, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Jonathan Capehart GUESTS: Jim McDermott, Elizabeth Warren, Elijah Cummings, Jack Gillum, Greg Meeks, Krystal Ball, John Fugelsang, Angela Rye SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 6805 words HIGHLIGHT: Keystone Pipeline will have a minimal effect on gas prices and it will only create 35 permanent jobs, and as per President Obama, it is not good for the economy and environment. The middle class prosperity project is to formulate and implement concrete policy changes in order to address these challenges. The Associated Press tracked Schock`s travels partly through his Instagram posts. REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: President Obama vetoes the GOP bill to approve the Keystone Pipeline. Flexing his political muscles with just the third veto, he`s issued in his entire presidency. It marks a key item on the GOP`s agenda stopped dead in its tracks by the president. And why? Because the GOP claims that, the pipeline would create jobs and lower gas prices just weren`t true. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that there`s been this tendency to really hype this thing as some magic formula and to what ails the U.S. economy, and it`s hard to see on paper where exactly they`re getting that information from. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It wouldn`t be worth it. That`s why the present issued this veto and he`s just getting started. So far this year, the White House has issued at least ten veto threats against the GOP bills to repeat the health care law, roll back abortion rights, and defund the president`s executive action on immigration. These are the kinds of bills that Republicans are pushing, ones they know the president won`t sign. They`re not interested in governing, just in scoring political points. It`s the complete opposite of what they promised back in November. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: Well to start with the view, that maybe there`s some things we can agree on to make progress of the country. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAJORITY LEADER: The American people made it clear Election Day they want to get things done. MCCONNELL: We`re going to function. This gridlock and dysfunction can be ended. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It was a joke. They`re not serious about passing bills that were actually become laws, but the president is serious about stopping the harmful agenda. Joining me now are Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, and Jonathan Capehart of "The Washington Post." Thank you both for being here. JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Rev. REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Good to be here. SHARPTON: Congressman, only the third veto we`ve seen from President Obama, how significant is that? MCDERMOTT: It`s a big one. They have staked so much on this faulty project. And now the president has put them to the wall, and we`re going to see if they`ve got the power to take and to make it happen. They don`t. The president is going to win. They have not figured out that compromise is what has to happen for government to work. Nobody can bully their way through. And they keep trying to bully the president. This shutdown they are working on right now is another bully tactic. SHARPTON: You know, Jonathan, what message did the president sending to Republicans given all this? CAPEHART: Saying it`s a new day. He`s saying that into the Congressman point, the Republicans have been trying to bully the president since he was inaugurated. And now they are learning that the president is not going to be bullied. The president has made is very clear, and especially since the midterm elections of 2014 when Republicans thought, well now that we have the House and now that we have the Senate, now we will exert our will on the president. They`re beginning to discover that the president has a whole lot of other tricks up his sleeve to keep them from doing things that he doesn`t think are good for the country, but also the nation is seeing that all these promises of one-party rule on Capitol Hill does not necessarily mean or equal governance. SHARPTON: Congressman, you know, we heard a lot from Republicans about how great the Keystone Pipeline would be for jobs. But a report by the state department found the project would only create 35 permanent jobs after construction. And lots of reports have found that the pipeline would have a minimal effect if at all, on gas prices. I mean, aren`t there better project for the GOP to push? MCDERMOTT: You would think, Rev., that they would want a infrastructure bill to deal with highways and transit and all the things the bridges and water systems and what not that needs to be rebuild. They would have a much better impact on the economy if they would put together a bill, figure out a way to finance it, and compromise with the president. We could do some really good things if they wouldn`t pick these things where he has said, no, that`s not good for the environment and I`m not going to do it. SHARPTON: Well -- and infrastructure is a necessary thing. But you know, Jonathan, today was the owned the third veto the president has issued, a lower number than all of his most recent predecessors. But "New York Times" says the president is quote, "opening the veto era of his presidency," which would be, quote, "an extension of his second-term strategy to act alone in the face of Republican opposition and safeguard his legislative record." How important will the veto be for the president going forward, Jonathan? CAPEHART: Well, when the Democrats had the Senate -- then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the block. SHARPTON: Right. CAPEHART: That`s one of the reasons why the president has so few vetoes. No -- very few bills came to his desk that required it, because Harry Reid was the block. Now that Harry -- now that Mitch McConnell is the majority leader and they`re going to be sending the president bills that he knows he`s not going to sign, they know that he`s not going to sign, that number -- that`s three right now is going to skyrocket over the next two years. SHARPTON: Now, Congressman, in light to that, the other big issue in Washington this week, the looming shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security and Republicans are starting to sound very nervous. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I remember the last time we shut down the whole government, this would obviously be homeland security. The last time we shut down the whole government, we turn out away 600,000 visitors to our national parts here in Arizona. I don`t want to see that movie again. REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Republicans are wrong in making this a hostage to the immigration issue. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: For God sakes, don`t shut down the premier homeland security defense line called the Department of Homeland Security. If we do as Republicans, we`ll get blamed. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, Senate Republicans have blamed on this, Congressman. Will House Republicans back down? MCDERMOTT: I think there`s no question there, ultimately their going to back down. Boehner is going to figure out, he`s been out there saying, well we`re going to shut her down. Well, he`s now going to have to turn around the 180 degrees and go the other way and pass it, as a clean bill. You can`t put 230,000 people out off the payroll and then expect the country`s security to be secure. I mean, it`s just -- it makes no sense. How can you -- how are you going to walk past somebody in the airport who is working because they`re essential, but they`re not being paid and expect their mind to be on where am I going to pay my mortgage this month? SHARPTON: Jonathan? CAPEHART: And this how ridiculous the situation is, everyone is looking to Senator Mitch McConnell to come up with -- come up with a plan for a clean DHS bill to come to the floor to be voted on. But under our constitution, appropriations bills come from the House. So as the Congressman said, Speaker Boehner is the one who`s going to have to figure out how he is going to get a clean bill from his chamber to the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is able to do it in his chamber. Speaker Boehner is going to have to pass an identical bill so that it originates there and then go back to the Senate. How they do that by Friday, is beyond me. SHARPTON: Well, Congressman, I don`t know that they can do it by Friday. MCDERMOTT: I really think they have waited -- they played this game too far down and they`re going to go over the cliff. Now they may rescue themselves by extending it some way by two or three days or something or week but they -- they`re really putting these people in a terrible place and putting the security of our country in jeopardy. It is absolutely unbelievable that they could say this is what the American people wanted in the 2014 elections. They want a government that works. SHARPTON: It is amazing this kind of stuff is still happening. Congressman Jim McDermott and Jonathan Capehart, thank you both for your time tonight. CAPEHART: Thanks, Rev. MCDERMOTT: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Coming up, breaking news from Hillary Clinton`s first public speech in months, dropping hints about 2016 and saying there`s a, quote, "special spot in hell for women who don`t help other women." Republican candidates, are you listening? Also the progressive warrior, Elizabeth Warren has a new plan for the middle class. And she`ll join us live tonight. Plus, the GOP plan to block Loretta Lynch`s nomination is gaining momentum tonight. It must be stopped. And a Department of Justice makes a big announcement on George Zimmerman. And Rudy Giuliani gets the Jon Stewart treatment. Big show ahead, please stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Yes. I hear all this, you know, else is -- well, this is class warfare, this is whatever, no. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own, nobody. God bless, keep a big hunk of it, but part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kids who comes along. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It was a progressive call to arms from then candidate Elizabeth Warren. And it created a sensation on American politics. Since then Senator Warren has put up a relentless fight and a white-hot spotlight on the issue of income and equality and economic fairness. Today she`s teaming up with another champion, Congressman Elijah Cummings, launching the middle class prosperity project. They write quote, "for more than 30 years America`s middle class has been hammered, powerful interest groups, massive corporation and the super rich rigged the system to jack-up their profit and grabbed the spoil for themselves. It`s time to change that system." Yes, it is time. So how do you do that? Joining me now is Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Elijah Cummings. Thank you both for being here. REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: Good evening. WARREN: Good to be here. SHARPTON: Senator Warren, tell me about your new initiative. WARREN: Well, so Congressman Cummings and I have teamed up, because we look around, and we see that the economy is starting to recover, that rich people are doing great, that Fortune 500 companies are doing great, that the stock market is doing great, but that hard-working people are not doing so great. And that`s because of choices that are made right here in this place, right here in Washington. Right now Washington works for those who can hire armies of lobbyists, for those who can hire armies of lawyers, but it`s just not working for working families. What we`ve done is we`re organizing a project to say we`re ready to fight back, we`re ready to fight on behalf of middle class families, working people all across this country. SHARPTON: Congressman Cummings, we know you as a fighter. What do you hope this project achieves? CUMMINGS: Well first of all, I want to make sure that we inform the American people and the Congress of exactly what`s happening. And making sure they understand that while they are working harder and producing more, that their paychecks aren`t showing that. In other words, we want them to be clear that the corporate CEOs and shareholders have taking the biggest share of the profits. And their wages are stagnating and we want them to understand that a lot of that has to do with policies of the Federal Government and that it can be changed. So the number one thing we`re trying to do first of all is inform, and then we want to move to reform to try to address some of those issues through legislation SHARPTON: Senator, you know, the American for decades -- American wages grew with the economy. WARREN: Yes. SHARPTON: But that started changing around in 1970s, productivity is up almost 75 percent since 1973, while wages have risen just over nine percent. WARREN: Yes. SHARPTON: What is the core of the problem? What`s really driving this, Senator Warren? WARREN: So you know, we had today at our forum, we had in some top economists, who came in and talked about exactly what`s happened. Here`s how I put it. From about 1935 to 1980, 90 percent of America -- everybody outside the top ten percent, they took in about 70 percent of all the wage growth. They were -- in other words, as our economy was getting more productive, the median income was going up for workers across the spectrum. Then starting roughly in about 1980 until 2012, you look at that period, the 90 percent, they got zero income growth. Zero, none. And the reason for the difference -- that`s a big part of what we talked about today in this forum. The reason for the difference are, in part, federal policies made right here. So, for example, just to pick one, back in the 19 -- from 1935 to 1980, we had strong unions, and workers had a strong voice in America. SHARPTON: Right. WARREN: A strong voice in the economy. That really got ripped away from them. It got ripped away from them with bad trade deals. It got ripped away from them with a government that began to undermine unionization. And when workers lost power in the economy, their wages flat lined. And what happened is all of the money from their increased productivity just went to the CEOs, the shareholders, it didn`t go to the workers. So that`s at least the part of it. CUMMINGS: Yes. (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: Well, Congressman, if right in that bill, then some of the federal policy helped to lead to this, it would take federal policy to undo what federal policy has done. How do you and Senator Warren plan to get that done with a Republican Congress and Senate? CUMMINGS: Well, you know, Rev., you have taught us that you`ve got to have an outside game. WARREN: Yes. CUMMINGS: And that`s why I talk so much about informing the public. We believe that if the public can back us up, one thing is like tax reform that benefit the middle class and daycare, helping people address is the daycare and costs of education, and they understand that it can be changed and it must be changed, then they will force their representatives to do the right thing. We`re determined to make this happen. We don`t have any choices. That said in the hiring today. We do not have the right to remain silent. And by the way, the middle class, they`re basically they`re not asking for a handout, Reverend. They`re asking for just a fair shake. SHARPTON: And I think that that is what clearly, Senator Warren, you`ve been saying the handouts have gone to the top one percent. The day are the one that they`ve got, you know, the big lift here. WARREN: No kidding. And they`re the ones who have gotten the tax breaks. I mean, that`s another part of it. 1935 to 1980, we had much more progressive taxation. And we said to those at the top, good for you that made it. But you`ve got to kick back into the kitty. So we can make those investments in education, so we can build those roads and bridges and power structures. CUMMINGS: Yes. WARREN: So that we can invest in basic research, so we can built a future for all of our kids. That`s gone away, and it`s gone away because the policies made right here in this building. SHARPTON: Well, Congressman, we`ve been see I`m out of time but we even see some of the Republicans in 2016 not talking about income and equality. WARREN: Yes. CUMMINGS: That`s sad and it`s very unfortunate. The things, too, Reverend, is that it`s very important that we address this issue, because what happens is a if we can straighten this out, what that means is that people will have more money to spend, more discretionary money so they can help the economy grow. Keep in mind 70 percent of the GDP is consumer spending. So if they don`t have the money, then a lot of these businesses will not be able to make the kind of money that they could. So we`ve got -- this is something that we`re all in this together, and that`s the thing. SHARPTON: Yes. CUMMINGS: We`ve got to make sure the people understand, we`ve got to work together and make and we can address this issue. SHARPTON: Senator Warren, before we go, I`m not going to ask that same question you keep getting asked about, are you running for president. You already told me that. But you had a meeting with Hillary Clinton, and I`m not even going to ask you about your private meeting, you didn`t invite me, but a lot of progressives have question about whether she`ll be a progressive warrior. What would you say to them? WARREN: You know, I think they`re told what we`ve got to see. I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do. That`s what campaigns are supposed to be about. SHARPTON: All right. I`ll accept that. I`ll take it at that. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Elijah Cummings, thank you both for your time tonight. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Revered. WARREN: Thank you. SHARPTON: Still ahead, breaking news from Hillary Clinton speaking out on 2016 and throwing down the gauntlet on women`s issues. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: There is a special spot in hell for women who don`t help other women. So -- (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Also, the right wing`s new push to derail the Loretta Lynch nomination, just days before her key, a first key vote. But first, a Republican lawmaker whose Instagram habit has landed him in some hot water. That`s next. SHARPTON: Breaking news from California, where Hillary Clinton just wrapped up her first public speech in months. She dropped some big hints about 2016, and also weighed in on everything from the Oscars to being a grandmother. That`s ahead. SHARPTON: Republican Congressman Aaron Schock made the one of the most prolific Instagram users in Congress. He posted photos of himself smiling with pop star Ariana Grande, parasailing in Argentina, climbing glaciers in Patagonia, and surfing in Hawaii. Here`s what he told "Morning Joe" about his Instagram account, just last year. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. AARON SCHOCK (R), ILLINOIS: That`s my Instagram and I control my Instagram. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You Instagram? (CROSSTALK) SCHOCK: So I put up the photos and if there`s a reason it`s a private account. But you know, in public office nothing is private. So I`ve just learned that anything I post to my friends and family could end up on "Morning Joe." (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But now Schock`s Instagram is turning out to be a big new source of trouble. An Associated Press investigator reveals that Congressman Schock has spend taxpayer and campaign money on private planes, concerts, and even a massage parlor. The A.P. tracked Schock`s travels partly through his Instagram posts. Joining me now is the A.P. Jack Gillum, who broke this story. Thanks for being here. JACK GILLUM, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Good to be here. SHARPTON: Jack, in your reporting, you discovered at least $40,000 for flights on donors` planes, nearly $2,000 to take interns to a Katy Perry concert, and $1400 to a massage parlor for a fund-raising event. Why are these expenditures problematic for Congressman Schock? GILLUM: Well, if you remember, Al, a few months ago or rather a few weeks ago, "The Washington Post" had revealed the Congressman`s use of funds to redecorate his office. And since then reporters have been looking in his expenses. Those expenses being part of his quarterly reports that the House of Representatives puts out your office expenses like, you know, the toner for your printer, the postage you pay, pretty much the same things you would do in your office as well as the campaign finance expenditures too. So we began looking through them and looking through the expense as really under transportation, and came across a lot of different expenses that went to aviation companies and donors who own private airplanes. SHARPTON: Now, how did you use Schock`s Instagram account to figure all this out. GILLUM: Well, in addition to those records sets, which details where the money went and when it was paid, is it we also traced the Congressman`s donors planes through some of the different flight services available. Saying, you know, when a plane took off, where it landed, what time and date. And those Instagram photos, which he has seen uploaded pictures at saying, you know, a campaign rally in Iowa, or a meeting in Illinois, or meeting in Ohio, is that hidden behind those uploads shows a latitude and longitude, basically a pinpoint on the map of the world with the date and time in which it was uploaded, which we were able to sort of correlate with when those donors` planes had landed down to the minute, as well as when those flights were paid for maybe even just a couple weeks later. SHARPTON: Jack Gillum, great reporting and thanks to you for your time tonight. GILLUM: Good to be here. SHARPTON: Still ahead. Ted Cruz says Republicans must oppose Loretta Lynch and there`s actually momentum behind it. And a major ruling from the Department of Justice today on George Zimmerman. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: Just two days before Loretta Lynch`s finally gets a vote, there`s a new republican push to keep her from becoming our next attorney general. The right wing of the party, led by Senator Ted Cruz, wants to block her nomination. He just wrote an op-ed for Politico, demanding that Republicans stop Lynch as a way to attack President Obama. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: She`s sitting in the hearing saying, yes, I will facilitate and implement President Obama`s lawlessness, his refusal to obey federal law or the constitutional. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Of course, that`s not what she said at all, but for these right wingers, the facts don`t matter. Over in the House more than 50 republicans signed this letter, saying quote, "A vote for this nominee so fairly be considered a vote in favor of the President`s lawlessness." Both parties have praised Lynch, and key republican senators say they`ll vote to confirm her. So what`s this all about? Joining me now is New York Congressman Greg Meeks, who supported Lynch as nominations after seeing her work as a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn. Thank you for being here, Congressman. REP. GREG MEEKS (D), NEW YORK: Good being with you, Rev. SHARPTON: Isn`t this attack on Lynch really just another way to attack the President? MEEKS: That`s exactly what it is. These individuals with their own political will and political gains, no one is more qualified to be the United States attorney than Loretta Lynch on her own merits. No one can talk about how she has not been successful as a U.S. attorney and throughout her legal career. I daresay that there`s no one more qualified than these individuals who are the same ones that shut down the government before. SHARPTON: Yes. MEEKS: The same ones who don`t want to fund Social Security, the same ones like that guy who`s questioned the President`s loyalty or love for America, they have that same right-wing agenda, trying to distort and prevent one of the best person to be the attorney general from being nominated. So, I hope we don`t play those tricks. SHARPTON: Well, Congressman, we`re keeping track on how long this takes. The President nominated Lynch 108 days ago, it`s the longest confirmation period for a recent attorney general by a landslide, and it`s not even over. I mean, why is this still taking so long? MEEKS: Well, you know, it is the Senator Cruz`s of the world who, you know, the people elected Barack Obama, and he`s going to choose his attorney general. We did not object. I did not like Ashcroft, did not think he represented what I represent, but democrats went along with republicans and made him the attorney general under George Bush. Loretta Lynch is eminently qualified. The only reason that she has not been confirmed yet is the games that Senator Cruz and those like him are playing and trying to halt the progress of America. SHARPTON: Well, Senator Cruz told Newsmax he was upset that Lynch being too similar to current Attorney General Eric Holder. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CRUZ: When I asked her in what way she would differ from Eric Holder, she said in no ways whatsoever. SHARPTON: Now, we went back and looked at the tape from the hearing. Here is what she actually said, Congressman. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CRUZ: And so I want to ask you at the outset, the simple question of, if confirmed, how would your tenure as Attorney General differ from that of Eric Holder`s. LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: You asked how I would be different from Eric Holder, I would be Loretta Lynch. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, Cruz is not telling the truth about her testimony. Do the facts matter at all for critics on the right? MEEKS: Not at all. They just have their own political agenda that was from the very beginning to try to stop anything and everything that President Obama has done and will do. Look, it is clear in my estimation Eric Holder has been a great attorney general. Make no mistake about it. I think his work will stand the test of time, but Loretta Lynch is her own person. Loretta Lynch is not Eric Holder. She is a strong woman who has proven her competency and that she can run an office. No one, no law enforcement agency, no attorneys, no one has been critical of the work that Loretta Lynch has done as U.S. attorney in the Eastern District. On her own merits she stands. SHARPTON: Well, it`s kind of ironic, you know, conservative republicans have clashed repeatedly with Attorney General Holder. And last week he said it was kind of funny they weren`t taking a fast approach of confirming Loretta Lynch. Listen to what he said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I guess it`s ultimately up to Congress as to when I actually leave office. You would think in some ways that Loretta`s process would be spend up, given their desire to see me out of office. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I guess they`re not thinking this one through, Congressman. MEEKS: Well, maybe they won`t. And I don`t mind. I mean, because as I said, I believe Eric Holder has been a great attorney general. SHARPTON: Oh, yes. I agree. MEEKS: But I believe in her own right. Loretta Lynch will set her own footprints different than Eric Holder`s, and she stands on her own. I agree to what she`s accomplish. SHARPTON: I agree on both points. Congressman Greg Meeks, thank you for your time tonight. MEEKS: Good being with you Rev, as always. SHARPTON: Coming up, breaking news from Hillary Clinton`s first public speech in months. Talking about the Oscars, dropping hints about 2016 and who gets a, quote, "special spot in hell." Also, Jon Stewart went after Rudy Giuliani in a big way last night. And a single mom`s rags to riches story. "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: Time for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, MSNBC`s Krystal Ball. Political comedian and Sirius XM radio host John Fugelsang, and political strategist Angela Rye. Thank you all for being here. KRYSTAL BALL, MSNBC CO-HOST, "THE CYCLE": Thanks for having us. ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: We start with Hillary Clinton breaking her silence. Moments ago Clinton gave a keynote speech at a Silicon Valley conference in front of the women tech executives. It`s the first public speech in the U.S. this year. And she used the opportunity to hint at what everybody is dying to know. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY: There is a special spot in hell for women who don`t help other women. So -- (APPLAUSE) What you do does not have to be big and dramatic. You don`t have to run for office. Although if you do, more power to you. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Krystal, is this speech a calculated move on Clinton`s part? Could we hear a 2016 announcement soon? BALL: I don`t know how soon the announcement will come, but if you can bet if it`s Hillary Clinton, it`s a very calculated move. You know, it`s interesting the way she`s positioning herself this time around versus 2008, she clearly is running with more emphasis on the historic nature of her candidacy, on the fact of being a woman and highlighting and empowering women. I`m actually going on to D.C. next week, Hillary Clinton will be keynoting the Emily`s List conference, it`s their 30 year gala, that`s a really powerful progressive women`s organization. So, this is clearly a focus of hers early on. SHARPTON: Now, she was also quizzed about whether she would announce her intention soon. John, what do you think? Listen to this, first of all. JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: Well, it seems her intentions are very, very clear. And, you know, the important thing to remember is there are a lot of women who would like to avoid that special spot in hell by supporting a different woman for the White House, namingly Senator Warren, who you had on earlier tonight. And for all the progressive discontent about Mrs. Clinton, it`s great seeing her get out there early when she announced she was going to be postponing an announcement until April. I thought this was kind of bad news, because I don`t think this whole coronation by the media is very good for her. But I would say to all the progressives out there who are, you know, not in favor of a Clinton presidency, who think that maybe she`s the best republican we got. Another great woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 147 years old, and liberals out there who don`t want Rand Paul or Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush picking the next three Supreme Court judges should be very excited but how joyful Mrs. Clinton seem to today`s ceremony. SHARPTON: We`re going to show that little -- that you had with Elizabeth Warren in a minute. At least a part of it, but Angela, let me show what I had referred to when I told John about how she was quizzed Hillary Clinton about announcing her intentions. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: President of the United States running president of the United States or host of the Oscars next year? Both jobs are open, it seems. CLINTON: Yes, well -- and both jobs are really painful, from my own personal experience and observation. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: What about the president thing? CLINTON: You know -- there have been -- UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: You can -- (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) CLINTON: Listen, there have been a lot more Oscar presentation than there have been presidents. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Right. CLINTON: So the pressure is probably somewhat less. It`s a one-night gig. And for many, it`s just one night. And the other one, it`s like, you know, a many-year commitment. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Read the tea leaves, Angela. Is there any doubt about her intentions? RYE: There`s no doubt, Rev. And I honestly have to say to you that tonight`s Hillary Clinton is one that I find to be extremely refreshing. Like she was so comfortable in her own skin. She seemed casual in that space. She`s walking across the stage. The presentation was awesome. So, this Hillary Clinton I can totally get down with. SHARPTON: Was that the Hillary you saw and can get excited about as well, Krystal? BALL: Look, I think that, you know, I`m one who has been somewhat critical of Hillary Clinton, and really want to make sure that she`s going to be the economic champion for the working class and the middle class that we need. FUGELSANG: Amen. BALL: But in terms of the branding for her campaign, her biggest struggle in 2008 was connecting with people, was giving people a sense that she wasn`t just this perfectly constructed political candidate, that she was also a real human being. I think that`s something that she has grown, and I think in an interview like this, you see her more whimsical, funny, relaxed side. And that`s definitely an asset on the trail because people want to feel like they understand who you really are as a person. SHARPTON: But John, also the history, relating back to being a woman, and would be the first woman president if she is successful, she even talked about one of the big headlines from the Oscars, a call for fair pay. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CLINTON: Up and down the latter, many women are paid less for the same work, which is why I think we all cheered at Patricia Arquette`s speech at the Oscars, because she`s right. It`s time to have wage equality once and for all. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Is this a big issue in 2016, John? FUGELSANG: Well, it should be. I mean, we passed Lily Ledbetter and it`s still a problem in this society. So, yes, you know, I think that the right is going to do all they can to try to paint Mrs. Clinton as a humorless person, they`ll smear for her age, because, you know, she`s the same age as Mitt Romney. And they`ll going to try to lie about Benghazi all over again, but I think Krystal really nailed it. The joy she showed on stage seemed both practiced and real. She has to be joyful, because she knows they`ll going to try and smear her as a humorless politician. SHARPTON: Yes. FUGELSANG: But having fun is the smartest thing she can do, and it`s really, really hard put to find anyone who would disagree with wage equality in America. SHARPTON: But Angela, the progressives, I asked Elizabeth Warren about it. Let me show you her answer. How does Hillary Clinton get the progressive vote? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: A lot of progressives have questions about whether she`ll be a progressive warrior. What would you say to them? SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: You know, I think that`s what we`ve got to see. I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do. That`s what campaigns are supposed to be about. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Not a resounding endorsement, Angela. RYE: No, it`s not. And it`s brilliant on Senator Warren`s part. The more that she continues to be seen as the progressive champion of all progressive issues, including wage fairness, and I certainly hope that Elizabeth Warren starts to not only include women in that, but also people of color, Rev. Because we know those wages are not fair either, she will be positioning herself to have a key role on Senator Clinton`s -- SHARPTON: And we know that according to "New York Times," that the senator didn`t deny tonight her and Hillary Clinton have had a meeting. I don`t know whether these issues came up or what. But I was -- Krystal, I was kind of waiting to see what her reaction would be, and I think she positioned herself as sort of somewhere between noncommittal and we`ll see. BALL: Well, I think that Senator Warren is already -- even without -- and she said, she`s not getting in the race, but even without jumping in, she`s already had a huge impact on the debate on the democratic side of the equation heading into 2016. Because she does have such an incredibly powerful voice, and such a true voice that speaks to the progressive base and speaks to the direction that the country needs to go in. So I think in a certain sense, Hillary Clinton does feel pressure from Elizabeth Warren, she doesn`t want her to be a critic, she wants to have her on her side. Elizabeth Warren is a very key ally for Hillary Clinton. SHARPTON: Everyone stay with me. Coming up, a single mom of four hits the Powerball jackpot. And it will put a smile on your face. And look out, Rudy. Here comes Jon Stewart. We`re coming right back. Stay with us. SHARPTON: We`re back with our panel, Krystal, John and Angela. We start with Rudy Giuliani and the fallout from saying President Obama doesn`t love America. Last night, he got the Jon Stewart treatment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: You know, President Obama didn`t live through September 11th, I did. President Obama didn`t almost, you know, have a building fall on him, myself, my police commissioner, and my fire commissioner did. JON STEWART, STAND-UP COMEDIAN: Shut up! You know you`re not the mayor of 9/11, right? You don`t own 9/11. You don`t own anything but the unique willingness to crassly exploit it. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Angela, your reaction to Stewart`s slamming Rudy. RYE: I think that`s exactly right. How dare he used an opportunity like one of the greatest terrorist attacks on this country to trivialize the President`s love and/or patriotic nature of the President on this country. It`s absolutely insane, and it`s really getting very, very tired. SHARPTON: John, I mean, that really is probably one of the criticisms that could hurt the impact of whatever the far right thing Rudy has left, which I don`t know what they do, but that would be across the board, most people would be a little upset with him exploiting 9/11 the way Jon Stewart has raised. FUGELSANG: Well, most people should, and again, you know, trying to get the favor of this people, is all he can do. Rudy is just auditioning for a higher public speaking fees or any public speaking fees, and I`m glad we`re finally using the word exploitation about 9/11 around Rudy, because this is the problem around several of our republican friends. They exploited 3,000 dead on 9/11 to attack Iraq, and they exploited four dead in Benghazi to attack Barack. It`s an ugly habit. SHARPTON: You know, are you finally ready to smile? A 26-years-old single mother of four came forward to claim her share of a $564 million Powerball jackpot. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARIE HOLMES, POWERBALL WINNER: This is going to make a huge difference in our life. They can be able to go school, not have to worry about paying for it. They`ll going to be able to live a comfortable life and not worry about struggling. Anything my kids ask for, I can actually get it for them and I don`t have to tell them no. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Are you going to tell them no, though? HOLMES: Yes. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: She also plans to donate money to her church and to cerebral palsy charities, a disorder that her seven-year-old son has. Krystal, with so much bad news out there. Isn`t this great to see? BALL: It is really great to see. I mean, this is a woman who struggled to be able to balance the budget for her family. She`s worked at Walmart, she`s worked at McDonald`s, four kids, one of them with special needs, and you know, what? I think people want to see more of this kind of news. There`s actually a study that shows, the more positive the news story is, the more that people want to share it. SHARPTON: Yes. BALL: So, I think it`s so important to get these good, positive stories out there, too. SHARPTON: Krystal, John and Angela, thank you for joining the conversation. BALL: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: And be sure to watch Krystal on "THE CYCLE" weekdays at 4:00 p.m. right here on MSNBC. We`ll be right back. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: State of Florida versus George Zimmerman. Verdict, we the jury find George Zimmerman not guilty, so say we all. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: George Zimmerman found not guilty for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin three years ago. Today, the Justice Department announced they have found insufficient evidence to pursue criminal civil rights charges against Zimmerman. Let me say I respect the decision, but I also want to make it clear I do not agree with it. This Thursday marks three years since the unarmed 17-year-old was shot and killed on his way home from a convenience store. In a statement, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in part -- "This young man`s premature death necessitates that we continue the dialogue and be unafraid of confronting the issues and tensions his passing brought to the surface." He sparked a national conversation in this country at a time it desperately needed it a conversation that got all the way to the president of the United States. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon, and you know, I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we`re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That conversation must continue, and I look at his mother and his father, who have bared this pain with the utmost dignity and with respect for the law even today, as they build their foundation and continue to raise his name. But Trayvon all the way to Ferguson and Staten Island and others must not just end in a conversation. It must end with a re- evaluation and legislation, and change in policies where equality becomes the order of the day. I`m as firm today as I was three years ago, we`ve got to fight and we`ve got to fight for the better of the country. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022401cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 111 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 24, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 24, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Hayes GUESTS: Ruth Conniff, John Wisniewski, Sherrod Brown, Jim Manley, Zack Beauchamp, Spencer Ackerman SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7674 words HIGHLIGHT: Scott Walker union busting surprise and Chris Christie`s ongoing demise, a tale of two Republican candidates going in opposite directions. President Obama vetoes the Keystone Pipeline bill. Apple introduces new, diverse emoji. Discussing the threat of ISIS and its portrayal in the media. Election day in Chicago and Chicago police facing accusations of mistreating Americans in a warehouse "black site". CHRIS HAYES, HOST: Tonight on ALL IN. Scott Walker union busting surprise and Chris Christie`s ongoing demise, tonight, a tale of two Republican candidates going in opposite directions. Plus, Sharon Brown on the president`s veto of the Keystone pipeline. Why the mainstream media needs to listen to Laura Ingraham? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAURA INGRAHAM, RADIO HOST: I don`t think we should jump every time the freaks with the ace bandages on their faces put out a video. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And then Spencer Acerman on his blockbuster report about a black site run by the Chicago PD. Apples big news on the evolution of Emojis. (VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: ALL IN starts right now. Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. Tonight, we bring you a tale of two Republican governors and likely presidential candidates both with huge ambitions. One of whom is going through the best of times and one of whom is facing some of his worst. Scott Walker and Chris Christie have a lot in common. Both Republicans who have won repeatedly in blue states, both draw strength from high profile battles with the left, both have had success in bending their states to their will, and both, of course, have an eye on the presidency in 2016. While Walker, despite some recent stumbles has become one of the most buzzed about Republican in the country. Christie`s star has fallen dramatically in the wake of a string of scandals, negative headlines and complaints within his party. He is living in a bubble, in oblivious the reality of his diminished standing. This week brought yet another piece of bad news for Christie prompting one journalist to quip that if there was a mercy rule in presidential primaries, Chris Christie would qualify. A New Jersey judge ruled yesterday that Chris Christie broke his own law when he decided to cut $1.6 billion in contributions from his state`s public pension system. Saying the state cannot and I`m quoting here, "simply walk away from its obligations financial obligations to teachers and other public workers." In Wisconsin, meanwhile, protestors gathered today in a scene that evokes memories of the 2011 standoff over Walker`s successful attempt to strip collective bargaining rights from public workers. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PHIL NEUENFELDT, PRESIDENT, WISCONSIN AFL-CIO: They don`t care what happens to your retirement. They want power. They want more profits, and they want to do it on the backs of the workers. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: At issue today is the Republican legislature`s plan to push through a so-called right to work law, an anti-union measure that prohibits labor agreements in which private sector workers are forced to pay union dues effectively undermining collective bargaining and union membership. The measure is expected to pass and Walker says he will sign it, which will make Wisconsin the 25th state with right to work. But also further weaken the labor movement and hand the governor yet another victory over the left. While Chris Christie flails in New Jersey, Scott Walker is picking fights on unions and public education that seemed designed to endear him to conservative donors and working to burnish his image as a blue state Republican who can take on liberals and win. Joining me now is Ruth Conniff, editor of the Madison Wisconsin-based "The Progressive" magazine. Ruth, there has been a little question about whether Scott Walker actually wants this. He says he is not that interested, what`s your sense from being on the ground there about who is really driving this train? RUTH CONNIFF, "THE PROGRESSIVE": Well, Walker is riding the train that pulled up at his door sponsored by the Koch Brothers. I mean, let`s face it. These are not indigenous Wisconsin political ideas. Not right to work, which is word for word an Alec bill, this legislation that they are pushing through. It was created and crafted by a group of corporations and right-wing politicians at a national conference. Not by the people of Wisconsin. Similarly in Walker`s budget, which he sort of conveniently is distracting us from with this, you know, big rally today and this big push to stick it to unions once again as he did at that time. You know, the citizens of Wisconsin didn`t gather and say let`s cut our public schools and university system, and make you pay a fee to get into public parks and that provide money to sustain them, and destroy basically the whole apparatus of environmental regulation in the state. These are not indigenous ideas. These are Walker taking a national right- wing philosophy and testing it out in Wisconsin. Can we really take it to the hoop here? You know, he is testing it out so that the right wing can see if you can divide a state and pit working people against each other and create so much bad feeling that people are distracted and disempower unions, and produce wages, and a really hand a triumph to these corporations and right-wingers, who are his backers. HAYES: All right, so given what we saw with the recall, put yourself in the shoes of the closest advisor to Governor Scott Walker today. You have to walk in his office and say, Governor, there is going to be hundred thousand of people gathering at the capital outside to protest this right to work law. Is the mood in that room, you`re covering Scott Walker, awesome or are you bummed? CONNIFF: He is doing this on purpose. It is awesome to him. I mean, this is why he went to Iowa and described these historic protests where ordinary working people were out in force as a scary mob that he stood down and was courageous for doing so. He is running on this and it is absolutely his plan. HAYES: In all fairness your kids are terrifying. We should also ask the question here about what -- to what extent does Scott Walker`s appeal to some sense of middle is really x`d it. One piece said look at him carefully, not as a blue state governor, who`s won over moderates. But actually someone who has been able to pumped every last vote out of the rabidly conservative base, that is loyal to him, and that`s the way you have to understand him as a political creature. CONNIFF: Yes, and Walker has not run in a presidential year. When Wisconsin is a blue state statewide, you know, we`ll see how he fairs in a presidential year. Voter suppression has been very important in Wisconsin. That`s part of the strategy here. But right, dividing people, I mean, he said it best when he said divide and conquer is his strategy. So stirring up resentment among non-union private sector workers against their neighbors who have benefits and health insurance to say I`m going to take that away from your neighbor rather than saying I`m going to lift up the entire state. You know, we see the results of that and overtime, unfortunately, as Walker leaves office it will be more clear because, you know, cutting our top tier public education system the way that he has cut it, historic cuts. And the same thing with the university system and the other changes what he calls bold brave reforms that he`s made here are going to leave Wisconsin a wreck and he is basically burning this place down to fuel his national political ambitions. And it is very popular with the Koch Brothers and the other -- the Sheldon Adelsons of the world, who fund right-wing candidates for president. But it is really, it is a destructive path, and I think it is one that should worry the whole country, not just Wisconsin. HAYES: As someone who has watched him up close on that note, how formidable do you see him? CONNIFF: I think Walker is a lot smarter than people think, I think that he is not making gaffes and making mistakes when he doesn`t answer questions. You have seen this pattern throughout his political career. He didn`t run on shutting down Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin. He didn`t run on Act 10. He didn`t run on right to work, but he is advertising those things to the base now and he is able to sort of equivocate to say I`m not going to answer that question, to come off as sort of a reasonable guy in spite of these very, very right wing politics. And that positions him beautifully for a national presidential run because he absolutely has the base, and at the same time he presents as moderate and reasonable, which gives him a shot I think in a general election. HAYES: Ruth Conniff, thank you very much. All right, Chris Christie tried to do some damage control today at his annual budget speech in the state legislature which came one day after a judge ruled he cannot follow through on his plan to reneg a nearly 1.6 billion in pension payments. Christie claimed he had reached an unprecedented accord with one of the state`s largest unions to reduce pension and health care costs in the wake of that ruling, though the union he was talking about, the New Jersey Education Association said that no deal had been reached. There is one thing that Christie said today that no one is going to argue with. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: The numbers do not lie. Let me tell you this. We don`t need any court to tell us we have a serious problem. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Indeed. New Jersey is in horrible shape financially. The state is facing a $7.35 billion structural deficit heading into next budget year. Christie built his political brand on his willingness to take on the left in order to get New Jersey`s fiscal house in order when the state faced a similar structural deficit of $8 billion back in 2009. Christie at that point even called on then Governor John Corzine to quit his bid for re-election in shame. Yet under Christie, New Jersey has seen its credit rating cut repeatedly and the state now faces a mess on its budget and pensions with no clear way out. Chris Christie was able to outrun the numbers for four years and get re- elected. But in a terrible bit of timing for his presidential aspirations, he is now learning you cannot outrun the numbers forever. Joining me now is New Jersey, John Wisniewski, co-chair of New Jersey Legislative Select Committee on Investigation. He attended Governor Christie`s address this afternoon. Characterize the current state of New Jersey finances five years, six years, I guess, into the Chris Christie era. JOHN WISNIEWSKI (D), NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLYMAN: Substantially no different than they were when he took over. I mean, this is the amazing thing for a governor who has talked about being the so-called adult in the room, about wanting to come in and talk about the real numbers, how we`re going to address them. And he`s even talked about how he`s addressed our structural deficit. It is substantially the same as it was when he took office. And so for all of us in New Jersey, who have to live with the consequences of Chris Christie, we get very frustrated at these made for TV moments where he talks about these things as if the reality doesn`t matter, the facts don`t apply. HAYES: So here is the Chris Christie theory, the case back in 2009. It was as follows, this is one of the states that have been essentially parasitically eaten from within by public sector unions, teachers, people living off of the public trough, and politicians who don`t have the guts to look them in the face and say no. And say, yes, and yes, offer things in the future they can`t deliver on. I`m going to come in. I`m the guy that yells at teachers and says no, you can`t have that. What happened? Why didn`t that work? WISNIEWSKI: Well, it was a fundamental lack of truth in what he said quite frankly, Chris. I mean, look, he came in and he said that I`m going to reform the pension system. There can always be things done belter, but he came in and said I`m going to make these changes and you have my word. I will make a pension contribution. I`m going to pay the obligation the state has and then several years after that, he comes in and says, he says to the court, my own law, that I wrote, that I advocated for, well, that law is unconstitutional and I`m not going to make the payment. HAYES: Let`s just be very clear here. Getting the details for a second, but this is important. The whole idea behind the possession reform law from Chris Christie was, governors have this temptation to basically rob from the future to cover present, right? You basically say I`m not going to put the money in the pension because I`m not going to be around in 20 years when they are collecting, but I do have this $1 billion budget short fall now. I will take that money now in the present. He passed a law saying you cannot do that, and then -- WISNIEWSKI: Did exactly that. HAYES: I mean, literally exactly that as a court ruled today. WISNIEWSKI: Right. And of course, his defense to that now is a liberal judge, I`ll tell him what to do. The reality is this is what he promised to the people of New Jersey, to the public employees of New Jersey, and he reneged on his promise. And so today, he gets in front of a legislature and he says, I`ve got a new deal and I`m going to promise you this. He broke his promise before, what gives us any assurance that he will keep his promise now. Plus the group that he said he had to deal with had to put out a press release saying, wait a minute, not so fast. We don`t have a deal. HAYES: This was the governor`s statement on that, Governor Christie and one of the state`s largest public employee unions are actually doing something, working together, and have a road map for reform. What does John Wisniewski have to offer besides partisan rhetoric and tax hikes? A question for you. WISNIEWSKI: What do I have to offer? The fact that this governor, and I voted against his pension benefits reform for exactly the reason that we`re talking about today. It was an empty promise. That it was a promise that could not be fulfilled. Here we are today, three years later, with a promise that has not been fulfilled. HAYES: What`s your solution? WISNIEWSKI: We certainly always have to work to make sure that we`re doing better, running it better, but we have to raise the money. We have an obligation. The state of New Jersey incurred an obligation and today we can all talk about how maybe we should not have. Maybe it could have been done differently. But the state of New Jersey incurred an obligation. This governor, the next governor, and governors after have to live up to that obligation. Because if we walk away and reneg our obligations today, what other obligations will we walk away from the future. Educating our children, paying for health care, these are things that all come into the category of living up to the obligations we committed to. HAYES: How many downgrades have there been? WISNIEWSKI: Eight downgrades. HAYES: Eight downgrades. Is that legacy going to outlive his gubernatorial term? WISNIEWSKI: Absolutely, it`s going to take awhile to recover from the mismanagement that this administration has had. Look, he talked today about how we put together last year`s budget without a tax increase. Yet when you look at the budget, 40 different tax increases and fee hikes, and so this is a governor who tells a good tale, but the facts don`t back it up. HAYES: The numbers are the same. The structural deficit is essentially the same as it ran in 2009 -- WISNIEWSKI: You know what, Chris, it`s time that this governor stops blaming his predecessor for the problems he`s had. He`s had five years in office. HAYES: John Wisniewski, thank you very much. WISNIEWSKI: Thank you. HAYES: The president vetoes his first major legislation, a big day as the Republican majority struggles for traction. Plus an incredible new report alleges there is a black site in Chicago where police interrogate American citizens. The reporter who broke the news joins me ahead. HAYES: We are keeping an eye on a courthouse in Stevensville, Texas, where a jury has just began deliberating in the trial of Eddie Ray Routh, the man accused of killing American sniper, Chris Kyle, and a fellow veteran, Chad Littlefield at a shooting range in 2013. Routh has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury agrees the court could have him committed to a mental hospital. A murder conviction would mean an automatic life sentence. We will bring you updates as we get them. Keep it right here. HAYES: New Republican majority was never going to be able to impose their will completely thanks to the president`s veto power and the routinized abuse of the filibuster now a fact of life in the Senate. But at the very least the GOP could strategically use their control over the House and Senate and by extension the entire congressional agenda to paint Democrats into various political corners. Forcing them, for example, to take difficult votes, testing part of unity and making them go on the record with positions that might come back to bite them in the next election. So far however, none of that has panned out. Today Republicans` one plausible shot at political victory, a bill to fast tract the Keystone pipeline, which passed out of both chambers reached its inevitable conclusion, a presidential veto. Since Barack Obama is not running for re-election, the political cost of said veto appears to be absolutely nothing. Republicans other big political gambit has been their plan to repudiate President Obama`s executive action protecting millions of people from deportation, an action that is currently on hold by a federal court. The way they would do that is by attaching the measure that would gut the executive action to a must pass bill funding the Department of Homeland Security, the department that would oversee it. It`s effectively been a game of chicken with Republicans threatening to shut down DHS unless Democrats allow the executive action provision to go through. But today in the final stretch, just three days before Homeland Security runs out of money, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed on the breaks. He did whatever the metaphor calls for. Coming to grips, the reality of Senate math after a fourth Democratic filibuster, McConnell has now proposed separate the DHS funding bill from a vote in the president`s executive action, more or less what Democrats have been demanding all along. This is the best part, in response, Minority Leader Harry Reid supporting the shades after his accident and not one to ever resist an opportunity to press his advantage is saying he doesn`t accept McConnell`s cry for uncle unless he hears it from John Boehner too, refusing to make a deal in the Senate without full buy in from the House. I spoke to Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio who voted against the Keystone bill, I asked him, if he expects to pay a political price for that vote. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: I don`t think people in Ohio pay that much attention to that, but it would have meant higher gas prices in the Midwest. It`s not what we should be doing with infrastructure. We really ought to be doing with infrastructure is highways, bridges, water, sewer systems, medical research, community colleges, and all of that. Keystone was very little of that and I believe science. I believe the facts that the Keystone pipeline contributes far too much to climate change. I know what happened in Toledo, 500,000 people lost their drinking water for a few days this past summer, and part of that was because of climate change interacting in, you know, shallow western basin of Lake Eerie. So I know my state, and I know that the Keystone pipeline was not good for my state. HAYES: When you started, when you showed up to your first day of work for this Congress and you thought about where you would be six weeks later, how is where we are different or similar to what your conception of life around Republican rule would be like? BROWN: I thought they would get a little better start. They might actually get something done, but you know, it`s hard to break the habit when your DNA doesn`t allow you to say yes. That appears to be both in Speaker Boehner`s DNA and Leader McConnell`s DNA. It`s hard to break that habit and they have not broken that habit yet that is why they have run this Congress already into the ground. They`re serious threat of the government shut down. Something that I didn`t think Mitch McConnell -- I figured he`d find a way to avoid that. It`s going to be really close now. I don`t know what`s going to happen. Speaker Boehner, they have not really figured out how to do anything much positive. They passed an anti-suicide bill for veterans that might work on with left over from last Congress we tried to do. They did that, but short of that, nothing much has come out of this Congress and I guess I thought they would get a better start than this. HAYES: You imagine that one of the things you do if you now control the gavel is to place your political opponents in uncomfortable positions, taking tough votes, getting them on the record. Have they succeeded in that? Has Senator Sherrod Brown had to squirm a little bit yet? BROWN: No, not really, and the things we`ve argued for we need a long-term transportation bill, a minimum wage. We need to do something about currency, immigration. None of those have they addressed while they show an ineptitude and incompetence that -- I mean, I knew these guys weren`t superstars, but I -- and I say guys because their leadership in both parties is pretty much all guys. I just thought they probably would do a little better than they have done. I want them do better for this country. I just don`t want them to do better by veering the government to the right and shutting the government down and doing those kinds of things instead of what I hoped would happen in an election. Mitch McConnell said he wanted to be bipartisan that he`d look at what was bipartisan in the past. We have done transportation bills long term. We have done minimum wage, we have done immigration reform bipartisanly for much of the last 20 years. I was hoping he would go in that direction instead of looking again to let radicals push him into a government shutdown. HAYES: On that shutdown, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was talking about the need for DHS to be fully funded. He said this in part, "To make sure Homeland Security is funded. ISIS is funded. We see that every day on TV. That I got to say, that strikes me in some pretty irresponsible fear mongering to say that DHS is not fully funded. ISIS is fully funded. You connect the dots? What do you think of that statement? BROWN: Well, I think that -- you know, when you think about what are we prepared for? We`re asking border guards to work without pay, TSA screeners to work without pay. I was in Dayton where the Dayton fire Department will lose a lot of money temporarily. Five hundred fire departments in Ohio, it is likely due to them, but it won`t be if they shut the government down. That doesn`t mean that we`re going to be vulnerable immediately, but it is some exaggeration, perhaps, but we`re simply not running, doing the things like running the government. No one knew what a government shutdown was until this crowd just ache to make their points. It`s just shameful and it makes people turn against government and politics. If their intent is to succeed as a country they`re failing and it is shameful. It makes people turn against government and politics generally. If that`s their intent, they succeeded. But if their intent to succeed as a country, they are failing and it`s shameful. HAYES: Senator Sherrod Brown, always a pleasure, thank you. BROWN: Thanks. (END VIDEOTAPE) HAYES: Joining me now to further assess the parliamentary skill of the new Senate majority is former chief spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, and now senior director at QGA Public Affairs. All right, Jim, let`s talk here. I want your grade for the first six weeks or so of Mitch McConnell`s turn of the majority. JIM MANLEY, FORMER HARRY REID SPOKESMAN: Not only would I give them an F, I would probably charge Speaker Boehner if I could with legislative malpractice and maybe -- HAYES: You`re being unkind and charitable and partisan. You don`t really believe that, do you? MANLEY: I absolutely do. Let me get this straight. So the first thing they do, they send a bill to the president that they knew he is going to veto despite the fact that the record oil production, increases of fracking, speeding up the permit process in the gulf. And now we`re stuck in the situation with the DHS funding bill, the likes of which I never saw in my 20 years in the Senate. With all due respect to Senator Reid, who is probably watching the show, I would love to be able to say that he came up with some brilliant legislative strategy to pin these guys into a corner. But the fact of the matter is he had nothing to do with it. Democrats had nothing to do with it. As Senator Brown suggested, once again these guys are overreaching. I, too, like you thought they would want to put some legislative points on the score board, but true to form they`re overreaching and I don`t see anything changing any time soon. HAYES: I mean, first of all, I love that it is just sort of funny to watch Harry Reid to say it`s not enough that you cry uncle. Talk to John Boehner and get him to agree to a separate vote. MANLEY: He has been down that path way too many times before. Just because the speaker wants to get something done doesn`t mean his caucus will go along. So this is very, very tricky stuff. HAYES: What was -- I mean, the thing about this -- the way this DHS thing played out has been fascinating and for a number of reasons. One was if you transport yourself back to the fall when the president made the speech, I`m sorry the winter I guess it was. When the president made the speech saying we`re going to do this, there was so much rage. And then there was a problem of not having the bite to match the bark. They can`t do anything. They had no strategy, and they went along day by day with no strategy and now they`ve reached the end of the road. Is that how it happened? MANLEY: I sure think so. I have no idea how we got in this particular situation, but I do know it will take some time to sort out. In the meantime over in the House, the House Republicans are, the conservatives are getting further and further embolden, and they are not in any moods to compromise. HAYES: So my big prediction is that the only place where you will see some sort of action between the two is on something like lifting the sequester, do you think that that theory is correct? MANLEY: I think that is a possibility, yes. I think another thing that is ripe for the picking if Republicans play their cards right along with the Keystone pipeline, which as you know, picked up the necessary Senate Democrats to get out of the Senate is a repeal of the medical device tax as well. HAYES: Jim, are you on the payroll of the medical device industry? MANLEY: I am not on the payroll of the medical device industry. HAYES: Because basically about nine out of ten people walking around our nation`s capital are on the payroll of the medical device industry so I have to ask that question. MANLEY: Some of them are my friends, but no, I have nothing to do with it. So anyways, the bottom line, play their cards right, there is a handful of things they can get done including the sequester. So far, at least, Speaker Boehner`s attempts to control and/or manage his caucus have proven disastrous, and Senator McConnell has sat there trying to figure out how to deal with it. I`m sure he wants to get something done, but it takes two to tango. And the House and Senate Republicans aren`t on the same page by any stretch of the imagination. HAYES: Also, I just got to say, I mean, Senator Brown said it, I don`t think that many people in Ohio are paying attention to Keystone, I genuinely think there is a massive gulf in how much Republicans think people are following the Keystone fight or that is has some broad political appeal, and how much it actually has, right? I mean, this is your first bill? MANLEY: I could not agree with you more. I have to tell you, Chris, I still can`t quite figure out how we got in a position where a Keystone pipeline is the end all and be all for my friends in the environmental community, but it is what it is. The president now vetoed it. How did he do it? Very quietly, given the situation. It wasn`t worth the time for a big ceremony. HAYES: All right, Jim Manley. Thank you very much. Coming up, a surprising consensus of opinion. INGRAHAM: I just think we react so emotionally to these videos. I think we should have a clear headed debate about how to best secure the homeland without changing our way of life. HAYES: Why I agree with Laura Ingraham, next. HAYES: More than in 5,000 years ago, early human written communication was developed through tiny, little pictures called hieroglyphics. And it has only taken that long for us to return back to them. We now find ourselves in the process of watching society abandon linguistic forms of representation in favor of the quasi ancient form know as emoji. People are now translating classical works of literary fiction into works of literary emoji. You can condense Victor Hugo`s Les Mis into one emoji only text message, or translate Hermen Melville`s two hundred thousand word novel, Moby Dick line by line into emoji, starting with "Call me Ishmael" which, of course, obviously translates to phone, man, sailboat, whale, okay hand sign. That book, Emoji-dick, by the way, has been inducted into the Library of Congress. But of course emoji, as much as I love them, have at least one glaring problem. Their representations of the world have been decidedly incomplete. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST OF THE COLBERT REPORT: The diversity mafia is whining that the emoji characters are predominately white. Well of course they are. White male is American neutral. It`s the baseline model. HAYES: That doesn`t have to be the case anymore, so don`t worry. Apple`s forth coming versions of it`s newest iPhone and computer operating systems, beta versions of which were released to developers this week, will reportedly feature a more diverse cast of skin colors. Six to be precise. Five of which appear to be reasonable, facsimiles of people`s skin color, and one of which we`ve concluded, after rigorous investigation I have to say, only exists in the worlds of the Simpsons and The Lego movie. They also found the emoji lexicon was seriously lacking in one more thing. INGRAHAM: I don`t think we should jump every time, you know, the freaks with the ace bandages around their faces put out one videos. I just think we react so emotionally to these videos. I think we should have a clear headed debate about how to best secure the homeland without changing our way of life. HAYES: Amen, sister. I was incredibly gratified to see Laura Ingraham on Fox News this morning making essentially the same point about terrorist propaganda that we have been making consistently on this show. Which is that everyone needs to keep calm and stay rational in the face of what is obvious emotional manipulation by people who we all agree are invested in our emotional manipulation and who achieve said emotional manipulation in large part through propaganda videos demonstrating their brutal tactic. But the ability of Al-Shabaab or Boko Haram or ISIS to murder people they have captured and even make videos of those murders does not correlate in any meaningful way to the actual threat they pose to Americans here in the U.S. Nor does correlate to their military potency. In fact, ISIS for one, appears to be facing a new set of challenges. Words of Vox put it today, "ISIS is losing". Reporter Zack Beauchamp writes, "...after months of ISIS expansion and victories, the group is now being beaten back. It is losing territory in the places that matter... Coalition airstrikes have hamstrung its ability to wage offensive was, and it has no friends to turn to help." If you`ve been watching the national news coverage of ISIS, Beauchamp`s report feels like it might as well be coming from Mars. Joining me now from Mars is Zack Beauchamp. All right, Zack. Make your case, dude. You are not marching in tune with the rest of the media, that basically makes me feel Cleveland is surrounded by ISIS. Why do you say they`re losing? ZACK BEAUCHAMP, ISIS.COM: Look, I`m right and they`re wrong. And the reasons why that`s true are the following. In Iraq, ISIS has made no major progress and, in fact, is being beaten back, and we can talk about a few specific fronts. The most important ones are in Northern Iraq where a road that connects their Syrian and Iraqi holdings has been cut off by Kurdish forces, and in North-central Iraq near Baghdad where Iraqi forces have made slow but steady progress moving North, up into territory previously held by ISIS. And in Syria, ISIS have failed to advance. They`ve been stopped time and time again and they`ve been pushed back from a Kurdish town, Cobani, in the North, with the help of U.S. airstrikes. All that suggest that the group has lost it`s ability to make serious offensive moves in the way that they were in say, the summer of 2014. HAYES: The summer of 2014 is when they kind of, literally, put themselves on the map in terms of the territory they took. So what I`m hearing from you is there are two forces that seem to be most effective against them right now. There are Kurdish fighters that are happening in Syria and are around Cobani, and then there is an Iraqi army essentially backstopped by both coalition and U.S. air strikes that, you are saying that they are winning right now if you are just looking at the territory held. BEAUCHAMP: Right. We need to be careful about the Iraqi army, which is little bit of a mess. They`re supported by a huge mass of nongovernmental Shia malitias, so they are aligned with the government, but not officially part of the military. And these militias have been helping the army make it`s major progress and territory. And the army itself is still being trained by the United States, it`s lost a lot to mass defections, and so we`re not sure how effective it is. But the militias, together with the more effective parts of the Iraqi army, as well as the Kurds in the North, have done serious harm to ISIS in Iraq. HAYES: Do we -- we have a map showing some of the territory here? Because, I think that maybe this will help. You can see, it`s a little hard to see, but you see the map on the right is quite a bit smaller in certain ways than the map on the left, particularly if you look at the western portion of that map. There are significant portions of territory that essentially they no longer control. The question here is, are we headed towards some kind of route and definitive victory? Or essentially a stalemate, in which they are able to retrench around they currently have control over? BEAUCHAMP: So in Iraq, the prediction that I hear from most people who are closely following the situation is no. That is that ISIS is going to be unable to, in the long run, hold on to the territory that it controls in Iraq. And there are two reasons. And the first one is that it just doesn`t have the amount of force necessary to administer these territories like a government, which is what it wants to do, and eventually services will collapse, the structure of the society will stop functioning, and they will have a lot of difficulty working as the government there and lose popular support. And the second reason is they`re over matched by the combined Iraqi forces. They have all of these different factions are bearing down on them with American air strikes. They don`t have the military capabilities to fight them in the open and they won`t be able to hold on this territory by pushing these guys out in the way that a conventional army would. They just can`t do it. HAYES: And the other remarkable thing about ISIS is they are so, they have managed to alienate -- I mean, aside from the people their recruiting, right, and the sort of ISIS fanboys on Twitter, you know, the women who are traveling there. But in terms of, like, any kind of large actors, everyone hates them. I mean, uniformly, groups that hate each other in any other context equally hate ISIS. BEAUCHAMP: Yeah, it`s because they like to kill people. It is part of their ideology that you have to submit or be destroyed. That is the way that things operate, and if that`s the way you think about the world you`re very bad at making friends. HAYES: Yeah, you`re going to make a lot of enemies. BEAUCHAMP: Yeah. Even Al Qaeda is friends with the Syrian resistance because they`ve been smart enough to focus on the Assad regime, principally. But they have also fought ISIS and some of the Syrian rebels, but by and large, they make tactical alliances with the Syrian rebels. And ISIS doesn`t do that very well because they`re crazier than Al Qaeda. HAYES: Zack Beauchamp, who started this segment by saying, "I`m right and they`re wrong" and I`m going to suggest to Ezra Klein that become the new Vox motto, replacing "Explain the news". Thank you for joining us. BEAUCHAMP: Thanks, Chris. HAYES: All right, astonishing allegations that the Chicago police department is operating a "off the books interrogation compound", described as a domestic black site. The reporter who broke the story joins me with all the incredible details ahead. HAYES: In the years after 9/11, we now know that the CIA operated black sites around the world. These were undisclosed facilities where people were taken to be interrogated. Tonight, a new blockbuster. Investigative piece by The Guardian claims that the city of Chicago is operating what lawyers call "the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site". Ryan Jacob Church was a protester at the NATO Summit in Chicago in May, 2012. He was ultimately convicted, along with two others of possessing an incendiary device and of misdemeanor mob action. Church says he was taken to a facility, know as Homan Square, after his initial arrest. He described his experience to The Guardian. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RYAN JACOB CHURCH: When they first arrested us, they took us to this building. We were never booked or we were never processed. I was in Homan Square for about 17 hours, handcuffed to a bench before I was finally allowed to see an attorney. HAYES: Home and square is a known facility of the Chicago police, and officially serves various functions. That is not at issue. What is an issue, is whether the site is also used, as The Guardian describes, for "keeping arrestees out of official booking databases... denying attorneys access to the "secure" facility, and holding people without legal council for between 12 and 24 hours". The Chicago police department responded to our request for comment and it reads, in part, "The facility is considered sensitive because many officers who operate there are often involved in undercover assignments, and advertising their location could put their lives at risk. Other sensitive units housed at the facility include the Bureau of Organized Crime, SWAT Unit Evidence Technicians, and the CPD ballistics lab. CPD abides by all laws, rules and guidelines pertaining to any interviews of suspect or witnesses, at Homan Square or any other CPD facility. If lawyers have a client detained at Homan Square, just like any other facility, they are allowed to speak to and visit them. It also houses CPD`s Evidence Recovered Property Section, where the public is able to claim inventoried property. There are always records of anyone who is arrested by CPD, and this is not any different at Homan Square. The allegation that physical violence is a part of interviews with suspects is unequivocally false, it is offensive, and it is not supported by any facts whatsoever." We also asked the office of Mayor Rahm Emanuel for comment. They have not responded yet, although it`s a busy day. Today is election day in Chicago. Right now the polls have closed, returns are coming back, and Rahm Emanuel is watching them to see if he will face a run off to be reelected. Up next, The Guardian reporter who broke this story is going to get to reply to the CPD. You do not want to miss that. Stay right here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHUCH: So when I slept, I slept with like my hand cuffed to the bar, and I kind of slept like this. It`s a domestic black site. HAYES: Ryan Jacob Church, who claimed he was interrogated without being read his rights at a Chicago police facility, told The Guardian newspaper when it comes to the Homan Square "when you go in, no ones knows what`s happened to you". Joining me now is the reporter who broke the story, Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian U.S. national security editor. All right. The CPD pushing back very hard on this. They`re basically saying this is a nothing burger. Of course we have a facility there, people know it, and any time any suspect is brought anywhere, whether it`s there or any CPD facility anywhere in the city, they get booked. SPENCER ACKERMAN, EDITOR OF THE GUARDIAN: Yeah, when do they get booked, where do they get booked. Look at everything in that statement the CPD did not say. They say you`ll get an access to a lawyer. When do you get access to that lawyer? How do lawyers get access to Homan Square? We`ve got, something like half a dozen attorneys who`ve told me over the last several weeks that when they go there they actually get turned away. Similarly, there`s no booking record of people who go into Homan Square. Family members, lawyers don`t even know where people are when they get taken into this place. All of these questions the Chicago Police allies. HAYES: So what you are saying is that this facility is used, you have evidence to support both from lawyers, one person on the record, others off the record, that suspects are brought there to be interrogated without their lawyers and also outside of the normal channels for booking, right? So there is some window of time in which they`re in there. ACKERMAN: Yes, sir, and often times, when the interrogations are finished, they`re either let back out on the street, some are suspects, some are witnesses. Sometimes the police can`t figure out if they actually have any evidence on people and let them go, or, if they do, eventually, they`re taken nearby to the 11th district and then they`re booked. In that period in between, these people were functionally disappeared. Their lawyers, often times indigent defense attorneys and people who do the unglamorous work of going to police stations to make sure that no inherently coercive interrogations are taking place, do not know where these people are. HAYES: I mean, this piece was lawyered by The Guardian? ACKERMAN: Oh, significantly. HAYES: You are alleging, your reporting is alleging, a massive, a CPD conspiracy to systematically violate the constitutional rights in a matter that is primafascia offensive to the basic constitutional rights we all know, miranda, excetra, taking place under the noses under the entire Chicago press core, Chicago political establishment, excetra. But you really, that`s really, you`re going to stand up by that? ACKERMAN: I stand by that. That`s exactly what the story said. HAYES: How is it possible that that is going on, that attorneys know enough to talk to you about it and that it`s not in the Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Reader, Chicago Tribune or anywhere. ACKERMAN: First, I wish you could tell me that. You`ve spent more time in Chicago than i possibly have. What I`ve heard from lawyers and activists was that they`ve tried to interest journalists in looking into Homan Square for years and got no takers. Why is that? What`s up with the Chicago media? I have no idea. What I have seen in the time that I`ve been reporting this and another story about a former Chicago cop who became a Guantanamo torturer, and had rather ominous signs ahead of his Guantanamo time of doing that to black Chicagoians is that it is really, really difficult to get institutional Chicago interested in thing that happen to poor Chicagoans, brown Chicagoans, and black Chicagoans. HAYES: There is a story about a man name John Hubbert who`s taken to Homan Square who was never walked out. The Tribune reported the 44 year old was found unresponsive inside an interview room pronounced dead. The medical examiners office could not locate any record for The Guardian indicating a cause of Hubbert`s death. It remains unclear why Hubbert was ever in police custody. Come on. ACKERMAN: So, the medical examiner, they contacted me after the story ran and said that he died of, he was found, the cause of death was heroin intoxication. How could he have been in custody, if you know people who have gone through heroin withdrawal, if you know people who have been affected by that, how could that have happened? How could he not have gotten to a hospital? How could he not have been revived? How could he have been found dead? I don`t have the answers to these questions. But they`re sure cause for further investigation here. HAYES: Today Rahm Emanuel is on the ballot. One of the things before the voters is a reparations bill for the victims of John Burge, who was a Chicago police detective who tortured confessions out of people. ACKERMAN: Who not just tortured people, he electrocuted them. He hit them over the head with telephone books. And he did this to black Chicagoins. He did this to people, the institutions in Chicago do not care about. Chicago police, whatever they want to say in annidime statements that dodge the real issues that they only responded to after my story ran, not last week when I sent them all these detailed questions, have a history here. It has a context. HAYES: And we should say Mayor Emanuel may be headed towards a runoff. He also is standing in the way of that reparations bill for the victims of John Burge`s torture. That`s well established, no one is contesting that. It`s a question of whether they get reparations. Spencer Ackerman, thank you, the article is incredible and well worth the read. We`ve put a link to it on our Facebook page, Facebook/allinwithchris. That is ALL IN for this evening. RACHEL MADDOW`S SHOW starts now. Good evening Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022401cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 112 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 24, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 24, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow GUESTS: Amy Klobuchar, Seth Moulton SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 7289 words HIGHLIGHT: On May 2, Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao will fight. Heading into another partial government shut down right now this week courtesy of the Republicans own fights among themselves within this Congress. Interview with Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Interview with U.S. Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts on the authorization of use of military force in the battle against ISIS. RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: Good evening, Chris. We`ll have updates on the live updates coming in from Chicago in terms of the mayoral election tonight. HAYES: Very close, interesting stuff. MADDOW: Very close and the question about whether he avoids the run off is like of national interest so we`ll have that as those returns come in. Thanks. And thanks to you at home for joining us. So, it is fight night apparently. It is fight right now. In terms of big fight nights, this is sort of like the biggest one of recent 50 years memory, right? Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, they fought at Madison Square Garden in New York City, March 1971. They billed that thing as the fight of the century. There were a lot of other big boxing matches in the 20th Century so maybe it is hyperbole to say it was the fight of the century, but the hype for Ali-Frazier, the amount of money spent on that fight, it was like nothing that had come before it. The fighters themselves, Mohammad Ali and Joe Frazier, themselves benefitted from the hype and the hoopla, their payday for that one fight was the two of them personally split $5 million in prize money in 1971 dollars. And whatever else you think about boxing, the sport of boxing is very, very good at figuring out how to turn big marquee fights, once in a generation or at least once in a decade match ups, they know how to turn really big fights into really big money including for the boxers themselves. Probably the biggest one after Ali-Frazier was Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield in 1997. That one is famous for the ages even among people who don`t care about boxing because that is the one when Mike Tyson tried to bite the dude`s ear off, right, and got disqualified. Even with the disqualification, though, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield split prize money of $65 million between the two of them for that one fight. Ten years later, the next huge one was Floyd Mayweather versus Oscar Dela Hoya. That was 2007. They split nearly $80 million between the two of them for that fight. Big fights like this, everybody makes a lot of money, but the fighters themselves can make a really big payday on these really, really big fights. Even with that history there is nothing like what is about to happen on May 2nd. May 2nd, it will be Floyd Maywhether again but this time he is going to be fighting Manny Pacquiao. Whether or not you care one wit about boxing as a sports event, this thing as a cultural spectacle, as an economic milestone, this boxing match that`s going to happen on May 2nd, is almost impossible to overstate in terms of the hype. They have been trying to get these two guys to fight since 2009. Can you imagine paying $95 to watch one TV show once? The pay per view cost for this fight is going to be $95 per TV set and millions of Americans will pay to see this fight. Usually huge fights like this are either on HBO or Showtime. This one is so big it will be on HBO and Showtime. The fight is going to be fought at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. When the date for this boxing match was announced and people started gaming out how much money was going to involved here, the estimates were that the MGM Grand would sell about $19 million worth of tickets just to people who paid for a seat in the room to watch the fight live. That estimate of $19 million in ticket sales is based on the tickets for the fight going somewhere between $1,000 and $4,000 a seat. Right now online, tickets for the fight are being bid out at more than $22,000 a seat. Every room in that huge hotel sold out within minutes of them announcing the date of this fight. This is one boxing match. This is one boxing match that will probably last up to an hour, maybe, but that one single event. That one hour or less, will earn hundreds of millions of dollars. And all of the money raised and spent around that fight that will happen on May 2nd. Of all of that money, $200 million of it will go to the two guys fighting the fight. Between them, Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather are going to split a fifth of a billion dollars between the two of them for this one fight. It`s on. People have been waiting for this particular fight for years. It has become sort of an article of faith that this dream fight could never happen, but it is happening. And it is a whole new era in fighting. Kind of like this. Barack Obama has been president since January 2009. In all of the time that he has been president, he has never fought like this before. He has never, before today, done this for a significant piece of legislation. But today he did it, veto, boom. I am returning herewith without my approval, Senate Bill 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act, through this bill Congress attempts to circumvent long-standing and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross border pipeline serves the national interest. The presidential power to veto legislation is what I take seriously, but I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cut short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest including our security safety and environment. This bill, the president says has earned my veto, love Barack Obama. President Obama today vetoing major legislation for the very first time in his presidency. Now substantively this does not mean that the Keystone pipeline will ever get built. What this veto means today is that President Obama has stopped Congress from overriding superseding him in terms of making this decision. He had stopped Congress from overriding his own ability as president to say yes or no to projects like this based on what he thinks is in the national interest. President Obama might yet say yes to Keystone, but this veto today means that it is his decision, hence the proverbial boom heard today in Washington. Now in terms of what happens next, the Republicans say they will schedule votes right away to try to override President Obama`s veto. There is no chance that they can override President Obama`s veto. This was the vote in the House on this bill and the vote in the Senate on this bill. This is the number of votes that they would need in each of those chambers in order to override President Obama`s veto of this legislation. There is now way they are going to get to those numbers in both houses, but for some reason they have decided to schedule these trying for an override votes, which will definitely fail. They`ve decided to schedule them right away. They say they will happen before this time next week. So President Obama just defeated the Republicans in Congress on this at the White House with this veto. Now they say they want to rush right away into President Obama defeating them on this in the House as well, and then into President Obama defeating them on the Senate after that. They want to make sure they rub their own faces in it a lot, all week long, I guess. That is what will happen next here, I guess. Welcome to the veto era of the Barack Obama presidency. We`ve never been here before. We didn`t know before today what this is going to be like. Now we know and it is kind of exciting. The new fighty feeling in Washington was heightened by this visual, the top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, still looks, honestly, absolutely terrible. No offense after his bizarre home exercise equipment injury, which he suffered on New Year`s Day. Senator Reid has had two rounds of eye surgery to try to restore the vision in his right eye after that terrible injury. After appearing over the last few weeks in a variety of bandages and eye patches and sort of medical instruments on his face, today Senator Reid switched to this gangstery sunglasses look. Then he gave a really spectacularly hostile pregnant pause and clipped response when one brave reporter was frisky enough to ask him about the shades. Watch this. It starts off like it might be a funny moment, and very quickly it is clear this is not going to be a funny moment, it will be kind of scary or at least definitely hostile. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. HARRY REID (R-NV), MINORITY LEADER: Speaker Boehner says that`s what he`ll do, I take his word for it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Reid, is your bandage goes for good now? And is this a sign you`re getting better? REID: We`re working on my beauty here. I have these on. Tomorrow we`re going to try some other things. I can see out of my right eye, just not very well. It has not been healed. I have been patient. I appreciate your interest, but it`s the best I can do. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Senator Harry Reid today killing a reporter with the length of that pause before answering about his eye injury sun shades. What that press conference was about today, though, on day one of the veto era of the Obama presidency. On day one of this whole new form of fighting in Washington that we have never seen before during this presidency, what Senator Reid was there to talk about other than his eye injury was the next big fight in fighty, fighty Washington right now. It is about whether or not the Homeland Security Department is going to be shut down. This week, Republicans in the House and the Senate are in a hair pulling name calling fight amongst themselves right now about whether or not they are going to shut down the Homeland Security Department. And it is kind of fighty fun to watch in its own right, but it is an absolutely open question right now as to how expensive that fight will be. And what it will cost all of us and what it will cost the government, right? It is an absolutely questionable as to whether or not we are actually heading into another partial government shut down right now this week courtesy of the Republicans own fights among themselves within this Congress. Joining us now is Senator Amy Klobuchar from the great state of Minnesota. Senator, it`s great to see you. Thanks for your time tonight. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D), MINNESOTA: Well, thanks, Rachel. We must point out, I thought you are going to have me on in boxing when I listened to the lead in, but let us remember that Harry Reid was once a boxer. MADDOW: He was once a boxer. KLOBUCHAR: Exactly and I think, you know, he looked pretty tough in that photo. MADDOW: Well, you know, when he first did his home video explaining I know I look like I have been run over. I know I looked terrible. Here`s what happened, he gave this whole litany about, you know, listen, I wasn`t fighting Manny. I was not fighting Floyd. I wasn`t riding a bull. I wasn`t doing all this other stuff. I slapped myself in the face with some exercise equipment. It feels like we`re in a new fighting era in Washington where we don`t know exactly what the contours are. I mean, President Obama vetoing this legislation, but also the partial shutdown maybe coming. I feel like I don`t know what to expect. KLOBUCHAR: Well, first of all, let`s look at what we`re fighting for on Homeland Security. People in Minnesota woke up on Sunday morning to see a video. Someone from Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group, the ones that killed 60 people in that mall in Kenya basically standing up and saying, you know, we want to go after Mall of America in Minnesota. We want to go after Edmonton Mall in Canada, a mall in London, and really calling on people to do it, calling on them to go after Jewish-owned shopping centers. That happened. We are very glad the FBI and Homeland Security secretary said, look, you should be fell free to keep going to the mall and our people, they stood tall. They went on with their day. I talked that night to 500 hospitality workers that worked half of them in the mall, half of them near the mall. They went to work that day. They were people working at the front desk of the hotels. People working at the restaurants, pizza delivery people, they did their jobs. And the least that we can see coming out of the Republican side right now is to fund Homeland Security at a time when we have cyber security threats out of North Korea. We`ve got people being shot in Paris. We`re going to say to these terrorists, well, you know what? We`re having a fight over extraneous amendments on immigration reform, which will put on by the Republicans in the House, so we`re going to fund down our security. That is not the message we want to send to that guy that did the video. I was really glad my colleagues stood together today. I`m hopeful that senators like Lindsay Graham, John McCain, are saying this thing is in the Texas courts right now. Let`s get this done and vote on a purely funded Homeland Security bill for this country. MADDOW: Do you actually expect that will happen? I mean, we`re getting to the point right now where I know this has been threatened for a long time. Everybody sort of felt like this was a brinksmanship game. This is a way for the Republicans to talk with their base and fight it out with their base. But we`re getting really, really close to the deadline now and it seems to me like what Mitch McConnell put forward is his way to avoid this thing, I can`t see it happening. Not with conservatives particularly on the House side mobilizing against it and saying that would be a terrible vote. And nobody should cast that vote if they are Republicans. KLOBUCHAR: Well, I`m hopeful talking to some of my Republican colleagues that some common sense will prevail here. The key is the House. They have to get their act together and figure out how they will maneuver this procedurally. We can have debates about immigration reform and the courts can battle it out. It is very important to me. I was a big supporter of the comprehensive bill and we need to move forward. But right now this is about funding Homeland Security. Not just about terrorism at the Mall of America. It is also about our firefighters, the coast guard, and thousands of employees that will be furloughed or have to go to work without pay. And it`s just not the message that we want to send where we`ve got people being burned in cages and you`ve got, you know, young people that are watching this on TV. This is not the message that we want to send to the rest of the world. MADDOW: In terms of how things work in Washington or don`t, do you think that things are going to change meaningfully in Washington now that we do have this new dynamic that we`ve never had before under this president where he is vetoing stuff. The Republicans are saying they are going to try to override the veto. I see that there is no way that they can override the veto. I mean, we are going to have votes on that over the next week. The president sent his veto message today, it was stern and without fanfare, do you think that changes the dynamic in Washington at all? KLOBUCHAR: I think that right now we have a lot of energy coming out of the president`s State Of The Union where we finally talked about things like income inequality and how we have to move forward for the middle class. And you have heard some Republicans talk about funding infrastructure, moving forward on some education issues. I think at some point since they are now in charge of both houses, we`ll have to get to some governing. For me the first real test, Rachel, is what happens with this bill this week. Are they going to be able to shut down some extraneous amendments and fund this simple Homeland Security bill that was negotiated between Democrats and Republicans? So that I can go home to Minnesota and say to those workers that go to the mall every day and do their jobs, you know what? The United States of America is behind you. That is what we should be doing in Washington. MADDOW: Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator, it is great to see you, thanks very much for being here. All right, remember when it looks like President Obama`s pick for attorney general would sail through confirmation that was so January. We`ll have latest details on that. Coming up later, we have an installment of debunction junction including some news about sledding down the actual Capitol Hill and my Fox News colleague, Bill O`Reilly. He loves it when I talk about him. Please stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REID: As most people know I fought for a couple years. After any of those fights I never looked like I do now. However, I didn`t get this black eye by sparring with Manny, by challenging Floyd Mayweather. I was not bull riding or riding a motorcycle. I was exercising in my new home. The doctors have told me I better take it easy. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: If you could please cue the music, election night, it is election night, in one place in Chicago. Voters are choosing a mayor and all 50 members of the Chicago City Council today. And now former Democratic congressman, former White House chief of staff, now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is trying to win a second term as mayor tonight. He`s held the office since 2011 after he left the White House to go back home to Chicago. Mayor Emanuel is in the race against four challengers tonight including one very popular progressive Democrat named Jesus Garcia, who is a county commissioner. Now Rahm Emanuel is widely expected to finish with the most votes in tonight`s election in Chicago, but if he doesn`t get more than 50 percent of the vote, he will have to go through a run-off election on April 7th. The polls just closed in Chicago a little while ago, and so far these are the results that we have got. Rahm Emanuel right now with 46 percent of the vote. Jesus Garcia is second behind him at 34 percent of the vote. You see this is with 71 percent of the vote in. Again, the crucial threshold here, though, is by the 100 percent of the votes are in, Rahm Emanuel has to cross 50 percent or he will be in a runoff election in April. We`ll keep watching this over the course of the night as these results come in. More news to come, please stay with us. MADDOW: It has been just over three months since President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch to succeed Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States. At the time the president nominated her, the Democrats still were in control of the Senate. The Democrats could have started the Loretta Lynch confirmation hearings right then and there before Republicans took over, but Senate Democrats decided apparently in some sort of gesture of good faith. I don`t know they decided to wait. They decided to roll her nomination over into the New Year and to allow Republicans to handle the Loretta Lynch attorney general confirmation process once they took over control of the Senate. Now at that time, that decision seemed to me to be a little bit ominous. True, at that time there now substantive objections to Loretta Lynch. Republicans really did want to see Eric Holder gone as attorney general. But the longer the Democrats let this thing roll on, the longer Republicans had to try to cook something up about this nomination. So it seemed to me like a worrying sign for the Loretta Lynch confirmation when Democrats decided to give Republicans control over the confirmation process. Well, last month, the new Republican-led Senate did indeed hold her confirmation hearings. Loretta Lynch sailed right through, unscathed, nobody laid a glove on her. But then when it came time for the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote and move the whole nomination process forward, without explanation they decided to delay their votes. They still have not voted on her. Now this week, more than four dozen Republican members of the House have sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee pleading with committee members to vote no on the Loretta Lynch nomination. Quote, "We contend that at the very least you should reject Ms. Lynch`s nomination to register your disapproval with this administration`s persistent lawless conduct. We respectfully ask that you refuse to vote Loretta Lynch out of committee." So now we have a sizable group in the House lobbying the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate that they should vote against Loretta Lynch. We also know have Ted Cruz lobbying his fellow Republicans in the conservative media that they should block her nomination by any means necessary. Saying that even if she does pass the committee, the Republican leadership should just refuse to put her nomination on the floor for a full Senate vote so that`s what happens when you delay it and let them control the process. Now there is no clear sign that Republicans are going to confirm her even though they have raised zero objections to her. Zero objections to what she has done. There is no sign whether or not she has enough votes in the committee to survive. If the nomination is even allowed to go to the floor, amazing. The committee vote is scheduled for the day after tomorrow through no fault of Loretta Lynch`s own. The current attorney general says he will not step down until his replacement is confirmed. Republicans really hate him, but they get to keep him in office. And apparently he will be wrapping things up he says that the findings of the shootings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last year. They announced they will not bring federal charges in another high profile case, the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Eric Holder accused to be cleaning off his desk, a controversial matter, Loretta Lynch. But the same Republicans that hate him so much now appear to do whatever it takes. Whatever they can to keep him attorney general indefinitely, it doesn`t make sense. That doesn`t mean you could not see it coming. Then that committee voted for the nomination that is Thursday`s, the day after tomorrow. Nobody has any idea what`s going to happen. Watch this space. MADDOW: It is these 3 seconds of tape that landed one of the president`s members of the cabinet in hot water today. That is the Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald in a squib of tape that ran in a CBS News story about veterans and homelessness. Secretary McDonald has pledged to reduce homelessness among America`s vets. He participated in the annual count of the homeless population in L.A., and the VA invited a CBS News crew to come along and show the VA secretary doing that count, and that`s how they caught those 3-seconds. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT MCDONALD, VETERANS AFFAIRS SECRETARY: Special Forces, what years? I was in Special Forces. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: The reason the secretary is now in trouble for those comments is because Secretary McDonald was not in the Special Forces. He served in the military, the 82nd Airborne in the 1970s but Special Forces? No. And maybe he made it up on the fly, right, in an empathetic attempt to connect with that veteran, who he encountered on the street that night in L.A., but you know what? It doesn`t really matter. People noticed he was lying and it has become a big embarrassing deal. Today, Secretary McDonald apologized very forthrightly. He said that what he said was inaccurate and a misstatement and he had no excuse. There`s basically been a mixed response to his apology so far for veterans groups. Some are definitely angry with Secretary McDonald. There`s like the Iraq and Afghanistan vets group, IAVA. They said that he just made a mistake, it is a mistake, but they accept his apology. President Obama also had to come out and say he accepted the apology from Secretary McDonald. When anyone in public life gets caught lying, obviously, it`s a bad thing for them. It is particularly upsetting kind of lying though to lie about your military record, right, or about experiences of war that other people really have gone through and that you have not. And whether you are a presidential candidate who said you took sniper fire when you didn`t, or a member of Congress who said you received a specific naval honor when you didn`t, or another member of Congress who made it seem like he served in Vietnam when he didn`t, or a trusted news anchor who said his chopper took fire in Iraq when it didn`t, or a guy on cable news who said he was reporting from an active war zone, reporting from a combat zone when in fact he was covering a protest about the war, not the war itself. Not telling the truth and whole truth specifically about your time in the war or lack thereof, there is a reason that that sort of thing upsets people more than just regular lying. There`s a reason that sort of thing upsets people so much. And that rule applies to everyone, applies to everyone except our next guest, weirdly. Congressman Seth Moulton is a new member of Congress from Massachusetts. He`s also a United States marine who volunteered to be sent to Iraq even though he disagreed with the Iraq war. He served four combat tours in Iraq. And when Seth Moulton came home from the war and ran for Congress, even though people knew he was a marine and about his four combat tours in Iraq, he left out one very salient detail about his military record. He didn`t overtly lie about it, but he left it out. He never talked about it -- to the point where his hometown paper, "The Boston Globe", turned on the investigative unit to expose Seth Moulton`s real military record and what he was not talking about in his campaign. What "The Boston Globe" found, their shocked report, was that Set Moulton was, quote, "a former marine who saw fierce combat for months and months in Iraq. But Moulton chose not to publicly disclose that he was twice decorated for heroism, until he was pressed on the subject by "The Boston Globe". Congressman Seth Moulton did not even tell his parents about him winning the Bronze Star for heroism in combat. He never told a soul who wasn`t a fellow marine, even as he was running for Congress, until the local paper had to dig it up as like an expose of his humility. In a world full of people making it up, here is the guy who is not only the opposite of that, he is starting to feel like the antidote to that. And he is here tonight for the interview. Please stay with us. MADDOW: This has been a weird winter for us here in the United States, particularly in the Northeast, also in the South, which has been pounded by snow and ice for a few weeks now. And it has not just been a bad winter here in the U.S., though. This is Turkey. This is Istanbul in turkey. It does not usually snow a whole lot in Istanbul. But last week, Istanbul got more than a foot of snow. In some areas of the city, the snow broke records. It shut down whole huge parts of the city, including the airports. But all of that snow provided one brief cause for hope that an international manhunt in Turkey might be solved. One week ago today, last Tuesday morning, these three girls vanished in Britain during a half term break from school. They walked out of their London homes and essentially disappeared into the world. Instead of going to study together, which is what they told their parents, they went to the airport. They went to Gatwick Airport, just outside of London, and the girls boarded a flight to Istanbul. Two of the girls are 15. One of them is 16. And the fear was that they were traveling to Istanbul to eventually plan to cross the border into Syria and join up with the terror group ISIS. Since those three British girls disappeared last week, there has been a frantic search to try to find them before they got into Syria. British police officials went to Turkey to try to find the girls there. That totally out of the snowstorm -- totally out of the ordinary snowstorm in Istanbul gave officials some hope earlier this week that maybe just because of the weather they might not have been able to get transport arranged out of Turkey and into Syria. But, no joy. Over this past week, they have not been able to find them. Yesterday, the lack of progress opened up a minor diplomatic rift between Turkey and the U.K. Turkey`s deputy prime minister said it had taken the British three days to tell them the girls were in his country. He said that was condemnable. He said, quote, "It would be great if we can find them, but if we can`t, it`s not us who will be responsible, it would be the British who are responsible." That finger-pointing and searching for them in Turkey apparently ended today, when British police announced with some resignation that they do now believe that these three girls in fact made the crossing into Syria. The BBC reporting the day of the crossing might even have happened as long as four or five days ago. So, the British authorities now believe that despite their best efforts, these three British girls flew from London into Istanbul, then somehow they made their way to the other end of Turkey and crossed into Syria. Within the last few days, couple of hundred miles east from that border, near a town called Tal Tamer, ISIS, the group that these girls travelled all the way to join, we now know that ISIS carried out their latest propaganda atrocity. In predawn raids in rural villages, ISIS kidnapped dozens of Christians in Syria. Some reports put the captives as high as 150, including women and children. Three thousand people reportedly fled the assault into nearby cities. Now, nobody knows where the kidnapped Christians are, or what has become of them. ISIS, of course, has made a practice of executing prisoners for the sake of propaganda, though there is some hope, if you can call it that, that these new Syrian Christian captives, maybe they are holding them in order to try to exchange them with ISIS fighters that are prisoners, we don`t know. That`s the hope. These horrific stories about ISIS, you know, pile up by the day. And because there is so much fighting about other things in Washington right now, I think any real American political debate about what we as a country want to do about ISIS has been pushed back a little bit. It has been two weeks since President Obama asked Congress for a new authorization for the use of military force to combat ISIS. Two weeks since he set parameters for a military campaign that`s been going on for months already. If and when Congress does get around to debating that request for a war authorization, really, nobody knows what Congress is going to do. I mean, reaction to the president`s proposal hasn`t fallen along neat partisan lines so far. It is sort of all over the place. There are Republicans who say they will support President Obama`s authorization request, but they want to give him more power than he is asking for. There are Democrats who support the president on this and there are Democrats who oppose the president on this. The debate about this doesn`t break along the usual partisan lines or usual liberal conservative lines. That unpredictability can be seen specifically in someone like Democratic congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts. Seth Moulton served four tours of duty with the marines in Iraq. He won his House seat just last year. He defeated an incumbent Democratic congressman in a primary in order to win that seat. And on the president`s war authorization request, Congressman Moulton, this Iraq war veteran now serving in the House, he says he is a no right now, at least as the president`s request is currently written. Congressman Moulton is just back from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan among other countries. It was his first visit back to Iraq since serving there as a marine. Joining us now for the interview tonight is Congressman Seth Moulton. Congressman, it`s great to have you back on the show. Thanks for being here. REP. SETH MOULTON (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Let me just ask you, before we talk politics or anything, let me ask you about this trip that you just took. I mean, obviously, having spent a lot of time in Iraq as a marine, now having visited as a congressman, what was it like for you? MOULTON: Well, it`s strange to go back. I spent almost three years of my life there, and I still have Iraqi friends. In a sense it was good to go see similar territory. But at the same time, it`s incredibly frustrating to see how much of our effort has gone to waste. Those of us who fought there for years, especially during the surge, really putting things back on track are now looking at a country that is rife with terrorists, a government that people don`t trust, and we`re looking at having to go back there again. MADDOW: The foreign policy discussion in thinktank-ville, if not in Congress officially yet, and certainly the case is being made by the administration, is that the military campaign that`s being waged against ISIS right now is effectively waged in Iraq if not so effectively waged in Syria. That Iraq with a combination of Iraqi security forces and what the United States is doing in terms of air strikes and support, it has been effective. It`s sort of containing and pushing back ISIS. Do you think that`s true? Do you see that while you were there? MOULTON: I would actually agree with that. But my concern is that there is no long-term political strategy to insure that whatever military effort we have today won`t be in vain. What I want to make sure is that even if we`re able to defeat ISIS militarily, we don`t have to go back there three or four years down the road just to do it again against ISIS or some other group that might crop up in the political vacuum left by a dysfunctional Iraqi state. MADDOW: Do you think there should be military force right now against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria? Obviously, the authorization that the president is asking for is to authorize something already under way. Do you think the military campaign should stop and it should be potentially restarted in the future if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy? Or do you think that what`s happening right now should continue? MOULTON: Well, I think that what is happening right now as unfortunate as it is to be in this situation is important. I believe that ISIS is a national security threat to the United States. They brutally killed Americans abroad and made clear their intention to kill Americans here at home. And so, some action is necessary. But we`ve got to realize, this can be a very slippery slope. I mean, right now we put military advisors in Iraq. I was a military adviser 10 years ago. When the Iraqi unit that we were advising started to get overrun by the militia, we went to their assistance and that started some of the most brutal fighting of the Iraq war until that time. So, a military advisory mission can quickly become a ground combat mission. Let`s not forget, the Vietnam War started as a military advisory mission. MADDOW: Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts -- I don`t know when this debate will start in earnest in Congress in terms of settling this request for the authorization of the use of military force. But I`m glad you`re going to be part of the debate. Thanks for your time tonight, sir. Nice to see you. MOULTON: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. All right. Still ahead, Debunktion Junction featuring a special appearance bay FOX News host whose name is Bill O`Reilly who really likes when people on MSNBC talk about him. Please with us. MADDOW: OK, Debunktion Junction is still ahead. But this is my favorite visual news story of the day. If you`re washing the dishes right now and just hearing me in the background and not looking, you have to come over to the TV, this one is visual. All right. Today, we`ve got some news out of Cleveland, Ohio. The Cleveland Browns football team got a new logo. For a long time, sort of the thing to know visually about the Cleveland Browns didn`t have a logo. The Browns are the only team in the NFL that does not have a logo on their helmet. The helmet basically is their logo. I mean, for awhile they had this guy, Browny Elf until a new owner bought the team in 1961 and they got rid of the embarrassing elf because the elf was embarrassing. They pretty much since then, since 1961, their look has been this. Nothing. Right? No logo, orange helmet with a brown and white stripe and a white face mask. That is it. That`s always been it. Well, in 2013, the Cleveland Browns decided, you know what? It`s time to update our style. So, for the past two years they have been working on a revamp. They`ve been doing surveys and focus groups trying out different looks. And today, they were finally ready to unveil the new and improved Browns logo. Before I show it to you, remember, here is what it was up until today. OKkay, you got it? Now, as of today -- here is the new one. Tada! See that? Amazing. Maybe you don`t see the difference. Look at them side by side. See? The orange. Come on, it`s a different feel. It is so much oranger-ish. As the Browns announced today that the orange, quote, "matches the passion of our fans and city," we were all left to absorb this is the change they`re amounting. For the Browns, that makes the Browns, quote, "The Browns," the Brown is unchanged. The orange is more orange, everything else is -- change is good. Stay with us. MADDOW: Programming note: tomorrow here on MSNBC, the great Jose Diaz- Balart, host of "THE RUNDOWN" here on MSNBC and anchor of Telemundo, Jose is going to be hosting a town hall tomorrow night on MSNBC, with President Obama. The town hall is at Florida International University in Miami. Unless Republicans in Congress find a way to pass a bill to fund homeland security, Jose is going to be talking to President Obama live on the eve of the Homeland Department Security shutting down. A potential shutdown that would happen as a protest against President Obama`s executive actions on immigration. Well, that town hall with President Obama is about immigration, and more. And it`s going to air at 8:00 p.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC tomorrow night. We`ll be right back. MADDOW: Debunktion Junction, what`s my function? We start with a controversy involving an anchor at the FOX News Channel who is named Bill O`Reilly. Mr. O`Reilly, you may have heard, has been under fire in recent days over allegations that he embellished his time as a CBS correspondent in the 1980s. Specifically, he described himself as reporting from an active war zone in Argentina, saying he survived a combat situation during the Falkland`s war, when it appears that he did not. These allegations were raised by David Corn at "Mother Jones" magazine last week. Mr. O`Reilly has responded to that reporting by essentially going ballistic against not only David Corn and "Mother Jones", but also his own former colleagues at CBS News, who have raised similar questions about the timing question, as well as other journalists who have even dared to try to report on this story last week and this week. And that leads us to the latest twist, ""Bill O`Reilly threatens reporter from `The New York Times`." Surely that`s got to be hyperbole. He is bombastic, that is his shtick, right, but this is about debunking bunk. So is it true or false that Bill O`Reilly threatened a "New York Times" reporter trying to report on this story? Is that true or false? (BELL) MADDOW: True. It is literally true, and not just a matter of interpretation or allegation. From "The New York Times" this morning -- during a phone conversation Mr. O`Reilly told a reporter for "The New York Times" there would be repercussions if he felt any of the reporter`s coverage was inappropriate. Quote, "I`m coming after you with everything I have", Mr. O`Reilly said. That`s the quote from Bill O`Reilly to this "New York Times" reporter who contacted him about this story. If any of your coverage is inappropriate I`m coming after you with everything I have. And just in case he didn`t make his point absolutely clear he followed up with this. Quote, "You can take it as a threat." Now, "The New York Times" reporter in question is Emily Steel. She followed the article in "The Times" today by tweeting the direct quote from Bill O`Reilly, just so everybody is clear on what happened. "I am coming after you with everything I have. You can take it as a threat." After David Corn first broke this story last week, Mr. O`Reilly responded to him by saying once the truth of this story came out, David Corn would be, quote, "in the kill zone where he deserves to be." "Mother Jones" asked for an apology for that, but Bill O`Reilly said it was just a slang, it was just a figure of speech and he wouldn`t apologize. But lest there be any confusion about whether or not Mr. O`Reilly is threatening reporters who report on this story, he really is. I mean, in his own words, you can take it as a threat to this "New York Times" reporter just covering the story. FOX News has a bunch of folks like Mr. O`Reilly on their shows. It`s part of why I call them Republican TV, right? They have a lot of folks like Mr. O`Reilly. But they also have a lot of real reporters on staff who do real reporting all day long on real news. They have White House reporters, and congressional reporters, and even media reporters. I`m sure they don`t take kindly when their own reporters get threatened for trying to do their job. But it is hard to imagine what this is going to do at the work environment for FOX News Channels for the FOX News Channel`s real reporters and they do have them. But this really did happen on the record and apparently without apology. Next up, a pallet cleanser. Is it true or false that this happened in real life? Look, look, oh! Just walking along and then, poof. Yes. Are you kidding me? Did that happen for real? Did that happen for real? (BELL) MADDOW: That is real. Those floor tiles ate those people. This is the people gobbling end of a sinkhole in Seoul, South Korea. Two people hopping up a bus this week turned to walk up the sidewalk and just dropped ten feet down a hole. They were rescued by firefighters, treated by for only minor injuries, which is a good thing. But now, we know that the earth can swallow us at any given moment. No fuss no muss. So, there is that. That is true. And finally, this is freaking unbelievable. When snow falls in Washington, D.C., it`s a local tradition for local families to head to Capitol Hill, which really is a hill to do some sledding on the snow. But it has recently been reported that after this week`s snowfall, the Capitol police have been dropping the fun hammer on would-be Capitol Hill sledders, turning kids away, telling them sledding is not permitted any more on Capitol Hill. Those are very bah humbug reports. But there has to be a kernel of truth at the bottom of this, right? Is it true or false that it is illegal to sled down Capitol Hill? Is that true or false? (BELL) MADDOW: True. Seriously, it`s true. Now, there`s a reason for the confusion over this issue, because people have been sledding on Capitol Hill for as long as anybody can remember, but technically, it actually is illegal. The sledding ban was put in place after September 11th, it`s there in the regulations of the architect of the Capitol. "No person shall coast or slide a sled within capitol grounds." That was apparently some sort of national imperative after 9/11, even though they don`t always enforce it. But for whatever reason, they are apparently enforcing it right now in D.C. snow. And D.C.`s delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton is now trying to overturn what she calls this Scrooge-like ban, particularly because people have flouted the band with one day waivers from Congress, and also just whenever they can because no one is looking for years. And when people have flouted the sledding on Capitol Hill ban, miraculously, al Qaeda has not been able to take advantage of that to harm us and our national security. So, for the record, I`m with Eleanor Holmes Norton, free the toboggans. But right now, you should know, officially, there is a ban. That does it for us tonight. We will see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022401cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 113 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 24, 2015 Tuesday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL for February 24, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell, Charles Hadlock, Patrick Murphy GUESTS: Brian Wice, Michael Snipes SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 9106 words HIGHLIGHT: Eddie Ray Routh was just sentenced to life in prison without parole in "American Sniper" trial. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Rachel, you should have seen me on my sled on Capitol Hill when I worked in Washington. Those snow days, that was the most fun. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Snow disks. I know, man. Take it easy. O`DONNELL: Thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. O`DONNELL: Well, Mitch McConnell has a new strategy to end the standoff over the funding of Department of Homeland Security and, of course, Republicans don`t like it. And Hillary Clinton did a wide-ranging interview tonight. Also, tonight, a Texas jury is deliberating right now. They are deciding the fate of Eddie Ray Routh, the man who killed the real American sniper, Chris Kyle. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: It`s really sad to see the gamesmanship, the -- I don`t know what to call it, the silliness. JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can`t find nibble who thinks it`s a good idea to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congress races against the clock to avoid a partial shutdown. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The standoff that threatens to shut down Homeland Security at the end of this week. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: This bill removes excuses, it sets up a simple political equation. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered a vote on a funding bill without immigration measures. SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: The problem is, everybody, I`m waiting to hear from the speaker. SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: We need a commitment from Speaker Boehner. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Where`s the House? Where`s Speaker Boehner? REID: I`m waiting to hear from the speaker. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The jury is about to get the case in the "American Sniper" trial. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two weeks of testimony from three dozen witnesses boils down to this. Was Routh insane or deliberate when he shot Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield at a Texas gun range two years ago? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fiery moments just after impact sent panicked passengers scrambling for their lives in a metro linked train coming from Ventura County into L.A. hit the truck on the tracks. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It makes me wonder, what is the next story? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Alaska became the third state to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Republican Congressman Aaron Schock is now under fire for his office spending. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rudy Giuliani, I don`t know if you saw this, Rudy Giuliani published an op-ed in "The Wall Street Journal" today. JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW: If you`re a New Yorker, you may remember him as the mayor who replaced all your porn and drugs with M&M`s. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come on, Rudy, of course, President Obama loves America. He has to. Being president of the United States is the worst job in the world even if you love America. STEWART: Here`s what`s crazy. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You get paid less than middle relief pitcher, everyone blames you for everything and you have to live in a house with literally no security. (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: The spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security is what they call a must-pass bill in the Congress. It must pass, because the alternative is unthinkable. The alternative is allowing the Homeland Security Department to partially shut down, which, in the age of terror, is unthinkable. So goes the political thinking in Washington. Must-pass bills have always been hard to resist for mischief makers. If one party attaches something that the other party hates to a must-pass bill, the party that hates that thing might still have to vote for it because it`s attached to a must-pass bill. No one can be caught voting against a must-pass bill. That`s always been the rule about must-pass bills, but that dynamic no longer works in the 21st century. Democrats have been happily voting against this must-pass bill, because it undoes President Obama`s executive orders on immigration. Naive Senate strategists like newcomer Ted Cruz think they can just force Democrats to vote for the bill with the provision that Democrats Hate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knows better and so he wants to give up and clearly give up this hopeless attempt to pass the Department of Homeland Security spending bill that guts the president`s orders on immigration, because Mitch McConnell knows that the Democrats in the Senate are going to continue to filibuster, and even if for some reason the Democrats relented and let it pass, President Obama would then veto it. So, Mitch McConnell now wants to do what any reasonable majority leader in the Senate would do in that situation, separate the two issues, vote on a clean spending bill from the Department of Homeland Security, and then separately vote on a standalone bill that would kill the funding for the president`s executive orders on immigration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MCCONNELL: I don`t know what`s not to like about this. This is an approach that respects both points of view and gives senators an opportunity to go on record on both, both funding the Department of Homeland Security and expressing their opposition to what the president did last November. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: We`re going to have to break this. We have breaking news from Texas. We have a verdict in the trial of Eddie Ray Routh, who has been accused of murdering -- control room, tell me who is joining us now? We`re joined by Brian Wice from Texas. Brian, what can you tell us? BRIAN WICE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think at this point, without knowing what the verdict is, I think the consensus would appear to be it`s probably a one word verdict. It`s probably guilty of capital murder, which, of course, Lawrence, you know, carries an automatic life sentence without the possibility of parole. If, in fact, that`s what it is, it`s not surprising considering that juries in drunk-driving cases sometimes seem to be out longer than the jury in this case. I think when all was said and done, this Erath County jury determined that this wasn`t a young man caught in the grip of psychosis, but rather a cold blooded assassination. O`DONNELL: And, Brian, it seems that the jury deliberated probably for about an hour and a half, possibly even less. But it is a relatively simple fact base. There`s nothing to contend about the facts. The issue was just -- was he legally insane or not. WICE: And, Lawrence, you`re right. Like the prosecutor Jane Starnes told this jury early on, this is not a whodunit, this is a why on earth did he do it? Whether you accepted the reality put forth by the defense, every crime is a tragedy. Every tragedy is not a crime. This is a young man who could not understand the difference between right and wrong, or the prosecution`s narrative which I believe this jury is going to embrace, that this again was a cold blooded assassination, and the fact that this young man may have had mental issues did not mean that when he pulled the trigger, he could understand the difference between right and wrong. And, Lawrence, we know that`s the test for sanity in the great state of Texas. O`DONNELL: We`re joined by Charles Hadlock, who`s NBC News producer, he`s been covering the trial in Texas outside the courtroom in Stephenville. Charles, one of the interesting things today in the closing arguments was that the defense attorney very specifically suggested to the jury that a hung jury is a possibility, that it is possible for them not to come to an agreement. That`s the one thing we know hasn`t happened. CHARLES HADLOCK, NBC NEWS PRODUCER: That`s correct. He did try to float that possibility. Of course, he also said at the same time, there is no reason to turn in a guilty verdict, because we know that he`s guilty. It`s -- is it a matter of him being sane or insane at the time? And that is the key question. They argued nine days of testimony throughout this trial that he was insane at the time of the trial. That he was suffering from a psychosis that led him to kill the two men who were trying to help him. The state says that is hogwash is what they called it today. They said that this man had marijuana and alcohol problems, and was high at the time of the killings. And being intoxicated at the time of a crime does not amount to insanity. And they wanted the jury to find him guilty of killing two men by shooting them in the back. O`DONNELL: Charles, is there kind of a courthouse consensus on what the expected outcome is here? HADLOCK: Not really. If you talk to a wide range of people, some people are on the fence saying he does seem like he has some mental problems. Maybe he should be found insane. But the key in this case, was he insane at the time of the crime, and did he know at the time of the crime that his actions were wrong. That is the key in this case. The jury will have to decide that, and they obviously have decided something. We`ll find out here shortly. O`DONNELL: Brian, what do you think was probably the key element here for the prosecution in their final arguments today? WICE: Lawrence, if I had to find the final piece of the puzzle, as in many cases, it`s probably, in my mind, the defendant`s own words. I know that the jury during the state`s rebuttal portion heard a phone call between the defendant and a reporter from "The New Yorker" magazine, and in that call, the jury could pretty much figure out that the remorse, the regret, the guilt that Eddie Ray Routh felt in the commission of this offense was tantamount to acknowledging what he was doing was wrong. And that`s we see in so many cases that the six favorite words for any prosecutor to hear: your honor, we call the defendant. O`DONNELL: Brian, it indicates he knew what he did was wrong. But the question is that present tense moment at the commission of the crime, did he know it then? WICE: As we said on the show anybody who`s ever -- (CROSSTALK) WICE: -- Jack McCoy on "Law and Order", recognizes, as your viewers do, that you can form intent to kill in an instant. If at the time he pulled the trigger, he could understand the difference between right and wrong, whether he was coming in and out of this psychotic state, really doesn`t matter much. And again, it will be interesting to see what happens when these 12 good folks from Erath County tell the world what they already know -- Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Charles Hadlock, what is the judge`s rules on the reading of the verdict in the courtroom? He has allowed video but he has not allowed audio to come out of the courtroom? HADLOCK: He will allow audio and video to come out for the verdict. He allowed audio and video for the opening statements. But throughout the trial, for testimony and closing arguments, he would only allow the video to be recorded without audio. Now, at the end of this trial, there will be a punishment phase, if he`s found guilty. And immediately after that, we`ll be able to play some of the audio that happened during the trial. Those are the rules he set forth. And immediately after the punishment phase, they`ll go into a victim`s impact statement. One person, a relative, has signed up to speak to the court. We will not be able to show you that. We won`t even be allowed to record the audio of that. We`ll only be able to hear it in the courtroom and then the overflow room and report it only in written word -- Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Charles, do we know which relative that is? HADLOCK: We don`t know. It could be Taya. It could be another relative. It could be Chris Kyle`s brother or maybe a Littlefield family member. We just don`t know yet. They haven`t told us. O`DONNELL: So, Charles, it`s only one relative for each of the victims in this killing? HADLOCK: All we`re told is that one victim -- one person was going to come forward for the victim impact statement. That`s all we know. We believe it`s a family member. It also has to be a family member to give an impact statement. We just don`t know who it is yet. O`DONNELL: We`re joined now by Michael Snipes. He`s a former Dallas County criminal district court judge. He`s a current defense attorney. Judge Snipes, we just heard from Charles Hadlock what will happen after the verdict in this case. Can you give us a timetable for that? MICHAEL SNIPES, FORMER JUDGE, DALLAS COUNTY: Well, he discussed something called a punishment phase, but that`s slightly incorrect. There`s not going to be a punishment phase in the sense of testimony coming in, because if there`s a verdict of guilty, then the sentence is automatically life without parole. The victim impact part of the case, just to clarify this for our audience, can be as many as one or five or more victims, and all of that is not actually on the record and it`s a very private time for the family, which the judge has quite a deal of discretion over. O`DONNELL: Judge Snipes, if there`s a guilty verdict here, the sentence is automatic life without parole and no details to it at all, it`s just that. SNIPES: That`s exactly right. Actually, I had several of those types of cases myself. It was all done at one time. The guilty verdict was rendered, then I would immediately pass the sentence almost contemporaneously. O`DONNELL: I mean, it`s hard to see the point of any other process when you have an automatic sentence. And, Judge Snipes, why would an automatic sentence, would they go to the point of including victim impact statements? SNIPES: Well, it`s a statute in the state of Texas and it`s to allow the family to have closure, basically. It`s something that`s done for the victims of crime. It`s done to allow them to get over what`s happened basically. O`DONNELL: If there`s only one of those victim impact statements to be made, is it conceivable that could be done tonight also? SNIPES: Well, I was surprised that the judge allowed deliberations to go on into the evening. Certainly that`s within his discretion. So, if he was willing to do that, I would say that there`s a very good possibility that the victim impact statements would be tonight. O`DONNELL: So, Judge Snipes, you could see this entire proceeding being wrapped up in its entirety tonight? SNIPES: It appears to me that`s what is going to happen. O`DONNELL: OK. Brian Wice, the defense attorney, in a way that was quite clear today, basically suggested to the jury very clearly that a hung jury was a possibility here. He said you can find him guilty, you can find him not guilty by reason of insanity, and you might also just not be able to agree. He says, if you`re back there and eight of you are for one way and four for the other way, the law contemplates that you try to talk it out and come to some kind of unanimous agreement. But sometimes, you can`t. That`s just all there is to it. You can`t get to a unanimous verdict and that`s okay, too. That happens in criminal cases. That`s about as plain a request for a hung jury as I`ve heard. WICE: It`s standard fair in the criminal defense attorney playbook. And what prosecutors try to do when a defense attorney advances that argument is to tell the jury, folks, they want you to get a divorce and y`all aren`t even on the honeymoon yet. I mean, it`s something that makes sense as a defense attorney because sometimes, that`s the best that you can ultimately hope for. But again, given the way the system shaped out in this case, given the fact that the state had the last word, which Judge Snipes will tell you is a very powerful element in the criminal justice system, I don`t think we`re going to necessarily be surprised if this jury comes back with a verdict of guilty. O`DONNELL: Charles Hadlock, in the final statements, it did come down to an argument among doctors, an argument about the psychiatric opinions of the defendant. Was there any hint that some aspects of this were landing stronger than others? HADLOCK: No, it was really a battle between the psychiatrists, one psychiatrist for the prosecution said he was not a psychotic killer, that he was basically high at the time of the killings. And the psychiatrist for the defendant said that he had a psychosis problem, that every time he had been in the hospital he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. Now, I can tell you why we`re perhaps going on late tonight with this verdict. The judge wanted this case pushed through tonight, because a winter storm is on the way. Now the judge is coming into the chambers. Let`s listen. JUDGE: All right. I`ve been advised that the jury has reached a verdict. Let the record reflect that the jury is not in the courtroom at this time, state counsel is present, as well as defense counsel and the defendant. Let`s bring the jury in. O`DONNELL: We are waiting for the jury to enter the courtroom in Stephenville, Texas. They have reached a verdict in the murder trial of Eddie Ray Routh. JUDGE: All right. Let the record reflect the jury has returned to the courtroom at this time. Ms. Stafford, you`re the foreperson of the jury? FOREPERSON: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE: I`ve been advised a verdict has been reached in this matter. Is this correct? FOREPERSON: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE: If you`ll hand the verdict form to the bailiff. Mr. Routh, if you`ll please stand. FOREPERSON: All right. We the jury find the defendant Eddie Ray Routh guilty of the felony offense of capital murder as charged in the indictment. That verdict is signed by Ms. Stafford as foreperson of the jury. You may be seated at this time. Do you wish to have the jury polled? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, Judge. JUDGE: What I will do at this point is individually start at the first seat first juror and ask you the same question of each juror. Is this a unanimous verdict of the jury? Say loud. JUROR 1: Yes. JUDGE: Jury number two, is this a unanimous verdict? JUROR 2: Yes. JUDGE: Juror number three, is this a unanimous verdict? JUROR 3: Yes. JUDGE: Juror number four? JUROR 4: Yes, sir. JUDGE: Juror number five? JUROR 5: Yes, sir. JUDGE: Juror number six? JUROR 6: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE: Juror number seven? JUROR 7: Yes, sir. JUDGE: Juror number eight? JUROR 8: Yes. JUDGE: Juror number nine? JUROR 9: Yes, sir. JUDGE: Juror number 10? JUROR 10: Yes. JUDGE: Juror number 11? JUROR 11: Yes, sir. JUDGE: Juror number 12? JUROR 12: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE: All right, this completes your service as jurors in this matter. I will receive and accept your verdict in this matter and hand it to the clerk to have it filed for the papers this time. All right, Mr. Routh, if you would please stand again. Having received and accepted the jury`s verdict in this matter, my statute, I will now impose sentencing in this matter, confinement for life in the Texas Criminal Justice Department without the possibility of parole. That`s the verdict of this court, and I will enter judgment accordingly. You may be seated at this time again. I will continue, Mr. St. John as your attorney in regard to your rights to appeal, and that is a direct appeal to the Eastland Court of Appeals which is the home of the 11th Court of Appeals, which is the court for this jurisdiction, and also, your rights with regards to filing a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas. I will remand your custody to the sheriff of Erath County to carry out the imposition of the judgment of this court and the jury`s verdict in this matter. Do you have a legal reason at this time why it should not be imposed? (INAUDIBLE) JUDGE: Finding nothing, I will enter judgment and remand your custody to the sheriff in Erath County to carry out the imposition of this sentence and judgment of this court in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Now then, turning back to the jury. Certainly appreciate your effort in this matter. I have constantly talked to you about the rules of what you can and can`t do. From this point forward, I have no other control over you. I am discharging you from those rules and obligations. I want to talk to you briefly about that. You`re free to discuss this case with anyone at this point or to not discuss the case. That`s certainly up to you. I want to issue a statement to you and that is the lawyers in this matter are professionals and they`re not going to bother you about your verdict, I can assure you of that. Should anybody else attempt to bother you about your verdict, make it known to any of these officers of this court and we`ll get it stopped, quick, fast, and in a hurry. I have been asked by the media, just as this has been a high profile matter, that they want to talk to you about your service as a juror. That`s a decision that`s wholly up to you at this point. I will issue a word of caution in this regard. You can talk to me if you want or you don`t have to. Remember, what you say will be looked at from time now on. Once it`s recorded, there`s no take-backs. So be careful, be judicious about what you`re going to say if you decide to make those interviews. I have the transport available to take you back -- O`DONNELL: We have lost transmission from the courtroom where Eddie Ray Routh was just sentenced to life in prison without parole. The judge is about to discharge the jury. He has given them some instructions and warnings about talking to the media and talking publicly about this case after they are discharged. We are joined now by Charles Hadlock, who is outside the courtroom there. Charles, do we know if we`re going to get that transmission back from the courtroom? HADLOCK: We`re probably not. That was the judge`s order that after punishment, the feed would be pulled. He will instruct the jury that they can or can`t talk to the media as they leave. And then, they will begin that victim impact statement that will not be recorded at all. But the people in the courtroom will be able to hear from the victim. O`DONNELL: And Michael Snipes is also still with us, former Texas judge. So, Judge Snipes, it seems to be occurring exactly as you predicted, an immediate imposition of sentence since it`s an automatic sentence. Now, it seems there will be that relatively private victim impact statement in the courtroom. SNIPES: That`s absolutely customary. In fact, as I listened to the judge, it brought back memories of the kind of instructions that he gave to the jury and the way that he pronounced sentence in the case. It was nothing that I did not expect once the verdict came in. O`DONNELL: And how long do you anticipate the victim impact statement taking in that courtroom? SNIPES: Well, that`s entirely up to the judge pretty much, but typically they take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour or so. I wouldn`t think it would take all that long in this case. Everybody knows what the victim`s sentiments are in the case. And this is, again, as I said before, just their way to try to clear their souls and move forward with their lives. O`DONNELL: And, Judge Snipes, at the conclusion of that victim impact statement, is that it? Is that the moment where the judge gavels this try to a close? SNIPES: That is it. Of course, then we go into appellate matters, possible motion for a new trial, and who knows how long all that will take? O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what was the -- we are now authorized to use video and sound from the trial, and I want to listen to what the prosecutor said today, what was the winning argument in this case today, saying that the bottom line was that the defendant knew what he did was wrong. Let`s listen to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JANE STARNES, PROSECUTOR: The bottom line was the defendant knew what he did was wrong, according to Dr. Price. And then he`s setting up his defense, like he`s done many times before, he commits the crime, he does a violent act, he gets wiped out of his gourd and goes to the mental hospital. That`s what he wanted to see happen again, the night of February 2nd. He was setting up his defense. And then he comes up with this preposterous hybrid pig man story that he tried to sell to Dr. Dunn, apparently did sell to Dr. Dunn because he fell for it hook, line, and sinker. And you reasonable people of Erath County know that that story about the hybrid pig man and the pig assassin is a load of hogwash. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: So, Brian Wice, there`s a prosecutor telling that jury there perfectly empowered to overrule a psychiatrist in this case. WICE: And again, this jury is instructed at the beginning of the trial that they are not supposed to leave their common sense in the courthouse hallway. I think the prosecutor Jane Starnes did an outstanding job in that byte we just heard, saying it`s not about the experts, it`s not about anything but your own collective wisdom and good sense. And I really do believe that what happened in this case was not unexpected. Listen, Lawrence, it`s one of the dirty little secrets of the criminal justice system that not all victims are created equal. While there was some outcry in the wake of the release of the movie "American Sniper," the people on this jury, I`m fairly confident, don`t follow Michael Moore and Seth Rogan on Twitter. O`DONNELL: We`re joined by former Congressman Patrick Murphy. He`s an attorney, also a veteran of the Iraq war. Patrick, you`re one of the first people we talked to about this trial and the issue PTSD might play in this trial. What is your reaction to this verdict tonight? PATRICK MURPHY, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: Lawrence, it`s a sad day. I mean, you have a marine, two marines who were killed. You have another marine now who is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. I`m glad that justice was served, but it breaks my heart to see what happens. It`s a tragedy, and to know that there`s hundreds of thousands of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan war that have PTSD. To know there`s 22 veterans that commit suicide every day. To know every night, there`s 29,000 veterans who are homeless across America. So, you know, I`m glad justice was served and he`s held accountable. But it breaks my heart when you see so many tragedies going on every day in America. O`DONNELL: Patrick, what was your reaction to the prosecution`s argument that PTSD had nothing to do with this, and mental illness had nothing to do with this? MURPHY: You know, I -- listen, I personally disagree. It was clear Mr. Routh had some serious issues, documented issues, time and time again in the V.A. But, at the end of the day, Lawrence, as I said during his trial, I mean, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- we all know that Eddie was going to jail for -- he was going away for the rest of his life, whether it`s to a mental institution or a jail, he`s going to jail. I think it clearly played a role, there`s no doubt, he was disturbed. Chris Kyle`s own text message the day of his death was that this guy was crazy, and was probably saying, you know, "Watch my six," in the car. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what the defense attorney said today about schizophrenia and about the diagnosis, and about what he called, basically, the prosecution and defense testimony of doctor against doctor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TIM MOORE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, "AMERICAN SNIPER" TRIAL: We brought you Dr. Dunn, who works with schizophrenics every single day of the week. And he has for 20 years. They brought you Dr. Price, who`s a nice man, who`s a smart man and a good psychologist, but he doesn`t deal with schizophrenia. And he has only diagnosed this 10-week induced psychosis one time in 30 years. And they brought you Dr. Alan Bullough (ph), who`s President of the Medical Association of Texas. It sounds like it but what he does most of the time is not dealing with patients like Dr. Dunn does every single day. And Dr. Dunn told you Eddie is suffering from schizophrenia. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Brian Weiss, with your experience in Texas courtrooms, what do you -- how do you score the argument between the attorneys about the psychiatrists. BRIAN WEISS, TEXAS APPELLATE LAWYER: Well, I mean, make no mistake, Tim Moore and Warren St. John did an outstanding job of defending their client. They did everything that I would have expected a reasonably competent criminal defense attorney in Texas to do, Lawrence. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) They had laid testimony. They had their expert testimony. And they attempted to craft a narrative that they truly believed, that this Erath County jury would embrace. And the fact they weren`t successful in doing it doesn`t mean that they are grade off for any substantial reason. This was a tough case involving an American hero, in a small town where the perception was that Chris Kyle was the kind of man that we want our sons to grow up to be. (END VIDEO CLIP) In a case like this, I think that Patrick Murphy is absolutely correct, that there are no winners. It is a sad day, but we have to believe that -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- these 12 good folks from the Erath County did what they thought the law and the facts ultimately required, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Patrick Murphy, I want to go back to the issue -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- of PTSD, which has been around this trial. It`s been introduced, to some extent, in the evidence in the trial. And, certainly, the diagnosis of schizophrenia was introduced by the defense early in the trial. What do you think -- what do you think this trial does to the discussion of PTSD National. MURPHY: Lawrence, I think this trial will bring the light, and show light, that there are a lot of veterans out there who are suffering as they come back from war. And when we send our young men and women into harm`s way, it better be damn right for the right reasons. Just like, I would say, the movie, "American Sniper," showed how Chris Kyle went and served four deployments, came back, and had some issues. You know, it was not easy for him when he came home. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And it`s not easy for most veterans when they come home. And, Lawrence, I say that, you know, I`m a champion for my fellow veterans. And, you know, veterans are leaders, they`re civic assets. And majority of them are doing great. But when you have hundreds of thousands of them coming -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- back from the longest war in American history, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and, you know, 20 percent of them, you know, are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- that`s a problem. And that`s not a problem just for the government to solve. It`s a problem for all of us as Americans. You know, we`re the ones -- our political leaders are the ones who sent them into harm`s way. It`s all of our responsibility to be embrace them when they come home and let them know that we`re there for them and we`ll be there for their reintegration. O`DONNELL: Brian Weiss, what do you say -- to you, as a defense attorney, about the state of insanity defenses in Texas, and then also the issue of bringing PTSD into trials like this. WEISS: Well, I think, Lawrence, in the wake of the now famous John Hinckley acquittal, 25, 30 years ago, really, those chickens are still coming home to roost in courtrooms, certainly all across America, certainly all across the great state of Texas. It is exceedingly difficult in the wake of what happened in Hinckley for any criminal defense attorney to successfully advance an insanity defense. We have a narrow statute. The test is difficult. And when we look back over the last decade or so here in Texas, the only real high profile case that comes to mind, where an acquittal ultimately carried the day, was not the first but the second trial on the Andrea Yates case, not far from where we are tonight, here in Houston. PTSD is, again, as Patrick Murphy so eloquently pointed out, is a scourge that afflicts, again, the men and women who are the real-life heroes in this country, who we do send into harm`s way. And it`s a tragedy that PTSD, at least, in the context of this case or any other case, might not be the avenue through which someone who is gripped in that psychosis that precludes him from distinguishing between right and wrong, will ultimately mean that they`re acquitted. But, again, the fact that this jury, on these facts and the law that they were given by the judge, ultimately reached the decision that they believed was the right thing to do. O`DONNELL: I want to go back to Charles Hadlock outside the courtroom, if we still have him there. Charles, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- what can we expect to happen next. We have camera set-ups there, microphones, attorneys, probably. CHARLES HADLOCK, NBC NEWS PRODUCER/REPORTER: We have cameras and -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- microphones set up here. We`re waiting for someone to come out. We were told by the court public information officer that someone would speak after the trial. We were also told it would not be a member of the prosecution. In fact, I asked the district attorney during the break if he would come out and speak. He said, he would not at this time. So, we`re not sure exactly who will come to the microphones tonight. We`re still waiting to see and hear who that will be, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: I want to go back to Judge Snipes for one of the original -- the first questions raised in this trial, which was a petition by the defense for a change of venue. That was denied. The argument was that this is -- this community is too charged an area in which to have this trial. What did you -- what did you make of the judge`s ruling in that. And what are the elements that a judge in Texas is faced with in making a decision about change of venue. MICHAEL SNIPES, FORMER JUDGE, DALLAS COUNTY: Well, the judge has to decide not whether or not there`s publicity in the case, and not whether or not the jury heard or knew being the publicity, including the movie. It`s whether or not the jury can put that out of their mind and render a fair and partial verdict in the case. From what I saw in the case, the judge did a masterful job in making his decisions on that. Whether he was correct or not will be up to the appellate courts. But, certainly, I saw no reason to criticize him whatsoever. O`DONNELL: And, Brian Weiss, when a judge is considering change of venue in Texas, is it also a factor that, in a situation like this, there probably isn`t any community in Texas that is any less saturated with publicity about this trial. WEISS: That`s a great point, Lawrence. Where are we going to try this. So, are we going to try in West Hartford, Connecticut. I mean, at the end of the day, Judge Snipes is absolutely right. It`s not a question of whether there`s been a firestorm of publicity, or whether a juror has seen the movie or read papers or magazine articles. It`s whether or not they can take their oath as a juror and swear that they will decide this case, and a true verdict render on the law and the facts. And we have seen, time and again, in this county, Houston Harris County Texas, some of the most highly-publicized cases that your viewers are privy to. And they stay in town because, thankfully, we have jurors who are able to say that, "What I`ve seen, what I`ve heard, and what I`ve heard will not impact my ability to be a fair and impartial jury." And I think that the odds of the Eastland Court of Appeals -- well, for that matter, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, essentially overturning this verdict because of the venue issue is really, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- really far-fetched, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: And, Michael Snipes, on a change of venue petition, a Texas judge is not empowered to move a trial out of the state, is he. SNIPES: No. As a matter of fact, that`s not a possibility. O`DONNELL: And, Patrick Murphy, to go back to the veterans issues that are raised here, it seems like the veterans community has just a mix of torn sympathies. And in a situation like this, impossible not to have some feelings for Eddie Ray Routh and what he`s been through, and whatever drove to the point where his mother was begging Chris Kyle to try to help him and take care of him in any way that he possibly could. And then, obviously, the -- just the horrible, horrible outcome for Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield, a tragedy and horrible crime committed against them. MURPHY: Yes, I mean, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- to read the transcripts, Lawrence, about how Chris Kyle`s widow, Taya, you know, left the courtroom today because they`re talking about -- well, if Eddie Routh`s, you know, mother when she went to Chris Kyle, would have told Chris Kyle about how violent Eddie was in the past, you know, that 20-20 hindsight, they`re going to be replaying this the rest of their lives -- "If we had only done this," or "We have done that." The bottom line is, you know, you have two great American veterans, you know, who are up in heaven right now. And you have another Marine who killed them, who is just convicted and who will spend the rest of his life in jail. And that`s three lives and three families that will never get back that person that they give the U.S. Military several years ago. And all three, which are combat veterans. O`DONNELL: And Brian Weiss, what would the -- what would the two different outcomes that were possible in -- tonight. I mean, what is the - - (END VIDEO CLIP) -- difference between being institutionalized for criminal mental illness in Texas versus life in prison, assuming he never would have been released as a mental patient. Because that is the huge difference, is that it does leave open, at least, at minimum, the technical -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- possibility that he could, at some point, have been released from custody. WEISS: Sure, Lawrence. I think that once, unfortunately and tragically, Eddie Ray Routh pulled the trigger two years ago, it was clear that he was never going to see the free world, as you and I know it. Whether it was life without parole in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, or whether it`s a lockdown 24/7, stringent mental health facility, at the end of the day, this man`s life was over as he knew it, as soon as he ended the lives of these two great American heroes, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: And Judge Snipes, what`s the difference in those facilities, how grim or how positive an atmosphere would the mental institution be. I think we don`t have Michael Snipes anymore. We lost our connection. Brian Weiss, can you deal with that. Do we know much about the difference between the Texas mental health facility that the finding criminal insanity would have led him to, the difference between the life lived there and the life lived in prison. WEISS: Not a tremendous amount of difference. I mean, obviously, in the confines of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, you`ve got guards with guns and 24-hour lockdown. It`s not all that much different in the type of mental facility that Eddie Ray Routh would have been confined to. And while Judge Jason Cashon retains jurisdiction, or would have retained jurisdiction, over this case and, conceivably, could have had the ability to modify or ultimately even release this defendant, if he believed that Eddie Ray Routh was no longer a danger to himself and to others, well, obviously, Lawrence, that was never going to be an issue. O`DONNELL: We are awaiting a statement possibly from one of the relatives of Chad Littlefield. We have microphones and cameras set up there, as you can see, just outside the courtoom. Charles Hadlock, if you`re still with us outside the courtroom, is there any more word on who might be appearing in front of those microphones. HADLOCK: Not yet, Lawrence. But we`ll say that, at the opening of the closing statements by the prosecution, they had a very poignant moment. They said that this should not be called the "American Sniper" trial because two people died that day, Chris Kyle and his bestfriend, Chad Littlefield. They were just trying to help Eddie Ray Routh. They were taking him out to the Rough Creek Lodge, a very upscale shooting range here. And that they were trying to help him. And in that long ride, about a 90-minute ride out there, the two men texted each other that this guy is straight-up nuts. And Chad Littlefield responded, "Watch my six. He`s right behind me." But the prosecution said in the closing arguments, "We really don`t know what the two men really thought of Eddie Ray Routh." But when they got to the lodge, they unloaded their truck that was full of guns. They loaded a dozen or so guns out on a table. If they really thought he was that dangerous, they probably wouldn`t have done that. They thought they were trying to help him. And, instead, Eddie Ray Routh shot them in the back -- one, two, three, four, five, six times, each man. Each man had a service revolver in their holster. They never had a chance to pull it out because Eddie Ray Routh surprised them, the prosecutor said, by shooting them in the back. And he asked the jury to find them guilty. They killed two men in this county. "Find them guilty," those were the last words the prosecutor said to the jury. And less than two hours later, -- O`DONNELL: Charles, we seem to have Chad Littlefield`s mother now, possibly approaching the microphones outside the courtroom. She is now approaching those microphones. HADLOCK: Yes. JUDY LITTLEFIELD, CHAD LITTLEFIELD`S MOTHER: Here? Good evening. We just want to say that we`ve waited two years for God to get justice for us on behalf of our son. And, as always, God has proved to be faithful. And we`re so thrilled that we have the verdict that we have tonight. And thank you, guys, for being so compassionate. And treating us with respect and honoring us. Thank you very much. DON LITTLEFIELD, CHAD LITTLEFIELD`S FATHER: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER 1: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER 2: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER 3: Thank you, ma`am. O`DONNELL: That was Judy Littlefield, the mother of Chad Littlefield, the second man who was killed. Judged by this jury, in fact, two have been murdered, criminally murdered by Eddie Ray Routh at that shooting range in Texas two years ago. Judge Michael Snipes, I think you are back with us now with the audio. The situation that the judge is facing -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- on the issue of sentencing here, it`s automatic. Obviously, when this comes back, you`ve told us about that, that it`s automatic life imprison. But we were discussing the difference, the actual life -- day-to-day life difference between that and the opposite verdict, which would have sent Eddie Ray Routh into a confined mental institution. What is your understanding of the day-to-day life difference in those two facilities. SNIPES: Well, contrary to what one of the analysts said moments ago, it`s a significant difference. The mental institutions are about rehabilitating the individual that`s assigned there. It`s not about punishment. It`s about trying to make them better. And, ultimately, of course, there`s always the possibility that they could be found to be sane later. And then, a judge can decide to allow them to go back into society. In addition to that, there`s no sort of barbed razor wires, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- there`s no prison guards. It`s very different. I`m not saying it`s a walk in the park. But it`s certainly not a lockdown facility like you might have down at the Texas Department of Corrections in Huntsville. O`DONNELL: I want to go to more of what the prosecutor had to say today -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- in the argument that carried the day with the jury. Prosecutor argued that Eddie Ray Routh was not criminally insane at the time of those murder, that the argument was that he was high, he was on drugs. Let`s listen to this part -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JANE STARNES, PROSECUTOR, "AMERICAN SNIPER" TRIAL: He got up early, drank some vodka from the freezer, drank whiskey when his Uncle James came over, smoked some left-over marijuana. And then we know he smoked some more with his uncle. The guy is intoxicated. And remember, we`re talking About 3:00 to 4:00 in the afternoon, after all of this going on in the morning, drinking and smoking. You don`t have to still be high at 11:00 o`clock at night. We`re talking about is he under the influence of some substance, 3:00 to 4:00 in the afternoon when he kills these men. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Charles Hadlock, that gave the jury an alternative to the insanity defense, that as much as anything else, this was someone who has mixed up on all kinds of drugs and alcohol. HADLOCK: That`s correct. And that was their position from the beginning. The state said that this man may have had emotional problems. He may have had a personality disorder but he was not insane at the time of the killings. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) They claimed that he was high on drugs and alcohol, that he had a problem with drugs and alcohol since he was a teenager. They continued until the morning that Chris Kyle came to pick him up to take him to the shooting range. O`DONNELL: And I`d like to hear more from the prosecutors since, now, there`s videos just now becoming available to us. The judge did not allow us to use any of the video and audio during the trial. And so, it`s now available. I want to get what the prosecutor said today about the -- I`m sorry, what we now have -- actually, we now have the right to use video from much earlier in the trial. And I want to get to a spot where Eddie Ray Routh`s mother talked about asking for help. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALAN NASH, ERATH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: He got out of the Military. And these men were approached by his mother, "Would you spend time with him. Would you befriend him." (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That was obviously the attorney describing the mother`s approach to this. And, Brian Weiss, the -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- defense obviously had very little to work with here. It was going to turn on entirely whether or not this jury accepted the psychiatrist`s testimony because it seems the -- any sympathetic cords that could be struck by family testimony by Eddie Ray Routh`s mom were going to be more than overwhelmed by the emotional testimony coming from Chris Kyle`s widow and others. WEISS: Yes. And not just that, Lawrence. Obviously, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- this story recognizes that all of our relatives, our moms, our dads, our brothers and sisters, would want to do what they could to help us if, God forbid, found ourselves sitting at the defense table. And, yes, I think you`re correct. This was a question of what expert this jury ultimately more credible. And in a situation like this, where the state has the opportunity for rebuttal and, particularly, with that powerful, compelling and ultimately inculpatory evidence during the taped phone calls, it`s something that this jury embraced. Because, in their mind`s eye it`s what the law and the facts ultimately require. O`DONNELL: I want to go to another early decision that the judge -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- made in this trial, and that was to not sequester the jury. The jury was allowed to come and go every day. They were exposed to all of the news media, instructed to not pay attention to it. But, Michael Snipes, the instruction to not pay any attention to it is very different from sequestering. And judges around the country, at different times, decide it`s just an inhuman kind of pressure on -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- jurors if we allow them to be out there in the world, surrounded by all this media. What`s your reaction to the judge`s decision not to sequester this jury. SNIPES: Well, it`s also kind of an inhuman pressure to sequester them every night and take them away from life as they know it. My practice was this -- once the -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- jury goes out for the verdict, a death penalty case or capital murder case, I sequester them then. But not during the actual trial itself. O`DONNELL: I want to go back to Charles Hadlock outside the courtroom there. Charles, what do we know about the -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- victim impact statement, which was the final procedure that was closed to us in that courtroom tonight. HADLOCK: I`m just getting a note here from the reporters in the courtroom, listening to the impact statement. It is from Jerry Richardson, Chad Littlefield`s stepbrother. He says, in part, speaking directly to Eddie Ray Routh, "You took the lives of two heroes, men that tried to be a friend to you. And you became an American disgrace." "Your inhumanity and disregard for life will put you in a world you will never escape. Your childish actions have brought humiliation to your family, who will forever have to carry the scar you have become, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- a murderer." Those are the words of Jerry Richardson, Chad Littlefield`s stepbrother. Of course, Chad Littlefield was with Chris Kyle when they were both gunned down on the shooting range, not far from here in Stephenville, Texas just over two years ago. O`DONNELL: Charles, is it your impression that given that Chris Kyle`s widow had testified in the case, and some other family members, that the victim impact statement was -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- then left to someone who had not testified in the case for that reason. HADLOCK: I`m not sure about that. I think the other guests here have said pointedly that the victim impact statement here in Texas is basically a chance to give the victims a chance to speak directly to the defendant and tell them what has gone on in their lives in the last two years. I think that`s what it is, just a bit of closure for people here. It really has no impact on the judge`s decision on punishment. That was mandated by law in this case. But, in Texas, victims can speak, sometimes at the judge`s discretion, directly to -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- the defendant to let them know exactly what they`ve done to their family. And that`s what Jerry Richardson did tonight. O`DONNELL: And, Brian Weiss, that must be a difficult decision for family members and loved ones to make in a situation like this, that decision of, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- should one of us speak directly to this person, directly to the person who murdered our husband, our brother, whoever it is we`re talking about. And I can imagine many people deciding, "I don`t want to be the person who does that." WEISS: It`s not an easy thing to do. And I have seen so many victim impact statements, Lawrence, over the course of the two decades since the victims acquired the right to make victim impact statements. And, in fact, it was never a God-given right here in Texas until a couple of decades ago when family members, in a horribly tragic, brutal double capital murder right here in Houston, went to the legislature and lobbied for the right to be able to look the defendant in the eyes and tell him or her exactly how they feel. And, again, having seen far too many of these than I can imagine, it tears your inside. And of all the things that we could think of what we have to do in life, I would suggest that making a victim impact statement is probably one of the most difficult, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Yes, it`s incredibly difficult. I don`t think I`d be capable of doing it. But, Judge Snipes, I have to believe it`s one of the more important advances that has occurred in the criminal justice system, this ability to allow the victims to actually give voice directly to a convicted defendant about what this has meant to them and what they are suffering. SNIPES: I would totally agree to that. And to clarify a point, it is a right of the victims by statute. So, the judge has the discretion to possibly limit the scope of the victim -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- impact statements. But as to whether or not they want to give them or not, that is an absolute statutory right. O`DONNELL: Yes. And it takes us, you know, a certain kind of strength and poise to be able to do it. I imagine, Judge Snipes, there may have been some instances over the years that you`ve witnessed where things might have gotten a little bit emotionally out of control in victim impact statements. SNIPES: And what you do, as a judge, you very -- you try to be very kind about it, very polite about it. But suggest to the victim that they might have said enough. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. Brian Weiss, what does the defense bar in Texas take from the experience of this -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- trial. What does it -- what does it tell defense lawyers in Texas, if anything, that they didn`t already know about insanity defenses. WEISS: How very difficult it is to successfully mount one, Lawrence. But I also think it reaffirms -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- the fact that I`m a little prejudiced. I think we have the best criminal defense bar in America, right here in this state. And as analyst for so many networks, including the original "Court TV," I`ve seen lawyers from all over America. You know, my position is that we have the finest criminal defense bar and some of the finest prosecutors that I`ve ever seen. And I think what it reaffirms is that these men, Tim Moore and Warren St. John, did what all of us who have that law license on our wall are supposed to do. You bring your a-game, you zealously represent your client within the canons. (END VIDEO CLIP) And when it`s over, you can look at yourself in the mirror and know that you did the absolute best that you possibly could. O`DONNELL: Judge Snipes, before we go, I just want to review whether there`s anything that suggests a possible hook for an avenue for appeal of any kind to you in this case. SNIPES: Well, you`d have to review the record of trial. But from what I`ve seen in media reports and, of course, I wasn`t in the courtroom or anything, I don`t see anything that would be reversible error in the case. But that`s for people in higher courts with bigger robes than me and smarter than me are going to have to decide. O`DONNELL: And Brian, same to you -- and it`s true that unless you`re in the courtroom for every minute, this is -- you can`t give a really authoritative answer about this. But, certainly, the question, if anything jumped out at any point in these proceedings. WEISS: No, because Jason Cashon did what we really want trial judges to do. And that`s call balls and strikes, not squeeze the strike zone on either side and ultimately not care who wins or loses. And as an appellate lawyer in this state for the last 30 plus years, I can tell you that the reversal rate and in non-death penalty cases is right around four percent. And the Eastland Court of Appeals that I`ve had the privilege of arguing in front, will give this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- appeal the consideration that it will deserve, as will the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. But when all is said and done, when this appellate process is concluded, I`m confident that the verdict that was accepted by Judge Cashon tonight will ultimately remain undisturbed on appeal, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: I want to thank everyone for joining with this tonight. Charles Hadlock, Brian Weiss, Michael Snipes, Patrick Murphy, thank you all. Our coverage of the verdict in this trial in Texas continues right here on MSNBC. LOAD-DATE: February 25, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022401cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 114 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 25, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS for February 25, 2015 BYLINE: Chris Matthews, James Cavanaugh, Clint Van Zandt GUESTS: Rep. Charlie Rangel, Ron Fournier, Nicholas Confessore, Jonathan Allen, Danny Vargas, Jennice Fuentes, Sabrina Siddiqui SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8388 words HIGHLIGHT: National Security Adviser Susan Rice calls the Netanyahu speech and the way it was secretly put together destructive to U.S.-Israeli relations. Three Brooklyn men are under arrest charged with trying to get to Syria to fight with ISIS or carry out attacks here at home, including threatening to kill President Obama. President Obama called out Jeb Bush by name to get his party`s leadership in the House to act on the bipartisan bill that the U.S. Senate passed in the last Congress. CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Terrorist arrests here in the United States and a nasty fight with Netanyahu. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews up in Boston. We`ll get to those FBI arrests today and what they say about the scariness of Islamic terrorists right here in this country, the in-your-face daring they are showing, even to the point of threatening to kill President Obama. But we start with the hottest fight over Mideast dangers between the right wing here and in Israel against the Democratic Party of the United States. If you believe in bipartisan backing for Israel, the bad guys are Bibi Netanyahu and John Boehner. It`s not clear which two of these brazen guys started this fight, but it`s getting hotter every hour. For whatever reason, this pair decided to get the jump on the president of the United States. They pulled a secret move to have the Israeli prime minister, who`s facing a close election with the more moderate Zionist Party, speak to a joint meeting of the American Congress without ever letting the president know. Who made this decision to keep this secret? Did the Israeli ambassador ever get assurances that the president would be duly informed? Did he? Or was this a quiet little deal between the Republican opposition and Netanyahu`s party to attack the president just as he`s working to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? We know this tonight, this fight is escalating. The national security adviser to the president now calls the Netanyahu speech and the way it was secretly put together destructive to U.S.-Israeli relations. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: What has happened over the last several weeks, by virtue of the invitation that was issued... CHARLIE ROSE, PBS: By the Speaker of the House. RICE: ... by the speaker and the acceptance of it by Prime Minister Netanyahu on two weeks in advance of his election, is that on both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship which is not only unfortunate, I think it`s -- it`s destructive of the fabric of the relationship. It`s always been bipartisan. We need to keep it that way. We want it that way. I think Israel wants it that way. The American people want it that way. And when it becomes injected and/or infused with politics, that`s a problem. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And Secretary of State John Kerry is hitting Netanyahu on his history of hawkish statements, including one pushing the United States to invade Iraq, saying how great it would be for the region. It was a very tough shot by the secretary, a sign of how tough this fighting is getting. I`m joined now by U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel of New York. Congressman, you`ve been around a long time to know. What is Boehner up to? What was he up to in cooking this deal in the first place to secretly bring Netanyahu into your chamber without ever telling the president? REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: Well, it`s embarrassing for the bi -- non-partisanship that we have between the Republicans and Democrats, but for the Republicans to go beyond our politics and bring it over to Israel and to bring our friendship and our loyalty to that great country and to this type of thing over here, it just doesn`t make any sense at all. You know, I couldn`t figure this out, but Chris, when you look at this, it could be an old class B movie, something that Woody Allen would have had, because I didn`t find out until recently that the Israeli ambassador comes from Florida. He`s formerly a Democrat, (sic) a Republican activist, as his father was. So he goes over to Israel, and now he`s coming back here playing friendship with his Republican partners and either to help Mitt Romney or to help his buddy Bibi over there. But all of this is at the historic friendship of two democracies that are joined at the hip. It`s not worth the little political advantages that they can achieve. MATTHEWS: Well, this kind of politics reminds me of the guy that he used to work for. That`s Newt Gingrich. I mean, this seems a little bit not even gimmicky, but nasty. What`s going to be the scene like next week when the prime minister of Israel shows up in what looks to be a partisan situation? Will members of the Black Caucus be there? Will members of the Democratic Party show up? RANGEL: Well, that`s exactly the kind of questions -- and I`m glad you didn`t use the word "boycott" because we don`t want to be considered boycotting a world leader, and certainly not the leader of a country that we affectionately support as being in our national security interests. There`s no one that believes that they can injure Israel without injuring the United States of America. But having said that, there are just a lot of people that believe that, Don`t put us in the position to have to select between the political effort being made by Republicans here and the president of the United States. You know, we don`t -- I could have differences with the president, and foreigners can have differences with the presidents, but they don`t state those differences with the support of the American people and the United States Congress. You don`t do this in the House of Representatives. It`s wrong to do it. So a lot of people are not going to be there, but I thought -- and I hope this is not over -- that a bunch of Senate Democrats says, Listen, we`ve got to find some way to get out of this. Why don`t you come over? We have a private meeting. We talk. Then you go back to Israel, get involved in your election, and said you talked with both of us. But don`t have it as though that if you`re not there in the House of Representatives that you boycotted Israel. It`s just so totally unfair, and it takes a lot of chutzpah for someone to want to fight my president in my House of Representatives. And I`ve been a long-time friend of Israel not just because I`m fond of their democratic ideals, but because our security in America depends on their security in the Middle East. MATTHEWS: Well, you sound like a lot of Democrats tonight. Thank you so much, U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel of New York. RANGEL: Thank you, Chris. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Charlie Rangel. Prime Minister Netanyahu escalated his attack today on a potential deal with Iran. He said, quote, "From the agreement that is forming, it appears that they, the world powers, have given up on that commitment and are accepting that Iran will gradually within a few years develop capabilities to produce material for many nuclear weapons. They might accept this, but I am not willing to accept this." Well, meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Secretary of State John Kerry offered a very direct challenge to Netanyahu`s credibility on matters of war and peace. Now, this is really tough. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: The prime minister, as you recall, was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush, and we all know what happened with that decision. He was extremely outspoken about how bad the interim agreement was, during which time he called it the deal of the century for Iran, even though it has clearly stopped Iran`s program, and more importantly, he has decided it would be good to continue it. He may have a judgment that just may not be correct here. And you know, let`s wait and hear what he says. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: For more now, I`m joined by Ron Fournier, editorial director for "The National Journal." Ron, it just seems to me that John Kerry has ripped the bark off now. They`re going to fight. He`s saying that Netanyahu`s just another corner -- well, regular hawk out there, like all the other hawks we got in this country and over there, who always want to attack, always want to claim there`s nuclear weapons is the issue, weapons of mass destruction, and here he is again, just like he was in Iraq. This is a stone-cold assault on Netanyahu, although I think it`s worth it this time to do it. My feeling is he better start fighting back because Netanyahu is coming here next Tuesday to stick it to Obama. RON FOURNIER, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": I agree with everything, except John Kerry being the right guy to criticize Remember, John Kerry voted for the war before he was against it, so I don`t know if he should be second guessing Bibi. But let`s back up here... MATTHEWS: Yes, but he speaks for the administration and our -- just a minute. He speaks for our country right now, not for John Kerry. Just make that clear. FOURNIER: Let`s have the president of the United States, who called it a dumb war and voted the right way. He`d be a better spokesperson on that. But let`s back up on where we do agree. Politics is supposed to stop at the water`s edge. We`re supposed to have one commander-in-chief. Now, there are checks against the commander-in-chief, but none of those checks has ever been a foreign leader, which is what John Boehner is letting happen here, is letting Bibi Netanyahu use the well of our House, the well of Congress, as the sound stage for his political advertisement. And I think that`s deplorable, and I think Susan Rice in this case is right. It is very destructive for our relationship, and now you see it spiraling even further with John Kerry taking the bark off of an ally. Bibi made a big mistake here. Boehner made a bad mistake here. And it`s a bad precedent not just for U.S.-Israel relations but going down the road. What`s happened to the idea that we had some bipartisanship around what the commander-in-chief does? MATTHEWS: Is Netanyahu over here -- here`s my question to you because I got a comment on this, a tough comment at the end of the show. I want to make sure I`m right here. If Netanyahu thought it was bad form to speak in the country thanks to Boehner and not tell the president, why didn`t he, the minute he heard the president didn`t know about this invitation, say, Wait a minute, I`m not coming over there unless it`s a bipartisan invitation? I certainly wouldn`t come into the country -- in other words, he always had the option, Netanyahu, of saying... FOURNIER: Oh, yes. Yes. MATTHEWS: ... I don`t care what Boehner cooked up, I`m not coming without a bipartisan invitation, and never has done that since the day this thing started. He`s has insisted on this fight. He wants this fight. FOURNIER: Yes, because -- he wants this fight. He wants the political commercial that the Republicans are giving him. He`s two weeks away from an election. He thinks this is going to help him politically. I`m not so sure it will, but then again, I`m not an Israeli political reporter. But there`s no doubt one what`s happening here. He is using the Republican Party as a wedge to promote himself politically in Israel and to drive a wedge between what has always been at least some comity, at least some bipartisan togetherness when it comes to foreign policy. Like I said, we only have one commander-in-chief. We can`t let another foreign leader play us off each other on a situation as serious as this. It`s really, really bad form. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ron. When you listen to Secretary Kerry and others, you get the impression, and my impression is the same, that what Netanyahu wants is all these talks with Iran to go down to nothing, that nothing gets done... FOURNIER: Yes. MATTHEWS: ... the whole thing is undermined, and we end up in that position we never wanted to be in of having to choose between letting them have a nuclear weapon and going to all-out war by bombs-away over there, where we do all the bombing, all the hatred of the Shia of the world, all of the hatred of Hezbollah, all the hatred of every single Iranian, whether moderate or secular or fanatically religious. All of them will hate us the minute we attack them there. We will have a permanent hatred all over the Middle East against us. FOURNIER: Look I... MATTHEWS: My question is, is that what Netanyahu wants? Does he really want us to be forced into a position of bombing... FOURNIER: Yes. MATTHEWS: ... all-out bombing of Iran? Is that what he wants? FOURNIER: Yes. He has decided -- and I can understand where he`s coming from. He really thinks that the worst thing we could do is have a deal with Iran. I don`t happen to agree with him, but that is what he thinks. And that is what many people in the Republican Party think and that`s certainly what the speaker thinks. So what they`ve decided -- and in this case, you have the Republican Party in cahoots with another country. They decided they`d rather blow up the president`s deal than -- than to have it go through. And I just think that`s really bad form here, and down the road. What happens when we have another crisis? Are we going to let our allies play off our commander-in- chief all the time like this? MATTHEWS: I`ve never heard of an American political party merging with a political party of another country before, but... FOURNIER: That`s what`s happening here. (CROSSTALK) FOURNIER: You know, some day -- I don`t know if the Republicans have forgotten maybe they might have the White House some day. Is this how they want to be treated in a situation of war or near war? MATTHEWS: I know. The president of the United States should call foreign visitors to this country. Anyway, thank you very much, Ron Fournier, for that strong statement. I agree with what you said. Coming up, the ISIS threat. Three Brooklyn men are under arrest right now, charged with aiding the Islamic State. Authorities say they were trying to get to Syria or carry out attacks here at home, including threatening to kill President Obama. This is serious business. We`re coming back with that. Plus, Scott Walker`s up and big right now in Iowa. This guy has come from nowhere. Maybe his strength with the base right now is the reason he won`t answer questions about evolution or whether Obama is a Christian or not. He wants those right-wing people to be with him. Is this guy Republicans want to take on Hillary Clinton? Could be. And Republicans in Congress are fighting over funding the Department of Homeland Security still. Mitch McConnell and Boehner aren`t speaking to each other, haven`t talked to each other in two weeks. There`s a united party. And President Obama is going on offense, pushing his executive actions on immigration at a town hall today in Miami. Can he get real reform? That`s my question. Finally, let me finish with this crap storm that Netanyahu has started and seems to be enjoying. And this is HARDBALL, live from Boston, where they`re in the 100 club. More than 100 inches of snow here buried this city so far this winter. That`s more than 8 feet right now, and it`s already the second highest total snowfall in history. You should see it. You drive down the street, there`s eight feet of snow on both sides. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: A jarring rebuke in Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been forced into a runoff. Emanuel got 45 percent of the vote in yesterday`s mayoral election. He needed 50 percent to win reelection outright. Now he`s the runner-up -- he and his runner-up, Jesus Garcia, will meet in April in the city`s first ever runoff for mayor. That`s not the way they do things in Chicago. Emanuel is still the favorite to win, of course, but last night`s result is a major political blow for a political leader with such a high national profile and high national ambitions. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, three Brooklyn men, as you`ve heard, have been arrested and charged with contempt and conspiracy to provide material support to ISIS, according to authorities. Two of the suspects, age 19 and 24, allegedly planned to travel to Syria to wage jihad themselves, the younger of whom was apprehended at JFK airport while trying to board a flight to Istanbul. Authorities say the third suspect, who`s 30 years old, allegedly helped finance the deal. Anyway, authorities say they also discussed terror attacks here at home if they couldn`t get to Syria, even to the point of threatening to kill President Obama. Well, joining me right now is NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams. It seems so brazen, Pete, what you read, stuff on social media, openly talking about what their plans were? PETE WILLIAMS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Very brazen. Not clear how well-thought out it was or whether it was just sort of popping off something. They talked about putting a bomb on Coney Island, shooting police officers, shooting people at the FBI, shooting the president. They didn`t have any guns. They didn`t have any explosives. It`s certainly very worrisome talk. And interestingly, Chris, you know, we assume that the FBI has a pretty good handle on people that are spouting off about these things in the U.S. But apparently, what got this started was a post on a Uzbeki-language Web site, in which one of these men basically was asking for sort of "Dear Abby" jihad advice. He said, you know, I`m in the U.S. I may not be able to get out of the country. If I were to kill the president here, would that constitute martyrdom for me? Would that qualify as the right kind of jihad? And when the FBI found out about this, they sent two agents to his house, to his apartment in Brooklyn, and he said, according to prosecutors, Yes, that`s what I said on this Web site, and I believe it. It wouldn`t have to be the head of ISIS who told me to do that. It could be anybody in a leadership position, and I would try to assassinate the president. They talked to him twice. And even though he realized the FBI was onto him, according to court documents, he continued planning. He and his apartment roommate both plotted, bought airplane tickets to fly to Syria, and this third man, they say, financed them. But so they... MATTHEWS: Was he Mirandized? Was he Mirandized when he talked like this, he starts talking about how he`s going to kill the president with the agents right there in front of him on the record? WILLIAMS: No, he would not have been Mirandized because he wasn`t in custody. Miranda is a custodial question. But according to the prosecutors who spoke today in court, after these men were arrested, both of them said, Yes, we did plan to go to Syria. And they would have been Mirandized then. MATTHEWS: Yes, it seems like a wider net. You know, we see what happened -- it`s all allegations at this point. It has to be decided in court. But you had the Boston Marathon bombing, and suspects there, of course, are people from the Soviet Union, the old Soviet Union. Now you`ve got these guys from the old Soviet Union. This isn`t just a Middle East situation anymore. This seems like a worldwide potential jihad situation, at least in terms of these people. WILLIAMS: Well, it is. You`re right, because the authorities say that folks are coming from all around Syria, not just from Western Europe, not just from Eastern Europe, but all over the place, a sort of global movement to try to join with the ISIS group in Syria. And the FBI director surprised us a little bit today by saying that his agents now have investigations opened in all 50 states of people who are interested potentially in joining a terror organization. MATTHEWS: That`s a lot of pool of hell out there. Anyway, thank you so much, Pete Williams, as always. Joining me right now with more is MSNBC terrorism analyst and former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt, and Jim Cavanaugh, who is an MSNBC analyst and retired ATF special agent in charge. Let me go back to that question with you, Clint. It seems to me that we have surprising enemies out there, suspects at least in this case, but there they are, coming from the stans, from the former Soviet Union, and then of course from all over the Soviet Union. Nobody thought of them as particularly involved in what looked to be a Mideast conflict, in Islamic State down there in Syria and Iraq. CLINT VAN ZANDT, MSNBC ANALYST: Well, as you suggest, we have got the Boston bombers who came forward. We look at their background. The Internet is just -- just ripe breeding ground, Chris, that is taking place. You know there are 90,000 tweets a day concerning ISIS, individuals talking back and forth. I mean, whatever latitude we give the NSA, how do you monitor 90,000 tweets between people talking about ISIS? You know, if we say 80 percent of them have nothing to do with active terrorism, that`s still a lot of people talking back and forth on the Internet. And these three guys, so brazen, even though, like, Jim Cavanaugh and I would go up, knock on the door, talk to them, they are so still brazen or so stupid or so confident that they continued with their actions. And we have seen in New York and other places what one lone wolf with an axe or with a handgun or with a rifle can do. So, part of the challenge is, it doesn`t have to be this large ISIS cell. All it has to be is one or two inspired individuals who go out on the street and buy a $500 handgun. MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, FBI Director James Comey revealed today that they are investigating potential ISIS sympathizers in all 50 states, as you say. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: So, we have investigations of people in various stages of radicalizing in all 50 states. This isn`t a New York phenomenon or a Washington phenomenon. This is all 50 states and in ways that are very hard to see, because it`s highly unlikely that it`s going to be a federal agent who will first see or hear about someone acting in strange ways on social media or acting in a strange way at a religious institution or an educational institution or in the community. It`s going to be a deputy sheriff. It`s going to be a police officer who knows that neighborhood. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Jim Cavanaugh, what do you make of this customer? The guy says he wants to kill the president. He says it when he`s being talked to by agents. Maybe he wasn`t Mirandized yet, but he must have known he is talking to police and he`s incriminating himself. JAMES CAVANAUGH, MSNBC ANALYST: Right. Well, Chris, people talk, you know? And when you sit down in an interview like that, I mean, this guy is buying into this jihad talk, and he`s talking to the agents, like Clint said. It`s a noncustodial interview, just like Pete described. You don`t have to give them a Miranda warning. But you`re trying to see what he`s made of. Who is he? What does he want to do? Maybe he wants to help law enforcement. Maybe he wants to quit doing this. I think the agents are giving him a chance. He`s a young man. He could have taken any path there, but he went right back to the killers. And that`s what he decided to do. And one of these three guys` mother took his passport, and he`s lucky, because what happens when they get to Syria, ISIS takes their passport. MATTHEWS: Yes. CAVANAUGH: And the question is different than the FBI. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: How many people in this country are still suspect -- are still susceptible to this? Because we like to believe that we`re pretty good at assimilating people. You know, the melting pot is our tradition. And yet these people apparently were more transitional. They didn`t really become American, if you will. I`m just wondering how many people are saying here on their way to the jihad, rather than having become part of this country. Your thoughts? CAVANAUGH: Well, there`s a smaller number than the larger certainly Muslim communities, a small number. But we always saw these numbers, you know, in the Joint Terrorism Task Force. The FBI did a fabulous job here, the NYPD as well and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, by looking at this over the long period, taking the interactions with the guy, seeing that he was predisposed. He was most likely picked up by the NSA overseas and it was ferreted into the Joint Terrorism Task Force. And they just let the guy talk. And once they committed the overt acts, the three of them... MATTHEWS: OK. CAVANAUGH: ... by going to get the airplane to go to Syria, then the arrest was made. MATTHEWS: Thank you, gentlemen. I just can`t believe a guy tells anybody who works for the government that he`s out to kill the president. Clint Van Zandt, thank you, and Jim Cavanaugh. It`s pretty brazen, if not ballsy. Up next: Is Scott Walker the GOP front-runner now to take on Hillary Clinton? It`s early, but he`s showing amazing strength in Iowa. These numbers are astounding. The Republican Party is looking for new people of the right with some executive experience. They want new and right. It looks like that combination. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: I got a chance to actually talk to your new senator. I have talked to her a few times before. But I got to tell you, I -- I appreciate the fact that you have sent somebody who is not only a Midwesterner like I am, but who is a fellow Harley-Davidson rider like I am. (LAUGHTER) WALKER: That means she knows how to castrate a hog and that she knows how to ride a hog as well. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was of course Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker testing out his Midwest appeal in Iowa last month and kissing the ring, of course, of Iowa`s castrating senator, Tea Party favorite Joni Ernst. Well, that is one start endorsement Walker would like to nab before next year`s all-impossible Iowa caucuses. So far, Iowa Republicans like what they see in Walker, amazing numbers there. A new poll just out from Quinnipiac shows him, the governor of Wisconsin, with a commanding lead. I mean, you don`t see leads like this this early. Twenty-five percent of likely Republican caucus-goers in Iowa say they will support Walker. Rand Paul is a distant second down at 13, so 25 almost doubles 13, followed by Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, way down there with Bush. But it`s not just the mainstream Iowa Republicans who like Walker. The Tea Party likes him, too. Look at this -- 33 percent of Tea Party Republicans in Iowa like Walker now, followed by Rand Paul way down at 15 percent, Carson at 11, Cruz and Huckabee sitting at 10, and Bush again near the bottom at 3 percent. I think the dog doesn`t like the dog food. This poll shows some early strength for the Wisconsin governor. He`s hitting a sweet spot in the GOP between the Tea Party, evangelical and establishment wings. He seems to hit all of the buttons. But it also shows the weakness, dare I say, of one Jeb Bush. Jonathan Allen is Washington bureau chief for Bloomberg News. And Nicholas Confessore is a political reporter for "The New York Times." Jonathan, you first. I believe in this poll, for one reason. I have seen now the pacer bunny way out in front of everybody else, which tells me that somebody they don`t really know, they like to profile, executive, tough on unions, tough generally, evangelical, Christian, if you will, and young. He seems to be what they want, a younger version of somebody who shares their values, but has executive experience, without becoming part of the establishment. He seems to have the sweet spot. What do you think, Jonathan? JONATHAN ALLEN, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Well, throw in the fact that he has won three elections in a state that goes Democratic in presidential elections and the fact that he just beat a pretty strong female candidate for reelection to the governorship. MATTHEWS: Yes. ALLEN: And he`s a strong-looking candidate right now. Of course, we don`t know a lot about Scott Walker yet. And there are 11 months and a lot of money to be spent on defining him and for the other candidates to define themselves, Jeb Bush included. But I think he`s one of these guys who has got a chance to combine the conservative base and the establishment. And he`s going to have a whole lot of money. He`s able to tap into that Koch donor base. He`s been able to do that as governor before, the anti-union efforts he`s had. So, I think Scott Walker is looking pretty good right now, Chris. MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, let me ask -- let me ask the same question to Nicholas, because it seems to me that we agree here, that he has something. But he has the -- I always think elections are two stages, first the profile. What`s the guy`s sort of general description? He matches what they want. And then, as you say, Jonathan, you have to fill it in and see if he can measure up to his profile. But what is it, Nicholas? Again, just so everybody watching gets it, what is there -- what is it about Walker that puts him so far ahead of the pack right now, starting off? NICHOLAS CONFESSORE, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": You know, I think he`s a guy who`s got conservative credentials. He also has an authentic connection to evangelical voters in a state where they`re an important part of the process. But he`s also -- he`s also fought the good fight, as far as they are concerned. He`s really -- Chris, he`s part of this vanguard of GOP governors in the Midwest that have basically taken on and defeated Democrats and unions in what was once their stronghold. It`s really a model for Republicans in purple states. He`s won in a purple state. As Jonathan said, he`s won three elections in four years. These are all things that voters care about. They are all looking for a winner this year. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you. You stay with us, Nick. Is it possible that Bush -- you know the old story about the dog won`t eat the dog food, no matter how good the label, no matter how good the advertising. The dog doesn`t like the taste of the dog food. I haven`t seen any evidence yet of an appetite for another Bush in the grassroots, in actual people like in Iowa. His numbers down there our abysmal, 3 percent among Tea Party people, Nick. CONFESSORE: Yes, absolutely. I mean, look, I think he hasn`t had actual contact with voters for a decade-and-a-half. That`s a long time to be out of that seat. He`s got to prove he can do it. He will be at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, this week. And we will see if he still has his chops. But, look, like, I think people remember the Bush years, even in Iowa. And remember that a lot of the conservative dissatisfaction with the GOP establishment began in the Bush years. There was a lot of criticism of government spending and eventually even the war in Iraq. So, there are some memories there of how his brother handled the presidency that are not actually that great for conservative voters. MATTHEWS: Yes, let me go back to Jonathan. It seems to me that I thought they would have to choose between some wild man and beating Hillary. But maybe in Walker, they found somebody who is not a wild man who can beat Hillary. ALLEN: Yes. I think that`s exactly what the Republican Party is looking for, somebody who excites the grassroots. Look, George Bush, when he ran in 2000, the difference between him and his father was he came from the conservative side. He had the star power there and was trying to make sure that he could get the sort of moderate Republicans that John McCain had been winning over, some of the independents who lean Republican. Jeb Bush is like the elder Bush, and starts out on the moderate side of the party trying to win over the real passion voters. I think it`s going to be hard for him to do, but certainly, again, he`s going to have a lot of money to do it and certainly has a lot of time to do it. MATTHEWS: I think that "Read my lips" line will be removed -- will be repeated again. Anyway, thank you, Jonathan Allen. I also noticed that Jim Baker the other day said he likes the old man and like Jeb, and never mentioned W., which makes sense. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Which we all know why. Jonathan Allen, Nicholas Confessore. Up next: Republicans on Capitol Hill are fighting with each other now over funding the Department of Homeland Security as it goes down to the deadline for renewal. McConnell and Boehner aren`t even speaking to each other. They haven`t met each other for two weeks. Is this any way to run a government? What happened to the Republican majority? It sounds like the House and the Senate are at war with each other, the Republican-led House and Senate. Anyway, you`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, it`s chaos inside the Republican Conference right now. House Speaker John Boehner told his caucus today that he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell haven`t spoken to each other in two weeks. The hard-liners out there sound like they`re itching for a revolt, by the way. It`s all playing out just two days before funding at the Department of Homeland Security runs dry. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is trying to rally support for his plan, which is a split vote to avoid a shutdown at DHS. He wants a clean funding bill and a separate bill to countermand the president`s action on immigration. It`s a plan that would likely need a huge number of Democratic votes to pass in the House. Will Boehner swallow that embarrassment? Well, today, he refused to show his hand when faced with questions from reporters. Here he is, the speaker. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I`m waiting for the Senate to act. The House has done its job to fund the Department of Homeland Security and to stop the president`s overreach on immigration. And we`re waiting for the Senate to do their job. Until the Senate does something, we`re in a wait-and-see mode. I`m waiting for the Senate to pass a bill. At the end of the day, the Senate has to act. I`m waiting for the Senate to pass a bill. There`s a lot -- I don`t know what the Senate is capable of passing. QUESTION: Is Congress going to avoid a shutdown of DHS? BOEHNER: I`m waiting for the Senate to act. The House has passed a bill to fund the department. It`s time for the Senate to do their job. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, it`s Mickey Mouse time, obviously. Republican Congressman Peter King actually said that. He told reporters: "We can`t allow DHS not to be funded. People think we`re crazy. There are terrorist attacks all over the world, and we`re talking about closing down Homeland Security. This is like living in the world of the crazy people." This is Peter King of New York. The roundtable tonight, Danny Vargas is a Republican strategist and was chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly. Jennice Fuentes is a Democratic strategist -- so we got some balance there -- and was chief of staff to Democrat Congressman Luis Gutierrez from Illinois. And Sabrina Siddiqui is a reporter with The Huffington Post. I want to start with Danny. What is the Republican goal here? It seems to me they don`t -- they want to generally against illegal immigration, which makes sense. Most people are against illegal immigration. But once they have made that point, how do they want to end it? How do they want to -- how does the Republican Party hope to end this process where the way people come in this court I country is coming in here illegally? How are they going to stop that with the politics they`re playing right now? I don`t see how it got to there if they don`t have a bill to do it. DANNY VARGAS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, you know, as you know, Chris, the Republican approach in the House of Representatives is to go with the piecemeal approach. Not this big, huge mass of comprehensive bill that we saw in the Senate. That`s not going to happen in the House of Representatives that`s controlled by the Republican Party. What they do want to move forward with is something that the American people broadly accept and agree, and as that we do have to have increased control and security at the border, they see too much lawlessness at the border, they want to make sure that we have an approved legal immigration process and we have a guest worker process because of the 11 million that are undocumented -- (CROSSTALK) VARGAS: -- are looking here for jobs. MATTHEWS: Well, everybody is for that. That`s a good thing. The problem is their method. Why do they ever think they`ll get the Democrats, ever, ever, ever to agree on stopping illegal immigration until they deal with the people here that they need to be taken care of? How do they deal with that? If they don`t deal with the 11 million here as part of the process, a comprehensive process, the Democrats cannot sign on to any tough new employment checks to make sure people here are legally working here. The Democrats won`t agree to any of that as long as you don`t take care of the people here. VARGAS: Right. And I think that`s the bone of contention. The bone of contention is what to do with the 11 million. I think Republicans by and large can move forward with a process by which they might be able to become legal. It`s the path to citizenship that is the thorniest issue. I think many Republicans are saying that has to be on the table, many Republicans were saying that it can`t be on the table. I think until we get to that point, we can -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: How can it not be on the table? Danny, I`m going to keep fighting with you on this. How can it not be on the table? People here for 20 years are not going to be kicked out of the country. It`s not going to happen ever, ever, ever. It`s not going to happen. VARGAS: I will tell you, Chris, I speak to folks who are on undocumented status today and almost every day and many of them say, you know what, as long as I get to stay here legally and provide for my family and make sure that my kids get an education, citizenship is not anywhere on their priority list. So, if we can find a way so that many of those undocumented immigrants can stay here legally, get out of the shadows, provide a legal pathway for them without citizenship, many of them will applaud for that. MATTHEWS: Jennice, what`s the Democratic goal here? Is it truly to pass a bill that deals with illegal hiring? Which is the main attraction of people come to this country, people come to this country not to do bad things. They come here to get a job. If you start to get illegal hiring and also deal with the people here, that`s comprehensive. We all know that. I never hear the president make the case for enforcement. I hear deportations are raucous and terrible and inhuman in many ways, but he never talks about a process to stop illegal immigration. He never talks about it. That`s why I think Republicans never want to help him, because he doesn`t want to help them make their case that this was a serious bill that was passed by the Senate a couple of years ago, a truly comprehensive bill and should be enacted. JENNICE FUENTES, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Exactly. And they bring it up on the House side. Danny is talking about comprehensive or piecemeal, we haven`t had any because there hasn`t been a stomach on the Republican side to have the courage that to the floor and see what happens. What is irresponsible is what`s happening now, because, quite frankly, it`s like the Republicans do not know how to celebrate even a modest victory. Well, that judge in Texas handed them with the modest victory and they should just understand that the money is already going to be controlled. They cannot use that money for the executive action. So, why not just celebrate that moment instead of bringing us to this peril, this moment of crisis that we may not have, our staff at DHS. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: How come Democrats never talk about enforcement and stopping illegal immigration? I never hear a Democrat talk about stopping illegal enforcement. FUENTES: The Democrats do talk about enforcement and President Obama has deported more people. MATTHEWS: Who? Who? (CROSSTALK) FUENTES: President Obama has deported more people than both Bushes combined. MATTHEWS: This is a joke because people are still going to come here to get a job if he can get here illegally and what have Democrats ever done anything stopping illegal hiring? FUENTES: Excuse me? MATTHEWS: What do the Democrats -- I`d say it again, I asked you five times. When are the Democrats going to get serious about enforcement? Because unless they get serious about enforcement, the Republicans are never going to go along with any kind of deal. FUENTES: I don`t know why you say we`re not serious about enforcement because we are. If deporting -- if grabbing mothers from the workplace, a mother state -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: We`re not getting anywhere. People are going to come here illegally forever the rest of our lives -- FUENTES: That`s not an enforcement question. That`s more of an economic question. They are coming because there are jobs and there`s job that they can get. MATTHEWS: They are illegal jobs. (CROSSTALK) FUENTES: There are all kinds of jobs. Most of them -- half of them pay and they pay Social Security under somebody else`s number. To say that they are here, they are not making money, they are not paying taxes would be incorrect. They come here because they can find the jobs. The enforcement needs to be the workplace. MATTHEWS: Never mind. It`s not happening. OK. I`ll ask the question again 100 times because this is why we never get immigration reform. The one side doesn`t want to deal with the reality that these people here to stay, the 11 million. And the Democrats don`t want to deal with the fact that as long as we have illegal jobs in this country, all of the walls, all the deportations are not going to stop. We`ll be right back. The roundtable is staying with us. And this HARDBALL -- I just want a law that ends this conversation -- the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, we showed you that Scott Walker`s got this big lead in Iowa and look at this. Look, he`s surging in Texas as well. According to the University of Texas and "Texas Tribune" poll out this week, Ted Cruz is on the top with 20 percent of the vote, with Walker a close second in Texas at 19. He`s right on Cruz`s back. In fact, back in October, Walker had just 2 percent of the poll and he is moving up. Jeb Bush and Ben Carson are further back, of course, with former Texas Governor Rick Perry falling from second to fifth down there. He ain`t going anywhere. This is big because Texas moved up in the primary calendar and will vote at the beginning of March. So, it`s going to matter, and it looks like Walker is doing well down there in Texas, even against Cruz. We`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: We`re back. And just minutes away right now, we`re going to bring you our exclusive presidential town hall on immigration moderated by my colleague, Jose Diaz- Balart, which was taped just a few hours ago today. Well, during the big event today, President Obama called out Jeb Bush by name to get his party`s leadership in the House to act on the bipartisan bill that the U.S. Senate passed in the last Congress. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I appreciate Mr. Bush being concerned about immigration reform. I would suggest that what he do is talk to the speaker of the house and the members of his party, because the fact of the matter is that -- (APPLAUSE) -- that even after we pass bipartisan legislation in the Senate, I gave the Republicans a year and a half -- a year and a half -- to just call the bill. We had the votes. They wouldn`t do it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I`m back at the roundtable, Danny, Jennice and Sabrina. Sabrina, I want to start with you. Do you think the president wants the issue of immigration in favor of the people, Hispanic community especially, and other liberals, who want them to get a better break in this country, or does he want the bill to pass? Is he really out there helping the Republicans buy into this thing or just enjoying the fight, because it`s good politically for him? SABRINA SIDDIQUI, HUFFINGTON POST: I think to a large extent, this is a winning political issue for Democrats, and that`s part of the message that you get from this administration. Now, they obviously took the executive action far too late in the eyes of most of the Latino community, and even though they believe they have the superior message to that Republicans who haven`t acted at all to pass the bill, the president, as we saw, was throwing some verbal punches out at Jeb Bush who is a contender in 2016, and already setting new battle lines around immigration, because he knows this is a winning political issue for him, and for Democrats. MATTHEWS: Danny, what`s the president going to do at the courts, in the Supreme Court -- it`s Republican now, 5-4 at least -- what happens if they strike down all his executive orders on immigration? VARGAS: This one in particular, the circuit court judge put an injunction against it for procedural matters. It wasn`t even a question of constitutionality. It was because he hadn`t filed with the federal registry with enough time for public comment. So, I think that`s a procedural hurdle that the administration has to overcome. But I think more politically, I think the American people do want to see a fair and sustainable solution to immigration reform. What they don`t want is amnesty, writ large, they don`t want amnesty, but they also want see some compassion. So, I think the Democrats keeping this as a political football for their advantage, I think at some point that political football has a shelf life. And I will tell you that President Obama had -- when he came into office, he said in his first year, he was going to tackle immigration reform. He had a majority in the House. He had a super majority in the Senate. He did absolutely nothing about immigration reform. So, I think it`s a little cynical to say the president is now coming to the table talking about immigration reform when he could have done it then. I think we need to move forward as a nation to craft a sensible immigration reform policy -- MATTHEWS: Right, you say, OK -- (CROSSTALK) VARGAS: -- that meets the need of our security -- our security, our economy and our nature as a country. MATTHEWS: OK, let`s determined -- I want to ask all three of you. Do you think we can stop illegal immigration with legislation? Can we stop illegal immigration and stop talking about it, just deal with it, like we do other issues? Can we get rid of illegal immigration? You first Jennice and then, Danny, and then, Sabrina. VARGAS: OK. FUENTES: Yes, I think we can absolutely take steps to take care of the first problem with undocumented, which is basically the 11 million undocumented that are here. MATTHEWS: Can we end illegal immigration? Just answer that question. Can we end it through legislation? FUENTES: Can we end illegal immigration with all hands on deck? Of course we can. Of course we can figure out a way that people don`t have to come here undocumented and stay, because I can tell you, a lot of the immigrants don`t come here necessarily want to stay here. People will say, no, of course, I want to stay and have American children. You want to go back to your country if you can. You have the circular migration that you could actually get away with and come here to work and go back in an easy, efficient, reliable way. You probably would use that, of course. MATTHEWS: OK. Your question, Danny. Are you optimistic -- Danny, are you optimistic we could some day, in the next five or 10 years, sit down, both parties get, a chance for people who have been here for a while, to stop the illegal hiring, the whole bit? The whole bit, we know what it is. Do you think they`ll ever agree on that? VARGAS: Here are the three or four things that need to happen. One, we need to make sure that we do a better job of securing our borders and controlling our border so we have operational control. Number two, there does need to be a legal viable system by which it meets the needs of our economy. A guest worker program that we used to have in this country that works really well -- MATTHEWS: I know. VARGAS: -- that allows folks to come in, take seasonal jobs when they couldn`t find American workers, and be able to go back to their home countries. That is the way to be able to stop the need for illegal immigration to meet jobs. Look, I`ll be honest with you, I know that along the border we`ve had two signs, one says keep out (ph), and the other one says we`re hiring. So, that -- MATTHEWS: I know. That`s the irony of this whole conversation. That`s why -- (CROSSTALK) VARGAS: But a guest worker program, the labor unions in this country are against the guest worker program. That`s been part of the problem. MATTHEWS: I know. (CROSSTALK) FUENTES: Everybody was coming here documented, is not necessarily coming in through the border. I think we have to make it clear that our problems of undocumented immigrants are not through the Mexican border necessarily. I think they`re coming through the airports and they overstay their visa. So, let`s be honest when we talk about enforcement and immigrants, where they`re coming through. MATTHEWS: I just want to stop the illegal hiring. Anyway, thank you, Danny Vargas. Thank you, Jennice Fuentes, and Sabrina Siddiqui. We`ll be back right after this. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this crap storm that Netanyahu started. All the prime minister had to do to avoid all this fighting with Washington was to speak out. That`s what he could have done, speak out the second he heard that the invitation for him to address the U.S. Congress was issued without the knowledge of an American president. All he had to do was say, I will come if this invitation is bipartisan, and certainly only if the president of the United States has approved it. All he had to do was that, just say, I don`t like the way this thing has been handled. I have no intention to do this under the table. No intention of disrespecting the president of the United States, because even if we disagree, I will not abuse the historic ties between our two countries, with Democrats and Republicans alike. Here`s a thought, the prime minister can say at the front of his remarks next week that he didn`t know. Nobody told him that the president was not duly informed of his invitation and he is sorry the whole thing went the way it did. Just say you didn`t know this thing was carried out in the dark, that`s if you were not party to this subterfuge. If, Mr. Prime Minister, you knew from the outset this was all the way to blindside the president and therefore humiliate him, well, that`s the problem, isn`t it? And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. Stay tuned, of course, right now, for our exclusive town hall with President Obama. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022501cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 115 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 25, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 25, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Hampton Pearson GUESTS: Annette Taddeo, Mitch Ceasar, Ana Rivas Logan, Steve Bousquet, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Brad Woodhouse, Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, Ruth Conniff, Rani Whitfield SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7753 words HIGHLIGHT: Republican attempt to stop President Obama`s executive order on immigration puts families and even national security at risk. Funding for Homeland Security will expire on Friday if Republican Congressional leadership fails to agree on a clean bill. Despite support from big donors and a presidential endorsement, Mayor Rahm Emanuel heads to Chicago`s first ever mayoral runoff. Chewing tobacco is a traditional part of America`s pastime, yet all of this may change with a new measure in San Francisco banning the use of smokeless products at all baseball games. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tonight, immigration takes center stage in the Sunshine State. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: MSNBC inclusive town hall event on immigration with President Obama. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: The President overreach on immigration. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This in the best interest of America, that we fix a broken immigration system. PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think the law is on our side and history is on our side. SCHULTZ: And later, San Francisco makes a giant push for public health on the baseball field. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The campaign to knock tobacco out of the park aims at eliminating all tobacco in all baseball parks. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Explore what (ph)? Chewing tobacco. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: About a third of major league player`s use chewing tobacco. MARK FARRELL, SAN FRANCISCO SUPERVISOR: It`s time to show that Tobacco in any form should not be tolerated or approved on our athletic fields. SCHULTZ: Plus, Republicans play politics again, as the DHS shutdown looms. BOEHNER: The House has done its job to fund the Department of Homeland Security. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some Republicans demand that DHS funding stay link to the Obama immigration rule. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R-KY) MAJORITY LEADER: I`m ready to try another way. JOSH EARNERST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We shouldn`t compromise our Homeland Security just because Republicans want to pick a political fight. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We start with new developments on immigration and homeland security. They`re connected in a big way for some strange reason. \ But the Senate reached a tentative deal today to past a clean Department of Homeland Security bill that does not block President Obama`s immigration actions. So they voted and it was 98 to 2 on taking the first step towards consideration of the bill. The vote is only the first step to begin the debate on the DHS bill. The battle is far from over. There`s no word on how House Speaker John Boehner will proceed now. The Tea Party Republicans are making life pretty difficult for Boehner right now. They want to see the President fail on immigration. This is a crow d that`s bound to determine to stop the President on immigration on all fronts. Earlier today, Boehner was blaming the Senate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: I`m waiting for the Senate to act. The House has done its job to fund the Department of Homeland Security and to stop the President`s overreach on immigration. And we`re waiting for the Senate to do their jobs. Senate Democrats has stood in the way now for three weeks over a bill that should have been debated in past. So until the Senate does something we`re on wait and see mode. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The Senate finalizes a deal is something House Republicans to prevent a homeland security shutdown. Meanwhile, there is movement on immigration on the legal front. This week, the Justice Department asks for an emergency court ruling that would allow President Obama`s immigration action to move forward. The Department of Justice asks for a stay on the Texas judge`s decision blocking the President`s immigration moves. As of today, President Obama immigration executive action is on-hold. The President`s orders would protect roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. The executive orders were suppose to go into effect a week ago, President Obama is trying to get his message on immigration across of the country. Tonight, here on this network, 8:00 P.M. on MSNBC, we will be airing an immigration town hall event with President Obama. And the President will be speaking directly with the Latino community in Miami and what impact that has will certainly remains to be seen. But moving and looking at this whole thing, how can this House Republicans do this to the country? I`ll tell you how they could do it to the country. Number one, they hate the President. They don`t want to see him succeed on anything. OK, given we`ve talked a lot about that. It`s the gerrymander. These guys in the House know that they can do whatever they want to do and they`re never going to lose their seat, because they have socially engineered the districts across this country. So this empowers them to obstruct to the ends (ph) degree. This empowers them to go as far as they go even if it deals with security of the country. For more on all of this, unusually they`re connected. Unfortunately, these two issues should be even in the same arena. Let`s go to Annette Taddeo, Vice Chair of the Florida Democratic Party and Mitch Caesar, Chair of Broward County Democrats and -- Ana Rivas Logan who is a former Florida State Representative. Great to have all of you with us tonight. Annette, you first. What impact will the President`s town hall have on this entire conversation? What do you make of this? ANNETTE TADDEO VICE CHAIR, FL. DEMOCRATS: Well, I think it very refreshing that the President took the time to take questions from immigrants, from people who are affected, from people that are so hopeful, filling the applications and hoping to come out of the shadows, and a President who`s leading the way rather than a Congress who`s doing everything to stop immigrants from having an opportunity in the land of freedom. As I sit here, behind me is the Freedom Tower which stands for freedom and what, you know, this country has always I know, a nation of immigrant. SCHULTZ: Mitch, what works in immigration -- and of course the -- Republicans don`t want to work on anything, they although take any issue and do whatever they can to stop the President or progress. But what works, and I think the President has to explain to the country tonight, what works with immigration? What do you think? MITCH CEASAR CHAIR, BROWARD CO. DEMOCRATS: Well, I think he`s doing the correct thing, he`s going out there as presidents have done before and beginning with Franklin Roosevelt with Fireside chat and then, with the train raising and kind of barn storming. He`s talking about protecting the kids, the dreamers, he then came in with his second executive order talking about, you know, some relief for the parents as you said about 5 million people. Here in Florida, there are about 250,000 people that will affected if that stay is not lifted and the President is not able to do what he wants to. I think he needs to outline how he needs protect the kids, how he wants to -- look at the parents, put them on the path of citizenship, talk about them paying taxes and basically getting everything inline. I think he`s going to do that. He`s doing it the right way by going to the people and he has to go around the Republican Congress, he has no choice. He is doing what Presidents need to do. SCHULTZ: Yeah. CEASAR: ... He was fully pulpit to go and get around the Congress as obstruction. SCHULTZ: And does President Obama need to change his immigration policy or do you think he feels involve and that he is taking the right course of action right now with his executive order and not changing anything, stay in the course, and let this politically layout against the Republicans. ANA RIVAS LOGAN, FMR FLORIDA STATE REP.: Absolutely. Absolutely. The President is doing absolutely the right thing. He needs to stay on track. He`s got a lot of support from Latino community. And once again, in 2016 we`ll see the results. When the majority of the public sees that the Republican Party has once again play politics with people lives, the party of the obstruction. I mean, all they care to do is just obstruct the President and, you know, and not even take into account how many people they`re impacting here. SCHULTZ: Here is Marco Rubio. He addressed the President`s immigration policy in a town hall up in New Hampshire this week. And here`s what he had say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R) FLORIDA: I believe it should stop the executive action for three reasons. Number one, because unconstitutional. Second is I think it has unintended and consequences no one stop through in terms of triggering another migratory crisis or even tax credit that it makes millions of people eligible for them that we haven`t budgeted for that comes out of the U.S. treasury. And third, I think it makes it even more difficult to achieve this sort of immigration reform our county needs. I think the real solution to immigration is a series of pieces of legislation, not executive actions that deal with this issue. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So, Annette, what we have here playing out is the President, I think, is doing the Democrats a favor by getting this kind of exposure in South Florida because it totally beats him against the Republican position in the hot bet of immigration. Your thoughts on what Rubio was saying and why this playing out. TADDEO: Well, it`s really disappointing to see that a Senator from Florida is now saying that we need to cut it into piece. I mean, their idea of cutting it into pieces is to build a much higher wall. I don`t know how high they want to go up to the sky to put more troops on the ground, on the boarder into -- do e-verify (ph). But that`s where they stop and by the way even that, even that they haven`t even done that. So the Senate past a bipartisan bill and they did nothing and President kept waiting and kept saying "I`m waiting. I`m waiting". And, you know, if they don`t like the President`s action so much as he says which by the way, our legal, we`re going to see that play out and it`s going to show that the President did the right thing and he is -- within his authority to do this. It`s just really sad. SCHULTZ: Yeah. TADDEO: And in addition to that, we have a governor in Florida who`s actually a part of that lawsuit. I mean that just horrible. Florida is a place where we welcome immigrants. SCHULTZ: Well, that should surprise anybody. Rick Scott involved in a lawsuit. Mitch, what do make of Rubio`s position right now? I mean how does that play? CEASAR: Well, it`s interesting because he was for immigration reform before he was against it. He`s basically flip-flopped like all the presidential Republican candidates have done. None of them, they have taken a clear position. In fact, Jeb Bush has flip-flopped on this issue going back in number of years and reversed himself in the last few years. So they`re trying to carve out an intelligent place but there is no intelligent place for the Republican field. You have a super vote in Republican primary that`s very conservative, you have the billionaire class involve, funding those Republican candidates. As you said, single member districts from reapportion. If they have nowhere to go, they`re on the wrong side of history and they`re going to find after 2016. They are totally on the wrong side of the Electoral College because of Hispanics and their voting pattern today (ph). SCHULTZ: All right. Annette Taddeo, Mitch Ceasar, Ana Rivas Logan, great to have you with us tonight. And we have more news out of the Sunshine State today. Media outlets in Florida are suing Governor Rick Scott. Roughly, a dozen news organizations are accusing Scott of violating the State sunshine law. They claimed Scott`s transitioned team mass deleted e- mails in the weeks preceding his taking office in January of 2011. Media outlets are fighting a policy by Scott`s office allowing employees to destroy records they considered transitory. They claimed these documents are not connected to Florida`s public records law. The goal of the lawsuit is to safeguard all relevant materials from being deleted. Even aids (ph) the cellphone numbers are certainly going to be involved in this along with text messages. So I want to bring in now the reporter Steve Bousquet of the Tampa Bay Time. Steve, good to have you with us tonight. I want to fully disclose that your newspaper is also involved in this lawsuit and want full disclosure of all this communication. Is Scott`s administration breaking the law? Did they break the law? STEVE BOUSQUET, TAMPA BAY TIMES: Well, that`s up for the judge to determine, Ed. But I`ve never seen anything like this in 30 years of reporting in the state. We have almost every major newspaper and television station in Florida on the record suing the Governor`s office and -- then, three elected cabinet members who by the way are independent in the state. They`re independent. They`re all Republicans, all four of them. What happened was, right before Christmas, a highly respected state law enforcement official was forced out of office. His name was Gerald Bailey. He runs the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, our state police more or less. And no explanation, no public discussion, no vote, no nothing. And Scott has really -- he is acknowledge that he could have handle it better but there`s been no real detail public acknowledgment or explanation of what happened. And in Florida, we take the sunshine law very seriously down here and it`s going to go to court and people are going to have to -- sit there under oath with their right arm raise and explain what happened behind the scenes. SCHULTZ: Why do you think they`re trying to protect them? What is -- what could he possibly be hiding? BOUSQUET: Well, what happened was during Rick Scott`s campaign, as the Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald reported, during the campaign there were constant stresses and strains between the governor`s office and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement which provides security to the governor. Bailey felt that he was being pressured to sort of play political games and to sort of provide transportation to Scott`s campaign workers things like this. All this has been reported down here. And at the end of -- Rick Scott gets elected in November. He wins. He defeats Charlie Christ by one percentage point but he wins fair and square but he has no honeymoon. They throw Bailey overboard. And Bailey, instead of going quietly decides to start complaining and going public with all these grievances and it`s gotten pretty ugly. SCHULTZ: Would this have affected the election if this had come out before November? BOUSQUET: Well, that`s a great point. Rick Scott defeated Charlie Christ by about 60,000 to 65,000 votes, Ed, out of about 5 million votes cast. And the Democrats in the state have been second guessing themselves ever since election night thinking, if we`d only done this, if we`d only done that. You know, Rick Scott had a lot more money, a lot more resources in this campaign. The Republicans do a better job of getting this base vote out in an off-year election in Florida, the Democrats do. But I think the answer to your question is, any variable like this could have affected the outcome. SCHULTZ: Steve Bousquet with us tonight from the Tampa Bay Times. I appreciate your time. Thanks so much. Coming up, Republicans play a dangerous game of chicken. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz joins us on the politics of a possible shutdown. Will the House respond to what the Senate just did earlier today? Plus, we`ll talk to the man who forced Rahm Emanuel into a runoff in Chicago. Keep it here. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEH JOHNSON, SECY., HOMELAND SECURITY: To even be having a conversation about a potential shutdown of Homeland Security is incredible and absurd. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Funding for Homeland Security will -- expire in two days if Congress fails to act. The clock is ticking. The GOP is divided on passing a clean bill to fund the DHS hard-liners of course when President Obama`s immigration policy`s on the table at the expense of national security. Despite of majority in Congress, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell just can`t see who defining (ph) the unity in the party. McConnell`s new proposal funds the DHS through September on a clean bill. The Senate did take first steps as we reported a few moments ago. They are considering the bill today and a vote of 98 to 2. The opposition, the President`s immigration action would come on a separate bill. One senior House Republican reportedly called the plan a joke. The only thing Republicans can -- agree on is a lack of leadership. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R-KY) MAJORITY LEADER: My hope is that the Senate will act, I don`t know what the House will do but I do think that we have a responsibility to act here. BOEHNER: The house has done its job to fund the Department of Homeland Security and stop the President`s overreach on immigration. And we`re waiting for the Senate to do their job. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: For more, let me bring in Congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida who is the Chair of the DNC. Congresswoman, why do these two have to be connected to get -- to protect the country? Where is it at this hour now that the Senate has moved a little bit on this with the vote to move forward? REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, (D) FLORIDA, DNC CHAIR: Well and of course, they don`t have to be connected and thankfully the Senate has taken action to disconnect them. The House Republicans and quite frankly a number of Republicans who are saying they want to run for President are playing a dangerous game of chicken here with our national security. On Friday, as you noted, this funding runs out and putting our national security in jeopardy. I mean, you have potential candidates for President like Jeb Bush who has been definitely silent, refuses to say what he thinks. I mean, if you`re running for President you should have an opinion on whether the Department of Homeland Security should be shutdown over a fight on immigration reform. I mean, it`s just outrageous whether it`s Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence. They have all actually said in one form or another that it`s OK and this is an appropriate action to take. It`s just unbelievable, outrageous, unacceptable and the (inaudible) the Republicans court in the House. SCHULTZ: Well, it is. And do you think that the Tea Party Republicans are going to warm up to just a single bill that is not connected to immigration? I mean, where is this going to go? And I said in the last segment, I believe this is a product of gerrymandering. I mean these guys know that they`re not going to lose, that they have socially engineered the House. It emboldens them to do stuff like this and they`re going to take it right in the firewall to try to get what they want to see who blinks first. So, how does this play out in the House on the Republican side? WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: You know, when you`re not dealing with people who are being rationale, and when making rationale, does not making rationale decisions. It`s pretty tough to predict. So (inaudible) to me to predict what the -- Republican caucus will do. SCHULTZ: So you don`t think this brings the House any closer to a conclusion on this, what the Senate did? WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: You know, I`ve tried to apply logic to Republican decision-making in the House of Representatives in the past, and then pretty stunned that they`re lack of it. So I mean, that this is playing a dangerous game where we`re not just talking about -- I mean -- they already shut the whole government down and cost us $24 billion. And that was over healthcare reform and denying people healthcare. Now, they`re willing to compromise our national security, shut the Department of Homeland Security down and ensure that they can continue their -- really religious -- almost religious adherence to ensuring that we can deport as many undocumented immigrants as we can and not just... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... sad and unacceptable and dangerous and frightening. SCHULTZ: Do you ... WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And hopefully cooler heads will prevail. SCHULTZ: Well, I hope so too. We certainly need among the job and we need to have it funded. Do you think that Speaker Boehner`s position as speaker is going to be jeopardized because of this? WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: You know, I certainly think his leadership is being called into question again and again. I mean, what he needs to do is carouse (ph) his caucus if he believes and making sure that we can protect our national security interest. Surely, he and other candidate -- other Republicans like Jeb Bush should unequivocally state that we shouldn`t shutdown the Department of Homeland Security over the President`s immigration policy. I want to hear from Jeb Bush. Someone should ask him. And they have asked him and he refuses to say and yet he wants to be president. That`s not leadership. John Boehner hasn`t exercise leadership and then the process of pursuing their own ambition of either staying in power or gaining more power... SCHULTZ: Yes. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... they`re willing to compromise our national security, it`s unacceptable. SCHULTZ: And finally, Congresswoman, the news late this afternoon, three New York men were accused of plotting to aid ISIS today. Will this influence the DHS funding negotiations at all? WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, I certainly hope that all of the considerations that we have to take into account when it comes to our national security whether it`s ISIS or, you know, other threats around the world... SCHULTZ: So probably won`t. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: It doesn`t look good. I`ll tell you that and it`s disturbing. SCHULTZ: Debbie ... WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I know... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... I`m going to stand up for my constituents. SCHULTZ: I know you will. And Rubio has got an interesting take on all of these. I mean, I think it`s interesting strategically that the President is in Florida doing this, showing a clear division between where the Democrats are and where, you know, these Florida guys are, Scott, Rubio and Bush and you`re pointing out that hey haven`t said anything about it. And of course Rubio is certainly (inaudible) to race. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Exactly. Rubio has suggested that it`s just fine. This is the appropriate direction to go. And, I mean, these are people who are actually saying that they want to be president of the United States. I don`t know how anybody would expect Americans to vote for them when they`re willing to compromise our national security. SCHULTZ: Congresswoman, thanks to your time tonight. I appreciate it. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Thank you. Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: Let`s bring in Brad Woodhouse tonight. He is the President of American Bridge 21st Century. Will the Republicans pay for this? I mean, what do you think? BRAD WOODHOUSE, PRES. AMERICAN BRIDGE: They`re absolutely going to pay for this. I mean, we`ve seen this movie before, when the Republican shut the government down, they pay a price. No one believes that Democrats would shutdown the government or the Democrats would shutdown the Department of Homeland Security. I mean, Ed, we`re talking about terrorism. We`re talking about ISIS and we`re talking -- and they`re talking about furloughing (ph) 30,000 employees of DHS sending others to work without a paycheck and the stress that that puts on them and their families. It`s phenomenal that Republicans are going down the path again. SCHULTZ: Brad, what does this say about how strong the Republican stances against any kind of immigration reform if they`re willing to roll the dice on this issue? WOODHOUSE: Well, that`s exactly right. I mean, look, they had an autopsy after the 2012 election where they said, they`ve got to get this issue right. And, you know Marco Rubio, they are, for a day, supported immigration reform and there were some in the Senate and they move the bill to the House and that`s where Boehner has sat. He sat on a bill for over 500 days. If you want to debate immigration reform, bring up a bill... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WOODHOUSE: ... on immigration reform... SCHULTZ: So... WOODHOUSE: ... don`t shutdown the Department of Homeland Security. SCHULTZ: So do we need Boehner and McConnell to go play golf? WOODHOUSE: Well, you know what? SCHULTZ: They haven`t talked to each other in two weeks. WOODHOUSE: They haven`t talked to each other in two weeks. The biggest joke ever perpetuated on American people was, when they sat after the election that they would come to Washington... SCHULTZ: Yeah. WOODHOUSE: ... that they would show that they could govern. They`re not even talking to each other. How can they govern the majority leaders in both Houses? How can they govern if they`re not even speaking to one another? SCHULTZ: We just had no idea they didn`t get along. Brad Woodhouse... WOODHOUSE: Yeah. SCHULTZ: ... good to have you with us. I appreciate your time tonight. WOODHOUSE: Thanks, Ed. SCHULTZ: Still ahead, "Mayor 1%" may have had the money behind him but he didn`t have the vote behind to avoid to runoff. It`s getting really interesting in Chicago. I will visit with Chuy Garcia, the populous favorite of the Chicago mayor`s race. And we are following the three arrests on U.S. soil link to the fight against ISIS. Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And another news today, three men from Brooklyn, New York have been arraign on charges they plan to travel overseas to join ISIS. The FBI says the suspects threatened to plant a bomb in Coney Island or attack President Obama directly. NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton spoke this afternoon saying that the incident reinforces concerns about the lone-wolf terrorism. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL BRATTON, NYPD COMMISSIONER: This is real. This is the concern about the lone-wolf inspired to act without ever going to the Middle East or the concern of once they get to the Middle East acquire a fighting skills, capabilities and then attempting to return to the country. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Well, the men were arrested and taking into custody in New York and the other in Florida. Take a look at this video showing the bombing of a warship. The ship is actually a replica of an American vessel. The Ukrainian Revolutionary Guard bombed the ship while conducting naval and air defense drills. The Guard`s Chief Commander said the drills send a message of Iran`s might to extra territorial powers. OK. And today, the family of American Sniper Chris Kyle is reacting to the guilty verdict in the murder trial of Eddie Ray Routh. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JUDY LITTLEFIELD, MOTHER OF CHAD LITTLEFIELD: It was answered prayer. We`ve waited a long time to hear that, and we feel justice was served. Chris served overseas and Chad served when they came back. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s right. J. LITTLEFIELD: ... he had a passion for -- veterans. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. J. LITTLEFIELD: ... so -- but then Chad was always a helping hand, you know. He was a rock. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The jury convicted Routh in the shooting deaths of Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield at a Texas shooting range in 2013. The defense is appealing. They argued that Routh was having a psychotic episode when he pulled the trigger. And of course, we always like hearing from our viewers. In our Ask Ed segment tonight this question comes from Melissa, "What is next in your fight against the Keystone XL pipeline now that it`s been vetoed?" Continue to tell the story about eminent domain and see how strong these landowners in Nebraska or going to be. And tell the story about how they`re real Americans, they can`t be cashed with -- by a multinational because they care about the water underneath their ground, because it supplies the region and it`s so vital to agriculture. I think that`s a heck of a story and a lot to talk about. There`s a lot more coming up to the Ed Show. Stay with us we`ll be right back. HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks end mixed but little change. The Dow adds 15 points, the S&P sheds 1 point, the NASDAQ also off by 1. Hewlett Packard has reportedly in talks (ph) to buy Aruba Networks, a Wi-Fi gear maker. Aruba shares rallying 21 percent on that news. HP shares sliding 10 percent. Another big decliner today Lumber Liquidators, the company says it`s going to be the subject of a negative report on 60 Minutes. That helps end shares down a whopping 26 percent. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Rahm Emanuel enter Chicago`s first ever runoff for mayor. The incumbent failed to get more than 50 percent of the vote in Tuesday election. His deep pockets, they were there, but they didn`t help. Emanuel reportedly collected more than $16 million for his campaign. Raise more money than all the other candidates combined. And with the support of big donors and even the President, he was of course known as "Mayor 1%". He was -- unable to get the deal done. But the rest of the Chicago`s 99 percent only partially spoke. Not a big voter turnout. Emanuel now must face a runoff against the second place finisher Jesus "Chuy" Garcia. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RAHM EMANUEL, MAYORAL CANDIDATE FOR CHICAGO: For those who voted for someone else, I hope to earn your confidence and your support in the weeks to come. JESUS "CHUY" GARCIA, CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF CHICAGO: They said we didn`t have a chance. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s right. That`s right. GARCIA: They said we didn`t have any money, while they spend millions attacking us. Well, we`re still standing. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Chuy Garcia`s most enthusiastic support came from the Chicago Teachers Union. He also had the backing of labor and progressive groups who say that they`re tired of Rahm Emanuel`s corporate friendly leadership. And the runoff is scheduled for April 7th. Chuy Garcia joins us tonight here on the Ed Show. Mr. Garcia, certainly congratulation is an order. GARCIA: Thank you. SCHULTZ: It would seem to me that spending millions of dollars and having low voter turnout would have been good for Rahm Emanuel. What happened? GARCIA: Well, everybody was betting on the money, everyone was looking at the race in conventional terms but Chicago voters had other plans and they`ve showed up yesterday, even though in low numbers. Those who showed up wanted change and a majority of those voters who voted yesterday said they don`t agree with the direction of city. They want something else and they voted against the special money interest, the millionaires and the big corporations which have been getting tax subsidies and have sweetheart deals with Ralm Emanuel. People said we want to go on the different direction. In addition to that, 19 members of the city council are facing runoff. So the message that was sent was a clear message that Chicago wants -- want to go in different direction. SCHULTZ: So if the voter turnout gets to say in all time high, who wins as you see it? I mean, you know, a low voter turnout normally is good with the guy with the money. GARCIA: That`s right. SCHULTZ: You know, so what are you going to do between now and April 7th to wake up that town to get a better turnout? GARCIA: Well, I think we achieved a part of our goal yesterday which was to show people that you can fight back, that you can reject the advances of, you know, billionaires who want to take over our government, that want to privatize everything including public education and that is people show up they can win. SCHULTZ: So where you going to work? I mean where you going to concentrate on, where in Chicago do you have to go to get this vote to beat Emanuel? GARCIA: I`m going to go everywhere as I did in the primary. My support came from all quarters of the city Chicago. It`s a new type of coalition. I will work hard and redouble my efforts to win African-American voters, to win other voters over. I think we did very well. And remember that the mayor spent a lot of his money convincing African-American voters that it was over, that he was going to win. SCHULTZ: Yeah. GARCIA: I think the appearance by big politician in Chicago did not payoff, voters in Chicago understand what the stake. They want their city back, they want to run it, they want more accountability and that`s why they came out. SCHULTZ: Mr. Garcia, what about those who didn`t make it, who lose? Are they going to support you or you going to get some help here now? GARCIA: We are in conversations with them. I`m very optimistic. SCHULTZ: OK. GARCIA: And we`ll be able to reach an agreement. They`re good people and I seek their support. SCHULTZ: Is this -- and I going to ask you, is this race between the pinnacle of this race -- really the focal point of this race is education. I mean how do you shut 50 schools and not have community think you`re doing a good job. GARCIA: Yeah. SCHULTZ: You know, I mean I just think that cuts just such the fabric of picking and choosing neighborhoods. Aren`t those the people you need? GARCIA: Yeah, exactly. And, you know, you can`t just say this is what`s best. This is what I know. I know better. I came from Washington D.C. I was a former chief of staff. No. Chicago wants to be consulted. They have an opinion and you can impose those things on them. So it was a significant turning point I think in Chicago politics won that would bode (ph) very well from my candidacy. SCHULTZ: OK. GARCIA: I think we`re prepared to take Chicago Bank. We did it in grand style with people from all over the city coming together and saying we want our city back. SCHULTZ: All right. GARCIA: We care about public education and by the way the elected school board referendum passed by 88 percent. SCHULTZ: Mr. Garcia, good luck to you. We`ll visit again. GARCIA: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Thanks so much. GARCIA: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: Now in Ohio, Governor John Kasich is trying to change his conservative tone from compassionate to physical (ph). He spent the first 55 minutes of his State of the State speech Tuesday pitching his controversial tax and school funding proposals. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JOHN KASICH. (R) OHIO: I believe the most important thing that we can do to plan ahead is to continue strengthening Ohio`s economy by further cutting taxes and that means we must restrain government spending. I`m proposing that we cut taxes by $500 million on top of the $3 billion in tax accounts we`ve already made because high income taxes punish risk-taking. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Interesting strategy. He is trying to pay themselves in the middle on the road to the national audience. He is pointing Ohio`s slow economic improvement over the last four years as proof of success of his policies. But some Ohio Democrats argued that Kasich`s deep cuts have left communities out of the cold such as Cleveland 60 million short. Ruth Conniff, Progressive Magazine, joins us tonight. Ruth, if there going to be launching of pad, a launching pad right now for Kasich, this would be it, wouldn`t it? RUTH CONNIFF, PROGRESSIVE MAGAZINE: Yeah. I mean it`s interesting though, the segment that you just did on Chicago and taking about Kasich, there is just commonality which is cuts to public schools and they`re really causing a lot of trouble for people. So, arguing that, you know, now is the time to make even deeper tax cut more cut and hearing all of the objections from Republicans and Democrats alike about the deep school funding cuts in Ohio. I think really sets up this whole dynamic. Are we still trying to do trickle-down economics? You know, Kasich has really tried this. The voters in his state, unlike Wisconsin we`re actually able to turned back the right to work effort there because they could repeal a law that was passed that is empower union. And now you see a whole bunch of Republicans sitting on their hands when he`s giving a State of the State. Because, you know, if they`re having some trouble with high income districts saying, "Hey, these school cuts are hurting us." So I think he has kind of struggle on this. Ed. SCHULTZ: How was he going to tell the story of any kind of economic recovery in the state without mentioning the automobile industry? CONNIFF: Yeah. Well, there`s a lot of problems there. You know, the people of Ohio are really pushing back I think. And I think that you see Kasich who is an interesting character because, you know, he is not a complete party line guy. He offended the NRA when he was in Congress by not being a complete toe the line gun (ph) rights guy. He struggles a little bit. In that speech, he acknowledged the disaster that charter schools have been in Ohio. They are not performing well. This, you know, privatization and free market solution education problems has been kind of a disaster over many, many years now in Ohio. And he said, "Well, let`s not judge them too harshly, you know, sometimes student have problems that aren`t easily fix." Well, that`s an interesting argument, you know, coming from somebody who really wants (ph) proponent... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CONNIFF: ... of handling over schools to charters because the free market would solve (ph) all their problem. SCHULTZ: All right. Attorney of Wisconsin the Quinnipiac University put out a poll that shows Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker leading the pack among likely Iowa Republican Caucus participants, 25 percent. He is -- this is interesting. Quinnipiac great credibility of question about that but they`re asking people are you a caucus score. Yeah, I am. Who do you think? Walker is -- I mean, this is the most encouraging number he`s had so far isn`t it? CONNIFF: Yeah. And this has been Walker`s drive all along right. I mean forget about Wisconsin. He is really moving on to the national stage and everything that he has done has been a test to see whether a Republican candidate who completely leans into destruction the politics of austerity, you know, complete warfare with the working people of his own state if that is a winner. And it seems like people like this, you know, people in a very right-wing face in Iowa like this, you know, bold politics of Walker which is very aggressive and very divisive. SCHULTZ: All right. Ruth Conniff, always a pleasure to have you with us on the Ed Show. Thanks so much. Still ahead, chewing tobacco is a baseball tradition. No one, you know, should be doing it really. I mean that`s what the American Cancer Society says. There`s an American city out there that wants to ban it from the big leagues, that`s right, the bigs (ph). Not chewing tobacco, wait a minute, this is America. That`s coming up. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: Time now for the two-minute drill. NFL, they are going on defense in Wisconsin. How about this? The NFL Players Associations is coming out against the state legislature`s effort to make Wisconsin a right-to-work state. The Players Association says, "Right-to- work laws would affect the well- being and livelihood of the food and commercial workers at Lambeau Field in Green Bay. Good for them. They added Governor Scott Walker may not value these vital employees but as union members we do. California could be closer to hosting another football team. The Inglewood City Council voted unanimously to approve a new 80,000 seats stadium. It would be built to the former site of the Hollywood Park race track. They`re hoping that one day they`re going to be able to get the Rams back, the team that left for Saint Louis back in 1995. And in Arizona, baseball players are dealing with some sting training. The White Sox and Dodgers found some uninvited guests at their spring training facility in Glendale, Arizona. A Dodger staffer was stung twice by the bugs at the team`s facility at Camelback Ranch. It comes just days after the White Sox reported several Scorpion sightings but the stingers aren`t taking the focus off baseball for Chicago players. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know (inaudible) today but some are seeing one. They`re small but they`re (ph) just scary I guess (inaudible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess, this hurt (inaudible) done. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: You don`t want to mess with them. Stick around. There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, chewing tobacco could become a thing of the past around America`s pastime, really? You know, it`s a familiar sight. Baseball players working a lot of chewing tobacco in the dugout watching the games, sup in the cheeks and spit it all over the place. That`s part of the game. That`s been for years, but it`s not just a thing of the past. According to the league officials, about 30 percent of major league players still use smokeless tobacco. Anti-tobacco groups say that this sets a very bad example for the sport`s youngest fans. Now, in a first in the nation measure aims to ban all tobacco products. It includes smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes, wherever organized baseball is played. San Francisco Supervisor Mark Farrell introduced the measure which would out all tobacco use at every playing field in the city including the Giants AT&T Park. Smokeless tobacco has been banned in a minor league baseball leagues since 1993. A similar statewide measure introduced by California Assemblyman Tony Thurmond could go even further than this. It would include the state`s five major league stadiums, minor league parks, college and high school fields in anywhere a game is played in connection with an establish league or association of persons. The Major League Baseball Players Association said that they discouraged the use of smokeless tobacco products by its members or anyone else. However, the subject of tobacco use is a collective bargaining issue. This means, an agreement must be reach for the players union. If the proposed banned is pass, it would take effect next year. California continues to lead the charge against tobacco. This time, they`re hoping to knock it out of the park completely. You know, those camera shots (inaudible), you know, that would be a thing of the past. I thought was all part of baseball. It`s bad. It`s not good. And this is bad as smoking. Joining me tonight is the Hip-Hop Doc, Dr. Rani Whitfield, who`s the Medical Director of the National Association of Free Clinics. Dr., good to have you with us tonight. RANI WHITFIELD, MEDICAL DIR. NAFC: Ed, thank you so much. How are you doing? SCHULTZ: How -- very good -- how dangerous is chewing tobacco? WHITFIELD: It is very dangerous, Ed. I mean, there`s been a lot of misconceptions but it`s very dangerous. It`s associated with mouth, tongue, cheek, throat, lung cancer as well as stomach and pancreatic cancer, increase risk potential heart disease. So this is very serious. I mean, a lot of people think that smoking cigarette is just as worst but we know that nicotine is a very addictive substance. And it`s just a nasty habit to see (inaudible) guys on T.V. and our young people watching them. And so, I applaud California for making the attempt to ban this from the fields. We`re not saying that you guys, if you`re grown folks, you can`t smoke or chew tobacco in the privacy of your own home and your own settings, but in the baseball fields particularly on national T.V. I truly applaud for their efforts. SCHULTZ: It`s interesting how chewing tobacco is dangerous as it is as you just said, was able to escape any kind of legislation in the past when it came to smoking bans. What about that? WHITFIELD: Ed, I`m confused as well. And unfortunately, it took Tony Gwynn in his untimely death to bring more awareness to this issue, as well as was Curt Schilling who has openly stated that he believes that his cancer battle is attributed to his chewing tobacco. So now is the time. I don`t if you saw it on Twitter, we got a lot of pushback, you know, the government (ph) giving their hand involved and our choices again. This is not getting their hands of all the choices. We`re trying to protect the lives of young people. You know, as the Hip-Hop Doc, Ed, I`ve always been about helping young people in educating them. And this is one way where we can truly impact them all. I was huge fan of Dr. J, huge fan of Michael Jordan and if those guys are smoking when I was a young boy, I probably would started smoking. If I`ve seen them chewing tobacco, I -- probably would started chewing tobacco. So I think this is legislation is not there just to give their hands in your business or try to disturb what you`ve been doing throughout your life. This is a way to try to protect the lives of our young people. SCHULTZ: You know, they told us that seat belts didn`t make that much of a difference either and government got involved on that. There`s all kinds of examples that are out there that government does get involved in. You know, they afraid of guys that are going to say, well, this, you know, in our intercept my freedom in a way where government shouldn`t be involved in this. If I want to chew tobacco, I can. But this is about... WHITFIELD: Right. SCHULTZ: .... the game as well which I find very interesting. It`s not like the players union is saying we don`t want chewing tobacco -- of course, they got fence surround it because it`s a collective bargaining issue but do you think... WHITFIELD: Right. SCHULTZ: ... that baseball could make a statement and how much -- how influential would that be if they did to ban chewing tobacco? WHITFIELD: It would be huge, Ed. Just like the NFL when they came out and spoke out against abuse of women. This would be a huge statement on the part of the major leaguer baseball and it seems like they`re on the same page. This is kind of scare to make the stance and they should have been to lead on this not the minor league baseball team in 1993 as you`ve said earlier. Major league baseball should have been the first one to come out and put the ban out. SCHULTZ: But... WHITFIELD: At the end of the day (ph), we know how important this is. We know how a serious the nicotine addiction is and the use of the smokeless tobacco and this is the best they have. You know, I don`t want that in my environment and I won`t be steeping on this stuff or walking on the stuff. And many of these campuses are or facilities are already smoke-free, so why not go ahead and do the full game and make them smokeless, free as well. SCHULTZ: I think they`ve escaped the conversation of this country over the decades about the education. I mean, educating young kids on just how dangerous this is. They all know smoking is bad but, wait a minute, chewing tobacco, the players do that and that`s not a problem. I think that is certainly is a conversation that hasn`t been held enough. Dr. Rani Whitfield, great to have you with us and (inaudible)... WHITFIELD: Thank you so much, Ed. SCHULTZ: You bet. A great work always, I appreciate your work so much. Thank you. That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022501cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 116 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 25, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 25, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Maria Teresa Kumar GUESTS: Brian Higgins, Michael Sheehan, Emanuel Cleaver, Flint Taylor, Stephanie Miller, Jimmy Williams, Tara Dowdell SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 6704 words HIGHLIGHT: Three men are from Brooklyn also talked about bombing an amusement park and shooting President Obama.; ISIL using technology which is social media to requite members, putting siren song that they will leave a life in glory.; Two days before the shutdown of DHS, Senate and Congress are just passing the ball who will pass the homeland security bill. REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. Breaking news tonight, the feds arrest three men accused of plotting to join ISIS. And who allegedly also talked about killing U.S. soldiers, bombing at an amusement park and shooting the president of the United States, President Obama. The suspects are residents of Brooklyn, New York. Two of them are from Uzbekistan and one from Kazakhstan. The two younger suspects are accused of trying to go to Syria to fight for ISIS while the third suspect allegedly gave their money and helped with planning. One of the men bought a plane ticket at this travel agency in Brooklyn. And was arrested early this morning at JFK Airport where he is expected to bought that flight. People say the man had a backup plan if they couldn`t join ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL BRATTON, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: The idea that it was made quite plan based on their own statements that if they were not able to go, they would seek to acquire weapons here, handguns, machine gun and seek to attack very specifically police officers. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The FBI questioned one of the men back in August. They say he told agents, quote, "if ISIS ordered him to kill President Obama, he would do so." And, quote, "he would also plant a bomb on Coney Island if he were ordered by ISIL." Now, Coney Island is the amusement park in Brooklyn visited by millions of people every year. The men face 15 years in prison. But are there more of these plots? How do we track them and what`s behind them? FBI Director James Comey talked about those issues today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: ISIL in particular is putting out a siren song through their slick propaganda, through social media that goes like this. Troubled soul, come to the caliphate. All right. You will leave a life of glory, this are the apocalyptic end times, you will find a life of meaning here fighting for our so-called caliphate. And if you can`t come, kill somebody where you are. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now are Congressman Brian Higgins, Democrat of New York. He serves on the House Homeland Security Committee and Michael Sheehan, former head of operations at the Pentagon. Thank you both for being here. REP. BRIAN HIGGINS (D), NEW YORK: Good to be here. MICHAEL SHEEHAN, PENTAGON FORMER HEAD OF OPERATIONS: Thank you. SHARPTON: Congressman, how concern are you about the people in the U.S. and people in the U.S. going to fight for ISIS? HIGGINS: Well, we`re very concerned. Obviously the ISIS propaganda machine is working. It`s drawing people to Syria, to Iraq. But they`re being told explicitly if they can`t make that trip, to undertake home-grown terrorism. This is a real problem. And I think the good thing is, our counterterrorism officials, you know, they`re working diligently and in counterterrorism, you never get credit for what didn`t happen. But that`s the whole objective of counterterrorism so I think -- SHARPTON: But Congressman, we just heard the FBI director say, and you repeat, they are told if they can`t get to the states or can`t get someone else to kill people where you are? HIGGINS: That`s what you`re hearing and that`s a major problem. I think the good thing is, in this case and in others, local law enforcement agencies working with federal law enforcement agencies they are able to thwart terrorist activity before it`s actually executed. But we have to remain vigilant. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak. They seek to instill fear and provoke and overreaction. SHARPTON: Michael, how do we evaluate if these men pose a serious threat? SHEEHAN: Well, it`s hard to say whether they really were threat here domestically but clearly they were intent to go overseas, at least one of them that we know of, to go overseas and join ISIS which we know it is brutal, heinous organization, that is murdered this in lately this American young girl, this aid worker. It`s a horrible organization. And what would they could have done back here, it`s hard to say. We might want to laugh about what they would try to do to the president, obviously, be hard to get the President Obama but as you know, Revered Al, they do something down at Coney Island on a Sunday afternoon in Summer, it wouldn`t take much with handgun or something else to wreak havoc down there. So we have to take these things very seriously. SHARPTON: Now, some of the details, Congressman, in the criminal complaint are just downright scary. It states that in a recorded conversation, one of the defendants said he could, quote, "always open fire on American soldiers and kill as many of them as possible." And, quote, "I will just go and buy a machine gun, AK-47, go out and shoot all police." I mean, how serious of a threat was this? HIGGINS: It`s a very, very serious threat and that`s -- you know, it`s good that our law enforcement agencies are monitoring the activities of these individuals and tracking their activity as well to ensure that whatever plot they are contemplating is not actually executed. At a time when we`re dealing right here in Congress with the homeland security budget that`s being held hostage for external issues, this is inexcusable. The fact of the matter is the Department of Homeland Security was created in the aftermath of 9/11 to prepare the nation for these kinds of things and to be agile so that we can address the evolution of terrorist activity. Now we`re seeing that not only is there terrorist activity in other countries, but the leaders of those groups, ISIS in particular, are encouraging their followers to execute terrorist activity home-grown terrorist activities. So getting that funding to law enforcement agencies that they keep continues to monitor the activities of these individuals is very, very important to the nation security. So it is incomprehensible that you have any question three days out from the expiration of a budget that you`re not going to have a Department of Homeland Security funded. SHARPTON: Now, Michael, other details exist these were not criminal masterminds. Because the criminal complaint says that 19-year-old defendant told a criminal in former, quote, "he had wanted to travel to Syria to wage jihad but that his mother had feared that he would do so and took his passport. So his mother suspected. I mean, what does that say to you, that they weren`t hiding this plan very well? SHEEHAN: Yes, clearly, Reverend Al, these weren`t clever master minds but that`s not necessarily that important. I wrote a book about Al Qaeda and terrorisms. So I`ve been following these people for 15 years. One of my chapters was called killers and bunglers. They can be both at the same time and they are often all right, I`ve studied a history of their attacks where they can be vicious killers and be successful in killing dozens of persons and be basically idiots at the same time. So even though some of these people don`t look like people that you might suspect that have all types of capabilities as a terrorist, they can still be very, very dangerous because it doesn`t take much to pick up a gun and go into a crowd and start blasting people if you`re committed to do so. So we have to attack each one of these people very, very seriously. SHARPTON: You know, a top spokesman for ISIS has repeatedly called for attacks on westerners, Congressman. In September, he said in a video that ISIS supporters should target Americans or Europeans. And in January he said, quote, "Target the crusaders in their own lands." Who are they trying to reach with these kinds of messages, Congressman? HIGGINS: They`re trying to reach the people that they`ve radicalized through their propaganda machines and you know, in today`s information technology there`s reaching frequency, reaching people who five years ago could not be reached. These are people that are disaffected, these are people as the FBI director said, have no real life, you know, worth living here and they are promised an afterlife if they join in the Islamic jihad. So this is a major component, a relatively new component that the federal law enforcement agencies and local law enforcement agencies have to work with to get. A lot of the tips, you mentioned, family members pulling passports, a lot of the tips that are most valuable in thwarting these terrorist activities come from the communities within which these people live. They come from family members that understand that their family members are disaffected and becoming radicalized and they tip off law enforcement agencies. So I think, you know, this network of law enforcement, of community engagement is very, very important toward the goal of stopping home-grown terrorism. SHARPTON: Michael, how do they reach out with Twitter and social media to people that are with them or sympathetic to them? SHEEHAN: Well, these terrorist organizations have often used different types of communication. There are people, Al-Qaeda used the magazine "Inspire" and for years they have called for home-grown to take attack. What ISIS has done is taken it to another level by taking advantage of Twitter and facebook, which Al-Qaeda never did. So they have some very sophisticated folks over there that are right on the cutting edge of anything that any of our teenagers that we know can do. And so they have used those social media to reach out to more and more people around the world, looking for the disaffected, or pushing their agenda, their narrative to come join their crusade to create the caliphate, to join their effort, to join and if you die, you`ll be God. It`s a very powerful narrative for those that are wandering aimlessly and they`re now using sophisticated methods of communication of social media in a very effective way. SHARPTON: Congressman Brian Higgins and Michael Sheehan, thank you both for your time tonight. SHEEHAN: Thank you. HIGGINS: Thanks very much for having me. SHARPTON: Still ahead, President Obama calls out the GOP for playing politics with the national security at a special MSNBC Town Hall. You`ll want to hear what he says about the GOP and immigration. Also, do Chicago police have a secret warehouse where they take suspects for off the books interrogations? We`ll talk to this man`s lawyer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) We were never booked. We were never processed. That`s essentially what this place, home square, is. It`s a domestic black site. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Also, Hillary Clinton`s new plan for a historic presidential run in 2016. And new call to kick ISIS off Twitter. "Conversation Nation" is ahead. SHARPTON: It`s an exciting night. My colleague, Jose Diaz-Balart, moderated an immigration town hall with President Obama today. It airs tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on MSNBC. Straight ahead, a sneak peak with President Obama`s message to Republicans holding hand homeland security funding hostage over his immigration action. That`s next. SHARPTON: Tonight, President Obama is calling out Republicans for holding homeland security funding hostage to their tax on his actions on immigration. It came during a special MSNBC Town Hall event on immigration with the president hosted by my colleague Jose Diaz-Balart. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Instead of trying to hold hostage funding for the Department of Homeland Security which is so important for our national security, fund that and let`s get on with actually passing conference of immigration reform. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: We`re now just two days away from a homeland security shutdown. And today, Senate Republicans showed they know it`s a political loser for the GOP holding an initial vote on a homeland security funding bill that doesn`t assault the president`s executive actions. Now all is needed is leadership from the House Republicans. So what kind of bold action will we see from Speaker Boehner? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I`m waiting for the Senate to act. Until the Senate does something, we`re in a wait and see mode. I`m waiting for the Senate to pass a bill. We`re waiting for the Senate to act. I`m waiting for the Senate to pass a bill. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Is Congress going to avoid a shutdown of DHS? BOEHNER: I`m waiting for the Senate to act. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: He`s waiting. Instead of standing up to the far right driving the shutdown frenzy, one right-wing congressman told reporters, quote, "the base would be extremely angry if House Republicans voted for funding without attacking immigration." He wasn`t alone. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JIM JORDAN (R), OHIO: But we also took an oath to uphold the Constitution, we know in our hearts this is unconstitutional. How can you fund something you know is unconstitutional? REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: There`s no way on God`s green earth that I`m going to support any effort to fund illegal conduct. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Will conservatives really shut down the agency charged with protecting the homeland so they can mount a political attack on immigrants? Joining me now is Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, Democrat of Missouri and MSNBC Contributor Maria Teresa Kumar. Thank you both for being here. REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER (D), MISSOURI: Good to be here, Revered. MARIA TERESA KUMAR, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Revered. SHARPTON: Congressman Clever, what are you hearing from House Republicans, how far they`re willing to push this? CLEAVER: Well, as usual, there is a great divide in the Republican conference. I was speaking earlier today with a Republican who said to me that he would like to vote on a clean bill but he said that there was one section of the party -- and I think we know the section -- that is under no circumstance willing to vote on a clean bill. They believe that they have to be faithful and true to their constituency, which says, that at all costs, fight the president. And at all costs, make sure that you don`t seed any ground on the issue of emigration. So we got 48 hours to go and it looks like, unless the speaker brings a clean bill to the floor, we`re going to end up with a shutdown and that`s 2,266 jobs in Missouri that will go away at least until something is done. SHARPTON: That`s in Missouri alone. CLEAVER: Just in Missouri. SHARPTON: Maria, you met with the president today at the White House, what did you hear from him? KUMAR: He made it very clear that this whole idea of defunding or basically stopping DHS was a political football and putting people`s lives in danger. And he also went with -- he also was very clear that this is only a temporary stay that, in reality, the judge that decided to rule against putting a halt on his executive action is very much an activist judge. And his hope is that not only they`re going to be able to move forward, but he also basically dealing with either things that we can do right now, that he`s going to continue doing with his executive action. While it doesn`t provide relief for the duck and job extension for families, it does provide the authority for DHS to prioritize the individuals that they do apprehend. Meaning that we have to take that with his executive action, he changes the immigration policy going after felons and true criminals and not tearing up families. SHARPTON: Congressman, House Republicans stuck to their ugly rhetoric on the president`s immigration actions. It came at a House hearing today. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R), VIRGINIA: President Obama announced one of the biggest constitutional power grabs ever by a president. It`s a clear violation of his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws. REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R), TEXAS: As a good monarch would do, the president spoke the law into existence. REP. TREY GOWDY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: One of the largest extra constitutional acts ever by a chief executive. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, Congressman, we are facing three arrests in New York today, we`re facing all kinds of threats and we`re hearing this kind of partisan anti-president, anti-immigration kind of rhetoric while we are two days away from a shutdown on homeland security. I mean, at what point do this hurt them in their own party standing with their own constituents when security is at stake here, Congressman? CLEAVER: I think there`s a small group of people who would like to have the department of homeland security shut down. But I think the majority of the mayor, because I understand what happened today with the arrest, they understand what ISIS is doing, they understand that people are recruiting people out of Europe and the United States to come into the Middle East and work with ISIS. But one of the things that I want to say to the people who are listening to the show, I`m looking at the show, Reverend, all those people with the blue uniforms on the airports -- SHARPTON: Right. CLEAVER: By Friday, those people will not be able to work. And keep in mind, those are not federal employees. These are private people working for a company that has a contract with the United States Federal Government. And so we`re expecting these private employers -- employees to go to work without getting paid and those jobs are dangerous jobs because they are. KUMAR: That`s correct. SHARPTON: As in the airport, Maria, an airport today with someone was arrested suspected of terrorism. What I`m trying to say here is while they`re arguing about the president`s immigration action, it`s at a time of heightened concern and we`re talking about home land security and though they`re working. KUMAR: That`s exactly right, Reverend. What`s happening right now is that Congress is hijacking at the American people`s safety by making sure that they are strapping homeland security and not funding them fully because at the end of the day, what they don`t seem to like is the idea that the president has extended a reprieve. And this is a temporary reprieve. This is not a law but a reprieve on millions of immigrant families and saying until Congress does their job, which is to pass the legislation, until then, we`re going to give millions of people a reprieve so they can breathe, they can breathe come out of the shadows and actually be able to do their -- lead their daily lives. SHARPTON: Right. KUMAR: And what they`re doing is instead is that they are deciding that they`re going to hijack the American people`s safety over petty politics and that`s not acceptable. SHARPTON: And Congressman, it is just a reprieve but we`re talking about homeland security. We`re talking about funding homeland security, people who work at airports, people that work in vital places. I get that they don`t like the president. I got that. But I mean, do we love America? CLEAVER: Well, I think a lot of this as I think Americas are beginning to see, is irrational. KUMAR: Right. CLEAVER: And I think some of it is based exclusively on the president. Under normal circumstances, nobody would do something this dumb. This is not the parks and recreations department we`re playing around with. This is the homeland security department at a time when terror is on the minds of people in every spot on this globe. And we are over here playing around with ideology and jeopardizing the American security. SHARPTON: Maria, do you see in any way that Mr. Boehner, the speaker, may back down? I mean, he`s backed down before we went to the physical cliff, he back down. Is there any hope that maybe he would see the impact of this and back down and take a clean bill to the floor? KUMAR: Boehner is an old-school politician. He sees the writing on the wall. He understands what basically what is at stake. His difficulty is he has such a split party and its reconciling those differences but at the end of the day, Speaker Boehner, the American people urge him to do the right thing and that is, think of America first and partisan second. CLEAVER: Agree. SHARPTON: Congressman Cleaver, Maria Teresa Kumar, thank you both for your time tonight. CLEAVER: Thank you, Revered. KUMAR: Thank you, Revered. SHARPTON: And catch MSNBC special town hall with President Obama hosted by Jose Diaz-Balart, tonight at 8:00 eastern. Coming up, is getting all the headlines today. Does Hillary Clinton have a new strategy for 2016? And a striking report, alleging a secret interrogation facility used for police brutality in Chicago. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: New accusations tonight about Chicago police holding suspects at a secret warehouse off the books. But is it true? We`ll talk to the lawyer for a man who says he experienced it firsthand. Also, buzz about how Hillary Clinton could be planning a historic campaign in 2016. And a positive move from former President Bush that shows just how far his party has fallen on voting rights. That`s all ahead, stay with us. SHARPTON: We`re back with a startling report by The Guardian Newspaper detailing what some are calling a black site in Chicago. A secret interrogation facility used by the police. The site is known Chicago Police Department facility, a warehouse called Homan Square, used for sensitive police work. "The Guardian" report is raising questions about possible constitutional rights violations by the police. Some of the alleged practices that took place there include keeping arrestees from being officially booked, beating by police, shackling for long periods, holding people without legal counsel for 12 to 24 hours. At least one man was found unresponsive and later pronounced dead. One victim is speaking out. Brian Jacob Church was taken to Homan Square after protesting a NATO Summit in 2012. Here`s what he told "The Guardian." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: When they first arrested us, they took us to this building. We were never booked. We were never processed. I was in -- I was in Homan Square for about 17 hours and handcuffed to the bench for four hours actually finally allowed to see an attorney. That`s essentially what this place, Homan Square is. It`s a domestic black site. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: NBC News can`t confirm "The Guardian" report. We contacted the Chicago Police Department and they strongly refuted telling us in part, quote, "The allegation that physical violence is a part of interviews with suspects is unequivocally false, it is offensive and it is not supported by any facts whatsoever." Joining me now is noted Chicago civil rights Attorney Flint Taylor whose firm represents Brian Jacob Church. Thank you for being here tonight. FLINT TAYLOR, CHICAGO CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: It`s a pleasure to be with you, Reverend Al. SHARPTON: Now, first of all, do you believe this "Guardian" report is accurate? TAYLOR: It seems to me that the reporter did a very thorough job in talking to various lawyers here in Chicago, to talking to other people that had knowledge of the place and talking to our client Brian Church. Brian Church, of course, was the person you just had on the air through the videotape. And it`s anecdotal in a sense that we`re putting together and he`s starting to put together all of these pieces that have been sitting out there over the years. And Reverend, as someone who has been working the civil rights cases for 45 years and have spent many, many days looking for clients back in the old days when they would ship them to one place and then ship them to another and keep them from their family and their lawyers and then we ultimately learned that some of them were tortured by Jon Burge, the notorious torture here in Chicago. SHARPTON: You are certainly at the forefront of the Burge case and a lot of things that I`m aware of but what can you tell us about Homan Square where these alleged abuses are said to have occurred? TAYLOR: Well, it seems to me that what they have done is to centralize what they used to do more ad hoc in terms of taking people places, to other police stations other than where they tell the family they were taken them to do their interrogations without lawyers and without family present. Now they deny that there was any physical abuse in any of this cases. While we have to look at all of them. What has come out already is one person claims that he was beaten. Another person ended up dead. Our client ended up shackled. SHARPTON: One lawyer interviewed by "The Guardian" told them that it`s sort of an open secret among attorneys that regularly make police station visits, this place, if you can`t find a client in the system, odds are they are there. Have you experienced this in your own experience as an attorney? TAYLOR: I hadn`t experienced that myself but as I said my law partners did and the people that go there regularly, and that`s this organization called first defense legal aid here in Chicago -- SHARPTON: Right. TAYLOR: They supply volunteer attorneys to go and look for and to represent people who are witnesses and suspects and defendants in cases and they are the ones who we are finding out that this was happening and they are the ones who are saying it was an open secret and they are the ones who aren`t being listened to locally when they tried to talk about it. SHARPTON: All right. So you`ve heard the denial that I`ve read from the police. How do you respond to that, Flint Taylor, as a well-respected civil rights attorney? TAYLOR: Well, the first thing I would say is, you have to take what the Chicago Police Department says and has said in the past very, very suspiciously. They denied for many years that Jon Burge was torturing people, they always denied that people were wrongfully shot here. They are always in a denial mode and this is Chicago and Chicago is a place where violence by the police has always run rampant, that were unconstitutional actions, particularly when it comes to the criminal justice system and when it comes to poor and minority suspects and defendants, that is a regular run of the mill thing that has happened and I believe it`s still happening to some degree here and I don`t take their denials at face value and I think there has to be much more investigation as to what has been happening and is happening at this site. SHARPTON: All right. Well, we will certainly stay on top of this and we`re going to be watching this. Flint Taylor, thank you so much for your time tonight. TAYLOR: My pleasure. SHARPTON: And a full statement from the Chicago Police Department is on our website, MSNBC.com/POLITICSNATION. Coming up, Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul and Marc Anthony all in POLITICS NATION. That`s next. SHARPTON: It`s time for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, radio host Stephanie Miller, democratic strategist Jimmy Williams and Tara Dowdell. Thank you all for being here tonight. JIMMY WILLIAMS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you. STEPHANIE MILLER, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: Thank you. TARA DOWDELL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: We start with Hillary Clinton. After her big speech in the Silicon Valley, headlines are popping up across the country and many say Clinton is ready to run with an overt call to women. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: When women`s participation is limited, our country`s prosperity is limited, too. There is a special spot in hell for women who don`t help other women. So -- (APPLAUSE) -- what you do does not have to be big and dramatic. You don`t have to run for office. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) Although, if you do, more power to you. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Stephanie, it may seem obvious, but a lot of people are talking about the strong pitch Hilary made directly to women last night. Smart strategy? MILLER: Yes. I mean, I think absolutely. I think -- you know, and by the way, I will be one of the women helping other women like Hilary Clinton get elected. I think we are ready and I think once again the republicans are helping in their own special way. There was a republican legislator that actually he`s an anti-choice guy that actually asked a doctor at a hearing why women can`t swallow a camera to have a gynecological exam. So, their understanding of ladies and their lady bits I think is also going to help Hillary. SHARPTON: Wow! You know, Tara, I couldn`t help but when she used the Madeleine Albright statement or quote, there`s a special place in hell, I mean, she seems more aggressively going after women this time. DOWDELL: And I think that is a smart strategy and she`s absolutely right. There is a special place in hell. I totally with that as a woman business owner. But I will say this, I think it is a smart strategy, people want to see Hillary Clinton be more progressive. Particularly, progressives. And so I think anything that she does to emphasize her progressive bona fides as well as not just talk about it but back it up with policy proposals, I think that is going to help her. I think what she does need to do, though, is draw a better parallel which I think the Democratic Party has not done as well, draw a stronger parallel between economic issues and women`s issues. Tying them together in a better way because they are connected. So, I think that`s another piece of the puzzle that has to come with her boulder strategy. SHARPTON: Galvanizing the base and allies might be strong, Jimmy because you know once she announces, if in fact she does, the republicans are going to come after her big-time. WILLIAMS: And that`s the inherent problem, is it, the flaw. The problem with that, that vessel which is, if they in fact go after her, it`s going to be very hard for them to thread the needle of not seeming anti-women, of not attacking a woman, of not going after at the dinner table or at the business lunch Hillary Clinton and then a woman at that table, a business woman or mother or their spouse saying, whoa, what`s up with you with all this anti-woman? Where is this hate coming from? And that`s a vein that they have to be very careful of. They will trip over this, they`ll trip over and over again, I promise you they will. SHARPTON: Does she have to be careful, Stephanie though, in terms of her own allies, that you have some progressives that are questioning her? I talked to Senator Elizabeth Warren on this show about that last night. And you have some in the minority communities, particularly blacks, that still have some memories of 2008. Doesn`t she also have to deal with her allies without stumbling? MILLER: Well, I agree, Reverend. Those are good points that you raised. But, you know, I think that we know that she just met with Elizabeth Warren, we know that Elizabeth Warren was one of the Senate women that sign the letter urging her to run and -- SHARPTON: She wasn`t that enthusiastic last night on POLITICS NATION. MILLER: Well, and you always have the breaking news, Rev. But I think Hillary is smart enough to know that she needs that constituency, she certainly needs all the minority community. But I was going to say there was a study just done about how much more women in the Senate are getting done than their male colleagues, and in terms of bipartisanship and all of that, and I think the country is beyond ready for that right now. SHARPTON: Tara? DOWDELL: Well, I think one area where she can unite her allies, again, when I get back to these economic issues, when you look at black women in particular, particularly black woman business owners, small business owners, we have difficulty accessing capital through banks, through financing, things like that, that`s becoming a really big issue. SHARPTON: Yes. DOWDELL: And all women have it. But it is particularly a queue for black woman business owners. And that`s an area where she can take up the mantel and that will help with these unemployment numbers in our community. So areas like that, finding ways to bridge the gaps between all women is where she needs to be focusing because there are particular issues that I think will be popular with everyone but she needs to drill down and say it, you know, call it out. These are issues that affect black women. SHARPTON: We got to do it from straight policies. Jimmy, next up, could family members be a political liability? Former republican Congressman Ron Paul, the father of potential presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul is raising eyebrows for this recent interview. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I was always annoyed with it in Congress because we had an anti-war unofficial group, the few libertarian republicans and generally the black caucus and others did not -- they are really against war because they want all of that money to go to food stamps for people here. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, Ron Paul is not running for his office but his comments are offensive and could potentially damage his son`s ambitions. Jimmy, we know family members can be a political liability. WILLIAMS: Sure. SHARPTON: But should they be? WILLIAMS: We seem to have another Uncle Cray Cray coming out of the GOP a boughs of hell these days. And this one`s name is Ron Paul. Ron Paul will have at some point. By the way, every republican running for president is going to have to answer this question. Set aside the dinosaurs, set aside evolution, set aside all of that. Ron Paul has a massive following, especially among libertarians. And by the way, Rand Paul, his son, has a big following amongst millennials. He`s going to have to have an answer for this particular thing. And by the way, I would like to see democrats take on Ron Paul for saying this because not only is it offensive, this isn`t even dog whistling. This is kicking the dog. SHARPTON: Yes. WILLIAMS: It is beyond offensive. In fact, what he said is immoral, it`s unchristian. SHARPTON: Tara, does Senator Rand Paul have to answer for his father`s words? DOWDELL: Well, I`ve never been of the school of thought that we should hold against any candidate, things that people say that they don`t say themselves. But I will say this, the real issue for Rand Paul is Rand Paul. Ran Paul has some very dubious and highly suspect ties to some white nationalists` organizations that sort of now are calling themselves libertarian groups. But they were white nationalists` organizations. He`s also said things himself on the record that was racial. SHARPTON: All right. But Stephanie, I want to dig in quickly, do we hold candidates responsible for family members? MILLER: Well, in this case, I mean, he has echoed a lot of this stuff. He had a guy named Southern Avenger that was on his campaign stuff. He said to Rachel on your own network that he`s not so sure about the `64 civil rights act. So, he has his own problems and he also has his dad`s genetic trait where you`ll be listing and going, oh, that makes sense. That`s good. Wait. What? That was crazy. SHARPTON: All right. MILLER: So, I mean, he`s been part of his dad`s campaigns. He will have to answer for it. SHARPTON: Everybody stay with me. When we come back, how to deal with ISIS on twitter? And Marc Anthony`s surprising comments about his looks. SHARPTON: We`re back with our panel, Stephanie, Jimmy and Tara. Should ISIS be banned from twitter? The FBI director spoke today about how ISIS is recruiting members through social media. Now on republican congressmen say ISIS shouldn`t be banned from social media. Tara, should twitter ban anyone supporting ISIS? DOWDELL: Well, this is a very interesting question. Because law enforcement have been using social media rather effectively to stop all kinds of criminals including terrorists. And some terrorists have given away their locations by using social media. So this is a tricky one. And at the same time, the other dynamic is, I have friends who work in humanitarian missions across the world. A lot of times they follow these groups to find out where and where not to go when they are doing humanitarian missions. So I think this is a tricky one. We have to be careful. I don`t think we should jump to any conclusions too quickly on this front. SHARPTON: Jimmy? WILLIAMS: I have to agree. The first amendment, I mean, it doesn`t apply, obviously, to terrorists and to ISIS. But at the end of the day, I mean, our intelligence community should have the ability to go after them. If you ban them from it, guess what, they couldn`t just find out it other way, they always do, they`re like good, really bad lawyers, right? They go and find another loophole. They`ll find another way to recruit and that`s what they`ll do. So, keep it open and then we just follow them. SHARPTON: Stephanie, should we ban ISIS or people relating to ISIS from twitter? MILLER: It is a tough question. It`s a little close to -- you know, yelling fire in a crowded theater but I do agree that, you know, I think the President`s strategy of trying to win hearts and minds and not giving them religious legitimacy by, you know, using certain words, because as your other guests say, they are going to find other ways. I call it anti- social media because I hate technology. So I`m against -- we have to shut the whole thing down. SHARPTON: All right. Finally, can parents be too honest with their kids? Singer Marc Anthony says, his father offered him some tough love as a child that always stuck with him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARC ANTHONY, SINGER: My dad told me early on, he said, son, we`re both ugly. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: He did not. ANTHONY: I swear. He says it to this day. And he said, you work on your personality. (LAUGHTER) It builds character. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Didn`t that hurt your feelings? ANTHONY: Absolutely not. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: No? ANTHONY: No. Because I was born looking at his face and he was right. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Stephanie, too honest? MILLER: I feel his pain because my 92-year-old republican mom once said on national television that I was ugly as a child and that I`ve had a lot of work done. SHARPTON: On national television? MILLER: Yes. And I don`t know if you know, but my dad ran with Barry Goldwater in `64 and I think she thinks he wouldn`t have lost in a landslide if I been just a wee bit more attractive. So I feel his pain on that. SHARPTON: Tara? DOWDELL: I`m a big believer in leveling with your kids. I don`t know if I would do that kind of leveling with my kids but I remember definitely being told myself about being way to skinny, having a big head. So, there`s something to be said -- I work really hard now as a result. SHARPTON: Jimmy? WILLIAMS: Just love your child and honestly it will all work out in the end. It`s just that simple. SHARPTON: Well, I`ve ran for office and I was always honest with my two daughters that the best television is POLITICS NATION. WILLIAMS: That`s true. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: Stephanie, Jimmy and Tara, thanks for joining the conversation. We`ll be right back. WILLIAMS: Thank you. MILLER: Thanks, Rev. DOWDELL: Thanks. SHARPTON: Today we learned that former President George W. Bush will join President Obama and thousands more in Selma next month to mark 50 years since bloody Sunday. It was a turning point in the civil rights movement. Police attacking protesters with their tear gas and Billy clubs. As they crossed the Edmond Bridge, the outrage over these images helped build support for the voting rights act of 1965. That act was signed by President Johnson. But since then, it`s been repeatedly renewed by GOP presidents, President Nixon in 1970, Ford in 1975, Reagan in 1982 and President Bush in 2006 after passing in the Senate 98 to zero. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FMR. PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH (R), UNITED STATES: It`s been four decades since the voting rights act was first passed, we`ve made progress. Toward equality, you have to work for a more perfect union is never ending. I am proud to sign the voting rights act reauthorization and amendments act of 2006. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Voting should not be a partisan issue and right now in Congress it`s time for lawmakers to put politics aside and restore the voting rights act which was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013. I will also be watching as I join others that day in Selma next month to see if republican leaders will come and make that commitment as President Bush comes. I was there when President Bush resigned, renewed the act in 2006. We were against his war but stood with him as he signed that act. I hope republicans do the same this year. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022501cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 117 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 25, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 25, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Jose Diaz-Balart, David Corn GUESTS: Cristina Jimenez SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7258 words HIGHLIGHT: President Obama held a town hall on immigration moderated by MSNBC`s Jose Diaz-Balart. FOX News has not said anything about their flagship host issuing threats to reporters at other news organizations. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Wow, this is a big night here at MSNBC. Thank you for joining us tonight. What you just saw was President Obama with Jose Diaz-Balart, for both Telemundo and MSNBC. That conversation just happening at Florida International University in Miami. President Obama I think making news in a bunch of ways in that appearance. This is my take on what just happened. I think he made a bunch of news. And not just for his super inflammatory accusation that Jose dyes his hair. Rest assured we will get to the bottom of that outrage. President Obama also tonight in his appearance is taking a direct shot at likely 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush. I`m not sure I`ve ever heard him talk about Jeb Bush before tonight. But he did so directly tonight in a very negative way. That was a bit of a shock. President Obama tonight also saying bluntly, and with -- for him what counts as a lot of emotion, that it is the Republican Party specifically that is to blame for why this hasn`t been immigration reform in the country. He said it is the Republicans` faults specifically, calling Republicans out by name. And the president also tonight got mad twice by my count at questions suggesting that he and the Democrats share some of the blame with the Republicans, the president totally rejecting that tonight. President Obama tonight weighing in on the current drama in Washington as we speak. I don`t think he has done this before. This appearance with Jose that he just did. But tonight, the president flat-out dared Republicans in Congress to take a vote, to try to pass a bill on whether or not his own actions as president on the issues of immigration were legal. The president tonight explicitly dared the Republican Party to take that vote. And he said if such a vote passed, quote, "I will veto that." President Obama also making this tonight, not just on the politics, but on the substance, and this is the first sound byte I want to play here. The president got this very intense question, emotionally powerful moment at this event, when a wounded Afghanistan war vet posed this direct question to him. The president responded personally to this young vet on his direct question. But then I think he also made some news for the whole country in terms of what he said next. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC NARVAEZ, U.S. ARMY VETERAN: When I was 17, I joined the U.S. Army. Actually, my mom had to sign because I was so young. My 18th birthday I would spend in basic training. And my 21st birthday was spent in Afghanistan. And I was actually shot at on my birthday. You know, I came back. I`m a wounded warrior. I was medically discharged from the military in 2011. And I come back home and only to find out that I`m fighting another war with my mother trying to keep her here. So, I just want to ask you, Mr. President, if there has to be some kind of gray area for a situation like this, because I put in a lot of time and I love this country and I just feel like if it wasn`t for her signing those papers, I would never have been able to join this great American army. So, I want to ask you if there`s any way that situation could be -- could be handled a little better. OBAMA: Well, first of all, let me just say thank you, Eric, for your incredible service to our country. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: I`m confident that your mother qualifies under the executive action program that I`ve put forward. Right now, the judge has blocked us initiating the program where she can come and sign up and get registered. But in the meantime, part of the message that I`m sending is, if you qualified for the executive action that I put forward, then we`re still going to make sure that your mom is not prioritized in terms of enforcement. And, you know, she should feel confident about that. So, I just want to assure her short-term. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Obama making some news tonight here on MSNBC, saying that even though a federal judge in Texas has blocked his executive action, that would have protected from deportation people like this young wounded veteran`s mother, even though that new program is blocked right now by that federal judge in Texas, President Obama tonight said that he has still taken action despite that judge`s ruling basically to de-prioritize deportation proceedings against people like that guy`s mom, against people who would qualify for that program, if that program were allowed to be in effect. This is going to make Republicans nuts, right? I mean, this is the president effectively saying, that he is making this change in U.S. immigration policy. He is making it. Even though they are so mad about it in Washington, and even though that federal judge has formally blocked his actions. This is President Obama saying he`s going to do it with his executive authority to decide what becomes an enforcement priority or not, regardless of the Republicans being so mad, and regardless of that federal judge. Wow. He also went on at the end of that specific Q&A to say that his previous executive action on immigration was called DACA is not blocked by what this Texas judge just did. He said, there are hundreds of thousands of kids and young people who qualify for that previous executive action. And the president tonight encouraged them to all come forward and get legal status right now. This also is going to make Republicans crazy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Those who already signed up, you need to understand that has not been challenged in court. What`s also important is we still have several hundred thousand young people who qualify for that original executive action back in 2012 who have not yet taken advantage of it, and now is the time for all of you to take advantage of it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: In Washington, the Republicans thought if they showed sufficient anger about President Obama`s executive actions on immigration, he would back off, change his mind, or at least get less aggressive about acting on his own. Well, their actions have seemed to have the opposite effect. Here`s the part where he dared them to say what he has already done on his own terms is illegal. He dared them to act on that. And these comments from the president tonight, this is about what`s going on in Washington right now as we speak. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: We`re going to be as aggressive as we can, because not only do we know the law is on our side, but history is on our side. In the meantime, what we said to the Republicans is, instead of trying to hold hostage funding for the Department of Homeland Security which is so important for our national security, fund that and let`s get on with actually passing comprehensive immigration reform. So, in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I`m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I`m absolutely confident that what we`re doing is the right thing to do. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Obama tonight daring Republicans to take a vote, specifically on blocking him on immigration, saying, quote, "I will veto that", if it passes. The president tonight also showing a little bit of temper when Jose Diaz-Balart and the questioners at this town hall repeatedly questioned whether President Obama himself and the Democratic Party, not just the Republicans, but the Democrats, too, could have done more to try to get immigration fixed. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSE DIAZ-BALART, MSNBC HOST: Owen from Houston said, "Why do the Democrats and GOP play political ping-pong when American families suffer as a result?" (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: Wait, wait, wait. I appreciate the applause. Let me just say, that`s just not true -- the notion that Democrats and Republicans play political ping-pong. Democrats have consistently stood on the side of comprehensive immigration reform. (APPLAUSE) Democrats have provided strong majorities across the board for comprehensive immigration reform. And you do a disservice when you suggest that, ah, nobody was focused on this, because then you don`t know who`s fighting for you and who`s fighting against you. But let`s not be confused about why we don`t have comprehensive immigration reform right now. It`s very simple. The Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner refused to call the bill. Had he called the bill, the overwhelming majority of Democrats, and a handful of Republicans, would have provided the majority in order to get that done. DIAZ-BALART: Mr. President, I want to -- (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: It`s one of a couple of times tonight that President Obama got sort of visibly exasperated by the suggestion that Republicans and Democrats somehow share the blame for immigration not getting fixed while he has been president. He also tonight -- this is interesting 2016 politics here -- President Obama tonight also took a question in Spanish about whether Jeb Bush, who has a pretty good chance of being the Republican nominee for president in 2016, he was asked whether Jeb Bush might be a cause for hope on the Republican side, because of his relatively more moderate position on the issue of immigration reform. He`s in fact championed comprehensive immigration reform in the past. Is that a cause for hope? President Obama was having none of that. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I appreciate Mr. Bush being concerned about immigration reform. I would suggest that what he do is talk to the speaker of the house and the members of his party because the fact of the matter is that - - (APPLAUSE) OBAM: -- even after we pass bipartisan legislation in the Senate, I gave the Republicans a year and a half -- a year and a half -- to just call the bill. We had the votes. They wouldn`t do it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Obama taking a bit of a shot at Jeb Bush tonight, saying he appreciates that Jeb Bush says he`s concerned about immigration reform, but when it came time to actually get it done, he didn`t lift a finger with his own party to actually get it done, when it actually could have been possible. So like I said, the president made a lot of news tonight. Even before he got to the part about Jose`s hair -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The people who are least likely to vote are young people. So, young people, you need to think ahead, too. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: When we work on these issues, most of us -- I`m going to include Jose -- I`m going to include Jose in the category of being old. DIAZ-BALART: We`re the same age. OBAMA: He looks a little better because, you know, I don`t dye my hair. But -- DIAZ-BALART: I know. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: I`m messing with him. DIAZ-BALART: Well, it`s called "the Obama". OBAMA: No, no, man, that`s natural. That`s natural. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Usually, these -- the presidential forum things, town hall things are an opportunity for everybody to repeat their talking points, right? Tonight was not like that. Tonight was a friendly version of it. But it was basically rock `em sock `em robots with Jose Diaz-Balart and President Obama down at FIU in Miami. Joining us now is Jose Diaz-Balart. Congratulations, Jose, on this event. You made a ton of news tonight. Congratulations. DIAZ-BALART: Thank you, Rachel. Thank you so very much. (LAUGHTER) DIAZ-BALART: It was a night of hair color, and a whole lot more. And you know what, Rachel? One of the real privileges of being able to do this tonight with the president was that we were able to ask questions that a lot of people have on their minds, and don`t often get a chance to ask. My staff went through -- combed through hundreds, hundreds of questions on our Facebook and Twitter, Instagram accounts in Spanish, and in English, and we were able to distill some of the questions that we brought to the president. And you know what, sometimes, it may seem as though it`s uncomfortable to ask questions of the president, questions that aren`t normally asked. MADDOW: Mm-hmm. DIAZ-BALART: And the fact is that it was really a privilege to be able to do that. And I felt that he was very open tonight. I think that as you say, he was very combative, and I think he said some very clear delineations about what he believes and how he believes thing. I think it was very interesting that he said that he was still optimistic that maybe immigration reform could be achieved within the two years that he has left of his administration. There are so many subjects that we talked upon -- touched upon tonight, even though it was focused on immigration, and so many stories of real people, because, Rachel, when it`s all said and done, when we`re talking about immigration and immigration reform, it`s not just numbers, and it`s not just politics, and it`s not just how did the president do, it`s also about people, people who are directly affected by this, people whose mother and father are in danger of being deported as we speak. We mentioned tonight on that town hall someone who said that their husband was deported just last week as he was getting his papers in order. I think that it was an important opportunity for the president to speak clearly, and he did so. MADDOW: Jose, let me ask you about one of those personal back-and- forths that the president had, the first question you took in person from the audience. The young veteran who is wounded in Afghanistan, medically discharged from the Army, talked about having signed up when he was so young his mom had to sign off and OK him signing up. DIAZ-BALART: Yes. MADDOW: And then he said, yes, I came home from fighting that war, now the new war I`m fighting is trying to keep my mother from being deported. When the president answered that very, very intense question, I`ve got to ask if you think he made some news there when he said, I think your mother should know that she`s safe, that she is the person we are de- emphasizing in terms of enforcement priority, that even though this judge blocked this program, we will still not be deporting somebody who`s in her shoes. Was that news to you? DIAZ-BALART: Yes, it certainly was. And then the follow-up, which was -- well, where are the consequences and what are the consequences if people don`t agree to do what you have asked them to do in the federal government? Because, Rachel, the fact is, that last week, somebody was deported when they were going through their paperwork through legalization, because they had married an American citizen. They had a child together in this country. And they were deported just last week. Are there consequences to the president`s decisions and orders? And I think he was very clear tonight that there will be, and that he`s very, very categorical on, that this is not a position to take just for politics, even though I pushed him on it, because it was one of the most requested questions that I received, which was, folks asks me, when is it going to be not about politics, and about people. MADDOW: Jose Diaz-Balart, host of "THE RUNDOWN", weekday mornings on MSNBC, also an anchor of Telemundo. DIAZ-BALART: Rachel, can I just tell you one last thing? MADDOW: Yes? DIAZ-BALART: I don`t know if you have HD at home. But can we zoom in on this? There is what I call the Obama color, which is his salt and pepper hair. That`s exactly what I have. Did you see that? MADDOW: Are you saying that you do dye your hair but dye it to look like his? Or are you saying you`re denying the whole dyeing accusation altogether? DIAZ-BALART: (SPEAKING IN SPANISH) MADDOW: My friend, Jose, we are so lucky to have you. Congratulations again. I`ll vouch for your hair to anybody. All right. DIAZ-BALART: Thank you. MADDOW: Amazing. Amazing stuff here on MSNBC tonight. We`ve got lots ahead. A very big show. Please stay with us. MADDOW: All right. We`ve got lots to come on tonight show, including the reporter who broke open this Bill O`Reilly FOX News story that`s got everybody so upset. That`s ahead. Please stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DIAZ-BALART: Mr. President, when you had absolute control of Congress, you really didn`t fight for immigration. And then, when you had the situation where you lost majorities, then you take action. Is there political implications behind something that affects so many people, so close to their hearts? OBAMA: I don`t know if anybody remembers, Jose, that when I took office and I had a majority, we had the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The global economy was collapsing. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: The unemployment rate in the Latino community and the immigrant community had soared. People were losing homes, and entire communities were being devastated. So, it wasn`t as if I was just sitting back not doing anything. DIAZ-BALART: No one said you were sitting back. OBAMA: We were -- we were -- (CROSSTALK) DIAZ-BALART: You did do ACA, for example. OBAMA: We were moving very aggressively on a whole host of issues. And we moved as fast as we could, and we wanted immigration done. We pushed for immigration to be done. But ultimately, we could not get the votes to get it all done. Now, this is one of the challenges of being president, is there are crying needs everywhere, even within the Latino communities, even within the immigrant communities, there are crying needs. I don`t regret having done the ACA. I just described for you there are millions of people who are not going to go bankrupt because they got sick because we got that done. So, if the question is -- would I have loved to get everything done in the first two years? Absolutely! Because then for the next six, I could have relaxed. (LAUGHTER) OBAMA: But what we do is we choose to push as hard as we can on all fronts. Some things are politically easier. Some things are politically more difficult. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: President Obama tonight defending the fact that he didn`t get immigration reform done when Democrats had full control of Congress, saying he wished he could have. But now, he is still trying. Joining us now is Cristina Jimenez. She`s the cofounder and managing director of United We Dream. Ms. Jimenez came to the United States with her family when she was 13. She graduated high school and college as an undocumented student. Cristina, it`s really nice to see you. Thanks very much for being here. CRISTINA JIMENEZ, UNITED WE DREAM CO-FOUNDER: Thanks for having me again, Rachel. MADDOW: So, what`s -- how did you feel about President Obama`s town hall today? This was a solid, like 45 minutes, a full hour of discussion almost entirely about immigration. How did you feel about what the president said today? What was your takeaway? JIMENEZ: I thought this was a good first step. In the midst of a legal challenge of the actions that the president took on immigration, again, after so much pressure from organizations like United We Dream, and others within the immigrant community, I think this was a good first step to instill confidence in our community, that the president is going to use everything in his power to make sure that we`re able to get through this legal hurdle and be able to implement the deferred action programs that he announced in November of last year, that could benefit people like my mom and my dad, who have been here with me for the last 17 years, and who are really eager to be able to apply for the deferred action program, because they will be able to qualify for DACA. So, I was really encouraged by that, and by looking at the president standing firm on his decision, and proceeding with legal action immediately. What I would have loved to see more, or get more clarity from the president is, how do we ensure that our community is not going to fall in the trap of deportations and detentions when we know that the agency has not followed, really, guidelines before, the Department of Homeland Security. MADDOW: That seemed like that was a real theme, in terms of especially what Jose was pushing him on it. He said he had a lot of questions for the president that he got on Facebook and Twitter and other places. People wanted to say, listen, you know, the policies that we`re hearing from you are not what we`re seeing on the ground in terms of enforcement priorities, in terms of this whole idea of felons, not families, and people not having their families split up as a matter of enforcement prioritization. It seems to be -- I`m not sure the president was totally prepared for those questions, I`m not sure he hears those very often, basically, people are saying to him -- what you are expressing as policy is not what is being carried out by the various agencies of Homeland Security that are doing this stuff on the ground. JIMENEZ: Yes. And the question is, how are you going to ensure that your own agency, right, Mr. President, is going to be able to implement the guidelines that they have set up? And the people like my parents in the midst of legal limbo right now, because we have a temporary hold on the DACA and DAPA programs, how do people like my parents could still live, you know, without fearing that they could be detained or deported? And also, what about the people who did not qualify for DACA and DAPA, including the people who are LGBTQ immigrants that were not able to be part or benefit from this program? And I don`t feel like the president really answered that question. So, you know, from the United We Dream perspective, that`s one of the things that we`re going to be really watching out for, and continue to ask the president, how would you ensure that for our communities? MADDOW: Cristina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, which is one of the organizations that`s done so much to keep this a front- burner issue to press people on both parties, with very aggressive direct action. Cristina, it`s really nice to see you. Thanks very much for being here. JIMENEZ: Thanks for having me, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. All right. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill today, it was Republican versus Republican, deciding whether or not no shut down Homeland Security. That`s ahead. Along with David Corn, he`s going to be here. Please stay with us. MADDOW: On the list of journalists who FOX News`s Bill O`Reilly is threatening for questioning his account of past reporting assignments, on that list are upcoming guests, ranks right up top. He is David Corn for "Mother Jones" magazine. He joins us live tonight in much more fraught circumstances than we usually see David in. Please stay with us. MADDOW: OK. I got something wrong on this show a couple nights ago. I said two nights ago that Duke Energy was forced to clean up its big toxic coal ash in South Carolina because they got sued over them. What actually happened is environmentalists sued the other two utility companies in that state. Once Duke Energy saw those lawsuits and once the group that brought the lawsuits made clear that Duke was probably going to be next, Duke actually settled with the groups out of court and agreed to clean up their giant toxic coal ash lagoons. It was an out-of- court settlement, not a lawsuit. I got that wrong. I`m sorry. Also, the fine that Duke Energy is now paying for one of their giant toxic coal ash lagoons bursting in North Carolina, looks like it`s not the second largest fine anybody`s ever paid under the Clean Water Act. Maybe it`s the fourth largest? It`s hard to find a definitive score for this kind of stuff it turns out. Other people have reported that Duke is paying the second largest fine here ever. But I think now looking at it again, that they`re probably fourth largest and not second largest -- in which case I got that wrong, too, I`m sorry. I`m honestly very sorry about that. I regret the error. I`m wearing a hair shirt under my $11 blazer right now. You just can`t see it because it`s a V-neck. See, that`s how it goes. It`s not that hard to do. It actually feels -- I mean, it feels terrible, right? But it feels good to do it. You don`t want to get stuff wrong, but it happens. But then you correct it, and then you can move on. Chastened, but clean. That`s how it works. And then there`s this kind of problem, for which the hair shirt apparently does not fit. We`re still waiting to see if there will be some sort of apology, some sort of corrective action concerning the biggest kahuna in all of cable news, a man with any other news organization would be in a fight for his professional life right now. But so far for him -- apparently, no consequences. Cable news controversies are not the sort of thing that usually rise to the level of national news. This one, though, has now become a national news story, in part because it has put the biggest news network in cable news in the position of not behaving like a news organization at all. And, you know, I will tell you honestly, from my personal heart, I know that all of us in this business snipe at each other and criticize, right? And sometimes, we criticize each other in very harsh terms. But there is a certain level that we all recognize that we`re doing the work. We have reporters, and correspondents, and press credentials, right? We participate in basic stuff like pooled coverage of national events and speeches at the White House, right? We all stand for freedom of the press, because we all count on freedom of the press to be able to do our work that we all do. We have our differences, yes, but in the most fundamental ways we are the same species. Except now, maybe not. This story started Thursday when David Corn and Daniel Schulman at "Mother Jones" magazine that said that the FOX News host Bill O`Reilly over time and frequently, in multiple venues, including his current gig on FOX News, he had misrepresented his reporting for CBS News in the 1980s during the Falklands War. The Falklands War was a war fought between Argentina and the U.K., but it wasn`t fought on the mainland of either country. It was fought on the Falkland Islands, which are an isolated place. They`re hundreds of miles off the Argentinean coast. What David Corn and Daniel Schulman pointed out was that Mr. O`Reilly had described himself as reporting from, quote, "an active war zone". He has said that he was in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands. That does not appear to have been the case. Mr. O`Reilly did report on the Falklands War, but he reported on that war from mainland Argentina, from the country`s capital city, which is more than 1,000 miles away from the fighting in the Falklands. Mr. O`Reilly has tried to defend himself by saying, well, he did cover a rowdy protest while he was in the capital of Argentina, which, OK, sure, but covering a protest about a war is not the same thing as covering the actual war, or being in a war zone, which is how he has repeatedly described what he did. So, that`s not good. No correction or apology, though. Instead, the response has been -- attack! (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: Basically David Corn, a liar, says I exaggerated situations in the Falklands War and Salvadoran War. Here`s the truth: everything I`ve said about my reportorial career, everything, is true. I had to spend hours last night on the phone with various reporters, and crawling around my basement covered with dust, trying to find documents from 33 years ago. Again, it was a miracle I found them -- all because an irresponsible gutter snipe, a far left zealot, who has attacked FOX News many times before, spit this stuff out on the net. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: An irresponsible gutter snipe, a far left zealot, a liar. Mr. O`Reilly then went further than that. He gave an interview in which he said that when the truth came out about this story, David Corn would be, quote, "in the kill zone, where he deserves to be." When "Mother Jones" challenged that comment as basically out of bounds, asked for retraction or apology, Bill O`Reilly said that was just slang, it was just a figure of speech, didn`t take it back. Mr. O`Reilly has since gone on to threaten other reporters who had simply tried to report out this story. After the kill zone comments about David Corn, Mr. O`Reilly then told a reporter from "The New York Times" that if he saw any of her coverage was inappropriate, quote, "I`m coming after you with everything I have. You can take it as a threat." FOX News has reporters on staff. FOX News reporters have to believe that their news organization would have their back if they got threatened for just doing their job as reporters. FOX News, I am sure, does not want its reporters threatened for doing their jobs. But FOX News has not said anything about their flagship host issuing these threats to reporters at other news organizations. And that just seems untenable for a news organization. Not just for Mr. O`Reilly who issued the threats, but for his employer, who is effectively endorsing them with this statement of unqualified support they put out for Mr. O`Reilly in the midst of all this. I mean, this has got to send a chill down the spine of anyone who reports for FOX in dangerous situations. And for Mr. O`Reilly himself, the problem is getting worse and not better over time. Since David Corn`s report last week and Mr. O`Reilly`s loud and bombastic threats, FOX and Mr. O`Reilly have had a different response to new allegations that had been raised about Mr. O`Reilly`s reporting since then. There were questions raised about events that he raised in his book about the JFK assassination. In the book, he describes traveling to Florida in 1977 to try to interview an acquaintance of JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. He says that as he knocked on that man`s door in Florida to try to interview him, he, quote, "heard the shotgun blast that marked the suicide of the" man. This is not just a story that Mr. O`Reilly told in his book. He has told it on the FOX News Channel as well. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: I reported on this guy when I was working at WFAA TV in Dallas, Mr., Mohrenschildt, because he taught at Bishop College in Dallas. I can put that together. Now, I chased de Mohrenschildt to Florida, and I was about to knock on the door where he was, his daughter`s house, and he blew his brains out with a shotgun. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Really? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh my goodness. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Oh, my goodness, really? No, not really. At least not according to colleagues of Bill O`Reilly`s at the time who said this week that he was not actually in Florida when that man killed himself at his Florida home. Let alone standing on the guy`s doorstep and able to hear the shotgun blast. Mr. O`Reilly was actually, according to his colleagues, in Dallas, Texas, at the time the suicide happened in Florida. That account appears to be corroborated by one of Bill O`Reilly`s sources at that time, a congressional investigator, who wrote in his autobiography in 1993 that he got a call from this Dallas TV reporter named Bill O`Reilly the day of the suicide. And this reporter, Bill O`Reilly, calling from Dallas, wanted to know if the reports about this Florida suicide were true. Is this thing true that I now claim I personally witnessed? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: I chased de Mohrenschildt to Florida and I was about to knock on the door where he was, his daughter`s house, and he blew his brains out with a shotgun. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: We reached out to the FOX News Channel today to see if they had any comment on this latest challenge to Mr. O`Reilly`s reporting, and the way he has talked about it on the FOX News Channel. They so far have not responded to our requests for comment on that. They appear to be deflecting requests for comment on this matter to the publisher of Mr. O`Reilly`s book about the JFK assassination. So, we also reached out to the publisher of Mr. O`Reilly`s book about the JFK assassination. The publisher told us this, quote, "We fully stand behind Bill O`Reilly and his bestseller `Killing Kennedy`, and we`re very proud to count him as one of our most important authors. This one passage is immaterial to the story being told by this terrific book. And we have no plans to look into this matter." It doesn`t matter. We don`t care if it`s not true. We`re not looking into it. Mr. O`Reilly has also faced criticism on another matter, for saying that he saw nuns killed in El Salvador. Here`s him making that claim on FOX News right after the Newtown Elementary School massacre, in a wide- ranging discussion about the nature of evil. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: I don`t think a lot of people understand. My mother, for example, doesn`t understand evil. When I would tell her, hey, mom, I was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head. She almost couldn`t process it. She couldn`t process it. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Mr. O`Reilly did not see nuns get shot in the back of the head in El Salvador, even if that is what he told his poor mom. American Catholic nuns were killed in El Salvador in December 1980. Mr. O`Reilly did not see them killed. He did not visit El Salvador until the following year. Tonight, FOX News gave a statement from Mr. O`Reilly about where that came from. Since there`s no way he could have actually seen what he said he saw. Their statement is this, quote, "While in El Salvador, reporters were shown horrendous images of violence that were not broadcast, including depictions of nuns who were murdered. The mention of the nuns on my program came the day of the Newtown massacre, the segment was about evil and how hard it is for people to comprehend it. I used the murder nuns as an example of that evil. That`s what I was referring to when I say `I saw nuns get shot in the back of head`. No one could possibly take that segment as reporting on El Salvador." That statement from Mr. O`Reilly tonight saying he was not literally talking about El Salvador, he was talking about evil in the context of Newtown. The only reason he brought it up. That does not explain, however, why Mr. O`Reilly said the exact same thing seven years before Newtown never happened. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) O`REILLY: I`ve seen much worse behavior on the masculine side than the feminine side in my life. I`ve seen guys gun nuns in el Salvador. (END AUDIO CLIP) MADDOW: No, he hasn`t. But as of right now, he`s not correcting that. As for whether or not FOX is taking any action about not just this stuff, not just the factual stuff, but whether or not FOX is taking any action about the threats to reporters, that have characterized their anchor`s response to the scandal so far, we have just heard from FOX on that tonight. We`ve got that statement from them, next. Along with David Corn here live, the reporter who started this whole terrifying thing rolling with his reporting. Please do stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`REILLY: Basically, David Corn, a liar, says I exaggerated situations in the Falklands War and El Salvadoran War. Here`s the truth: everything I`ve said about my reportorial career, everything, is true. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: David Corn, a liar. David Corn`s reporting on Bill O`Reilly from the FOX News Channel has so far, I have to tell you, not been materially factually disputed. But Mr. Corn has been called a lot of names, and he has been directly threatened, along with some other reporters who have picked up the story over the past few days. I have to tell you, FOX News gave us a new statement tonight about the scandal surrounding Mr. O`Reilly. They told us this, quote, "Bill O`Reilly addressed several claims leveled against him." Excuse me, "This is nothing more than an orchestrated campaign by far left advocates, `Mother Jones` and Media Matters. Responding to the unproven accusation du jour has become an exercise in futility. FOX News maintains its staunch support of O`Reilly who is no stranger to calculated onslaughts." Calculated onslaughts. Joining us for the interview is David Corn, Washington bureau chief for "Mother Jones" and MSNBC political analyst, and full disclosure, my bud. Hi, David. It`s nice to see you. DAVID CORN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: It`s good to be here tonight, Rachel. MADDOW: So, how is it going? Just normal week for you? CORN: Yes, everything`s fine on team gutter snipe. What can I say? MATTHEWS: What has this been like for you? I mean, I know you are a thick-skinned guy. You have been a reporter for a long time. You`ve been involved in some very high stakes reporting over the years, including in very recent years. Has this been difficult for you, being threatened and attacked like this? CORN: I mean, you`re right, I am thick-skinned, and I`ve watched Bill O`Reilly and FOX News over the years. In fact, I used to work there from 2001 to 2008, and was often on Bill`s show and often was praised by Bill when I was on his show, not as a liar but as a good reporter. But that was then, this is now. So, it didn`t surprise me that the tactics that Bill O`Reilly and FOX News resorted to after the story came out was insult, bombast, denial. But I have to say, I was surprised by the use of rhetoric that had a violent tone to it. And the fact that after saying that, neither Bill O`Reilly or anybody at FOX, including some of the people I used to work with there quite amicably, you know, felt obligated to say, "Well, you know, that`s going too far." Apparently they think id`s proper for one journalist to call another one names, but also to say they ought to be put in the kill zone. And, you know, the thing that bothers me most about that is, you know, not that it scares me off the story or anything, but I have family members, I have friends who are concerned about me now. And why? Only because I`m doing my job as a reporter in Washington, D.C., not in a war zone, and yet they now, you know, fear that, you know, that language like that might have repercussions. I don`t know. I don`t want to be all doomsaying about it. But I do know it`s highly inappropriate and just from a sake of humanity -- you know, he can call me a liar, even though he doesn`t disprove, as you noted, a single fact in the story that Dan Schulman and I wrote. But talking about putting me in a place of death? I mean, if he can`t recognize that`s going too far, then I guess that speaks for itself. MADDOW: I feel like -- and this is just my -- this is just my impression, and I haven`t been in the business as long as you have and I haven`t been in this exact kind of situation. I feel like that part of it, the threats -- the explicit threat to you and the explicit threat to this "New York Times" journalist, I feel like it is untenable that FOX would stand by those, if only because they employ a lot of journalists, including those who work in risky situations. And FOX is a good place to work for journalists. And they -- CORN: Yes. MADDOW: And they -- part of the way they`re able to attract real talent, especially on the straight news side, is because they are an organization that will stand up for their reporters, just like any real news organization will. So, I feel like -- I feel like that is untenable for FOX as an organization. I think it is a much more open question as to whether or not the substance of your reporting that Mr. O`Reilly has misrepresented himself over the years, whether that`s something they feel like they`ll have to correct. CORN: I do think they`re separate issues. And there -- a lot of different ways that Bill O`Reilly could have responded. He could have gone through it point by point and say, you`re wrong, here`s my explanation. He could have just ignored it. Maybe the story would have gone away for him. Or, you know, he could have said, I misremembered some things. He got me. Not a big deal. And, you know, there are a lot of different ways to do this. But they went, you know, all-out, and I think, you know, what is the obvious thing here is that the story itself is not an allegation. "Mother Jones" isn`t claiming, you know, that Bill O`Reilly said or did these things. We are actually presenting videotape and his own words. People can -- you know, on the right, left, in the middle, can look at it and come to a decision all of their own. We`re reporting inconsistencies, we`re not making allegations. And yet Bill O`Reilly, we have video of him saying, "When I was in the war zone in Argentina in the Falklands." And then he comes out and says in the last couple of days, "I never said I was in the Falklands." Well, people can compare and contrast and come to whatever conclusion they want. And -- but, you know, yes, I guess you can call me a liar for putting up his own video, contradicting what he says. But that really doesn`t -- you know, I hate to say this, but it shouldn`t win the argument. But for his audience, it might be effective. MADDOW: Right, exactly. And that`s the strategic -- that`s the strategy, right? To say that you have disproven something without bothering to actually do it and hope that the loudness of your voice wins that argument. And, you know, bombast is easy to come by in our business on all sides of the ideological spectrum, but threats against other journalists for being journalists is not tenable in this business for any news organization, unless they`re not going to pretend to be a news organization anymore. David Corn, Washington bureau chief at "Mother Jones" -- thank you for helping us understand this and I`m sorry that you got threatened. CORN: Well, thank you for having me and giving a very good explanation. I appreciate it, Rachel. MADDOW: I appreciate it, David. Thanks. All right. We`ve got lots still to come. Please stay with me. And yes, I can hear you screaming on Twitter from here. I can hear you. Stay with us. MADDOW: So, while President Obama was on stage today answering tough questions from Jose Diaz-Balart, back in Washington today, it was chaos -- strategic chaos, procedural chaos, one party erupting in a huge fight itself, people going out of the way to stop things they like and help things that they hate. It was really weird today, birds of a feather not flocking together. Peanut butter rejecting jelly. Thieves unthickening. It was a weird, weird political day. For example, that`s nobody Republicans hate more in the Obama administration than, stay it with me now, Eric Holder. That said, by their own actions, Republicans in Congress have now apparently decided to keep Eric Holder on as attorney general indefinitely, even though he would like to leave that job. Tomorrow, there will be a vote on the woman who would replace Eric Holder as attorney general if the Republicans would only let her. Republicans and conservatives have spent the last two days lobbying furiously for Republican senators to vote against that nomination, and there is no clear indication at this point that Loretta Lynch will tomorrow get enough votes to be confirmed when that vote happens tomorrow afternoon. It`s not because of anything about her, it`s because of how much Republicans hate the current attorney general. They hate Eric Holder so much that they are making sure that they keep Eric Holder as attorney general for the foreseeable future. It`s really weird, right? But that is under way. And that strategy is going to bear its perversely incomprehensible strategic fruit tomorrow afternoon. All eyes are on the Homeland Security Department and whether or not they can come up with something to keep it from shutting down on Friday. But in the midst of that big fight, tomorrow afternoon, they`re going to take that vote on Loretta Lynch and nobody knows what is going to happen with that vote. Total chaos. Tada! That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." Good evening, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 26, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022501cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 118 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 25, 2015 Wednesday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST THE LAST WORD for February 25, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell GUESTS: Richard Wolffe, Howard Dean, Jeremy Peters, Beth Fouhy SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7563 words HIGHLIGHT: Senate votes 98-2 to debate clean DHS bill. Susan Rice: Netanyahu`s acceptance of Boehner`s invitation is destructive of the fabric of the relationship. Bill Bratton: Police have had a hand in some of the injustices that African-Americans have suffered throughout America`s history. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: See you again tomorrow, now it`s time for THE LAST WORD. Big fight, tomorrow afternoon, they`re going to take that vote on Loretta Lynch, and absolutely nobody knows what`s going to happen with that vote. Total chaos. That does it for us tonight, we`ll see you again tomorrow, now it`s time for THE LAST WORD with Lawrence O`Donnell, good evening Lawrence. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST, THE LAST WORD: Hey, Rachel, you got a minute? MADDOW: Yes -- O`DONNELL: I loved your segment with David Corn about Bill O`Reilly. The exaggerations of Bill O`Reilly. But I feel it`s my responsibility as an old boy, you know, one of these old apostrophe guys -- MADDOW: OK -- O`DONNELL: Like O`Reilly to explain the angry Irishman to you -- (LAUGHTER) To you and David Corn. The threats, when he issues that threat and he says, I`m going to come after you with everything I`ve got. What he`s got is a TV show, that`s it, that`s all he`s going to come after. Anybody with -- it`s all going to be in the safety of that studio. No one has to worry about a thrown punch or anything like that. That kind of, you know, Irish bluster is something I grew up with, and everybody relax, OK, about -- MADDOW: Should we see the bluster, the size of the bluster as inversely proportional to the size of the real threat? O`DONNELL: Oh, absolutely. MADDOW: OK -- O`DONNELL: The guys who were really scary in my neighborhood never threatened anybody -- (LAUGHTER) They just did it, Rachel, they just did it, they didn`t wait. MADDOW: Well done. Thank you for that cultural translation lines, I`ll take that to heart and sleep mattedly(ph). O`DONNELL: Thanks Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Well, the stare down between Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid over the funding of the Homeland Security Department, apparently Harry Reid`s magic sunglasses made Mitch McConnell blink. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER, UNITTED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We`re waiting for the Senate to do their job. Senate Democrats have stood in the way now for three weeks, I`m waiting for the Senate to act. The Senate has to act, I`m waiting for the Senate to pass a bill. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The standoff over DHS funding. Two hundred thousand federal workers and Homeland Security are hoping that Congressional leaders can come to their senses. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This isn`t the time for games. JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES: It is even absurd to be having this conversation. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three people were arrested today and charged with conspiring to help ISIS. JAMES COMEY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: Those people exist in every state. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To the point of supporting or carrying out attacks here at home. COMEY: I have homegrown violent extremist investigations in every single state. BOEHNER: Until the Senate does something, we are in a wait-and-see mode. JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: There`s a lot to talk about. SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, UNITED STATES: The relationship between Israel as a country and the United States as a country has always been bipartisan. KERRY: I think we`ve done more to help Israel, I have a packet of 25 pages or more. RICE: There has now been injected a degree of partisanship. It`s destructive of the fabric of the relationship. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The misery gets worse by the day from north to south. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This morning, more than 70 vehicles smashed into each other on I-95 near Bangor, Maine. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The governors of Georgia and Alabama have declared states of emergency. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Near Dallas, a school bus flipped on its side. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Millions of people are under this Winter storm warning, including citizens -- Birmingham, two below Atlanta. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So much of the nation encased in ice, you can see what it looks like in space. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two astronauts are taking a space walk. They worked to install new docking cables from the International Space Station. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is the second of three plants spacewalk to install these cables. SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: There is no limit to human imagination. KERRY: There`s a lot to talk about. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: In a speech this morning, FBI director James Comey said, I have homegrown violent extremist investigations in every single state. Then he added this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) COMEY: ISIL in particular is putting out a siren song through their slick propaganda, through social media that goes like this. Troubled soul, come to the caliphate. All right, you will live a life of glory, these are the apocalyptic end times, you will find a life of meaning here fighting for our so-called caliphate. And if you can`t come, kill somebody where you are. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: The FBI director gave that speech not far from Capitol Hill where the Republican-led Congress remained deadlocked about how to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI director could not have painted a starker picture of what is at stake in Homeland Security, but the Republican leadership in Congress was not listening. Then this happened. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL BRATTON, POLICE COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY: Arrests were made when three individuals for the actions directed against the United States. Two of the individuals were seeking to fly to Syria. One was arrested at the international airport, JFK International Airport as he was getting ready to board that flight. The second individual had a later flight scheduled, he was arrested at home here in Brooklyn. A third individual who we believe helped to organize and finance the trip for the other two individuals also arrested in Jacksonville, Florida. The initial actions were effectively to go to Syria and attempt to join ISIL. This is real. This is the concern about the lone wolf inspired to act without ever going to the Mid East. Or the concern of once they get to the Mid East acquire fighting skills capabilities and then attempting to return to the country. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Those three arrests seem to do what no politician could do, unify the United States Senate. Which then voted 98 to 2 to proceed to consideration of a clean bill to fund the Homeland Security Department without a provision that has been opposed by Democrats that would nullify President Obama`s executive actions on immigration. The secretary of Homeland Security called the fight over his department`s funding absurd. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHNSON: What we need is a fully funded Department of Homeland Security, particularly in these challenging times when we face a number of issues across the board. To even be having a conversation about a potential shutdown of Homeland Security is incredible and absurd. I am pressing my staff to stay one step ahead of our global terrorist threats. Our challenges to aviation security, staying on top of what`s happening on the southern border. If my staff is cut back to a skeleton, then that greatly inhibits our ability to do that. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now is MSNBC.com executive editor Richard Wolffe, also MSNBC senior editor Beth Fouhy, "New York Times" Congressional reporter and MSNBC contributor Jeremy Peters and former Vermont governor and MSNBC Political Analyst Howard Dean. Richard Wolf, a 98 to 2 vote is a rarity -- RICHARD WOLFFE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, MSNBC.COM: Awesome -- O`DONNELL: In this modern Senate. WOLFFE: What`s happened -- O`DONNELL: And all it took was those three arrests to suddenly gel the thinking there. WOLFFE: Yes, unthinkable that Republicans will play politics with this particular budget. But also bad policy, abysmal politics. You know, this is a Republican party that has said that the President is somehow projecting a weak image of the country overseas. Imagine if this was a Democratic Congress doing this to say President Bush`s Department of Homeland Security. Dick Cheney would go out and say they`re emboldening the terrorists. They`re projecting weakness to the world. I do not understand why the party that originates it and exemplify the politics of fear when it came to terrorism and funding and funding anti-terrorist measures would go and embrace this kind of politics. Politics they know surely they`re going to lose. O`DONNELL: And Howard Dean, normally when you see these standoffs end this way, it isn`t in a 98 to 2 vote. It`s usually the party that`s been kind of creating this situation, just peels off enough votes to solve the problems and get this thing moving forward. But this was a complete flip for Republicans in the Senate. HOWARD DEAN, FORMER VERMONT GOVERNOR & POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it`s very interesting, it was interesting article on the hill today which basically the analysis was McConnell has a tremendous amount to lose. He could very well lose the Senate majority, and I think he`d actually probably will in 2016. The turnout will be much bigger and he`s got some seats that are at risk. The house doesn`t have anything to lose, it`s going to be very hard for us to win 30 seats there and Boehner doesn`t want to take on the right-wing nut jobs that comprise the tea party and that`s the -- that`s the problem. And so McConnell is smart, the only problem -- it`s so interesting in politics, he waited too long. This really needed to go -- come down the track a week ago because the house isn`t going to do it. And the Republicans -- and despite the 98 to 2 vote, the Republicans are all going to get the blame when the thing gets shut down and people stop getting paid. O`DONNELL: We had a really rare moment in this New York City police commissioner press conference today. It`s the first time -- I don`t know, possibly ever that in the announcement of arrests, the police commissioner took a direct shot at the politics in Washington. Let`s listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRATTON: This is not the time to engage in activities that would threaten our counterterrorism capabilities, such as have been exhibited in the movement on this case. And effectively to hold our counterterrorism agencies hostage to political machinations in D.C. This is not the time to be engaging in political rhetoric or political grandstanding. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Jeremy Peters, do you agree with Howard Dean that this might not get the deal done in the end? JEREMY PETERS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, NEW YORK TIMES: I think it`s an open question right now, how many Republicans eventually go along with this plan. I do think it ends the way that we always thought it would. It would end the way that the shutdown in 2013 ended. It will end the way that crown the best fight of last December ended, and that will be with basically clean funding bill. Now, there`s this certain frustrating predictability to all of these budget fights. It`s frustrating for Democrats who wish they had people that they could work with and trust on the other side of the aisle. And frustrating for Republicans whose, you know, deep political will and desire are kind of not quite in sync with the realities of their limits of power. Which is that they do not control enough votes to override a presidential veto and they do not control the White House. O`DONNELL: And John Boehner certainly does control enough votes in the house and with Democrats in the house to get this thing passed clean. Let`s listen to one person, Mo Brooks who apparently is not going to vote for the clean version of this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MORRIS BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: I don`t know what the speaker`s plan is going forward, but I can tell you what my position is, and my position is, and I think that there are substantial number of Republicans in the House of Representatives who agree that the United States constitution comes first. And we`re not going to abdicate our responsibilities, our oath of office, United States constitution for some kind of convenience that in turn is going to undermine national security. Illegal aliens are undermining national security. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Beth Fouhy, apparently there were no terrorism conspirator arrests in his district today. BETH FOUHY, SENIOR EDITOR, MSNBC: Oh, bummer. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Yes -- FOUHY: And maybe he would have said something quite silly, you know, I swear it`s groundhog day where 23 days past groundhog day, but actually it still feels like groundhog day. Republicans, certainly house Republicans always taking us to the brink this way. I think it really -- even with the terrorists in New York today and the rather, I think stunning display of PR, good PR by Mr. Comey, by Mr. Bratton and Jeh Johnson explaining in slightly different ways. Why what the Congress is doing is so absurd. I don`t think there`s any -- and the rest that happened today, I don`t think there`s any guarantee at all that the Republicans in the house aren`t going to just go marching forward right off that cliff. And if they probably will take it right up to the 11th hour and make them once again look like the party of shutdown. Which seems to be the only thing they know how to do. O`DONNELL: Good. But Richard, John Boehner has to decide to go off that cliff, because he can move a bill with Democratic votes, plus enough Republicans. WOLFFE: That`s right -- O`DONNELL: He could do it tomorrow. WOLFFE: Right. But why do tomorrow what you can do the next day? O`DONNELL: Oh, yes -- no -- WOLFFE: You know -- O`DONNELL: It will be last minute, but -- WOLFFE: You won`t go over -- O`DONNELL: There`s nothing stopping him from getting this deal done. WOLFFE: No, except -- I don`t understand the political calculation for him. You know, he`s appeasing one side and he knows he`s going to disappoint them. So he is looking weaker and weaker and weaker the closer he gets to the edge of the cliff. O`DONNELL: Yes, but it`s -- Howard Dean, it`s that thing that he has to go through every time with his right-wing in the house. He has to convince them that he`s tried everything and he was really on their side all the way, and only now at the last minute, now that McConnell has kind of crossed them. You know, he`ll tell all those stories to these amateur, you know, young -- our new right wingers there, who don`t understand how it works. He`ll just say, oh, you know, I really fought for you every minute, but now we got to do this or we will get blamed. DEAN: You know, I mean, it really comes down to leadership. I think a lot of leadership is showing strength and the hardest people to show strength to is your own people. Great leaders are willing to confront their own people, not just the other side, and Boehner is just not willing to do that. Now, he has done it three times before. There have been three times including a couple of government shutdowns where he went to the legislature, the Congress and the Democrats and passed a bill with -- about 135 Democrats and 135 Republicans. That`s what he`s going to have to do. Or the Republicans are simply going to take it on the chin again, and I don`t think that`s a good idea to do it twice. They -- just the brand of their party is terrible. O`DONNELL: All right, we`re going to take a break right here, we`re going to come back with more. Coming up, New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton has said something that every African-American knows, but that no New York City police commissioner before him has ever said. He said that police have had a hand in some of the injustices that African- Americans have suffered throughout this nation`s history. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRATTON: Many of the worst facts of black history would have been impossible without police too. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: Members should wear appropriate business attire during all sittings of the house, however brief their appearance on the floor may be. You know who you are. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Why do they never have to make that statement in the United States Senate? There are many high schools in America that operate with more decorum and sophistication than the United States House of Representatives. Up next, the Obama Administration now says that Speaker Boehner`s invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu is destructive. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KERRY: We, this administration, I think we`ve done more to help Israel, I have a packet of 25 pages or more of things we`ve done on behalf of Israel. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: But that`s not good enough for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who still plans to defy the Obama administration`s wishes and deliver a speech to Congress next week from the very spot where President Obama delivered his State Of the Union address. In a breach of protocol, Republican House Speaker John Boehner as you know invited Netanyahu to speak without consulting the State Department or the White House. The Obama administration would not have approved the invitation if consulted because the speech comes within two weeks of the Israeli election. Last night, National Security Advisor Susan Rice told Charlie Rose that Netanyahu`s decision to give this speech is destructive to the relationship between the two countries. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICE: What has happened over the last several weeks by virtue of the invitation that was issued -- CHARLIE ROSE, TELEVISION HOST: By speaker of the house -- RICE: By the speaker and the acceptance of it by Prime Minister Netanyahu on two weeks in advance of his election is that on both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship. Which is not only unfortunate -- ROSE: Yes -- RICE: I think it`s destructive of the fabric of the relationship and it`s something that -- ROSE: It`s destructive of the fabric of the relationship? RICE: Well, Charlie, take my point, it`s always been bipartisan. We need to keep it that way. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Jeremy Peters, Charlie Rose clearly knew that he had heard the key phrase of the night; the destructive to the fabric of the relationship. How is that statement going over in Congress today? PETERS: I think a lot of people -- people on both sides of the aisle, frankly, were surprised that Netanyahu would decline to meet with Democrats. Because as Susan Rice just said, this relationship has always historically been bipartisan. So there is a lot of dismay right now that Senate Democrats were snubbed. O`DONNELL: And Howard Dean, what`s your sense about attendance? I believe your Senator Bernie Sanders has said that he will not be attending and I think also Vermont`s other Senator Pat Leahy have said he won`t be attending. What do you think is going to happen? DEAN: Whether -- I mean, I don`t know, but the most interesting part about all of this is not what happens in the United States, is what`s happening in Israel. And I would love to know what the Israeli voters think of their prime minister right now as a result of this. He is now behind for the first time in the campaign. I just find this absolutely fascinating. And I wish we all, an American news media in general would pay more attention to what`s going on in Israel because that`s really how this all started. Netanyahu is using Boehner to help his own electoral situation which is two weeks away, and Boehner is using Netanyahu to make Obama look bad. Except of course now, what usually happens was when people say after he makes somebody else look bad, they end up looking pretty awful themselves and that`s what you see from John Boehner and Benjamin Netanyahu right now. And they can`t be well regarded in their own countries, and that`s the most fascinating part for me. WOLFFE: Lawrence, I`ve got -- I`ve got to disagree. You know, whatever missteps Netanyahu is making in his own re-election, this isn`t one of them. Israeli politics is very clear. Netanyahu can only gain by putting a finger in the eye of the Obama administration. So, you know, the Israeli politics are very clear. He is playing to that, and that`s Netanyahu`s problem, right? As an Israeli leader, normally Israelis think more strategically, he`s supremely tactical, he is thinking about his short-term politics and he doesn`t really mind that in fact he`s corroding this bipartisan support that has been in existence for decades in Washington. For the state of Israel and for successful Israeli prime minister, so -- DEAN: See, I would slightly -- WOLF: Short-term is a long term. FOUHY: But you know -- DEAN: I would slightly -- FOUHY: I wanted to say there`s -- DEAN: Disagree, let me just -- O`DONNELL: Go ahead Howard -- DEAN: Possibly perhaps -- (CROSSTALK) It`s just a half a second here. I do think -- maybe it`s the hard liners in Netanyahu`s base would like a finger in the eye of Obama. I think most Israelis are a little more mature politically. I think they can`t believe it`s a good idea to have a prime minister who is openly contemptuous over the American president. I can`t believe most Israelis think that in the long term, that`s good for Israel. O`DONNELL: Beth, go ahead. FOUHY: Yes, and what I was going to say is, those of us who follow politics remember that Mr. Netanyahu is basically part and parcel of the Mitt Romney campaign in 2012. The work together thing, Netanyahu was clearly acknowledging that he was supporting Romney`s campaign, hoping that he was going to defeat this president. So he`s already established himself as somebody who is not bipartisan, particularly when it comes to this president. But what really struck me about this whole episode today, the use of the word destructive by Susan Rice. I mean the language of diplomacy and she is essentially something of a diplomat. It`s very precise. So she used that word very knowingly, that he -- they -- she was no longer portraying him as simply an irritant or a protocol problem. That this actually threatens the relationship, I think she took it to a very different level. O`DONNELL: And that is a worry that has been voiced in the Israeli media by many observers about this. We do have a reading on the American politics of this question. There`s a poll out saying, "was Congress right to invite Netanyahu to speak?" Thirty three percent say it was the right thing to do, 63 percent say it was the wrong thing for Speaker Boehner to invite Netanyahu to speak without notifying the White House, without notifying the State Department. Jeremy Peters, what do the Republicans on the Hill think about that kind of poll? PETERS: You know, I don`t know that they believe that, that really changes things much for them. I think that they, as you said earlier, believe that it is within their right to invite Netanyahu. I think that they also see it as a way to poke Obama, which is something that they always relish doing. I do think on the Democratic side of this, what`s interesting is how few people you will ultimately see boycotting the speech. It`s a big deal that Biden is not going to be there. But by and large, I think most Democrats are going to go, they`ll be very few who skip it. And that`s because cooler heads, I think in the end prevail here. And there is still a vast majority of lawmakers who want to make this relationship bipartisan and keep it that way. WOLFFE: And Lawrence, just one other point though. Whatever we think the Republicans -- house Republican politics are like the Republican foreign policy establishment is horrified by this. O`DONNELL: Yes -- WOLFFE: What they see is Democratic houses, Democratic senates inviting foreign leaders and freelancing on foreign policy, things they would never accept. So, yes, OK, in terms of the national policy, it`s the house Republicans who cares? But in terms of the foreign policy establishment, the Republican grandees, they are not happy about this at all. DEAN: Yes, that`s true. O`DONNELL: Go ahead Howard Dean. DEAN: No, that`s absolutely right. And -- but this speaks to the split in the Republican party. The Republican, you know, sort of the wiser heads in the Republican party are still not able to control the kind of people running around who have no idea what they`re doing. And that`s the battle. And whether they can pull it together by 2016 and elect a president, I kind of doubt when you see spectacles like this. O`DONNELL: Howard Dean, Jeremy Peters, Richard Wolffe and Beth Fouhy, thank you all for joining me tonight. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. FOUHY: Thank you. O`DONNELL: Coming up, a very special look behind the scenes during the filming of "Selma", a deeply moving moment that you will not see in the Oscar nominated movie. O`DONNELL: Yesterday, New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton went where no NYPD Police Commissioner has gone before him. He spoke publicly and honestly about the role American police and New York police in particular have played in the lives of African-Americans throughout history; the good and the bad. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRATTON: In so many ways it`s helped, black history month is American history month. As American history and the black experience are inextricable. And both are inextricable from policing. Far more often than not, it`s been a good thing. Indeed, the best sides of America`s history would have been impossible without the police. But sometimes the relationship has not been so good and refusing to acknowledge it would not only be naive, it would be reckless and irresponsible. As many of the worst parts of black history would have been impossible without police, too. Slavery, our country`s original sin, sat on a foundation codified by laws and enforced by police, by slave-catchers. Since then the stories of police and black citizens have been intertwined again and again. In the unequal nature of that relationship, it cannot and must not be denied. (END VIDEO CLIP) LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: Commissioner Bratton explained why Black History Month is an important learning opportunity for American police. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRATTON: There`s another reason why Black History Month is so important. Because if we as cops, or as a society, don`t want to fall into inaccurate stereotypes. We need to teach ourselves about slavery, about Reconstruction, about Jim Crow, and Rosewood and Tulsa`s "Black Wall Street." We need to know about unequal access to VA home loans and the GI Bill after World War II. We need to remember blockbusting, and backlashes against busing, and the whole black experience. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Dorian Warren, host of "Nerding Out" on Shift by MSNBC and professor at Columbia University. Mark Thompson, host of Sirius XM Satellite Radio`s "Make It Plain," and of course Joy Reid, host of the "REID REPORT." Joy, your reaction to what Bill Bratton had to say. JOY REID, HOST, REID REPORT: Well, you know, it`s interesting. And it comes very shortly after James Comey, the FBI director, gave a speech. It was very similar. And I was struck by the fact that I think what he really got right and what Bratton did that I think was smart was to say we can`t just give a path to history, which too often is what a lot of Americans want. They just want a blanket pass, and they want everyone to move on. But for the African-American community, the past is present, because a lot of the bad relations with police are not something that happened 100 years ago or 200 years ago, it`s something that happened last week to their son, to their nephew, to themselves. So I think it was very smart that he did it. But I do think it`s interesting how differently those kinds of words are received when a white Bill -- white Mr. Bratton or a white Mr. Comey say it or when a black attorney general says it. It`s perceived extremely differently and I find that fascinating. O`DONNELL: Well, and Mark Thompson, nowhere in the history of American law enforcement has this kind of sensitivity been expressed before. I mean, that`s what -- I mean, a couple of small police chiefs here and there around the country with progressive attitudes have said things like this. But to begin the story of what today`s American police officers need to know about policing, to begin that with slavery? That is not something police officers want to hear generally. MARK THOMPSON, HOST, SIRIUS XM SATELLITE RADIO`S "MAKE IT PLAIN": It`s also different when a black talk show host says it. Because we talk about that history a lot. We know that history. It is startling for a big city police commissioner to acknowledge that the history of police in America began with slave catching. And then he also, in the speech, acknowledged the role of slavery in this very city. Wall Street was a slave trading port. That`s why it`s called Wall Street. That happened as well. So that was really an incredible thing for him to say. But he still later on in the speech spoke about some of the shortcomings of policing. I think this is the beginning, though. When I was in D.C., I taught a class at the D.C. Police Academy called Historical Relationship Between African-Americans and Law Enforcement. And the purpose of it was -- O`DONNELL: And where -- in that course, where did you begin? THOMPSON: With slavery. O`DONNELL: Yes. THOMPSON: It began right there. O`DONNELL: Yes. THOMPSON: And the purpose of it, as he did elude to, police should have regard and be knowledgeable of the culture of the communities they serve. So it was about respecting that history, understanding that history. One of the things we taught in the course was, you know, and that is one thing about the term riot. The connotations is riots of civilians or even African-Americans. But back in the early 1900s, a riot many times actually meant the police. It was police that were rioting against African-Americans. You can almost say what we`ve seen in the past year with all the police violence cumulatively -- not all at once but cumulatively looks like a riot. So this was very important for him to say. I hope people will embrace it. But later in the speech, and again later, I think there`s some other things that he said that still speak to a systemic problem within them policing. O`DONNELL: During one of the values of this kind of speech from him is that he is listened to by people who will never listen to Mark`s radio show, who will never listen to any -- won`t listen to anything Eric Holder says. They don`t think Eric Holder will ever say anything worth listening to. He is listened to by people who think everything he said in that speech is wrong. DORIAN WARREN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: And let`s hope that the people listening to him were his own rank-and-file officers. O`DONNELL: Yes. WARREN: Who will actually, whatever reforms come about, and we`ll talk about that, I`m sure, will actually listen to him and implement those reforms. It`s important to note, Lawrence, we wouldn`t have seen him give this speech or the FBI director, if not for the protests. THOMPSON: That`s right. WARREN: Over several months. The organizing by the activists, involved with Black Lives Matter. This would not have happened. That was a crisis created through organizing and protest that forced him and a range of other elected officials and leaders, especially law enforcement leaders, to have to address these issues. It`s remarkable, as Joy and the radio host doctor says, for him to talk about black history and the start of slavery. That was remarkable. O`DONNELL: Yes. WARREN: There are other parts of the speech where he gets history wrong. O`DONNELL: Yes. THOMPSON: Yes. O`DONNELL: You know, the -- I think it is absolutely a speech that would not have been given without the events at Ferguson. WARREN: Sorry, Mark. (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: And let`s listen to what he said about Ferguson and those issues in that speech. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRATTON: Police actions can still be a flashpoint. Ferguson, the riots that followed. In New York City, the protests and marches that followed the death of Mr. Garner in Staten Island. And everywhere. Endless debate and discussion about a deepening racial divide in this city and this country. The divide that we thought had healed, naively, or that we had not recognized how deep those divides still were. Here we are that divide is deepest and widest in neighborhoods where disparity is deepest and widest, that the distance between the people and American dreams is the farthest. And the other neighborhoods, ironically, where the police are needed the most. In New York City, every man, largely neighborhoods of color, and then the relationship with the police has sometimes been ruptured. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joy, definitely recent events have provoked this speech now, but what I`m hearing in it is his four decades in law enforcement, an accumulation of protests that he heard in Boston, in New York, in Los Angeles, in every one of his duty stations. REID: Yes, absolutely. But I think the one thing that I think does separate what Commissioner Bratton had to say, and for instance what Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City, had to say, and why they`re received so differently, he talked about the systemic problems that take place within low-income communities. And those being the precursor to the tensions between police and civilians. The issue, though, is Eric Holder experienced negative relationships with police when he was a prosecutor. O`DONNELL: Yes. REID: Getting out of a nice car and going to a movie. I think what a lot of officers don`t understand is that -- perfectly legitimate and law- abiding black citizens and brown citizens encounter police in what should be nonthreatening situation and are treated precisely the same way as if they were a suspect. And so if you have a community like Ferguson, which is a middle class community, Ferguson was not, you know, in a challenged inner city environment. This was a middle class community where people get stopped every day, so that the fees that are collected from ordinary law-abiding black citizens can fund the city. And I think that one of the things that police are going to have to get to, it`s one thing to have an abstract conversation about history, and I commend Bill Bratton for doing that. It was brave. I think Comey was brave. But when Bill de Blasio talks about the lived experience of his own child, he gets -- the police officers turn their backs on him because how dare he talk about his actual lived experience. When we get to the point where police can accept the lived experiences of actual people of color and their parents talking about their experiences then black people have something. O`DONNELL: Dorian, when we come back, I want to get to what you think he got wrong and what you -- you wish he had said. We`re going to take a break. We`re going to be right back. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what Bill Bratton said about the future he`s hoping for. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRATTON: The police and the people, and the black community in particular, we cannot change the past, but working together, we can change the future. We must not forget our history. We must know what we did well and learn from what did wrong, and learn from what was done wrong and move forward. All of us together. It`s ours to set right. All of us together. This is the opportunity of the age for all of us, together. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Dorian, if you could have squeezed a paragraph into a draft of the speech, what would you have added? WARREN: Well, I would have first not claimed that the drop in crime in New York City was due to specific policing tactics like stop and frisk because we know it`s sort of fallacy. Crime has dropped across the country. And it is inaccurate to suggest that in New York City crime has dropped solely because of policing practices which involved racial profiling. But then secondly, in the speech, Commissioner Bratton was talking about how critics need to face the hard truth, they misrepresent us, and false accusations of systemic brutality and injustice. Well, if you don`t recognize the legitimate complaints from the life experiences of black and brown people in the city, how can you even start to talk about a future of what policing can look like if you`re not acknowledging and you`re dismissing the actual lived experiences and systemic inequalities, systemic brutality in policing practices, which were policy. O`DONNELL: Joy, the tone set by Bratton and by Comey in those -- that speech, was surprising basically because they are creatures of the law enforcement establishment. And it`s -- and as I said at the outset, what`s so striking about it -- you`re so right. I mean, if you just change the name of who`s saying the speech. REID: Yes. O`DONNELL: If you just change the occupation in who`s saying the speech, I -- we know a lot of -- and we might not have even covered it. REID: No. Absolutely. O`DONNELL: We can just hope that there is an impact that he can effect larger than just giving a speech. REID: Yes, because it`s easy, you know, for everyone to agree that the things done in the past were horrible, that those people -- O`DONNELL: Well, just a second. It`s not easy for everyone. I`m not sure there`s a person on FOX News who -- REID: Yes. That`s -- (LAUGHTER) REID: Well, that`s just true. O`DONNELL: So there`s a whole world out there -- REID: Yes. O`DONNELL: -- who are fans of Bill Bratton, who absolutely do not agree with him. REID: But even worse than that, there is a police union that doesn`t even want to acknowledge -- O`DONNELL: Yes. REID: -- that using a chokehold, that you`re not supposed to do, that`s prohibited, is wrong. And that they -- and that there`s this belief that police are to be revered and never criticized. And then the police owe themselves -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: The only government workers who are to be revered in everything they do. REID: Yes. Exactly. O`DONNELL: Right. REID: Exactly. And so as long as police are -- even if they`ll brook this from Bill Bratton because they do maybe trust him way more than they trust Bill de Blasio, the idea that you can`t then tell police, who are public servants, who work for the taxpayer, no, no, no, you`re not allowed to put people in chokeholds. You`re not allowed to do certain practices. You have to respect the elected mayor of the city. If police unions won`t even allow that, then all the speeches in the world aren`t going to make police-community relations better. O`DONNELL: Right. Right. Mark, go ahead. THOMPSON: Well, you know, I agree with all that`s been said. He brought up policing and slavery and nothing compares to slavery. However, when we look at the current situation, stop and frisk, broken windows, slaves were innocent. Those who come under and have been apprehended by stop and frisk and broken windows are also innocent. He also said that because of the socio-economic situations that people are in, it affects their perspective. Well, 80 percent white-on-white violence, over a third of that is committed by white, but we don`t do that to whites. So we`re not infected with anything, any stereotypes when it comes white so that still needs to be addressed. O`DONNELL: We`re going to have to break it there. Dorian Warren, Mark Thompson, Joy Reid, thank you all for joining me tonight. REID: Thanks a lot. WARREN: Thank you, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Coming up, the surprising connection to the man who now stands convicted of murdering the real "American Sniper" Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. That`s next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We the jury find the defendant Eddie Ray Routh guilty. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Twenty-seven-year-old Eddie Ray Routh is now serving life in prison without the possibility of parole after a jury rejected his claim that he was legally insane at the time he murdered Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Also rejecting that claim is Chad Littlefield`s brother Jerry, who revealed for the first on the "Today" show that he was actually one of Eddie Ray Routh`s teachers in high school. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think he was mentally ill or do you think this was all an act? JERRY RICHARDSON, CHAD LITTLEFIELD`S BROTHER: It was all an act. I taught him in high school, and that`s new out there. Everybody that knows me remembers that I worked with him. He was -- that`s just the way he was. He never grew up. He was still just opposite defiant and he had nothing wrong in the mind, except for the drug use. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Coming up, a scene from the Oscar nominated film "Selma" that you have not seen. It`s actually an outtake of what was one of the most emotional moments on the set for everyone involved in the making of "Selma." If you`ve seen the movie, you`ve got to see this. And if you haven`t seen the movie, I promise this won`t ruin anything. You`ve got to see this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Whoa, whoa. (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: You look a lot better because, you know, I don`t dye my hair. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know. (LAUGHTER) OBAMA: I`m not the winner. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it`s called the Obama. OBAMA: No, no, no, that`s natural. (END VIDEO CLIP) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AMY POEHLER, ACTRESS: So I`m running for governor. (CHEERS) POEHLER: Andy is going to be running my campaign because he`s a super genius. He`s got a tight, compact little body like an Italian sports car. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That`s from last night`s wonderful series finale of "Parks and Rec," and as emotional as it was for us "Parks and Rec" lovers to watch I promise you it was much more emotional for the actors and the writers and the crew and the producers to see "Parks and Rec" the day that they wrapped the shooting on the set. It always is. Ava DuVernay has now given us a glimpse of what it was like on the set of "Selma" as the shoot was coming to an end. This is what David Oyelowo said about the first time he read the script of what was to become the Oscar nominated film "Selma." "When I read it, I just have this very visceral reaction. The only way I can describe it is that it was deeply spiritual. I really did feel God tell me, you are going to play this role." That was seven years before he played the role. "Selma" was a project languishing in development in Hollywood for years. When David Oyelowo read the script in 2007, there was no chance that he would have been cast in that role if the movie had been made that year. He had just arrived in Hollywood from England. His body of work was not substantial enough to be considered for the lead in a major motion picture and his British accent had not yet been fully tamed to the point where he could credibly delivered the mesmerizing sound of Martin Luther King, Jr. And so this, this is one of those rare instances where languishing and development hell in Hollywood was the best thing that could have happened for "Selma." The brilliant Ava DuVernay was also in no position to be offered the role of directing "Selma" in 2007. And so in effect, the script just waited for David and Ava to be ready and able to do it. Ava DuVernay shot the movie with remarkable speed, 32 days. Most major directors would take at least triple that time to achieve the production value you`ve seen on the screen and the exquisite performances that Ava DuVernay delivered. Strong bonds developed during a film shoot. The longer the shoot, the deeper the bonds. Actor to actor, director to actors, and of course, the crew. A real familial love develops. The longer the team is together, the harder it is to say goodbye. And everyone doesn`t say goodbye on the same day. Each actor is wrapped out of the movie when he or show does his or her final take of the final -- of their scene. Watching Martin Sheen wrapped out of the "West Wing" series after seven years, 154 episodes, was one of the most poignant and emotional moments of the professional lives of all of us who were there with him that night. An actor`s final moment in front of the camera is usually not one of the most dramatic scenes in the movie. The heaviest dramatic work of the film tends to occur not at the very beginning or the very end of a shoot. And the actor`s final take is usually just some sort of pickup of one small bit of a larger scene and it might require several repetitive takes before the actor hears that word "wrap." So it was with David Oyelowo in "Selma." His final shooting scene was Martin Luther King, Jr.`s acceptance speech for receiving the Nobel Prize. It was a scene that lulled a lot of other actors and extras, which meant that when it was over, David Oyelowo could hear that sweet sound that film actors rarely here. Applause. A lot of applause. Ava DuVernay posted that moment and linked to it in a tweet just before the Oscar ceremony saying, "I never shared this. I saved it for today. A special outtake of my hero. I love you, David. You are my best actor." When you watch David Oyelowo picture wrap for "Selma," you`re not watching an actor at the end of a 30-day shoot, you`re watching an actor at the end of seven years of hoping, seven years of studying everything he could possibly find about the character he was playing. You`re watching an actor at the end of seven years of work that it took to play this part, the part of a lifetime. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID OYELOWO, ACTOR, "SELMA": Together, we believe that what the illusion of supremacy has destroyed, the truth of equality can nourish. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hold your applause. Hold your applause until I say, it`s a picture wrap on David Oyelowo. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Thank you to Ava DuVernay for allowing us the privilege of seeing this onset glimpse of the family of actors and artists and crew who gave us "Selma." Up next, Jose Diaz-Balart and the immigration town hall with President Obama. LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022501cb.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 119 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 26, 2015 Thursday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST Jihadi John Unmasked; American ISIS Suspects Arrested; The War Against ISIS BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Richard Engel, Eugene Robinson, Eugene Robinson, Ron Reagan, Richard Lui GUESTS: Raffaello Pantucci, Tom Sanderson, Lt. Col. John Nagl, Al Cardenas, Mercedes Schlapp SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8003 words HIGHLIGHT: "Jihadi John," the masked figure who has presided over beheadings on ISIS videos, has been identified to be a 27-year-old Kuwait-born computer programmer from London. Why would an American want to go fight with ISIS? How will President Obama deal with the growing call for the U.S. to go to war with bad guys of ISIS? CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Now we know him, so how do we get him? Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews up in New York. And ever since ISIS started terrorizing Americans this past summer with horrific beheadings, one man has personified the killers without ever showing his face. The masked murderer appeared in the beheading video of American journalist James Foley in August, and then again in the videos of Steven Satloff, British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, and American humanitarian Peter Kassig. He was last seen in the beheading video of the Japanese journalist Kenji Goto in January. With a distinct British accent, he often taunted the West. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m back, Obama. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: "I`m back, Obama." Well, the irreverent British press have dubbed him "Jihadi John," but we now know who he is. "The Washington Post" reported today his name is Mohammed Emwazi. He`s thought to be about 27 years old, born in Kuwait. He grew up in London. He comes from a well-to- do family and is a college graduate who studied computer programming. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed his identity to NBC News. How do we account for this journey from middle class Londoner to vicious executioner? "The Washington Post" offers a few hints. In 2009, he traveled to Tanzania, where he and two friends were detained by police. He later said that British authorities detained him again when he returned to Europe. The next year, he tried to move back to his homeland of Kuwait, but reportedly was prevented from doing so by authorities. Well, according to the BBC, he came to the attention of the counterterrorism officials in Britain as an associate of two men thought to be involved with extremists over in Africa. Emwazi eventually made he way to Syria and joined ISIS. Along with two other Brits, he guarded Western hostages. The three were dubbed "the Beatles" because of their accents. And by all accounts, they were deliberately brutal. A source familiar with the hostages told NBC News back in August, quote, "They were really rough with the hostages. Whenever the Beatles showed up, there was some kind of physical beating or torture." Well, "The New York Times" said, quote, "They seemed to take pleasure in brutalizing them." The abuse included prolonged beatings, mock executions and repeated waterboarding. For more on the identity of this brutal man, I`m joined right now by NBC chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who`s over in Istanbul. Richard, what do we know about Mohammed Emwazi? RICHARD ENGEL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, you outlined his biography, and I think one of the key things is he was so well known to British authorities, to British intelligence and law enforcement. And we keep seeing this. That was the case in Paris, where the two shooters were known, the two brothers were well known, had been under surveillance. The man who opened fire in that cafe in Sydney, Australia, also had been under surveillance, actually was out on bail for allegedly murdering his wife. So in all of these cases, we have people who have been tracked, and yet somehow managed to slip through the cracks. Not very surprising that he came from a middle class or somewhat better than middle class upbringing. People who are being attracted to ISIS have to pay their own way. This is -- these are not necessarily the poor and destitute who have no jobs. These are people who are ideologically driven to join a cause, to join the caliphate. He went there. He started out as a guard, one of the "Beatles" guarding Western hostages, brutalizing them, involved in waterboard and other forms of torture. And then with these execution videos, he rose in prominence and became one of the group`s most effective recruiters, became one of the group`s most effective spokesmen. And the propaganda arm of ISIS has been incredibly effective in drawing other people just lime Mohammed Emwazi. According to estimates, there are about 15,000 foreign fighters, most of them from Arab countries, and around 3,000 to 4,000 from Western countries, just like the man from London now identified as Mohammed Emwazi. MATTHEWS: Is it reasonable, Richard, to assume that they do this, put a guy out with a British accent in order to tell the people, Come on in, the water is fine, to encourage like-minded people of that background, of - - you know, people with an Islamic background with a predilection perhaps towards this political point of view, if not the violence, by their attitude about living in a different country? What is the motivation, by the way, if it`s not money -- and I never thought it was -- for this ideological shift to the point of being a beheader? ENGEL: Well, this is obviously someone who is deeply disturbed, someone who beheaded repeatedly and on camera. What motivates someone to do that? You`d have to look into the mind of a murderer. What motivates people to join ISIS is something of a push and a pull. There is this -- the draw of joining the caliphate, the idea that has always been in circles in the Islamic world that the caliphate is something that needs to be restored, that one day will be restored, and that it is an Islamic duty to go and find and be part of the caliphate. Then there is the group itself, which is advertising on line all the time, on Twitter, on social media, telling people, Come, the water is warm, come on in, and his beheadings were a key part of that messages campaign, to show power, really, because if you remember, in all of these videos, he`s standing. He`s holding his knife. He`s wearing a holster. He`s speaking and carrying himself with a swagger. He`s calling President Obama just -- you know, just referring to him as "Obama." MATTHEWS: Yes. ENGEL: And it shows power as his hostages kneeling, cowering in front of him in an orange jumpsuit, about to be beheaded. And I think that`s what it`s all about, for people who are angry, who want to see a change in the world, who want to see the Islamic world stand on its feet again, that this group represents people who are taking action, and who won`t say no and are standing while their oppressors are kneeling, about to die. MATTHEWS: That`s a very emphatic description. Thank you so much, Richard Engel over in Istanbul. I`m joined right now by Raffaello Pantucci. He`s the director of International Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute. Well, what did you make of that assessment by Richard Engel that we`re looking at someone who might be psychopathic or sociopathic in terms of what they do in beheading people, but their overall orientation is this extremist ideology, which, basically, I guess it`s fair to say, justifies the worst kind of behavior on the way toward the caliphate? RAFFAELLO PANTUCCI, TERRORISM ANALYST, ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE: Well, I think that`s probably a pretty accurate characterization, in some ways. I mean, what you`re dealing with is, fundamentally, a movement to create a new alternative world and to create a sort of -- you know, this is a political -- politically motivated terrorist organization, so it`s all about trying to show that they`re creating a new state. And this is the vanguard state that is leading the sort of clash of civilizations that they see that`s happening in the world between the Muslim world and the West. And this guy is sort of standing up, you know, as Richard Engel pointed out, you know, with these sort of people cowering before him, talking directly to the president of the United States. He`s really standing up. It`s sort of -- it`s a real show of strength and a real show of power, and really showing that what they`re doing in this Islamic State, as they so call it, is really creating a sort of a new world and something that is attractive and that people who sort of want to get excited and are sort of drawn to these sorts of ideas have a place to go to. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask about the real psycho part of this. How do you get people to believe that their prisoners, in this case captives, are evil, that they justify this kind of end and this kind of humiliating end to their lives? PANTUCCI: Well, I think, you know, it`s probably individual cases have different sort of rationales behind them. It`s possible some of these people -- and if we look at sort of historical cases, there is some evidence that some people have social or psychopathic issues. But often, what really happens is this is a slow path (ph). So we look at a figure like this, this Mohammed Emwazi, we know he went out there a while ago. He may have initially participated in some training. He may have been involved in some fighting. But then he sort of seems to have risen up the ranks from that. And you know, as sort of becomes more involved in the conflict and the whole situation becomes more dehumanizing, it becomes easier maybe to accept that this is the sort of thing that needs to be done to really advance your cause and advance your message. And then, of course there`s the other aspect of, you know, once he has been maybe told by his superiors to do something like this, you know, it`s difficult to say no. And so then you`re sort of tied into that. And once you participate and really wrap yourself into the group, maybe you become stuck in these sorts of choices. So I think, you know, we have to look at it as something that doesn`t happen overnight or suddenly. It`s probably something that happens over a longer period of time, and it`s sort of a brutalization of an individual. MATTHEWS: Yes, I keep thinking of the SS in World War II. Anyway, thank you so much, Raffaello Pantucci. There`s news tonight on that other major ISIS story, the arrest of those men from Brooklyn yesterday, who were accused of plotting to fight for ISIS. Tonight, a fourth man has been arrested by federal agents. He`s being questioned in connection to the other men, but he has not been charged in that conspiracy. Rather, he`s being held on immigration charges. Yesterday, New York City police commissioner Bill Bratton warned of the danger that happens if people like this fail in their effort to travel overseas and decide to wage jihad back here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL BRATTON, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: This is real. This is the concern about the lone wolf inspired to act without ever going to the Mideast, or the concern of once they get to the Mideast, acquire fighting skills, capabilities, and then attempting to return to the country. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: FBI director James Comey also made clear the threat is very real. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: We have investigations of people in various stages of radicalizing in all 50 states. I tell my state and local partners this is about all of us being connected tightly to each other. This isn`t a New York phenomenon or a Washington phenomenon. This is all 50 states, and in ways that are very hard to see. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I`m joined right now by Thomas Sanderson. He`s co-director of the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Sanderson, thank you for this. Do you have a clue about why someone living in America, or living in Western Europe, especially here, though, which -- we take pride in this country and our ability to assimilate people, not always perfectly, but you can become an American within one generation in most cases, fully American in your culture, your attitudes, your comfort in this country. What is the problem with these people that don`t fit? TOM SANDERSON, CSIS: Well, it may have nothing to do with their experience in America, though sometimes it does. In Europe, it has more with their experience there in Europe. For these young guys, and many others who want to go over to Syria and Iraq, it`s about what`s happening there, the sense of -- and hatred over those who are fighting, those who they`re fighting against, the Shia, those who are engaged in the coalition, the defense of the caliphate. All of these things are highly motivating and would push someone, whether they are integrated or not in the United States, to go over and fulfill a mission that they feel they have a duty to fulfill. MATTHEWS: But why would they want to go over and kill Christian -- Coptic Christians or Yazidis or other Sunni? It`s not Sunni versus Shia in so many cases. How do we explain the fact they`re just out to kill, it seems to me, anybody in their path. SANDERSON: Well, look, there`s a different story and motivation behind each person. They may be interested in killing Christians or other Sunnis they don`t -- they deem insufficiently Muslim, or they`re largely going after Shia. So it totally depends on which one we`re talking about here. MATTHEWS: What about that threat that Bill Bratton, the New York police commissioner, just mentioned on this tape, that if they get confounded in their efforts to get over there to the Islamic State to help develop the caliphate and make it grow, that they might move here -- I mean, act at home. SANDERSON: Absolutely. Well, think about those that are living in a sense of marginalization, where they don`t feel they have capability or power or a sense of purpose. They want to go over and fight, yet they`re unable to do it. That compounds their sense of impotency and then leaves them with few options, which includes attacking in place, either where they live or traveling to other parts of the United States. So those that fail to go over and that are motivated to go over, they, I think, are very dangerous individuals because they now feel even more incapable of fulfilling their duty, and they`ll look around them and see plenty of targets. MATTHEWS: Yes, all they have to do is find a semiautomatic weapon of some kind and they can do mass killing. SANDERSON: Absolutely, which is very simple in the States. MATTHEWS: Unfortunately, it`s too handy. Anyway, thank you, Tom Sanderson, for that expertise. Coming up -- more and more Americans say they support military action against ISIS, even American boots on the ground. How will President Obama, the president who got us out of Iraq, deal with this growing call to get us back in? Plus, the red hots on the right host their annual CPAC jamboree, and the name of the game for this crowd is who can hate President Obama and Hillary Clinton the most. And Donald Trump says this time, he really means it. He says he`s serious about running for president in 2016. So I say once again it`s "Peanuts" time, and once again, Lucy is really promising Charlie Brown that she really won`t pull that football away. Finally, "Let Me Finish" with the face of evil behind the ISIS mask. And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: The United States Senate will vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security before the money runs out at midnight tomorrow night. But on the House side, John Boehner refuses to say how he`ll protect the country. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We`re waiting to see what the Senate can or can`t do, and -- and then we`ll make decisions about how we`re going to proceed. QUESTION: With respect, Mr. Speaker, your answer is about what you`re going to do the same as yesterday. Can we -- we -- Mitch McConnell has said exactly what he`s going to do. You know exactly what you`re going to get. It`s going to be a clean DHS funding bill. Are you going to put it on the floor? Are you going to kill it? Do you want a vote on it? Have you even had this discussion. (LAUGHTER) BOEHNER: When I make decisions, I`ll let you know. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Blowing a kiss there. Well, anyway, meanwhile, U.S. Congressman Peter King of New York, a Republican, is up in arms over his party`s inability to get its act together and fund Homeland Security. Yesterday, he tweeted that, quote, "There are terrorist attacks all over the world, and we`re talking about closing down Homeland Security? This is like living in the world of the crazy people." House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is using that tweet from Congressman King to pressure Republicans to hold a clean vote on DHS funding. And here`s what King said about that on "ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Whatever it takes to get it done. And it shows how off the rails the Republican Party is. We`re allowing Nancy Pelosi to be the spokeswoman for Homeland Security. That should be our issue. We`re the ones who are the party of Homeland Security, and that`s why these people who say they`re conservative, who say they`re Republicans -- they`re the ones who are really going to ruin the Republican Party. So we have to end this, and the speaker has to bring this to a vote. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I think Congressman King is embarrassed by his party. We`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, support is growing for U.S. ground war against ISIS in this country. According to a new Pew Research poll, support for American ground troops to fight ISIS has grown by 8 points since October -- 47 percent now favor a U.S. ground war in that poll, and that poll is hardly an outlier. CNN`s most recent poll showed a 9-point jump in support for ground troops to fight ISIS. And according to this month`s CBS News poll, 57, a strong percentage of the country, now supports sending U.S. troops to the Mideast. That`s an 18-point increase since September. So how does President Obama deal with this growing call for war with the bad guys? John Nagl is a retired air lieutenant -- lieutenant colonel -- Army lieutenant colonel, a counterinsurgency expert and the author of "Knife Fights," and Eugene Robinson, of course, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist with "The Washington Post." Colonel Nagl, please tell us how you would use ground troops to defeat ISIS, or help defeat them? LT. COL. JOHN NAGL, U.S. ARMY (ret.): So we currently have some 3,000 American combat troops in Iraq. They are forbidden from embedding with Iraqi units outside the wire. They are forbidden from engaging in combat. I would multiply that number by five. I`d have 15,000 American advisers, combat advisers embedded inside every Iraqi and Kurdish unit. They would accompany those units to the front lines. They would call in air strikes. They would provide front-line intelligence, and they would help us defeat ISIS in very short order. MATTHEWS: What would happen if one of those embedded officers or men were captured and beheaded in some sort of horrific, dramatic fashion? Wouldn`t that cause this country to go for a much greater escalation right on the spot? NAGL: This country should go for a much greater escalation. We need to defeat ISIS. MATTHEWS: Well, then what do you think we have to do? We -- 15,000 is just the ante here? NAGL: No, I think 15,000 is a good number. We want the Iraqi and Kurdish forces to do most of the fighting, most of the killing, and, frankly, most of the dying. Some Americans may well die in that effort, but as the president has correctly stated, we have to defeat and ultimately destroy ISIS. They are a threat to us, to our friends and our interests around the globe. They have to be defeated, and they have to be defeated soon. MATTHEWS: I`m not asking tricky questions. I just want to know the trajectory here. You said if they grabbed one of our guys and beheaded them, we would probably have the urge, the feeling that we should escalate with more troops there. Is there a limit on your thinking to how far we can engage? NAGL: I don`t... MATTHEWS: How far can we go without making this an American war? NAGL: I don`t think we need much more than 15,000. I do think Americans will die in that effort, and I think this effort is so important that that price is worth paying. MATTHEWS: And when we take the ground back from ISIS -- and I would love to see us do it -- if we take the ground back from them in Iraq or in Syria, who do we turn it over to for the occupation? NAGL: We`re going to need a long-term presence of American advisers supporting Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces to occupy that territory for probably a generation to come. MATTHEWS: But what country does -- gets sovereignty over it? NAGL: It`s Iraq. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Does the Iraq government led by Shia take over Sunni territory? Would that work? NAGL: It does and it will, as long as the Shia-dominated government of Iraq continues to provide legal protections to the Sunnis. Hopefully, it`s learned its lesson. MATTHEWS: Hopefully. Well, that`s a hopeful line. Let`s go to Eugene Robinson. What do you think the president has to do. And you know the politics as well as I do. The pressure is growing, especially -- it`s really growing, I would think, among Republicans and some independents for military action on the ground. EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, I think the president is not anxious to have ground troops in Iraq, obviously, and certainly not in Syria. I think if he believed we could do it with 15,000 troops, he might take another look at it, but my guess is -- and I have not heard this from him -- but my guess is he believes that`s optimistic. I certainly -- that frankly, sounds optimistic to me, because the question is, is the one you asked. First of all, how -- do you -- are you able, with the Iraqi army, which essentially collapsed, are you able, with 15,000 U.S. advisers, able to recapture that territory, much less hold it? Second, how are you dealing with the fact that ISIS is holding the Sunni territory with the help of the Sunni tribal leaders and the Sunni forces, essentially? And, essentially, right now, we`re supporting three different groups who are all at war with each other, the Kurds and the Shiites and Sunnis? Do you send -- put advisers with all of them, so that they all fight each other? I just -- I don`t understand how this works with just 15,000. It seems to me that you inevitably escalate, and you end up with a whole lot more than that. MATTHEWS: Colonel Nagl, your response? NAGL: First, they`re not all at war with each other. Second, 15,000 American advisers is plenty. We currently have no American advisers embedded inside Iraqi combat units. I trained American advisers who embedded inside Iraqi and Afghan battalions and brigades during the earlier phases of this war. Teams of a dozen or so American advisers inside a battalion of 500 or so Iraqi and Kurdish troops will multiply the combat effectiveness of those forces dramatically. The Iraqi and Kurdish forces will be able to occupy and hold the territory once it`s been cleared largely by American airpower, and then the territory will be cleared and held by Iraqi and Kurdish troops. They can`t do it on their own. They`re going to need the combat multipliers that American combat advisers bring. MATTHEWS: What do we bring -- Colonel, what do we bring to the fight? Do we bring the fight to the fight? Do they have the fight in them to take on ISIS? Or do we have to bring that sense of fight to them? You say that they need us, but do they need us for materiel or for training? Or do they really need to really want to win the war, which they don`t seem to be willing to fight? NAGL: They need us to provide the additional oomph required... MATTHEWS: Well, oomph. NAGL: ... to squeeze ISIS out of the territory it currently holds. So, with American advisers, American airpower is infinitely more effective. With American advisers, intelligence moves right down to the front lines. With American advisers, their will to fight and their knowledge that if they are wounded they will be helped and they will receive help all increases dramatically. MATTHEWS: Well, my question to Gene -- I think we agree on this -- if we were fighting on the sides of the South Koreans, we wouldn`t have any problems; if we were fighting on the side of the Turks in the Korean War, I would have no problem. I think we`re fighting on the side of an army that is Shia-led. The Shia militia want to kill. I`m not sure the Shia -- the government of Baghdad has the capability to raise a true army of Sunni people who are willing to take back that territory. ROBINSON: Well, I`m not sure either. I wonder what happens to the Iranians, who are playing -- right now playing a role in bolstering the Shia-dominated Iraqi forces, to the extent they`re able to fight at all, to hold that part of Southern Iraq that they`re able to hold? Do we just brush them aside? Do we fight alongside the Iranians? Or what -- or do we just sort of ignore their presence? MATTHEWS: OK. I have got to ask -- I have got to turn on you -- you`re a man at my side there, Gene. I want to ask you the tough question on the left. And this is the tough one. How long can our president survive in office politically and have his credibility as leader and commander in chief when we have these beheadings, these burnings alive, all on television? To me, it shames us. How long can he put up with it without taking aggressive action against the enemy? ROBINSON: Well, look, he`s president. He doesn`t have to face the voters again. Obviously, there are other political considerations, and it does weaken him and stretch his credibility if -- as this stuff continues. I think the president would love, for example, to be able to take out Jihadi John with a drone and be able to say, you know, we got that guy, and to present a couple of high-profile successes from the current campaign to illustrate why there`s perhaps no need to escalate the battle. MATTHEWS: Right. ROBINSON: I just tend to feel, you know, without prejudging the issue, but I tend to feel that if you`re in for a dime, you`re in for a whole lot more than a dime. MATTHEWS: I think so too. We`re in for a -- this fight has just begun, this argument. Thank you much, Colonel Nagl, for joining me. This is a good argument for America right now. And thank you, Gene Robinson, my friend. Up next: Donald Trump is once again making noise about running for president. Why is anyone taking this talk seriously? We`re going to get to that, because I think he has a credibility problem, not at a business tycoon -- that`s done -- but as a political candidate. I don`t see it. I have never seen it, I think. Anyway, this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Donald Trump is saying again that he`s more serious than ever about running for president. According to "The Washington Post," Trump has delayed negotiations on the next season of the "Celebrity Apprentice" and is staffing up in key primary states. He met with Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus on Monday of this weekend to discuss his potential 2016 presidential campaign. Well, this is at least the fourth time that Donald Trump has toyed publicly with the idea of running for president. Trump first floated the idea in several newspapers back in 1987. He didn`t run that time, of course, but he was asked about it after Bush won that nomination, the first Bush. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) QUESTION: You took out full-page ads in "The New York Times" to talk about your foreign policy. Some people would say... DONALD TRUMP, CHAIRMAN & CEO, TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS: I feel very strongly. I do feel very strongly about the country. I love the country. But I think you`re going to have probably George Bush as your next president. QUESTION: Well, I wasn`t talking about this year, Mr. Trump, but you have said that, if you ran for president, you would win. TRUMP: I think I would have a very good chance. I mean, I like to win. When I do something, I like to win. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, then again in 1999, Donald Trump talked openly about running for president in the 2000 year election. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) QUESTION: Everyone who runs for public office has to be able to look into the camera and tell people why they should vote for him. TRUMP: Well, I will just look at you. I don`t have to look at a camera. I will look at you. I will look you right in the eyes and I will just say that I would be a great president, if I decide to do it. I know how things should run. And this country has not run properly. And if I were president, this country would indeed run properly. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: And four years ago, Donald Trump teased the country with the prospect of another run, using President Obama`s birth certificate as his main issue. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: It`s hard to believe that Obama became the president of the United States, not because of race, not because of color, not because of anything, but because of all of the things that we don`t know about him. Why did he spend millions of dollars trying to get out of the birth certificate issue? (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, this is beginning to sound like Groundhog Day. I think I`m actually hearing Sonny and Cher singing, "I Got You, Babe" again. Anyway, I`m joined right now by MSNBC political analyst Ron Reagan. There`s that clock radio again in the morning, that Donald Trump is running for president. I don`t know why he does it, except that we`re talking about him, and he likes that. Ron, your theory? RON REAGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Donald Trump will be a strangely coiffed comedy grenade lobbed right into the middle of the Republican primary if he actually decides to get in. Listen, this guy has got absolutely no policy credentials whatsoever. He seems to be motivated mostly by self-interest. And he appears to say anything that pops into his head. I promise you, I promise you that the Republican Party stalwarts right now, the people who are really running real campaigns, they are not happy about this. This is going to turn a three-ring circus into a freak show. MATTHEWS: Well, let me show you something along those lines. When it comes to policy you mentioned there, Donald Trump has taken some unconventional positions over the years. For instance, in 1987, he said the United States should simply take over Iran`s oil. Let`s watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Iran has taken advantage of this country for years. Iran is in big trouble in terms of the military. We ought to go in the next time they fire so much as a bullet at one of our ships. We ought to go in and take over their oil. I have no doubt about it. Other people would say, oh, Donald, that might start a war. We are going to have a war through weakness. You go in, you take over -- you take over the oil. Then let them have the rest of their country. We just want the oil. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: You know, compared to him, Chris Christie sounds like Swee`Pea. I don`t know, but I don`t think it -- it really works. I mean, how do you exactly do this? You go in there, kill a bunch of Iranians, take over the oil. They shoot at a bunch of us. We kill some more people, and we end up giving the oil back. REAGAN: Yes. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I mean, what kind of game are we talking about here? REAGAN: Well, and game is the right word here. I mean, does anybody seriously think that Donald Trump is serious about running for president, that he would actually want to be president? He likes the attention. As you said, this is a good way to attract attention to yourself. Maybe he gets a little more money for his television show this way, because he can be the former presidential candidate Donald Trump. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Yes. REAGAN: I will make a prediction, though, for you. And I don`t really get into predictions much, but this one, I will go way out on a limb. Donald Trump will never, ever be president of the United States. MATTHEWS: OK. I have got a guy to back up that prediction. Trump himself did once say he would probably never run. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: It was here in HARDBALL back in 2003. Here he is, the guy to predict. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, here`s what you said: "I continue to be interested in the political process, and cannot rule out a possible candidacy in 2004." That was you February 2000. TRUMP: Oh, well, that was a long time ago, no, because I hadn`t heard that one a long time. No, I never did. MATTHEWS: Well, you heard it here, Donald. (LAUGHTER) TRUMP: I never did run and I probably never will run. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, that`s it, isn`t it? "I never will run." Thank you, Donald, for truth. We had to go back to the tapes for that, but we found it. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Ron Reagan, thank you. I think you`re right on that bet. REAGAN: You bet. MATTHEWS: Up next: From one circus to another, the conservative CPAC conference is under way, and it`s a contest apparently to show who hates President Obama and Hillary Clinton the mostest. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. RICHARD LUI, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi. I`m Richard Lui in the MSNBC newsroom for you. The Judiciary Committee has voted to confirm Loretta Lynch, President Obama`s choice to replace Eric Holder as attorney general. A full Senate vote on her confirmation is expected in the next two weeks. Three deaths are being blamed on the winter storm system that began punishing Mississippi on Tuesday. And a judge has overturned Adrian Peterson`s suspension. The Vikings running back was suspended by the NFL in November after pleading no contest in a child abuse case. The league plans to appeal that ruling -- now back to HARDBALL. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Well, today was the first day of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. It`s called CPAC. Kicking off the event were a few Republican presidential hopefuls who took their turns bashing President Obama and his potential successor, Hillary Clinton. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Hillary Clinton embodies the corruption of Washington. Obamacare is a train wreck. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) CRUZ: And that`s actually not fair to train wrecks. (LAUGHTER) DR. BEN CARSON, CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST: I started to talk about all the failures of the current administration, but I figured that was too depressing. And that`s probably why they`re ready for Hillary, too. CARLY FIORINA, FORMER HEWLETT-PACKARD CEO: Yes, Mr. President, ISIS indeed wants to drive the whole world back to the Middle Ages, but the rest of us moved on about 800 years ago. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) FIORINA: Like Mrs. Clinton, I too have traveled the globe. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Sarcasm wins the day down there. For more on the heat from CPAC, let`s bring in the roundtable: Al Cardenas is the former chair of the American Conservative Union which runs this thing, Jonathan Capehart is an opinion writer for "The Washington Post", and Mercedes Schlapp is a former spokesperson for President George W. Bush. Let me ask you about the mood down there. First of all, Al, thanks for joining us. Is the mood that nasty, or am I just imagining that everybody knows that if you want to score a 10 down there, whack the president, and on the way by, whack Hillary? AL CARDENAS, FORMER CHAIR, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Well, look, it`s part of the show, but the main purpose is to train, give the tools and the toolbox to young activists and older activists to be there for the 2016 challenge, to learn something. And the only place in the world in the country really that you can watch wannabe for 2016 back to back to back and make your own choices. But, Chris, the ultimate goal in my opinion, as you watch this people is, is this candidate a statesman or crowd pleaser? And number two, has he given me or she, a clear path to where America needs to be or should be and be all it can be? And so, those are the two goals that I always had as a youngster when I went to CPAC. MATTHEWS: You`re making my point, Al, because all these people come in with the door prizes. They come in with these little snapper jokes about Hillary thinking that travel is work, and somebody else comparing it as a train wreck, saying he`s worse than a train wreck. This is all prepared material, and all it is, is applause lines to snap at the president and the possibly future Democratic nominee. It`s a snapper stuff. It`s all prepared ahead, cooked ahead and brought in to excite the kids out there. CARDENAS: Well, you know, there`s a time for everything. And America -- MATTHEWS: What is this a time for? (CROSSTALK) CARDENAS: -- are great. Well, look, the time is for practical solution, for problem-solving, for heading America in the right direction. And politics, after all, is all about the art of the possible. That`s what I love to see at the end of the program. MATTHEWS: I`m with you. Mercedes, do you think that`s what they`re going to do at CPAC, cook up solution for America`s problems or just hatchet jobs on the Dems? MERCEDES SCHLAPP, FORMER PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH SPOKESPERSON: You know, I think it`s both. I think, first of all, what this is doing is rallying the base. This is the rally cry. This is the fact for conservatives they are tired of the six years of Obama presidency. They don`t want to have a follow-up with a Hillary presidency. So, what do you do? You train your activists, you get them motivated, and you basically have this parade of different candidates that are coming out and, yes, they`re going to be given the one-liners. But guess what, Chris? The media is covering the one-liners. It`s how they`re best rallying the base. And they are talking about policy solutions. I mean, they have panels on a bunch of very different topics. It`s also trying to educate and prepare the conservative base for what`s coming up in the next 21 months before the 2016 election. MATTHEWS: Well, you could have problems, Al and Mercedes, because I believe Chelsea Clinton will be well over 35 by the year 2024. So, this maybe the worst thought -- SCHLAPP: Another Clinton? Come on. MATTHEWS: This may be your worst nightmare. Anyway, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is surging in the polls lately very impressively, also aimed his fire today at President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Here he is, the governor of Wisconsin. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: We have a president, a president who drawing lines in the sand and fails to act, a president who calls ISIS the jayvee club, who calls Yemen a success, and who calls Iran a country we can do business with, and to add insult to injury, who`s former secretary of state actually gave a reset button to the Russians, a reset button! We need a leader in America who stands up and realizes that radical Islamic terrorism is the threat to our way of life and to all freedom-loving people around the world. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, John, he hit all the buttons there, radical Islamic, it can`t just been terrorism. I mean, every point, I mean, he knows his stuff. JONATHAN CAPEHART, THE WASHINGTON POST OPINION WRITER: If that speech were a pinball machine, he hit all the bumpers and flippers. SCHLAPP: Right. CAPEHART: You know, that Scott Walker was in tone and in his substance. I don`t agree with anything he just said, but I have to tell you, that he struck me as rather impressive there. It`s a pity, though, that he can`t be that impressive when he`s not speaking from his stump speech, when he`s asked a question about evolution, when he asked a question about the president and his religion. When he`s asked questions that, you know, are off the cuff and contemporaneous, he can`t -- he can`t seem to perform. But if he stays in venues like this, no wonder he`s high in the polls against his likely challengers. MATTHEWS: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie sat down for a question and answer period, than what he wanted with Laura Ingraham. And Christie told Ingraham that Jeb Bush, the perceived front runner going into this thing, is the choice of the elites in the GOP. Not a nice thing to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAURA INGRAHAM, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: A lot of the fancy political consultants and a lot of the media types covering this today, they basically think this is Jeb Bush`s race to lose. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: If the elites in Washington who make backroom deals decide who the president is going to be, then he`s definitely the front-runner. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Al, it seems like your party has taste for the populism, going against the rich people in New York and Washington, you know? They`re the bad guys now. Is that the spirit? CARDENAS: Well, you know, as I get older, I get a little less patient with whining and cynicism, to be truthful. I`ll tell you this, I was with Jeb Bush when he visited the sugar mills in Florida, a big industry, and when he demanded of those owners that there`d be better housing and conditions for those farm workers. I was with Jeb Bush when he fought for the underserved and unrepresented in seeking immigration policies that were compassionate with people. I was with Jeb Bush one night when we walked past -- and frankly I walked past a homeless man and he stopped to see how he was doing. MATTHEWS: OK. CARDENAS: I don`t think -- I don`t think comments of that nature about anybody. I wouldn`t say anything about Chris Christie like that or anyone else. MATTHEWS: Let me ask a question, Al, from your heart, is Jeb Bush conservative enough to be the Republican nominee in 2016? CARDENAS: You know, Chris, the media in 2000 decided that they wanted to cover intensely the differences between the Bush brothers. You recall that. MATTHEWS: Right. CARDENAS: And now, the whole coverage is about how similar they are. Well, they are all different, as all siblings in every family are different. So, he has a lot of time, fortunately, to tell the American people what he`s all about. He was one of the most conservative governors the country had when he stepped down in 2006. He -- he received plaudits from all the conservative activists who are having a little bit of a memory loss. But I`ve got their quotes, and I`ve got their comments about what a great conservative he was. MATTHEWS: Well, to make your point, Al, I think he`s Hillary people`s worst nightmare if he runs. Anyway -- because if he wins the nomination, the middle is in play. Anyway, thank you. SCHLAPP: That`s right. MATTHEWS: The roundtable is staying with us. And up next, is this headline in today`s "Washington Post" going to cause problems for Hillary Clinton, foreign governments gave millions to her foundation while Clinton was at the State Department. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Here`s an update on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s trip to Washington next week. Netanyahu will meet with the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate after his address to Congress on Tuesday. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced the meeting today. Earlier this week, Netanyahu refused an invitation to meet with Senate Democrats, saying it would look partisan. Netanyahu, of course, was invited to address Congress, just two weeks before his own election by John Boehner. And the White House wasn`t notified at that time. We`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: We`re back. A conflict of interest can be a dangerous thing in politics, especially if it sticks to your party`s future nominee for president. Today`s big story in the front page of "The Washington Post" places serious scrutiny on the money behind Hillary Clinton`s powerful group, the Clinton Foundation. They report, quote, "The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton`s tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration." Republican presidential hopefuls Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz ripped into the story today when speaking to the conservatives at the CPAC gathering. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FIORINA: Mrs. Clinton, please name an accomplishment. And in the meantime, in the meantime, please accept and explain why we should accept that the millions and millions of dollars that have flowed into the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments do not represent a conflict of interest. (APPLAUSE) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: We could have had Hillary here. But we could not find a foreign nation to foot the bill. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, he said it with a smirk but it still has power. Back at the roundtable, Al, Jonathan and Mercedes. Mercedes, are you guys going to jump on this? SCHLAPP: Well, absolutely, I mean, this is just one of those episodes where we`re seeing the true Clinton come out which is pay-for-play. This is too close for Secretary Clinton to be involved in this foundation, accept money from foreign government, knowing at some point that some of the governments were lobbying her during the time that she was secretary of state. So, this is absolutely a very -- it`s a sticky situation, I believe, for the Clintons. And I think Republicans can justify -- you know, can come out and justify saying this loophole they have with the foreign government and Hillary Clinton and that relationship is just -- it can be very problematic for them. MATTHEWS: Jonathan, how do you deal with this? How do you deal with it on the editorial page? CAPEHART: Well, I mean, these are legitimate questions. Today`s story raises legitimate questions. The key here will be how Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation responds as more and more of these questions come up. I would like to point out, though, that when our paper, the post, went to the Clinton Foundation and asked these things the foundation answered. And the other thing is, we have to keep in mind that in the clip you just read from the story, there was an agreement between the Obama administration and the foundation about what it can and cannot do. And as you read, only one of those donations was in violation of that agreement. But still, it`s going to require Hillary Clinton and the foundation to explain what that agreement is, what it entails, and what kind of influence it had, if any. I take issue with the word lobbying that Mercedes used, because as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton is not lobbing for anything, or open to lobbying for anything. She can`t write legislation. She didn`t have any say over laws. But, you know, foreign governments, you know -- SCHLAPP: Well, let`s call it influence, Jonathan. I mean, it`s influence. It`s meetings with the secretary -- you know, with the State Department. MATTHEWS: For the record, the State Department is sticking with Hillary saying she is OK on this. Anyway, thank you, Al Cardenas. Thank you, Jonathan Capehart. And Mercedes Schlapp, thank you. Great conversation tonight. We`ll be right back after this. MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this killer who hides behind a mask and celebrates his hatred of us. It`s hard to face up to such a figure to accept that he stands on this earth with us, openly and coldly slicing off our heads one at a time or in groups. He lacks not an ounce of sympathy for us, of course, believe that if nothing else. He cares not for our fears, or horrors or our final humiliation, or, of course, the death that comes at the end. In fact, he wants this moment, wants to be there, taking pleasure in them, wants to know before, during, and after, that he has the power of inflicting death, fearful, terrifying, total. And he wants you, those of you watching these videos he sends out, to know it, feel it, hate it, and know there is nothing you can do about it, nothing to stop him. The Jihadi John, the headline writers have dubbed him, but unlike Baghdad Bob, we called that guy who couldn`t and wouldn`t defeat of Saddam`s armies, there`s nothing of mirth in this man, nor should there be in a name thrown upon him. Masked or not, he is the face of evil, and as long as he stands out there, condemning, humiliating and ultimately executing people, he looms as a specter of evil that I don`t think can be endured without shaming ourselves. There needs to be a reckoning with this evil. The challenge to President Barack Obama which he must now know, as anyone else knows, is to find a way to bring it. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022601cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 120 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 26, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 26, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Steve Clemons, Sarah Dallof, Kate Rogers, James Peterson GUESTS: Steny Hoyer, Emanuel Cleaver, Leo Gerard, John Fugelsang, Colleen McKinney, Jane Kleeb SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7530 words HIGHLIGHT: Speaker Boehner refuses to remove red tape from legislation that would fund the Department of Homeland Security. Unions join forces to fight against the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership which threatens hard working Americans jobs. Republican presidential hopefuls take the stage at CPAC touting their conservative ideals, while attempting to address racial issues. The "Keystone pipeline of natural gas" is gearing up to be the next big fight to protect homeowners from potential environmental disasters. ED SCHULTZ, THE ED SHOW HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show. I don`t know about you but I didn`t hear what I thought I was going to hear today. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Tonight, the DHS funding battle wages on as security concerns mount. SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN, (D) NEW HAMPSHIRE: The risks to this country are too great for us not to provide the resources. SCHULTZ: Two men caught (ph) to travel overseas to join the terror group ISIS. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: We passed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security six weeks ago. SEN. HARRY REID, (D-NV) MINORITY LEADER: They send over a bill with all the riders in it, they shutdown the government. REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: Stop the games play (ph), let`s just get through it. SCHULTZ: And later, pipeline politics hit a local level in the Catskills. BRUCE BAXTER, TREE FARMER: Once they put the pipe in, I can`t sell (ph) the land anymore. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Constitution says the goal is to transport natural gas from P.A. to New York City and New England. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ve been working on this for like three years to get this approval so we can get a shovel in the ground. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don`t need more (inaudible) on this. SCHULTZ: Plus, the unions` fight against the TPP gains speed and strength. PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The Congress should act on something called "trade promotion authority". RICHARD TRUMKA, AFL-CIO PRESIDENT: It means lost jobs and lower wages. OBAMA: We still got to do everything we can to help workers and businesses succeed in the new economy. TRUMKA: Every trade agreement that`s been being negotiated by every president has driven wages down. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thank for watching. You know, as a red-headed, red-blooded tax payer American, I just didn`t hear what I thought I was going to hear today. First thing`s first. This guy right here, "Jihadi John", apparently intelligence sources around the world, have identified this guy as Mohammed Emwazi, all right. He`s the guy we all know "Jihadi John", he is been cutting American`s heads off. I thought today since the intelligence is good, everybody`s reporting it, that we know who is this guy is, that someone in Washington would have said, "We`re going to get this bastard the same way we got Osama bin Laden." But no, we`re playing shutdown politics. We`re not fighting ISIS. We might be doing a few air strikes, but we`re not fighting ISIS. We`re fighting between ourselves. This is what aggravates Americans. We need to focus the country somehow. Remember how the Republicans used to make a political living of they were the ones that could protect the country. But you know what? Now that we find out who this guy is, they`re having their bit CPAC Convention. They don`t mention it at all, that you know what? We`re going to bring this guy to justice. We have a target now. We know who he is. If I was him, I`d probably be pretty little bit nervous. Shutdown politics is the game. And if no action is taken for Homeland Security funding, hey, that the lights are getting showed up tomorrow night at midnight. On Wednesday, the Senate, they made some moves. They agreed to a clean DHS bill and of course, that is not fun, President Obama`s immigration action. Now at this hour, there`s no word on when the next vote is going to take place. Earlier today, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had some stern words for the House Republicans. REID: We`ve had all kinds of rumors that the House is going to take our fully funded bill and send it back with a number of riders on it. It is a waste of time. We will not allow a conference to take place. It won`t happen. And we`re willing to go to -- when we finished fully funding homeland security. If the Republicans want to go to immigration, any part thereof, we`ll go them. They won`t need a motion to proceed, we`ll just do it. If they send over a bill with all the riders in it, they`ve shutdown the government. We are not going to play games. ED SCHULTZ: Reid and McConnell came to an agreement. So it`s time for John Boehner, I guess, to do his job, the balls in his court. Earlier today, Boehner said this about the looming DHS shutdown. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: I just think it`s outrageous that Senate Democrats are using Homeland Security funding for blackmail to protect the actions of the President, where the President himself said he didn`t have the authority to do this. (END VIDEO CLIP) Yesterday, the White House Press Secretary said that this is a fight amongst Republicans. It is not a fight amongst Republicans. All Republicans agreed that we want to fund the Department of Homeland Security and we want to stop the President`s executive actions with regards to immigration. SCHULTZ: Oh, hold the phone right there. Not everybody in the House is onboard with Boehner. Here is Congressman Steve Peter King from New York, moments after Boehner made those comments. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PETER KING, (R) NEW YORK: It`s absolute insanity for the Republicans if we don`t vote on the clean bill. If the Senate sends us a clean bill, we have an absolute obligation, not just a political obligation but a moral obligation to vote on that. To be defunding the Department of Homeland Security at a time when the terror threats are greater now than anytime since 9/11, to me it`s just living in -- it`s a fantasy world, a delusional world. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So what the Senate sense the House a clean bill, Boehner needs to go against the Tea Party. That ain`t going to happen. Conservatives want to defund President Obama`s executive orders because DHS funding involves immigration enforcement. This has been the big debate raging for over a week. So -- probably, we better take a look quickly at President Obama`s record on enforcement because that`s all the Republicans ever do, is talk about border security. Well in 2008, the border patrol budget was roughly $2.2 billion. In 2013, the budget was $3.5 billion. President Obama has put more resources on the border than the previous two administrations. And of course, the President has been pretty tough on deportations even liberals have called them out on it. In 2013, the President deported a record of 438,000 undocumented immigrants. More than 2 million have been deported since President Obama took office. So -- all these talked about, well, you didn`t keep the borders security and everything else, give me a break. You can no way call President Obama soft on enforcement. Congressman Peter King also said Republicans are forgetting about the global threats. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KING: Sometimes I think that, you know, the Republicans are living in an unreal world. You know, this is the 22nd anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing and they`ve remind (ph) who was killed that day. Yesterday, we saw that three people arrested in Brooklyn. We know that investigation is ongoing. ISIS is treating (ph) people all over the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: For more, let`s bring in Congressman Steny Hoyer live from the Hill tonight. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight, you`re the whip. REP. STENY HOYER, (D) MARYLAND: Good to be with you Ed. SCHULTZ: You bet, what`s the speaker going to do? What`s happening? HOYER: Well, I don`t know but I know what we -- what you just reported in this thing is simply untrue, and he ought to know what`s untrue. He promised the American people that he would send individual bills forward to be voted on. What he did knowingly was to put a piece in this legislation, as Harry Reid had said, which was unacceptable to the Democrats in the Senate unacceptable to sufficient numbers they have to move ahead in the Senate. He knew it was going to die. SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOYER: He`s playing the game. I couldn`t say it better than Peter King. Knowingly (ph) is this bad politics, its bad morals. We need to keep the Department of Homeland and Security particularly as Peter King, the former Republican Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee said we need to keep on high alert at this time of great dangers to the American people... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOYER: ... and to our country and to be playing games. With the Department of Homeland Security funding is not showing frankly a love of America. SCHULTZ: Congressman, is he worried about speakership more than the funding of the Department of Homeland Security? It just seems to me that Boehner has no clue how he is going to topdown, surround the Tea Party. HOYER: Well, Ed, you`re going to have to ask John Boehner what he`s worried about. But it was clear that Mitch McConnell came to the conclusion and 98 Senators came to the conclusion. It`s time to move on. It`s time to pass the Department of Homeland Security bill which by the way is a Republican bill. This is not a... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOYER: ... Democratic bill. It came out on Republican Appropriations Committee. It`s a Republican bill. We`re going to support it as it exactly what we would want, no, but that`s not the issue. The issue is we need to keep America safe and secure. We need to keep border agents on the job. Yes. They`ll be on the job but we won`t pay them if we don`t pass this bill. We`re going to lay off 30,000 people. What do they do? They answer the phone to make sure the agents know on what information is coming in. SCHULTZ: This is (ph) only a practical question, what happens in airports if its TSA agents? Is that mean... HOYER: TSA agents will stay on the job but they won`t be paid. That`s not policy (inaudible)... SCHULTZ: You got to run into a lot of good attitudes at the airport now, there`s no doubt about that. HOYER: Morale is already low at an agency where we ought to have the highest morale, the highest readiness, the highest commitment. The men and women in the Department of Homeland Security, as Secretary Ridge said and in a fact, put on a uniform, it may not be a military uniform although 14,000 coast guardsmen have do... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOYER: ... to protect our country and playing games with the funding and the stability... SCHULTZ: That`s to do with... HOYER: ... of that agency is critical to our security and safety. SCHULTZ: Quick call, Congressman, is it going to be a shutdown at DHS? HOYER: I certainly hope not. SCHULTZ: OK. HOYER: The Senate I think it`s going to send us a clean bill. As Peter King has said, we`re going to take that bill up, pass it... SCHULTZ: All right. HOYER: ... and fund the Department of Homeland Security. SCHULTZ: Steny Hoyer, always a pleasure, great to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much. HOYER: Thank you, Ed. SCHULTZ: Now, here`s the bottom line. If the DHS shutdown, it`s going to have a disastrous impact on men and women who work hard everyday to keep us safe and do their jobs which of course the Republican say they love. Roughly 200,000 workers would have to continue to work without pay. Would you do that? It includes 50,000 TSA agents, 40,000 active duty cost guard members, 4,000 secret service agents, 40,000 customs and boarder protecting employees and 13,000 ICE agents, 30,000 DHS employees would be (inaudible). Now, Republicans always talk a big game when it comes to praising the people who protect the homeland. But if there`s an opportunity to slam the president, they have no problem throwing these hardworking Americans under the bus. And don`t you remember when we got hit on September 11th 2001, we had this huge discussion in the weeks and months ahead, after that, about, well, the left hand has to know what the right hand is doing. Why is it the CIA talking to the FBI? We`ve got communication problems. Well, you know what we got to do? We have to make the Department of Homeland Security. That was the largest rearrangement of government in the history of this country and it was push by Republicans and now they don`t want to fund it. Let me bring in Steve Clemons MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-large for the Atlantic`s. Steve, good to have you with us tonight. STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you again. SCHULTZ: All right. Tell our audience the level of vulnerability we would have if this shutdown goes through and no agreement is reach on funding. CLEMONS: Two layers to vulnerability. One is training and hiring of new personnel which continuous to be needed hulks (ph) the e-verify program, the program by which company`s check out the citizenship status of people to that ends. Those are the immediate near term things. We lose 30,000 of those folks that basically keep the process running and those that do come to work aren`t paid. And so the second layer is, yes. The people that protect the nation, protect the boarders and redeemed absolutely necessary will be on their jobs, but as you just pointed to, that requires a level of sophistication, coordination has been very impressive to me to see what they`ve discovered by way of people that were not, you know, taking a lot of concern alarms in Brooklyn. And we`re able to kind of use DHS intelligence working across the administration and other agencies. SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: . to look at people within our country that are threats. That probably slows down and doesn`t work as well either. So it will have an impact at a point where we`re seeing increase terror activity around the world but also within our boarders. SCHULTZ: I`m surprise as I said at the top of this broadcast that there wasn`t one lawmaker left, right, blue, green, center today that said, "Now that we`ve identified this guy we`re going to get him". I mean have we lost our focus. I mean we just can`t think that ISIS is somebody else`s problem. I mean, this is much more of a global problem than it ever was and if there`s our target there. I guess I`m disappointed that somebody in Washington who`s dealing with funds and responsibility of security and everything else that didn`t come out and say, you know, we`re going to get this guy. CLEMONS: Well... SCHULTZ: And I think taxpayers deserve to hear something like that right now instead they`re beaching (ph) about whether their going to fund the country or not and protect us. But the -- when we`ve got our eye off the ball is want I`m saying and I apologize to what I said... CLEMON: No, you`re actually right... SCHULTZ: . but that just where I`m at. CLEMON: We`re lost in bureaucratic scuffles. That said, you know, I think the one guy whom I know has said, we`re going to go after this, is not the airwaves much. John Brennan, the CIA director has made it clear to a group of people of that we`re going after Emwazi. And I think that that`s heartening, I think that what you position to assist that, that when you look the Congress. Congress has 535 people who want to play commander in chief. And given the scale of what you just said, they`re failing to stand up in a moment when we see someone who is brought terror into the home, made American, and Europeans, and people around the world feel insecure about what will. SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMONS: . happen tomorrow. And they`re distracted by, you know, a bureaucratic scuffle that I think... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEMON: . is really demeaning the Congress, it`s demeaning to our own interest and I think that it`s absolutely moving us in the wrong course. But I do know, just to be correct, that the people in our intelligence operation know who this guy is and they`re bringing the resources bear to target him whether or not any member, elected members of the Senate and House are paying attention. SCHULTZ: All right. Steve Clemons, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time. CLEMON: Thank you Ed. SCHULTZ: Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, "Do you think Boehner will cave to the Tea Partiers?" Text A for Yes, Text B for No to 67622, go to our blog, leave a comment at ed.msnbc.com. We got the results later on in the show. You can get my podcast at wegoted.com, rawstory.com and ringoffireradio.com. You`re looking live at CPAC. Scott Walker is speaking right now. Coming up, we`ll bring you today`s best, John Fugelsang with the live report. Plus, the AFL-CIO and the TPP is right on the crosshairs of the working folks of America. We got the details when we come back. Stay with us. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Unions are pulling together against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, big effort here. Nurses United voice their opposition to fast-tracking TPP on Capitol Hill today. The health workers say, the trade deal threatens access to medicine and American wages. The momentum is definitely spreading on the Senate floor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D) OHIO: These agreements are loaded with corporate handouts that weaken our nation ability to chart its own course. The last thing we need, Mr. President, is another NAFTA. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: The AFL-CIO came out stronger than ever against the trade promotion authority. Richard Trumka made a simple statement about what fast-tracking TPP means for Americans. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMKA: Lost jobs and lower wages, that`s it. That`s it (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Labor leaders join together at AFL-CIO Executive Council Meeting at Atlanta over the last of couple of days. Trade promotion authority was at the top of their agenda. Leaders also discuss fighting the wave of big money coming into the election and the right to work legislation that instate especially in Wisconsin. The push for union-busting measures is moving in a lighting speed. Wisconsin Republican Scott cut short a public hearing on right-to-work yesterday and of course Republicans were concern about protest from labor supporters. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. VAN WANGGAARD, (R) WISCONSIN: We got wind of threats that were being made to disrupt the hearings. And it was a different crowd of people that were coming into the Capitol and the Capitol police were concerned that there might be an issue and there were threats that they were going to disrupt and force Capitol police to haul them out physically. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: We just can`t get any video tape that backs that up. The State Senate passed the bill with no Democratic support. The full assembly is expected to take up the bill as soon as next week. And Governor Walker is expected to sign it. Joining me tonight, Leo Gerard, International President of United Steel Workers, also with us tonight, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri. Gentlemen, good to have you with us. LEO GERARD, PRESIDENT, UNITED STEEL WOKERS OF AMERICA: It`s good to be with you. SCHULTZ: Mr. Gerard, you first. Can you stop trade promotion authority? Where is the momentum right now? GERARD: I think we can stop trade promotion authority. Let me just say, Ed, when commented about the AFL-CIO. I`ve been on the executive council for a long time and through a lot of trade fights. This is the first time that every single member of every single union at the AFL-CIO promised a full-out (ph) battle to stop fast-tracking on institutional level from the steel workers, where the canaries and the cage. We looked at how jobs were last in steel and paper and tire and rubber and glass, and we`re able to show how that has happened and under these trade deals and also the fact that I`ve mentioned on your show before. In order for us to win a trade case, we first have to prove we lost jobs. So the system has broken and everyone at the AFL-CIO, the staff, the leaders of the unions, the people that support us from progressive organization, we were unanimous that we got to stop fast-track. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Congressman Cleaver, the breakdown of this is rather interesting. You got 20 Republicans that are probably going to vote against fast-track because of all the right reasons. It`s bad for jobs and the economy. You got 40 Republicans that are probably going to vote against it because they don`t want President Obama to have that authority. So as I look at the numbers and the way this is breaking out, the Congressional Black Caucus plays a big role in this. Not to mention that they have it before but where is the Congressional Black Caucus on this because I know you want to stand with the President but this is an issue of jobs and insecurity, your thoughts. REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER, (D) MISSOURI: Well, we have a number of members who have traditionally supported these trade agreements. Congressman Greg Meeks from New York for one, has been a very strong advocate. But after you leave him and a couple of others, I think it`s going to be very difficult for the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and for the people in the Congress period to give fast-track authority to President Obama or to any President. This is not about President Obama as it comes to us. Well, keep in mind and I think this is extremely important that fast-track means that members of Congress cannot filibuster nor they can they amend the agreement. It`s only up and down vote. So that begins to defame members of Congress. My voters would like for me to have some say and something that is as important as this agreement. I think that the Congressional Black Caucus - - and by the way we have never loved (ph) by the other side, so it`s not as difficult as one might think for us. We don`t get people coming from the business community. They essentially ignore us and so when that happens it becomes infinitely easier for us to ignore them when the voters... SCHULTZ: Congressman, is the President didn`t mislead on this? How would you describe where he is and ways been touted on this? CLEAVER: Well, I think every President seems to no matter what happens when they go into the White House, it`s the water, I guess, or something because President Clinton was also, as you know, big advocate for the NAFTA and so I think the President like most Presidents are thinking about... SCHULTZ: Yeah. CLEAVER: ... the good of the country. This is going to expand our exports but it is not good for the people in the country. And the majority of the people in the country will not just seeing something happen. They will be hurt by it. SCHULTZ: Yeah. Congressman -- Mr. Gerard, the fact that they can`t amendment -- amend it, is it that really one of the biggest sticklers in all of this that once it`s done it`s done? CLEAVER: I think you`re saying that once it`s done, it`s done is certainly a big stickler. But again, we have to look at history, Ed, and Richard Trumka said it right, its lots jobs and lower wages. There is not one trade deal that`s been passed that as resulted in net job gains for American workers. This is not one trade deal that`s been passed that resulted in higher wages for American workers. And as I keep saying about how the trade system is broken, how it doesn`t work in our favor. And if we`re going to talk about income inequality we`re going to talk about union-busting governors. These are all things that are meant to takeaway the ability of workers to stand up and get a raise. We need to have raise in wages in this country. SCHULTZ: Yeah. GERARD: Workers have not a real wage and real income since -- in almost 30 years while the top 1 percent are lining their pockets with gold. SCHULTZ: Congressman, if you had to call it right now, where is this vote? CLEAVER: I don`t think it would be approved in the House. The ugly side of it is that some people would be voting frankly against the President but there are those of us who support the President strongly just -- we just believe that he is on the wrong side here. NAFTA will give us a lot of proof and so I oppose NAFTA and I`ve said at the time, I probably oppose everything after. SCHULTZ: All right. Gentleman, great to have you with us. Leo Gerard and Congressman... CLEAVER: Thank you. SCHULTZ: ... Emanuel Cleaver here on the Ed Show. I appreciate it. Thank you. CPAC is saving Sarah Palin for the grand finale. Right now, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is speaking. Up next, John Fugelsang, our friend gives us a live report from the conservative convention. Plus, a massive snowstorm brings parts of the Southeast to a standstill. Your question is coming up next Ask Ed Live on the Ed Show. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Get ready there`s another winter blast headed for the Midwest and Northeast this weekend. Today, it is the south digging out from the rain, sleet and snow. There was up to a foot of snow in parts of Alabama where the National Guard had to rescue stranded drivers on Interstate 65. The storm swept Eastern Texas up through North Carolina leaving tens of thousands without power. NBC Sarah Dallof joins us tonight from my hometown of Norfolk, Virginia where they`ve gotten 6-inches of snow and I don`t think anybody is going to move for three days. Sarah, what`s the latest there? SARAH DALLOF, NBC NEWS, NORFOLK, VA: Yeah, Ed. It is fair to say that this city is pretty much paralyzed right now until all of these snow clears up. Take a look behind me, pretty much a ghost town (ph). We`re in the heart of downtown right now. They`ve received 68-inches depending on where you are in the city compare that to a February average of about 2.5-inches and you can see while life is normal kind of shutdown for now. You know, it`s been all hands on deck to deal with all of this. They actually taking the garbage truck drivers and moved them to dump truck to help clear all the snow from the streets and get things moving again. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Second year in a row that we`ve had this and so, we`re having the augmented resources, increase our resources towards this effort and, you know, as a south city, we`re learning how to do it. DALLOF: You never thought that we have to do that, huh. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. DALLOF: A lot of other places having to get creative with their snow removal as well including in Alabama where two towns received more than 10- inches of snow, Western Tennessee and Middle -- excuse me, Eastern Tennessee and Middle Tennessee receiving about 5-inches of snow. As you can imagine, this is causing problems all over these areas from slide off on the road to power out, the schools is canceled, cities having a open special warming shelters for the homeless population that may need somewhere to go. Here Norfolk, they ask people who actually did not have to travel to please stay home, people have respected that very well according the W.D (ph) city manager. They have stayed inside, inside their homes. That is allowed cruise (ph) to really get out and hit those street (inaudible), they were able to clear those primary roads. Earlier today, they are now focusing on the secondary roads and hope to have traffic back to relatively normal, Ed, when things get started tomorrow. SCHULTZ: All right. Sarah, that guy was telling you the truth because for now as going up there, I think we saw snow twice. Sarah Dallof with us tonight. I appreciate it so much. Now, to our Ask Ed Live segment, I appreciate all the questions. Tonight, our first question comes from Dan. He wants to know, "If unions aren`t needed anymore and why corporations are spending billions to destroy them?" I don`t think they`re spending billions to destroy them. I think they`re spending multi-billions to destroy them. Look, I can`t talk for hours on this. It`s an attack on wages and representation of the workplace is very important, voices in the workplace in my philosophy lend itself to a better family, a better middle class and a better workplace. It`s all upside. Lot more coming up on the Ed Show, stay with us. We`ll be right back. KATE ROGERS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stocks end makes (ph) today, the Dow falls 10 points after hitting a record on Wednesday, the S&P sheds 3 points and the NASDAQ climbs 20 inching closer to that 5,000 mark. The number of American filing for first time jobless claims increase more than expected last week riving 31,000 to 313,000, a six-week high. And Apple has send down an invitation for a March 9th event where it`s widely expected to unveil details about the Apple launch. Shares rose 1 percent on that news. That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide. SCHULTZ: And we are back. The annual three-day, three-ring circus of the conservatism kicked off today. The predictable players are at CPAC near Washington D.C. The Republican Party in the early stages of finding a favorite for 2016 and this is all part of the show. And when you scan the crowd, it`s clear they have issues with diversity and demographics. Diversity comes in spirits (ph). However, the talking points and targets remain constant. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: Our nation is in crisis at home, millions of Americans are hurting Obamacare. It`s a train wreck. And that`s actually not fair to train wrecks. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) NEW JERSEY: So when you are pro-life in 2009, you don`t cut a commercial four years later because the New York Times doesn`t like it and say you are less than that. SEN. JONI ERNST, (R) IOWA: Congress must hold President Obama accountable to ensure that he and his administration finally develop a cohesive and strong strategy to confront these and the many other threats that we face. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Oh brother. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is on stage right now. Just a few minutes, it`s going half-turn Governor Sarah Palin. She`s going to be taking the stage. Dr. Ben Carson kicked off today`s events. And in his speech, Carson seemed like he was trying to justify why he, as a black man, was there. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. BEN CARSON, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: If you`re white and you oppose a progressive black person, you`re a racist. If you`re black and you oppose the progressive agenda, you`re crazy. And if you`re black and you oppose the progressive agenda, and you`re pro- life, and you`re pro-family, they don`t even know what to call you. I mean, you end up on some kind of watch list for extremists. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Joining us live from CPAC tonight, John Fugelsang, Host of "Tell Me Everything" on SiriusXM Insight. All right. John, how was Carson received with those comments? JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUSXM RADIO HOST: You know, you`re never go broke telling -- having a black men on stage, telling people to feel good about how they smear the first black President. And of course, Ben Carson is not alone. He along with Santorum and the Honoree Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, have all said that gay marriage is like bestiality. To me, Ed, if you`re comparing gay marriage to bestiality, you`re no some good Christian. You`re just a guy who thinks about bestiality too much. SCHULTZ: Is Obama still the target with every speech? FUGELSANG: Pretty much. Yeah. Bobby Jindal just got off stage and that was kind of interesting. The guy hired that that check (ph) him, just had to call as wife and say he wouldn`t be home tonight. A lot of them are very angry about Obama and to gay, because he`s not -- he is more or less saying the same exact thing George W. Bush said about Islam and they`re deeply offended that Obama won`t use language that will deeply offend our Islamic allies and the battle against ISIS. SCHULTZ: Change subject... FUGELSANG: It is pretty much (inaudible) over here, Ed. It`s like comic - - it`s sort of like Oscar Pistorius, all these candidates because like Oscar Pistorius, none of them are going to be running competitively in 18 months. SCHULTZ: John, objectively, did you hear any new ideas today from the Republican candidates? FUGELSANG: No, Ed. I got to say, I really didn`t expect (ph) to be fair. A lot of people are already making jokes like Hillary Clinton`s age because she will be 69 when she runs next year. She is still going to be a lot younger than the 85-year-old Herbert Hoover ideas, she`s running against. I did talk a lot of Republicans here on the grassroots level who have lots of great ideas. Law enforcement against prohibition, you know, conservative cops who want to end the drug war. I was talking for half an hour with a conservative from anti-death penalty Republican organization. But our interview is interrupted because Rick Perry, the governor with the largest body (ph) count in history showed up in the middle of the noise overpowering our crew. But so there are some innovative thinkers here, there are some original people here, theirs guys with some ideas to bring the country forward. Those guys, Ed, are not invited on stage. SCHULTZ: All right, John Fugelsang in CPAC tonight with us here on the Ed Show. Let`s bring in James Peterson MSNBC Contributor and Director of Africana Studies at Lehigh University. Well, Dr. Peterson, you heard Ben Carson to be respectful obviously. What do you think he`s mission is? Why would he go down the road that he went down with those comments? It`s almost like he`s trying to recruit black American to the Republican Party. JAMES PETERSON, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. I`m not sure if that strategy is going to workout so well for him, Ed. I mean, Dr. Carson is, as you know, an outstanding surgeon and has an incredible narrative in terms of his life. But as politics seemed to be a little bit confused, first of all, there are plenty of black folks who are pro-life. I mean to make the statement that there are black that that being pro-life is somehow being against black folks I don`t which churches he`s worshiping in or what churches his ever visited. But again, there are plenty of black folk who are pro-life. Also there are plenty of black folk who are progressive but also plenty of black folk who reject progressive of his certain liberal ideas. I mean this idea that somehow he`s got a lock on our conservative, I mean, in the black community is one other way of rendering of (inaudible) sort of fascinated black community is being monolithic and sort of only voting one- way is simple not the case... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PETERSON: ... just because black folks vote over one-way Democratic, doesn`t mean that they don`t have certain social conservative values. SCHULTZ: Well, it is civil right group said -- have written some letter. One an open letter to GOP presidential. PETERSON: Yes. SCHULTZ: . candidates asking them to distance themselves from CPAC because of white nationalist ties. What you`re reaction to that? PETERSON: Well, I think that particular pro-English is who they targeted here, Ed, because if you look at the history of pro-English, they`ve sponsored CPAC for several years. But they`ve also been identified with their referred -- somebody refer to it as white nationalist. At the end of the day, there is a challenge in the Republican Party. They have yet to resolve with the same challenge they had in 2012, same challenge they had in 2008. But it will be more pronounce in 2016 because of the developments around different demographic shifts around the nation. And that is that small part of their base, Ed, is really invested in the sort of not necessarily white nationalism but sort of whiteness as a supreme idea of thinking that white folk have an inalienable right to sort of own and run and operate this country. And that black folk and people of color are the other who don`t really belong here and don`t really have claim to American citizenship. And so, and this is again, small group within the Republican Party but unfortunately, is well funded, is very vocal and we`re going to have to check and see which of these candidates are going to punter (ph) to that group. But if you`re CPAC, you know, you have resources coming from all over the place. I`m not sure why you need funding from a group like pro-English because it`s going to draw the ire of Democrats obviously, and it also draws the ire of this very sort of multicultural demographic... SCHULTZ: Yeah. PETERSON: ... that puts people into office at the presidential level. SCHULTZ: All right. Dr. James Peterson, thanks for joining on the program. I appreciate it. PETERSON: Thank you. SCHULTZ: Coming up. Everyday Americans are waging a fight against big energy in New York State. That`s right there`s another pipeline, another fight. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: All right. Here we go tonight`s two-minute drill, overruled. How about this? A judge has sided with Running Back Adrian Peterson Minnesota Vikings in the appeal of his suspension. Peterson was suspended in November after pleading no contest to a child injury charge. Judge David Doty ruled that Commissioner Roger Goodell could not apply the league`s personal conduct policy to Peterson`s case since the act occurred before the policy was put into place. The case will now go back to an arbitrator for further proceedings. The NFL says that they will review the decision. He maybe back in the NFL soon. Over in Denver, pay cut coming for Peyton. NFL sources say that the Broncos and the quarterback are working on restructuring his deal. He`s got a couple of years left on his contract. He`s set to make $19 million a year for the next two years for the teams looking for cap space. It`s also a good sign to the 38-year-old quebie (ph) is going to come right back and not call it quits. And finally, the women`s fight movement -- get this, WWE fans and employees are taking the company to test for their treatment of female wrestlers. After Chief Brand Officer Stephanie McMahon tweeted her support for Patricia Arquette`s Oscar speech, three-time Divas Champ AJ Lee called out the company`s inequality. "Writing your female wrestlers have records selling merchandize and have starred in the highest rated segment of show several times, and yet they received a fraction of the wages and screen time with the majority of the male roster." Wrestling fans are also taking to twitter demanding female wrestlers get more time in the ring. The #GiveDivasAChance trended on Twitter after the women`s match lasted only 30 seconds during Monday night`s three-hour broadcast. So here we go, WWE CEO Vince McMahon responded on Twitter, "We hear you. Keep watching." We got a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. How is that for sports diversity? We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. And finally tonight, it`s easy to watch the news and say that could never happen here. It`s easy until the problem lands in your own backyard. Earlier this week, we talked about the Constitution Pipeline. The $700 million project aims to build 124 mile pipeline to transport natural gas from the Marcellus shale field in Pennsylvanian through the forest and waterways of Central New York. Some have called it the "Keystone pipeline of natural gas". Last month residents packed a hearing in (inaudible) and here are their voices as they were heard. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am completely buckled that this hearing is even happening at all. How can that be any doubt of the environment will be affected? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probable watershed contamination, air pollution and soil contamination are unacceptable risks inherit to pipeline construction. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s a lot of talk about how we`re going to have keep gas and everything but let`s not be naive about this. This stuff is going to be eventually going overseas when they get three to four times more (inaudible) over there. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We can`t expect constitution to act in the best interest of our environment while this project is in construction. It`s much easier for them to pay fines. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The index of the pipeline construction and operation represent the largest single dangers in New York State`s water resources in recent years. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So here we go. This is yet another fight about eminent domain and property rights at America. It puts local landowners at the mercy of big oil and gas companies. Pubic comment buried on the constitution construction is going to be closing tomorrow. They extended it until tomorrow. So if you have something to say, now is the time to speak up. We are joined tonight here on studio by Colleen McKinney. She is a local landowner and a member of stopthepipeline.org. And Jane Kleeb, Executive Director of Bold Nebraska joins us tonight as well. Great to have both of you with us. Colleen, a whole lot of people have heard of this pipeline and you`ve got some photos from around your property that I want to show our viewers tonight. As a local landowner, as a landowner, would this pipeline coming through and this is what they wanted to do. What`s most important to you? COLLEEN MCKINNEY, LOCAL LANDOWNER: What`s the most important to me is my (inaudible) and all my neighborhood rights as landowners. We have our right to our land that we bought with our hard-earned money. We work hard for it and it`s not right that a giant corporation should be able to come and take our land, run a pipeline through it and -- so that they can ship gas to Canada and sell it to another country. SCHULTZ: How does these all come about? MCKINNEY: We received -- my husband and I received a letter in the mailbox three years ago informing us that there would be a pipeline and... SCHULTZ: Know what`s answer but its coming (ph). MCKINNEY: No, its coming. And we could sign an easement agreement, allow them to survey or not and we said, "no". We were lucky. They shifted the pipeline a little bit. It`s still on the border of our property so we`re not facing eminent domain like more than 120 other people. SCHULTZ: And how determine are these landowners up in Center New York? MCKINNEY: Very. Very. We`ve organized a group called Stop the Pipeline. We`ve gone door to door. We`ve done radio spots, sent out informational flyers to the mail and of course use social media to spread the word. SCHULTZ: How do you stop it? MCKINNEY: We delay them which cost them money. We delayed them for three years. SCHULTZ: Jane Kleeb, you`ve heard this before, proponents say that it`s going to create a thousand jobs and provide gas and power at lower rates. Your reaction to this, I know you`re following it. JANE KLEEB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOLD NEBRASKA: Yeah. You know, these big corporation say the same thing over and over again but the beautiful thing is, is that small and mighty local groups like Bold Nebraska here like Stop the Pipeline in New York. They`re the ones that are doing the work of stopping this really risky projects because we know that it`s all risks and no reward for our families and I hope that politicians are actually finally going to get the picture that we can`t just keep on putting pipelines, here, there, everywhere. We really need to get forth on renewable energy but, you know, my message to all the Stop the Pipeline folks in New York is don`t give up. They expect you to give up. You have to be upwelling (ph), keep on charging. SCHULTZ: Do they expect you to give up? Do you get that sense that they just won`t back down? MCKINNEY: They expect us to give up. They expect to win but I don`t think they will. SCHULTZ: Colleen, here`s a look at some flash flooding which has occurred in the region over the past decade. How would this pipeline make things worse? MCKINNEY: Yeah. The pipeline would go through a region that experienced 300 year floods within a decade. In order to build the pipeline it would take a way, would clear, cut a thousand acres of trees and across 277 water bodies by crossing, I mean, blasting and digging across these water bodies and that alone is going to increase flooding and they get worse put people`s property and it maybe even their lives at risk. SCHULTZ: Who are elected officials on your side? MCKINNEY: I wish I could give you some names. There aren`t many elected officials in New York who are on our side right now. We`re working with our local governments to pass resolutions against this pipeline. SCHULTZ: It sounds like a familiar fight doesn`t it, Jane Kleeb? KLEEB: Yeah. And absolutely does and we didn`t have a lot of elected officials standing with us either. We fortunately have folks like Senator Whitehouse, you know, and DEC but in Nebraska we are essentially standing shoulder to shoulder with citizens. But that`s what got us where we are today. We stop Keystone XL for six years, you can stop the pipeline in your backyards too and I think these corporations just think we`re not going to have the resources or the time or the will to do it and they`re just wrong. But what politicians have to do is fell this at the ballot box and I think that`s our responsibility as pipeline fighters in our next step in this fight. SCHULTZ: Colleen, what`s the next step in all of this? What happens next? I mean, we saw the video tape of the people that were getting together and they`ve had big rallies and big town halls, what`s the next step? MCKINNEY: Well, we`ve been writing letters to the New York DEC. There`s been a public comment period because before the pipeline can be built. They need permits from the New York DEC saying they won`t affect our water, they won`t poison our water. And we`re telling the DEC they will. The DEC needs to uphold its mission statement and protect the New York`s water and its citizens. SCHULTZ: OK. Colleen McKinney, keep up the fight. Jane Kleeb, thanks for your time tonight. I appreciate it. It`s just not Nebraska. It`s New York. That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022601cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 121 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 26, 2015 Thursday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST POLITICS NATION for February 26, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Margie Omera GUESTS: Jason Johnson, Michael Kay, Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani, Mark Hannah, Seema Iyer SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 6981 words HIGHLIGHT: According to the polls, majority of the public will blame the Republican if there`s a DHS shutdown and only a third would blame the president. Loretta Lynch nomination as attorney general is now on its 110 days, and it`s the longest delay in history. REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. I`m live tonight from East Lansing, Michigan. We start with breaking news today on the nation`s top Republicans failing the most basic test of leadership. And it`s coming to a head on two critical issues. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refusing to say when he`ll hold a vote on Loretta Lynch`s nomination to be Attorney General, and House Speaker John Boehner refusing to say how he`ll handle right wingers trying to shut down the Homeland Security Department over the president`s immigration action. Boehner still saying today, he`s just going to wait and see. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I don`t know what the Senate can produce or can`t produce. If they produce something, we`ll decide what we`re going to do after we see it. When I see what the Senate actually passes, then I`ll know." UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that your answers is about what you`re going to do the same as yesterday. Can we -- Mitch McConnell has said exactly what he`s going to do. You know exactly what you`re going to get, it`s going to be a clean DHS funding bill. Are you going to put it on the floor? You`re going to kill it? Are you going to let them vote on it? Have you even had this discussion? BOEHNER: When I make decisions, I`ll let you know. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: What does that mean? UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Is it a continuing resolution tied -- BOEHNER: It was just a kiss. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: With just 30 hours from a funds running out, and he`s blowing kisses at reporters? Today Democrats act where the grownups are in the GOP. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. HENRY REID (D), NEW YORK: It was like eighth grate civics class. I mean, what is going on in the House? We have the two leaders who haven`t talked to each other in the two weeks? REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), CALIFORNIA: I would say, Harry, with all due respect, everything you said I have a grandson in eighth grade, and his knowledge about how to pass a bill is superior to what we see among the Republicans there. It`s about time for them to grow up and pass this bill. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Meanwhile, a Senate panel today finally sent Loretta Lynch`s Attorney General Nomination to the full Senate. But GOP Senators like Ted Cruz are still trying to derail the nomination. And Senator McConnell still isn`t saying when that full vote will even happen. Lynch has already waited 110 days to be confirmed. The longest wait in modern history. Will she have to wait another 110 days? These aren`t hard tests. It`s basic governing, but Republican leaders are failing them. In a special town hall event with MSNBC, President Obama talked about fighting through the delays and obstruction. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Every major social movement, every bit of progress in this country, whether it`s been the workers` rights movement, or the civil rights movement, or the women`s rights movement. Every single bit of that progress has required us to fight and to push and you make progress, and then part -- you don`t get everything right away, and then you push some more. And that`s how the country continually gets better. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Joining me now are Margie Omera and Jason Johnson. Thank you for being here. JASON JOHNSON, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR: Glad to be here, Rev. MARGIE OMERO, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Glad to be here, Revered. SHARPTON: Margie, Speaker Boehner is blowing kisses, I mean, it would be comical if there weren`t such serious issues at stake. What is going on? OMERO: Well, he doesn`t really have an answer. And he`s trying to stay calm, he looked calm. I guess he looked like he was having a good time, but really he`s trying to deflect attention from what is clearly a tense moment. And the polls suggest that the public is really going to blame Republicans if there`s a DHS showdown. A CNN/ORC poll from last week showed a majority of Americans would blamed Republicans only a third -- in less than a third would blame the president. That`s actually fewer than blamed the president in past showdowns. So you know, I think there`s going to be real consequences for Republicans who say, you know, let`s just drive off the cliff. SHARPTON: Jason, tonight House Republicans are huddling behind closed doors, trying to come up with a plan to avoid a shutdown. Why is this so hard for them? JOHNSON: Because of the ego. I mean, the Republican Party, I mean, they know how to win wars, they cannot figure out how to win a peace. They won the mid terms in 2014. This is the House and Senate they`ve been screaming for since Obama got elected. And they can`t figure out the basic mechanics of let`s put forth an agenda we can actually pass. So you know, we`re going to get a continuing resolution, they`ll probably fund the Department of Homeland Security for another three, four weeks, up to March. But you`re going to head back into the same problem. And the House and Senate have to realize that they have an opportunity to govern here and not just keep throwing mud balls at the president of the United States. This is an idiotic plan to try in defunding DHS from the beginning. SHARPTON: You know, Margie, I very rarely agree with Congressman Peter King, but even he`s calling out his fellow Republicans for holding up fund. And listens to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Sometimes I think that the Republicans would be in an unreal world. It`s absolute insanity if the Republicans that we don`t vote on a clean bill. Maybe if some of these people who are talking about how we have to hold this up, maybe if their states were bombed, they would feel differently. These people who say they`re conservatives, would say the Republicans, they`re the ones who are really going to ruin the Republican party. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I mean, is this insane? Why are they pushing for this then? I just don`t get it, Margie. OMERO: Well, I think -- I mean, I mentioned there was a poll that showed people blame Republicans. But I think Republicans look at what`s happened in past shutdown and say, well, we went there, we took a hit, and then we had gains in the mid terms, so there weren`t any real consequences, even though it`s not just bad policy, it`s bad politics. Gallup shows for month after month after month that the number one issue based in the country with that people are most concerned about is government dysfunction. That hasn`t always been the case. It`s a recent phenomenon and it`s a result of all this back and forth. SHARPTON: Now, I think, Jason that the president addressed this in at the MSNBC Town Hall, rejecting the idea that Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for the failure of a comprehensive immigration act that they have all tried to say is both sides. Listen to how he dealt with that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The notion that Democrats and Republicans play political ping-pong, Democrats have consistently stood on the side of comprehensive immigration reform. Let`s not be confused about why we don`t have comprehensive immigration reform right now. And that`s very simple. The Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, refused to call the bill. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Now, what do you say to that, Jason? Because this whole thing of equal blame, the president rejecting, Margie is quoting polls where the public is rejecting, in terms of the homeland security funding, as well as immigration. JOHNSON: Well, yes, look. It`s mean, it`s very clear who`s to blame here. Now Republicans can argue whether or not they like the president`s immigration plan, and that`s actually something they should really try to fight through on the court level. They shouldn`t be holding up government agencies. They are clearly to blame. They have the hands on all the levers the government at this particular point. But I think, Rev, that the real other issue here that we have to think about is it`s only February. They`ve only been in office for about a month. And if they can`t -- they can`t figure out basic things like this, this is a hopeless scenario for functional government for the next year and a half. And ultimately, because everything matters for 2016, this is going to hurt Republicans candidates. I promise you we`re going to see an ad next year with John Boehner kissing off the press, you know, with a background story talking about these Republicans were going to kiss away homeland security and didn`t care about your safety. SHARPTON: Margie, are they going to shutdown homeland security? What`s your prediction? OMERO: I mean, I hope they don`t, right? I mean, I hope they don`t, I think we`ve had a lot of close calls. On the other hand, what we`ve seen consistently is well that there`s a real faction in both the House and Senate that is willing to put American government at risk. Put the confidence in our institutions at risk, to put even their own party`s views in is the favoritability (ph) at risk in order to just demonstrate that they can go against what the president wants. And it just -- it hurts all of us. It doesn`t just hurt Republicans, it doesn`t just hurt Democrats, it doesn`t just hurts the president, it really hurts all of us. SHARPTON: Yes. Well, I mean, with all of the threats and all of the anxiety, it`s unbelievable that we`re at the wire and they`re still playing games. But let`s move to Loretta Lynch for a minute, a Senate panel, senator nomination to the full Senate today, but still no word on when the Republicans will even schedule a floor vote. And we`re now 110 days and counting, the longest delay in history since she was even nominated. I mean, Jason, this is incredible. We`re talking about the attorney general of the United States. JOHNSON: And see, all of these things are connected. Right. If you shut down homeland security then we can`t protect ourselves from terrorist. If don`t get a functional attorney general then we can`t prosecute terrorists and by the way, we want to bring Netanyahu here next week. I mean, no one seems to be recognizing that not paying attention to National Security issues is actually affected by these actions. I hope Loretta Lynch eventually gets confirmed. I understand what the Republicans` problems are with her, but at the end of the day, it is the president`s attorney. It`s her job is to find a way to make legal things that the president wants. Just like Ashcroft, just like Gonzalez. They need to accept that and move on. SHARPTON: Yes. Well in 110 days later, I mean, why do we have to wait 110 days for them to do what they did? There was nothing that was holding it up. Nothing developed, 110 days later, they finally send it out, they could have done that 100 days ago. JOHNSON: Yes. SHARPTON: Margie Omera and Jason Johnson, thank you both for your time tonight. OMERO: Thank you, Rev. JOHNSON: Thank you. SHARPTON: How did an educated middle class man from London become a cold- blooded ISIS murderer? We`re learning more about Jihad John tonight. Plus the Republicans gathering for their annual conference. And it sounds like they`re scared about the future. And First Lady Michelle Obama celebrates five years let`s move with the challenge. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: We are celebrating a big anniversary. OBAMA: Uh-oh, what exactly are we celebrating? MICHELLE OBAMA: It is been five years since we launched "Let`s move." So everybody give me five, Tweet it, Vine it, Instagram it, Facebook it with #giveme5. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: And llamas on the loose, the spectacle everyone is talking and tweeting about. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: Three years ago today, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was killed in Sanford, Florida. Our social media community was remembering Trayvon today. Chelsea said, "I am still saddened by this young boy`s tragic death. I will continue to speak out against gun violence, injustice and racial profiling until something changes." Well said, Chelsea. Sian posted, "Your life will not be in vain. The fight will continue. Yes, it will." Coming up President Obama`s powerful message for Trayvon`s parents at a White House reception today. But first please let us know what you think on our Facebook page or Tweet us @politicsnation. SHARPTON: Breaking news tonight, new reaction to the identity of Jihadi John. The ISIS executioner who was just revealed to be a British citizen, the daughter of a man he beheaded spoke out late today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BETHANY HAINES, DAVID HAINES DAUGHTER: It`s a good step but I think all the families will feel closure and relief once there`s bullet between his eyes. Once he`s captured, I think there will be a lot of happy faces. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: A U.S. intelligence official has confirmed that Jihadi Johns is 26-year-old Mohammed Emwazi. Emwazi was born in Kuwait and moved to the U.K. when he was 6 years old. He grew up in a middle class part of London, and graduated from college with a degree in Computer Science. But how did he go from that to this? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MOHAMMED EMWAZI, ISIS EXECUTIONER: We are an Islamic army and a state. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Emwazi was on authorities` radar since at least 2009. That year he was detained on a trip to Tanzania. Emwazi then flew to Amsterdam where he later claimed a British security officer tried to recruit him as a spy. He then returned to the U.K., but left after a few months to move back to Kuwait. He visited Britain two times, and planned to go back to Kuwait, but his visa was denied. In sometime around 2012 or 2013, he went to Syria. So where is Mohammed Emwazi now? And how did he become this notorious terrorist? And how can he be stopped? Joining me now is Michael Kay, retired senior British officer and military strategist, now a foreign affairs correspondent. Thank you for being here. MICHAEL KAY, ROYAL AIR FORCE RETIRED SENIOR OFFICER: Hi, Rev. SHARPTON: Michael, this is an educated man who came from a middle-class family. What does that say about who is being attracted to ISIS? KAY: Well, I think what`s really interesting about this, Rev, is a kind of sits outside of the socioeconomic deprived template that we have been focusing on for the last couple months that we`ve been looking at the process of radicalization. I find this quite fascinating personally. Because if you look at the Kouachi brothers who are responsible for the "Charlie Hebdo" attacks, they were radicalized through a process of engaging and seeing what foreign policy had done in 2003. And then wanting to go to Iraq and engage on that front. If you look at the Canadian lone Wolf that was arrested, he was radicalized in prison. If you look at the Egyptian bodybuilder that "The New York Times" that had pierce on, he was radicalize through Mosques. And now if you look at Mohammed Emwazi, he was radicalized in a different way. What we do know about him, is you`ve already articulate it is, he`s traveled to Tanzania, he wasn`t allowed to Tanzania, he was sent back to the U.K. via Amsterdam. He was interrogated there. Then he decided to go to Kuwait, and Kuwait he was interrogated by the intelligence authorities and then he was exile from Kuwait. Then he went back to the U.K. So there -- what this tells me is it`s a very subjective piece about the coming radicalized, and there`s no one template that fits all. SHARPTON: OK. Well, let`s put up a map of the region. Hostages released by ISIS, say Emwazi guarded them in two Syrian cities. How do the U.S. and British intelligence figure out where he is. KAY: Yes. Well, let`s have a quick look at the region. We`ve got Turkey up here to the north, this is over sea Syria, Jordan down south, we`ve got Israel, Cyprus, where there is a strategic U.K. and U.S. military base, where a lot of the airstrike have launch from and then you`ve got Iraq over here. We don`t actually know too much about Emwazi, but let`s be in no doubt, his days are numbered. Like Al Zarqawi, he was the head of Al Qaeda, he was taken out by U.S. airstrike in 2006, and like Osama Bin Laden in 2011 that was taken out by a U.S. Navy SEAL team, he was neutralized as well. So his days are numbered. We do know that in Italy, just up here in the Northwestern part of Syria, he was responsible for guarding hostages. We know that, for your information, from hostages that were release. And then more recently, in Raqqa, Raqqa was the self-proclaimed capital of the Islamic state. Now what we must understand is that the Islamic state from here Idlib all the way done Deir Ez-zor, this is kind of strip where it`s governing-less. There were now side forces in here. There`s a big battle here by a side. But effectively ISIS have rule of law, in anything that they want to do. So I think what`s really important is the intelligence community needs to get their head around human intelligence, they need to get their hands on electronic intelligence. We own the skies at the moment, so listening and watching will be important. Because part of life is (INAUDIBLE) SHARPTON: But Michael, let me ask you this. Because I`m out of time but let me ask you this, you said several times his days of numbered. What exactly are you saying? That they know where he is? Or there`s eminent capture. KAY: No. Osama Bin Laden took ten years to get. But we eventually got him, building up the intelligence picture can take a long time up to ten years. And that`s what the intelligence community will be doing. There are no ground forces on the ground, so we`re relying on anything that we can hear or see from the air. Human is also absolutely key and we need to develop these relationships on the ground inside Raqqa, but that`s incredibly difficult to do. Because ISIS have it locked down. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EMWAZI: They want you to state your full name. (CROSSTALK) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: All right. Michael Kay, thank you for your time tonight. Still ahead, meet the GOP. All the big names come out to throw red meat at the far right base. You got to hear what they`re saying about Hillary. Also, have you seen the new Beyonce workout routine? It`s all part of a new push on healthy eaten from the first lady. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELLE OBAMA: Just two weeks ago, when the Georgetown women`s basketball team played Xavier, they had a "Hail to Kale" night where the first 100 fans received free kale. Now, that definitely wasn`t happening in five years ago. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: But first, where were you when the llamas got loose? That`s next. SHARPTON: Palin, Walker, Christie, Cruz, they were all out in force today at the big conservative conference in Washington. And here`s the headline -- "They still haven`t learned their history." That`s next. SHARPTON: They were throwing out the red meat just outside of Washington today. Their annual conservative political action conference kicked off. Many of the 2016 hopefuls were on stage to unveil their big and new ideas. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. BEN CARSON, RETIRED NEUROSURGEON & AMERICAN AUTHOR: I`m for putting our health care in our hands and not on the hands of some bureaucrats. GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: We must repeal every single word of ObamaCare. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Washington wants ObamaCare. The people want liberty. Repeal every blasted word of ObamaCare. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: What a breath of fresh air, but there was another line uniting them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CRUZ: Hillary Clinton embodies the corruption of Washington. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE) CARSON: What am I for? What am I really ready for? I`m not ready for Hillary. CARLY FIORINA, FORMER HEWLETT PACKARD CEO: Hillary may like hashtags, but she does not know what leadership means. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: I`m sensing a little fear coming from stage right. Joining me from the conference is MSNBC`s political correspondent Kasie Hunt and MSNBC`s Abby Huntsman. Thank you both for being here. ABBY HUNTSMAN, MSNBC CO-HOST, "THE CYCLE": Thanks, Rev. KASIE HUNT, MSNBC POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening. SHARPTON: Kasie, Hillary Clinton wasn`t there, but they sure talked a lot about her. What do you make of that? HUNT: Well, Reverend, I think it just goes to show you that all the of the people who are here at this conference expect that they`ll be running against Hillary Clinton in 2016, and if you look at the way what`s going on in the Middle East with ISIS is playing out on the world stage, it is the opening that they are looking to focus on and attack her on, as much as they`re going after the President for showing weak leadership in that regard. You had candidate after candidate stand up on the stage today, and talk about what they called radical Islamic extremism and they`ve all been critical of the President for what they say is not labeling it as such. So, clearly while, you`re right, she wasn`t here, you know, everybody here knows who they`re expecting to run against. SHARPTON: Now, the right also didn`t shy away from their favorite topic, Benghazi. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FIORINA: Nor is it leadership when Secretary Clinton asked what difference does it make? When our embassy is deliberately attacked by terrorists and four Americans are murdered. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Senator Rand Paul, who speaks tomorrow tackled the same topic last night. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: The biggest mistake Hillary Clinton made, and think this will be an albatross over her neck for the rest of the campaign. I don`t think she`ll be able to overcome this. When she was asked to provide security for Benghazi, she didn`t do it. She didn`t defend our ambassador. And I really think that should preclude her from even being considered for the higher office. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Abby, it seems to me Benghazi will be a big theme? Is that a smart strategy? HUNTSMAN: Well, this is the three-day event Rev where you have moderate republicans saying, I mean, it covered my eyes and said, is it over yet? Is it over yet? Because during these three days, we all know some of the craziest things, Rand Paul won the straw poll that they did or ended this on Saturday night where the winner, the person that can throw out the most red meat, Rand Paul won it last year. He knows exactly what he`s doing. When you talked about Benghazi, this is a crowd that really gets fired up over this. Someone defined the event today as the "American Idol" for political nerds. And you don`t win based on how good your voice is, but really how can you appeal to this audience. And normally I would say, hey, let`s bring out the popcorn and be entertained a little while, but this is actually important. Because these are the people that vote in the primaries. If you wonder why can a rational person not make it to the general election, it`s tough because you have got to get through these folks. So, the question is, how do you appeal to the CPAC ground and how do you appeal to a general election group of people and remain authentic. And that`s something that Jeb Bush is going to struggle with tomorrow. I mean, he`s someone I`m very interested to see how the reaction is. Because he can`t really speak to immigration or things like common core. He`s going to have to find the right balance. SHARPTON: Yes. HUNTSMAN: And what matters is his messaging. He`s got to find the right way to talk about it so these folks aren`t upset with him. SHARPTON: And you`re going to have to find the right balance Casey, because moments ago Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker talked about dependence. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: Now, up the way there in Washington, we have a president who measures success in government by how many people are dependent on the government. We should measure success by just the opposite, by how many people are no longer dependent on the government. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That sounds a lot like Mitt Romney, to me, you know, with so many republicans talking about fairness, he took a different tone, Kasie, didn`t he? HUNT: He certainly did take a different tone there. He`s not talking about income inequality, which we actually have heard. Some republicans raise as something that their party should be focused on. But you know, I wanted to touch on one other thing that Walker said in that speech. He actually talked about when he was asked how he would confront ISIS, he talked about how he had confronted union protesters in Wisconsin, and that because he was able to take those protesters on with the National Guard, he would be similarly able to take on ISIS and other global threats. And that statement really raised some eye browse even here at CPA. SHARPTON: But isn`t that in many ways Abby potentially a misstep, when we talk about whether or not these candidates, or at least some of them are ready for primetime to seem to equate union protesters with ISIS to get off of where other republicans are talking about income equality, and you go back on this dependent stuff. Is Walker making missteps that will hurt him with moderate republicans and be very damaging if he were to make a general election run? HUNTSMAN: Well, this is sort of the time where they can test out the waters that you remember Scott Walker and Chris Christie both just went over to the UK, to sort of test their foreign policy jobs, both of those trips were defined as sort of a disaster for them. I think it`s fair to say that across the board there`s really a lack of foreign policy experience with these republican contenders. And CPAC is a good way for them to test their message. I don`t expect the person that wins the straw poll to be the nominee, but it gives you a good sense of who`s going to be pretty powerful in the primaries and who would want to put their money behind, folks that are into folks on the far right. You know, Walker I think still has a ways to go to prove himself. To prove that he is qualified. You remember, I mean, he is governor of the state of Wisconsin. But it doesn`t mean that you are ready to take commands of the United States, so we still got a ways to go and with comments like that, I think it causes people to question that a little bit. SHARPTON: I see the new poll came out with Walker leading 25, then Rand Paul 13, Ben Carson 11, Mike Huckabee 11, and below them all is Jeb Bush down at 10 percent, and you said, Kasie that these is the Iowa, these figures from Iowa, the Quinnipiac poll. You said Jeb Bush speaks there tomorrow. Who got the biggest applause there today? HUNT: Well, Reverend, I think that Ted Cruz probably wins for the most applause, although Scott Walker was either a close second or right there with him. Both of them packed the room here. And I will say anecdotally, as I spoke to attendees at CPAC throughout the day, Scott Walker is somebody who they`re really excited about right at this moment. And I think that the question is going to be whether or not he can sustained that. I mean, this is a really long -- we are months away from Iowa. I think the question for him is, is this the right time to be at the front of the pack? SHARPTON: All right. Kasie Hunt and Abby Huntsman, thank you both for your time tonight. HUNT: Thanks, Reverend. SHARPTON: And be sure to catch Abby on "THE CYCLE" weekdays at 3:00 p.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC. Coming up, let`s move, the First Lady`s campaign turns five, and some big stars are coming out to celebrate. Plus it`s the age-old fight, celebrities versus the paparazzi. How Taylor Swift made them take a belly flop. And we`ll talk about those llamas on the loose. Need we say more? It`s all in "Conversation Nation." SHARPTON: With me tonight, HuffPost Live host Caroline Modarressy Tehrani and democratic analyst Mark Hannah, and host of "THE DOCKET" on the Shift`s MSNBC Seema Iyer. MARK HANNAH, DEMOCRATIC ANALYST: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: Thank you all for being here. CAROLINE MODARRESSY-TEHRANI, HUFFPOST LIVE HOST: Thanks, Rev. SEEMA IYER, HOST, "THE DOCKET": Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Caroline, I always mess with your name. I don`t know why. (LAUGHTER) But we start with -- MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: I love you, Rev. Don`t worry. SHARPTON: Let`s start with a big congratulations -- yes, all right. We start with a big congratulations to the First Lady Michelle Obama. Her "Let`s Move" campaign is celebrating five strong years, this initiative to help kids eat healthier and get active is working. And today she says she`s happy with her work, but it`s far from done. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELLE OBAMA, U.S. FIRST LADY: Childhood obesity rates have finally stopped rising, and obesity rates are actually falling among or youngest children. So, yes. (APPLAUSE) We`ve got a whole lot to celebrate on this fifth anniversary of "Let`s Move." If we take our foot off the pedal for even a single minute, then we will go right back to where we started. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Look at the proof. There are declines in childhood obesity rates among low-income preschoolers. Now the First Lady is running, skipping and dancing into her sixth year with a big idea. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) M. OBAMA: We are celebrating a big anniversary. PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: Uh-oh, what -- what exactly are we celebrating? M. OBAMA: It`s been five years since we launched "Let`s Move." O. OBAMA: So, what`s on tap for this year? M. OBAMA: Well, for starters, I`m going to ask folks across the country to give me five. I want kids, parents, maybe a few celebrities to give me five ways to be healthy. For example, they can eat five new veggies, or do five jumping jacks, or push-ups or find a way to work five new healthy habits into their daily routine. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The give me five challenge is like the ice bucket challenge. After you accept, you ask someone else to do it. Here`s video of Beyonce from Instagram celebrating the fifth anniversary writing, give me five Michelle Obama and Beyonce is not the only one. Ryan Seacrest posted a video of himself exercising. And Mario Lopez gave five tips to living a healthier lifestyle. Seema, are you ready for the give me five challenge? IYER: I am ready, Rev, I`m getting on this table, I`m going to give you five pushups, and then Mark is next. Listen Rev, I have to be completely serious for a second. I tell people, exercise is the only guarantee in life. It makes everything better, and my colleagues on the panel agree. HANNAH: Yes. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Yes. HANNAH: Absolutely. Physical health, mental health, I think this is going to be a big part of the First Lady`s legacy, Rev. This is something where she`s gone out and asked people to do little things, things that, you know, not everybody has to go wail on their and you know, be bench pressing. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Nobody can bench press as much as you. HANNAH: Hey, hey, easy. But this is something that -- SHARPTON: But Caroline, let me, you note, the First Lady uses fun to get a lot of young people`s attention and young people involved. How important is it that she uses celebrities? Look at this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Which is better Ariana Grande, or eating a carrot? Potus? M. OBAMA: Eating a carrot. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes, correct. Potus gets the point. Next question, Gwyneth Paltrow makes a fantastic broccoli in a arugula soup, does that matter, yes or no? Elena. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: No. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes, it does she has a website. M. OBAMA: I do try to exercise every day. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Really because I think exercise is eww. M. OBAMA: Exercise is not eww. You just have to find an activity that`s right for you. Turnip, for what? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You can take it from me. Eat the right foods can help to make you a better athlete. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Oh! (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: How important is it, Caroline that she uses celebrities and comedy in this "Let`s Move" drive and campaign? MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: It`s so important, Rev. It`s important. And you know why? Even big bird is on twitter now. I`m serious, guys. IYER: He has more followers than I do. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: It`s a really important thing. Because not only then are these people that are in the public eye for whatever reasons, a myriad of reasons, but now we`re actually giving them responsibility, hey, if you`re in the public eye, you need to be putting out a good message. Use your powers for good, use your powers to tell people, not only "Let`s Move." But also I`m really, really pleased that she`s addressed this much more as the campaign has gone on. Let`s look at what she`s eating as well. She`s really shied away from that in the first couple of years. IYER: Right. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: He is really getting back to the kind of food we are putting in our bodies this year in particular. And I think that`s so important. IYER: It`s whatever works. HANNAH: Yes. Yes. SHARPTON: Now, let me say this, though, because since "Let`s Move" started, let`s be real clear about this, studies have shown it`s working. "U.S. News & World Report" wrote, Michelle Obama helping to feed obesity saying, the obesity rate among young children has drop by 43 percent, and the first lady said today that she`s not letting up. How do you keep the momentum going is the question? You know, there`s been a few critics on the First Lady`s vision from the right. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Taking the nanny state to the new level, Michelle Obama is suggesting what you should feed your children. RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: This is Michelle, she knows better than anybody else about healthy foods, because she has a garden big whoop. TUCKER CARLSON, THE DAILY CALLER: Why would you want to raise your own kids when Michelle Obama -- LIMBAUGH: She is a hypocrite. Leaders are supposed to be leaders. If we`re supposed to go out and eat nothing, if we`re supposed to eat roots and berries and tree bark, and so show us how. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: So Seema, how do you keep it going when you have all of these critics there? How does she keep the momentum going now? IYER: Rev, you ignore the fat guy. Okay, that`s number one. And next is, Mark wants to take this. HANNAH: Michelle Obama`s arms next to Rush Limbaugh`s arms and then let`s ask yourself who should be the authority here? No, this is, you can criticize all you want the nanny state. She`s not doing anything other than making suggestions here, and she is allying herself with celebrities, and people who are making small steps to use their social media capital, to use the fan base that they have and put out a positive message. Anybody who`s going to criticize that, anybody who`s going to boo-hoo that is -- IYER: There`s no other argument, exercise is correct, eating right works. (CROSSTALK) SHARPTON: Caroline, but how does she keep it going, Caroline? MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: All right. That`s actually a really, really important question. And I think the part of that is the celebrities that she is right. This is the ripple effect, and also the younger people. Look at all the videos. She`s always going to score. This is really about educating young people so they can make informed decisions. It`s not about being a nanny, it`s not about saying, this is prescripted, you have to do this. It`s about showing young people and you can see them there in this video, this is how you should live life in a way that`s going to mean that you are healthy, that you can have a long life. SHARPTON: All right. HANNAH: It`s an epidemic Rev and she`s combatting it. SHARPTON: Everybody stay with me. We`ll be right back with the surprising reason why Taylor Swift posted this bikini photo, and the story that everyone is talking about, llamas on the loose. SHARPTON: We`re back with "Conversation Nation." Caroline, Mark and Seema are here. Okay, everyone, it`s time for the llamas. My twitter feed exploded today when these llamas went on the loose in Phoenix. They were running wild all over town, cable news and the social media couldn`t get enough #llamas was the number one trend in the country, and everyone had fun with it. A former Obama staffer tweeted, "A direct result of Obama`s llamnesty policy." MSNBC`s Andrea Mitchell wrote, "I`m told we should say alleged llama, they could be alpacas." A fashion website asked -- show up hands if you were rooting for those llamas like Meryl and J-Lo at the Oscars? Mark, have you ever seen anything like this? HANNAH: I have not -- we have got some llamas on the lam. See what I did there? (CROSSTALK) IYER: Okay, go. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Because I think the last time we saw anything on this scale Rev was really O.J. in the jeep. Like the amount of people that were talking about this. SHARPTON: You know, it`s funny you said that. Because it`s funny you said it, because I said at the White House with other civil rights leaders meeting with President Obama. When I came out. There was all these tweets. And then one guy, I guess, trying to be a little sarcastic said, Reverend Al, while you were meeting with the President, the llamas were loose, and they caught the black one first. Where were you to stand up? IYER: Oh, my God, that`s horrible. Wait, Rev. HANNAH: Some profiling happening here among animal control? IYER: I have got a gray one from our friend Eric Guster, legal analyst here. He says -- llama going to knock you out. I`m going to knock you out. HANNAH: I get it. IYER: Llama knock you out. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: L. Cool J. SHARPTON: Why is this impersonation Mark? Why do you think this caught on and became so fascinating to everybody? HANNAH: Everybody likes to root for an underdog. And I actually, I grew up near a farm, actually down the street from a farm that had llamas. These guys have a lot of personality. I don`t know if you`ve seen a llama up close, but I think people identified with the llamas here. I don`t think anybody was rooting for the animal control folks who were going after the llamas. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Wow. That`s an impassioned defense of llamas. HANNAH: Yes. I stand in solidarity with these llamas. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: I just thought that even Senator John McCain was getting in on this today. The senators were stopping their business to talk about llama-gate. IYER: Well, you did, too, you said all day in the control room was feeding you llama video. You didn`t get work -- MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: We -- I was doing work, and then everyone else around me was engrossed in llama-gate. I have to say though, props to Jon Favre because I mean, you know, he was Obama`s speech writer and then he popped out, like that, a result of Obama`s amnesty. I mean -- HANNAH: Wow! IYER: Right. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: That was pretty good. SHARPTON: But I think it also -- you know, it is a relief for people in the middle of all of this craziness, but I don`t know if I`m encouraged or not, Caroline, when I`m hearing senators that should be getting the Attorney General confirmed, and making sure that Homeland Security is funded are spending a lot of time watching the llamas being caught in Arizona. I don`t know that, all jokes aside, that I consider that a good use of time? MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: I agree with you, Rev. I mean, that was the thing -- you saw like informed -- supposedly politicians taking their time, I mean, yes, it was good fun, and it`s fine for people to do that, but if you are - - IYER: It`s a freaking llama on the street. HANNAH: I wish we could be talking about how Department of Homeland Security continues to get funded. SHARPTON: We are talking about it now so we can`t be too -- HANNAH: They`re no better than we are. IYER: Right. SHARPTON: Yes, well, hey, we all sometimes look and are guilty of going for what is considered by some distractions. But Caroline, Mark and Seema, thank you for your time tonight. HANNAH: Good to see you, Rev. MODARRESSY-TEHRANI: Thank you, Rev. IYER: Thank you, Rev. SHARPTON: And for joining the conversation. And catch Seema on "THE DOCKET," Tuesdays at 11:00 a.m. on Shift by MSNBC. We`ll be right back. SHARPTON: Three years ago Trayvon Martin was shot and killed today in Sanford, Florida. His death sparked a national conversation about race. Today the President spoke of Trayvon Martin`s legacy and the legacy of so many others who we remember in black history month. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: One day a year is not enough to honor the kind of courage that they showed. And today, on the third anniversary of Trayvon Martin`s death, showing all of our kids, all of them, every single day that their lives matter, that`s part of our task. I want to thank Trayvon`s parents for being here on what`s a very difficult day for them. It takes all of us. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It takes all of us to make a difference. Trayvon Martin`s death led to a push to undo stand your ground laws, and tighten gun laws, and it spotlighted the justice system that has failed too many, the likes of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamira Rice and Akai Gurley, reminding us that three years later a lot has changed, but a lot of change is still left to come. But let us never forget Trayvon Martin is a human story. He was just 17- years-old, going to get an iced tea and a bag of skittles, for his brother so they could watch the all-star game together. Now Martin leaves behind parents of amazing strength who has used their son`s death to fight for others. As a dozen of us met with President Obama this morning, talking as civil rights and religious leaders, about the criminal justice system, about health care, about education, I looked at the President sitting there in the White House, and thought about how far we`ve come, and then I thought about the anniversary of Trayvon and thought about how far we still yet have to go. But the progress we have made is when we all took that journey together, of all races, standing up for what the promise of the country should be for everyone. Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022601cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 122 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 26, 2015 Thursday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 26, 2015 BYLINE: Ari Melber, Luke Russert, Steve Kornacki GUESTS: Mo Brooks, Brian Darling, Malcolm Nance, Jack Hanna, Clarence Page, Jesus Garcia SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8020 words HIGHLIGHT: Funding for the Homeland Security Department is still set to run out tomorrow, and this evening, congressional Republicans have been meeting to find some way out of the standoff. Interview with U.S. Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama. The CPAC royal rumble begins. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ARI MELBER, MSNBC GUEST HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN -- REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: When I make decisions, I will let you know. MELBER: The Republican House prepares to shut it down. Then, the CPAC royal rumble begins. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I went to my parish priest and said to him, I`m giving up "The New York Times" for Lent. MELBER: The highlights from day one and the plan to walk out on Jeb Bush on day two. Then, a massive surprise for Democrats in Chicago. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nobody thought we would be here tonight. MELBER: Meet the candidate who forced an upset runoff on Rahm Emanuel. And meet the two live animals that captivated the nation today, the runaway llamas. LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS: But, it was a desperate chase today for two fugitives that have gripped the nation as it played it out live on TV. MELBER: Jungle Jack Hanna is here with some good news. This is live footage you can`t make up. ALL IN starts now. (END VIDEOTAPE) MELBER: Good evening to you from New York. I`m Ari Melber, in for Chris Hayes. Funding for the Homeland Security Department is still set to run out tomorrow, and this evening, congressional Republicans have been meeting to find some way out of the standoff. The House GOP met this evening and discussed a sort of a band-aid measure to provide funding for three weeks. Now, that would prevent the partial government shutdown tomorrow. That is a contrast to what Senate Republicans proposed just yesterday when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushed a clean bill to fund DHS through the end of the fiscal year in September. And the Senate signaled support for that approach yesterday in a nearly unanimous vote to move forward with the bill. Now, the Senate has today reached an agreement to hold votes on a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security that will start at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. In other words, basically, Senate Republicans are now over this fight, while House Republicans still want to hold security funding hostage in exchange for a vote overriding President Obama`s executive action on immigration. Now, less than an hour ago on the House floor, tensions mounted as Congressman Steny Hoyer called the House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy a coward. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA), MAJORITY LEADER: Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I have been very clear about the schedule for tomorrow. We will end our work by tomorrow evening. This House is taking action to make sure the DHS is fully funding. We did our part and I yield back. REP. STENY HOYER (D), MARYLAND: You coward. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without objection, two-minute voting will continue. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: That is somewhat unusual, what you saw there. And joining me now from Capitol Hill, with the latest on this whole fight, NBC`s Luke Russert. Luke, we wanted you on here at the top of the hour because there`s so much going on. What`s happening right now? LUKE RUSSERT, NBC NEWS: Well, here`s the latest, Ari. The House GOP conference just concluded their meeting about an hour ago, and Speaker Boehner presented a plan, which is going to be the plan so far as we know, where, in fact, it will be a three-week funding of the Department of Homeland Security. They hope that pass that out tomorrow morning mid- morning or perhaps the afternoon. It could take that long. That will then be followed by a motion to go to conference with the United States Senate over that bill they passed back in January, which was pretty far to the right, if you talk to some members, in the sense that it repealed DACA, the 2012 Obama executive action on immigration, as well as the most recent one in 2014. So, that`s their plan. As far as whether or not the Senate can abide by that, our own Frank Thorpe, producer for NBC News over there, asked Mitch McConnell if that is, in fact, what the Senate was going to do, and he said on an elevator as the doors were closing, he nodded his head as yes, that is the plan that the Senate would take up this House three-week bill. So, what we`re going to see is the House move on this bill. They`re going to try and pass it with Republican support. I can tell you, the Democrats are whipping against it, and the idea is that this buys Boehner some time to be able to come up with a better way to allow the conservatives in the House GOP Conference to express more anger toward the president over those executive actions on immigration. Now, what happens in the Senate is very interesting question, because as you mentioned, they were moving forward on that clean funding of the Department of Homeland Security through September, the rest of the fiscal year. It remains to be seen how Mitch McConnell is going to change up the parliamentary procedural process, Ari. So, John Boehner buying himself some time, but I got to tell you -- you and I can be on television on March 20th having this same exact conversation, because as far as the overarching way to get out from this, the way to get out from this to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and stand up to the president over immigration, what Republicans want to do, no clear way how they do that over the long term, Ari. MELBER: Right, and that`s the problem with some of those short term band-aids. Luke Russert, thank you for your reporting. To reset here, how did we get to this point? Well, Republicans have been emphasizing they could not let the president`s action on immigration stand. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. ROY BLUNT (R), MISSOURI: We need to do this by passing the house measure that ensures spending at an important time with the critical needs of Homeland Security, but it would also stop the president`s illegal amnesty. We should not let that stand. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: Not let it stand. That was the stated reason for this fight right now until just under two weeks ago when a federal judge ruled that Obama`s program would not stand. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HOLT: Little more than 24 hours before President Obama`s executive order was set to take effect, which would stop the deportation of some undocumented immigrants, a federal judge ruled that the president overstepped his authority. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: And that is where we are now. The president`s entire executive order has been suspended by the courts. It`s not in place today. It will not be in place tomorrow, and that was the one thing Republicans were fighting to stop in this funding bill. That thing has been stopped and that change it appears was enough for Senate Republicans to move on, but it`s not enough for many House Republicans. They have made it clear they would right fight than win. Joining me now, Congressman Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama. Thanks for joining us on this busy evening. Let me start with that question to you. Since this executive action has been stopped by the courts, what are you fighting against now? REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: Well, you`re assuming that that`s a final order. It`s not a final order. It could be stayed tomorrow. MELBER: It could be stayed if it could go to the Fifth Circuit. Why not do something where you say we`re not going to fight over this unless it is reinstated? BROOKS: Because the principle here is one of the biggest principles we`re ever going to face in Washington, D.C. What do you do when a United States president violates federal law and disregards the United States Constitution? We`ve got the majority of the Representatives who believes that President Obama has done just that. Majority of the United States Senate that has said the same thing. Two federal court judges have said the same thing. One in Pennsylvania, and one in Texas. And for that matter, the president has said at least 22 times that his conduct is illegal and unconstitutional, yet he then did it. This is a major principle. It needs to be fought and addressed as quickly as possible in order to minimize the risk that there will be further illegal conducts spreading beyond what was seen so far. MELBER: What would you be defunding, though, if the program is not operative? BROOKS: Well, that`s the big if, OK? Tomorrow, it may be operative. It may be on Saturday or Sunday, because again, the federal judge`s decisions are not final. And until they are final, there is a risk that at any point in time, an appellate court or Supreme Court may decide to go ahead and enter a stay of the district court order in which case Barack Obama, as he`s shown in the past, is going to immediately implement what we believe and what he himself has said is illegal and unconstitutional conduct. (CROSSTALK) BROOKS: I took an oath of office to defend the Constitution. That`s what I`m going to do. MELBER: Sure. And to be fair to your point, the Justice Department is seeking that, so that could happen. Specifically on this vote tomorrow, are you going to be with John Boehner? Did you support this short-term step? BROOKS: Well, the vote tomorrow is a little bit like being a little bit pregnant. Either you are or you`re not. And if you vote tomorrow for this continuing resolution, and if the stay is lifted, then you will have voted to fund illegal unconstitutional action, and I`m not going to take that risk. I can only speak for myself. I can`t speak for other House members. I cannot speak for the United States Senate. We`ll see how it plays out. MELBER: Let me play for you some new sound from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on this debate. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: Have money, terrorists appear to have money. Why shouldn`t our homeland have the ability to protect itself? What is going on in the House? We have two leaders who haven`t talked to each other in two weeks. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: And he mentions them not speaking two weeks, your leader Speaker Boehner there reportedly, in newspapers we`ve seen, said he hadn`t talked to McConnell in two weeks, which is weird. Your response? BROOKS: Well, I agree with Harry Reid. The Department of Homeland Security ought to be funded, and I wish Harry Reid would quit blocking that funding, by instead of funding the Department of Homeland Security, insisting on protecting illegal and unconstitutional conduct by the president of the United States, conduct which the president himself has admitted is illegal and unconstitutional. If those 61 Democrats who have publicly -- excuse me, 61 senators, Republicans and Democrats, who have said it is illegal and unconstitutional and an overreach, would have actions that are in accord with their words, then this would all be resolved in the United States Senate and resolved quickly. What we really need is the American people to decide whether they want to support America`s illegal conduct by this president and if they do not want to support illegal conduct, then they need to contact their House members and their senators and say enough is enough. First and foremost, we have to protect American jobs for American workers, American wages for American workers. MELBER: So, Congressman -- BROOKS: And quit putting illegal aliens on a pedestal above illegal aliens. MELBER: Well, that goes to the final question. I understand you say you`re speaking from principle on these issues. Final question, you mentioned the American public. Do you think that after these midterms and with basically a 60-vote edge in the House, controlling both chambers, that if the Homeland Security Department isn`t funded long term, this is something where you`re going to have to public behind you as one of the first moves at this Republican Congress? BROOKS: Well, with respect to the shutdown in 2013, the public remembered that we fought Obamacare. And as it was laid out, the polling quickly shifted because we fought on a matter of principle. If we`re going to fight tomorrow on protecting American jobs and putting American citizens first and foremost, struggling American families first and foremost, for the seeking of those jobs and obtained higher wages instead of uplifting illegal aliens as for some unfathomable reason the president of the United States wants to do, putting illegal aliens superior to American citizens, if that`s the ground that the Senate Democrats want to fight and defend on, I challenge them to do so and I welcome the 2016 election outcome. MELBER: All right. Sir, Congressman Mo Brooks, on a busy night, thank you for your time. President Obama also weighed in on what he wants Republicans to do last night on MSNBC. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What we said to Republicans is, instead of trying to hold hostage the Department of Homeland Security, which is so important for our national security, fund that and let`s get on with actually passing comprehensive immigration reform. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: And now, I`m delighted to bring in, Steve Kornacki, host of "UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI" on MSNBC. Your thoughts on the congressman`s view there? STEVE KORNACKI, UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI: Well, it`s very interesting what he`s telling you, that he plans to vote against this tomorrow. And this raises the question of how many Mo Brooks are there on the Republican side, because basically, the margin of error that Boehner and the Republican leadership are going to have tomorrow is about 30, about 30 Republicans they could afford to lose and still get this passed, assuming that every Democrat votes against it. They might be able to pick up a few sort of conservative Democrats. But, basically, if Mo Brooks is representative of several dozen Republican congressmen, that`s an open question right now. MELBER: Yes. KORNACKI: But if he is, there`s the possibility that this does not even get through the house tomorrow. Now, if it does get through the House tomorrow, as Luke is telling you, then there`s the question of what happens in the Senate. You have Mitch McConnell indicating some level of support for bringing this to the Senate floor. How do Democrats handle that? Is this DOA for the Democrats? Is this something they choose to fight on and say, we don`t want to pass a temporary extension? And, of course, if they do do the temporary, there is still no indication right now about how this gets resolved any other way than the impasse we have right now. MELBER: Right. And to your point, Steve, McConnell has held his caucus together, right? It`s the same old Boehner problem here, although he has a huge edge that he can work with. We wanted to hear from Mo Brooks because he`s the kind of member that may determine all of this. But there are other views in the House Republican caucus. I want to play for you Congressman Peter King, some remarks that have gotten a lot of attention. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: We are the ones that are the party of the homeland security. That`s why these people who say they are conservatives, who say they`re Republicans, they`re the ones who are really going to ruin the Republican Party. And so, we have to end this and the speaker has to bring this to a vote. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: And the vote he is talking about is a clean vote. Fund this and move on. And so, the congressman`s point, Mo Brooks was saying, we want to disagree with this as a matter of precedent, you don`t have to do that on a funding bill. KORNACKI: Sure. I mean, this gets to the makeup of the Republican conference in the House. There are a lot more Mo Brooks in the Republican conference than there are Peter Kings. Peter King is sort of an outlier in the Republican conference, a Long Island Republican, up here from New York. Twenty years ago, Peter King made his name fighting against Newt Gingrich. He`s always been sort of the guy that separates himself from the national party, with things like this. So, the question again is, we know Peter King is going to be here. But where the Mo Brooks, the Ted Yohos from Florida, where these sort of very conservative, Huelskamp from Kansas, where are these people when it comes to this question? Look at the Boehner, the John Boehner is in constantly. This is the 20th time we have seen this since 2011, is he just -- he needs to get to a point with this, almost certainly. This is going to end at some point in the next few weeks, maybe the next few days, maybe the next few hours, with full funding for the Department of Homeland Security with basically no strings attached. The question is, when can Boehner safely push for that and not risk having an insurrection on the Republican side? When can he look at the Ted Yohos and the Mo Brooks and tell them and have them believe it, I went as far as I possibly could on this? MELBER: Well, and tell them as we have been reporting that the thing they`re trying to stop has been stopped. I understand the congressman`s point that it could restart. A lot of things could change in life and politics, but this is a phantom fight at this point. And one that we`re seeing may go down on to the wire. Steve Kornacki, as always, thanks for your analysis. We appreciate it. Now, what else was happening in Washington today? We`re going to check in on CPAC. That`s next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Obamacare is a train wreck. SARAH PALIN (R), FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: Our lead-from-behind president. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: Sometimes, people need to be told to sit down and shut up. (END VIDEO CLIPS) MELBER: Today was also the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC, the annual gather of thousands of conservative activists outside Washington. It has become a key test for the party`s presidential candidates. And most of the big names in the GOP presidential field are giving speeches or taking questions at CPAC this year, along with some of the party`s performer and pseudo-celebrities like Sara Palin, Donald Trump, and controversial "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson. They`re giving him an award, honoring him as a defender of the First Amendment. Now, speakers today took aim at Hillary Clinton, the media, and, of course, President Obama. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) UNDIENTIFIED MALE: Hello, CPAC, how you all doing? Give it up, Senator Cruz. CRUZ: Obamacare is a train wreck and that`s actually not fair to train wrecks. GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: President Obama has disqualified himself and shown himself incapable of being our commander-in-chief. CHRISTIE: I went to my parish priest and I said to him, I`m giving up "The New York Times" for Lent. PALIN: Lecturing Christians to get off our high horse about radical Islam won`t stop the Islamists from killing Christians. Stop blaming the victim and wake up, Mr. President. JINDAL: Mr. President, I`ve got a deal for you. I`ll keep an eye for the medieval Christians. Why don`t you do your job and win the war against radical Islamic terrorists that we face today? CARLY FIORINA (R), FORMER U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: Like Mrs. Clinton, I too have traveled the globe. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, I know that flying is an activity not an accomplishment. LAURA INGRAHAM, TV HOST: Sit down and shut up? I mean -- CHRISTIE: Yes. Well, sometimes, people need to be told to sit down and shut up. (END VIDEO CLIPS) MELBER: Now, we have a live report from CPAC when we come back, including an interview with an insider who knows the current presidential field, and a speech from the man who could be the new Republican frontrunner. That`s next. MELBER: Chris Christie was among the GOP presidential hopefuls who spoke in front of thousands of activist at CPAC today and he was quick to argue that any boomlet for Jeb Bush is actually a bad thing. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRISTIE: If the elites in Washington who make back room deals to decide who the president is going to be, then he`s definitely the frontrunner. If the people of the United States wanted to pick the next president of the United States and they want someone who looks at them in the eye, connects with them and is one of them, I`ll do OK if I run. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: Now, consider will hear directly from Jeb tomorrow. He`s appearing in a discussion session with FOX News` Sean Hannity, that`s meant to burnish some of his conservative credentials before a crowd that may suspect he`s a secret moderate. Now, Bush is not expected to be a big favorite at CPAC. In fact, some attendees are now planning a walkout during his appearance. Bush`s allies reportedly already working to pack the room with supporters. Now, today, attendees also heard from a governor who didn`t need to take any special crowd-packing measures, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who put his domestic clash with organized labor in stark international terms. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: I want a commander-in-chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists do not show up on American soil. We need a leader with that kind of confidence. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: Like many governors who have run for president before, there you see Walker testing out ways to build his foreign policy credentials and the GOP has spent both of Obama`s turns fixated on domestic fights, on health care, on jobs, on border patrol. But it looks like politics moves pretty fast and these primaries increasingly waiting into America`s role throughout the world. Joining me now, a GOP insider who is at today`s conference, Brian Darling. He recently left his post as senior communications director for Senator Rand Paul, and he`s now with Third Dimension Strategies. Good evening. BRIAN DARLING, FORMER RAND PAUL SR. COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Good evening. MELBER: So, Brian, you were there today. How did Scott Walker do and specifically, what did you think of his attempt to talk foreign policy? DARLING: Well, I thought he was very well-received. I think the crowd loved his energy and the fact that he took some shots and he was throwing out some red meat. I think that`s what these guys want to hear. That`s what the conservatives that come here, they want to hear a fiery speech with a lot of red meat. And on foreign policy I think, as you well know, conservatives like to hear the tough talk. MELBER: Yes. I mean, there`s something facile about the analogy of union organizers to whatever he was trying to get at, threats abroad, although I think to be fair, plenty of candidates use rhetoric especially when they`re trying to build up that toughness. It doesn`t tell when and how he`d actually deploy force. What do you think politically of the idea that he`s actually some sort of middle ground between Jeb and your old boss Rand Paul? DARLING: Yes. Well, maybe. I mean, what it`s going to come down to is these guys are all going to be pushing to be the alternative to Jeb Bush. I mean, they`re going to want this to put themselves out there, become that alternative just in case Jeb Bush has a hard time getting across the finish line, doesn`t have a good rollout, doesn`t have a good speech. And just stumbles on the way. He`s untested, so I think a lot of these guys are talking really tough now, and they want to be that candidate. Now, obviously, Rand Paul has got a different view on foreign policy. He`s going to be pushing against many in the Republican Party, but most of the American people I think agree with Rand Paul, that the endless wars, the nation-building, it has not been a good idea. And he`s looking to break down a lot of the traditional lines that we have seen and be a different kind of candidate and win the Republican primary and then move on and have this outreach effort to many constituencies that haven`t been favorable to Republicans in the past. MELBER: Yes. And Rand Paul has won this straw poll at previous CPACs. Do you think that Rand Paul -- we have seen there in 2014 and 2013, Rand Paul`s father, of course, doing well earlier. Do you think there`s any kind of emerging libertarian consensus at CPAC this year, and specifically on the president`s proposal for new war powers against ISIS on a three-year basis? Is that getting talked about in the hall? Did you hear anything about that today? DARLING: A little bit. I mean, I think your libertarian-minded people that are here, they are really worried about opening up a new front on the war on terror because they are worried about an endless war. They understand, I mean, Rand Paul himself has put forward the war resolution, saying that, you know, we need to declare war against ISIS. But the concern is, you look back at Afghanistan. You look back at Iraq. And the endless wars, the fact that we still have those AUMFs on the books, I think people have concerns about that. They were against the idea of nation-building during the Clinton years. They`re against the idea of nation-building, and using our forces for that purpose. I think also, Rand Paul is going to have a lot of sympathy for his push for criminal justice reform. I think people are -- they`re looking at that in a different way. You look at the polling data. The American people are moving towards the idea that criminal justice reform is a popular, popular idea and even conservatives are coming around. MELBER: Brian Darling, live from CPAC, thank you for joining us tonight. DARLING: Thank you. MELBER: Still ahead, the breaking news this afternoon that brought offices around the country to a standstill that killed productivity. Yes, the great llama chase of 2015. You don`t want to miss this, it`s straight ahead. (COMMERCIA LBREAK) MELBER: People all over the world have seen this man, Jihadi John. That is the masked executioner in those ISIS propaganda videos. He`s taunted Americans and President Obama in his distinct British accent. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JIHADI JOHN: We are an Islamic army and a state. I`m back, Obama. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: We`re not going to show you too much of those propaganda videos. And at the same time that the FBI arrested three Brooklyn men accused of a plot to join ISIS this week stoking concerns about recruitment at home. Now, intelligence sources are confirming the identity of Jihadi John. He is Mohammed Emwazi, a 26-year-old British citizen born in Kuwait. Authorities believe he went to Syria around 2012. One British human rights worker who knew him believes he embraced radicalization after interacting with British security. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ASIM QURESHI, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CAGE: Mohammed is a person I have spent a great deal of time with, a period of over two years, because he came to me complaining initially of harassment that he had faced at the hands of security agencies, that every single time, the U.K. security agencies were there blocking him, stopping him, without ever bringing any kind of criminal case against him. And eventually, after this extremely long period of time, Mohammed leaves his family and the next thing they hear is that he`s ended up in Syria. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: Broadly, 600 foreign fighters have left the U.K. to join ISIS in Iraq and Syria. That`s just since the end of 2013. Just last week, three British schoolgirls, age 15 and 16, were stopped at the London airport boarding a plane to turkey. They are now believed to have also crossed in Syria. For disaffected young Westerners who do want to join ISIS, you can see two paths here. They can end up like Jihadi John, harden terrorists working with ISIS to murder people. Or they can end up like one of these suspects in Brooklyn, pulled off of the jetway, arrested, now awaiting their fates in an American courtroom. Joining me now, counterterrorism intelligence expert, Malcolm Nance, author of The Terrorists of Iraq. Good evening to you. From a security perspective, what is the difference in those two fates for young people in the west who want to join these kind of groups. MALCOM NANCE, COUNTERTERRORISM INTELLIGENCE EXPERT: Well, the best difference is that U.S. intelligence and FBI manage to intercept these gentleman before at least two of them made their way over to ISIS, which is precisely where they wanted to go. They wanted to fly to Turkey and then go onto Syria and join the Jihad, which would have made them full blown members of the organization, and they would be fighting as terrorist combatants against the United States and it`s interest. So, pulling them off the jetway is the way that we want to do it, rather than have to expend a laser guided bomb to do the solution for us. MELBER: Right. You mentioned bombing them, trying to take them out if they do make it over there. The other issue that we see with Jihadi John is the idea that there may be some sort of propaganda benefit to addressing and demystifying him. I want to read to you one view on that. Saying that "Emwazi`s unmasking could dent the effectiveness of the beheading videos as an ISIS propaganda tool," that`s according to Ross Frenett, who works against violence extremist at a part of a network in London. He says, "This will demystify Jihadi John, make him less of a scary character. He`s become almost like a super-villain character, a hero in the eyes of jihadists. Know who he really is strips away some of his power." Do you agree? NANCE: Well, I agree that it will strip away a little bit of his power, but the thing that empowered Jihadi John was the news media, and the news media making him this super character. This is not the first time that we`ve ever seen a beheading. We`ve had Nick Berg in Iraq beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zargawi. There are hundreds of people within the Al Qaeda organization and now ISIS, the follow on, who do this. So, what you may do, what you may see, is that the ISIS organization may move away from their star pupil and may start doing mass executions to get your attention. MELBER: Let me follow the thread of your criticism. We have, of course, standards. We don`t show very much of these videos, but we do cover it a lot. Do we, in the media, broadly speaking, American media. Are we covering this the wrong way? Are we giving them too much attention? NANCE: I think we are covering them in the wrong way. The first criticism that have on the media, is the very fact that when ISIS carried out it`s operations last June, the news media has, from that time and today, have been reporting as if this group never existed before. This is Al Qaeda and Iraq. The same group that was formed in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. They changed their name, they have changed their organizational structure to bring in Iraqis on as the leadership as far back as 2006. They had this name, Islamic State of Iraq. And, suddenly, because they take terrain, which was significant but it was built up over several years, as I describe in my book, this group we have fought from 2003 to 2011 using U.S. forces and now, what we`re doing is fighting them again. MELBER: And to your point on the antecedence, I want to put up on the screen a RAND study since 9/11 that shows where these fighters are going from the west. They`re going to Somalia. They`re going to Pakistan. They`re going to Afghanistan. Syria does not even lead the charge there. And that goes to, I believe part of your point, which is as a quantitative and historical matter, there is nothing absolutely new or special about some people in the west going into the Middle East to join these fights. NANCE: Well, for some people it is a necessary evil to now describe Syria as, you know it is, in fact, a new Jihad zone for the Al Qaeda organization and, now, ISIL. But, these Jihad zones have existed since 1988 when Osama Bin Laden created this global Jihad in order to establish an Islamic caliphate from Morocco all the way out to Indonesia and then, eventually, on the rest of the world. So now what we`re seeing is we`re seeing this play out in Syria, they have taken terrain, and now you have fighters who will start filtering in from various different areas. And you`ll also see these affiliates come in and dedicate themselves in the name of Isil instead of Al Qaeda, but it`s all the same ideology. MELBER: Malcolm Nance, appreciate your expertise and your criticism tonight, thank you. NANCE: My pleasure. MELBER: An election result shocker in Chicago as President Obama`s own candidate failing to avoid a runoff, and the man who made it happen will be here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Obama says Emanuel is the mayor we need. BARRACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He`s making sure every Chicagoan, in every neighborhood gets the fair shot at success that they deserve. Before Rahm Emanuel was Mayor of Chicago, he was a key part of my team at the White House. And let`s be honest, at times the guy can be a little hard headed. But there is a reason that Rahm fights as hard as he does. He loves our city. MELBER: Rahm Emanuel had more than a leg up in his campaign for reelection this year. He had the backing of the most powerful Democrat in the nation and the most beloved Democrat in Chicago. You saw it their, Barrack Obama. But that wasn`t the only president that Rahm had behind him. There were a lot of Benjamins. He raised four times as much money as his challengers combined, and just this week Emanuel thought it wasn`t enough as he failed to earn enough votes to win a second term outright. Now he finds himself headed for an April 7th runoff against the second place finisher, Jesus "Chuy" Garcia. It is the first time Chicago has even seen a runoff for mayor since the city switched over to nonpartisan elections back in 1999. So, we begin with a question. Why is an incumbent with so many advantages having so much trouble. Joining me, someone who knows all about it, Clarence Page, Pulitzer Prize winning, syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Literally, no better person for the story. What is going on there in Chicago? CLARENCE PAGE, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Well, both a shocker and also a certain inevitability to it. The fact is is that the city is broke, deeply in debt, so is the state, and that was true when Rahm was elected. The biggest surprise here is that he was elected by such a tremendous landslide four years ago against three opponents. And this time, four years later, it was a low turn out election. He wasn`t able to get, well barely more than 40% of the vote, let alone the 50% plus one that he needed for reelection. And that`s largely because fundamentally, the city is in such a bad shape that a mayor can only do unpopular things, like raise taxes and fees, or cut budgets, and, in Rahm`s case, closing schools proved to be kryptonite for his mayoral office, and now he has to try to fight his way back. MELBER: And do you think the schools and the sort of feeling that he went too hard against basically poorer, minority communities is the problem here, or is it a lot more complex because of the larger economic trends you mention. PAGE: Well, I compare it to a Washington DC and their former mayor, Adrian Fenty. You recall the nationally famous, he and Michelle Rhee, his school superintendent, he had to close schools too, and just the way that it was done riles people up. That happened in Chicago, too. I don`t care if you`re 40 years out of high school, you don`t like to see your old high school close down. Even if you don`t live in that area any more. And that`s the kind of thing that happened in Chicago. That combined with the mayor, Mayor Emanuel, getting into fierce battles with Karen Lewis, head of the teachers union, and resulted in the first teacher`s strike. MELBER: Yeah, Clarence you mention that fight, and that is the other thing I want to ask you is, okay, you got to do hard things, sure. But is he doing them in a soft, or compassionate way? Because for those of us who interacted with Mr. Emanuel for awhile, that has never been a strong suit of his. PAGE: That`s right. That was what was the hidden message. Not terribly subtle in that campaign add where President Obama said hey, the guy can be a little headed. He was not -- what everybody knows already. But the people knew that when they elected him. This is what`s interesting to me because, the Chicagoans knew that he could be an S.O.B. sometimes, but that`s what they wanted because they knew some tough decisions had to be made. So that didn`t hurt him four years ago. But now that they`ve been, in many cases felt the brunt of it, especially the teachers union and a number of other people out in the neighborhoods, now Obama -- rather Rahm is coming out at the losing end on that. And we can`t forget, of course, the serge in violent crimes that occurred over the last four years. He has yet to get a real good handle on that, so that didn`t help him either. MELBER: Yeah, I want to get to that, but to your point, Clarence, people knew this man so there may be buyers remorse but there wasn`t really false advertising. I want you to stay with us because the man who could give Mayor Rahm Emanuel the run of his political life will be here with Clarence. That`s straight ahead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MURIEL BOWSER, MAYOR OF WASHINGTON D.C.: We believe that we`re on very strong legal ground where we stand. We believe that we`re acting lawfully, so I have a lot of things to do here in the District of Colombia and me being in jail wouldn`t be a good thing. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: The Mayor of Washington D.C. there, facing the threat of potential jail time because two congressmen are accusing her of engaging in a quote "knowing and willful violation of the law" because a new law, now approved actually by two-thirds of Washington D.C. voters last November that legalizes pot. As of midnight last night in Washington D.C., if you were 21 years old, you could posses up to two ounces of pot, you can give away up to an ounce, and you can personally grow up to six seedlings, including three mature plants. So will those two congressmen get their wish? Will they actually find someway to throw the mayor of D.C. in jail for violating the city`s marijuana laws in this federal intersection? Well, the mayor herself will actually respond in 15 minutes on the Rachel Maddow show. So stay tuned. MELBER: Back to our coverage of the Chicago mayor`s race. Joining me now, club county commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, who will face Rahm Emanuel in an April runoff for mayor, and, still with us, Chicago expert among many other things, Clarence Page. Thank you both. Jesus, let me start with you. Did Rahm Emanuel fail Chicago? JESUS "CHUY" GARCIA, CLUB COUNTY COMMISSIONER, CHICAGO: Yes he did. When he ran for mayor he said he would make the city safer, fix it`s schools and put it`s fiscal house in order. That sounds like a strike three. Not only did he fail to live on those commitments, but he also engaged in, or course, in favoring many friends and amassing a huge war chest, having collected over 32 million dollars over the past five years that he used to get elected and reelected. He spent 14 million dollars in the last four months. He ran ads nonstop since Thanksgiving, and still came up short. This is an incumbent with lots of money, you know he`s got a serious problem. MELBER: Yeah, you mentioned money and the impact there in this race. Did you review that he was incompetent in his reforms in the city or that he was simply too focused on what might have been good for downtown, or wealthier parts of the city and not the whole city. GARCIA: I think he was out of touch, not having grown up in the city of Chicago. His priorities were essentially investing mostly in the downtown area, which comprises, coincidentally, 1% of the city`s land mass, and, as we learned in a series that the Chicago Tribune did, he spent most of his time meeting with honchos, going to D.C. and, essentially engaging in taking huge donations from out of towners with hedge fund managers, large corporations, giving them, in return, contracts, appointments, a variety of benefits, and I think when people learned about this they really took note that of the fact that this is a mayor who rarely comes to the neighborhoods, doesn`t engage people, and his priorities are out of touch with ordinary Chicagoans. When the school closings were announced -- MELBER: Let me interject. I want to interject. Turning from that critique to also some of what you did in bringing Clarence back in, the Chicago Tribune talked about, Jesus, how you did in your runoff, in the runoff race here, unofficial results showing that you eclipsed Emanuel in 15 of the city`s 50 wards, despite being outspent, including 11 or 12 overwhelming Latino wards. Clarence, how much of this in such a diverse and evolving city like Chicago is about Rahm Emanuel failing to hold together his sort of multiracial coalition. PAGE: Well, I think that`s a very significant, so was the low turnout. If people weren`t turned against Rahm Emanuel, they lost a lot of faith in him. Meanwhile, Jesus Garcia, I have been covering him since the early `80s. At least back when you were with Harold Washington`s campaign, "Chuy", and you have a lot of goodwill that you`ve built up over the years in the neighborhoods. At the same time, it is going to be an uphill race, of course, because not that many Chicagoans these days know "Chuy" Garcia. Never the less, I think he picked up where Karen Lewis left off. She was a teacher`s union head and she had to drop out of possible contention in this race because of health reasons. And, in many ways, "Chuy" Garcia picked up many of those union people and other folks there in Chicago who wanted an alternative to Rahm Emanuel. MELBER: Jesus "Chuy" Garcia and Clarence Page, thanks for joining us. I will mention that Rahm Emanuel has an open invite if he wants to respond to anything. Still ahead why all productivity came to a grinding halt in the office today. Jack Hanna is here to talk yes, llamas on the lamb. MELBER: Here we go. There was a real, live, wild goose chase this afternoon that captivated the nation, or at least a wild llama chase. You can see it there. Two escaped llamas galloping across Sun City, Arizona, and sometimes just sort of walking around as they lead police on an unusual, and yes, at times adorable chase. The llamas escaped a trailer that was near a retirement center where they were scheduled to do sort of a good will visit. People called the police about an hour after trying to capture them and the local news sent out the helicopters and soon, every animal lover with T.V. or an internet could watch the spectacle live. People saw neighbors trying pitch in and contain the animals by blocking off roads but the llamas were too agile. And, on the internet and social media sites commentary and celebration of the event overflowed. In fact, the NFL team the Tampa Bay Buccaneers posted that with their first pick in the draft they wanted the white llama. And the Arizona Cardinals quickly dispelled the rumor that the llamas would be moving to Florida, tweeting that the team had agreed to one year deals with the two. And the chase did come to an end. The llamas were recovered all without major injury or incident, but questions remain like why are llamas so fun to watch on the loose? And how fast are they for real? Well, we called in our next guest, Jungle Jack Hanna, director of Meritus of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium and host of the show, Jack Hanna`s Into the Wild. Your thoughts on this amazing little chase today that a lot of people were watching? JACK HANNA, TV MELBER: Well I`ll tell you one thing, what I worried about watching all this was in the traffic, all the cars. What would happen if these animals got hurt or something. But I found out something several hours ago you won`t believe. They had already signed up for ollama care, can you imagine that? Ollama care, they didn`t have to worry about getting hit by a car. MELBER: I had not heard that. HANNA: Isn`t that amazing to you? MELBER: Not only is it amazing, that`s one of the -- HANNA: I know. I just got on the news. MELBER: It`s one of the only llama puns I hadn`t heard today. Tell us, though, about how this works. I mean, let me start with a simple question of why are they so hard for humans to catch? HANNA: Well, I raised llamas in Tennessee as a young boy, a young man, at 21 years old when I was first married. And llamas, I had like 10 of them. I love llamas. But everyone, you have to understand something. These animals are animals. They`re great pack animals. By the way, in Montana where I hike a lot, but the one thing that happened to me in -- I love llamas, so don`t anyone write letters. I`m telling you that my wife, we were feeding Ole Leary, my favorite llama, he was a male. She walked away from him, the llama turned around, all of the women, the females were in cycle, and jumped on her back like -- they take the front legs and go like this. Hit her right in the kidneys at seven months pregnant. And I thought for sure, we lost something. I`m not saying every llama does that. I`m just saying that these animals, that you know their beautiful animals just be careful of them. MELBER: No, well that`s a harrowing story. And I got to ask you then, when you looked at this incident which of course did end fine and everyone enjoyed it and had a lot of fun online, but to the serious point you are raising, when civilians or untrained people were trying to help out, is that a bad idea? HANNA: I don`t think it`s a bad idea as long as they understand that these are animals that are upset, they`re running like this. Thank god everybody did try to help out. But remember something, llamas can also bite, like I do a lot of camel safaris, just like any animal, a horse, whatever. They are all great animals but you put a horse in a situation like this, out there traffic flying all over the place, you know I really was worried, in all seriousness, about something happening, or somebody getting bitten by the llama. Getting spit on -- somebody said oh my gosh a llama will spit on you. Yeah, I`ve been spit on so much, it like, tobacco going in your face or something. Chewed up, you know, whatever. It smells, it`s slimy and green, but you know, you`re not going to die from it. But they -- you only get spit on, that, I`m surprised that nobody got spit on or bitten, you know, trying to get the animals. But, thank god they did get them because you get an animal riled up like that and there is no telling what could happen. MELBER: What is the big difference, this came up today as well, between llamas, alpacas, and camels? HANNA: David Letterman called me a walking encyclopedia of misinformation. Now, a llama is a great pack animal. An alpaca is also different type of coat on the animal. A lot of people today are raising alpacas. They`re beautiful little creatures, they really are. And then you have the guanaco as well. So, all of them are in the same family, just different looks, different hair type of situation and that type of thing. Actually, the alpacas seem to big business in this country right now. As a matter of fact, in Montana where I live part time in my little farm, I want to start raising alpacas and maybe a llama or two because that`s how I got started in 1960`s raising these creatures. And I love them. I was fascinated watching this whole thing, making sure that these animals were -- they did everything they could to make sure they weren`t hit by a car or something and it was amazing they weren`t. MELBER: Now if they had escaped completely, and evaded capture, could they just live and make it like stray dogs? HANNA: Oh, yeah. You know -- out there, as long as they have grass or even weeds to eat, that`s the least of my worries. They have some water, you know, they can go quite a -- it`s not like a camel, but they can go quite a long time. These animals would have survived quite longer than maybe a horse or other animals is my personal opinion, if they got out there and they couldn`t catch them. MELBER: Well I know you know a lot about this and people have relied on you throughout the ages for this, so thank you for giving us all the info tonight, Jack Hanna. HANNA: Thanks a lot. HOTS: You bet. Alright, that is it for All In this evening. I hope you enjoyed all of our stories including our special report on the llama coverage there. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now. Good evening Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022601cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 123 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 26, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 26, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Richard Engel GUESTS: Muriel Bowser, Xeni Jardin SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7277 words HIGHLIGHT: Pot is technically legal in Alaska and Washington, D.C. as of right now, but the only way you`re legally allowed to get it is to grow it, to grow it yourself. The conservative "Washington Times" reports today that a movement is under way to stage an informal protest when Jeb Bush takes the stage tomorrow at CPAC. ISIS has released a video showing their fighters using sledgehammers and drills to destroy ancient artifacts. Sources telling TRMS that Loretta Lynch will get her vote to be the next attorney general of the United States next week. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: I think that was llovely, Ari. I just really llike it. ARI MELBER, THE CYCLE: Thank you. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: A llot. Thanks. Well done, Ari. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. So, being a gardener has never before had such social cache. I mean, like, maybe World War II with the Victory Gardens, in places where nobody had access to any good food. And you were there the gardener, and you could produce the turnip and no one else could. And so, you were the king of the world because you could grow people stuff they otherwise could not get. Maybe in the Victory Garden era, a gardener had this much social capital, but maybe not. What`s s happening right now might be more extreme, because right now, people who can garden, people who have the know-how and the experience and the stuff and the physical ability to grow things out of dirt, those people are about to be more socially in demand than basically anybody else in this giant state, and this tiny District of Columbia. So, as you know, the states of Washington and Colorado have legalized pot already within the past year. Both of those states are now places that have businesses, stores, dispensaries where you can walk off the street and buy a joint. Not a different a process than buying a six-pack of beer. They have legalized it already in Washington and in Colorado. This week, Alaska and Washington D.C. joined them, Alaska on Tuesday and D.C. last night at midnight. And both of those places, pot is also now legal. However, unlike in Colorado and Washington, in Alaska and D.C., there are no pot stores. There is no place where you can buy it. If you`re 21 or over, it`s now legal in D.C. and Alaska to possess a certain amount of pot. It`s also legal to smoke pot, as long as you don`t do it in public. But how are you supposed to get this pot that you can legally possess and legally smoke? You`re not allowed to buy it and nobody is legally allowed to sell it. And so, get to know a gardener. Pot is technically legal in Alaska and D.C. as of right now. But the only way you`re legally allowed to get it is to grow it, to grow it yourself, or for somebody that has grown it themselves to freely give it to you in exchange for nothing. Not only can they not sell it to you, they can`t trade you for it either. "The Alaska Dispatch News" did this handy Q&A on the day that Alaska legalized this week on Tuesday, and, you know, it`s asking some very basic questions. What is still illegal as of February 24th when it comes to pot? Well, among other things, you cannot sell pot. Really? Are you sure? Can`t I sell pot? No, you cannot sell pot. You can give away up to one ounce of marijuana in Alaska, but only, quote, "without remuneration." Meaning, you cannot be paid at all if you give somebody pot. And payment doesn`t just mean money. Payment means anything. Because this is Alaska, they have to specifically point out that exchanging firewood for marijuana, for instance, that would be considered payment and you can`t do that. So, those are your options for legally obtaining pot that you`re legally allowed to possess and smoke. The only legal way to get it is to either grow it themselves or be incredibly, incredibly charming to somebody who does grow it themselves. Washington D.C. has coined a new slogan to help people remember this weird rule about what is newly legal and what is not in the district. In D.C., the pot rules for short are "home use, home grown". That`s the mantra. "Home use, home grown." You can only use pot at home, not anywhere out in public, and the only pot you can use is pot that you, or somebody you love, has created from dirt, and seed, water, and light. "Home use, home grown." Of course, because it`s D.C., there is the problem of home rule. In Alaska, at least, this weird situation where only gardeners and the people who love them can get high, that situation exists now in Alaska, but it won`t exists forever. Alaska thinks that by this time next year, the state will have regulations in place so people will be able to legally buy pot in the state instead of having to grow it or get it for free off somebody who grew it. That`s going to change in Alaska within a year or so. But in D.C., that`s apparently never going to change. At least, it`s never going to change while the Republicans are in control of Congress. I mean, even though, there is no Republican member of Congress from D.C., there are a handful of Republican congressmen, specifically Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Mark Meadows of North Carolina, and Andy Harris of Maryland, have decided to make it their mission to stop D.C. from implementing their own law, which D.C. residents passed with 70 percent of the vote last November. By virtue of the vestigial constitutional relic that allows Congress to interfere in the local laws of D.C., these Republicans in the House were able to block the D.C. city counsel and the D.C. mayor from establishing any rules and regulations governing the sale of pot in the districts. That`s why D.C. isn`t going to have pot stores, like Washington and Colorado do. That`s why there`s been a run on flower pots and Miracle Grow at your local gardening centers as well, right? But even though the Republicans in Congress blocked D.C. from setting up ways to sell pot, specifically, they do not appear to have blocked D.C. from moving ahead on the other things that were approved in that voter approved initiative, including legalizing, possessing pot, and smoking it in private. They`ve only blocked the sale part of it. So, D.C.`s mayor and city council, and the police chief, and the local authorities in D.C., they made their plans. They made their plans for legalization to go into effect as of midnight last night. They put out this handy flier explaining what that means. Selling pot, not permitted. Public consumption of pot, not permitted. Driving while high, obviously not permitted. Consumption in public housing, not permitted. Nobody under 21 can do possess it or some it, or grow it, anything, but as long as you home grow, and you only give it away for free, you, if you`re over 21, can possess up to two ounces and you can get baked at home in your private residence as long as your private residence isn`t in public housing or anybody else that your landlord won`t allow you to do it. It`s very limited in scope, right, but it is a change. And D.C.`s spunky new mayor did this press availability to announce the change, to announce what was going to happen, to announce the rules, to announce that it was going into effect at midnight last night to take questions from the press, explain, like, listen, I`m at mayor of the city. This is what we`re doing. This is what that voter initiative means and we`re going ahead with it. She did that press availability and the Republicans in Congress freaked out. Jason Chaffetz from Utah and Mark Meadows from North Carolina, they sent the mayor of D.C. this threatening letter, saying their oversight committee in the House is, quote, "investigating your recent assertion that in your opinion, Initiative 71 will take effect on February 26." Quote, "We strongly suggest you reconsider your position." Quote, "If you decide to move forward with the legalization of marijuana in your district, you will be doing so in knowing and willful violation of the law." And then, look at this. They demanded that mayor hand over to Congress a list of any employees who participated in any way, in any action related to the enactment of this initiative. They want the employee salary, and position, the amount of time the employee engaged in the actions, they want a list of actions taken. In case it was not clear enough that this was a threat from Republican members of Congress against the mayor and other employees of D.C. city government for implementing this new law, in case that threat wasn`t clear enough, Congressman Jason Chaffetz again of Utah made the threat explicit. He told "The Washington Post" in an interview, quote, "You can go to prison for this. We`re not playing a little game here. We`re putting them on notice." He told "The Associated Press", quote, "The penalties are severe and we`re serious about this." Republican Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland, that is him in the microphone. That`s him in the background? Andy Harris of Maryland previously nationally famous only for this weird thing he did right around Valentine`s Day when he sat behind someone else on C-Span, and he ostentatiously winked and made eyes at the C-Span camera for a solid two minutes while texting with somebody. Yes, Republican Congressman Andy Harris previously famous only for being the winker. He now says he was winking at his mom. OK. Congressman Andy Harris is among the Republican members who have gone super agro on this issue at D.C. He is now demanding that the attorney general of the United States and the Justice Department arrest D.C. city officials and the mayor for going ahead with legalizing pot. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ANDY HARRIS (R), MARYLAND: Two years prison time, you lose your job, there are fines involved. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: If you`re feeling that there`s a certain disconnect between what these Republican congressmen are doing to D.C., and Republicans supposedly believing in local control, and a federal government that doesn`t overreach -- if you`re feeling that disconnect, you are not alone in that feeling. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS FRATES, CNN: Congress blocked Washington, D.C.`s voter- approved ballot measure to legalize marijuana. REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: Yes. FRATES: And I just wonder, doesn`t that cut against the whole Republican message of state rights, and small government, and power to the people that you and your party are such a fan of? CHAFFETZ: Well, Washington, D.C. is not a state. And Washington, D.C. has a lot to offer, but, you know, free rein on marijuana use. I just don`t buy that. I just don`t think that`s the way they should operate. So, state`s rights, yes. But Washington, D.C. is not state. FRATES: So, you point out that Washington, D.C. is not a state, but certainly, everybody who lives in Washington, D.C. pays federal taxes. They voted to allow that in the place where they live, and now, Congress has come in and said, no, no, no. We don`t think that`s appropriate. Isn`t it a little big brotherish, a little paternalistic? CHAFFETZ: Well, looking at the Constitution, Washington, D.C. is different. They`re not a state. And we have a role to play, and the Congress passed this. And I just don`t think that recreational marijuana in Washington, D.C. is the right direction to go. FRATES: What would you say to people who say Mr. Chaffetz, I live in Washington D.C., you live in Utah. It might not be right for Utah, but we believe Washington -- CHAFFETZ: I spend a lot of my time here as well. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: You keep that up and there will be bus trips of people going from D.C. to Utah. To say, hey, Utah, here`s how you ought to run things. I spent some time here. So, we are in this incredibly weird moment right now. I mean, it is weird enough that temporarily in Alaska, and apparently permanently in D.C., you can smoke pot, you can have pot, but you cannot get pot, unless you can grow it. So, it`s like a radical gardening mandate. That is weird enough. But on top of that, Washington, D.C.`s duly elected mayor and city council are now being told by Republican members of Congress that D.C. going ahead with this new law, even in this limited way, means that the mayor and city council ought to go to prison. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Some Republican members of Congress are calling for the fed to arrest D.C.`s mayor and city council members when they arrive here at work later this morning. REPORTER: Mayor, how do you react to the talk that you might go to jail, that part of this? MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER (D), DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Well, I -- you heard that we believe that we`re acting lawfully. So, I have a lot of things to do here in the District of Columbia. Me being in jail wouldn`t be a good thing. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Joining us now is the person at the center of this issue right now, the mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser. Mayor Bowser, thank you so much for being with us tonight. BOWSER: Thank you, Rachel. It`s really my pleasure to be here. MADDOW: I have to ask -- clearly, you are not in jail. We check to see if we`re going to have to bail you out in order to have you on TV. I imagine that there is a lot of tension between D.C. city government and Congress because they have this vestigial constitutional role in sort of stopping D.C. from doing things it wants to do. Did you expect it would come to the point where they`d be threatening to jail you? BOWSER: Well, this is an issue, Rachel, where some people feel very strongly at the Congress and they are speaking loudly. But our residents also spoke loud and clear last November when seven out of ten of them went to the polls to vote to approve legalization of small amounts of marijuana in Washington, D.C. for use by adults in their homes. And I`m the mayor of the District of Columbia. I was elected, and my job is to implement the people`s law. The people changed the law, and it`s my job to implement it. MADDOW: If members of Congress that are so excited and head up about this issue and are being so confrontational about this issue, if they decide that, OK, they`re not going to put you in jail, but they want to do everything possible to try to stop the city and to try to stop you from going ahead with this, what other options do they have? What else is at risk for you and for D.C. in terms of what Congress controls? BOWSER: Well, the Congress can act in a lot of ways. They have -- and if your viewers don`t know this -- they have jurisdiction over the District of Columbia in a lot of ways. We send our budget to the Congress. Our laws lay over at the Congress. And the Congress well knows how to stop things when they want to stop things. And they have done it in the past. They attacked our ability to support women`s reproductive health issues. They attacked our ability to provide clean needle exchange in the District of Columbia, and even medical marijuana. The answer for us, of course, is statehood so that Americans that live and pay taxes in the District of Columbia can have a voting member of Congress, our Eleanor Holmes Norton would have a vote, and we would have two senators. So that the members, and we have been especially antagonized by Representative Andy Harris who is the first district in Maryland. He could spend his time antagonizing the district, and they threaten to harass us and attack our funds that are due us by the federal government, just like any other state. But I know the people in the first district of Maryland would much rather has his attention on their issues. MADDOW: On the substance on this charge in the marijuana laws and the enforcement priorities in the district, how did day one go? And what do you think the biggest challenges are going to be for D.C. in terms of this moving forward? It is a little bit of a complicated array of things that people are going to have to understand in terms of what changes. BOWSER: Yes. And it was complicated by Andy Harris. Now, the voters of the District of Columbia were very clear on what they wanted to approve -- home use, home growth by adults. But I think it was also the expectation that the council of the District of Columbia would be able to pass reasonable regulations to regulate the sale of marijuana so we wouldn`t have this confusing state. But, currently, I want to be very clear, that residents and the will of the voters is being realized because Initiative 71 is enforced in the District of Columbia. MADDOW: The mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser, I know this is an incredibly difficult and pressure-laden time for you -- thank you so much for walking us through what you`re going through. I really appreciate it. BOWSER: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: All right. Good luck. I love D.C. All right. Lots more in tonight`s show, as we get one day closer to what may be the shut down of the Department of Homeland Security. Congress has started to get a little loopy. Videotape evidence of their true blue bipartisan loopiness is coming. Plus, we`ve got some fancy car explosions for you. Please stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRICIA MCKINNEY, TRMS SENIOR PLANNING PRODUCER: I`m here to give you selections of swag prizes for our Friday night news dump edition. MADDOW: Why do you look like at Gordon`s fisherman? MCKINNEY: Because, I`ll put this down, do you recall the whaling metaphor? MADDOW: Yes, yes, yes. MCKINNEY: This is one of the whaling -- MADDOW: Oh, it`s left over as a costume. MCKINNEY: Yes. MADDOW: What happened? We`ve been using that. It`s kind of awesome. MCKINNEY: Well, we could. I mean, we have more than one. MADDOW: Is it lined or is it just -- MCKINNEY: Yes, it`s the real thing, it is a real -- MADDOW: Nice. MCKINNEY: Kind of pricey too. OK, now, this is something that Rosaline (ph) has had on her desk and keeps offering it every week. Why don`t she use it? Really, it`s a ruler of the first ladies of the United States. It has no connection to the show except that it`s been on one of our producers` desks. MADDOW: First ladies influence -- first -- OK. Double size ruler with teeny little pictures of all the first ladies` heads. MCKINNEY: Yes. MADDOW: (INAUDIBLE) OK. MCKINNEY: And then this is Bill Wolff`s beard. MADDOW: Oh, so anybody can look bearded. MCKINNEY: I have no idea why we made this, but we made it at some point, and there is a piece of our former executive producer that could live on. MADDOW: It`s so creepy to give somebody this. I don`t know. What do you think? This is (INAUDIBLE) That is clearly an item of value. I think, you know what? We love our viewers, I think the item of value. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So, this is a thing that happened today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: You know what this is? It is a snowball, and it is just from outside here. So, it is very, very cold out, very unseasonable, so here, Mr. President, catch this. Uh-huh! (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Uh-huh! Republican Senator James Inhofe furnishing a snowball on the floor today because logic. Obviously, the existence of a snowball in the winter time disproves climate change. Case closed, America. Argument over. It`s cold. That was that kind of day in Washington today. There was also this moment, Nancy Pelosi wearing sunglasses at a Democratic press conference. She said she was doing it in solidarity with Harry Reid, who, it should be noted, has been wearing sunglasses inside earlier this week, as he recovers from a terrible eye injury. But today, he was not wearing his sunglasses, he was instead wearing sort of prismatic half glasses, even while Nancy Pelosi tried to do sunglasses solidarity. And it just didn`t work. It was a little weird. Honestly, I think members of Congress are getting a little punch on Capitol Hill. Probably because we`ve seen to be careening without control into another government shutdown. We are about 24 hours away from the Homeland Security Department shutting down, unless Republicans figure out how to get over the fight they`re having about it amongst themselves. And if you don`t believe me about the punchy thing, this was John Boehner`s response today to a reporter who asked him what he planned to do about that impending shutdown. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Your answer is about what you will do the same as yesterday. Can we -- Mitch McConnell has said exactly what he is going to do, you know exactly what you`re going to get. It`s going to be a clean DHS funding bill. Are you going to put it on the floor, are you going to kill it, are you going to let them vote on it, have you even had this discussion? (INAUDIBLE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: We didn`t invent that. That is the way -- we put that through the kissy noises to English Google translator today, but I still don`t know what he meant. Punchy. It is getting punchy and weird in Washington. Punchy and chaotic. The fight among Republicans over whether Republicans should shut down Homeland Security in protest over President Obama`s immigration policies, it has led to some of the nastiest Republican on Republican sniping and political cannibalism that we have seen in a long time. Congressman Peter King, Republican of New York, doesn`t want to shut down Homeland Security. He just told reporters, quote, "People think we`re crazy. There are terrorist attacks all over the world and we`re talking about closing down Homeland Security. This is like living in the world of the crazy people," end quote. Republican Senator Mark Kirk was even more blunt. He is frustrated with Republicans in the House who he thinks want to let Homeland Security shut down. Mark Kirk says this, quote, "We really, as a governing party, we got to fund Homeland Security and say to the House, here is a straw so you can suck it up." On the other side, there is Republican Congressman John Fleming saying if Republicans do keep Homeland Security running, keep it open, the conservative base, quote, "would be extremely angry". Congressman Fleming says any action to avoid the shutdown of Homeland Security would put Congress in very, very delicate territory. Republican Congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona also tells reporters that if John Boehner acts to keep Homeland Security from shutting it down, if he acts to keep it open, John Boehner will find himself on, quote, "on very thin ice." This is what it has been like for the last 48 hours heading into the shut down. Look at the headlines. GOP lawmakers clash. GOP Congress in disarray. House GOP bashes McConnell. Republicans grapple with internal rifts, right? The Republicans set this whole thing up as a fight between themselves and the White House. Or at least themselves and Democrats. What it has ended up being is a fight between themselves and themselves. The Senate, at some point in the next 24 hours, is expected to pass a bill funding Homeland Security. The House at last report had not come up with a way to pass the same way themselves. And so, maybe they will just pass something to keep Homeland Security open for three weeks and then, in three weeks, we`ll go through all of this again. That`s the latest reporting tonight from NBC News on Capitol Hill, in terms of what John Boehner`s strategy is. Maybe a bill that just lasts for three weeks and then we do it again? Maybe. But honestly, nobody knows what`s going to happen until it happens. John Boehner said yesterday that he and Mitch McConnell haven`t spoken in two weeks while this crisis between them has been brewing. Now, we are heading down to the last 24 hours and it is anyone`s guess as to what they will do. The stress seems like it`s getting to them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We`re waiting to see what the Senate can or can`t do. The house passed a bill six weeks ago. It`s time for the Senate to do their work. I don`t know what the Senate can or what they can`t produce. If ands and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas. REPORTER: Jeh Johnson -- BOEHNER: We passed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security six weeks ago. Six weeks ago. Time for the Senate to act. We passed a bill to fund the department six weeks ago. I`ll tell you what, how many times do I have to say it? (INAUDIBLE) (LAUGHTER) BOEHNER: When I make decisions, I`ll let you know. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: We`ll let you know. It`s so weird. Watch this space. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: You`re going to hear it directly from me and bluntly because I care. If I didn`t care, there`s no reason to do that. LAURA INGRAHAM, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: But sit down and shut up? CHRISTIE: Yes. Well, sometimes, people need to be told to sit down and shut up. (CHEERS) (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Yeah, shut up! Whoo! Oh, yes, it`s that time of year again. It is officially CPAC Week. This is the week when the whole conservative movement travels en masse to Washington, D.C., to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. They do this every year. It`s always fun. But this particular CPAC is more exciting than most years because this year, all the potential 2016 Republican candidates for president are there, trying to drum up support for their might be candidacy. So, today`s session included speeches by the aforementioned Chris Christie. Shut up! There was a particularly well-received speech by Sarah Palin today. I`m not kidding. It received a lot of compliments across the aisle, from everybody. There was a not-that-well-received speech by Ted Cruz today. He seemed to have not much of an effect on the crowd at all. Ben Carson was there at the opener. He`s a very good speaker. Everybody is there. But here is the thing to keep an eye on for tomorrow, because tomorrow, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is scheduled to give his CPAC speech, and there appears to be a movement afoot in which CPAC attendees who do not think that Jeb Bush is sufficiently conservative, they are apparently going to boycott his appearance tomorrow. Not boycott in the sense that they`re not going to show. They say they will show up, but then as soon as he takes the stage, they plan to stand up and walk out of the room. This is sort of a protest against him for being too much of a squish. The conservative "Washington Times" reports today that, quote, "a movement is under way to stage an informal protest when Jeb Bush takes the stage." So, that would be dramatic. Jeb Bush however apparently has a planned of his own. This is very hard to believe, but Slate.com is reporting tonight that the Jeb Bush team has apparently arranged for his supporters to be brought to the CPAC conference by bus tomorrow morning to try to fill the seats, to pack the hall with people who like Jeb. "Slate" got a hold of e-mails from of Jeb Bush`s top supporters. The email implores the recipients of the email to, quote, "arrive as early as possible to get a seat. Our early rise team will be there at 7:30 a.m. onward, helping reserve seats." 7:30 onward, Jeb Bush isn`t speaking until 1:40 p.m. But they`re packing the hall for him starting at 7:30 in the morning. A Bush insider confirming to "Slate" tonight that Jeb Bush`s PAC is helping organize transportation to the event. So, this is shaping up to be a really interesting showdown at CPAC tomorrow. I mean, who`s going to prevail? The Jeb Bush seat stuffers who were there five hours early, to make sure only pro-Jeb Bush people are in the room, or the Jeb Bush boycotters who plan to be in the room but get up and walk out as soon as he shows up. That`s tomorrow afternoon. Grab your popcorn, I love you, CPAC. MADDOW: This is a $200,000 car. At least it was. These photos were posted online today "Hot Rod" magazine, and then picked by Jalopnk.com. They got a lot of online traffic today. According to "Hot Rod", this car, a $200,000 Porsche Turbo 911S, over 400 horsepower, goes 190 miles an hour, this car apparently self-emulated in the parking of a Florida Costco while the owner was inside. And so, naturally, somebody shot a video. Lots of people took pictures, and now you can spend a lot of time looking at minute detail at a totally destroyed, very, very valuable car. This is a popular niche online actually. At wreckedexotics.com, all they do is post pictures of very expensive cars that have been somehow destroyed. You can search by type of expensive car or you can search by type of wreck. So, if you really like to see expensive cars on fire, you can see just the ones on fire. If you want to see just expensive cars crashed into buildings, you can search by that too. When it comes to the destruction of very valuable things, there is a very whole corner of the Internet devoted to pictures of the accidental destruction of very, very valuable cars. Very valuable things destroyed accidentally. There is also valuable things destroyed by looting and stealing. The most famous thing about the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Massachusetts is its trove of Rembrandts, and Degas and Monets and Vermeers that they had stolen from them in 1990. Still unsolved. The FBI still has a $5 million reward for the art theft. The museum still displays the empty frames of where all of its paintings and drawings used to be before they got stolen. In the category of very valuable things lost through a looting and stealing, you can also put the art and artifacts that were lost from the Iraqi National Museum after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the collapse of the Iraqi government and the U.S. as the invading force not making any provisions to protect that invaluable heritage, that invaluable stuff from people who steal or loot it. Sometimes, invaluable things are lost by accident. Sometimes, they`re lost by looting and stealing, which may or may not be facilitated by negligence in caring for those items. But there is a whole other category for the terribleness of the loss, when very valuable things, irreplaceable things are lost because of a deliberate decision to destroy. And in our time on Earth, we are now getting used to the deliberate desecration and destruction of world heritage sites because of religious fanaticism. Radical Islamic fundamentalists deciding that it`s up to them to rid the world of things like the Bamiyan Buddhas, these huge Buddhas the in the painted caves in northern Afghanistan. The Taliban government in Afghanistan in 2001 took those Buddhas out with anti-aircraft missiles and tank shells and ultimately dynamite and they totally destroy them. A decade later, it was the U.N. World Heritage site, the ancient Islamic shrines in Timbuktu in Mali, attacked and destroyed by a fanatical linked to al Qaeda. It`s in the summer of 2012. Now, of course, it`s ISIS. After ISIS took control of Mosul, Iraq`s second largest city, one of the things ISIS did was attacked Mosul`s library and the library in the University of Mosul as well, destroying books about everything other than Islam in a bon fire. Now, today, ISIS has released a video showing their fighters using sledge hammers and drills to destroy ancient -- really ancient artifacts, icons that in some cases are over 2,000 years old, from among the most ancient civilizations on the planet. NBC`s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel is in Turkey right now and he filed this report tonight. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) RICHARD ENGEL, NBC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Add cultural genocide to ISIS` growing list of crimes. The group, which has killed, terrorized, and uprooted hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Syria is now destroying their heritage, too. "We were ordered by our prophet to take down false idols and destroy them", says this ISIS member in a video released by the group -- which includes music and slow motion sequences. Then, the men go to work, ransacking Mosul`s renowned museum and a nearby archaeological site, demolishing irreplaceable statutes and works of art. Some crumbled with a mere push. Others require more effort. The big ones are defaced with power drills, including this winged bull, a god who protected the Assyrian empire 2,500 years ago, now powerless against this modern day vandals. (END VIDEOTAPE) MADDOW: NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel reporting tonight. Richard now joins us live from Istanbul. Richard, thanks for staying up late to be with us tonight. It`s nice to have you here. ENGEL: Absolutely. That video is just so infuriating. And we spoke to an archaeologist who has been studying this region, studying this part of Iraq for two decades now. And it`s heartbreaking. This is world civilization that ISIS is trying to erase by design. And it is systematic and it is going on, and it is not over yet. What we saw today is really just a part of a broader campaign because ISIS has set up shop in Mesopotamia, in the cradle of civilization. Just in Iraq, there are around 2,000 archaeological sites in areas that are under ISIS control. That`s just in Iraq, let alone Syria. MADDOW: Richard, in terms of ISIS`s strategy, obviously, they`re masters of propaganda. I think in your report tonight on "Nightly News", rightly pointing out some of the production values and the production techniques they`re using to try to sort of increase the horror as you watch these irreplaceable things destroyed. Is this designed to provoke in the same way that their video showing violence against people and murder of hostages are designed to provoke -- do they want a specific response to this? ENGEL: No, this has nothing to do with provoking the West. It`s not like putting a Western hostage on his knees and killing him while insulting the president. This is a much more religious mission. These people believe that this is the point of establishing the caliphate. They are purifying their land by removing previous cultures, by removing anything that came before Islam. In Islamic terms, the time before Islam is called Jahiliyyah, the time of ignorance, and things from the time of ignorance as it is called are a distraction from Islam at best. At worst, they are false idols. They are things that can tempt you away from the one and true path of God`s final religion. So, they want to remove these things and believe it is their holy duty and that they are proud to do this in front of their community and in front of potentially other recruits abroad. The Taliban did a similar thing in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda, there is a trend of iconoclasm within Islam and also within -- within all of the sort of monotheistic religions. Early Christians did the similar things, but that was 2,000 years ago. MADDOW: Speaking of early Christians and looking at these artifacts, some of them leading back to the Assyrian Empire, right, from 2,000 years BC, obviously, this is happening in the context of these reports that may be as many as a few hundred Assyrian Christians, not fighters, just civilians, women, children, families, have been taken by ISIS. Do you know what is going on in terms of the veracity of those reports and what we think the risk is to those Christians that they have kidnapped? ENGEL: Yes, these ruins are from the Assyrian civilization, from the city of Nineveh, which was around 2,500 years ago. That`s when it flourished. And the people that lived in this area where the Assyrians lived have adopted the name and they are the Assyrian Christians. They are not the ancient civilization. They`re just the descendents you will say, or the people who live in that region. And the Assyrian Christians have been targeted by ISIS for death, conversion, enslavement, sometimes they have been taken has slaves working in ISIS homes -- cooking, cleaning, doing whatever the masters would demand. And starting last Sunday, there was a series of about 30 Assyrian Christian villages that were holding out. They organized their defense committees and their own popular militias and ISIS invaded and they swept in. And the defense committees could not hold on. And some Christian men, defenders, were taken captive, some elderly women and children were taken also captive. And there are reports that as many as 300 of these villagers are now in ISIS`s hands, fate unknown. MADDOW: NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, just absolutely harrowing stuff. Richard, thank you very much, man. I appreciate it. ENGEL: Absolutely. MADDOW: All right. After a long, hard battle, today marks an Independence Day for the Internet. We`ve got lots ahead on that. So, please stay with us. MADDOW: I have said this before and it remains true. We get more e- mail, more feedback, more tweets about our next guest than any other guests we have on this show. It is an under statement that she is a fan favorite. She`s also my technological Sherpa. Her name is Xeni Jardin and she joins us next. Please stay with us. MADDOW: So, we`ve been having a clash of the titans in this country. This one involves really giant corporations on one side, including this network`s parent company, and really giant corporations on the other side, too. The two sides have been fighting about how much and whether the government should regulate traffic on the Internet. You`ve got cable companies on one side who don`t want -- and telecom companies, right -- who don`t want the government telling them what to do. And you`ve got other companies, some small ones, some big ones, like Google and Facebook, on the other side, along with a whole bunch of activists, and they`re all worried about the cable companies making it harder to see certain stuff on the Internet. People being able to pay to get their stuff out there and people who can`t pay getting stuck in the slow lane. In a fight like this, there`s going to be a winner, there`s going to be a loser. And honestly, yes, it is way more fun to watch gorillas to fight about anything than it is to watch giant corporations fight about net neutrality and regulation of the Internet. But there`s also a very interesting political argument that`s been articulated in some weird ways. One side of the argument has been, in some ways, represented by the Glenn Beck wing of the conservative movement. Glenn Beck has moved on from his hobbit kingdom at FOX News to the hobbit kingdom he built for himself on the Internet machine. Mr. Beck would now like to sell you a $17.91 Bill of Rights cap, in case your patriotic ears get cold. He would also sell you some Bill of Rights jeans for when you`re just lounging around your underground bunker. Glenn Beck e would most definitely like to tell you on the idea that this net neutrality thing, whatever that is, that will definitely obviously be the socialist end of the world. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GLENN BECK, BLAZE TV: This is truly about control. When you look at what they`ve tried to do, they tried to take away your guns. They`re trying to take away your voice. They need control of the Internet. If we lose the Internet, and the government takes control of the Internet, you will not be able to chart your own course online either. That leaves us exactly where? With a mimeograph machine? (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: They`re taking away your guns and they`re making you use a mimeograph thing. It`s all the same thing. I`ll meet you in the basement. The Glenn Beck, they`re coming for your keyboard side, they lost the argument today. The Federal Communications Commission today voted 3-2 for net neutrality, against the fulminations of the Glenn Beck side of the argument, right? To the extent that he was making a political argument here, he lost the political argument. But if the paranoia Glenn Beck side of this lost, how do we understand who won? And what do they get for a prize? And for the people who have been activists on this issue for years while most of the rest of us have been wondering how it`s all going to wonder -- wondering how it`s going to work out, how does today feel for the people who fought so hard to win this? Joining us is Xeni Jardin, tech culture reporter, co-editor of Boingboing.net, a grassroots supporter of net neutrality. Xeni, it`s great to see you. Thank you for being here. XENI JARDIN, BOINGBOING.NET: It`s an honor to be here again, Rachel. Thank you. MADDOW: I have been watching your reaction online to this today. I have been watching the discussion online today. I know that everybody is psyched, but can you explain to people who can`t previously care about this issue why you are psyched? JARDIN: There is exuberance and joyous nerd core rapping ringing out throughout the Internet land today. There`s also I hear a party for net neutrality advocates in D.C. with cocktails, with names like Internet libre. I know you`re fan of cocktails. There`s just a sense of great, great excitement and triumph, because this really was a victory of the people. Net neutrality is basically the idea that all network packets are created equal. And if you`re into cat GIFs and I`m into dog GIFs, we get to access the same stuff at the same speed, not one being slower than the other because Comcast or Time Warner has a sweetheart deal with the people who make dog GIFs. The idea that the content, that, you know, the videos, the blogs, the news reports, the everything that we like to share, to access and to talk about online, that everything should be a level playing field. That`s what this fight was about. And we won. And the people won. Not the big companies with all of the money on their side. There was such a diverse group of grassroots organizations. It was like -- depending on how you count it, 4 million to 7 million American citizens -- contacted the FCC to let our government know that preserving the status quo, preserving an open and free Internet was important and it is important. MADDOW: How resilient is this decision? Obviously, I think people worry that this might not happen because of the amount of lobbying and the big money interest, particularly pressing for this to go the other way. Now that the FCC has made this decision how long will it stick and what will determine whether or not it does? JARDIN: I`m not foolish enough to predict that, but a year and a half ago everyone thought this was absolutely impossible. I do know that this is something that our president has taken up as something of a personal cause, and he hasn`t had that many political victories. So, if you think about it, I don`t imagine he`s going to let this one go without a fight. You know, the Republicans in Congress would have to have a veto-proof majority on proposing legislation that would gut this. That`s a high hurdle to pass. I do imagine, as many others do, that there`s going to be legal challenges. There will be lawsuits. But this law, the ruling that came down today, this is like the third round. Each round prior was challenged by lawsuits, the telcos, the cable companies, the trade groups who would profit from having the ability to charge for access lanes. MADDOW: So, we`ll have to see whether or not they go back and do that again. At this point, an open question whether or not the market adjusts to it, or whether they keep fighting it in a very short term. Xeni Jardin, tech culture reporter and co-editor of Boingboing.net -- Xeni, thank you. Really appreciate it. JARDIN: Thank you, Rachel. MADDOW: All right. Some late breaking news is just in. Please state with us. I`ll have that for you after we come back. MADDOW: Update with some brand new news. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a vote on whether or not to confirm Loretta Lynch to be the next attorney general replacing Eric Holder. There was suspense whether she would get enough votes. In the end, three Republicans voted with Democrats to confirm her today. That was enough to move her nomination forward to the floor. However, we can`t report exclusively tonight on when that is going to happen. Senate sources telling THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW tonight that a floor vote on Loretta Lynch is likely to be next week. Now, there has been no official announcement on this. Junior Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been campaigning that the Republican leadership in Congress shouldn`t even allow a vote on her on the floor. But again, our sources telling us tonight that the Republican leadership in Congress is blowing off Ted Cruz on this matter and Loretta Lynch will get her vote to be the next attorney general of the United States next week. We`ll see. Watch this space. That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL." Hello, Lawrence. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022601cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 124 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 26, 2015 Thursday SHOW: THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL 10:00 PM EST The Last Word for February 26, 2015 BYLINE: Lawrence O`Donnell GUESTS: Luke Russert, David Frum, Blake Zeff, Mona El-Naggar SECTION: NEWS LENGTH: 8066 words HIGHLIGHT: Yaken Aly, father of Islam Yaken, expressed sorrow for losing his son. Islam was born and raised in a middle class environment in Cairo but later on joined the ISIS group in Syria. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Next week. Now, there has been no official announcement on this. Junior Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been campaigning that the Republican leadership in Congress shouldn`t even allow a vote on her on the floor. But again, our sources telling us tonight that the Republican leadership in Congress is blowing off Ted Cruz on this matter and Loretta Lynch will get her vote to be the next Attorney General of the United States next week. We`ll see. Watch this phase. That does it for us tonight, we`ll see you again tomorrow, now it`s time for THE LAST WORD with Lawrence O`Donnell, hello Lawrence. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST, THE LAST WORD: Rachel, you`ve been great about pushing the Loretta Lynch vote in the Senate, and insisting that there`s absolutely no reason for delay. Finally, we have movement. MADDOW: There is movement. And our sources tonight tell us that she`s -- it`s going to happen next week, no official word on that, but Ted Cruz is saying it should never happen, we shall see. O`DONNELL: We heard it from Rachel first -- MADDOW: Indeed -- O`DONNELL: A vote next week, that means she`s going to be sworn in at the end of the week. (LAUGHTER) MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Thanks Rachel. Well, with funding for Homeland Security running out tomorrow night, Republicans in the house and Senate are still arguing about exactly when they should surrender to the Democrats and President Obama. And Rand Paul is opening up a new campaign attack against Jeb Bush. Jeb`s use of drugs when he was in high school. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES: Every mayor, governor, police chief, sheriff and police commissioner should be concerned about this. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Funding the Department of Homeland Security -- REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Is absolute insanity for Republicans if we don`t vote on a clean bill. Maybe if their state was attacked, they`d knock it off. NANCY PELOSI, MINORITY LEADER, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: This is all about time. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Time is running out. REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER, UNITED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: When they make decisions, I`ll let you know. PELOSI: It`s about time for them to grow up and pass this bill. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: I want a commander-in-chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists do not wash up on American soil, if I can take on a hundred thousand protestors, I can do the same across the world. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a job to do. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Men and women who are gathered here today are gathered to fight for freedom in our country. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that job is not just to find the guy who can shout freedom the loudest. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The people want freedom online. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The future of the internet may have just been decided in a landmark vote today by the FCC. CONAN O`BRIEN, COMEDIAN & TELEVISION HOST: On to important news now. The Llamas are still on the loose -- JON STEWART, COMEDIAN & TELEVISION HOST: Oh -- O`BRIEN: Oh, doesn`t want to be caught, we should probably move on with the news. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When the clock struck midnight overnight, pot became legal in the nation`s capital. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: When Jeb was a very wealthy kid at a very elite school, he used marijuana but didn`t get caught. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They basically think this is Jeb Bush`s race to lose. PAUL: The law seems to target and seems to go after poor people, often people of color. Three out of four people in jail are black or brown. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today on the third anniversary of Trayvon Martin`s death. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today marks three years to the day since Trayvon Martin was shot to death in Sanford, Florida. OBAMA: It reminds us that the history of America doesn`t belong to one group or another, it belongs to all of us. O`BRIEN: I just want to go and meet the people. Obviously it`s a politically charged situation. STEWART: When does it air? When is it taken on? O`BRIEN: Oh, never air. (LAUGHTER) I don`t know -- STEWART: Why don`t I just -- O`BRIEN: I`m dead last -- STEWART: Read it, because it appears right now -- O`BRIEN: Oh, it`s right there. (LAUGHTER) As you asked me, I saw it right there -- STEWART: It`s just you -- O`BRIEN: And I thought, there`s a reason you`re leaving. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: For six weeks, house Republicans have been clinging to a hopeless strategy for funding the Department of Homeland Security. They have mistakenly believed until tonight that they could force President Obama to sign a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security. A bill which would include provisions that would nullify the President`s executive actions on immigration. They foolishly believed President Obama would sign such a bill because funding the Department of Homeland Security is so important. Of course, house Speaker John Boehner never believed any of that stuff, but he had to publicly pretend that he believed it so that the amateur right- wing of his party would not rebel against him. As it happens, Senate Democrats successfully filibustered the house bill in the Senate and have now forced Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to advance a clean bill that Democrats can vote for and the President can sign. With 26 hours left before funding for the Homeland Security runs out, house Republicans have stopped clinging to the wreckage of their failed strategy and are finally offering a new idea; a time-out of sorts. The house Republican plan is now to vote tomorrow on a clean, three-week extension of Homeland Security funding, which if passed, will do nothing more than delay the inevitable Republican surrender by a few weeks. The Republican delayed surrender strategy would mean another few weeks of the secretary of Homeland Security explaining things like this to the Congress and the country. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOHNSON: If you look at photographs of the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, much of the first responder communications equipment, portable radios, fire helmets, high visibility vests, response vehicles, life saving equipment, and mass casualty supplies were things paid for by grants from the Department of Homeland Security. This is not just an inside the beltway political jousting. A failure to fund the Department of Homeland Security fully has real impacts on public safety. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining me now is "Nbc News" Capitol Hill correspondent Luke Russert, also joining us, the senior editor of "The Atlantic", David Frum, and "Salon.com" political editor Blake Zeff. Luke, you created today one of the great performance art moments in the history of the speakership of the House of Representatives. Let`s take a look at that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LUKE RUSSERT, NBC NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Homeland Security funding runs out on Friday, are we less safe as a nation? BOEHNER: If `ands and buts` were candy and nuts, everyday will be Christmas. RUSSERT: It`s going to be a clean DHS funding bill. Are you going to put it on the floor? Are you going to kill it? Are you going to vote on it, and have you even had this discussion? BOEHNER: When they make the decision, I`ll let you know. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Luke, I am speechless. But can you translate for us? You know the speaker, you`ve listened to him often, can you translate, if `ands and buts` were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas, what does that mean in -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s it -- O`DONNELL: Legislative terms? RUSSERT: It`s something that the speaker often says when he`s -- O`DONNELL: Really? -- RUSSERT: Got his back against the wall -- O`DONNELL: He`s done that line before? -- RUSSERT: Yes, he`s said that -- O`DONNELL: Oh -- RUSSERT: A few times when he has his back against the wall and we say why don`t you pass essentially the way forward? But I will say that the comparison I`ve used for John Boehner this week, Lawrence, is really is Marshawn Lynch. Which is that John Boehner has repeated the same thing over and over again a variety of times, essentially that the house acted, the ball is in the Senate`s court and they are awaiting to hear from the Senate. Even though Mitch McConnell made his intentions known on Monday. So John Boehner is doing exactly as he`s done since he started his speakership. He is allowing for the conservative faction of his conference to beat their chest, to scream and yell, to try and figure out a way to "stand up" to the President regarding this issue of immigration in the past. It`s been different issues, but at the end of the day, especially when McConnell cuts this deal, we all know that John Boehner eventually is going to have to take what McConnell is giving him from the Senate. It`s just a question of when? It`s not a question of if. So in this case, John Boehner today in his press conference was just sort of trying to move it along, coming up with different Marshawn Lynchs and say the sort of same thing over and over. And then around 5:00 today, he came to the realization that, OK, we`re going to have to do something because we don`t want to allow Homeland Security funding to expire. The one thing I will just point out, Lawrence, that came to my mind during that press conference, if the shoe was on the other foot, and a Democrat had done something like that over the issue of Homeland Security, the outrage from conservative media, I don`t think anybody would have been able to hear themselves speak, it would have been so loud. But -- O`DONNELL: Well -- RUSSERT: It just shows you that this is the issue where they decide to fight immigration, DHS, as one Republican said to me earlier in the week, there`s two things Republican party is doing well, we lower your taxes and we say we`re going to kill terrorists. I don`t know why we`re giving away one of those two good things. O`DONNELL: But David, David Frum -- DAVID FRUM, SENIOR EDITOR, THE ATLANTIC: In 2000 -- O`DONNELL: Go ahead David. FRUM: In 2011 and 2014 when Republicans forced debt ceiling battles over issues that were not relevant to the debt ceiling, it was the Republicans who were behaving in a way that was detrimental to American institutions. That is not true this time. The predicate, the cause of all this is President Obama`s executive amnesty. That his determination to wave enforcement of immigration laws on a massive scale and to issue Social Security cards to people who are not legally entitled to bear them. The Republicans are looking for a way to stop this. The -- what -- it is - - what the President is doing this time, that is an attack on American institutions. O`DONNELL: But David -- FRUM: And there is -- it is very -- O`DONNELL: But David, there`s a way to stop it. Why -- they`re going to have a separate vote on stopping it, separate from funding the Department of Homeland Security, that`s a way to stop it. FRUM: The -- there`s nothing as you know from your days in the Senate, there is nothing more traditional that Congress does than to say to the President, you may not spend any money to do this, that, or the third thing. And Congress does that all the time. And that is what they are doing here, is they`re attaching on the bill that is relevant to the U.S. citizenship and immigration service. They are saying no money may be spent to further this purpose that has never passed the house -- O`DONNELL: Right -- FRUM: Never passed the Senate -- O`DONNELL: But Dave -- but David -- FRUM: It`s a solo act -- O`DONNELL: The votes -- FRUM: Of the executive -- O`DONNELL: But David, the votes aren`t there to pass that bill. So the adult choice is to move to the next possibility -- FRUM: But -- O`DONNELL: Isn`t it? FRUM: But the -- what the President has done here, he didn`t have the votes either. And the President did something -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- FRUM: That is clearly a prerogative of Congress. That he`s -- well, he is not -- he is not exercising prosecutorial discretion, he is simply stopping enforcement of a whole vast category of law and entering people into the Social Security system who shouldn`t be there. O`DONNELL: OK -- FRUM: And Congress is saying -- O`DONNELL: I get it -- FRUM: You don`t have the power to do that -- O`DONNELL: Let`s -- FRUM: And we`re looking for a way to stop it. O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to a Republican who understands your argument, David, and who would like to stop all those things that you would like to stop, but also recognizes that the Department of Homeland Security has to be funded. Let`s listen to what Peter King says about this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KING: It`s absolute insanity for the Republicans if we don`t vote on a clean bill. If the Senate sends us a clean bill, we have an absolute obligation, not just a political obligation, but a moral obligation to vote on that. To be defunding the Department of Homeland Security at a time when the terror threats are greater now than any time since 9/11. To me, it`s just living in a -- it`s a fantasy world, a delusional world, the time has come for a decision to be made after this come to a vote. Just put it on the house floor, people can vote any way they want. I have no doubt that a solid majority of the House of Representatives would vote yes. Just give us democracy and let us vote. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Blake, he is absolutely right, isn`t he? If you put that on the house floor, it would pass. RUSSERT: Yes, and I`ve spoken to -- O`DONNELL: Luke -- RUSSERT: Some -- O`DONNELL: Let me hear from Blake on this. RUSSERT: Oh, I`m sorry. BLAKE ZEFF, POLITICAL EDITOR, SALON.COM: Well, yes, I mean I think the problem for David`s argument, and I think David comes from a good philosophical place here, it`s a difference of opinion that you and I might have with him. But the problem for David and people like him is that Mitch McConnell disagrees with him. Yes, Mitch McConnell, Mitch McConnell said the game is over. OK, we played this little stunt, we tried to appeal to our far right base and you know, if the deadline is coming, we got to stop the game. And so Mitch McConnell is saying, let`s do a clean funding bill. So there`s no other option but John Boehner anymore. David could talk about how this is about President Obama`s immigration order and all that kind of stuff. But something about President Obama anymore, Mitch McConnell chose President Obama`s side over John Boehner`s side. O`DONNELL: Luke Russert, how many Peter Kings are there in the Republican house and how many people not facing reality as Peter King would describe them, are there -- RUSSERT: Well -- O`DONNELL: In the Republican house? RUSSERT: I sort of asked leadership aides and a few members a few days ago what they thought the number would be if in fact a clean Homeland Security bill that went through the end of September would go on the floor. The number I got was at least 65, maybe as high as 75 or 85. So there`s no doubt they could have moved it forward. But it would have violated the Hastert rule which is of course, the rule that says whenever you have a GOP majority, you want to get the majority in the majority before you put something on the house floor. And that really has been kind of the story of the Boehner`s speakership, is that he does not want to violate that Hastert rule until a last possible moment. One last thing that I would tell you though, about this whole fight, Lawrence, I find fascinating is, here you have the new Republican majority, they`ve literally spent two months on Keystone and this, and more likely they`re not going to spend most of March on this and a Medicare doc fix. So any type of big bulled new types of ideas they were trying to show the American public have really been pushed to the back burner. And a lot of senior Republicans have told me that`s what they hate about this the most, that they`re not having opportunity to express what they`re for. It`s just going from crisis to crisis. O`DONNELL: OK, we`re going to take -- FRUM: And President Obama also had -- O`DONNELL: Quickly, David, quickly. FRUM: President Obama also had the option of putting the Department of Homeland Security first, and he didn`t. He put it second to his quite lawless, now struck down by federal court executive amnesty. That was his top priority, Homeland Security was second for him. O`DONNELL: And will -- FRUM: So, he is not the responsible adult here. O`DONNELL: We will hear more speeches like that on the house floor as they go through the surrender process. So Dave, we`re going to -- we`re going to be back with more on this. Before we leave, I just want to -- one thing about this so-called Hastert rule, and Luke, I`m just saying this for the audience, I know everybody in Washington calls it that -- it`s not a rule. There is no rule of the house that says this. It was just Denny Hastert`s preference, his political preference when he was speaker, and there`s nothing that binds any speaker on that. RUSSERT: It`s not in the constitution -- O`DONNELL: Right or -- RUSSERT: Perfect -- O`DONNELL: And there ain`t no rule book of the house either. We`re going to take a break, coming up next, Rand Paul wants to know why Jeb Bush wants to put people in prison for doing exactly, and I mean exactly what Jeb Bush did in high school. Smoke a lot of pot. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: He used marijuana but didn`t get caught, didn`t have to go to prison. I think it shows some hypocrisy that`s going to be difficult for young people to understand. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Scott Walker says as president, he could absolutely handle the Islamic State because as governor, he actually had to handle some labor unions. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: And for years, I`ve been concerned about that threat. I want a commander-in-chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists do not wash up on American soil, if I can take on a hundred thousand protesters, I can do the same across the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: A Walker spokesman was then, of course, forced to tell "National Review" that the governor was in no way comparing peaceful, protesting American citizens to the beheaders of the Islamic State. What the governor was saying was, when faced with adversity, he chooses strength and leadership according to his spokesman. Up next, Rand Paul opens up a new campaign attack against Jeb Bush. And Jeb Bush admits to smoking a lot of pot in high school and getting away with it. And Rand Paul wants to know why Jeb Bush thinks pot users, pot users like him, the ones who don`t get away with it, should go to prison. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PAUL: When Jeb was a very wealthy kid at a very elite school, he used marijuana but didn`t get caught, didn`t have to go to prison. I think it shows some hypocrisy that`s going to be difficult for young people to understand why we`d put a 65-year-old -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes -- PAUL: Guy in jail for murder, for marijuana -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I mean -- PAUL: What I`m talking about, there is not the hypocrisy of well, it`s the hypocrisy of evading the law because the law seems to target and seems to go after poor people, often people of color. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That was Rand Paul talking about Jeb Bush`s drug history on "Fox News" last night. Tomorrow, both Rand Paul and Jeb Bush will address the Conservative Political Action Conference where Rand Paul has won the straw poll for the last two years. Back with me, Luke Russert, David Frum and Blake Zeff. And David Frum, how is that line of argument going to go over with Republican primary voters? FRUM: The Republican party is divided on the marijuana issue, so it may draw blood. But let`s remember that Rand Paul is here advocating. He is not a friend to the groups that he is speaking for. He is not a friend to young people and the people of color when he wants to make marijuana completely legal. And the consequences of legal marijuana are very dangerous, and they are life-changing and they are going to fall on the people who are going to be exposed to all kinds of life risks if it is made easier to start taking drugs, easier to keep using drugs. O`DONNELL: Blake Zeff, what I find -- ZEFF: Yes -- O`DONNELL: So fascinating about this line of attack is that, it is the obvious side of it, of the -- look at this guy, he gets away with it then he wants to put other people in prison for what he got away with -- ZEFF: Yes. O`DONNELL: There`s also a very clear line of attack here about Bush privilege. ZEFF: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Just Bush life privilege -- ZEFF: Absolutely -- O`DONNELL: In general. High school is not exactly the way we describe the school. This is Andover, this is one of the -- you know, the elite, most elite boarding schools in America, where he was. And let me just read to you where -- this was all revealed in the "Boston Globe". Let`s just read this description of Jeb`s pot use at Andover. And this is from Peter Tibbetts who was a classmate of his, and the "Globe" reports it this way. "The first time Tibbetts smoked marijuana, he said was with Bush and a few other classmates in the Woods near Pemberton Cottage." "Then a few weeks later, Tibbetts said, he smoked hashish, a cannabis product typically stronger than pot in Jeb`s dormitory room." "The first time I really got stoned was in Jeb`s room, Tibbetts said, he had a portable stereo with removal speakers and put on Steppenwolf for me. As the rock group`s signature song, "Magic Carpet Ride" blared from the speakers," Tibbetts said he smoked harsh with Bush. He said he once bought hashish from Bush, but stressed in a follow-up e-mail. "Please bear in mind that I was seeking the hash, it wasn`t as if he was a dealer, though he did suggest I take up cigarettes so that I could hold my hits better after that first joint." Blake Zeff, who taught you how to hold your hits better when you were in high school? -- ZEFF: Unfortunately for me, Jeb Bush was not there when I was in college - - O`DONNELL: Which -- ZEFF: I wish he were -- O`DONNELL: Presidential candidate taught you how to hold your hits better? ZEFF: I think Rand Paul would probably be a good teacher of that, but certainly he wasn`t. O`DONNELL: Good -- ZEFF: But I need it -- but your point is a good one, he is bringing up this whole idea of elite privilege. I always think it`s kind of funny because Rand Paul of course is the son of a Congressman and doctor. He is hardly some guy who had to, you know, work his way up from boot straps. But the other bigger point that I think you`re getting at, I`m sure is what David Frum thinks is that, this feels to me like -- about more than marijuana. This is Rand Paul taking a shot at Jeb Bush who is the big dawg in the establishment lane of the GOP primary, right? Tomorrow he`s going to be speaking at C-PAC which is very much a far right crowd, that`s kind of Rand Paul`s home crowd. The libertarian types, tea parties. And it`s like hitting a pinata, going after Jeb Bush, the candy falls out with the far right crowd, I think Rand Paul really doesn`t like Jeb Bush and sees this as another opportunity to just hit the guy and score some points with his base. O`DONNELL: And Luke Russert, Jeb`s brother had maybe the most charming answer to the drug question by any candidate when he said, when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish. Jeb is not quite so good at poet, what he said to the "Boston Globe" about this was, "I drunk alcohol and I smoked marijuana when I was at Andover. It was pretty common." Luke, how do you see this particular line of attack playing out by Rand Paul? RUSSERT: Well, it`s interesting because I think the real purpose of it is, he`s trying to grow the GOP brand and he`s talking about criminal justice reform. Which is something that we`ve heard inclines(ph) up on Capitol Hill from some Republican lawmakers. And think about Washington D.C. where I am right now, which we just legalized today. There is a report that was really a sort of catalyst for legalization, which was when there were drug possession arrests in Washington, this was in the "Washington Post", even though blacks and whites use it equally, nine out of ten of the arrests were for blacks. So I think Rand Paul is trying to tap into that and a byproduct of that is what? Going against Jeb Bush, saying, you know, arrest you know, a 65-year- old white guy for -- a 65-year-old man rather, for medical marijuana. Kind of showing this aged difference in this idea that Jeb Bush is trying to overreach here, at least legally to pander to a base and he is not having a realistic view of it -- O`DONNELL: Is this -- RUSSERT: So I didn`t think -- O`DONNELL: That Rand Paul version of this -- RUSSERT: I should also say Rand Paul, more so than other candidates, has been throwing the hammer down at his opponents. O`DONNELL: Yes -- RUSSERT: And he is not -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And this isn`t nightmare -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- RUSSERT: Holding back at all -- O`DONNELL: David -- FRUM: This is -- O`DONNELL: Frum -- FRUM: This is -- O`DONNELL: A quick last word for us -- FRUM: This is nightmare version of GOP extension. The way you want to extend the GOP brand is by making healthcare more available. By speaking for that, not by saying we`re going to make drugs more available. The libertarian message purports to be the solution to the Republican problem. It is the Republican problem. What the party needs is a healthcare and middle class economic message, not a drug message. O`DONNELL: David Frum gets the last word on it tonight, thank you David Frum, Luke Russert and Blake Zeff, thank you all for joining me tonight. FRUM: Take care. O`DONNELL: Coming up next -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bye -- O`DONNELL: One of the Islamic State fighters who has been photographed beside a beheaded corpse used to have only one dream, becoming a fitness instructor with his own fitness studio. The extraordinary story of how that dream turned into fighting for the Islamic State is next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, PRESS SECRETARY, WHITE HOUSE: I know that there are some media outlets that are reporting that this suspect has been identified. At this point, I`m not in a position to either confirm or deny that the individual named in these reports is the individual that we`re searching for. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: The "Washington Post" and the"Bbc" have confirmed the identity of the man known as Jihadi John. A masked British man seen here just before the beheading of American journalist James Foley. Former friends have identified Jihadi John as a Kuwaiti-born British man in his mid 20s from London named Mohammed Emwazi. According to the "Washington Post", he is a University of Westminster graduate with a computer programming degree. The identification of Jihadi John follows the arrest in the raiding(ph) on Wednesday of three Brooklyn men on charges of conspiracy to provide material support to the Islamic State. A fourth man is in custody today and he`s being questioned by federal agents in connection with the alleged Brooklyn conspiracy. Also today, Canadian law enforcement officials said six people from Montreal left Canada last month and are likely headed to Syria. The best current reporting on how young middle class men are moving from dreams of career success to fighting for the Islamic State has been done by Mona El Naggar in the "New York Times" with a company video on the "New York Times" website. Joining me now is Mona El-Naggar, a video journalist for "The New York Times." Mona, this article that you wrote for "The New York Times," entitled, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "From A Private School in Cairo to ISIS Killing Fields in Syria," absolutely stunning. (END VIDEO CLIP) When I read this news -- I read it, I knew we wanted to talk to you about it. And it`s the case study of -- his first name is Islam, -- EL-NAGGAR: Correct. O`DONNELL: -- Islam Yaken. EL-NAGGAR: Yaken. O`DONNELL: And I just want to read your introduction to this. This is an amazingly tight paragraph that takes him from what was his life, you know, into the Islamic state. And you begin by quoting his father, who you found and was able to talk to. And his father said to you, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- "You have to understand, I am in pain. My son is gone." Mr. Aly raised his son, Islam Yaken, in a middle class Cairo neighborhood, with tended gardens and trendy coffee shops, and he sent him to a private school where he studied in French." "As a young man, Mr. Yakan wanted to be a fitness instructor. He trained relentlessly, hoping that his effort would bring him success, girlfriends and wealth." "But his goals never materialized. He left that life and found religion, extremism and, ultimately, his way into a photograph where he knelt beside a decapitated corpse on the killing fields of Syria, smiling." (END VIDEO CLIP) That is as -- and then you lay out in great detail how that all happened. How did you, first of all, get this story and get all these people who knew him to agree to be interviewed. EL-NAGGAR: Right. Well, Islam Yaken was, fortunately for us, very vocal through his social media -- on his Twitter account, Facebook, at first. And he would just post -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- pictures and tweet out where he was, what he`s doing. And, of course, a lot of people that shocking. And local Egyptian media became sort of became aware Islam Yaken and what he was up to. And there was a bit of focus on his specific case because it was out there. And so, I was intrigued, you know, by his sort of -- I was intrigued by -- well, how did he get there, really. (END VIDEO CLIP) And that`s what made me pursue the story. O`DONNELL: And his father was very disappointed when he became not so religious during his body building pursuits. EL-NAGGAR: True. I mean, his father used to sort of push him to pray and -- O`DONNELL: Right. EL-NAGGAR: -- and, you know, because he wasn`t very observant. O`DONNELL: Does his father now regret that he pushed him to pray. EL-NAGGAR: You know, I didn`t ask him this very specific question. You know, the father is really -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- sort of struggling with the entire situation and -- but he does -- he did -- you know, I remember ember he -- you know, he`s sort of struggling with his own feelings really. (END VIDEO CLIP) And one of the things he`s struggling with is, well, how did his son get there. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And to what extent did he sort of, somehow, contribute to this, just in how he raised him really. And he said, you know, at one point, he`s like, "You know, this is," -- I`m trying to remember exactly what he told me but he said basically like, "You know, this cannot mean that I failed as a father. Everyone is responsible for this. The system is responsible for this. The leadership is responsible for this." And what he really was trying to say is that there are so many different factors that have basically pulled his son toward this -- in this direction, toward ISIS eventually. And he couldn`t face the fact that he could have, somehow, possibly been entirely -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- responsible for how he raised his son and how his son ended up with ISIS. O`DONNELL: You do mix in all the various elements in the article, including religion. And there`s something you touched in here that I have not read specified in any other kinds of accounts of this. And that is the kind of sexual repression that these young boys are living with. You refer to it as -- in the piece, you say, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) "There are some more delicate subjects not often publicly-debated, let alone dissected, like the increasingly conservative thinking that defines the faith for many Muslims today, or sexual repression among young people who are taught that their Physical and emotional desires Can bring them eternal damnation." (END VIDEO CLIP) And we see, later in the piece, as he becomes religious that -- well, he used to chase girls and proudly talk about actually having had sex with girls -- he then will push his friend, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) "We have to walk faster so I don`t have to look at that woman walking in front of me." EL-NAGGAR: Right. I think, sir, that -- what we`re talking about earlier, the -- being pulled in different directions and trying to really figure out like sort of what moral code he wants to observe and live by. It manifested itself in this issue of women as a young guy. You know, a lot of young men everywhere are like, you know, thinking about women and like pursuing women, not pursuing women, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- what`s the best thing to do and not to do. O`DONNELL: And what is their -- EL-NAGGAR: And this is like a common thing for young men. O`DONNELL: And what is their religion telling them about women at that same time. EL-NAGGER: I mean, well, the religion is telling them broadly that they should not be in a relationship with a woman unless they`re married to her. I mean -- O`DONNELL: His mentor he eventually starts to follow lectures that, if you see women in class and school, and you become fond of them and you never say a word to them, you have still sinned. EL-NAGGAR: Right. O`DONNELL: That`s how repressed this is. EL-NAGGAR: Right. And that`s very ultraconservative view. So, some, you know, religious leaders may not go to that extent -- O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. EL-NAGGAR: -- but they would still tell you that, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- you know, if you`re in a relationship with a woman who you are not married to, that`s a sin. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. EL-NAGGAR: Of course, this particular religious leader has sort of taken it to the next level and saying that just, you know, merely looking at a woman or just, you know, -- O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. EL-NAGGAR: -- platonically falling in love with a woman is still a sin, which is a very difficult lesson for a young guy to process and live with. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. (END VIDEO CLIP) And, at the same time, incredibly Difficult for them, in the culture they`re in, to move into a more western view of this. And so, there`s just this incredible frustration that they`re -- EL-NAGGAR: There is an incredible frustration, but it`s also happening in a certain context. The context of a region that`s mired in conflict and war. O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm. EL-NAGGAR: And that`s a very important component. And, also, in a country where, at one point, these young men, you know, had this very strong sense of hope -- there was a revolution, there was this brief moment that really sort of motivated people and made them feel like they could matter, that they -- he could be a somebody, he can really sort of, you know, change his life, take charge. And then that sort of collapsed. O`DONNELL: And what do we know about -- all of that, I think, I can follow. And the part that I haven`t heard anyone describe is how we get from that recruitment point to, now, you`re a member of this fighting force, -- EL-NAGGAR: Right. O`DONNELL: -- to it`s now your turn to behead someone. That actual act is so strange that there are all sorts of soldiers who would absolutely refuse to do it. They`ll say, "Well, you know, that`s not the way we`re going to do this." EL-NAGGAR: Right. So, I mean, from just, you know, speaking and reporting on the story, I mean, basically, I mean, we have to look at this as stages. You know, the Islam Yaken, who started as someone who`s slightly dissatisfied with his life and turned to religion is not the same Islam Yaken who is engaged in this fight in Syria -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- with ISIS that`s committing, you know, these murders and killings. So, there`s a progression there. When, you know, when he turned to religion, he was looking for some sort of definition in his life. And he adopted this very ultraconservative view that made it very uneasy for him to sort of cope and live in the society and be happy. And when he -- you know, when he was waiting for sort of a political transformation, he had a vision of an Islamic state in Egypt. And that did not happen, and the country sort of turned around and went in the opposite direction. He became very sort of desperate and looked for something else. And, at this point, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- you know, I mean, he sees what`s happening in Syria. He`s thinking that, maybe there`s some kind of calling there, maybe he can go fight the forces of Bashar al-Assad, then, you know, be sort of a constructive force against evil. That`s part of what`s going on there. And he thinks he`s fighting for a just cause. As soon as -- O`DONNELL: No, I get all that. EL-NAGGAR: Right. And he gets to Syria -- O`DONNELL: And I get the taking up arms. And I don`t get the -- EL-NAGGGAR: But as soon as you`re in Syria, things change. O`DONNELL: Yes. EL-NAGGAR: And, now, you`re -- you know, the dominant sort of group is ISIS. He joins ISIS and he becomes indoctrinated with, you know, even more conservative, even more radical views of what his role should be as a Muslim, and how to define his religion, and how to live by his religion. And he takes it all the way. And, basically, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- within that sort of militant ideology, anyone outside of their very sort of specific definition of Islam is considered an infidel. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Mona El-Naggar, -- EL-NAGGAR: And, you know, I mean -- you know, the vast majority of Muslims clearly would not, -- O`DONNELL: Of course, yes. EL-NAGGAR: -- you know, see that as being the proper definition of their faith. O`DONNELL: Exactly. EL-NAGGAR: But, with this one, you know -- O`DONNELL: Mona El-Naggar, thank you very much for your report. Thanks for joining us tonight. We will link to this very important "New York Times" article on our Web site. EL-NAGGAR: Thank you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Coming up, Texas sportscaster, Dale Hanson, has a deeply personal response to some high school basketball fans holding up signs that said "White Power." And Robin Williams` daughter, Zelda, does her first television interview since her father`s death. That`s coming up. (END VIDEO CLIP) Senator James Inhofe is Chairman of the Senate`s Environment Committee, and he insists that climate change is a hoax. And, today, according to Senator Inhofe`s logic, he proved it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I ask the Chair, do you know what this is? It`s a snowball. And that`s just from outside here. So it`s very, very cold out, very unseasonal. So, here, Mr. President, catch this, uh-hmm. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: No, Senate rules say absolutely nothing about throwing snowballs in the Senate chamber. Coming up, at a Texas high school basketball game, the fans for one team held up signs saying, "White Power." That got the attention of legendary Texas sportscaster, Dale Hanson, who delivered a deeply personal response about his own experience growing up with racism all around him. That`s next. Dale Hanson is back with a guest rewrite of sorts. Dale Hanson is well- known to Texas sports fans, having done 33 years as the sports guy at WFAA TV in Dallas. Dale Hanson first appeared on this program when we showed you his very positive reaction to college football player, Michael Sam, revealing that he is gay, just before the NFL draft. Something happened at a recent high school basketball game in Texas that Dale Hanson felt compelled to comment on. The game itself was worthy of TV coverage since it took three overtimes for the Flower Mound Jaguars to beat the Plano East Panthers, 75 to 73. But Dale Hanson wasn`t interested in what happened on the court. Dale Hanson wanted to talk about what the Flower Mound High School fans did during the game. They held up two signs beside each other, one sign saying, "White", the other sign saying, "Power." Dale Hanson had a very personal reaction to that, including the memory of growing up under the spell of racism. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DALE HANSON, TEXAS SPORTSCASTER: That basketball game in Flower Mound a week or so ago with Plano East has changed some of the rules now, but it hasn`t changed nearly enough. Kids on the Flower Mound side were seen holding up signs saying, "White Power." And too many parents and, apparently, others who care, tried to defend what you cannot defend. Some parents actually argued that it was just a mistake. They had five signs, grabbed two, and they just, accidentally, when held together, said "White Power." Louisville school officials say now, it was no accident. And how could it have possibly been. They`re taking their signs away. But there`s a history in Flower Mound. When my granddaughter, who went to Louisville High, would be at a game in Flower Mound, she and her friends would hear the chant, "Welfare babies, do you know who your daddy is, because we know ours." I feel sorry for people who find their value in the value of their home or the money they have. But I don`t blame the kids as much as some of you might. Maybe because I used to be one of those kids. I was raised in a small Iowa farm town that had only one black family in the county and raised by a man who used the "N" word like it was a proper noun. I think I was 12 before I realized the "N" word actually wasn`t the first name of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Elston Howard, and so many more. My dad always referred to the black athlete and any person of color he didn`t know that way, but he loved the Matthews Family. Henry and Billy Matthews were good people. The whole family was. My dad always said they were different. The one black family he knew were good people. All the others he didn`t know, they were the bad people. The ignorance in that reasoning, if you think about it long enough, will twist your mind. And it twisted mine. Kids have to be taught to hate. And its our parents and grandparents, and our teachers and coaches, too, who teach us to hate. Kids become the product of that environment. I was and they are. The kids who hold the signs and chant their racist slurs -- and it`s not all of them, it never is, but their ignorance perpetuates the stereotype of all of us in Texas as a racist, ignorant people. But that ignorance will be replaced someday by the wisdom they learn, when they live in the real world, when they meet the people who don`t look like them, didn`t grow up the way they did, the people who make this life worth living, they will change. Not all of them. It never is. But they will change. I did a long time ago. They can, too. But not if we try to defend what you cannot defend. And not if we stay silent and think taking their signs away is doing enough. The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything -- Albert Einstein. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Coming up, Robin Williams` daughter gives her first -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- television interview since her father`s death. That`s next. (END VIDEO CLIP) Last year, the organization, American Atheists, was not allowed at CPAC. This year, they got a booth and speaking slot. Reporters say, atheist Republican, Jamila Bey, got a tepid response among the mostly Christian conservative audience. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMILA BEY, JOURNALIST AND PUBLIC SPEAKER: Embrace me. Let me vote for G.O.P. candidates. Let`s do this as Americans, one and all. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Hmm, I wonder why they didn`t embrace her. What could it be. We`ll be right back with the first TV interview of Robin Williams` daughter since her father`s death. "He was one of a kind, kind, gentle, and funny beyond belief. Shocking." That was a text I received from a dear friend of Robin Williams the day he died six months ago. Robin Williams` 25-year-old daughter, Zelda, has now done her first television interview since her father`s death with NBC`s Kate Snow. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ZELDA WILLIAMS, DAUGHTER OF ROBIN WILLIAMS: Laughter was incredibly important to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KATE SNOW, NBC NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You wrote last summer that your father was one of the kindest, most generous and gentlest souls you`ve ever known. And I want to quote what you wrote. You said, quote, "The entire world is forever a little darker, less colorful and less full of laughter in his absence. We just have to work twice as hard to fill it back up again." (END VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAMS: Yes. SNOW: Is that why you`re doing this. WILLIAMS: I don`t think it`s sadder in general that he`s gone. I mean, I think a lot of people feel his absence. But, for me especially, yes, it`s going to take a lot of work to -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- allow myself to have the sort of fun, happy life that I had. SNOW: When everything happened last summer, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- I`m curious how it felt to be you, because it seemed like everybody was so stunned by it. And there was so much outpouring of -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- I hope there was outpouring of support to you. Did you feel that. WILLIAMS: It is not something that`s even easy -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- to put into words, for as much as I love words and have a lot of faith in them. There was an enormous outpouring of love from -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- every corner of the world. And it`s not to say that people didn`t know dad. They knew a dad that he was proud -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- of them knowing, because he was -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- an incredibly kind and incredibly caring man. And he was also very private and very calm and very subdued. And so, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- the side of him that people know and love and that is attached to their childhood is the characters that he had so much fun being. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBIN WILLIAMS, ACTOR: Hello. WILLIAMS: And that`s what`s important. And I do think that`s what a lot of people will hold on to. Dad`s not going anywhere. Of course, it`s lovely when people say things like, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- "My condolences." But, for the most part, it`s nice to have just -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- our private life be our private life. SNOW: You know, I lost somebody to -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- suicide, too, so I know that there`s often that, sort of, "Why did this happen," question. WILLIAMS: I don`t think there`s a point. SNOW: Because you`ll never know. WILLIAMS: No, and it`s not -- it`s not important to ask because it`s -- SNOW: It`s done. WILLIAMS: Yes. SNOW: Because that seems to me, like what -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- all the people who knew your dad as a fan, all the people who loved him and his work, when it happened, everybody wanted to know why, how could this happen. (END VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAMS: Diseases are, until we find out exactly how they work, we don`t have an explanation. So, there is no -- there`s no one that can offer -- SNOW: That`s not going to hang on to. WILLIAMS: No. A lot of people who have been through it and lost someone, the ones that I found that have gone on to lead very -- to lead very full lives, found that they just had to know that there`s no point questioning it, and there`s no point blaming anyone else for it. And there`s no point blaming yourself or the world or whatever the case may be, because it happened. So, you have to continue to move. And you have to continue to live and manage. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SNOW: And while it won`t be easy for her, on Friday night, Zelda Williams will honor Robin Williams and his legacy of giving back by presenting an award to her father and his teammates at the Challenged Athletes Foundation, who joined him in a triathlon every year. (END VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAMS: Dad was an extremely athletic person. Like people -- SNOW: Huge biker, right. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. SNOW: Huge biker. Robin Williams met his teammate, Rudy, when he was just 10. WILLIAMS: They were on Team Braveheart. (END VIDEO CLIP) And Rudy is a wonderful paralympian. He just won the gold last year. He would do the swimming leg, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- tag dad in, dad would do the biking leg, and then he`d tag in Scott Tinley, who`s an Ironman. (END VIDEO CLIP) And that was the team. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SNOW: Zelda remembers her dad, always taking people under his wing. WILLIAMS: He would meet guys there that were not participating, that had just lost limbs, and was just there -- you know, maybe a family friend brought them because they were depressed or because they needed to witness something remarkable. And he would go and talk to them. And he`d be like, "Next year, I want you to do this, bud." He`s done charity for as long as he had to, with all the ability to do it. That was what his favorite thing, other than comedy, really was. (END VIDEO CLIP) (END VIDEOTAPE) O`DONNELL: Chris Hayes is up next. LOAD-DATE: February 27, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022601CB.474 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 125 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 27, 2015 Friday SHOW: HARDBALL 5:00 PM EST DHS Funding Bill Fails; The Face of Evil BYLINE: Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, Frank Thorp, Richard Engel GUESTS: Tom Ridge, Michael Kay, Andrew Liepman, Michael Weiss, Andrew Liepman, Dan Malloy, Michael Tomasky, Emily Schultheis SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 8301 words HIGHLIGHT: The House of Representatives fails to pass a short-term funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. What would lead an educated, middle class Londoner like Mohammed Emwazi to join up with ISIS in Syria and become the public face of evil? CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Crazy time. Let`s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews up in New York. As Congressman Peter King put it, we are living in the world of the crazy people. This new Republican-controlled Congress has erupted into hot-headed chaos over a vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and the money runs out midnight tonight. The drama is turning into a major disaster for the Republican leadership up there, this from the party that prides itself on strong national security. Well, late today, the House voted to kill an initial vote on a bill to fund the department for a mere three weeks. Let me say that again. Just for three weeks, they wouldn`t do it. Speaker Boehner made a bet that he could pass the measure, if he had to, with only Republican votes to do it and he was torpedoed by more than 50 Republicans of his own caucus who are hell-bent on undoing the president`s actions on immigration. Democrats would not help bail him out. What now tonight? I`m joined by the moderator of "MEET THE PRESS," Chuck Todd. Chuck, you know, the Republicans took over both houses. There was a notion a afoot that they would be unanimous in getting along with each other, they would actually move together as a buffer to the president, a challenge to the president. Now they`re a challenge to each other. CHUCK TODD, MODERATOR, "MEET THE PRESS": Well, they are in this case, that`s for sure. Look, there seems to be three options here, one of which I don`t think Boehner`s going the take tonight. Option one is to put the same three-week extension back on the floor right close to midnight and see if you can -- if he can beg Nancy Pelosi, beg the White House to go find me 25 Democrats, live to fight another day. Option two is simply a seven-day extension, and I hear they`re looking at that. Not sure he`d get any Democratic support on that, but maybe he thinks he can find 218 Republicans. Option three, of course, is to take the Senate bill which fully funds. Boehner`s problem is he -- if he caves, he can`t cave quickly and he can`t cave tonight. The atmospherics will be terrible for him, and that`s why he`s been trying to walk this line. He`s got his own politics worrying about conservatives just suddenly gunning for his job. So I think the question is, do they go the three-week at midnight or do they try to seven-day-game it? MATTHEWS: So if he goes along and votes the Senate bill, which he can pass with Democratic votes, that would be a full extension of Homeland Security without any of this Mickey Mouse about immigration, he would be accused of backing amnesty, basically. He would be dead. TODD: Well, especially if he did it now before you find out whether the courts are going to allow the president to begin implementing his executive order on immigration. And so -- the whole reason why Boehner went with this temporary extension is he`s trying to find out, what are the courts going to say. Are the courts going to tell the president, You can`t start this until the legal questions are cleared up by the Supreme Court? If they do that, then Boehner`s job is easy. Then he`ll do a clean bill and it`s done. That`s what Boehner`s trying to do. He just is looking for breathing room until we find out what the fifth circuit`s going to say about the president`s executive order. MATTHEWS: And he`s got a 5-4 Republican control of the U.S. Supreme Court. So if it does get that far, he`s got a better than even chance of getting an agreement that this was beyond the bounds of presidential authority, I think. What do you think? TODD: I don`t think it`s -- well, I mean, it depends on the lawyer (INAUDIBLE) I don`t think -- you know, forget you do have John Roberts, who has believed in expansive executive power. So I don`t think that`s the slam dunk that -- but look, I think it`s an open question. And the most important thing as far as John Boehner`s concerned is this would be an open -- this would be moot, the executive action, for at least a year. So that`s the -- that`s why Boehner wants this short-term extension, to see if he can get the court -- hope the courts go his way, and then doesn`t -- he can -- doesn`t look like he`s capitulating. MATTHEWS: Last question. How much bad news is this for the Republicans if they can`t get this done by midnight and they go into overtime? TODD: You know, it`s -- it`s bad, but you know, this is not -- it`s not news, Chris. I mean, I guess it`s the same problem that John Boehner`s had. He does not have control of just enough of the conservative wing of his party. They don`t fear him, and he can`t just sort of run the House. Now, I know the House isn`t what it was, but he can`t do it, and... MATTHEWS: OK. Thanks so much. TODD: You know, same story. MATTHEWS: I think -- I think it`s news for the night, but you may be right it`s not new news. Anyway, thank you, Chuck Todd, Moderator of "MEET THE PRESS." We`ll watch it on Sunday. For more on this drama tonight, let`s go to Capitol Hill itself and NBC News reporter Frank Thorp. Frank, thanks for joining us. I`ve been talking to you. It looks like, from what you`ve said, that this thing isn`t anywhere near solved. He needs at least 14 more Democrats, 14 more Republicans or a mix of the two to get this through, this short-term thing. FRANK THORP, NBC PRODUCER: Yes, and Republican leadership is meeting right now. They`re trying to figure out a way forward. And as Chuck had mentioned, there is talk of the idea of a seven-day CR. But the problem with that is that Democrats have said, Democratic leadership aides have said that Democrats wouldn`t vote against -- or wouldn`t for that, the same as they wouldn`t vote for the three-week CR that just failed. So they`re kind of in a little bit of a pickle. I mean, you know, we`re going to look back at this as another one of those shining examples of the Republican conference having a hard time passing bills that a lot of us thought were actually just going to go ahead and pass. MATTHEWS: OK, what is a -- what is a Democratic member of the Congress say to his constituents -- say he has a moderate district back home, if there are any left -- to why he wouldn`t or she wouldn`t vote for at least a three-week continuation of Homeland Security? If they believe in government, believe in national security, Homeland Security, why wouldn`t they vote for at least a short-term extension? What would be the argument at home? THORP: Well, Democrats are arguing that if you go with the CR, that there are still a lot of different grants that would not be able to go forward, a lot of funding that would actually go -- that would be included within the full appropriations bill that is not included in the CR. So their argument is that the clean bill that the Senate passed is actually more of a full funding bill than the CR. Not to mention the fact that -- I mean if you -- if they -- their argument is that if they pass this seven-day CR, if they pass this three- week CR, they`re going to be back in the same place seven days from now, three weeks from now. It`s going to be the same fight. So I mean, it`s more of just kind of a stand of, OK, well, we`re going to do this now or we`re going to do this in three weeks. MATTHEWS: Do you hear the speaker -- is he going around tonight with his supporters, going around with Scalise, and of course, with McCarthy -- they going around asking for things or asking to offer things to get those -- all they need is 14 votes from their own caucus to get this thing through. THORP: Well, I mean, they`re meeting in -- they`re meeting in Boehner`s office right now. They`ve been in there for over an hour, I mean, up to two hours. And you`ve seen members walking in and out of there mostly from the whip team. But you know, you have -- there`s not very much that they have to offer to conservatives. Conservative have a hard line here. They want to be able to... MATTHEWS: OK. So the little bags of peanuts aren`t going to do it for the elephants. THORP: Right. Yes, I mean, for the conservatives, I mean, they don`t see this as a winning strategy. They didn`t see the cromnibus strategy as a winning strategy. MATTHEWS: OK. THORP: They don`t see the idea of doing a three-week CR as a winning strategy because they see that as temporarily funding... MATTHEWS: OK... THORP: ... President Obama`s executive actions. MATTHEWS: Well, this is going to look boneheaded for the Republicans tonight. And too bad for Speaker Boehner. He can`t control his own team. Thank you so much, NBC`s Frank Thorp. Tom Ridge, by the way -- he`s coming on right now -- he`s the much respected first secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush. He wrote an op-ed in today`s "U.S. News & World Report" titled, "Protecting our nation is not a sport. The GOP can`t right President Obama`s immigration wrong on the backs of Homeland Security patriots." I spoke with Governor Ridge late today. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: Governor Ridge, thanks for joining us on this strange Friday night. The Republican Party seems to have walked out too far on the ice on this one. They may have wanted to play the game, but now they`re stuck with the finish. The government`s perhaps going to shut down tonight. They`re caught out there really endangering homeland security, an issue I thought Republican were good on. You were the first secretary of Homeland Security. Your party created it. And now it`s being endangered. TOM RIDGE, FMR. HHS SECRETARY: Chris, there are many dimensions to this inside-the-Beltway game. One, I believe, as my Republican colleagues do, that the president has really overstepped his constitutional limits on his authority with the executive order. But I distinguish that wrong from the means by which they are going to try to redress what they perceive to be as an accepted use of constitutional authority -- unconstitutional authority. So what I`d like to do is get my Republican friends to continue the battle on immigration in a more appropriate way, but to continue to fund the Department of Homeland Security. And it`s all tied up in this inside-the-Beltway game. The only thing I know, Chris, is the men and women outside the Beltway -- they worry about going to their jobs. They want their kids to go to school (INAUDIBLE) save a few bucks to go out for dinner. They know the Republicans won the House and the Senate, so you can have this vote or that vote, but if we don`t fund completely Homeland Security, not only do you jeopardize the work that they`re doing, but the grants that they gave to the state and locals, emergency professionals out there who are also responsible for safety and security, but I also think it`s -- it`s bad policy but it`s also political folly. MATTHEWS: You know, I think there`s a difference between the Senate, which has gone along with not getting these two entangled with each other, at least as of a couple days ago, and the House. And I think it has to do with demographics. Every senator represents a whole state, as we know, and that includes a number of Hispanic people, Latino people, and those who are rooting for them in terms of becoming Americans. Many, many, many -- in fact, I would bet a majority of Republican congressional districts don`t have very many Hispanics in them. They don`t fear this issue. It seems like this anti illegal immunity, whatever you want to call it, the xenophobia, is very strong in your party, and they don`t want to do anything that makes them sound like they`re for amnesty. RIDGE: Well, I think -- unfortunately, I think they`re mixing apples and oranges. I think you can express your disagreement with the president and his abuse of executive authority in many, many different ways. I, for one, would recommend a bill or a series of bills to challenge the president in a way that he`s historically been challenged. Send him a bill on immigration and let him veto it. But Chris, you know, it`s -- somebody -- and I said this the other day, and I apologize for repeating myself. I kind of take this personal. You know, these men and women go to work every single day. They have a sense of mission about them. They have spouses that have to pay bills. They have kids they want to get to school, et cetera, et cetera. And the whole notion that because they have a legitimate -- and I think they have a legitimate grievance with the president`s use of his authority in this issue -- you don`t redress that problem on the backs of people who are part of this massive effort to keep America safer and secure. It is flawed policy. It`s wrong-headed. And hopefully, between now and midnight, somebody just brings a clean bill to the floor. Let`s give them the funding for the balance of the year, and then let`s do mano a mano. Let`s take this immigration debate on head on, rather than playing inside-the-Beltway games. (END VIDEOTAPE) MATTHEWS: A rare voice of sanity there from Governor Tom Ridge, formerly of Pennsylvania. Coming up, the face of evil. Yesterday, we learned what Jihadi John`s name was. Now we see his face. My question -- now that we know who he is, does it make it any easier to get the guy? Plus, the governor who`s emerging as the point man for the Democrats. Connecticut`s Dan Malloy`s out there. He`s coming here tonight. And he`s taking it to Chris Christie, to Scott Walker and the rest of the Republican tough guys. And the demolition derby over there at the clown car convention this week. There`s no love over at CPAC for Jeb Bush. You can tell that. To the redhots on the right, Jeb`s going the way of the Whigs. Remember that old party? Doesn`t agree anymore -- doesn`t exist anymore. Finally, good-bye Mr. Spock. Tonight, this is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Well, check out Senator James Inhofe. He`s the chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee. And in his never-ending quest to prove that climate change is a hoax, he showed up on the Senate floor with a snowball. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: I ask the chair, do you know what this is? It`s a snowball and that -- just from outside here. So it`s very, very cold out, very unseasonal. So there, Mr. President, catch this. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: I`ll bet the senator really does know that climate and weather are not the same thing. According to NASA, global temperatures in 2014 were the warmest on record. And January, this January, was the second warmest on record, too, even with all the heavy snow in the Northeastern United States. And we`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: Welcome back. Now the face of evil. Yesterday, we learned his name, today we have a face. It`s Mohammed Emwazi, Jihadi John, who has terrorized us from behind a mask. He was identified yesterday in the press as a middle class college graduate from London. Well, today we`re learning more about him. When he was 10, as pictured in these photographs, he listened to pop music and watched "The Simpsons." He said he wanted to be a soccer player when he grew up. In this photo of Emwazi, published by England`s Sky News, he`s a university student wearing a Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap. A few years later, the world would come to know him for his role in the beheadings of American, British and Japanese journalists and aid workers. Well, today the questions. How was he radicalized? And what does his exposure now mean for our efforts to confront ISIS? And that`s where we begin tonight with NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel in Istanbul. Richard, now that we know who he is, we have his name, will it be easier to find this guy? RICHARD ENGEL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: In practical terms, no, probably not. It`s not like the U.S. counterterrorism forces weren`t already looking for him. Now they know his name. His name was already known to many law enforcement agencies. The only difference now is it`s been reported in the media, and now we have pictures of him, as well. The one thing that it might do is it might demystify him. When you see a murderer who`s making these statements and he`s trying to present himself like he has the power of God to choose if one of the people he`s holding will live or die and he`s wearing a mask, he could be perceived as being more powerful, more mysterious. Now that you see his pictures, you see his childhood photos, he`s less mysterious. He`s just another kid from London from a middle class background who went down this path and is now in Syria with ISIS or in Iraq with ISIS, killing hostages. MATTHEWS: Well said. That`s Richard Engel over in Istanbul. I`m joined right now by Michael Kay, a former senior British army officer, Andrew Liepman, who`s former deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and Michael Weiss, who`s co-author of "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terrorists." In order, gentlemen, it seems to me every time we catch somebody, realize who they are, one of these killers, one of these terrorists, we realize that the authorities had been -- sort of had a bead on the guy, had been watching him. And then in this case, we find out they knew about him before they told us about him. This rolling disclosure, this knowledge about a person before even they convict their -- commit their crimes is a little disturbing because we how come why we couldn`t stop them. Michael Kay, you first. Why can`t we stop these guys -- if we`re watching them, we got a bead on them, we know who they are, and we don`t strike until they strike. Isn`t there any way of knowing who`s going to strike? Maybe that`s infantile as a question, but it`s one we`re all going to keep asking. MICHAEL KAY, FMR. BRITISH OFFICER: Well, let me start in 2009, Chris. What I find at the moment is, is why MI-5 and MI-6 were interested in this guy in the first place. We know that they spoke to the Tanzanian authorities and prevented him from going into Tanzania. He then had to go back to the U.K. via Amsterdam. He was interrogated there. He then had to get the ferry back across the English Channel. He was interrogated at Dover. So there`s a little piece of the jigsaw missing for me in terms of why there was interest in him in the first place and what had he done to garner that interest. We know that Emwazi doesn`t fit the normal template in terms of he came from a middle class, well-to-do background. He was well educated. He`d just gone to the University of Westminster to study a computing degree. And now, all of a sudden, we find -- we find out that he`s tipped (ph) in some way. So I think the interesting bit about this guy is, in order to become susceptible or craving this ideology -- and let`s be in no mistake here, it`s the ideology which tips them to being radical. What has marginalized him, what has made him feel excluded, what makes him feel animosity towards to society where he wants to go and seek out this jihadist movement? That`s the bit that I`m trying to understand at the moment. MATTHEWS: Andrew, let me follow -- have you follow up on this question. It seems to me -- I`ve never bought the argument that hard cases make terrorists. It seems to be more that if you look at the history of revolutions, they`re all run by Fidel Castros, middle class people. The French revolution, of course, the Russian revolution, all the revolutionaries seem to be middle class people with decent education who just develop an ideology. It isn`t about poverty leads to terror. It isn`t that neat, nor is that even predictable. Your thoughts? ANDREW LIEPMAN, FORMER U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM OFFICIAL: No, I think that`s right. And, in fact, I think what makes this business so difficult is that there really is no template. Every individual is indeed an individual. This Jihadi John seems to have come from a middle-class background. He seemed to have been relatively normal. He went to college. In other cases, you could have identified traumatic events or reasons, motivations why they went bad. But I think what -- the mistake here is that we`re looking at this guy under a microscope. We now know a great deal about him. So we can dissect where he should have been caught and why mistakes were made. But what we`re not looking at are the thousands of other cases like Jihad John, the thousands of cases who are being sort of surveilled, who have been stopped. The job here is massive. And just because one guy got through does not mean that the system has failed. MATTHEWS: Michael Weiss, your view, because this is going to be problematic as we go on and, with expertise, developing it and catching people ahead of time, knowing where the trouble is. But yet if the pool was a thousand guys or women, including women, and one of them turns out to be a terrorist, you can`t harass 999 without creating a good number of other terrorists, probably. MICHAEL WEISS, rMD-BO_"THE INTERPRETER": Well, you know, to disagree slightly with your other guests, I do think that this does fit a bit of an archetype, especially coming from the U.K. I lived in London for three years. I have seen innumerable examples of people just like this, second-generation, first-generation Muslims who were radicalized whilst living in British society, attending good universities, getting degrees, advanced degrees in some cases. I remember the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underpants bomber who tried to blow up an airliner above the skies of Detroit many Christmases ago. This guy was attending University College London. He was the president of the Islamic Society, whilst president of that society was celebrating the attacks on 9/11, attending sermons by Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda cleric based in Yemen. His father was a Nigerian government minister who actually blew the whistle on his own son and said, I think my son is going down this dark path. British authorities had been alerted. They did nothing. In this case, what disturbs me most is, look, let`s assume that the presentation of this organization, which is deeply controversial, by the way, Chris, CAGE, is correct that this guy was -- attempted to be -- he is recruited by MI5 or he was stopped in Tanzania. This means the British security services knew his identity. He was also allowed to return to U.K., and then leave the U.K., go to Kuwait, come back to the U.K., and then leave the U.K. again in 2012 to go to Syria. I`m sorry, but this does to me bespeak a failure on the intelligence services, or at least on border control. I mean, to enter and leave the British Isles, I have done it as an American. I find it quite, you know... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. You solved the chicken and egg problem. He said, at least in the reporting yesterday, one of the reasons he radicalized or became radicalized, he was being harassed each time he crossed. WEISS: Yes, but, Chris, look... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I don`t buy that, by the way. WEISS: No. And, also, let me just tell you a bit about this organization CAGE. It used to be known as Caged Prisoners. The guy who is making all of these elaborate claims he was such a sweet and soft-spoken and gentle boy, Mr. Qureshi... MATTHEWS: Yes. WEISS: ... in 2006, this man, Qureshi, stood in front of the U.S. Embassy in London and praised jihadists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya. He endorsed the acts of Hezbollah against Israel. CAGE has defended any number of al Qaeda suspects. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: So, he`s lying, basically. WEISS: Actually, al Qaeda, people who have been found guilty of terrorist offenses, including one woman who is serving 86 years in prison for attempted murder against U.S. officials in Afghanistan. This is a propagandistic organization. It`s not a human rights group. It`s not a civil rights group. I studied them very closely when I lived in London. MATTHEWS: I`m glad to hear that, because that was my sense of smell when I first heard it. But, Michael, let`s go back to you. We talked before the show tonight about trying to find a template. Tell about us how far you have gotten with that, being able to predict -- a predictive model for who will break bad, if you will. KAY: Well, I think -- I think there are a number of causal factors. In fact, there are a myriad of causal factors and a number of combinations. And you can look across racial profiling, religious profiling, criminal profiling. You can look at high unemployment. You can look at, you know, low job availability. There are a myriad of factors, but it all boils down to, what gets that person to the point where they are susceptible or craving the idea of the ideology? Do they become marginalized? Do they because -- do they develop animosity towards society? Do they become excluded? How does that actually happen? And I think it`s fascinating, because you have to have the ideology in order to catalyze someone to become radicalized. And then they can either become a lone wolf and stay in the same country or join a terror cell and stay in the same country or they can travel to Syria. I think there also needs to be the demand aspect. ISIS are left alone at the moment to create this demand. And they`re doing it through this ideology, through social media. And I think the context of globalization here is absolutely fundamental, the ability to use the Internet, the ability to travel across the world, the ability to push propaganda out on YouTube, on Twitter, the ability to galvanize Western media. These are all components that all come in to the whole process of being radicalized. I think what I do know is, it doesn`t happen overnight. It is a process that happens over months, if not years. MATTHEWS: OK. I want to thank you all, Michael Kay. Michael -- Michael Weiss, thank you so much for disabusing us of that nonsense about what a sweetheart this guy was, because I`m so tired of hearing about a cold-blooded killer who was such a quiet, good neighbor. But, in this case, it looks like pure propaganda from somebody with a point of view that was not helpful to the truth. Thank you, Andrew Liepman, as well, sir. Up next: a new point man for the Democrats. Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy is taking the fight to the Republicans. He`s coming here next. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. He`s not taking over as chairman of the Democratic Governors Association until next year, but Governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut is already on the offensive. In an interview with "TIME" magazine last week, Malloy took on the role of Democratic Geronimo, if you will, calling out Chris Christie on the issue of public pensions and New Jersey`s budget shortfall -- quote -- "He`s in the process of destroying public pensions, which, by the way, comes out of the Republican playbook. He hasn`t told the truth about what he`s doing, but that`s what he`s doing. I think the state`s bond rating will pay, perhaps not a permanent price, but a long-term price. He will saddle that problem to some unfortunate Democrat who is going to have to come in and do the right thing. And that`s the hard part about being a Democrat. You have to clean up after the Republicans." Well, New Jersey`s credit rating has been downgraded seven times since Chris Christie took office, seven times. I`m joined right now by Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy. Governor Malloy, I have to tell you, the Republicans seem to have a new pattern. It`s called disruption. Disrupt pension plans, disrupt Homeland Security. They`re like Sampson in the temple. Bring down temple. Bring up chaos. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: And somehow you will be picked as the new leader. GOV. DAN MALLOY (D), CONNECTICUT: Well, don`t hold back now, Chris. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: No, that`s what I think is going on. You have been pretty tough. MALLOY: Well, I am. I think you have to call them as you see them. And I`m going to do that. I`m going to do it. I have accepted this role as chair-elect of the DGA. I think we have great some Democratic governors. I think, as Democrat, however, we look at elections as cycles. And those days have to be over. If you look at Republican talking points, they`re the same week after week, month after month. An election never, never stops. And what we have to do as Democrats is make sure that we`re actually telling the truth, which we do, and we`re repeating the truth and we`re talking about things that are really important to people. Their security is important to them. Republicans are misreading this situation, in part because they have backed themselves or painted themselves into a corner. Listen, I think every Republican congressman thinks that some day they are going to run for president, so they have to be tough on immigration. That`s why I don`t think you can ever get an immigration bill out of the Congress with a Republican president or not. MATTHEWS: Yes. MALLOY: The only way that we`re ever going to change immigration in this country is when Democrats take the Congress back. And that`s a -- that may be a ways away, but it is going to happen and we`re going to eventually solve this problem. If Republicans want to keep giving this issue to us, I`m happy to take it. MATTHEWS: Well, Governor Christie was asked about New Jersey`s fiscal problems at CPAC yesterday. Here was his response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: The fact is that what we will do is do what I have done before, where we -- we`re spending $2.3 billion less in discretionary spending today than we spent in fiscal year 2008. We are cutting the budget. We have 8,500 fewer employees than we had on the day I walked in as governor in 2010. That`s being fiscally responsible and we will cut spending if we have to. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: You know, Governor, I`m looking at the new Republican scorecard. And it seems to me how much trouble he can cause. There`s Scott Walker, who beat Ed Schultz in the battle over his recall. He got reelected again. Good for him. I like success. But here he is punching the state university system in the gut. Let`s face it. Wisconsin is one of the states, like Michigan, has one of these fabulous state university systems, because, you know, the reason they didn`t have Eastern universities like Yale in those days, and they built these great state universities. And now he`s going to war with them. Why is that pay dirt for Republicans to attack the one great thing you have in Wisconsin, which is the University of Wisconsin? MALLOY: Hey, listen, times are tough. Revenue is growing slower than expenses. But to go after the university to the tune of $300 million is unbelievable. I want to go back to this Christie question. I mean, this is a guy who has purposefully defunded the pension system. He wants to destroy it. He`s taking -- he`s taking orders from the Kochs and others. He wants to destroy that system. If he can do it, he is going to do it. You look at what has happened in Wisconsin, what Christie is doing on the pension side in New Jersey is no different than what Walker has done to unions. The unions, give them some credit. They helped build the middle class in this country. He wants to dissect them. He wants to destroy the systems that support working-class families in Wisconsin, but that`s also what New Jersey`s doing right now under Christie. MATTHEWS: Well, unlike Christie, Governor Scott Walker is getting a lot of political mileage, as I said, out of his past showdown with teachers unions in the state of Wisconsin. It was a big applause line, by the way, at CPAC yesterday. Here he is giving them red meat. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: We returned the power back into the hands of the hardworking taxpayers. They didn`t like that. They tried to recall me. They made me their number one target. But, in the end, we showed that we can fight and win for the hardworking taxpayers. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) WALKER: Because of that, in our states, we don`t have seniority or tenure any more. We can hire and fire based on merit. We can pay based on performance. We can put the best and the brightest in our classrooms and we can keep them there. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Governor, I don`t run states or do anything big like that. All I do is try to figure out what`s going on. And I do think the Republican sweet spot, if they are going to challenge Hillary Clinton in a close election next November, is to run an executive. So, going after the governors, as you are, you`re really going after their sweet spot. I don`t think they can run just a talker against Hillary. They have got to run somebody who has done something, run something big like you have. And is that why you`re going after the Democratic governors -- I mean, Republican governors? MALLOY: Well... MATTHEWS: Because are going to be, to me, the happy hunting ground for the Republicans in looking for a candidate. MALLOY: Yes, but every one of these guys has got to hide what they have actually done. You know, he talks about being able to hire and fire at will. You know, we have a progressive movement in the United States that`s over a hundred years old, was supported by Republicans and Democrats. Nobody believes that teachers should be -- good hardworking teachers should be able to be thrown out of the classroom because the governor`s office changes or the mayor`s office changes or there`s a new separate superintendent of schools. They`re rolling back things that are really vitally important to how our democracy works. Why shouldn`t somebody be able to negotiate their contract, to file a grievance, to work for a real wage? We, as Democrats, have to be very clear. We support no one having to go to work sick. I did that in my state in 2011, said that no one should be forced to go to work if they`re sick. If they`re hourly wage earner, they should be able to earn paid sick leave. You know what? It hasn`t changed our economy, but it`s changed individuals` lives. We need to raise the minimum wage. So there has to be pressure on the bottom to raise these wages. No one in America should work 35 or 40 hours a week and live in poverty. It makes no sense. But that`s what Republicans stand for. In state after state after state, they have failed to raise the minimum wage. They have been on the wrong side of it. And, quite frankly, they`re on the wrong side of these issues in Wisconsin. Let`s be honest. And Christie will rise and fall by what he`s done. I think what he`s done to New Jersey, in seven downgrades, more to come, by the way, and in defunding the pension, is going to catch up with him. I think he`s a nonfactor in this election cycle. MATTHEWS: OK. MALLOY: You know, there will be other people who will rise and fall, and we will point out their weaknesses as they rise and they then fall. MATTHEWS: We will cross that bridge when we get to it. Thank you very much, Governor Malloy. MALLOY: Yes. MATTHEWS: And, by the way, if you need a platform for that message, which sounds good to me, it`s right here on HARDBALL. Thank you so much, Governor Malloy of Connecticut. Up next: Twice elected, Jeb Bush didn`t exactly get a warm reception today from the CPAC crowd. Did you think he would? They`re pretty right of him. Jeb might be hard to beat in the general election, but will the red hots on the right give him a chance to even get there? It didn`t look good today for Jeb. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger. Here`s what`s happening. Eight people are dead following a shooting rampage in Missouri. A gunman shot seven people, including four family members, before turning the gun on himself. President Obama called Attorney General Eric Holder a great friend and great public servant at an event marking his anticipated departure from the Justice Department. And, in Russia, a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and the country`s Ukraine policy has been fatally shot. Opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was gunned down on a bridge near the Kremlin -- back to HARDBALL. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEAN HANNITY, HOST, "HANNITY": By the way, Jeb Bush, any supporters? (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) (BOOING) (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Perceived 2016 GOP front-runner Jeb Bush faced a tough audience, as you saw there, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference down in Washington yesterday and again today. Conservatives took some indirect and also direct shots at the former Florida governor. Many of the right wing think Jeb is too moderate to be their standard bearer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAURA INGRAHAM, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Why don`t we just -- why don`t we just call it quits and Jeb and Hillary can run on the same ticket? I mean, go through the list of things they agree on. Common Core, amnesty, giving Obama fast track trade authority. A lot of new trade deals with China. The surveillance culture. So, I`m designing the bumper sticker. It could be Clush 2016. What difference does it make? GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: It`s the elites in Washington who make backroom deals decide who the president is going to be, then he`s definitely the front-runner. DONALD TRUMP, BUSINESSMAN: Jeb Bush, he`s in favor -- he`s in favor of Common Core, he`s weak on immigration, now think of it for a second. In favor of Common Core, he`s weak on immigration. You remember a statement with they come over for love? That was his stance on immigration. I don`t see him winning. I don`t see there`s any way. You people are going to have to make your own choice. Who knows? (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Well, that was the clown car in action. Joining me, the roundtable tonight, Michael Tomasky is a columnist for "The Daily Beast", Michelle Bernard is the president of the Bernard Center for Women, and Emily Schultheis is political reporter with "The National Journal". Emily, first question, objective reporter`s question. Is CPAC the Republican Party or is it some side wing of the party that`s far more right wing and angry and resentful of the establishment? EMILY SCHULTHEIS, NATIONAL JOURNAL: I mean, look, CPAC does have -- CPAC certainly has influence. The people who come to CPAC have influence, which is why in the past, you know, you`ve seen Mitt Romney move to the right on some issues. It`s a group that does have significant sway in the party but they didn`t love Mitt Romney and he ended up being the nominee in 2012. So, they`re not the be all and end all of the GOP primary. MATTHEWS: Michelle, I don`t know where you fit on this thing. I don`t think you`re part of this crowd, but is this the loudest, strongest voice of the Republican Party? Is this the lion`s share? Are they in the majority and the establishment moderate people for the Northeast out of it? MICHELLE BERNARD, BERNARD CTR. FOR WOMEN, POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY: No, this is definitely not -- well, let me say they are the loudest voices in the Republican Party, but I don`t think that they`re the mainstay of the Republican Party. If you listen to all of the things that they complained about, Common Core, immigration, things that most Americans will look at from a very common sense perspective, most people will be saying to themselves, are we really going to be against a candidate who someone is saying that voluntary guidelines that say that we want our kids to learn certain subjects K through 12 is so horrible that we should not elect them as our next president of the United States is going to be kind of silly. This is a small group of the Republican Party that Jeb Bush, for example, was never going to win over. Ands he`s just got to keep moving forward. He has to talk to them but he has to keep moving forward. MATTHEWS: Michael Tomasky, when I hear at that convention is resentment, almost hate, hatred of illegal immigrants, never wanting to give them citizenship under any situation, any comprehensive deal, no matter how tough the government gets on immigration. They seem to hate the Common Core like anything that`s what at all objective, they want to home school everybody. They seem to resent 2015, the year we live in. That seems to be what they`re running against. MICHAEL TOMASKY, THE DAILY BEAST: Yes, they do. And the common core is also the big jackboot of the federal government and all that kind of stuff. But, you know, CPAC I think, Chris, is maybe not representative of the Republican Party in toto. But it is probably pretty representative of the primary electorate of the Republican Party. And that`s, you know, obviously where Bush is going to have his trouble, getting through a primary with his position on immigration. Now, historically, you can say that Republican primary voters, as right wing as they are, they do tend to elect the chalk horse, as it were, the establishment candidate. They went with McCain, they went with Romney. But they end up voting for that person only after dragging him really far to the right, so far to the right that he has to try to rush back in the fall of election year like Romney tried to but it was too little too late in his case. And so, Bush is going to have to negotiate that same dance. MATTHEWS: Well, here he is trying to do it. Jeb had his chance, as you say, to dance to address the conservative audience earlier today and argue the GOP needs to find something it stands for. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I think the conservatives in Washington have been principled enough in opposing the overreach. And they`ve actually done a pretty good job. Over time we have to start being for things again. It`s good to oppose the bad things, but we need to start being for things. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: You know, Emily, he seems like he`s teaching, not preaching, but teaching but also making the case for Hispanics being part of our culture now. They are historically. They`re a chunk of the country. His wife is from Mexico. His kids, you could argue they`re ethnically Hispanic because of the marriage. I mean, he`s Roman Catholic now, his wife`s religion. He`s accepted, embraced the assimilation. That party doesn`t seem to want to do that. SCHULTHEIS: Right. That`s something and I do think it`s significant that getting up there on stage that he didn`t change his tune on this stuff. This is -- Bush was saying the same things -- MATTHEWS: Where is gong to sell, Emily, where is that line in the Republican -- it`s not going to sell in Iowa. Aren`t those -- as Michael said, aren`t those caucus goers out in Iowa just the same way as that CPAC crowd, just as right wing and angry? SCHULTHEIS: On immigration, absolutely. So, that`s something that won`t sell to these voters. You heard the boos in the crowd. That said, when it comes time, Jeb said he`d be willing to lose the primary to win the general. If he can get through the primary with some of these moderate voters, he won`t have to deal with the same problems Romney did in the general election. MATTHEWS: What would they have done, Michelle, if -- I mean, you`re a person of color, I would assume he has sensitivity about this, why wouldn`t anybody who comes to that. I mean, supposed he brought his Mexican wife to that group today, would they have booed her? I mean, God, it`s pretty rough out there today, pretty rough ethnically, I would think. BERNARD: I think it`s absolutely a travesty the way we saw people behaving at CPAC today behave on a regular basis and talk about immigration and people of color in the country. Now what I will say is that their sort of ignorance about the way America was started and the way that our country is moving forward in terms of becoming a place where people of color are actually the majority might actually inure to the benefit of candidates like Jeb Bush and to candidates like Chris Christie. The primary`s going to be very difficult for either one of them as a candidate but there are people that we sometimes refer to as Reagan Democrats, Republicans who are moderate, people who self-identify as independents that have -- that will be receptive to the messages of a Bush and a Chris Christie. They are for something, as Bush said. They`re for education reform, which is particularly important in the African- American community. MATTHEWS: They`re not very loud, Michelle. They don`t make much noise, do they? BERNARD: They`re doing their best. MATTHEWS: They`re very quiet. They have their hands folded on their desk like Catholic school kids. They`re doing what they are supposed to do but they`re watching the wild people make all the noise today. We`ll be right back with our roundtable. Up next, the big question everyone is trying to answer, blue and black or white and gold. I can`t believe I`m doing this, but it`s happening everywhere. By the tens of millions people are talking about it today. This is HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: There`s a movement in Congress right now to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. Texas Congressman Roger Williams introduced a bill this week that would authorize and request the president to do just that. Kyle, of course, is the basis of the Hollywood blockbuster "American Sniper." He served four tours in Iraq and was murdered in February of 2013. Kyle`s killer was convicted earlier this week and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. We`ll be right back. MATTHEWS: We`re back with our roundtable, of course, Michael, Michelle, and Emily. And now, we go to the most talked about story of today, Friday -- the dress that blew up on the Internet overnight. There`s been a heated debate today over the color of the dress in this photograph which has been viewed by millions of people over the last 24 hours. Some see it as white and gold, others see it as blue and black. So, which is it for you? And why do we all see it differently, I think? Michael Tomasky, what color do you see on that dress? TOMASKY: I saw white and gold when I first saw it. I was wrong and it is -- people say it`s silly, I think it is one of the most astonishing things that I`ve discovered -- MATTHEWS: What do you see now, when you`re looking at it now? TOMASKY: Now, I see black and blue, yes. MATTHEWS: Wow, it`s changing for you? Michelle, what`s your experience with this dress. BERNARD: Same thing. When I looked at it this morning white and gold, I`m seeing it as different colors right now. MATTHEWS: What do you see right now? Locked in here, what do you see right now? BERNARD: I see blue and black. MATTHEWS: OK, Emily Schultheis, your attempt at greatness here. (LAUGHTER) SCHULTHEIS: I still see white and gold. So, I don`t know if that`s greatness or not. But -- MATTHEWS: A constant. Well, let me tell you, guys, I`m the opposite of Michelle and Michael, because when I looked at it a long time today, I saw on the -- I had three versions of it was clearly black and blue and it was beautiful actually, a little more faded in the middle, and still more faded to the right, and I never saw gold. On this I see blue, vaguer blue, and then white. Michael, you first, what do you see right now looking at the three of them? SCHULTHEIS: OK. From left to right on the monitor, I see white and gold, and in the middle a light blue, a tar heel blue and sort of charcoal, and on the right royal blue and black. MATTHEWS: Exactly what I see. Michelle, what do you see right now? BERNARD: That`s exactly what I see too. MATTHEWS: Emily, what do you see? SCHULTHEIS: It still looks white and gold but in a shadow. MATTHEWS: Wow, what is going on in this. We will never get immigration, taxes, or war. We can`t agree on color. Thank you so much, Michael Tomasky, Michelle Bernard, and Emily Schultheis. Work on these this weekend. When we return, let me finish with thoughts about Leonard Nemoy, Mr. Spock, the great trekker and actor. He died today. You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics. MATTHEWS: Spock is dead. Let me finish tonight with that, with the news that the earthly Spock, Leonard Nimoy, died this morning in a very terrestrial place, a beautiful one at that, Bel-Air, California. He lived, of course, in our minds and don`t try to hide it, our hearts, as Mr. Spock, the half Vulcan, half human thinking force on the starship Enterprise. How many times do we remember Captain Kirk getting carried away with human emotion, only to get a course correction from the elusive, enigmatic Spock, who would lay out for Kirk and for us the error of our thinking, the excessive reliance we had place on the limited reliability of human sentiment. And how many times did Captain Kirk try to countermand Spock with the OK smolchy (ph) invocation of the human factor, how we had to take into consideration the caring, the thinking, the stakes, and the calculation. Yes, this was a buddy story, the endless interplay of two guys, the one who cares deeply and the pal who thinks hard and like in all such relationships hopes dearly there is love here, not just the understood human love of Kirk for his brainy partner, but Spock in return at least the most love of which finding necessary half alien is capable. The fact, this is precisely what this saga is about, the infinite struggle to find human in life`s adventure, that as many miles as we travel, we hope to have human love along for the ride, especially when so much of life is traveling in alien territory, the new, the strange, the occasionally ghastly. It is defined a marriage of the mind and heart, and enriching, saving bond of science with human sentiment. "Star Trek" is supposed to take place in the 23rd century, even as it was born in the wildly changing, wildly stirring 1960s. It holds on to us because we want to hold on to it. And if we people that we recognize as us are still around in the 23rd century, it`s because we will, as we did in ending the Cold War and the nuclear annihilation that threatens, show ourselves capable, not just late Mr. Spock`s science, but of Captain Kirk`s humanity. And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 28, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022701cb.461 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 126 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 27, 2015 Friday SHOW: THE ED SHOW 5:00 PM EST THE ED SHOW for February 27, 2015 BYLINE: Ed Schultz, Steve Clemons, Kate Rogers GUESTS: Bob Shrum, John Nichols, Jean Ross, Chris Van Hollen, Laicie Heeley, Tim Ryan SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7511 words HIGHLIGHT: The bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security for another 3 weeks failed in the House by a vote of 203 to 224. Governor Scott Walker proudly touts his ability to survive a recall election and his union busting ways, but a poorly planned analogy at CPAC fails to impress. Speaker Boehner`s invitation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress divided the Chambers, becoming a main focal point of CPAC. A three-week extension of Department of Homeland Security funding has failed in the House by a vote of 203 to 224 after Speaker Boehner tried to get more votes. ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show live from New York. Let`s get to work. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Tonight, the latest on the DHS funding fight. SEC. JEH JOHNSON, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: This is not just an inside the beltway political jousting. REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: House Republicans have a plan that is a staggering failure of leadership. REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: We have passed the bill to fund the department. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Skip the drama and pass our bill now. JOHNSON: A failure to fund the Department of Homeland Security fully has real impacts on public safety. SCHULTZ: Later, rising environmental concerns in the Arctic. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Melt at the polar ice stocks. ERIC RIGNOT, PROFESSOR OF EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: They`re going on a pace faster than what the models projected and faster than even the present day models. AL ROKER, AMERICAN TELEVISION WEATHER PRESENTER: When you start changing that balance, nature who doesn`t like an imbalance. RIGNOT: We have passed the point of the return. SCHULTZ: But climate change still gets an icy reception in Congress. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s very, very cold (inaudible), very unseasoned so (inaudible). SCHULTZ: Plus, Scott Walker`s protester parallel as workers worked up. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: They made me their number one target. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With a baseball bat. WALKER: Get a slugger with my name on it. If can I tale on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world. FRM. GOV. RICK PERRY, (R) TEXAS: Just try to make the relationship between him and the unions isn`t appropriate. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching. We start with what is unfolding on the House floor. House Republicans are putting on a clean DHS bill. The House is currently tallying the votes on a three-week extension of DHS funding, three weeks, so that means it can comeback and bicker some more. The resolution does not defund President Obama`s immigration action which is good news. And if this passes the short-term fix, will head to the Senate, Senators have said that they would support a three-week deal and the White House said that President Obama would go ahead and sign it. So if it passes the mess will happen again in three weeks and you can think House Republicans for all of this. They are divided House is causing this. Earlier today, the Senate did the job. They voted 68 to 31 on approving a long-term clean DHS funding bill a standalone bill. House Speaker John Boehner, well, apparently he`s not his doing. He can`t get everybody onboard. He bound to the Tea Party pressure again and refused to bring the long-term Senate bill even up for a vote. Whatever happen to this up or down votes that the Republicans have always been squealing about. So earlier today, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi slammed the House Speaker. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PELOSI: The security of our country is our first responsibility to protect and defend. There`s enough uncertainty in the world without injecting more uncertainty as to when and how we`re going to fund our Homeland Security. I`m just saying to the Speaker, get a grip. Get a grip Mr. Speaker. Get a grip on the responsibility that we have. Get a grip on the legislative possibilities that are here. He can bring his three-week bill to the floor and the Senate bill to the floor. Let Members vote on both, send them both forward. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Also easy to get done, isn`t it? Now, if this bill fails tonight, may stick around and do some more work and come up with something different. So who knows where this is all going to end up but a shutdown is looming. Let`s talk about that for just a moment. I`m sure at one time or another, you bet on the commercial airline and you had to go through the TSA. Where the TSA come from? The TSA came from the basically Republican Party that wanted to make sure that we were going to protect the country because we were afraid about bombs getting on airplanes. I do play a commercial quite a bit and when I go through the lines, I do pay attention to what they say. These people do what they`re supposed to do. They pay attention. They ask a lot of questions. They`re about particulars. They`re about security. Now, keep in mind folks that if we stop funding, the Department of Homeland Security, all of these TSA agents still have to go to work and they`re not going to get paid and you may ask, "Well, why would they do that", because they want to keep their job. Now, the irony in this is this is the party that has been asking President Obama, where are the jobs? Sure. I guess they want jobs so they want to pay anybody. All because this President is trying to do something on immigration and the Tea Party doesn`t want to see him have the victory. This is paralleling and really the kind of fight that`s taking place on fast-track. There`s a number of Republicans on the House that do not want to give the President a fast-track because they don`t like him, and I`m sure this is the case as well. We documented on this program last night the numbers. When it comes to border security -- I was watching some of the CPAC stuff today which is entertainment at its best. And they`re all talking about border security. But not once that any of them say, this is how we have enhanced border security over the last six years and we`re even going to do more. They don`t have numbers. All they have is a target and the target is the Obama administration. So it`s very clear that Boehner has zero credibility and he has zero control of the radical friends-righties (ph) in the House. And as I said earlier this week, this all goes back to gerrymandering. These Republicans who are Tea Partiers, they have socially engineered the House that makes it possible for them to do things like this. Because they know they`re going to be able to go home and they`re so socially engineered and ideologically cut these boundaries that they`re going to be praised when they go home because why they stopped Obama and they stopped the Democrats. That`s what this is. They all connect. Now, I think the only reason that Boehner is caving right now is because he`s worried about his speakership. This guy loves being the boss. He don`t want to give up the gobble. He is the man. He spent all those years in Congress doing all those deals to get to this point and damn it, he is not going to give it up. And it`s just a little or bit of (ph) issue they have over there on immigration and he is knows damn well that the Republicans don`t want to do anything about immigration anyway. He knows if he doesn`t support the Tea Partiers, he`s history. And he is going to be known as the political doctor know because they arched (ph) up the guy that was the king of obstruction. Now, think about this three-week decision, this bill that they`re voting on right now. I have a hunch that they`re not going to have enough votes, that they`re going to have to go back to the drawing table if they care about security for the country. But get your cellphones out, I do want to ask you. Put yourself in Congress right now. Tonight`s question, "Would you vote for a three-week extension to DHS funding? Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment on our blog at wegoted.com and also at ed.msnbc.com. And we`ll bring you the results later. Nobody better on this subject than Bob Shrum with the political analysis and he is a Democratic Strategist and Warsaw Professor of Politics at USC. Bob, good to have you with us tonight. BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Glad to be here. SCHULTZ: All right. Is this about Boehner? What is this? What is the dichotomy of the House that`s holding this up as you see you it? SHRUM: You know, first, it is about Boehner. He is more concerned about saving his speakership, defending his speakership than he is about defending the country. There is structural problem here as well. In the House, as you`ve suggested because of gerrymandering, we have a lot of folks who are more worried about being primary from the right than they are about the general election. Why did the Senate act more responsibly Republicans in the Senate, because you have a whole lot of Republicans who have to run in 2016, many of them in blue states? So someone like Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois says, Republicans have to stop putting bow blank (ph) in the central (ph) bills. But I think that we`re going to see a real crisis here when this three-week extension fails which is apparently is going to fail. And if it does fail, they`re going to have to go back to the drawing boards because they`re going to be held responsible if the DHS is defunded. SCHULTZ: Yes. You know the Republicans have made a political living on saying, "hey we`re the folks that protect the country?" Let`s play politics right now. Is this, the Democratic Party, saying this is important, it needs to be standalone, you`re not going to get away, get the (inaudible) anything else get in the way because the three weeks are going to come back with another issue and to horse trade this thing off. What about that? SHRUM: Well, look, first of all, Mitch McConnell knows that the President`s immigration rules are not going to be repealed in this process or any other legislatively. And Boehner knows that too. But Boehner is so afraid that that he is going to be deposed that he has to keep doing this broken field running. This is incredibly embarrassing. It`s amazing to see Speaker of the House who can`t deliver his own caucus on a vote like this. Now, what do I think to this three-week thing? I think it`s jerry-rigged. I think you just comeback as you suggested in three weeks, have the same fight all over again. But it`s all Boehner`s thought he could do and when he looks at this, he has to be worried very much about the fights that are coming down the road like raising the debt limit and whether or not the Tea Party members that he is trying to corral will try to push the country off the economic cliff. SCHULTZ: OK. This is just coming to me. The reason for the delay on the House floor right now is that they are trying to wrangle the votes to get this to pass and they apparently can`t get it done and they are nervous about that obviously the fact is there is no plan B. Bob, your take. SHRUM: Well, there has to be a plan B and I don`t know what he`s going to do. I mean the right thing to do, as Nancy Pelosi said, he has to put the Senate bill on the floor of the House. It will pass, it will get enough Republican votes, it will get almost all the Democratic votes and then the Department of Homeland Security is funded through September. The difficulty with people like Steve King, the anti-immigration Congressman from Iowa is that, he just won`t give in. He insists on a kind of purely ideological approach to this. Look in the Senate, Ted Cruz even step back. He didn`t try his (inaudible) this. There`s an understanding on the part of the some of these folks that if they want to be competitive in a presidential election in 2016, they have to stop playing this kind of games. I think what... SCHULTZ: OK. Let`s play with this angle here. Let`s see in the next few minutes, they do get the votes and it does pass. What`s your call on what unfolds in the next three weeks? Is it the continuing pounding on immigration and the executive order or is it another issue, maybe corporate tax reductions. SHRUM: No. I think Boehner will then play out it to pass. So I think Boehner would play out this kabuki theater where he`d say, we want to go to conference with the senate. We want to compromise with the senate. At the end, that`s not going to happen... SCHULTZ: Yeah. SHRUM: ... and Boehner has going to have to figure out how to pass a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. These guys came to office saying, they were going to shutdown the government. They weren`t going to shutdown part of the government. They`re on the verge of doing it. They were blameworthy (ph) in 1995. They were blameworthy (ph) in 2013 then only save by the mis-launch (ph) of Obamacare website. All the polling shows voters don`t want these issues to be yoked together. You know, Charlie Dent who`s a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania said it pretty well earlier today. He said a lot of his colleagues in the House are deluded. They just don`t recognize, they can`t have their way. SCHULTZ: OK. Folks, you were looking live right now on the House floor in Washington D.C. and that the word is, that they are keeping this open as long as they want to because they are trying to get enough votes to pass a three-week extension on funding of the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier today, the Senate voted 68 to 31 on the long-term bill, the long- term funding. Boehner would not even bring that to the floor so he agreed to bring this to the floor. And even on three-week funding bill, the Republicans can`t get enough votes to pass this which underscores that Boehner just -- he -- I mean, he can`t throw enough promises to the Tea Party to get them to move on this. This is how stuck in the ideological (inaudible) country these republicans are when it comes to defeating the President or making sure that they get their way on immigration. Bob Shrum, which is it or both? SHRUM: Well, eventually, they have to fund DHS. If they close it down or shutoff the payments, there will be a tremendous reaction against them. McConnell knows this, the smart Republican consultants all know this, but Boehner is very worried, as I`ve said earlier, about losing his speakership. So he`s going to have to maneuver very hard in the next three weeks if they succeed in passing this thing. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SHRUM: Look Ed, it so far behind right now. They`re going to have to go out there with a hammer and really see if they can get people to switch their votes. Because right now, I think he`s -- I`m looking at the screen, it`s about 20 votes behind. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SHRUM: 20 more people voting no than yeah. SCHULTZ: Yeah. SHRUM: It`s going to be very, very tough to do this. It says zero at the bottom of the screen. I think that`s where Boehner is right now. He`s at 0.0 and he`s going to have to come up with a new strategy. SCHULTZ: I mean how serious is it? I mean, it`s 5:00 on Friday, they`re cutting the cocktail hour and they can`t get the vote done. That`s how serious it is. Bob Shrum, always good to visit with you. Thank you so much. SHRUM: Thank you. SCHULTZ: We`ll do it again. Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen and that is, "If you were there, would you vote for a three-week extension?" All right. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us on Facebook and we are posting a lot of videos on -- that they spoke as well, you can check them out. Coming up, Scott Walker thinks he has the background to defeat ISIS. The Wisconsin Governor is for rude awakening -- John Nichols of the Nation Magazine with that latest. Plus, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will speak to Congress next week. It`s already causing loads of political drama in Washington. We`ll bring you all the details and analysis. Stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show. SCHULTZ: And we are back. Breaking news at this hour, the House three-week extension on the Department of Homeland Security has failed by a vote of 203 to 224. So, there is no plan B, we`re going to get reaction before we leave you this hour here on the Ed Show. 203 to 224, there will be no three-week extension. Now, we`re not told -- we`re told that there is not a plan B but the funding for the Department of Homeland Security will expire tonight at 12:01 a.m. Turning now to Scott Walker, he needs to rework his resume. During a Q&A at CPAC, the Wisconsin Governor told the crowd, his union busting skills are transferable to combating global terrorism. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: I want a commander-in-chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists do not washed up on American soil. We will have someone who leads and ultimately we`ll send the message not only that we will protect the American soil but do not take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. We need a leader with that kind of confidence. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Those 100,000 protesters he`s talking about are working families in Wisconsin. Walker came up with a different ISIS analogy for Hannity (ph). (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WALKER: They`re like a in your computer that takes out your whole computer. If you don`t weed it out, you`re going to be back at it again more and more. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Working families of virus. The Wisconsin Governor tried to backtrack on his union comments. He told the reporters, "You will all misconstrue thing the way you see it. But I think it`s pretty clear, that`s the closest thing I have in terms of handling a difficult situation, not that there is any parallel between the two." end of quote. Back in his home state, Walker`s push for a union-busting measure is gaining traction with his party. A public hearing on right-to-work was cut short by state Republicans. Now, Walker is taking his propose budget. He wants to cut $300 million out of the states public university system. This is a very specific bombshell and there is a very specific bombshell in his budget proposal. It`s known as "Item-25" with states (ph), universities would no longer have to report the number of sexual assaults that take place on a campus to the Department of Justice. Joining me tonight on all of these, John Nichols, Washington Correspondent of "The Nation", and also with us tonight, Jean Ross, a registered nurse for 40 years and an elected leader of the National Nurses United. Well, Ms. Ross, lets go to you first if we can tonight. Our unions like militant groups? JEAN ROSS, NATIONAL NURSES UNITED: Well, we have 185,000 registered nurses across the country. I don`t that they would call us like militant army, but we certainly do stand up for ourselves, our patience and the health of the country. If that make us militant then I guess we are. SCHULTZ: Are you offended by those comments and do you accept his analogy in any way? ROSS: No. Of course, I don`t accept the analogy and yes it is very offensive. But, you know, he`s being quite honest and unfortunately he`s not alone. People aren`t used to standing up for our rights anymore in this country. We`ve been trying (inaudible) along. And when the decrease in union membership some of which is he trying to increase, this is bound to happen. So it`s very important that we be able to stand up protest and protect our rights. SCHULTZ: All right. John, DNC spokesman said this, "If Scott Walker thinks that it`s appropriate to compare working people speaking up for their rights to brutal terrorist, then he is even less qualified to be president that I though he was". Your thoughts on that. ROSS: Absolutely. JOHN NICHOLS, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT "THE NATION": I know Scott Walker for very long time. And, you know, I genuinely think that presidential politics has brought up the (inaudible). Although, the true to this, going back to 2011, you saw some incredibly belligerent in extreme statements. SCHULTZ: Does he not have a compass on what to say or what plays? NICHOLS: Well, I want to -- and he has said stuff like this before. He`s book "Unintimidated", you know, was filled with, you know, sort of rubato (ph) about, I didn`t listen to those folks. I don`t let him to push me around. Now, I don`t understand how he can miss this basic reality. He`s a political junkie. He watches all the news shows. He read the papers. He has to know that the people who are out there in Wisconsin were nurses and librarians, and teachers, children who would come with their parents, seniors who were worried about senior care people with serious illnesses, who would come because their were worried about Medicaid or Medicare, cut backs or threat of BadgerCare. And I want to emphasize, everybody think this was just a workers` demonstration. We`ll you get up to 100,000 to 150,000 people in the Wisconsin? You have a broad plan for the small business owners, farmers. And for Scott Walker to casually suggest that taking them on gave him the experience to work on the global stage. I mean, if he think that experience he needs, then he ought to rethink who he is, and he also audit study up a little bit on what the real threats are. SCHULTZ: Jean, as to the President Lee Saunders` issue to statement saying that the nation deserves an apology. What your reaction to that? ROSS: I think that that`s accurate and I agreed totally with what John just said. You can`t -- it so difficult nowadays to get people to stand up for what they believe and it protect our right. When you are fortunate enough or good enough to get a strong grassroots movement where isn`t just union members but it is all the people that John just mentioned. All standing up together and saying, you can`t do this to us anymore. And to have that like into terrorism it does deserve an apology. SCHULTZ: And, Jean, does this really underscore his -- how vehement in his hatred for unions? How -- I mean he despises collective bargaining. He despises strength in the workplace and he compares them to people who are - - or cutting people heads off. ROSS: I know. Well, it sadly he`s not alone. Sometimes this antiunion become what I think is sort of a religion to people. So it defies our logic, it defies sense. One of the places where you lose many of the rights that we have a citizen in this country is in the workplace. You are subjected to things that just should not be done to you. And the only way we have being to stand up for ourselves, and in our case our patient, is that we have a union contract to protect us. He saying that those kinds of things should be abolished and that employers should be able to run roughshod over employees and it doesn`t make for safety for us. And it certainly doesn`t make. SCHULTZ: OK. ROSS: . for citizenly. SCHULTZ: And, John Nichols, what`s the political down side? It`s already been, you know, cast dispersions from Rick Perry saying he shouldn`t gone that far. NICHOLS: It not just Rick Perry, a number of leading conservative writers and other have said this is really bad. SCHULTZ: Does it hurt him? NICHOLS: I think it does hurt him because. SCHULTZ: Not ready from prime time? NICHOLS: Well, I think that conversation will begin. And remember he`s running against tough players, the Bush is looking for sign of weakness. I think what they can say here is, do you really want somebody saying something like that on -- October debate. SCHULTZ: Yeah. NOCHOLS: I don`t think so. SCHULTZ: John Nichols, Jean Ross, great to have both of you with us tonight. We`re going to get fresh reaction to the Homeland Security funding of bill which just failed on the house for, Congressman Chris Van Hollen join us next. What`s plan B? Stay with us. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. The House has three-week extension of DHS funding has failed by a vote of 203 to 224. DHS funding is still set to expire at midnight tonight. Senator Chuck Schumer released a statement moments ago saying that the DHS funding fight is the first test of the new Republican Congress and so far they`re failing. For more, let`s go live now to Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Congressman earlier today, Steny Hoyer asked all Democrats to vote no on this. Obviously, that`s pretty much how it came down. The clean bill never came to the floor for full funding on this over the long, Hollen. Now, the short-term bill has failed. Where do you go from here? The House is in recess right now. Where do you go from here, what`s plan B? REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D) MARYLAND: Well, Ed, as of right now the speaker has totally run out of excuses for not bringing that bipartisan Senate bill that provides full funding for the Department of Homeland Security, not for one week, not for two weeks, not for three weeks but to whole fiscal year. That bipartisan Senate bill is right here in the House of Representatives. All the speaker has to do is bring it up -- for a vote and it would past tonight. And it could go the President`s desk for the President`s signature. It`s that simple. SCHULTZ: Why he didn`t do it? Why didn`t he bring up that clean bill? HOLLEN: Well, he didn`t do it because he wants to -- can keep this uncertainly going with respect to the Department of Homeland Security. He`s got a lot of members in the Republican Caucus who still want to play games in politics with the Department of Homeland Security funding. And he once again was catering to his most extreme wing. Now is the moment. Now that that didn`t work and as you pointed out the funding expires at midnight. All the Speaker have to do, very simple, bring up that Senate bill for a vote. We could have the Department of Homeland Security fully funded for the rest of the fiscal year, no nonsense, no games, get it done, protect the homeland and protect our security. SCHULTZ: Congressman, is John Boehner joining the Tea Party? HOLLEN: Well, what we have seen once again is he`s been led around by the nose by the most extreme elements of his party. And he went down that -- get in path again. And, you know, at some point the Speaker`s got to learn, he`s got to lead the whole House not be led... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOLLEN: ... by small extreme Tea Party faction of the House. SCHULTZ: So this emboldens the Tea Party if we understand where they came from and how arrogant they are when it comes to government and this really strips the Senate of power in a sense. He has still got those damn Tea Partiers over there in the House he got to deal with. They`re running the country right now. That`s what it looks like. HOLLEN: Well, they are. Again, there`s a simple way out of that dilemma right now which is if the Speaker decides to put the security of the country and the Homeland above the extreme ideology of the Tea Party members of the House, then we can get it done, right. He just has to make that decision. This is all up to the Speaker. SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOLLEN: He puts it up for a vote and we will pass it tonight, full funding to the rest of the fiscal year, no more nonsense. SCHULTZ: So is the only issue that`s going to move the Tea Party immigration? HOLLEN: Well, that appears to be the issue. They`ve decided to, again, threaten to shutdown the Department, the funding for the Department until they get their way on immigration reform in the President`s executive order. You know, we all disagree, at least I surely disagree with the decision by the federal district court judge but you would have thought Republicans would see that as an opportunity now to do the right thing in funding the Department Homeland Security. They haven`t taken advantage of that. SCHULTZ: OK. So is Boehner worried about his speakership? Is this -- in anyway stretch of imagination personal that he knows that if it goes up for a vote then the political naives come out and he has no chance and he has to do this? HOLLEN: Well, this maybe the moment the Speaker is got to decide to do what`s right for the country not just for keeping his seat warm. I don`t know all the dynamics, Ed... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOLLEN: ... in the Republican Caucus right now but what I do know is what`s clear to everybody, you know... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOLLEN: ... most Republicans in the Senate, Democrats are like, this is a moment for the Speaker do the right thing for the country. SCHULTZ: Congressman, is there any thing short of full funding that the Democrats would agree to? OK. You didn`t vote for the three-week fix. Give me a number. HOLLEN: The number is the full year. Why should we do for the Department of Homeland Security anything less than we do for any other agency of the federal government? All the other agencies in the federal government are funded through the remaining of this fiscal year, to the end of September. The Republicans held up only funding for the Department of Homeland Security despite the threats we saw in Paris, despite the threats we saw in Denmark, despite of what we saw in the rest of New York. Despite of all of that, they have decided to hold funding for the Department of Homeland Security, one of the main departments since, of course, essential to try to protect us from those terrorist threats. They decided to hold that hostage and play games with that. So let`s just do for the Department of Homeland Security what we do for the other agencies of the federal government to make sure that we can continue to operate as a functioning federal government. SCHULTZ: How do you think Mitch McConnell feels tonight? HOLLEN: Well, I think that he`s actually -- what it shows him in a way is that he has made the right call in the sense that the Senate is not the one -- is not the body, you know, responsible for preventing the funding from flow into Department of Homeland Security. SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOLLEN: I mean, in a sense, he -- at the end of the day, he took him a long time to get there but at the end of the day he did his job and on the bipartisan basis the Senate voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That bill, again, is right here. I mean its right here on the House of Representatives, we can get it done right away and move on to talk about other important issues for the country. SCHULTZ: And finally, it sounds like the Democrats have done their business, you`ve said what you`re going to vote on. It`s either this or nothing. There is no negotiation tonight. You want the full funding. You don`t want it to immigration. Now it`s up to Boehner. It`s the end of the day for the Democrats. HOLLEN: Well, and just to be clear, Ed, I mean, that`s exactly what`s in the bill thus before the House, the Senate Bill... SCHULTZ: Yeah, yeah. Here we go. It`s 68 to 31 -- yeah. HOLLEN: It`s simply. It`s clean. It`s bipartisan. Let`s vote in a bipartisan way in the House of Representatives. I know the votes are here to pass and you`ve got every single Democrat, everyone that wants to vote for a full funding for Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year, 100 percent and I know (inaudible)... SCHULTZ: Yeah. HOLLEN: ... and I know Republicans to get a majority of the vote if only the Speaker would put democracy and the ability of democracy to work its will in front of this small fraction, they continuous to lead the country down this dead end path. SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman Van Hollen, thanks for joining us tonight. And incase who just joined this, the vote was 203 to 224. The three-week extension did not pass. There is no plan B and the House is in recess. The funding expires tonight at midnight. Maybe there`ll be a development later on in the House and maybe Boehner will change his mind. We`ll see. I don`t think he will. There`s more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. KATE ROGERS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Market Wrap. Stock end the month higher but lower on the day. The Dow falls 81, the S&P shed six and the NASDAQ is off 24. One of the reasons for today`s fallback, a report showing economic growth slowed to 2.2 percent annual rate last quarter. That`s down from a previous estimate and third quarter of growth of 5 percent. And Apple CEO Tim Cook has told a British paper the Apple Watch may replace the need for car keys and we`ll have battery that last all day ending speculation about its battery life. That`s it from CNBC, first in business world wide. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: The President`s National Security Advisor has said it`s destructive for the Prime Minister of Israel to address the United States Congress next week. I couldn`t disagree more. But what is destructive, in my view, is making a bad deal (ph) the paves the way for a nuclear Iran. That`s destructive. And that`s why it`s so important for the American people to hear what Prime Minister Netanyahu has to say about the grave threats that they`re facing. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s visit next week is already stirred up a world of controversy. Boehner broke President when he invited the Prime Minister without consulting the White House or Democratic lawmakers. Now, we`re watching partisan politics pollute the U.S.-Israeli relationship. The White House sees it as a deliberate attempt to undermine ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. Republicans see it as just another opportunity to pip themselves against the President. When it comes to Iran`s nuclear program, there`s important common ground. No one wants Iran to have the capacity to build nuclear weapons. They double obviously in the details. Netanhayu wants Iran`s capacity to produce high levels of enriched uranium the to be shutdown. The White House would allow Iran to maintain a limited capacity under strict guidelines. Netanyahu isn`t buying it and says, no deal is better than a bad deal. Now, Republicans are giving them center stage to vast President Obama`s policies on the House floor. The Senate has until at least March 24th to vote on additional sanctions on Iran which of course, the President doesn`t want and which means Congress could still be playing a critical role in all of these negotiations. Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel Laicie Heeley from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Steve Clemons with us tonight, MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-Large for The Atlantic. Well, there`s a lot of things flowing around John Boehner`s office at this hour. There`s no question about that. Laicie, why not allow Benjamin Netanyahu come and speak his piece? How do we know that this would trash negotiations with the Iranians? LAICIE HEELEY, CENTER FOR ARMS CONTROL AND NON-PROLIFERATION: Well, Ed, the important thing here and really the bottom line is that we`re only two weeks out from Netanyahu`s election. And so, this is breaching protocol. This is why the administration -- why the President disagrees with the speech. This is why the President is not meeting with Netanhayu while he is in Washington. And this is why really ultimately regardless of the Prime Minister`s thoughts on the ongoing Iranian negotiations. This is not the right time for him to be addressing Congress SCHULTZ: Steve, is this is sour a possibility of a deal as you see it. STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it may strengthen a deal because of course that, you know, the prospect in Netanhayu speaking actually run enough (inaudible) members of Congress the other direction that that sanctions bill was delayed. And so, it backfired on Netanhayu. But in the end, it`s a very bad thing with the United States in this Israel have a strategic breach which they seem to have right now because it makes everyone worry. You need the region to sort of stand whole and understand that if you do got deal with Iran, you -- that the region is behind that that Europe is with us, that Israel is with us and that Iran needs to know that its track forward is to normalize and to become a healthy nation down the road not one that can separate allies. And I think that`s where we`re at right. So, that itself could wreck things with Iran. SCHULTZ: But Laicie, doesn`t this speech by Netanhayu to the Congress give the Iranians all the ammunition they need when it comes to souring a deal, giving them an out, giving them an excuse, saying the Americans can`t be trust. And they`re going to be too close to Israeli. It`s never -- they`re never going to be an honest broker. What about that? HEELEY: Well, it certainly has been helpful for the Prime Minister to be giving the speech (inaudible) Congress right now. But where we`re really get ran into trouble is, there are two pieces of legislation in Congress right now, one that would require an upper down vote on this final deal if we`re actually able to get one. And that`s really where we`re going to provide the Iranians with in excuse to walk away from the table if they want to and ultimately, where we`re going to endanger our relationship with our international allies as well. We depend on them to uphold the sanctions that are keeping around (ph) at the table right now. So we can`t do anything. SCHULTZ: And Steve, what about more sanctions, so the Democrats going to go right with the President on this? CLEMONS: Well, I think that, you know, the question is if you`re applying more sanctions now, it will kill the deal. And Iran can have any number of reasons for walking away and they maybe even attempted to do that now. They don`t trust United States. That`s fundamentally what this is about. But in the end, I think if things come apart not only will more democrats come on board for sanctions. But the bigger thing is, this likely -- and I`ve heard John Kerry and others say, if this doesn`t work, this could trip us into a war. It just not just sanctions over Iran Nuclear Program, this is looking at what our eventual railroad track with Iran is going to be down the road. Are we going to find a way to seduce Iran back into responsible stake holding with other nations or are we going to be on a track that takes us directly into conflict over what will be a nuclear program... SCHULTZ: Yeah... CLEMONS: ... that Iran has. And I think that`s the real stakes in this. SCHULTZ: All right. Laicie Heeley and Steve Clemons, always a pleasure. Good to have you with us tonight. Coming up, we`ll have more over the failure of the DHS funding extension of the House. Keep it here. We`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. The House`s three-week extension of DHS funding failed earlier in this hour by a vote of 203 to 224. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security will expire at 12:01 a.m. tonight. This means that over 200,000 DHS workers will be working without pay starting tonight. Earlier today, the Senate voted 68 to 31 on a clean bill to fund the agency through the end of September. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, of Democratic leadership team released a statement pushing the House vote on the bill. We will, of course, continue to follow this story and bring you any new developments. Stay with us, we`ll be right back. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We`re following this hour`s breaking news. We`re just about to get some reaction from Capitol Hill on this. The three-week extension of the Department of Homeland Security funding, that bill has failed in the House in a very dramatic fashion. They kept the vote open as long as they could, they could not wrestle enough votes and it failed 203 to 224. After Speaker Boehner trying to get more votes from the Tea Party which of course would not budge. Homeland Security funding expired at 12:01 a.m. tonight and there was no plan B at this moment for the funding. So right now the House is recess, everybody standing around in the office wondering OK, what`s next. It`s in that man`s court right there, Speaker John Boehner from Ohio. Now earlier today, the Senate voted 68 to 31 on a clean funding bill. Meaning, that there was nothing attach to it and it nothing to do with immigration or anything else. They passed at 68 to 31, Senate over the House and John Boehner would not bring it to the floor. What he did bring to the floor was a three-week extension of funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Steny Hoyer, "The whip (ph) of the Democrats", went to the floor and asked all Democrats and people of this party not to support it. The Democrats are holding the line when it comes to making sure that this is going to be a standalone fully funded effort by the Congress to protect the country. This of course means that over 200,000 employees now are going to be going to work and they`re not going to be getting paid. So you`re probably going to rerunning into a lot of good attitudes at the airport around the country from TSA personnel. Let`s go now from more reaction to what is unfolded in the last hour on Capitol Hill. Let`s speak with Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio. Congressman, good to have you with us. REP. TIM RYAN (D) OHIO: Good to be with you, Ed. SCHULTZ: Do you think this is what the people of Ohio want? RYAN: No. They want stable government and we just can`t seem to get it from the Republicans. I mean we`ve got a group of extremists, Ed that are really running the shop down here. We can`t get a bill just to fund the Homeland Security, we have the Prime Minister of Israel coming next week, there`s going to be a lot of diplomats here and we`re going to shutdown the Homeland Security. And we were in this, you know, rat race here where its two weeks, three weeks, three weeks more. You can`t run an operation like this. It`s ridiculous. SCHULTZ: How committed were the Democrats not to move on this bill tonight? Were there some in Caucus that said "All right. Let`s do the three week." was there much of argument amongst the Democrats to go down this road? RYAN: Not a whole lot. There were some who obviously represent a lot of the people in Homeland Security in Northern Virginia or other little pockets throughout the country, who voted the other way. But for the most part I think we got stand our ground and say "Hey, we need a functioning government here. We can`t govern three weeks at time." There are budgets, there are people working, there are families like get your act together and let`s make sure we fund the government. There`s a bill out there a clean bill till September 30th. This is about arithmetic. Ed. John Boehner does not have the votes in his own Caucus. They aren`t the votes in the Senate to do what the Tea Party people want. There`s a Democratic President in the White House. There not going to get everything they want. This is about arithmetic and figure out, you know, what you can get done, get as much as you can and make a deal that moves the ball down the field. SCHULTZ: So who are these people in the House? Who are the ringleaders in the House that simply would not budge on this bill? RYAN: There are about 50 members. It`s the Republican study committee. It`s your most extreme conservative members of the Republican Caucus. Ideological have said things in their Congressional district against President Obama. So therefore they can agree with anything that he wants even when we said give me three-week bill. It`s better than nothing. SCHULTZ: So this is still -- not to interrupt you but this is still about Obama. I mean this -- right down to this Tea Partiers in the House, these hard-line conservatives, it`s about not giving this President what he needs to protect the country. RYAN: Right. It`s about Obama. It`s about immigration. It`s about the CPAC Conference that`s going on up the street, cranking everybody up to be the most extreme conservative they can possibly be. And if they somehow tied this to the constitution, I`m telling you Ed, we`re dealing with the tail wagging the dog here. We have a small of extremist that are running the entire United States Congress. This is why we can`t get... SCHULTZ: Yeah. RYAN: ... a transportation bill. SCHULTZ: Yeah. RYAN: This is why can`t invest on education, research and development. This is why we can`t get tax deal. All because of this group of 50 members who have -- if Boehner doesn`t do every single thing that they want, they threaten to take him out as Speaker and that`s what we`re dealing with right now. SCHULTZ: So it is the survival of the Speaker. That`s part of the equation as you see it? RYAN: No doubt about it. I think there`s probably meetings happening right now in the -- on Capitol Hill plotting how to takeout Speaker Boehner from the Republican Caucus. There`s no question in my mind right now. SCHULTZ: So you think that there are moderate Republicans if there`s any left. So certainly that not the Tea Partiers, they`re thinking, you know, maybe Boehner is not our guy, but where else would they go? I mean, would they come up -- well, of course they would probably come up with more of a moderate guy than Boehner who wouldn`t countdown to the Tea Party that would have brought that Senate bill to the floor. Is that what you`re talking about? RYAN: Well, yeah. I think Boehner needs to stand up to him. SCHULTZ: Yeah. RYAN: I think Speaker Boehner has the votes of the moderate and the majority of the people in his Caucus. He can withstand the coup (ph). Stand strong bring these moderate bills to the floor and maybe we could actually get some legislation, maybe you can pull 30, 40, 50 Democrat votes for transportation bill. I mean. SCHULTZ: So... RYAN: . let`s move the ball, lets invest in the country. SCHULTZ: So quickly, Tim, is Boehner a Tea Partier tonight? RYAN: We`re going to find out. The clock is ticking. SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman Tim Ryan with us here on the Ed Show tonight. The drama unfolds on Capitol Hill. That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 28, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022701cb.452 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 127 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 27, 2015 Friday SHOW: POLITICS NATION 6:00 PM EST Politics Nation for February 27, 2015 BYLINE: Al Sharpton, Kristen Welker, Kasie Hunt GUESTS: Emanuel Cleaver, E.J. Dionne, Clarence Page, Emma Dumain, Tara Dowdell, Noah Michelson, Julia Cunningham SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 6785 words HIGHLIGHT: A major failure from House Speaker John Boehner who could not get the votes this evening to pass a last-minute budget bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That leaves us less than six hours away from an agency shutdown. DHS is just six hours way until its shutdown because dozens of Republicans refused to go along because the bill didn`t undo the president`s immigration actions. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening. And thanks to you for tuning in. We continue with the breaking news. A stunning failure by House Republicans putting funding for homeland security in jeopardy. We`re now just six hours from a shutdown of the agency. The clock is ticking down. And the mood in Washington is frantic. With reports of speaker Boehner furiously still trying to drum up for votes a last-ditch short-term bill. It`s a major surprise. This was the scene less than an hour ago. With Republicans holding open a vote for nearly 50 minutes desperate for passage. That bill would have extended funding for three weeks. But dozens of Republicans refused to go along because the bill didn`t undo the president`s immigration actions. And the Democrats refused to bail out the speaker because the bill would have triggered another funding crisis in gist three weeks. For Speaker Boehner, it`s a public embarrassment. Another failure to control the right wing caucus. And the result tonight a homeland security shutdown is looking more and more likely. Joining me now is Dana Milbank and Clarence Page, thank you both for coming on the show. DANA MILBANK, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Hi, Reverend. CLARENCE PAGE, COLUMNIST, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Good to be with you, Reverend. SHARPTON: Dane, how surprise were you at this voted? MILBANK: Well, in the larger sense you`re never surprised to find out that Congress isn`t getting something done. So we should never be surprised that they failed to do something. But everybody figured what it would come down to in the end s basically they were just punting for a few weeks. And that`s the sort of thing that Congress can still do is punt. So this is entirely surprising that this particular vote failed, and now John Boehner has a very serious choice. Is he more concerned about keeping his job as speaker or is he more concerned about doing what needs to be done to the country right now? SHARPTON: Now, the clock, for our viewers, the clock you see is ticking away toward midnight. That is when homeland security will close down. Clarence, give me a minute. I want to bring in Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver, Democrat from Missouri. Thank you for being here, Congressman. REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER (D), MISSOURI: Good to be with you. SHARPTON: Are you surprised at the Republican failure to get any bill passed with the deadline now less than six hours away? CLEAVER: I`m surprised at the margin of that loss because I thought that they would twist enough arms to get the bill crossed. Keep in mind, votes are supposed to remain open for 15 minutes. They kept the vote open for 45 minutes. And during that 45-minute period they were twisting arms and still couldn`t get the votes. So I think that there`s a section in that conference that will not support anything that they think will be of value to the president. SHARPTON: Congressman, we`re talking homeland security, we are talking it a week when three people were arrested talking about joining ISIS. This is a very, very serious time. Do Republicans have any plan to avoid a homeland security shutdown, to your knowledge? CLEAVER: As I left the capitol just a few minutes ago after the vote, members were grumbling and mumbling. I think they`re going to gather later on tonight. I can`t imagine getting very many people to switch. I mean, if you had been on the floor to see the tension of the floor and seeing all that pressure being applied to no good end, at least as far as they are concerned, and the leadership was concerned. So I`m not sure that they`re going to be able to do anything tonight. We have up until 11:59 to fix this problem. I don`t see it being fixed by then unless Boehner puts his speakership on the line. SHARPTON: So they don`t have, from what you can see, a plan b. You`re saying they seemed adamant on the floor that they were not going to budge, these far right conservatives? CLEAVER: Absolutely. As the time remained open, they were actually losing votes to pass the three-week CR. So they were going in the wrong direction. So I can`t imagine anything happening that would cause them to change their mind. SHARPTON: Now, you said unless Boehner puts his speakership on the line. What do you mean by that? CLEAVER: Well, it thank we can pass this bill, there`s no question about it. We can pass this bill in ten minutes if they call the vote and put a clean bill on the floor, it sails through, and it will go to the Senate and the president will sign it and all will be fine in the United States. But it would mean that the speaker would have to tell his caucus, look, I`m going to put this bill on the floor because it`s in the best interest of the country and you guys do what you want and do what you have to do. And I think under those circumstances, he would be in jeopardy as the speaker. SHARPTON: So you`re saying that if a clean bill was put on the floor without any of this about taking out the president`s executive action on immigration, it would pass, but the speaker would have to say I`m going to put everything on the line even if my caucus comes back against me, I`m not going to let this country have homeland security shut down. That`s what he would have to do? CLEAVER: That`s exactly what he would have to do. I would vote for it and I think every single democrat would vote for it and half the Republicans would vote for it. But you know, and I like John Boehner so I hate to see him lose his speakership, but I think at this kind of a point, it`s either the nation or a group of 50 or 60 people who are holding hostage the Republican Congress. SHARPTON: Wow, it`s either the nation or 50 or 60 people. Do you think, from your own knowing and dealings with the Republicans in the house, do you think he would lose his speakership? CLEAVER: I think it would be very, very close. I think this would be a dangerous vote for him. And I think he understands that as well. So this is moment for John Boehner like no other moment since he became speaker of the house. And I would hate to lose him, let me just say that, because I`m not sure who we would get to replace him. And we could be in much more serious trouble if we got someone who came to Congress with the absolute commitment to disrupt, who is anti-government and serving in government. SHARPTON: Congressman, stay with me a minute. I want to bring in Clarence Page. Clarence, stunning, stunning events. How do you see this? Were you surprised? Are you still surprised? PAGE: Well, I am. I still expect Speaker Boehner to do the right thing before the shutdown as we`ve seen in the past. He`s been willing to go along with their far right wing of his caucus up to the point where it really puts the nation`s security or finances in jeopardy. Of course, I also predicted that Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel wouldn`t have to face a runoff either. So I`ve been wrong once this week. I`d hate to be wrong twice especially on something of this import. But I like the thing that Speaker Boehner is the speaker and not Louis Gohmert of Texas, but I`m beginning to doubt. SHARPTON: Dana, explain to the American public how do you explain, if you can, given such power, if you`re Boehner, to just 50 members of the house? MILBANK: Well, I mean, there`s the Hastert rule in the Republican cog, and he basically can`t bring something to the floor unless it has majority support in his caucus. So it`s not just those 50 guys who voted against this legislation. He must feel that he does not have a majority in favor of the Senate bill, the clean bill, as they say. And if he doesn`t have that and he brings the bill forward anyway. He`s violated this cardinal principle and that would be the justification for them to have this sort of a coup and toss the speaker out of his job. Now, you know, as the congressman was saying, he has Democrats here certainly willing to back him up on this vote. So they`ll certainly win the vote if he brings the Senate bill up. And, of course, everybody votes for the speaker of the house. And it`s even theoretically possible that the Democrats would help him keep his speakership, but that`s completed uncharted territory here and that`s not something he wants to rely on. SHARPTON: We are now, Congressman, under six hours until the DHS funding expires. Here`s what a shutdown of homeland security would look like, 30,000 workers will be furloughed, 200,000 workers won`t get paid, and there will be a loss of some funding to local law enforcement. This is a game of politics gone wrong. And now hitting the real world, isn`t it, congressman? CLEAVER: Well, yes. You know, we should be able to say to each other that the politics stops when we put the security of the American people in jeopardy. I`ve long believed that we have become politically tribal in Congress to the point that we are only put ideology ahead of logic and we put ideology quite often in front of the public. And that`s got to stop. And this may be the vote that will change things. The public may become so outraged that they will make a new commitment to elect people who are going to be able to work together and compromise. Nobody is going to have their way. My voters didn`t send me to Washington to have my way. It means I have to compromise. And I`m willing to do so. But I`m not going to put the American public in jeopardy. And I think that the overwhelming majority of the public, including Republicans, want this thing settled before 11:59 tonight. SHARPTON: Congressman, bottom line, do you think we`re going to be able to stop this or not? CLEAVER: I think that when I get out of here and I`ll go over and see what the temperature is over near the conference room meeting, I think we`ll have a better idea. Right now, I would say it doesn`t look good. But something may happen, and this may be another one of those all-night sessions where we`re here until the wee hours of the morning to get something done. And I think people are willing to do that, but they also are not going to budge in terms of getting a clean continuing resolution on the floor that doesn`t require that we come back every three weeks to the brink. SHARPTON: Congressman, feel free to come back. This is very, very serious to the people of this country. Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver, Dana Milbank and Clarence Page, thank you all for your time tonight. Have a great weekend, as best as we can. This is very serious. MILBANK: Thank you. CLEAVER: Thank you. I won`t be great over here. SHARPTON: Coming up, the boo birds turned out for Jeb Bush at the right- wing summit. You won`t believe why his big appearance came a little late and then, of course, there`s this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s blue with black. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Blue and black. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Blue kind of thing. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: White and gold. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Where were you when the dress broke the internet? And why do different people see different colors? We called in an expert opinion. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, Reverend Al, Bill Nye here. That thing about the dress. It is all about the dress. Maybe there`s something to it. I think there is really. I think it might have to do with -- (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: We`ll bring you Bill Nye`s explanation ahead in conversation nation. Plus the latest from Capitol Hill where the scramble is on to find some way to stop a homeland security shutdown. SHARPTON: Ahead, more of the breaking news tonight. Under six hours away from a homeland security shutdown. Reports of Speaker Boehner furiously trying to get votes for a late-night last-ditch short-term bill. What Boehner is planning. We are live on Capitol Hill with the very latest ahead. SHARPTON: Today the entire political world was tuning in to see how Jeb Bush did in his first big primary test. An appearance at the right wing CPAC summit. But what they got instead was this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you call the 110 million people who have sexually transmitted illnesses? It`s the revenge of the hippies. Sex, drugs and rock `n` roll have come back to haunt us. If I didn`t care about you, why would I bring this up? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: That`s right. Duck dynasty rambled incoherently for nearly half an hour delaying the start of Jeb`s interview. CPAC organizers put up this message urging him to, quote, "please wrap up now." They even played music to get him off the stage just like at the Oscars. But when Jeb Bush himself finally came out, it`s fair to say he got a mixed reaction, especially when he talked about immigration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: You supported in-state tuition prices for those children of illegal immigrants that weren`t citizens. Wait a minute. Hang on. JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: We should give them the path to legal status where they work and where they make a contribution to our society. That`s what we need to be focused on. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: A lot of reaction. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The boo birds were out. It`s clear the right wingers are not thrilled with Jeb. One radio host even blasted Jeb from the same stage earlier in the day. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LAURA INGRAHAM, CONSERVATIVE RADIO HOST: Why don`t we just call it quits and Jeb and Hillary can run on the same ticket? So I`m designing a bumper sticker that could be Clush 2016. What difference does it make? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: It is what happened when the crowd was polled on their favorite potential 2016 candidates. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Rand Paul. Who likes governor Scott Walker? Very impressive. Jeb Bush, any supporters? (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: If Jeb Bush thought he was on the fast track to the GOP nomination, today he definitely hit a speed bump. Joining me now from the conference is MSNBC`s political correspondent Kasie Hunt, and E.J. Dionne of "the Washington Post." Thank you both for being here. E.J. DIONNE, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Good to be with you, Reverend. KASIE HUNT, MSNBC POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Nice to be here, Reverend. SHARPTON: Kasie, Jeb Bush didn`t exactly get a rock star reception, but did he get credit for just showing up? HUNT: Reverend, I think that he did. I think that he absolutely passed the test that was set up for him here today. He started off a little bit tentative. He almost seemed nervous like he was a little bit punchy, but he relaxed into it. And while there were some tense moments with Sean Hannity, who you saw there, interviewing him, he really by tend of it had gotten into this comfortable sparring rhythm. And honestly he gave the kind of performance that would make you think he would be pretty formidable on a debate stage, whether in the Republican primary or against Hillary Clinton. And his staff also did a good job of making sure that the room was filled with his supporters. So while he did get something of a mixed reception, it was clear there were a lot of people in room that were specifically cheering for him while the other half maybe the usual CPAC attendees weren`t quite as sure how to react. It was not the kind of falling apart that would have caused everyone to say, you know what, Jeb Bush is no longer the front-runner. He came in the front-runner and he leaves the front-runner. SHARPTON: E.J., this was, in fairness to Jeb Bush, this was not his crowd. I mean, he certainly was going into a crowd that are very, very much to the right, and he seemed to survive it even though he hit a bump or two here or there. DIONNE: In fact, as Kasie said, this is so much not his crowd that they had to bus in a bunch of people to make sure he had some cheers out there. I was struck by how much this performance showed how complicated Bush`s path is. Because on the one hand, on the other hand. For example, he totally danced around when he was asked about Congress` handling of the DHS funding. He basically gave a strong statement that President Obama shouldn`t have done what he did with the executive actions on immigration, but then said, and I`m paraphrasing, Washington rules aren`t my thing. Well, he does know something about Washington. And he was kind of going back and forth trying to be anti-Obama and anti-Hillary enough for the crowd but not to back away from some of his core positions. So that my view is this did show how much trouble he is going to have with the right, but he really does want to try in some way to separate himself from the farther fringes of the right. And we`ll see if that can work in a primary. SHARPTON: But do you think he`s still the most formidable candidate? Do you agree that he`s still the number one candidate in the Republican sweepstakes at this point? DIONNE: I think he is the democrat`s favorite candidate at this point. I`m not sure he`s the Republican`s favorite candidate in the Republican primary. I run into a conservative Republican who said recently, look, Jeb`s got money, he`s smart, he`s got standing. The only thing he`s missing is votes. And I think that this is a much more conservative party than the party was that his brother got nominated by in the year 2000. That even though Jeb Bush is very conservative, it`s still not clear to me that he`s conservative enough for where the party is which is why you`re hearing so much talk about Scott Walker. SHARPTON: Let me ask you, Kasie, you were in the room. What did you hear in the room this week? I mean, was there anyone that broke through? HUNT: Well, look, E.J.`s right in that this crowd was always going to be the crowd that was looking for the conservative alternative. And right now the conservative alternative is definitely Scott Walker. He`s the person that sort of lit up this room probably the most, at least in a surprising way. They reacted well to Senator Ted Cruz as well but I think everybody sort of felt that was to be expected. Walker, of course, has made a couple of stumbles or at least, you know, some critics have seized on comments he`s made over the course of the past couple of weeks. And the remark that he made here about ISIS and labor unions, he said that taking on union protesters would help prepare him to fight ISIS. In an interview with me, Governor Rick Perry criticizing for the calling it a mistake and inappropriate because these people are Americans. I think that if it becomes clear that there`s a pattern of him saying these things the and having to defend against them, there are going to be serious questions about whether or not he`s ready for prime time. But I think so far he`s successfully used those moments to, if anything, add more excitement from voters like the people here at CPAC. So he also passed the test of this conference in that way. SHARPTON: Now E.J., he didn`t back down. Jeb Bush didn`t back down on immigration. He kind of stood his ground. But he danced around -- your words not mine, though I agree -- around the DHS shutdown. But doesn`t that really show the power of the conservatives in this party that we are less than six hours away from a possible shutdown of the department of homeland security in this climate with Americans really on edge and we`re talking about a shutdown in less than six hours? Doesn`t that show the power of the conservatives in this party? DIONNE: Well, in brief, yes. It absolutely does. And I think it`s another difference you see from 2000 and 2016. Jeb Bush went out of his way on a number of occasions to separate himself from the Republican congress, Gingrich, then Dennis Hastert on issues like the earned income tax credit. He really wanted to show middle of the road voters I`m not them. This time the party is so focused and particularly the conservative parts of the party that it`s not as easy for Jeb to disentangle himself from the party. So instead of saying we should pass this and fight the president on this at another time, he felt obligated to do the dancing. And I think that really tells you something about where the Republicans are right now and where the power is. All right, Kasie Hunt and E.J. Dionne, thank you for your time tonight. Have a great weekend. HUNT: Thank you, Reverend. DIONNE: And you too. Thanks. SHARPTON: Ahead, more on the breaking news tonight. Under six hours away from a homeland security shutdown, Speaker Boehner is reportedly scrambling right now to get votes before the clock expires. How will it all go down? We`re live on the hill. Plus moments ago attorney general Eric Holder`s official portrait was revealed and he got very emotional. You will want to see this big news tonight. Please stay with us. SHARPTON: Breaking news tonight, the clock is ticking towards midnight on Capitol Hill. And a shutdown of the homeland security department. It`s a huge embarrassment for speaker Boehner. So does he have a plan b? And what`s the view from the White House? We`ll go there live next. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST, "POLITICS NATION": We`re back with tonight`s breaking news. A major failure from House Speaker John Boehner who could not get the votes this evening to pass a last-minute budget bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That leaves us less than six hours away from an agency shutdown. The bill would have only funded the department for three weeks, but a group of conservative republicans still refused to vote for it because it didn`t attack the President`s executive action on immigration. So now the big question, can Speaker Boehner fix this mess by midnight. Joining me now from the White House is NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker. Also with us staff is Emma Dumain, staff writer for Roll Call. Thank you both for being here. EMMA DUMAIN, STAFF WRITER, ROLL CALL: Thanks, Reverend. KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks for having us. SHARPTON: Kristen, I want to get to the White House in a minute, but first, Emma, you`re on Capitol Hill. What was it like up there? DUMAIN: It was something else. It`s not every day that you see a bill like that go down spectacularly, actually. You know, people said it was going to be close. It was going to be a squeaker, but it was much wider a margin than anybody anticipated. And it was pretty amazing. I was in the gallery watching over the chamber floor. And you could just see, you know, the startle on some people`s faces and the satisfaction on democrats` faces that they were able, all but 12 were able to stand together and think this because they didn`t like that it didn`t fund the department, the full six months, the end of the fiscal year. And you could see republican leaders scrambling with their cards trying to change votes. SHARPTON: When you say you could see people startled, the startle in their face, you`re talking about members of Congress. DUMAIN: Members of Congress. SHARPTON: And what was the leadership, the republican leadership, what were they looking like? DUMAIN: They were huddling with their folks. They were talking amongst themselves. You know, this was a case where people knew the vote was going to be so close. Speaker Boehner actually voted himself. It`s very rare for the Speaker of the House to take a position in a Roll Call vote. He knew he had to play his part here. It was open for over half an hour, maybe even closer to 40 minutes while they tried to change votes. And it was actually they kept the clock going on the same -- you know, you keep that vote open thinking maybe we`ll lose one or we`ll gain one. And it just stayed exactly as it was for, you know, at least 10 or 15 minutes, just sort of crystallized. Then the other amazing thing to see happen is once it got to the point where you knew that it was going to go down, all the republicans who had been holding out or had been voting yes suddenly realized that they could vote no and the democrats who didn`t want to vote right away were starting to make their positions known, and either the more moderate democrats who wanted to vote yes or the ones who wanted to vote no after it became clear that they had that kind of power in that situation to force leadership`s hand. So it really was a stunning moment. SHARPTON: Very, very dramatic on Capitol Hill. Let`s go to the White House. Kristen, what`s the reaction to this whole situation from the White House? WELKER: Well, Reverend Al, I have to tell you a lot of surprised faces here at the White House as well. I think the presumption for most of the day on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue was that ultimately House Speaker John Boehner would come up with the 218 votes that he needed within his own party to get this passed. We`ve been hearing from democrats all day long who said that they`re not going to vote yes on this because it only funds DHS for three weeks. So now officials here huddling, trying to determine what their next steps if any will be. We haven`t seen a very robust outreach from the White House. Instead we`ve really seen DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson taking the lead. He has been the one on Capitol Hill. President Obama taking his message on the road, defending his immigration actions and, of course, pressing for DHS to be fully funded. The White House making the argument that if funding runs out at midnight, it will impact national security. They say that will happen because 30,000 workers will be furloughed, and then 200,000 essential employees will have to go to work and they won`t get paid. TSA officers, border patrol officers, FEMA workers and Secret Service agents. And of course, this comes at a critical time when the nation is fighting ISIS at home and abroad. So the strategy from the White House has really been to put the pressure on just by getting that message out. So here we are just a few hours away from midnight. I think the White House trying to determine what their next steps will be as they wait for House Speaker John Boehner to see if he has a way out of this. SHARPTON: Well, it`s interesting. This President hasn`t backed down from standing up to these far right republicans in the House, and the democrats did not bail Speaker Boehner out tonight by voting for this. Very, very interesting. Very, very dramatic, Kristen. WELKER: It is. And the strategy, I think, is they perceive House Speaker John Boehner to be boxed in essentially because they know that this is a republican issue. Homeland security. If you listen to Peter King from New York, he makes the argument that essentially republicans, by wavering on this, are giving this issue over to democrats. So ultimately I think the White House knows that House Speaker John Boehner wants to get something passed. He`s getting a lot of pressure from the conservative members in his party who want to take action on the President`s immigration actions. They want any legislation to block the President`s immigration action and of course President Obama has the power to veto that and he has said explicitly he`ll veto any legislation that comes to his desk that blocks his immigration plans. So, ultimately I think the White House thinks they have the upper hand there. The thinking in this instance was that House Speaker John Boehner would get this passed and then they would wait for those three weeks to see what happened in the courts, and then that could perhaps give Speaker Boehner an out after those three weeks. But as you point out, Reverend Al, those democrats didn`t budge. They didn`t cave. So now big questions about how this is going to get resolved with just six hours to go. NBC`s Kristen Welker and Emma Dumain. Thank you both for your time and for your good reporting tonight. DUMAIN: Thank you. WELKER: Thank you. SHARPTON: Still ahead, President Obama honors the legacy of Attorney General Eric Holder. His comments about justice, civil rights and the fight ahead. Also the Donald Trump circus returns to the GOP. Just in time for the 2016 presidential race. And why the dress became such a phenomenon. "Conversation Nation" is next. SHARPTON: We`re watching that breaking news tonight of potential shutdown of the Homeland Security Department. Will republicans find a way to fix the mess they`ve created? We`re keeping an eye on that. But now it`s time for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight political strategist Tara Dowdell, "The Huffington Post" Noah Michelson and Sirius XM radio host Julia Cunningham. Thank you all for being here tonight. TARA DOWDELL, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Thank you. JULIA CUNNINGHAM, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: Thank you. NOAH MICHELSON, "THE HUFFINGTON POST": Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: He`s trying to fool everyone again. My friend Donald Trump is hinting at running for president again. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, ENTREPRENEUR: I already told the apprentice people, you know, NBC wanted to renew. And I said I`m doing something else. It`s very important to me. I`m doing something very important. So I`m looking at it very seriously. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Where are you on the scale, in terms of where are you think you are in deciding to run? TRUMP: One to 100, I would say 75 and 80. I am really inclined. I wanted to it so badly. You know, I have the theme. It`s my theme. It`s to make America great again. That`s what I want to do. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: And on the big stage, he decided to joke about President Obama`s birth certificate again. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: As far as the birth certificate, Hillary Clinton wanted his birth certificate. Hillary is a birther. She wanted it. But she was unable to get it. But Trump comes along and said, birth certificate. He gave a birth certificate. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Tara, he`s flirting with republicans, but is Donald Trump a liability for the party? DOWDELL: Oh, absolutely. I mean, he may play well with the extreme part of the base by attacking the President which is the easiest way to ingratiate yourself with the republican base is to go full birther and to attack the President. But he`s not serious. He hasn`t formed any kind of, hired any staff, he`s not formed any kind of infrastructure for a campaign. So, this is just a vanity play for Donald Trump. SHARPTON: Noah? MICHELSON: I totally agree. I mean, this man spends more time with reality stars than he does to politicians. He`s full of hot air. He`s not going to win, he`s not going to run. And if he does, I`m moving to the moon. CUNNINGHAM: I`ll move with you. SHARPTON: Julia, you`re going with him. CUNNINGHAM: I`m going to go to the moon. First of all, I`d love to go there, it sounds amazing. SHARPTON: If he runs or if he wins? MICHELSON: If he runs. CUNNINGHAM: Even if he run, I don`t think we don`t have to jump to the moon right away, I think we have plenty of time because he`ll get shut out. He loves to bring out an oldie and a guttie but the birther jokes get new material. SHARPTON: Do you think that he would be competitive if he ran, Tara? DOWDELL: No, absolutely not. Because he`s a one-trick pony. The birther thing, attacking the President, that`s all he has. That`s why he does it so much because it allows him to escape talking about actual policy. He was saying, we should come down on China, meanwhile he`s manufacturing things in China. So, he doesn`t want any of that to come out. So, he goes on the offensive brings the birther thing up and that`s a distraction. SHARPTON: Okay, let`s talk about the dress, shall we? And now, I`m sure you`ve all seen it, debated it, fought over it. The picture that broke the internet. Is blue and black or is it white and gold? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It`s blue with black. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Blue and black. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Blue purple kind of thing. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: White and gold. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: White and gold, yep. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: How is that possible, really? This is weird. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: The dress has been the top trending topic on twitter for almost 24 hours. It gave BuzzFeed its best day ever. 29.8 million hits. It`s setting social media on fire. Ellen tweeted, "From this day on, the world will be divide into two people, blue and black or white and gold." Here`s a funny one showing Madea to make their point. We love this one. The llamas united us, the dress divided us. And who knows? Maybe the dress is actually left shark. So why are people seeing the colors differently? We call in the big guns to find out. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL NYE, COMEDIAN: Hey, Reverend Al, Bill Nye here. This thing about the dress, it`s all about the dress rather than being all about that bass. I think it might have to do with polarized light. You know, when light reflects, it polarizes partially. And so you got to think when it goes through the lens of your eye it would change like things reflect and gets just kind of weird. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Okay. Let`s go first around to everyone starting with Noah, what color do you see? MICHELSON: I see both, actually. It keeps switching for me. Yes. SHARPTON: Julia? CUNNINGHAM: I am team black and blue. SHARPTON: Tara. DOWDELL: White and gold. MICHELSON: Oh, see? CUNNINGHAM: That`s insane. DOWDELL: White and gold. It`s right there, see in white and gold. SHARPTON: Have you had this all day, white and gold, it doesn`t change for you. DOWDELL: It has not changed for me yet. SHARPTON: But it changes for you, Noah. MICHELSON: Oh yes, I just saw blue and black this time but I saw white and gold before. I think the interesting thing though is why this story captured so many people`s attention. Now I think because unlike politics or religion or things on the internet that we fight about, everyone has an opinion because it`s so simple. So fundamental. What color is something is something that we can all talk about. CUNNINGHAM: Especially something that`s messing with your mind. Everyone stop tweeting, I`m trying to watch "How to Get Away with Murder." It`s more important like, hashtag who killed Laila? I don`t care about the color of this synthetic dress. SHARPTON: But it shows the power of social media. CUNNINGHAM: Oh, it`s insane how much it took over. Insane. More people care. DOWDELL: And I think also there`s so much negativity going on right now, you have the republicans trying to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. You have ISIL, you have all this negative news. SHARPTON: Yes. DOWDELL: So I think people just wanted a break. They wanted something fun. SHARPTON: And don`t believe your lying eyes. Everyone stay with me. House of Cards is back. What does this say about our politics? SHARPTON: We`re back with our panel, Tara, Noah and Julia, the real life drama playing out in the nation`s capital tonight reminds me of that made for TV political drama "House of Cards" season three is out. The show centers on a man`s mission for political power and, spoiler alert, Kevin Spacey`s character finally becomes the President. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: You want to know what takes real courage? Holding it all together when the stakes are this high. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: This guy killed, lied and cheated his way to the White House. Julia, what does this show`s popularity say about our politics in the real world? CUNNINGHAM: Well, you know, sometimes people will say that Washington, D.C. is sort of the other Hollywood. Right. They want to see sort of the excitement that people see on TV come out in real life. So, yes, wouldn`t you kind of think it would be fascinating if you found out the President made its way to the White House because he shoved a reporter in front of a moving subway? It could be kind of cool but it`s also be terrible. It can happen in the real life. But I think people want to see that excitement and things happen so quickly to come true and that`s not the way politics works. SHARPTON: Why are people so fascinated with this kind of corruption and conniving and ruthlessness, Noah? MICHELSON: I think especially now, you know, a lot of our diets are based on reality TV. And so, when we see that play out in politics as well, people are hungry for that. They love that. But it`s ironic that so many people love the show because so few Americans actually are interested in politics. It is like the dark underbelly that they`re actually interested in. SHARPTON: But do you think people are thinking that this is real or parts of it is real, Tara, or do you think that people are just saying this is the extreme and it`s entertainment? DOWDELL: I think that some people absolutely think that this is real. I`ve heard people comment and they think that, yes, this is how a lot of politicians behave. I was actually surprised by that. And I can see as someone who worked in politics, the majority of people that do work in politics are good people. But I will say this, the bad people do make it really tough. (LAUGHTER) SHARPTON: One of the things that`s striking is that you see a lot of maneuvering and a lot of ruthlessness in politics, but in many ways on both sides of the aisle it`s for a bigger purpose, for a greater good. But in this show, it`s about power there is no goal in terms of changing public policy that Spacey`s character is after. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, only legacy. The whole goal of the show is legacy for Frank Underwood. DOWDELL: Well, and there are some people like Frank maybe not to the extreme, not killing people. SHARPTON: Right. DOWDELL: But in terms of ruthlessness, are there people like that in politics? I mean, I still have some knife wounds in my back. SHARPTON: Give us some names, Tara. DOWDELL: Wait for the book. No, I`m not naming names. SHARPTON: Noah, do you think people actually exist like this? MICHELSON: I think for sure. And I think because politics are transparent that we don`t know, and the average American doesn`t know and so they`re likely to believe it. SHARPTON: But I`ve seen some great moments in politics. I`ve seen people rise and do some very noble and great things, but they don`t get Netflix shows, I guess. CUNNINGHAM: No, they get "the west wing." SHARPTON: Yes, I guess so. Tara and Noah and Julia, thanks for joining the "Conversation Nation" tonight. Have a great weekend. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. SHARPTON: When we come back, honoring Attorney General Eric Holder. And he got emotional, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: Let me be clear, the Attorney General serves the American people. And I have every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold the public trust and adhere to our constitution. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: President Obama in 2008 announcing Eric Holder would be his nominee for Attorney General of the United States. It was a seminal moment, to watch a black man become the head of the Justice Department. And it was proof that progress can and will come to fruition. No Attorney General in history has a civil rights record equal to Holder`s over the last six years. From the fight for voting rights to criminal justice reform to Ferguson, to gay rights. And as the Loretta Lynch Senate vote gets closer, Eric Holder is telling NBC News` Pete Williams what he wants his legacy to be. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: So now that it was when you started as Attorney General? ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I say it`s more worrisome. I say that it`s different. The threat is more diffuse than it was when I started six years or so ago. We focused on core al Qaeda at the beginning of this administration and now we`re concerned about core al Qaeda much less and more concerned about al Qaeda affiliates. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Today the Justice Department unveiled the Attorney General Holder`s official portrait, and President Obama was there with a personal and heartfelt statement. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: That sums up Eric`s career. A life guided by justice aimed at his north star. His bedrock belief in the fundamental rights and equality of all people. You`re a good man, and you know, having good men in positions of power and authority who are willing to fight for what`s right, that`s a rare thing. That`s a powerful thing. It`s something that shapes our future in ways we don`t even understand. (END VIDEO CLIP) SHARPTON: Over the last six years Eric Holder`s taken a lot of shots from the right. But he never showed it. Tonight the queen of soul Aretha Franklin was also there to thank him and sing to him. He got emotional. (ARETHA FRANKLIN PERFORMANCE) SHARPTON: Over the last couple of decades seen Eric Holder up close. We`re not buddies or friends, but in various capacities, I`ve worked in certain situations that put me in front of him. Usually public officials are not as good as their friends say and not as bad as their enemies say, but Eric Holder`s one of the few I could say is better than the good his friends say. He really is and has been about what`s fair and just. Thanks for watching. I`m al Sharpton. Have a great weekend. "HARDBALL" starts right now. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 28, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022701cb.472 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 128 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 27, 2015 Friday SHOW: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES 8:00 PM EST ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES for February 27, 2015 BYLINE: Ari Melber, Kelly O`Donnell GUESTS: Chris Van Hollen, Joaquin Castro, Jeb Lund SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 7484 words HIGHLIGHT: Republicans in the House failed to pass a Homeland Security funding bill. Interview with Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Interview with Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas. Jeb Bush faced the first litmus test at 2016 at CPAC. The U.S. Senate passed a one week funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security and adjourning until Monday. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ARI MELBER, MSNBC GUEST HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN. Breaking news on Capitol Hill, Republicans in the House fail to pass a Homeland Security funding bill. The money runs out just after midnight. So, what happens now? Then -- SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Jeb Bush, any supporters? (CHEERS & BOOS) MELBER: Jeb Bush faces the first litmus test at 2016 at CPAC. JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I would describe myself as a practicing reform-minded conservative. MELBER: Two retail giants raise the minimum wage. Will more companies follow suit? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re going to like the way you look. I guarantee it. MELBER: Why the former CEO of Men`s Wearhouse agrees with President Obama. And then, the death of Leonard Nimoy. LEONARD NIMOY, ACTOR: Live long and prosper. MELBER: George Takei joins me to remember his close friend and co- star. And, yes, the dress that is diving the world. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I started white and gold. I now think it`s blue and black. MELBER: ALL IN starts right now. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s very clearly black and blue. (END VIDEOTAPE) MELBER: Good evening from New York. I`m Ari Melber, in for Chris Hayes. We begin with breaking news tonight in the biggest test of Speaker John Boehner`s leadership since election. House Republicans failed to pass any funding for the Homeland Security Department this evening. Boehner called on Republicans to pass just three weeks of funding, a band-aid to continue an immigration fight with President Obama, but that gambit failed tonight by a vote of 224 to 203. While Speaker Boehner has struggled to lead his caucus before, tonight`s defection was a surprise by any account. "The New York Times" calling it a, a stunning and humiliating setback for the GOP leadership. "The Wall Street Journal" dubbing it a stunning blow to House Speaker John Boehner. And that blow came from 52 Republicans who rebelled against him. Glenn Beck`s conservative Web site right now has published their names in something of an honor roll. Now, for their part, House Democrats held firm on their vow to only pass a long-term funding bill here. That approach has bipartisan support in the Senate. So, as of right now, homeland funding runs out at midnight, just hours from now, setting off, yes, a partial government shut down. There`s basically no roadmap for what happens next. Now, let`s get right to it. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O`Donnell has been all over this story. Kelly, quite an evening on Capitol Hill. What is the latest? KELLY O`DONNELL, NBC NEWS CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we expect there is a conversation happening now about potential options. Can you tweak the bill? Can you change the length of time? Can you do something to attract enough votes to get this across the finish line and avoid a shut down? We know that the president has convened in the Oval Office, a meeting with his top advisers. He placed phone calls to the top Democrats here, to try to encourage them to not let a shut down happen. That could in part play into the Democrat strategy in the House. Nancy Pelosi has been able to get all of her Democrats to hold firm as you explained. They didn`t want to go along with a short-term extension. They want to see the department fully funded for the rest of the fiscal year. That`s what the Senate was also prepared to do. And so, one option would be to get some Democrats in these final couple hours to go along with some form of a shortened schedule. And this is just an argument about having the argument, remember, Ari. They`re not even dealing with the underlying friction about immigration right now. They`re just trying to keep the lights on at the Department of Homeland Security. Now, it is an unusual agency and set of agencies in that so many of the personnel are required to report to work whether they get the paycheck now or not. So, it`s different than the government shut down that we saw a few years ago, but it is still considered a crisis, an embarrassment, and not what was supposed to happen. Now, another way to look at the vote on the floor tonight is by having John Boehner and his Republican team show plainly and embarrassingly how they don`t have the votes. That` s something that leaders often wouldn`t do. They wouldn`t bring a vote if they didn`t know they have the votes. That by exposing it this plainly, that that might help people to get some people go along in either party -- Ari. MELBER: NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O`Donnell, thank you as always for your reporting. Now, we go to Congressman Chris Van Hollen. He is a top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. It is a busy night for you. What is going on down there? Why did Speaker Boehner bring this to the floor if only to be exposed and rejected by his own caucus here? REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: Well, Ari, that`s a very good question, but it clearly failed and failed miserably. So, now, the speaker is run out of excuses. The answer is very clear. Let us vote on a piece of legislation to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security through the remainder of the year. That is what the Senate has done on a bipartisan basis. It`s time to put aside the games. It`s time to put aside the politics and do the right thing for the country, instead of this continuing kowtowing to the Tea Party right wing of a party, which is taking the country down to a dead end and putting us at risk. MELBER: You mentioned the Senate, Congressman, we have a new statement from Senator John McCain who`s basically agreeing with you. He says, look, "Over the last month, I voted six times to stop President Obama`s executive actions on immigration. I continue to believe his actions represent an unconstitutional overreach." But agreeing with you, he says, "At the same time, for the safety and security of the American people, and at a time of growing terrorist threats, we have a responsibility to fully fund DHS." What seems to be happening tonight for those who haven`t followed it maybe as closely as you working on it, but who are wondering why this might happen run out tonight in a partial government shut down, what seems to be happening is the Senate has a bipartisan agreement. Senate Republicans want to move forward and fund this, and it is only House Republicans who are holding it up. Is that right? VAN HOLLEN: Well, that`s exactly right. Look, as you pointed out, there are hours to go before the funding runs out for the Department of Homeland Security. We should not be putting the country at risks. The Senate on a bipartisan basis, Senator McCain, Democrats, together said the priority here is to make sure that we fund the security of our country. That is what we in the house want to vote on. The Democrats in the House want to vote on what the Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans did to make sure we provide the funding for the Department of Homeland Security. As we all know, we have seen the terrorist risks in Europe. We just saw the arrests that took place in New York. Why would anybody want to continue to roll the dice on funding the Department of Homeland Security, and we could get it done tonight if the speaker would just allow democracy to work its will. Put on the floor of the House a vote, I`m confident it would pass and the president could sign it. MELBER: You mentioned getting it done tonight. I`m going to speak with one of your colleagues in another minute and ask about that, that road ahead. Congressman Chris Van Hollen, thank you so much. Today`s rebellion surprise Washington, but actually, if you watched ALL IN last night, you did see an early warning sign. We had on one of Boehner`s critics, conservative Congressman Mo Brooks, and talked about his concerns about this very short-term funding plan. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: The vote tomorrow is a little bit like being a little pregnant, either you are or you are not. And if you vote tomorrow for this continuing resolution and if the state is lifted, then you will have voted to fund illegal unconstitutional action. And I`m not going to take that risk. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: That was a shout across the bow not only at President Obama, but at Speaker Boehner. So, some of the signs were public, but one iron law of Congress, is leaders don`t bring bills to the floor, unless they have the firm whip count on the votes to win. That`s the most critical part of leadership`s job, math. You may recall, Republicans recently picked a new whip. That`s the person who counts these votes, in Steve Scalise. But Boehner and Scalise either miscounted or misfired tonight. And as "Huffington Post" is reporting, Republican members said they heard some, quote, "rumblings about insufficient support," but they didn`t expect so many Republicans to sink the measure, along with Democrats. Here`s a quote from that article. "This is a tough, tough significant emotional event for our conference right now", said Republican Congressman Steve Womack. And immigration remains significant for many Republicans. But this, folks, may not be, tonight, the outcome they want. And joining me also from the Hill, Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro, who has been outspoken advocate for immigration reform. Good evening to you. Is this all about Homeland Security funding or is it, as the Republicans say, all about immigration? REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D), TEXAS: Well, getting the bill done and making sure that our nation is safe, that is absolutely about homeland security. But what John Boehner is kowtowing to with the Tea Party is all about their feelings over the president`s executive order. And there is already a lawsuit going to the courts right now that will settle that. This is not the place to settle that. The courts will settle that issue. MELBER: Congressman, you mentioned that. I mean, that is the weirdest part of this. Here we are, looking at this countdown. We got a clock up on the screen, because this is a real thing that could go down. And yet, as you just pointed out, the very thing Republicans say they want to stop. That executive action has already been stopped by a federal court. CASTRO: That`s right. There is already an injunction in place. You know, this -- the Congress is not going to determine the constitutionality of the executive order. That`s going to left to a court and that`s already in the process of being done. So, the speaker has a choice. John Boehner can either help govern this country and give Americans what they want, which is funding the Department of Homeland Security, or he can placate the Tea Party. But you can`t do both obviously in this situation. And so, what`s disturbing about this is that this is not an isolated incident. In fact, in the last two months, this is the fourth piece of major legislation that in this case has either failed or in three prior cases was scrapped, not brought to the House floor, because it simply fell apart on them. MELBER: So, Congressman, to that point, though, does that raise the question, despite winning seats in this midterm, is Speaker Boehner somehow weaker than he was in the last caucus? CASTRO: I think that he is allowing himself to be weakened. He`s not using the full power of his speakership. Look, he appoints every single member of the Republican conference to their committees. He makes national board appointments and other appointments outside of this chamber. He is close to all of the Republican Party major donors in this country. He is not bucking up and taking on a wing of his party that quite frankly is being destructive to governing this country. MELBER: Now, Congressman, as promised, I also want to ask you about what happens in the remaining hours tonight. I spoke with some Hill aides just before coming on the air who said it`s possible there could be some other kind of vote or short vote. What can you tell us about what could happen tonight? CASTRO: Well, apparently, this new freedom caucus, which is the new name of the Tea Party caucus, they`re negotiating with the speaker to do a one-week continuing resolution. What`s going to change in one week? What`s going to happen that`s going to be different? All this is doing is creating a high blood pressure for the American people and for other members of Congress. They need to just fully fund this thing through the end of the fiscal year the way the Senate did in a bipartisan way. MELBER: Congressman Joaquin Castro, joining us on a busy night, thank you for your time. CASTRO: Thank you. MELBER: And not far from the Capitol today, Jeb Bush spoke in front of an extremely skeptical crowd of conservative activists. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HANNITY: By the way, Jeb Bush, any supporters? (CHEERS & BOOS) DONALD TRUMP, BUSINESSMAN: Jeb Bush, he is in favor -- (BOOS) (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: But that is only one part of the story. We will take a look at how well Jeb Bush did at CPAC straight ahead. MELBER: You know, it was also a big day at Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. That is, of course, the gathering of thousands of activists that serves both as a pretty serious proving ground for potential Republican presidential candidates and also a forum for stuff like this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PHIL ROBERTSON, DUCK DYNASTY STAR: What do you call the 110 million people that have sexually transmitted illnesses? It`s the revenge of the hippies. Sex, drugs and rock and roll have come back to haunt us. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: Also speaking today were a number of perspective presidential candidates like Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum. Though, no one got as warm of a welcome as Rand Paul. His views played very well with CPAC`s young, often libertarian leaning crowd. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: It`s time for Hillary Clinton to permanently retire. CROWD: President Paul! President Paul! President Paul! President Paul! (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: Music to his ears. And when we come back, we`re going to talk about the different reception today for Jeb Bush, who was booed twice before he even got on stage. So, stay with us. MELBER: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush walked right into the belly of the beast today, taking questions from Sean Hannity at CPAC, the annual gathering of conservative activists that we`ve been covering, many of whom made clear today they don`t think much of the man widely seen as the GOP`s chosen presidential establishment candidate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) HANNITY: By the way, Jeb Bush, any supporters? (CHEERS & BOOS) TRUMP: Jeb Bush, he is in favor -- (BOOS) LAURA INGRAHAM, RADIO HOST: How many of you are skeptical of another Bush term? Wow. The idea that we should be conducting any type of coronation in the Republican Party today because 50 rich families decide who they think will best represent their interests -- no way, Jose. (END VIDEO CLIPS) MELBER: Some straight populism right there. But Bush, to be fair, insisted critics who see him as a squishy moderate are wrong. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HANNITY: There are reports that you`re telling people you are a moderate. But the public -- how do you -- I describe myself as a Reagan constitutional conservative. How would you describe yourself? BUSH: I would describe myself as a practicing reform-minded conservative. That I`ve actually done. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: Joining me now from CPAC is Jeb Lund, columnist with the "Guardian U.S." I`m not going to ask you to describe yourself or whether you`re a secret moderate deep down in your core, but what did you make of this sort of rhetorical battle that Jeb Bush had to wage today? JEB LUND, THE GUARDIAN: Well, I think that in part he made have been planning to manage expectations. He knew that he is coming in here and he`s not going to be the chosen one. You know, the old line about CPAC I think is where different people give speeches and then somebody with the last name of Paul wins the straw pole. So, I think, you know, he had to make a few token attempts to seem like he was just as conservative as his Florida record would suggest, but he knew he was going to get some flak for it, regardless. MELBER: The other thing, and we showed a bunch of the clips, the call and response -- I mean, there is a part of CPAC that has sort of Baptist Church quality where they say, what are you thinking? And everyone boos or cheers or whatever, and that`s fun in politics, you see that. But it seems that the more weak of a candidate you are, the lower you are down the list, the more you have to flirt with these jokes in the entertainment conservative complex, whereas if you`re establishment, you don`t have to do as much of that. So, take a listen to Santorum today joking about the president. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R), PENNSYLVANIA: The president`s popularity is so bad around the world today that I heard this report from a source that the Kenyan government is actually developing proof that Barack Obama was actually born in America. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: Tip your waiter for the birther joke. Did you hear Jeb have to go down that road at all? LUND: He definitely seemed to be egging on his own supporters. Allegedly, they had been bussed in from Right to Rise. But I think he was trying to let the crowd do it for him, to prove that, you know, while Paul`s group is very voluble, you can hear them in the convention center announcing whenever Rand Paul was going to do something, and there are going to be very voluble in the audience. They were when he spoke. I think, you know, Jeb`s idea was to show that he could react to it and roll with it, and not let it rattle him and also, show that he had the strength of numbers to equal Paul`s, maybe just coming from the different wing of the party. MELBER: But I guess what I`m getting at is did he keep it somber because he doesn`t need to entertain? LUND: Yes, no, he doesn`t have to pander that way. I mean, you know, the thing with Santorum`s joke that he was going so far for a laugh line, you know, by hitting this red meat, and, you know, it really does make him look weaker that he still got to go to that well. MELBER: Yes. And that`s -- I mean, Jeb, that sometimes is revealing at these things, and it`s why some of us political junkies do like to watch it, to see who`s positioning for what. Scott Walker went out of his way to take something that conservatives like, the way he went after organized labor in Wisconsin. And try to say that helped him confront ISIS, which failed no matter where you are in the political spectrum, and then he had to try and clean that up. Take a listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you trying to make that comparison in either direction? GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That the protesters are equivalent to terrorists, or the terrorists are equivalent to protesters? WALKER: Not by a landmine -- by a landslide out there difference. Not Grand Canyon size difference. My point was just, if I can handle that kind of a pressure, that kind of intensity, I think I`m up for a challenge for whatever might come if I choose to run for president. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: What did you make of that? LUND: I felt like he was trying to ride the crowd. He was unusually amped compared to his normal delivery. And I feel like he felt like he might get into kind of a call and response and he could just sort of go anywhere, and that certainly did seem to backfire. MELBER: And what`s the best thing you`ve seen and the most fun you`ve had being there? LUND: So far, I think it was -- seeing everybody kind of, you know, arguing really vociferously that nobody loves Jeb Bush. MELBER: Right. LUND: You can walk down the hall way and someone will say, "I like Jeb", and somebody says, "Nobody loves him." And that sounds a lot like 2012, nobody loved Romney, but, you know, the Republican Party, eventually, if you have enough money and you can stick around long enough, you know, the GOP faithful will love the one they`re with. MELBER: Jeb Lund, thank you very much for your reporting from CPAC. LUND: Thank you. MELBER: You bet. Now, still ahead, we`re going to talk about the dress that broke the Internet. Look at it there. Why do some people see this, what do you see? Some people see it as white and gold. Others think it is black and blue. We have the answers that are interesting, and that`s ahead. MELBER: We have breaking news here from Capitol Hill. This breaking news. Now, the Senate has stepped up and just now passed an emergency one- week funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Now, this is just moments ago. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell went to the floor, passed the measure by voice vote and as you see it on the screen, officially adjourned the Senate until Monday. That means this is the Senate`s final offer. Any change here, any aversion of a shut down will be up to the House. And joining me now for more, NBC News special Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O`Donnell. What can you tell us here about that? I covered the Hill and that`s fairly unusual to see what we just saw from Mitch McConnell. O`DONNELL: Well, when we last spoke, Ari, I mentioned to you about this idea that they might be tweaking the options. And remember, the president placed a phone call to the top Democrats here. And so, what the Senate has done is sort of kind of put a new cap on this, by Mitch McConnell bringing to the floor of this agreement to extend for one week and he ends it tonight. What that still requires is for the House to act. But by leaving the Senate, adjourning and saying no more votes until Monday, all the pressure is now back on the House side. It frees up Democrats on the House side to vote for this one week extension. We`ll see what Republicans will do. But this was done with coordination. This is a way to bring this to an end before we`re into the countdown clock like it`s a New Year`s Eve with the ball dropping. We still got a few hours to go here and it`s a reasonable way to sort of bring the temperature down. It`s unsatisfactory to many people to only have a one-week extension, but in terms of how they use the rules of the Senate and House, this is a strong move from McConnell in agreement with Harry Reid -- (CROSSTALK) MELBER: Yes, Kelly, let me ask you. I mean, from a budgetary perspective, anyone watching at home would say, well, it sounds absurd we`re going to do this on what, a five to seven day basis now for Homeland Security? Having said, what does this do in your view to Speaker Boehner who, as we`ve been reporting just tonight failed to secure three weeks in funding? O`DONNELL: Well, part of what John Boehner has to do is to demonstrate to his most difficult members when it comes to this issue, when I say, difficult, the least likely to go along, that there are just limits to what can be accomplished. It`s painful. It`s exposed, it`s embarrassing to see the leadership tested in this way. But by not being able to succeed, you set the boundaries of what is possible. And so, you will not change the mind of those conservatives who believe they are on the right side of the Constitution and that this must be something that Congress will fight for to keep those boundaries between the executive branch and the legislative branch. That fight is not going away tonight. But it takes off the heat of the country feeling like, why would anyone jeopardize the funding for this important department over this issue? Can they find a way to deal with both issues? So, it turns down the temperature. No one likes this, but it does remove some of the countdown pressure and it takes off the table all of the confusion about who goes to work tomorrow and who doesn`t within the Department of Homeland Security. If something were to happen and they had shut down, just think of the repercussions in political terms, as well as the real life terms if there were any threats to the homeland and things were shut down. You have people who say, hey, everybody at the Homeland Security Department, almost of them have to come to work anyway. MELBER: Right. O`DONNELL: But that`s a tough argument if anything goes wrong. So, this is a way to dial it back, unsatisfactory as it may be. MELBER: Yes. O`DONNELL: And to say, let`s meet again and keep talking next week, without this pressure. MELBER: As you`re saying, it takes this stopwatch and puts at least a band-aid over it for a short period of time. Kelly O`Donnell, thanks for your reporting tonight. Again, if you`re just joining us -- the Senate passing a one week funding bill moments ago for the Department of Homeland Security and adjourning until Monday officially, which leaves this entire debate and entire pressure up to the House tonight. Nothing is final yet. The House would have to join the Senate on at least this one week stopgap measure. We will keep following how it all develops right here on MSNBC tonight. MELBER: It has been a good couple weeks for America`s low paid retail workers. The parent company of T.J. Maxx, Marshalls and Homegoods said this week it will raise the minimum wage for its U.S. workers to $9 an hour by June with plans to boost that to $10 an hour next year for workers who have been with the company for at least half a year. Now that comes heels of Walmart`s major announcement, this was last week, that it will plan to pay their U.S. employees at least $10 an hour by next year. That is almost $3 above the federal minimum wage which remains stuck at $7.25. President Obama ran in 2008 on raising that wage, and despite his repeated calls on Congress to pass a bill, it has yet to happen. Though congress has failed to act, 29 states and Washington, D.C. have put their minimum wages above the federal minimum and pressure has long been mounting from labor groups, including our Walmart, which has staged massive Black Friday strikes three years in a row, putting grass roots pressure on demands for better wages hours and treatment. So, maybe this is what progress looks like in an era of very complete dysfunction in congress, as we`ve been covering tonight with its inability to fund the Homeland Security Department, maybe corporations can start acting on their own in response partly to public pressure, maybe that is what winning will start to look like. Joining me now is George Zimmer, the former and former CEO of Men`s Warehouse, a face anyone will recognize from the iconic commercials. Thanks for joining us. As a businessman, what do you make of all of this? GEORGE ZIMMER, FRM. CEO MEN`S WAREHOUSE: Well, as a businessman, I think it is obvious that if people have more money in their pocket they`re likely to spend more money, at least that is what Henry Ford thought 100 years ago. MELBER: And what is the reason for a business to pay anything above the legally mandated minimum if they don`t have a lot of competition for those kind of retail jobs? ZIMMER: Well, it`s about corporate culture. It is about understanding that an employee is more motivated by the intangibles. And if they`re being paid minimum wage, they are being told very directly they don`t have value. MELBER: And do you think that the sort of leadership or calls from the president for years have had any salutatory effect here, or is that really on a separate track from what these companies are doing of their own volition? ZIMMER: No, I`m very encouraged both in what the president`s leadership and in this organization, patriotic millionaires, that is trying to get the minimum wage raised to a respectable level. MELBER: And you tweeted about this. I want to put that up on the screen awhile back. You said "raising the minimum wage will raise economic activity and lower unemployment." Do you feel that you are unusual among senior corporate executives and business people in that view? Do you feel alone in that or not? ZIMMER: I would say I`m in the minority, but I`m encouraged by what happened at Walmart, and what happened at Marshall`s, and T.J. Maxx. I mean, this is all very encouraging. MELBER: And what was it like in your company? Did you pay above the wage at your company when you were there? And take us -- for those of us who don`t know, what is it like? How do those decisions work? How many different people in the company are involved in setting, you know, wage policies for a big company? ZIMMER: Well, the way capitalism works in the United States, and I believe worldwide, is that it is about maximizing shareholder value. So usually employees are not shareholders. And so the idea of paying a living wage does not really enter the discussion for most CEOs. MELBER: George Zimmer, thank you for joining us. Up next, George Takei will be here as we remember his close friend and Star Trek co-star Leonard Nimoy. We`ll be right back. MELBER: Since last night the world has been gripped by a mystery, an enigma so deep, so strange, it has seized the attention of politicians, celebrities and probably a lot of people at your office. So, earlier today I hit the streets of New York to get to the bottom of it. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MELBER: It is Friday afternoon in New York`s Times Square and we are here to address the mystery of the moment, what color is this dress? What do you see? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Blue and black. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: White and cold. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I see gold and white. MELBER: And you see? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Black and blue. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think she`s color blind. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gold and white. MELBER: Do you know it is actually a blue dress? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did not know that. MELBER: The color you see is black and blue? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. MELBER: And what color do you see? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: White and gold. He needs glasses. MELBER: She says you nee glasses. What color do you see? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gold. Gold and white. MELBER: Gold and white. Well, god bless America. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: God bless America. (END VIDEOTAPE) MELBER: It`s what we do. We do reporting here. Sometimes right near the office in Times Square. Now, fortunately for everyone there is more to this story. There is actually a pretty interesting scientific explanation for what a lot of us found to be a baffling phenomenon. How our eyes play tricks on us. That`s coming up. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFEID FEMALE: Mr. Spock, are you all right? LEONARD NIMOY, ACTOR: Yes, I believe no permanent damage was done. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What happened. NIMOY: The occipital area of my head seems to have impacted with the arm of the chair. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, Mr. Spock, I meant what happened to us? NIMOY: That we have yet to ascertain. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: The actor Leonard Nimoy passed away at the age of 83 today, most famous for portraying the beloved Spock in Star Trek. Nimoy had been battling chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, and he had been hospitalized earlier this week. His career has spanned more than half a century. He appeared in TV shows, movies, theatrical productions, nominated four times for an Emmy award. He directed six movies, two Star Trek films and the 1987 blockbuster hit comedy Three Men and a Baby. But of course it was always his portrayal of Spock, the half-human, half-Vulcan committed to dispassionate rational logic that made so many people fall in love with Leonard Nimoy. Joining me now is actor George Takei who played Sulu, along Leonard Nimoy`s Spock in that original Star Trek series. Thank you for being here. I`m sorry for your loss. This was a man who touched many people`s lives. How did he touch your life? GEORGE TAKEI, ACTOR: Well, as you said, became world famous and beloved as an alien, but he was also one of the most human people that I ever met. He was very supportive. He worked collaboratively with people, a brilliant actor. And Spock really was a singular creation of his. But he also was able to analyze a script profoundly and recognize the part that everyone contributes to it. And I think that is what made him a good director as well. But a not really known part of him is his political activism. He was a kindred spirit. We campaigned together for George McGovern. He was a good friend of the mayor of San Francisco, George Moscone. And they were planning to build support for him to run for governor. And he had some friends over to his home -- Leonard had friends over to his home to introduce George Moscone to his Los Angeles friends. So he was really an extraordinary person, a big philanthropist. Hollywood is not known to be a generous, giving community, but Leonard Nimoy`s name is on donor walls, high up there, whether it`s the Museum of Contemporary Art, or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science and most importantly he was very generous to the Griffith Park observatory, and that theater there is named the Leonard Nimoy Theater. MELBER: You talk about him creating the character and viewing himself into the character of Spock. People often are recognized, as you know better than anyone, by certain roles they play. But this -- this was bigger than that. I mean, he wrote one book that said I`m not Spock. in talking about... TAKEI: I am not Spock. MELBER: Yes, transcending it. He wrote another book later in life saying I am Spock. This was a part of his identity throughout his life. What do you make of that and the fascination people had with this character that you say he partly created and breathed life into, that was both human in a way that people related to but also robotic or alien in a way that was distant from how we define humanity. TAKEI: Alien in a very unique and singular way because he was half human and half alien. And Leonard brought so much of his creativity, his innovative sense in the creation of the role. For example, the famous Spock pinch. In one of the early scripts, the writers had him punching out an adversary. He said this is illogical. Why spend so much energy and do so much damage breaking bones and sinews when all he wanted to do was to incapacitate the adversary. Vulcans have enormous strength. And humans have vulnerabilities: their nerve centers. Why not just have Spock`s muscle pinch that nerve and incapacitate that person without doing damage and without wasting all that energy? The director said that`s brilliant, let`s incorporate it. That was -- he did it right on the set. And that`s the kind of creativity he brought to creating the character. But, as you say, that became a little constraining to him as an actor because he was so well known as that. So he wrote that book "I am not Spock," but it took a few decades for him to recognize that that was a unique thing and he will be remembered for it. Indeed, that is his legacy. And so he finally decided to make peace with it and wrote "I Am Spock." MELBER: Came around to it at a certain life stage. I want to play another clip of him, since we`re talking about him, remembering him. This was from season two Star Trek when some fuzzy creatures overrun the Starship Enterprise. Let`s take a look at this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s the matter, Spock? NIMOY: There is something disquieting about these creatures. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, don`t tell me you`ve got a feeling. NIMOY: Don`t be insulting, doctor. I see no practical use for them. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does everything have a practical use for you? They`re nice, they`re soft and they`re furry, and they make a pleasant sound. NIMOY: So would an ermine violin, doctor, but I see no advantage in having one. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a human characteristic to love little animals, especially if they`re attractive in some way. NIMOY: Doctor, I am well aware of human characteristics. I am frequently inundated by them. (END VIDEO CLIP) MELBER: I wonder if -- I don`t know if this is a fair question, but I wonder if you could speak to what a lot of people relate to in that, which is depending on where you fall on the spectrum of sort of emotion and humanity, some people feel very much like oh I love cute animals, and other people feel like I`m inundated with human characteristics. There`s too much humanity depending sort of how much of a people person you are. TAKEI: Well, I think Leonard was very much a people person, but he was playing that character and he was completely that character. I think that sort of became a hindrance for him to be able to be -- as an actor, a much more widely castable actor. MELBER: Another thing that I learned just in reading about him today was, I didn`t realize, as I guess a somewhat young person, I think of Star Trek as a huge hit: show, series, movies, et cetera. I`m reading up on it and finding out the original was canceled after three seasons and yet obviously has this huge following. What was that like for you? And what did he make of that then when you were initially set back? TAKEI: Well, at the beginning of each episode, we announced that we were boldly going on a five year mission, but our ratings were very low initially. It was primarily a problem with the NBC programming executives. And here I am at NBC`s headquarters talking about that, but they really were baffled by Star Trek. MELBER: Did they not get it? TAKEI: They did not get it. And our audience is not around on Friday nights at 10:00. They`re out being hip and with it.... MELBER: Living. TAKEI: Yes, living life. And so they decided despite the fact that we did battle every week with Klingons and Romulans and hoarders and tribbles, the most dangerous and most destructive adversary were as the NBC programming executives. MELBER: Well, George, you said it, not me. But that`s a fine quote for at least the era you`re talking about a long time ago. The other thing you mention is politics. Of course, the show itself talk about positives, was very diverse for its time period. TAKEI: Exactly. The visual image was diversity of this planet. The Starship Enterprise was a metaphor for Starship Earth and it was the strength of the Starship came from the diversity of the people on this planet working together in concert as a team. It was that concept that was so revolutionary at a time when we were in the civil rights struggle. we had a war going on in southeast Asia, people that looked different from us. We had the Cold War, and we had on board someone who spoke with a Russian accent and was proud of it. So yes, diversity of both visual, racial, diversity as well as heritage diversity. It was I think a comment that was important to be made. MELBER: You are fascinating and eloquent to listen to on this. And I want to thank you for your time George Takei. TAKEI: Thank you very much for having me. Leonard will be remembered. MELBER: And we will be right back. MELBER: The great dress controversy of 2015 has taken the world by storm, forcing politicians to take a position on white and gold or blue and black and even threatening divide families, including the Kardashian-West. Kim says she sees white and gold, while Kanye sees black and blue. So what is going on? Well, here to help answer the question with some science is Adam Rogers, articles editor at Wired, who wrote the science of why no one agrees on the color of this dress. A fascinating article. It starts out with the idea. Explain this to us that it`s not fixed what we`re seeing, but rather our brains are interpreting the eye sees. ADAM ROGERS, WIRED MAGAZINE: That right. It is a fascinating subject. I mean, what we have evolved to be able to do over evolutionary time is have a brain and eyes that together take in not just the color of an October intrinsically, which is a matter of some philosophical debate, but actually the combination of the color that is illuminating the object, reflecting off of that object going into our eye and then interpreted by our brains. MELBER: So part of it is -- let me ask you, part of it is the idea that light itself has color in it? ROGERS: Well, that is right. And what we`re really good at, because of how we evolved is, we evolved on a planet that is illuminated primarily by daylight. It`s only recently that we`ve had artificial light. MELBER: Yeah, I love daylight, Adam. ROGERS: No, daylight is good stuff. And it is a combination of the entire visible spectrum, and also some infrared and some ultraviolet. And it changes over the course of the day. So one of the researchers I talked to, Babel Conway (ph), talks about this as being the daylight access, a chromatic access. So, you will have rosy fingered dawn, and then you`ll have blue-white noon, and then you`ll have kind of the magic hour at twilight. And our eyes and our brains are very good at taking those colors and essentially learning to ignore them, to see an object as having the same color regardless of what color the light bouncing off of it really is. It is a property called color constancy. But, obviously, as this picture of this dress shows, that can be tricked especially if you have artificial colors -- artificial sources of light. If you have a white balance from the software in an electronic camera, in a digital camera And this picture seems to be a kind of perfect storm of things that can trick that evolutionary system of your eyes and your brain together trying to understand what that color is. MELBER: Yeah, and with some people they see it one way and then it shifts. When I went out to Times Square today to interview people about it, it was really fun, because people saw it so differently and then some people said that they saw it more than one way over time. Let me play a little bit of that for you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I at first saw white and gold, but now I see blue and gold. MELBER: You have seen it both ways? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, it changes kind of depending on where I`m at. So if it`s like a darkroom then I see the white and gold, but if it`s lighter out I see blue. MELBER: Did it make you uncomfortable at first when you only saw it one way? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was kind of annoying because people were yelling at me saying that I was wrong. And I was like I don`t actually know what the color of the dress is. (END VIDEOTAPE) MALBER: So, what is happening there if one person actually sees it both ways? ROGERS: Well, your brain without you having any control over it basically has to make a decision for you, makes a snap judgment as to what color you`re actually looking at. And what you -- what you don`t want to do is have to sit there and have it flick back and forth, that is what an optical illusion will do. That`s what a trick is, right. You want to be able to understand what a color is immediately. And so what seems to be going on is that when a person looks at this image immediately their brain makes a call. Is this something that is mostly white being seen in shade or a darker tone of light, or is this something that is blue being seen in brighter light. And your brain is doing that by using all the cues of the other picture and maybe even of what is around you. So those things happen inside your head. And they`re independent of looking at the image on the same screen as you`re calling it work, or on the sharing of phone or something. And it happens right away and it seems to stick. Although, I did see people -- as you said, people will switch back and forth as they start to stare at it and think about the context of color around it. And in fact I think if you look at it -- at that particular image, out of the corner of your eye where some of the pigmentation is different, versus dead on you will start to see a different coloration as well. MELBER: And why do you think today when this debate was going on some people were getting really mad. They really don`t like the idea that something that should be fixed like color could be open to I guess subjective differences of opinion? ROGERS: It really is kind of -- everything that is wonderful and terrifying about the internet, isn`t it? When you were confronted with something that you think is an intrinsic truth that can`t be argued, and you are talking to somebody who seems like an otherwise perfectly reasonable person who has an entirely different intrinsic truth, it really forces you to confront your own beliefs, your own -- and the ways that we interact with each other. I mean, it happened -- it certainly happened in my office. My news room went nuts, especially on the art and design side where people who are really trained to understand color and understand image and man -- when they found out they were seeing different colors, they -- it went all north-south over there for a few minutes. MELBER: No, it`s for real. I mean, there are a lot of people who don`t like it. As you say, it touches on some even bigger questions beyond the color wheel. Adam Rogers thanks for joining us tonight. ROGERS: My pleasure. Live long and prosper. MELBER: You bet. That is All In for this evening. I am Ari Melber. You can find me on Facebook and Instagram at @Arimelber. Chris Hayes will be back on Monday. That`s where you can find him. And you can find Rachel Maddow right now on the Rachel Maddow show, which starts right now. Good evening. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 28, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022701cb.478 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 129 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 27, 2015 Friday SHOW: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 9:00 PM EST THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 27, 2015 BYLINE: Rachel Maddow, Frank Thorp, Chuck Todd, Kelly O`Donnell GUESTS: Tony Messenger SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 8145 words HIGHLIGHT: Republicans in the House failed to pass a Homeland Security funding bill. The U.S. Senate passed a one week funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security and adjourning until Monday. The House has passed a one- week extension, so Homeland Security isn`t shutting down in two hours. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ari. Thank you, my friend. Have a great evening. Thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. There is a lot going on right now. There`s a lot going on in the world. I know it`s late on a Friday night, but lots of things are happening right now that I swear will be different in the world by the time we get off the air with this show. There is a ton going on. It`s a very busy night. We`ve got a busy show planned. But the first live and as yet unresolved story we`ve got to cover tonight is what`s happening in Washington tonight, where Congress really does appears to have gone off the rails. We knew tonight is when funding would run out for the Homeland Security Department unless they figured out a way to keep homeland security funded. For much of the day, the House Republicans appeared to believe that they knew how to do that. They apparently were mistaken in that belief and they did not know how to do it. And so, it hasn`t happened. And now, unless something happens very, very soon, in less than three hours, at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time, the Department of Homeland Security will be shutting down in the United States of America. This is the front page at Politico.com right now, huge headline, "Boehner fails again." This is the front page at "The Hill" tonight, "Chaos in the House, shut down nears." At "Talking Points Memo", I don`t think they have ever turned their top headline to red. But look, this is their front page right now, "Stunner, House GOP votes down own bill to avert shutdown." Apparently, they thought they had a plan. The Republicans thought they had a plan, they thought they had this under control. On the Senate side, they actually did get this done today. In the Senate side, they passed a bill to keep Homeland Security open and funded all the way through September. They did it in the Senate. In the House, they decided they didn`t want to fund it through September. They decided they would only try to fund Homeland Security for the next three weeks. So, yes, we could still be in this situation. We`d be back to shut down again three weeks from now, at least something change. But at least there wouldn`t be a shut down tonight. House Republicans decided they wanted to just fund Homeland Security for three weeks. That was their plan. That was their bill. So, the House Republicans called a recess to give themselves time to round up the votes, for their three-week plan. They delayed the vote this afternoon to make sure they have the votes. They voiced optimism to reporters that they were going to be able to pass their big idea, their bill, their three-week extension. You might remember, John Boehner, just hired, right, just got to work with them as the new whip in the Republican House, right? This new vote counter, Steve Scalise of Louisiana. And the great appeal of Steve Scalise fore the Republicans is that he was supposed to be able to count votes and round up votes specifically from the conservatives, who so often go rough on John Boehner. Steve Scalise is supposed to be able to handle situations like this. So, they recessed, they delayed, they counted votes, they had Steve Scalise whipped the votes, they did the math, they did the counting, and then, finally, they were ready. Voila! They put their own bill up there for a vote -- and it failed. Fifty-two Republicans gave a one finger salute to their own Republican leadership who they were about to pass this thing. But 52 defections on their own side, the Republicans` own bill did not pass. They cannot pass their own thing even after they spent all day today putting it together. Politico.com tonight calling it a stunning blow to House Republican leaders. Quote, "The latest and perhaps most stinging repudiation of Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team." In "The Washington Post" tonight, quote, "The outcome is a major defeat for House Speaker John Boehner who has struggled to govern even as Republicans hold unified control of Congress." In "The New York Times" tonight, quote, "a stunning and humiliating set back for Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team." Quote, "Republicans vowing to govern effectively as a congressional majority failed a fundamental test." And politically, that`s amazing, right? Substantively though, that means the Department of Homeland Security is going to be shutting down in less than three hours, right? We are told that the president, President Obama, is convening meetings in the Oval Office tonight. He is personally working the phones to try to get Congress to snap out of it somehow and not do this. But as of now, it is unclear as to whether or not they`re going to be able to do it. Just within the last hour, the Senate -- sort of without warning -- the Senate went back to work, even though they already did their part today, right? They`ve already funded Homeland Security. The Senate went back, sort of without warning tonight, just in the last hour, and passed a one week extension for funding for the Homeland Security Department. One week. They just did that in the Senate. And then they went home, they adjourned and went home and said, House, you get it together. And so, now, tonight, urgently, after the House Republicans own idea, their three-week extension failed because they couldn`t get their own votes for it. Now tonight, what`s on the table is a one-week extension that`s passed the Senate and has gone to the House. The Senate has gone home. Now, will John Boehner and the House get it together? Open question. Joining us now live from the Capitol is NBC News Capitol Hill producer Frank Thorp. Frank, thanks for being with us. FRANK THORP, NBC NEWS CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Thanks for having me. MADDOW: What is the latest? I feel like every time I read something, it`s out of date. What`s going on right now? THORP: Well, so, as you said, the Senate passed that one-week stopgap measure. That goes the House. It`s a kind of either pass it or funding expires. So, the House is going to pass it, or they`re going to consider it later today, or they`re going to consider it under a procedure where they can fast track it to the -- fast track it to a final vote, which is going to require two-thirds majority. But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi just sent a letter to Democratic colleagues encouraging them to vote yes on this measure. They had -- she had encouraged all of her Democrats to vote no against the three-week stopgap measure because she didn`t think that that strategy was working and she got this -- so, now, she is now encouraging Democrats to pass this one week measure. But what I`m told is that, you know, Reid and McConnell spoke with Boehner and Pelosi, and that the plan now is that Boehner has agreed to go ahead with the vote on the clean bill next week. So, next week, what we have is the Senate will end up taking up this motion that the House has already passed that`s encouraging this House or Senate to conference between the two bills. That motion will go down because Democrats said they don`t want to negotiate between the House and Senate bills, and then Boehner will have to bring up the clean full year DHS funding bill sometime next week. MADDOW: So, OK, the Democrats in the House under Nancy Pelosi did not help John Boehner today, and John Boehner could not get his enough votes on the Republican side to pass his own bill, which was a three-week extension. That seems to be why that fell apart. Nancy Pelosi, however, is willing to let Democrats help John Boehner pass this one week extension sometime in the next, you know, few minutes, sometime over the next couple of hours. She will say that Democrats will help pass the one-week bill. That`s because next week, this is all over. The shut down threat is gone, they`re going to pass a clear bill, and this whole shenanigan is going to be done. That`s basically the deal? THORP: Basically, yes. So, Pelosi sent a letter to her Democratic colleagues saying, we need you to vote for this because this is part of the plan. They wanted to back Republicans into a corner. This whole situation completely sideswipe Republican leadership. They were truly expecting this three week CR to pass, and when it went down, you know, they had to recalculate. And this is what Pelosi had been trying to do the whole time. She wanted to prove that Democrats were going to be needed to pass anything. Just has been the case on the Senate side. I mean, this has really kind of worked into Democrats hands, and this CR vote that ended up going down earlier, this three-week CR vote, is going to be almost another shiny example of an issue with House Republican leadership in the House conference not being able to pass a bill it needs to pass. MADDOW: And not being able to pass their own bill. We had, as soon as this session started, we had the House leadership put forward their own bill on restricting abortion rights and then they yanked it, because of problems on their own side. They put forward a border security bill, their own bill, yanked it, because of problems on their own side. Now, they`ve just on it again with this three-week bill, it`s own their bill, they couldn`t pass it because of problems on their own side. It feels like Nancy Pelosi has more power than she has had at anytime since she was actually speaker, and it doesn`t much feel like John Boehner is the speaker. I mean, is anybody on the Republican side, or enough people on the Republican side, listening to John Boehner, that he effectively has control of what happens in the House. THORP: Well, and they also had an education bill this week that they were planning on voting on today, that they ended up having to poll as well. They argued that that was because of the consideration of the CR, but it was actually because they didn`t have enough votes to pass it themselves. This is -- I mean, it is a growing issue, and I think there is an argument to be made that if there is any indication or any expectation that tax reform or any of these bigger reforms were going to be passed during this Congress, it`s kind of going away this is. I mean, this is -- but the other reality here is that, you know, if you look at Boehner`s leadership here, it`s not necessarily a reflection of leadership, it`s so much just a reflection of the conference, because if you look at -- I mean, who could possibly take his place that would right this ship, that would change this so that this strategy would have worked -- that this Republican strategy would have worked. And it`s really kind of hard to find one specific person that could actually have gone down this road and actually been successful. So, I think it`s a reflection more of the conference, the Republican conference as a whole and less on actually the leadership structure. MADDOW: Frank Thorp, NBC News Capitol Hill producer, working late with a long night yet ahead of you -- Frank, thanks for being with us. We maybe checking in with you later on tonight. Thank you. THORP: Thanks. MADDOW: I want to bring in now, Chuck Todd, political director for NBC News, moderator of "Meet the Press". Chuck, it`s a very exciting night in American politics. CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR (via telephone): I guess, but I feel like we have seen this story over and over again. I mean, it`s the same story, and, you know, Boehner can`t pass anything, and McConnell has to come up and jam them again, to give them an out. And they`ve got the out. What is amazing here is look, and I agree with Frank on this, is that Speaker Boehner actually did that everything that was politically rational. The problem is they`re irrational -- MADDOW: Chuck, I`m going to interrupt you just for a second. I`m sorry, Nancy Pelosi just came to the microphone. If you could just hold on one second. REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: -- on the vote earlier today, or unity, the notes says, was a strong statement that the Department of Homeland Security must be fully funded. We are asking our member, it says, to help again advance passage of the Senate bill, long term funding of the Department of Homeland Security by voting for a seven-day patch that will be on suspension in the House tonight. That is coming over from the Senate. It`s already passed the Senate. It`s coming from the Senate. I say to them, further, your vote tonight will assure that we will vote for full funding of the Homeland Security next week, thank you for your leadership. I`m very proud of our members, the unity that we had, to show their commitment to full funding. We certainly want to protect the American people every minute of every day, 24/7, that includes today. And we believe that within the next seven days, hopefully five, we will have a bill that takes us to the end of the year, end of the fiscal year. (CROSSTALK) PELOSI: No questions. We`re not taking questions. MADDOW: Chuck, I`m sorry to interrupt you. Nancy Pelosi explaining that Democrats in the House will vote for what she called the seven-day patch because that will mean that there will be full funding next week. TODD: Right. I mean, that is the case where -- you know, Boehner can now go to these conservatives and say, OK, now they`re saying you`re stuck with full funding and, oh, by the way, you may be stuck with full funding before you find out whether the -- whether there`s going to be a state in the Fifth Circuit, having to do with the president -- whether the president can go on and begin implementing his executive action on immigration. The whole point -- what Boehner was doing was politically rational. Getting three weeks, buying time, so he could find out what the result of the lawsuit is and then see what, you know, how hard it would be to corral his conservatives that did not want to fund homeland security. This is what he is dealing with. He had -- this was a very, like I said, a rational political move he made, and yet, he still could not corral these 50 plus members. There is, I mean, as Frank, I think, goodbye tax reform, goodbye all of this stuff, none of this is getting done. MADDOW: Chuck, I`m just looking at John Boehner standing there with Steve Scalise. And, obviously, when Steve Scalise moved up in their leadership after the departure of Eric Cantor, there was a controversy about his past in Louisiana and having spoken to a white supremacist group, a long time in the past. And that become sort of the noise around Steve Scalise, and I think that`s what people mostly in the national level think of when they see him. But strategically, didn`t they hope in Republican politics, in the Republican leadership that Steve Scalise might be close enough to the sort of rabble-rousing, rebel conservatives in the House Republican conference that he`d be able to at least count them if he couldn`t corral them. Wasn`t that was he was supposed to be able to do? TODD: Exactly, he was the red state Republican. Remember before, when you had McCarthy, Boehner, and Cantor, they all actually came from blue states. A lot of concern that, hey, there`s no real southerner in the leadership, there`s no real red state conservative. So, that was supposed to be his role. But it is -- you know, look, I think on the issue of immigration, it is one of these issues that is just not -- you can`t have compromise on it. There is no such thing. When everything you do they just say, the a-word, amnesty. So I think that`s the problem that the House Republicans have, is they have this -- there is just no compromising on the issue itself, so therefore, they can`t even do something as simple like a three-week extension. MADDOW: Yes, and they can`t even execute on their own best strategies, let alone -- TODD: Which would have been politically smart for them. That`s what`s amazing her. I mean, they had actually had the law -- the lawsuit was an asset to them and they could not figure out how to use the lawsuit. They could have written a full funding measure that says it would have automatically suspended things if there was no stay. I mean, it could have gotten a lot more creative. They had something out there and they didn`t know how to use it. To me, that is a failure of leadership. Letting Boehner, McCarthy, they could have come up with a way to use the result of the halting of the executive order to their political benefit to get DHS funded. And they couldn`t even do that. So, there was a lack of creative thinking now on this. MADDOW: Chuck Todd, NBC News political director, moderator of "Meet of Press", Sunday mornings is going to be more fun than usual, Chuck. TODD: I was just going to say. I love Friday, that`s the best part of (INAUDIBLE) MADDOW: Thanks, Chuck. Good luck, man. All right. We are keeping an eye on Capitol Hill all night. I will say, to the point where we just had Chuck Todd here from "Meet the Press", thinking ahead to this Sunday, one thing that has been sort of -- people have been mulling tonight as the House Republicans have just absolutely collapsed, can`t pass their own thing, having Nancy Pelosi decide what does pass because they can`t figure out themselves -- they were so confident that they had this together they have booked the entire house Republican leadership team on all of the Sunday shows this weekend, because they were ready to brag about what they did and how they were confronting Barack Obama and how they were winning in the Congress. They booked their whole leadership team on all of the Sunday shows. It`s going to be a very different conversation than they expected when they made this bookings. All right. We got a lot ahead. Stay with us tonight. MADDOW: OK, we have just gotten some new advice about what to expect for tonight. Again, the headline tonight, is that at 12:01 a.m. Eastern, the entire Department of Homeland Security shuts down because it loses funding unless the House can act to keep it open between now and then. So, they`ve got between like two-and-a-half hours, they got to get it done. What we`re told now is that the House is going to reconvene at 9:30 Eastern. They`re going to reconvene in about 11 minutes. They`re going to come back into session and what they`re going to try to pass is a one-week extension. They`re calling it a seven-day patch to basically give themselves time to come back next week and -- according to the Democrats -- pass a clean bill to keep Homeland Security funded until September, as of next week. They`re going to come back into session at 9:30. They want that vote by 9:40. So, this is all going to happen, they say, within the next 20 to 30 minutes. This should be very exciting. Please stay with us. MADDOW: Yesterday, in between a slew of official meetings at the White House, President Obama sat down with some local news fro local media markets in four different states. President Obama is not the first president to do this, but he has done it a lot. And, frankly, in terms of media strategy for president, it is a pretty smart thing to do, right? It`s a huge deal for those local media markets to get a presidential interview. It also gets the president sort of outside of the beltway ruts in the road, wherever every story gets channeled into the same away beltway narratives. In talking with local reporters directly to local media markets, the president not only reaches people in a different way, he also gets asked stuff that doesn`t necessarily matter to the Beltway press, but it does matter out in the world. So, it`s an interesting two-way street. And, you know, sometimes, what the president gets asked in these local interviews is something very local. Some special, local or regional concern that just isn`t going to resonate in other parts of the country, and that`s why it hasn`t surfaced in the national media. But every once in awhile, there is something more than that going on, and that`s what happened yesterday. President Obama did this four different local TV interviews yesterday. He did interviews with reporters from four different parts of the country. And weirdly, three of the four interviewers, three of the four reporters he talked to asked him the exact same really specific thing that never gets talked about in the beltway. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: You know how beautiful the Northwest is. You`ve been there. We love our scenery. The Columbia River Gorge is one of our gems. But we have seen our trains coming to our region, increase like 250 percent. After what we saw happened in West Virginia, a lot of people are worried that could happen in our region. How concerned are you about the danger that oil trains pose? And is there any way to speed up the process to strengthen those safeguards to protect our communities and our environment? REPORTER: You recently vetoed the Keystone pipeline, safety, environmental concerns. A lot of people in the state of Washington are really nervous and concerned about the oil trains. That this will mean more oil trains, that we can`t guarantee the safety. We had a near disaster in Seattle with the derailed train. Can you give some reassurance to the people who watch those trains rolling through their communities every single day? REPORTER: Rail safety is a huge issue in our area. We had an oil train derail and explode just to the west of Fargo and in other parts of the country as well. Is that high on your agenda? (END VIDEO CLIPS) MADDOW: Oil trains. The president did four interviews with local reporters, and three of the four asked about oil trains. I mean, these local reporters, they only got five minutes each with the president. They only had time for a couple of questions to ask the president. This is president is not a fast talker. Five minutes is not a long time. But even with those constraints, three of the four raised concerns about bomb trains that had been going off around the country. Interesting, right? Attention Beltway press, this is a thing people are concerned about. And President Obama did make some news about this in his answers to these repeated questions from these different reporters. He said, strengthening regulations around oil trains is a top priority for his administration. He said this is something that needs to be improved. He said the Transportation Department, quote, "feels great urgency about this." And the president making those sorts of comments about this issue, that is one way that oil disasters can become national politics. The way that oil disasters usually become national politics is usually more like this: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is in California today. He was at the big CPAC conference in D.C. yesterday. Chris Christie is very obviously campaigning for president. But while Governor Christie is away on the not campaign trail, back home, "The New York Times" today broke a story about his administration and ExxonMobil, which is both a shocking story and a really strange story. It`s a story that races one really big as yet unanswered question. This is the Bayway Oil Refinery in Northern New Jersey. Pretty, right? For a long time, this refinery was owned and operated by the giant oil company ExxonMobil. Eleven years ago, when Jim McGreevy was governor of New Jersey, the state filed a lawsuit against Exxon over this site because of contamination that has occurred over decades on this, the 1,300 acres in the refinery and another 300 acres nearby. For all of that pollution and contamination, at that site, New Jersey sued Exxon, seeking $8.9 billion in damages. New Jersey filed the suit in 2004. It has been in the courts ever since. Four different governors have worked on it. And while that 11-year timeline might seem slow for lawsuits, it`s also pretty clear what has been happening over the course of this litigation. The courts have described the scale of the contamination in very stark terms. Look at this -- it was estimated in 1977 that at least some 7 million gallons of oil, ranging in thickness from 7 feet to 17 feet is contained in the soil and ground water underlying a portion of the refinery -- 17 feet of oil packed into the soil there. Wow. The court notes that, quote, "The documented level of contamination in the waters and sediment of the one of the canals nearby is so high that Exxon has recommended just permanently closing the canal and filling it in with an impermeable barrier. That is how bad the contamination is. And the courts have decided already that ExxonMobil did it, that Exxon is liable for having caused all these disgusting damage in New Jersey. When this case went to trial this past year before this judge in New Jersey, in Mount Holly, New Jersey, the only issue that was still to be settled was not whether or not Exxon did it, whether they were liable, there was not even a question about what Exxon did. When it went to trial last year, the only remaining question was, how much Exxon was going to have to pay for it, the dollar amount, that is what remained to be decided, that`s what this judge was due to decade. And, again, the state of New Jersey for the last 11 years has been seeking $8.9 billion in damages from Exxon. They wanted $2.5 billion to essentially repair damage of those sites, clean them up, and then they wanted another $6 billion to compensate the state for what Exxon had done to this huge swath of land. So, that trial to determine what Exxon owed, that trial lasted from January to September of last year. The last filings happened in November. And after the last filings came in, that judge had been expected to rule at any time. But, "The New York Times" reports in a bit of a bombshell that the Chris Christie administration just settled the case. Remember, the state officially had been seeking $8.9 billion, $8.9 billion. How much did they settle for? Not bad. Not even $1 billion. They settled for $250 million. How did New Jersey go from wanting $9 billion to being happy taking a quarter of $1 billion? The judge has been due to rule in this case in any day, but the attorney general`s office from the Chris Christie administration reportedly email and judge and said, wait, don`t issue your ruling, we`re in talks with Exxon, and then they e-mailed again two weeks later and emailed the judge again and said, no, no, please don`t rule, we`re still in talks with Exxon. And then, according to "The Times", last Friday, they wrote to the judge and said you don`t have to rule, we`re done. We worked out amongst ourselves. And the reported settlement that they worked out is roughly 3 percent of what the state had originally been demanding from Exxon. What`s that about? Why did this get settled right before that judge was about to rule? What was the judge going to decide? How much would the judge tell Exxon to pay? Did Exxon just get the deal of the century from the state of New Jersey? Is that an unusually small amount to settle for, for the people of New Jersey, given what the state had been asking for, for more than a decade? We`re trying to do some additional reporting to figure this out. This would seem to be an answerable question, right? As to whether or not the people of New Jersey got completely screwed or if they somehow got a square deal that we just can`t tell from here. I mean, the answer to that question has real life implications for people of New Jersey and also potential has big political implications for Chris Christie, if this turns out to be a scandal rather than just a story. We did reach out to the governor`s office today, and to the New Jersey state attorney general`s office and to ExxonMobil. So far, nobody is willing to answer any of our questions about this. This is an answerable question, and if the people of New Jersey just got screwed so Exxon could away without paying anything, this is not just a story, this is a scandal, with really big implications and we`re working on trying to figure it out. Watch this space. MADDOW: What? What are you looking at? I stand sometimes. It happens. What`s wrong? MADDOW: The current governor of Missouri is a Democrat named Jay Nixon. Governor Nixon is in his second term, his final term. He can`t run again. With Jay Nixon leaving, Republicans see a real chance for a possible pick up of that governorship in Missouri. And so, the Republicans had been very excited of having a wide open and rambunctious primary for that seat already. Three declared candidates so far, maybe more on the way. One of the leading Republican candidates who jumped into that race for Missouri governor was the Missouri state auditor. His name is Tom Schweich. He just won reelection as auditor in November. He won with 73 percent of the vote to get a second term as Missouri state auditor. Right after he got reelected, this last month, Tom Schweich announced that he would be running for governor in 2016. Now, the primary is not until August of next year, but Republicans in Missouri are excited about this. It has already become a tough race. Last week, a group called Citizens for Fairness put out this rather brutal radio ad against Tom Schweich. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "CITIZENS FOR FAIRNESS" POLITICAL AD) ANNOUNCER: Elections have consequences. Tom Schweich, like him? No. Is he a weak candidate for governor? Absolutely, just look at him. He could be easily confused for the deputy sheriff of Mayberry. But, more importantly, he can be manipulated. Schweich is an obviously weaker opponent against Democrat Chris Koster. Once Schweich obtains the Republican nomination, we will quickly squash him like the little bug that he is, and put our candidate Chris Koster in the governor`s mansion. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So, "House of Cards"-theme rather vicious ad, in what is already a rather vicious Republican primary for Missouri governor in 2016. Well, last weekend, the state Republican Party in Missouri held their annual confab. They called it Reagan Lincoln Days, Republican convention in the state. Tom Schweich came in second when they did a poll of party leaders for the governor`s race. At the Reagan Lincoln Days thing, they also tried to poll not just the leadership, but all of the attendees, the hundreds of party members who attended the event. They wanted to do sort of a straw poll for the governor`s race. Weirdly, for the straw poll, somebody stole the ballot box. Party leaders say the ballot box for the straw poll went missing overnight. When they found it the next day, it had been stuffed for one of the candidates, for a straw poll. Yes, so rough and tumble, strain times in Missouri Republican politics right now. That was already the case. And then yesterday, strange turned very, very tragic. Yesterday morning, 9:41 local time, the editorial page editor for "The St. Louis Dispatch" saw his phone light up. He`d been getting calls and text messages from Tom Schweich for days. Mr. Schweich was calling once again yesterday morning. The editor, it turns out, was busy at a speaking engagement. So, he let the call go to voice mail. This was the voicemail. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, TOM SCHWEICH VOICEMAIL) TOM SCHWEICH (R), MISSOURI STATE AUDITOR: Tony, it`s Tom Schweich calling. If you could have a reporter here at my house at 2:30, I`m willing to speak to both the Post-Dispatch and to the AP only about this matter. I will give a brief prepared statement, which we would videotape, and then I can answer questions from your reporter. This is only for your two and I hope you`ll not make it known that I`m doing this. But give me a call and let know if you can have somebody here at 2:30. To me, this is more of a religion story than a politics story, but it`s y8our choice on who the reporter is. Thanks, bye. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So, Tom Schweich leaves that message on the phone of a local reporter who he knows and he trusts, saying, send a reporter to my house, I`ll see you 2:30 this afternoon, keep this to yourself right now, but I`m ready to talk, 2:30 this afternoon, be at my house. He left that message, at 9:41 a.m. And then, at 9:48, a 911 call was placed from Tom Schweich house, because right after leaving that voice mail message, apparently seven minutes after leaving that voicemail message, Tom Schweich took his own life. He died of a single gunshot wound to the head, to what police are describing as an apparent suicide. Why do you tell people you want to set up a meeting and then minutes later kill yourself? Why do you set something for the afternoon and then minutes later kill yourself? Why did he kill himself? What did he mean to say? The two reporters he reached out to that morning say that Tom Schweich had been talking to them about a rather intense allegation, specifically against the Missouri Republican Party chairman. They say that what Mr. Schweich was alleging was that the Missouri Republican Party chairman was basically engaged in a whisper campaign designed, allegedly, to undercut Mr. Schweich`s run for governor, by letting it be known that he had Jewish ancestry. Now, the idea of that kind of a whisper campaign is a serious and troubling charge, especially given what happened. The charge was answered this morning by the Missouri Republican Party chairman. He wrote an e-mail to members of the Republican state committee. He said, quote, "I would like to set the record straight once and for all. Until recently, I mistakenly believed that Tom Schweich was Jewish. While I do not recall doing so, it is possible that I mentioned Tom`s faith in passing during one of the many conversations I have each day. There was absolutely nothing malicious about my intent, and I certainly was not attempting to `inject religion` into the governor`s race, as some have suggested." Tom Schweich was not Jewish. He was an Episcopalian. He did have some Jewish ancestry in terms of one grandfather being Jewish. But what he alleges is that there was a whisper campaign against him in the state to hurt his chances of being the nomine of the Republican Party of Missouri governor or getting elected governor in that state with what he describes as a derogatory whisper campaign that he was a Jew. Meanwhile, what happened in this case with this apparent suicide has been so shocking and so unexpected and so mysterious, that the "St. Louis Post- Dispatch" editor who got that voicemail not only made the decision that he would release that recording publicly, that`s why we could play it for you tonight, but he also published a summary last night of what had been off the record conversations he had with Tom Schweich over the course of this next week. The editor writes, quote, "I have no idea why Tom Schweich killed himself," but he says, Mr. Schweich, quote, "made it clear that he wanted those allegations about the whisper campaign against him, he wanted those allegations made public." Joining us now is Tony Messenger. He is the editorial page editor of "The Post-Dispatch". He received that voicemail from Missouri auditor Tom Schweich, before Mr. Schweich apparently killed himself. Mr. Messenger, thank you very much for your time. I know this has been a very difficult 24 hours for you. TONY MESSENGER, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR: Thanks, Rachel. Good to be here. MADDOW: Did I in summing up what`s happened, I know I didn`t touch every piece of it, but the parts that I did describe that I get them, did I get it right? Was I accurate at all? MESSENGER: No, you were very accurate. MADDOW: OK. MESSENGER: You described the events as I know them and how they have taken place since Thursday morning. MADDOW: You described Mr. Schweich as being, and other people as well, as being an intense person, a highly strong person. A person who had a personality that seemed, I`m paraphrasing -- was a guy who seemed amped and intense a lot of the time. If that was his baseline, hid he seem materially different over the course of this week? Did you see signs that he was really agitated? MESSENGE: He was definitely agitated. He was deeply offended by what he thought was the intent behind what the political consultant was doing, the chairman of the Republican Party, but not in a way that was out of character for Tom. I mean, he was a guy who opposed corruption, and I think that was one of the reasons why we bonded. Our -- his job as auditor and my job as editorial page editor found themselves frequently on the same page in terms of the types of things that we saw in Missouri government that we wanted to fix. So, he was angry and he was agitated, but not so much that it was out of character. I have listened today that voice mail probably 20 or 30 times now. And the first time I listened to it and most of the politicians in Missouri that I know have listened to it tell me it sounds like Tom Schweich. MADDOW: You described how he told you -- about how he talked to you about his concerns. He was concerned that the chairman of the Republican Party was telling people he was Jewish and that this was intended to hurt him politically, to prevent him from mounting an effective campaign for governor. With respect, was that -- in your view, was that a paranoid or I guess irrational fear? Or is there something to it? Is that a well-founded suspicion of his in terms of what the effect of that kind of information might be? MESSENGER: I believe that it wasn`t irrational, that there was a history of that sort of thing in Missouri politics. That if you look at the history of the Republican Party recently in Missouri, that it is not a party that is -- that has a very big tent. And Mr. Schweich operated in that party at the highest levels over the last six years. And he knew what he was talking about. He was quite confident that what was happening was intended to damage him in a Republican primary where a very specific tight of voter tends to be the most active voter as compared to a general election. MADDOW: Tony Messenger, the editorial page editor of "The Post-Dispatch", I mean, you have -- you took on a lot of public responsibility to right by this story and right by Mr. Schweich and bringing out this information that would have off the record. I`m sure that wasn`t an easy decision and this is an intense for you. Thanks for being with us to explain. I appreciate it. MESSENGER: No problem, thanks, Rachel. MADDOW: Thanks. I should tell you, right now, live, the House of Representatives is voting. They`re voting on a Homeland Security funding bill. What is going on right now is that this is just a seven-day patch to keep the Homeland Security Department from shutting down at midnight. The idea is if they get this seven-day patch, they will then pass a real extension that lasts until September for the Homeland Security Department next week. In terms of the numbers here, this is passing under a rule that means you can`t just pass it with a majority. Usually, the 252 votes there on the right, 157 yeses, 24 nos, 252 no votes, usually, you only need to get up to 217 votes, a majority to get this thing passed. They`re going to need to get a two thirds vote. They`re going to need to get up to 280 votes tonight in order to keep Homeland Security from shutting down. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHARACTER: Hello, I`m Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true, and by true, I mean false. LEONARD NIMOY: Science Officer Spock. Reporting as ordered, Captain. Our minds are merging. Our minds are one. Logical. Flawlessly logical. I have been, and always shall be your friend. One of the greatest things that happened to me and it happened to me more often than I probably deserve is people come and say these wonderful things like you have given us a lot of pleasure. Thank you, you know? That kind of thing and I am very touched by it. I feel a great honor to be given that opportunity to touch people`s lives in sort of positive way that they want to pour back. CHARACTER: My work is done here. CHARACTER: What do you mean your work is done, you didn`t do anything. CHARACTER: Didn`t I? (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: OK. It`s a very exciting Friday night in American politics. We have some breaking news to report on what has been our top story all this hour, and all tonight, which is that the house is now voting right this very second on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for one week, for seven days. House Republicans failed earlier tonight to pass a longer extension, an extension of three weeks and they`re now take thing vote for just a one- week extension to avert a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security at midnight tonight. This vote has been underway for about ten minutes now. They need more than a majority. They need a 2/3 majority to pass this, not just 50 percent plus one. This is the Republican controlled House, so anything could happen. They`re getting close to the threshold now. Joining us now live from the Capitol Hill is NBC News Capitol Hill producer Frank Thorp. Frank, so it looks like this thing is about to pass and it looks like lots of Democrats and Republicans are voting for it. THORP: Yes, I think both sides are ready to get this over with. They don`t want to go into the weekend with a shutdown, especially since the Senate has decided to leave. So, it looks like this is going to pass and we`ll go back to this next week. And just because nothing is ever easy in Congress, while Democratic leadership is saying they`ve been given assurances they`re going to get a vote on the clean full-year DHS funding bill next week, Boehner`s office is saying that Boehner has given no such assurances. MADDOW: Oh, wow. THORP: I mean, it`s a little bit of a back and forth. There`s probably a little bit -- you know, Boehner can`t say he`s going to cave, but at the same time, I mean, it`s a likely scenario we`ll see a vote on the clean bill next week. MADDOW: So, let me ask you about that, though, Frank. I mean, when Nancy Pelosi came out and distributed this letter, she seemed to be indicating to her members, without saying explicitly, that if they voted for this one- week patch, it was because they were assured that they were going to get this whole nonsense put aside next week, that they were going to get a funding bill that would take Homeland Security all the way to September. What you`re hearing from the speaker`s office tonight, does that mean that Nancy Pelosi might have been misled, that there might be two misunderstandings about what`s happening? THORP: Maybe not necessarily. I think what Pelosi was hinting at is the same thing that Democratic leadership aides were telling us on both sides of the Capitol. So, I think there was probably a conversation that leaned in that direction. I mean, I think they can`t necessarily go into next week knowing the whole playbook. We`ll probably see a couple of iterations of some votes. We have to see the Senate vote where Democrats will vote down the motion to go to conference due to negotiate the two bills. And it wouldn`t be surprising if conservatives tried to push another vote in the House. But in the end, I think that both sides agree, especially in leadership, that in the end, they`re going to have to pass this one year clean DHS bill. MADDOW: And so, it is -- I mean, the big picture here, we`re looking at the numbers here, and it very clearly has passed clearly, time has run out on bill and it`s got 325 yes votes right now. What we`re looking at, 173 Republicans, 154 Democrats. It`s -- they`ve clearly got the number they need. But there is, in this big picture sense, a real question as to when -- whether or not moving forward happens in any way that could meaningfully be described as Republican, right? So, this got passed because all the Democrats say, OK, John Boehner, we`ll help you out. That`s the Democrat`s decision whether or not to do that. If John Boehner can`t do anything without Democrats, really anything, is his position as leader in danger? I mean, are Republicans going to revolt against him in a way that`s overt in terms of him being the speaker? THORP: There have been a number of conservatives that have raised questions about whether or not a different leadership structure may be able to get different results. But I think that there is just kind of a general consensus that Speaker Boehner is probably the right man for this specific job, considering that you have -- I mean, you have the group on the left -- on the far right, and then you have the moderates, that he kind of sits in that middle ground and is able to wade in the middle there. And there`s not very many people that can do that. So, while I think he probably will have some questions raised about his leadership tactics by conservatives if they end up passing this clean DHS bill, as we`re expecting them to do, at the same time, there`s not enough of a groundswell of dissatisfaction within the conference to be able to up- end the leadership structure that`s in place right now. MADDOW: NBC News Capitol Hill producer Frank Thorp -- Frank, thank you. This has been a wild ride. It`s been nice to have you here. Thanks again. THORP: Thanks, again. MADDOW: All right. Let`s bring in NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O`Donnell, who has been live watching this unfold tonight. Kelly, obviously, this has just passed, with the 2/3 threshold it needed in the house. That means that the Department of Homeland Security has a seven-week -- a seven-day patch to keep it from shutting down for the next week. KELLY O`DONNELL, NBC NEWS CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT: It was wishful thinking, Rachel. MADDOW: Yes, exactly. What do you make of how this came together tonight? Who was really calling the shots in terms of deciding what happened tonight? O`DONNELL: Well, we`re still waiting for the official gavel, so the numbers could shift a bit. But they are overwhelming in support of this. I think this is a case where you try what you think can pass and when it fails, there was a mad scramble to see what can be done to prevent the worst case scenario, which was shutting down the department. There were some critics who said even shutting down the department would not be as cataclysmic as some feared, because so many of the employees are required to show up at work and their paychecks would come at a future date. Not very satisfying. So, I think the sense that the governing that is required does mean they must keep the department opened. But as we talked about on many occasions, Congress has very few levers of power when trying to compel the president to do something or not do something. It almost always comes back to using the power of the purse, how to fund something or not fund something to drive policy. And so, for conservatives who have been very upset with the president`s actions on immigration, they believe it`s a constitutional breach and overreach. This was their best case at trying to stop that. And they did not have enough support among enough of the Congress to see that happen. It was the political will for that s not here when it comes to threatening this department and the times that we live in, when every other headline outside of the conversation we`re having is about concerns about ISIS other threats. MADDOW: Right. O`DONNELL: And to put all of this drama and real political ideological debate in a real world context made this a very difficult case for conservatives to make. MADDOW: Kelly -- O`DONNELL: We have another path with the courts which you`ve talked about as well. But tonight, it was about getting something done and saving face. MADDOW: Kelly, is it clear to you when this comes back up this next week, that we won`t be here until all hours of the night wondering whether or not there`s going to be another shutdown? Is it clear to you that they`ve got clear path next week? O`DONNELL: No, I think there`s an exhaustion factor tonight. I think there`s a deadline factor, and one week became the agreeable piece where Democrats were willing to let their members vote for this so that they could take some ownership as well. If Nancy Pelosi had not sort of released her Democrats and said, please vote for this, they would have shared some responsibility for a shutdown, too. They can blame the Republicans, but in the end, they needed to step up and they did that tonight. More Republicans voted for this tonight than we saw earlier in the day. So, I don`t think there`s a clear path. I think we will revisit a lot of these same issues, but people have had a chance to maybe measure how it played at home, maybe get a little rest, maybe give a little distance to sort of the discomfort of this day and try to figure it out. But there is no obvious next couple of steps that will resolve this. And that`s frustrating. MADDOW: NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O`Donnell, thank you so much for your time tonight, Kelly. O`DONNELL: Good to be with you. MADDOW: All right. To recap, the House has passed a one-week extension, so Homeland Security isn`t shutting down in two hours. But we`ll be back at this next week. In the meantime, you`ll be in the crowbar hotel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: February 28, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022701cb.471 DOCUMENT-TYPE: SHOW PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 130 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 28, 2015 Saturday SHOW: UP with STEVE KORNACKI 8:00 AM EST UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI for February 28, 2015 BYLINE: Steve Kornacki, Chris Matthews, Krystal Ball, Kristen Welker GUESTS: Lance Leonard, Kellyanne Conway, Evan McMorris-Santoro, Adolfo Franco, Ann Lewis, Kate Zernike, Sahil Kapur, Bill Pascrell, Mo Brooks, Adolfo Franco, Evan McMorris-Santoro, Mubin Shaikh SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 15874 words HIGHLIGHT: Congress passed 7-day extension for Homeland Security. Hillary Clinton has been talking up economic populism in recent months. Is she ready to discuss gender next? Chris Christie is trying to turn things around, as he takes on organized labor, the mainstream media, conservatives within his own party. The man referred to as Jihadi John unmasked by the Washington Post on Thursday as Mohammed Emwazi. Who he is and where Emwazi is from doesn`t necessarily match the typical profile of someone thought to be susceptible to radicalization. He was shot as he walked on a bridge near the Kremlin yesterday. Nemtsov was one of the most vocal critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST, "UP WITH STEVE KORNACKI": Did John Boehner agree to cave? All right. And good morning. It is the final day of February, the federal government is still completely open this morning because a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security was averted late last night. Just 120 minutes before funding was going to run out and workers were going to be told to start staying home. But the deal that was reached last night, it is temporary, it is fragile. It was another down to the wire vote on Capitol Hill. This one, to provide just a one week extension of DHS funding. And so, the question is, will we be right back on the brink seven days from now? The other question of the morning, and we will going to be diving into after last night`s drama in all the drama, the other question is, was there a deal? Is there a deal between John Boehner, the speaker of the House and Nancy Pelosi the top democrat. A lot of suspense around that. And also we`ll have in the show this morning, the suspected ISIS executioner behind the James Foley beheading, he was unmasked. This week, we`re going to talk to a former extremists turned counterterrorism operative about who Jihadi John really is. And we`re going to try to find out what drove a young man raised in the west to become an apparent killer. Also, we can`t ignore it. The dress that is still dividing the internet and just about everyone you know. What color did you see? We will look at why no one can agree on what they saw. All right. And we begin this morning with that crisis averted on Capitol Hill last night. And barely. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The AZ 357, the AZ 360, two thirds mean in the affirmative. The rules are suspended the Senate amendment is agreed to. And without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right. Now that was a few minutes before 10:00 last night. The final vote after a truly bizarre day filled with suspense, filled with chaos. That vote to keep the Department of Homeland Security open for one more week. President Obama signing the measure just before midnight. That`s when funding would have officially run out. But here now, here is what everyone is trying to figure out this morning. Did House Speaker John Boehner cut a deal with Nancy Pelosi? Just before that vote Pelosi giving democrats instructions to vote for the one week extension. This is even though democrats had been adamant that they would support only a full year of funding with no short term patches. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), CALIFORNIA: The vote tonight will assure that we will vote for full funding of the Homeland Security next week. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: So, reading between the lines there, Pelosi, the top democrat in the house seeming to say that Boehner will give in sometime in the next few days and will give democrats what they want. But now, Boehner strongly denying that. Quote, "no such deal or promise was made," says his spokesman. That was last late night. This is all a show down that`s been building for months now. Starting with President Obama`s executive action to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. That is unconstitutional republicans insist. And they drew a line over DHS funding. They said roll back the executive action or we`re not going to give you the money to run the department. The democrats had been holding firm. They`re confident the public is going to blame republican if there`s any shutdown and they`ve demanded that the GOP allow DHS to stay open, no strings attaches. And now, as this all comes to ahead, republicans are divided. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his fellow republicans on Friday passing that so-called clean funding bill that democrats want. But House republicans refusing to go along with their Senate counterpart. Boehner trying to bide time yesterday putting a bill on the floor Friday afternoon that would have funded DHS for three weeks. Then, watching that move backfire. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The yeas are 203, nays are 224. The joint resolution is not passed. Without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That was about 5:00 p.m. yesterday. Fifty two republicans breaking with Boehner handing him a shocking setback. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. WALTER JONES (R), NORTH CAROLINA: To me, this is what my vote was all about. Representing the people of the third district who feel that a president violated the constitution. And that is, again, why I said that Homeland Security got caught into the debate. But the debate and the vote was simply about my constitutional duties to uphold the constitution. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And in the wake of that vote, absolute chaos and confusion reigning throughout the night Friday on Capitol Hill with that last minute one week extension finally passing with almost no time to spare. And so here we are now the morning after. DHS is still open. Democrats, they think they`ve got a deal to get what they want next week from Boehner. But Boehner, he is denying there`s any deal. He`s fearful undoubtedly of how his right flank will react, if there is any deal. And of course, the countdown clock to a shutdown, it`s now been reset. Seven days and counting. For more on how this has all unfolded and will unfold from here, Sahil Kapur is the senior Congressional reporter for Talking Points Memo. He joins us from Washington now. He was certainly there last night. Sahil, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. So, let me just start with that question we`re asking. The democrats backing off this all or nothing posture they sort of had and giving votes for this one week extension last night, Pelosi suggesting there is a deal, is that what democrats think there is here, a deal? SAHIL KAPUR, TALKING POINTS MEMO SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Steve, this is a bit baffling to me. Because I`m hearing completely different things from both sides. As you pointed out the speaker`s office disputes the contention that there was a deal. But a democratic Congressional aide I spoke to last night, very senior, very knowledgeable says that Speaker Boehner did absolutely unequivocally make a commitment to Harry Reid on the phone last night and that Nancy Pelosi also knew about it. Now, think about this logically, it`s difficult to imagine Nancy Pelosi after showing her upper hand and scuttling voting down Speaker Boehner`s three week bill to suddenly turn around and get her entire conference to vote for a one week bill without getting something in return. So, logically, it seems like there was some sort of assurance or something that democrats got in return. But again, you know, this is kind of he said, she said at this point. Nobody really knows what exactly happened behind the scenes. We`re hearing very different things from their offices. So, this is the question that I think everyone on Capitol Hill is pondering going into next week. KORNACKI: And that`s really interesting what you`re saying. How the communication is working here. Because we know that Boehner has been telling his republicans in the House that he hasn`t basically no contact with Mitch McConnell, the top republican of the Senate. Now you`re telling us that if there was communication last night, it apparently was between Harry Reid, the top democrat in the Senate and John Boehner, the speaker of the House. Let me ask you this, if there is a deal along the lines of what democrats are suggesting to you. And again, republicans are denying this. But if there is a deal along the lines of what democrats are suggesting, how exactly would this then play out over the next week? KAPUR: Steve, if there is a deal, and Speaker Boehner committed to bringing up a bill, then the question is, does he bring up that bill. If he does, it`s going to infuriate his members and his conference on the right. And remember his speakership is a bit tenuous at this point. He survived re-election of speaker last month despite a record defection. I think 25 republicans voted against him as speaker as well as all democrats of course. But along with that, there are 50 to 60 republicans who voted against his bill on the three week extension and the one week extension for DHS. And you have to understand as well, the reason this issue is so explosive is that it combines two things that make republicans maddest. The idea of President Obama using his executive authority and the idea of leniency and help for unauthorized immigrants. So it`s an open question what happens going in to this. If Speaker Boehner does puts a clean DHS bill on the floor, there will certainly be talk, and I suspect there might be an attempt to challenge his speakership. KORNACKI: Wow. All right. Sahil Kapur, Talking Points Memo. A lot of drama last night, but clearly that drama is not going to be subsiding until the next few days. Thanks for joining us this morning. KAPUR: Thanks, Steve. KORNACKI: There were five democrats who voted against that one week funding bill when it would finally got that vote before 10:00 last night. And those five democrats include Bill Pascrell from New Jersey, he joins us now live from Capitol Hill. Along with Congressman Mo Brooks, he`s a republican from Alabama. He also voted against the measure last night. Congressman Brooks, let me start with you on this question we just raised with Sahil Kapur, the reporter for Talking Points Memo. Hearing from democrats, did they believe there`s a deal here, that John Boehner at some point in the next week will put what they`re calling the clean bill, a full year of funding for DHS, no strings attached on the floor at some point in the next week. Do you think, is it your understanding that there is some kind of a deal? REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: Well, I`m not a party to the discussions between Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi. I don`t know what communications occurred. But I do know this, in my opinion, and I expressed this to a member of the House leadership, we should have voted on the Senate bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. If it passed, if that was the will of the majority, the members of the House of Representatives, and so be it, they can defend those votes back home. If it didn`t pass, if perhaps the position I have, protecting American workers from job losses and wage suppression by this huge surge of illegal alien labor. That is illegally unconstitutionally being advocated by the President of the United States. If that position passed then we would be in a stronger position of forcing the democrats in the United States Senate to reconsider whether they really want to shut down the Department of Homeland Security in order to help illegal aliens take more jobs and wages from American citizens. KORNACKI: Let me just make sure I`m clear in this then. So, what you`re saying is the bill that passed the Senate, this is the so-called clean funding bill, a full year of funding for DHS, no language in there about stopping the President`s executive action on immigration, you are okay with John Boehner bringing that to the floor for a vote? BROOKS: I recommended it to a member of House leadership this week. And we need to see where everybody`s positions are. And if that`s the will of the majority of the House of Representatives. If the majority of the House of Representatives wants to violate their oath of office to defend and protect the United States constitution, well then they can defend that back in their districts and in their states as so many senators have already committed to doing. And why go through this process of stringing the Department of Homeland Security out for one or three weeks if the end result is going to be the same thing. I don`t understand that strategy. Let`s have an up or down vote, let the majority decide what is the best interest of the American people. And keep in mind we`re caught in a catch 22. All of us want to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The issue is, are we going to support illegal and unconstitutional conduct which at the same time has the effect of taking of taking jobs for American citizens undermining wages of American workers and putting illegal aliens on a pedestal superior to that of American citizens. That`s what the real disagreement is about. KORNACKI: Well, let me ask you, Congressman Pascrell. So, Nancy Pelosi, your leader, the House democratic leader last night asked you and asked all democrats to support the one week extension saying that if you do support the one week extension, she is confident you will be able to get what you want in the next week. That full year of funding, no strings attached, no immigration language. You still voted no, why? REP. BILL PASCRELL (D), NEW JERSEY: Because Homeland Security is a priority. It`s not like talking about trading soybeans. We`re talking about the very security of this nation. We should not make deals amongst ourselves in order to protect America. And I`ve told this to my firefighters and police officers in my district, I went down to the border last week and talked to those folks. And saw the hard work that they do. They`re doing a fantastic job. Remember, we don`t only have one border, Steve. We have four borders at least. And we need to pay attention to all of those borders. So I think it would be a violation -- I listened to Secretary Johnson and I read his letters that he sent to the Congress of the United States, he feels any short term extension is going to hurt, create more anxiety amongst the troops. The thousands of people who work for Homeland Security. And I suspect, Steve, on the bottom -- one of the points in this, and I don`t accuse my brother Brooks here of this, but I think there is a very deep dislike and concerning federal workers on the other side of the aisle. I mean, there is not the respect shown that they deserve. Because you are working for the federal governor, state governor or local government doesn`t make you a pariah. I support these people. KORNACKI: But listen -- PASCRELL: And I think it has a lot to do with the issue. KORNACKI: But let me ask you though, in terms of getting them, insuring that they stay on the job, their paychecks keep coming in. The things you`re talking about there, this has to get resolved some way. Nancy Pelosi was pointing a direction that she sees for you guys last night saying if we give them this right now, they are going to turn around and give us what we want in the next week. You said no. So, what is the way out that you see? PASCRELL: Like brother Brooks, we have no assurance that there`s a deal. What does a deal mean in terms of the security of the United States of America? We should bring it up for a vote. I absolutely agree with what Mo just said. Just like we should have brought up the Senate vote on immigration last year. There was a clear vote. There was a bipartisan vote in the Senate of the United States. Why do we link these two positions, these two situations on this particular bill? Why didn`t we do it on some other? So, it was a strategy that the other side used in order to embarrass the President, and here we are. We do need a clean vote. It should have been last night. And in fact, if that vote -- didn`t pass last night. I don`t know if you agree with me is, let`s say that that vote was turned down, Steve, of waiting seven more days. If that was not -- if that was turned down last night, what would have been the next step? Go home and do nothing? Maybe. Maybe we could have brought up the clean vote. And why not? KORNACKI: Let me ask Congressman Brooks in there, and Congressman Brooks as you said on the top of the show, you have been asking for that so-called clean bill, the Senate bill to come to the House floor for a vote. You say you`d be fine by that. The reporting consistently suggests though that a lot of conservatives, a lot of the people in the republican conference who are most suspicious of, skeptical of John Boehner are not okay with that. That they see that as giving in, they see that as giving in to what the administration wants, giving in to what the democrats want -- do you think, not from you but from your fellow conservatives, John Boehner has something to worry about, if he puts that bill on the floor? BROOKS: There are 435 House members and you have a variety of opinions amongst those 435. There are some conservatives like myself who will not vote to fund illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty that takes jobs and undermines wages for American citizens, period. But if I`m in a minority position on the Senate bill and apparently, 31 republican senators were in the minority when that bill was voted on yesterday. If I`m in a minority in the House of Representatives, so be it. We are a democracy which ultimately means that a majority prevails. Now, in this particular instance, here`s what`s at stake. You have the risk of a federal government shutdown. That`s what`s at stake. And under those circumstances, I would argue that we have an obligation to prevent that kind of damage that is done to our federal government and to our country. And some of those circumstances, I would have preferred that we have a vote on the full measure passed by the Senate and see where the people and the United States House of Representatives stood. And if it failed, then that would reinforce to the United States senate, that their position of defending the President`s illegal and unconstitutional conduct is untenable and they would have to reconsider their position. But if it passed, then this issue would be behind us and we would start moving on to a lot of other very important issues that still face our country. In the meantime, as Bill has argued and I think as I concur, we are stringing this thing out. Let`s bring it to a head, see where the votes are. If we can depose of it quicker that is a whole lot better than stringing it out and doing damage in the interim that can be avoided. KORNACKI: All right. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) PASCRELL: And you agree with me that this is not necessarily unconstitutional. We don`t know that. That has to be decided. But I agree with you, let`s bring it up and discuss it and debate it as a separate issue. It has nothing to do with those border patrolman, the TSA people who defend, who help us when we get on our airplanes, the cops and firefighters in our own districts. It has nothing to do with that directly. And I say I agree with you that we should have had a vote we should had it last night. KORNACKI: All right. We will see. We got to end it here. But we will see in the next few days if you get your way and you do have that vote on the House floor. And we will see what happens if that does, if that is the case. My thanks to Congressman Bill Pascrell from New Jersey, Mo Brooks from Alabama. I appreciate the time this morning from both of you. PASCRELL: My pleasure Steve, have a good -- KORNACKI: All right. You too. Coming up, the panel will join me to talk about all this. We`re going to look at just how bad things have gotten between the leaders of the Republican Party. Amazing story there. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: Senate majority leader and I have had a long relationship and especially over the last eight years, seven eight years we`ve had a very close working relationship. But you know, he has his challenges and I have mine. And we have two different institutions that don`t have the same body temperature every day. And so, you know, we tend to try to work and narrow the differences. But sometimes there are differences. You know, the House by nature and by design is a hell lot more rambunctious place than the Senate much more. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: And the House is showing just how rambunctious it can be waiting until the very last minute night. To vote on just a one week extension to keep the Department of Homeland Security open. Here to talk more about this, we have Krystal Ball, she`s a co-host of MSNBC`s "THE CYCLE." Adolfo Franco, a republican strategist and former advisor to Senator John McCain when he ran for president. And Evan McMorris-Santoro, he`s the White House reporter for BuzzFeed. So, not sure where to start here. But I`ll try this one on for starters. Mo Brooks, the republican from Alabama who joins us in the last segment, Adolfo, surprised me. Because what we keep hearing is John Boehner is not going to put this clean funding bill on the floor. Full year of funding for DHS because he`s scared of a conservative revolt. And here is one of those conservatives who voted no on the one week extension last night saying, you know, what, I think he should put the Senate bill on the floor. ADOLFO FRANCO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes. That`s a little bit unusual I think in this tech minority. But if we can push the rewind button here for a moment. I`d like to take the speaker`s position here for a moment. I think you know, for the last few years the democrats have been clamoring about regular order. And regular order in Washington speaks, just really means, let the majority vote their will. You -- for the immigration bill for example, they complained that the House did not take up the Senate passed immigration bill a couple of years ago. I think the republican plan here which was in a sense always cheat up for disaster was, let`s pass this bill with the provisions on the executive order and the House and let the Senate vote on it and have the President veto the bill and have democrats go on the record. It`s significant number probably eight or nine in the Senate and a good number even in the House and embarrassed the President. KORNACKI: So, did they -- FRANCO: Well, remember, the President was just on NBC and on Telemundo with those ideas, where he said this filibustering has to stop. Well, this is a case in point. Let the regular order move forward. Let the House works its will, let the Senate work its will. Obviously, there are numbers there to sustain the President`s veto. And I think a compromise could have been had. That was the republican plan. But somebody should have told them this was probably not in the cards. They turned it into a republican issue, correctly as I would have by -- KORNACKI: Yes. That`s kind of amazing, right? Because we, the republicans finally got legislatively what they`ve been looking for after the last election. They got the House bigger majority that they`ve had. And they finally got the Senate. And so, but of course, republicans should know from the last six years, even if you don`t have the Senate you can filibuster and basically grind the place to a halt. Are they really surprised? EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO, BUZZFEED: No, I don`t think agree they`re surprise at all. I love that clip you played earlier of Boehner. I love his sort of like lessen, like story time of John Boehner where he sure of explains how the House works. But this is a very sad face like, don`t you understand over here? It`s crazy I can`t do anything to stop this stuff. Yes. Different body temperature. That`s like, you know, that`s like a very angry Boehner. But yes, no, I think the republicans backed themselves into a huge corner. This is a huge problem for them. I mean, there is no upside at all to shutting down the DHS. I think they think that, you know, they have some districts where it`s so conservative in the gerrymander districts that it appears to be the thing to do. But you know, everywhere in America this is going to be a terrible news for them. And they`re just kind of up against this wall and they don`t know what they`re going to do. And I think that they should have seen this coming. This happened several times now. That they`ve done things like this. KORNACKI: Yes. But Krystal, here`s the thing that I wonder though, sort of the psychology of the republican members of the house who would, you know, be against this, who would do this? They shut down the government in 2013. The polls said oh, my God we blame you, you`re terrible. In 2014 they had a banner year didn`t hurt them. KRYSTAL BALL, MSNBC CO-HOST, "THE CYCLE": Right. Well, that exactly it, right? So, they feel vindicated in a certain sense. I mean, the American people either forgot or the people who care about that didn`t show up. So, it didn`t matter. They had a Boehner year, elected the largest majority like ever in history. Right? So, they`re feeling like their strategy has been vindicated. And let`s be clear here. These individuals who are voting against funding DHS, they don`t care about the Republican Party, they don`t care about the national republicans, they care about themselves, right, they care about themselves, they care about their own districts. They care about their own political interest. I mean, to a certain extents that`s true of all of these politicians. But, you know, let`s not pretend like they have, like these altruistic impulses towards the country or their own party. They`re looking out for themselves. Now, I think this whole thing from the very beginning was so ludicrous. I could never understand what they thought the end game was going to be here. It was always going to end in disaster. There was no other way that this could go down. KORNACKI: The end game still is whether this is a day or week or whatever, DHS is going to get full funding with no strings attached. Right? FRANCO: Well, yes, in all likelihood. But there was an end game, I know it`s easy to be the Monday morning quarterback. By the way I think democrats are also voting their own interest. Not just a national agenda or so forth. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) No, no, but let me tell you this, Steve. Here was the end game, maybe a miscalculation was, all the polling data demonstrated that the executive decrease or the executive orders were unpopular. There was a lot of concern about the President taking these unilateral actions regarding immigration broadly. So, I though, I think the thinking was, in terms of my conversation, was there was enough movement at the national level -- I don`t think it`s the number one issue in the United States, but there would be enough pressure on the President to actually at least accept the vote in the Senate. BALL: What is the polling say was the popularity of the Department of Homeland Security while ISIS is beheading people and gaining territory? FRANCO: I agree but -- BALL: People in Brooklyn being arrested for terrorism. I mean, it`s just absurd that they ever thought it was a good idea. FRANCO: I was referring to the fact I think there would be pressure to have an up and down vote. Because there are a significant number of democrats that are against executive order with the President vetoing and eventually getting clean bill. KORNACKI: You`re saying that the calculation then was republican were confident there would be a vote in the Senate. FRANCO: Exactly. KORNACKI: So, how does this end, Evan? MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Well, I don`t know how it ends. I think one way that it ends, I think we will have the Department of Homeland Security that`s funded. I think there`s no way that the republican -- but I will say, some of the damage is already done. I spoke with a very senior DHS official last week. I called him up, said how are you doing. Morale is so low at that department already. People are already looking out to send out their resumes. People are already looking to sort of look outside. They feel sort of like this is a department where, you know, they`re there to protect people and do good for people. And they feel like the people who were trying to fund them and the people they work for are turning on them. So to a certain extent, the damages already done here. You don`t want to have a DHS people who are not fired up and -- FRANCO: But it`s not about them and they know it`s not about them. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Of course it`s about them. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) BALL: It`s about them. FRANCO: It`s about the President`s illegal action, in my judgment. That`s what it`s about. They`ve been the victim of it, but largely it`s all funded and most of these individuals would have reported to work and they would be paid back anyway. You know it`s not an attack on them. It`s an attack on the President. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: I think that`s hard for them to realize this. I think it`s hard for them to see. When you look at this thing, I mean, these guys, this is not even like a department that people think and they joke about. This is a front line department. BALL: Republicans like this department. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: In the continuing fight against terrorism. FRANCONA: The government has been shut down before. This department, the Department of Defense, the difference is this department is actually self- funded. But to Krystal`s point is, quite honestly, I was told a year ago in one of these programs that the republicans will pay a huge price for the government shutdown in November. We have the largest majorities in 80 years in the House. I`ll make you a little wager, we`re back on this program in `16, this won`t be an issue. BALL: Well, I will say a lot more people will be going to the polls in 2016 than went in 2014. KORNACKI: Well, it is. I do think that`s an important point. Because I remember at height of the government shutdown, there was talk, hey, this is how the democrats are going to take back the House. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: ObamaCare went down. I mean, if that hadn`t happened who knows what would have happen. People in November were revolting on the shutdown. FRANCO: Oh, come on! KORNACKI: We will pick this up later in the show. Later in the weekend. Later in the week. In 2016. Anyway, still ahead the final day of CPAC, the other big story this weekend, has Jeb Bush looking ahead of today`s big straw poll? Going to go live to the CPAC floor. That`s coming up. Also, LeBron Jones is frustrated with some new attention on his family. We`ll going to have that story for you, next. KORNACKI: All right. There is a lot going on this morning besides the near shutdown last night. Time to get caught up on some other headlines with today`s panel. This is our "Catching Up" segment. I love it. The index card. Let`s see what the news. Let`s they`ve handed me. This one, it is from Politico. The headline, Aaron Schock scraps fundraisers, this is the Illinois republican congressman, he postponed his scheduled event in Washington, Thursday, also this month skipped an NRCC fundraising weekend. The Florida fundraiser for Mario Diaz-Balart, he is recently retained -- as the crisis. But this is amazing, Evan. Is he in danger of backlash in his home district? What`s the danger for him? MCMORRIS-SANTORO: His star has fallen so fast. This was a guy who very recently was the young, fresh face of the Republican Party. Did a lot of bipartisan stuff. You know, he worked across the aisles with some democrats and are going to sort of do this rational caucus and all the things that they were trying to do. And now he`s a down -- office, Instagram failure guy. I mean, it`s just an amazing fall. KORNACKI: It`s amazing. We should say, too -- MCMORRIS-SANTORO: I think he`s in danger, whatever danger he can be and he`s in. KORNACKI: He`s in that danger. He should know he did repay the $40,000 in renovations. He did repay that. Let`s see the associated press, this is the interesting one, LeBron James is not happy that colleges are recruiting his 10-year-old son. BALL: Wow! KORNACKI: He won`t say what schools are reaching out. He did say it`s pretty crazy. It should be a violation. You shouldn`t be recruiting 10- year-old kids. I want to know. It`s Calipari (ph). I think it`s Calipari. (LAUGHTER) BALL: I mean, A, it should be a violation. It`s absurd that they can do that. And B, can you blame them? I mean, if I was a college recruiter, I don`t know that I would be looking at LeBron James` son. (TALKING OVER EACH OTHER) KORNACKI: If you`re his kid you`re going straight to the NBA. Right? MCMORRIS-SANTORO: What is the pitch that you make to a 10-year-old if you`re a college? What do they say to them? BALL: We have great pizza. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Exactly. KORNACKI: A 10-year-old -- MCMORRIS-SANTORO: You stay up so late here. KORNACKI: Let`s see what we have. This is from -- now this is interesting. This is from "The New York Times." I saw this obituary. And this was the most interesting obituary seen in the long time. Irving Kahn, the oldest active Wall Street investor died this week. Hundred and nine- years-old. Listen to this. He was still until a few months ago commuting three days a week by cab to his office. He made his first trade in 1929 before the stock market crash. According to his son, by the way, he smoked until he was 50 and didn`t watch what he ate. FRANCO: Well, I think the lesson here is first of all he actually did that trade in June 1929 but he actually cashed in before Black Friday. He knew what he was doing. A good example I guess of keep working. That`s for sure. BALL: Good sematic. FRANCO: Good genetics and keep working. But I think one of the things that`s amazing things about him, throughout his entire life, I mean, he was not only a great investor but had incredible market timing beginning in 1929. I think what he learned from the depression. BALL: I mean, another amazing thing here, he had three siblings they all lived to be over 100, 101, 103 and almost 110 and him a 109. I mean, that`s unbelievable. KORNACKI: By the way, it`s not like he was a vegetarian his whole life. He was smoking and he wasn`t eating that well and still live to a 109. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: I will do what it says. KORNACKI: DNA is destiny sometimes. Anyway, we have one more else, so we want to take sometime this morning to say good-bye to a man who lived long and prospered. Actor Leonard Nimoy, you may have heard this, he died yesterday of chronic lung disease. He was 83. Nimoy of course was Star Trek starring as Mr. Spock, the half-human half-Vulcan science officer. Going where no man has gone before aboard the starship enterprise. This role he played on and off for nearly 50 years. President Obama was a big fan. In 2012 he was even seen making Spock`s trademark Vulcan salute alongside actress Nichelle Nichols better known as Uhura. The president saying in part in a statement yesterday, I loved Spock. Michelle and I join his family, friends and countless fans who miss him so dearly today. And next, we have the unmasking of a terrorist, a look at how a well- educated young man from London came to be known as Jihadi John. And a little later this morning, Jeb Bush`s mighty task of wooing the crowd at CPAC, how did he do it? Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, ENTREPRENEUR: Likewise, Jeb Bush, he`s in favor -- UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Jeb Bush, any supporters? (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: This week we started getting a clearer picture of the man who has become the face, the masked face of ISIS. Many here in the United States. The suspected executioner in many of those ISIS beheading videos. The man referred to as Jihadi John unmasked by the Washington Post on Thursday as Mohammed Emwazi. Who he is and where Emwazi is from doesn`t necessarily match the typical profile of someone thought to be susceptible to radicalization. He`s a British citizen, he grew up in an affluent family in a middle class neighborhood in West London. And yesterday, British Sky News published this picture of Emwazi as an adult, according to Sky, the photo dated back to Emwazi`s days as a student at London`s University of Westminster. That`s where he graduated with a degree in computer programming six years ago. In 2009, it was in that year that friends tell the Washington Post, he began to become radicalized. After his graduation in 2009, Emwazi has detained when he and two friends travelled to Africa for what they say was a safari vacation. The British authorities believed they were actually headed to Somalia where they were going to fight with the terrorist group al-Shabaab and that they then deported him back to the UK where he was questioned again. And according to the Washington Post, he then decided to move to his country of birth, to Kuwait shortly after that. When he returned to Britain the following year, he was questioned again at Heathrow, filed a complaint with security officials and told a human rights group, quote, "Now I feel like a prisoner, only not in a cage in London. A person imprisoned and controlled by security serviceman stopped me from living my new life and my birthplace in my country, Kuwait." This past August the suspected executioner begins to appear in those ISIS videos that shows several Americans and Britains having been beheaded. A well-educated young man who loved soccer in close, he`s described as polite making a remarkable transformation, a terrible transform in a matter of just four years. Mubin Shaikh was an undercover counter terrorism operative, a Canadian security intelligence service. He`s a co-author of the book "Undercover Jihadi: Inside the Toronto 18." He joins me now from Toronto. Mubin, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. I think what some people wonder about is, the middle class background, all the opportunities, all the possibilities that sort of awaited this guy in life, and yet he ends up being radicalized. And we hear about sort of his treatment, potentially his treatment at the airport, his treatment from security personnel. That sort of thing. Maybe you could see how you`d get upset by that and be unnerved by that. But how does that -- how could that possibly trigger a transformation of this magnitude, this terrible? MUBIN SHAIKH, FORMER COUNTER TERRORISM OPERATIVE: It does not trigger that kind of change. Clearly, there are other things happening in his life and his life history that led him to end up where he did. You know, also, there`s a problem of our caricatures of what we think is a typical profile. There is no typical profile. The only typical profile is that they come from relatively normal backgrounds. Some are, you know, relatively educated, some are not. Some are poor, some are not. Some need jobs, some have jobs. So, there is a whole spectrum of behavior that you can find in these kinds of individuals. KORNACKI: So, what are the common threads? Are there any? Is there a trigger moment usually? Is there some specific event that happens that sends people down this path, is it more of an accumulation of things, what is it? SHAIKH: It`s the latter. It`s an accumulation of things. So, radicalization is a process. Whereby when a person comes to take on extreme views. And when you act on those extreme views, you are a violent extremists. So, in that radicalization process there will be life events that may act as catalyst. There may be cognitive openings. Something happens in your life and for whatever reason you start to look for alternative ways to explain your life around you. And this is precisely where ideology plays a big part, is it allows you to justify your actions. KORNACKI: I`m curious about your own story too. Obviously you were going down this road, then you ended up turning back to the other side and assisting as a counterterrorism expert. But I wonder, do you look at Jihadi John and say, that could have been me? SHAIKH: Yes. I do that all the time. A lot of these individuals that are picked up, whether they`re younger kids or older young adults, I was there. I was on the line. I thought, you know, I was being oppressed as a person. But I personally wasn`t being oppressed. I wasn`t discriminated against or bullied or picked on or anything like that, harassment by security services. I didn`t go through those things. So, those aspects didn`t resonate for me. For me it was, you know, I had a chance encounter with the Taliban in Pakistan. So, I mean, a single event like that of such great significance, you know, those are single events that push people, you know, a few degrees more than normal events would. KORNACKI: All right. Mubin Shaikh, terrorism expert. We really appreciate you taking a few minutes this morning. Thank you for that. And still ahead, the strategy Hillary Clinton could use if she runs for president. That many aides say she should have used the first time around. And next, what President Obama is saying about the murder of one of Vladimir Putin`s most vocal critics. KORNACKI: We`re going to get back to the world of politics in just a moment. But first, we want to get you up to date in another major story developing overseas right now. The murder of a prominent Russian opposition figure. Russian officials say they are still looking into why someone killed Boris Nemtsov. He was shot as he walked on a bridge near the Kremlin yesterday. Nemtsov was one of the most vocal critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Former deputy Prime Minister of Russia, he was supposed to take part in a march tomorrow to protest Russia`s involvement in Ukraine. Flowers now adorn the bridge where he was gunned down. Mourners continue to pay their respects there. And meanwhile, the White House calls this a brutal murder and he`s demanding a prompt impartial and transparent investigation into it. We will continue following the story. Up next, what does all the chaos in the House mean for President Obama? We`re going to go live to the White House to find out. And if seeing this dress change color is causing you to shut at your TV right now, you will definitely going to want to stick around for our next hour. KORNACKI: All right. Turning back to this morning`s top story. Congress has agreed to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded, at least through the next week. The House finally approving the measure late last night just a few hours before DHS was about to shut down. President Obama then signing the resolution minutes before midnight. NBC News White House correspondent Kristen Welker joins us live from the White House. So, Kristen, how does the White House reacting to this and what did they think is going to happen in the next week? KRISTEN WELKER, FOX NEWS NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, they think that ultimately DHS is going to be funded. But they don`t think this looks good for anyone. Look, this was a real political nail biter last night with less than just two hours before the Department of Homeland Security was scheduled to shut down. Congress passed a one week extension to keep the agency open. That short term resolution came after really embarrassing defeat for House Speaker John Boehner. Earlier in the evening Boehner had brought to a vote, a bill that would have funded the agency for three full weeks but Boehner failed to get enough votes from members of his own party. So, ultimately that short term proposal failed. So, here is what the issue here. Just to remind our viewers, conservative republicans want any legislation that funds the DHS to also block the President`s immigration action, which would of course provide relief from deportation to millions of undocumented immigrants. Those conservative republicans argue that the President has overstepped his constitutional authority. The President has consistently defended his action. He says it`s legal. And he`s vowed to veto any bill that would block him. The rationale for this one week extension is that the extra time will give the sharply divided Congress some room to try to reach a longer term deal. But of course, this all comes as republicans have taken control of Congress. A lot of people this morning questioning whether this could threaten House Speaker Boehner`s speakership. KORNACKI: Yes. Kirsten Welker live at the White House. Thanks for that update. I appreciate that. And that`s the question to take to the panel here. So, John Boehner, look, the situation here for the next week, where democrats are expecting, what Nancy Pelosi basically said last night, she expects sometime in the next week, John Boehner is essentially going to cave and he`s going to take that clean funding bill that democrats have been demanding, he`s going to put it on the floor, the democrats are going to vote for it. Some republicans are going to vote for it. And that`s the question Kirsten raised. We had Sahil Kapur reporting on the top of the show raising the exact same question. If and when he does that, what`s the blow back risk for him among republicans? Some of whom have been waiting a long time for the moment when he sells them out. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Well, the idea that it could endanger Boehner`s speakership presupposes a very important thing, which is any other republican would want that job. Somebody else would have to be speaker. You know, we`ve seen this before a million times, Boehner speakership is in peril, it hasn`t really happened yet. I think that that kind of dance is less important than the sort of overall image that the Republican Party is presenting doing this. BALL: I mean, I am inclined very much to agree with that perspective, right, and have been failing to understand why John Boehner didn`t do things like bring the immigration bill to the floor and just go ahead and pass it and get it out of the way. But the only way that what he`s doing makes sense is if he actually thinks that there`s a real threat. Because, otherwise, why would you go through this three weeks again from now? Why would you go through this a week again from now. You would just put the full year clean bill on the floor and get it passed with democratic support and move on with your life. If you didn`t think that there was some sort of real threat. KORNACKI: I mean, yes, Adolfo, he sat there a couple years ago and watched 15, 16 republicans said no to him as speaker. This year. Yes. I mean, his margin was kind of narrow. FRANCO: Yes, I agree with Krystal on this. I think his speakership is in peril, not imminent, but I think it is. BALL: He`s always watching his back. FRANCO: He is. And he should. I mean, it`s a real problem. I think the strategy for the next week, which I`m surprised they haven`t highlighted, the leadership, as much. They will in the coming days, is let`s let this play out in the courts. There`s been a victory at the district court level. It might be short-lived, but it`s going to take at least a couple of months, minimum to go to the court of appeals which is a conservative circuit. BALL: Yes. FRANCO: So, they might even get a good ruling there. KORNACKI: Yes. You know -- FRANCO: I think that`s his out in his strategy. But ultimately, I think it is in question if he starts to rule the House through a coalition with Nancy Pelosi, drawing in democratic votes and losing the Hastert Rule which is the majority of the republicans. And that`s why he might be in peril. KORNACKI: He thought he had bought three weeks with the court ruling in the first place. That blew up. And so, let`s see what happens. Anyway, thanks to the panel. We are going to see you guys again in the next hour. Also coming up, Chris Matthews joins us live on the set. You`re not going to miss that. So, don`t go anywhere. Back right after this. STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Did John Boehner make a deal? (MUSIC) KORNACKI: All right. Thanks for staying with us this very busy Saturday morning. MSNBC`s Chris Matthews is here to go over last night`s late night drama on Capitol Hill. We also have a lot more stories we`re going to be bringing to you this hour, including Hillary Clinton has been talking up economic populism in recent months. Is she ready to discuss gender next? We`re going to talk about that with one of her long time advisors. Plus, was this the week that broke the Internet? There was the llama chase that captivated the nation`s keyboards and smartphones, leading up to the main event asking, what color is this dress, anyway? But we`re going to get to that, but we`ll start this hour with the story of the morning. The chaos on Capitol Hill late last night with Speaker John Boehner saved in the final minutes by Nancy Pelosi. And now, the question that will determine whether we end up right back on the brink, maybe even past the brink just a week from now? Did John Boehner cut a deal with the Democrats? It all began with a stunning moment, a truly stunning moment a little after 5:00 Eastern Time last night. House Republicans expecting to pass a bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security open for three weeks. And then this -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The yeas are 203. The nays are 224. The joint resolution is not passed. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: There`s 52 Republicans who joined in in rejecting that three week extension. They`re protesting the fact it did not roll back President Obama`s executive action, specifically on immigration. Boehner has been handed some surprising defeats on the floor in the last few years. This, though, was by far the most stunning. Republican leaders caught flat-footed. The midnight deadline approaching, President Obama meeting with DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson late last night to prepare for a shutdown, just hours before it was about to begin. And then, finally, a last second plan by Boehner to keep DHS open for just one week, and then, from Pelosi, some surprise instructions to Democrats. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: Your vote tonight will assure that we will vote for full funding of the Homeland Security next week. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That one week extension then easily clearing the House just before 10:00 p.m., 174 Democrats voting for it, only five voting against it. But now, the key question, Democrats believe Boehner is about to cave in the next few days. He`s going to give in. He`s going to give them the vote that they want on full funding. No strings attached. Boehner`s office, though, strenuously denying that there is any such arrangement. So, is there a deal? If there isn`t, what are Democrats going to do, if there is, if Boehner told Democrats that he`s already decided to cave, then what are Boehner`s fellow Republicans going to do it? Joining me now from Capitol Hill, Republican Congressman Leonard Lance of New Jersey. Congressman, thanks for taking a few minutes. So, let me start with you on this question -- Democrats are saying that they believe John Boehner has indicated he will put that -- you know, clean -- so-called "clean funding bill" on the floor next week. Do you think that`s what`s going to happen here? REP. LEONARD LANCE (R), NEW JERSEY: I don`t know, Steve. And let me say that I`m sure that there has been no deal struck. I`m certainly pleased that we have funding for the Department of Homeland Security. And I will support funding for the Department of Homeland Security. KORNACKI: What do you think the end game is on this, then? It`s a one week extension. How do you get from where we are right now to having this issue resolved? What do you want to see happen in the next week? LANCE: Yesterday, the Democrats refused to vote for a three-week extension. And yet they voted for a one week extension. I would have preferred that we go to conference based upon the bill with the Senate. As you know, the Senate filibustered this issue four times. We had passed a bill more than six weeks ago. And I favor full funding of the Department of Homeland Security. And John Boehner, the speaker, favors that. I am sure that will be the case and we will not shutdown government. KORNACKI: All right. But let`s be clear on the distinctions here. The bill you`re talking about that made it out of the House, didn`t just provide funding for the Department of Homeland Security, it included language that would take away what the president has done in terms of executive action on immigration. The bill that cleared the Senate, the bill to fund the Homeland Security Department just funds the Department of Homeland Security. The question to you, if that bill is put on the floor in the House, full year of funding for the Department of Homeland Security, no language about immigration, how do you vote on that? LANCE: I would vote for that. But I think that it`s important that we discuss the immigration issue, Steve. That`s why we wanted to go to conference. That would be what is known as regular order. Now, there has been the court case in southern Texas, and that will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. And we are all concerned on the Republican side with what we believe is the president`s overreach constitutionally on the immigration issue. And thank goodness there has been the court case in Texas. We hope for an early decision in the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. KORNACKI: If John Boehner in the next week puts the Senate bill that has no immigration language on the floor of the House, does he have a problem among Republicans? LANCE: I believe that Speaker Boehner will be our speaker for the complete term. He was elected unanimously in our conference following the November election. And I see no credible alternative to Speaker Boehner. He has a tough job and I think he`s doing a good job. KORNACKI: All right. Congressman Leonard Lance, Republican from New Jersey, appreciate the time this morning. Thank you. LANCE: Thank you, Steve. KORNACKI: All right. Before helping John Boehner get the votes he needed to keep the Department of Homeland Security open last night, Nancy Pelosi had some tough words for him yesterday afternoon. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PELOSI: I`m just saying to the speaker, get a grip. Get a grip, Mr. Speaker. Get a grip on the responsibility that we have. Get a grip on the legislative pockets that are here. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: All right. Here now, there is no one better to join us in analyzing what happened on Capitol Hill. (CROSSTALK) CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: The part -- KORNACKI: MSNBC`s Chris -- well, you`re the host of "HARDBALL", but you`re Capitol Hill veteran. I mean, you`ve been there for battles before, Tip O`Neill, all that stuff. What do you make of what happened last night? MATTHEWS: Well, it`s clear that Republican members -- by the way, I don`t think it was a Republican Party like we grew up believing there was, sort of a culture, a unifying force that holds people together as party members. I think the conservatives have found a home in the Republican Party, including very right wing conservatives. They`re willing to use it as a tool. But they don`t really love it. So, people like Jeb Bush could be yesterday, as far as I can see, any of the people like Chris Christie, yesterday. So, I think what we`re seeing is a rebellion against what is the shambles of the Republican Party, Boehner representing that. I don`t think a conservative Republican wants to go home to his district or her district and face a primary challenge because they voted for amnesty. And that`s what they call it, when you let people come into the country illegally become legal. And that`s what the president is doing, and they say, you can`t do that. It`s a very strong issue with those people. KORNACKI: So, how -- I mean, how do you -- what they chose to do here, what the conservatives in the House chose to do is take that idea of we think this is amnesty and attach it to funding for the Department of Homeland Security. This is not the first time we saw that. A couple years ago, we don`t like Obamacare, we think that`s overreach. So, we`re going to attack that for funding of the government. How does it get to the point where we break away from that style of -- MATTHEWS: Well, I`m not sure they can because they don`t have, well, the courts, of course, because the courts, I think -- you know, could be the most powerful branch of government this year. They could say Obamacare doesn`t have the funding for the subsidies because they can`t have subsidies unless they have state exchanges. That could happen. They could give us a right for a marriage equality this summer, probably a bigger deal that Congress is going to do. And they could undermine the president on these executive orders. They could say, you overreached. You can`t make immigration law. You can create incentives for people to say here. You create roadblocks to the prosecution if they`re here illegally. That`s writing law. So, maybe we`ll go back to the end of the summer to a fact where they`re going to have to live with each other, the right and left. But they don`t want to live with each other. It`s almost like they choose -- they choose eruption and chaos over agreeing to live with each other. Pelosi could have given the 14 votes yesterday afternoon. Why didn`t she? Let`s not get too goody two shoes here. She wanted them to sweat and humiliate themselves. Fourteen Democratic votes would have given Boehner that majority earlier in the afternoon. There wouldn`t have been his "Perils of Pauline" on the railroad tracks late at night. So, she was playing the political game, too, here. Let`s be honest. KORNACKI: Well, what she apparently what she told Democrats, too, yesterday afternoon when this thing went down, was she told them, if you vote no now, if you withhold your votes now, she said, I`m confident that tonight John Boehner will have no choice but to put on the floor full year of funding, no strings attached. MATTHEWS: But he didn`t. KORNACKI: That didn`t happen, right. So, what happen -- (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think the question is whether he can continue as speaker if he breaks what they called the Hastert Rule, which Hastert doesn`t even accept. KORNACKI: The majority of the party, right. MATTHEWS: It has to be a majority of Republicans, because I think that Congress would be ruled by majority rule. Is that a simple enough idea? KORNACKI: Do you think the right goes for that? MATTHEWS: No, I think Boehner is in trouble. I think -- I agree with a couple of pols, including Krystal (ph). I think there`s going to be a big fight if he tries to do this, because he`s turning control over of the Congress to the Democrats and they lost. They lost the election in `14. They lost the last couple. KORNACKI: He`s back into a corner here -- MATTHEWS: He lets the Democrats rule the Congress. How can they do that? And let them basically gave what they believe to be amnesty. And, you know, I say this before and it offends everybody because nobody wants to deal. I think Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer, the late Ted Kennedy was serious about immigration reform. Those Republicans like Corker that went along, Bob Corker went along with the deal the other year. They believe in it. Very few people believe in a combination of letting people become legal here, and dealing with the future problem of immigration by outlawing illegal hiring, putting it all together into a comprehensive bill, find the members of Congress in either party who says, I`m for a comprehensive solution." They love the word but they don`t mean it. That`s the problem. KORNACKI: When you look at Boehner, you think he`s in a bit of trouble right here. I mean, so, you worked for House Speaker Tip O`Neill. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: First of all, Tip was so long ago. I hate to keep relying on it, but you brought it back, that`s in the `80s, OK? But the fact is, one thing I know about politicians, they don`t like to be out of touch with their base. The question in the Republican Party, however, is far different. Tip was the base of the Republican Party. He`s an ultraliberal, right? Boehner is not. He`s not an ultraconservative. The base of the Republican Party are conservatives first, Republicans second. We got to stop thinking about Republicans and Democrats. The conservatives are against illegal immigration, against government big spending, big government, what else? Violently antiterrorist, of course. The Republican Party is a house for them, not a home. KORNACKI: So, is there -- MATTHEWS: Boehner is the one who is part of the Whig Party, because that`s the old Republican Party which is establishment. Going back to the beginnings of the Republican Party, there were two sides, right? You know all this. Everyone who watches knows it. There were the Whigs, the people with money, the establishment types, and the wild antislavery people, the abolitionists. They wanted to get rid of the way things were. So, today, you have basically the same situation. You have the abolitionist, people who don`t like government, who don`t like the way things are against, strict constructionists, against this establishment crowd that`s hanging on. Guys from New Jersey and Long Island, they`re the odd men out here, you know, Lance, that fellow you had on, and Peter King, they`re the old people out. Most Republicans are violently anti-illegal immigrant, right, and they don`t really care about Boehner. So, we`ll see. KORNACKI: So, can -- is there another Republican who could be speaker and do more? John Boehner, is he doing the best he can? MATTHEWS: If you ever take math, it`s an explosive model. It isn`t going to fit. It isn`t going to settle. It isn`t going to come together. This is a problem with our politics today. It`s an explosive model. Democrats are basically the side here with the Hispanic community in this country, legal and unlegal, right? Undocumented and documented. They`re with them. They know that`s the future of the party. It`s a big chunk of the party. Republicans are basically married to the anti-illegal immigrant point of view, which is it`s amnesty. And so, as long as congressional districts are drawn geographically, the CDs, most Republican CDs are going to be able -- the guy, member of Congress is going to be able to be anti-Hispanic and openly so, right? But Republican senators on the other hand have to represent Hispanics, because states include Hispanics, most of them do. So they have to be a lot more lenient about the issue. The Senate went along with this the past couple weeks. And the House won`t. It`s the difference of the institutional construction. These districts are right wing. They are really right wing and they have very few Hispanics in them. So, a right wing Congress person has nothing to risk by taking "I`m against amnesty" position. That`s a safe position. KORNACKI: We were talking about this earlier in the show. The Republicans could look at the Republican shutdown in 2013. And -- MATTHEWS: They don`t care about a government shutdown. They`re antigovernment. KORNACKI: Well, look at this, but they got rewarded in 2014, right? That`s how they would interpret it. MATTHEWS: Chaos works for the anti-government party. The more chaos, every Democrat or establishment reads "The New York City", oh, this is very concerning to me, the government is shutting down. Now, to a conservative, the government is screwed. The government is always screwing up. They made their point. KORNACKI: It`s good politics. MATTHEWS: I think one point I`ve worked on since I got up this morning is thinking about the fact that the Republican Party is a House for conservatives, it`s not their home. They use it but they care more about illegal immigration than they care about John Boehner. Think that through. At home, their voters are like that. KORNACKI: That`s very interesting. What you`re saying about Boehner is interesting too. MATTHEWS: I think it`s a scored point if they get rid of Boehner, for most members of the Congress. KORNACKI: Well, it could be coming to a head this week. MATTHEWS: We dump Boehner, put it in your news letter. We got rid of this bum. He`s a RINO. KORNACKI: Yes, they call him one. MATTHEWS: He`s for amnesty. KORNACKI: Chris Matthews -- MATTHEWS: You know, I think they hate their leadership more than they hate Democrats. Well, that was a hell of a statement. It really when it comes down to, is the modern construction of the Republican Party is more of a house of conservatives than it is the party of Lincoln. KORNACKI: It`s a good point. Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC`s "HARDBALL" - - thank you for getting up early. We appreciate that. You can catch more of Chris weeknights, HARDBALL, 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Don`t miss that. And still ahead on the show today, I do have a confession for you -- I don`t see either of the color options. We`re talking about the dress. The colors I see are coming up. No one has mentioned them yet. But up next, who is the front runner going to be going into today`s CPAC straw poll? Live update, live report, stay with us. That`s next. KORNACKI: All right. It is the third and final day of CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference. It`s been taking place outside D.C. this week. All the main speakers have made their remarks. The conference won`t wrap, though, before today`s much anticipated straw poll, the presidential straw poll on the Republican side. So, who is going to win it? Let`s take a look at the moments voters are going to be basing their decisions off of. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Here`s the bad news -- the bad news is that today our nation is on the road to decline. But here`s the good news. We are one election away from triggering another American century. (CHEERS) JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: We need to reestablish relationships with countries we have managed to mess up. I mean, we`ve managed to mess up almost every relationship in the world, if you think about it, including Canada, which is hard to do, but we`ve done it. SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: We could have had Hillary here. But we couldn`t find a foreign nation to foot the bill. GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I`ll tell you, as a good Catholic, we ought to give up something for Lent. I went to my parish priest and I said to him, I`m giving up "The New York Times" for lent. (CHEERS) CHRISTIE: The -- no, no, don`t cheer. It`s bad news. He said, Chris, that`s not acceptable. You have to give up something you`ll actually miss. RICK PERRY (R), FORMER TEXAS GOVERNOR: We survived worse. We had a civil war in this country. We had two World Wars. We had a great depression. We even survived Jimmy Carter. We will survive the Obama years, too. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I promise you this, as a doctor, I will take it and make it my mission to heal the nation. Reverse the course of Obamacare, and repeal every last bit of it. GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: Last question, I did run in track. I was good in the half mile and quarter mile. I`ve been running three times in the last four years. So, I`m getting pretty used to it. (END VIDEO CLIPS) KORNACKI: So, in total, there are going to be 17 candidates on the ballot for today`s CPAC straw poll. That`s actually down from last year`s 25. And among the choices, the usual suspects, Bush, and Christie and Rand Paul, Scott Walker. Some of the lesser talked about speakers also on that ballot, John Bolton, George Pataki, yes, even Donald Trump. Maybe the only ballot he`s actually going to appear on for president. But that`s another thing. Anyway, what can we expect today? Who have the voters on the floor liked thus far? To guide us through, we have Kellyanne Conway, a GOP strategist, president of the Polling Company. She is actually conducting today`s straw poll. So, Kellyanne, thanks for taking a few minutes this morning. So, let me just ask you, we played some of the clips there. All these speeches over the last few days, when you look toward today`s voting, did anybody over the last few days really stand out on your mind who you think is going to have a particularly good day in the straw poll? KELLYANNE CONWAY, GOP STRATEGIST: Several people stood out. But the way you win the straw poll here at CPAC, Steve, is have a very inspiring educating performance on the stage, but also do the leg work leading up to CPAC. So you have lots of volunteers, lots of students here who already support you. I think that that metric really benefits Senator Paul. Rand Paul has won it the last few years in the row. His father had won the straw poll before him, when he performed yesterday, there was standing room only crowd, and chant of "President Paul, President Paul." They`ve been he seems to be very good about activating the base. Curiously, some of the best received speeches here at CPAC were from the three United States senators who are first termers, Rubio, Paul and Cruz. And that`s curious because, obviously, this is sort of a non-Washington, not anti-Washington crowd. But I will also say why there are 17, not 25 candidates this year. This is the first year my firm is conducting the straw poll. We really tried to clean it up in two ways, one, people had to meet three criteria, they`re hiring people at early states, they`re telling donors, supporters, media, that they are seriously considering a run and they`re accepting invitations to purely presidential forums, like say, the Iowa Freedom Summit. So, that really took people off the straw poll and included people who are making such moves. KORNACKI: All right. So, you guys managed to pin it down to a much more 17 candidates on the ballot. Anyway, Kellyanne Conway, thanks for taking a few minutes. Good luck with the straw poll. They were easily looking -- CONWAY: Thank you very much, Steve. KORNACKI: We`re looking at what the results will be. Back at the table this hour, our panel. MSNBC`s Krystal Ball, GOP strategist Adolfo Franco, Evan McMorris-Santoro with BuzzFeed. So, a lot of background noise here. I didn`t realize they were still going at 8:00 in the morning. I thought it would be an empty room or something. What do we think of this? First of all, Rand Paul or Ron Paul, one of them has won like five of the last seven of these. So, I guess, if that happens, people probably discount it a little. I guess one of the questions here is, can Scott Walker win this thing? Is this a sign, if he does, is this a sign of, boy, this ascendancy we`ve been talking about Scott Walker in the Republican side? ADOLFO FRANCO, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: From my view, it doesn`t matter very much. I agree with Kellyanne, it`s entertaining and it`s the best speech and who can pack the house. Romney won it once. He packed it, though, quite honestly. And so -- in that sense, I don`t think -- a lot of credence to it. Everyone will expect a conservative, a real conservative. You saw the sound bites there. Obviously, Rand Paul is the expected winner. If he`s not, that would be a huge disappointment and an indication that he`s not on track to be the alternative -- Ted Cruz, Walker, and the others. But I think the real winner here, is Jeb Bush, who will not win the straw poll. But I think he did himself a lot of good in this particular forum. KORNACKI: Let`s take a listen. We have a clip. So, Jeb Bush had the Q&A with Sean Hannity yesterday. A lot of college Republicans apparently, they bussed in for this. There was a walkout some of the more conservative delegate -- attendees. Let`s play a clip from this Bush exchange yesterday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: You support in-state tuition prices for those children of illegal immigrants that weren`t citizens. (BOOS) HANNITY: Hang on -- BUSH: We should give them a path to legal status, where they work and where they make a contribution to our society. That`s what we need to be focused on. HANNITY: A lot of reaction. (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Do you guys agree with Adolfo? That he do a good job yesterday? BALL: I give him a lot of credit for going in there and sticking to his guns and explaining himself and saying this is who I am and this is what I believe. And, by the way, he was very smart to organize and make sure he had his people in the room. So, yes, there were some boos, but you heard more cheering in terms of what we got in the media over the airwaves. I mean, I am impressed as heck that he did that. You contrast that to Marco Rubio for example who basically went and issued a mea culpa for his stance on immigration. I think it took a lot of courage. I don`t know that it`s a winning stance for going into Iowa. But I give him a lot of credit for it. EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO, BUZZFEED: He also took a kind of a hard line on immigration, too, when he was asked about what he would do if the -- with the minors that were crossing the border, he`s like I would turn them back. BALL: Hillary said the same thing. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Yes, I`m not sure that`s a great message for the Hispanic voting community. FRANCO: By the way, Evan, the president said the same thing initially. The president of the United States said the same thing, initially, with respect to the crisis, before they had a different script prepared for it. I agree with Krystal. I don`t mean to interrupt you. But I think it was brilliant. I think he walked a tight rope here. He was able to convey a conservative message while sticking to principles. And the booing, I think, was actually pretty good ultimately. (CROSSTALK) FRANCO: Beyond CPAC, the loser here is Senator Rubio. KORNACKI: Here is what I agree with you on. This is the line that Jeb Bush said at the beginning of all this a few months ago, is he said, you got to be willing to lose the primary to win the general. So, I thought about this, is this the kind of thing where you lose a primary. We just talked about Chris Matthews about immigration and today`s Republican base. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: That`s all different with primaries now, right, because the last time around, the primary was completely topsy-turvy. Santorum won Iowa, and Romney won New Hampshire, New Hampshire is the important one. And then South Carolina, Gingrich won. You could totally see a situation where Jeb Bush loses South Carolina because of his positions and stuff. But guys like Romney and Jeb Bush, they don`t care about losing South Carolina anymore. FRANCO: But they certainly don`t care about losing Iowa. KORNACKI: But here`s the difference that I see between how Romney got the nomination, how McCain got it in 2008 and the trouble that Jeb Bush has. They didn`t run against somebody like Scott Walker. You compare him to Herman Cain. BALL: Right. KORNACKI: You compare him to Rudy Giuliani. He`s pro-gay rights, pro- choice, all those things. They never had to face somebody with that kind of credibility with the conservative base. That`s what I wonder about. BALL: I agree. And let`s not forget. I mean, the immigration stuff is really tough. The other issue he was talked about was Common Core, which is also a big issue among the Republican base. So, I think it`s tough. You know, he`s not going to win Iowa. I think he has to have somewhat of a strong showing there to prove, though, that he can win over some of these conservative activists and that he`s not going to just be relying on New Hampshire and praying for Florida. FRANCO: Let me say, I was on the Romney campaign. I was one of his spokespeople. Let me tell you what I think is the difference here. I don`t think anyone is going to accuse Jeb Bush on flip-flopping on these issues, even on the Common Core. He has some issues. He`s for national school board and the rest of it. But he didn`t walk away from it. He did not walk away from it all. He didn`t walk away really from his immigration position. So, this isn`t a shift the way Senator Rubio has and so forth. I think this will help him. He will still have problems with some of the base. The question is ultimately, if he is the establishment alternative, whether there`s enough establishment Republicans to overcome the conservative alternative which will likely be Governor Walker. BALL: Well, and also some of those establishment folks are willing to get behind Scott Walker, right? So, it`s not like Jeb Bush is going to have -- KORNACKI: That`s what I mean, is like when they looked at Santorum in 2012 as an alternative, this guy lost in Pennsylvania by 20 points. Look at Scott Walker, he survived a recall. He`s won twice in Wisconsin. This is, you know, basically -- (CROSSTALK) FRANCO: That`s true. Notice we`re not talking about Governor Christie. But that`s a different -- KORNACKI: Well, we are later in the show. We also pretty much stay away from Trump there, which is not one of my goals. Anyway, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie addressed the unfortunate comparison his political action his name as drawn that PAC`s title as leadershipmattersforAmerica.org. It has the acronym LMFAO. That is the same name as the party hip-hop duo. And on Wednesday, Christie was asked about it on his monthly radio show. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HOST: (INAUDIBLE) that name. CHRISTIE: It was a collective thing. By the way, dot-org is not part of the title. I know where you`re going. HOST: I know, but, you know -- CHRISTIE: Please? HOST: Who vets those things? Did somebody not look at that and go wait a second? CHRISTIE: You include dot-org at the end of it, that`s not in the title. HOST: Did you do it on purpose? CHRISTIE: I`m not going to tell you that. (END VIDEO CLIP) (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: We`re going to have a lot more on the governor`s less than hilarious month later this hour. So, stay with us. KORNACKI: All right. A lot going on this morning. We`ll get caught up with other stories. Catching up, index cards, what do they have for me? Well, look at this, there is only one thing to talk about here. BuzzFeed, thank God we have a BuzzFeed guy here. Look what they did to our lives this week. What colors are this dress? BALL: What do you have to say for yourself, Evan? KORNACKI: First of all, you guys, you made a fortune off of this. I hope you get a cut out of it or something. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Yes, I never have to work again. (LAUGHTER) KORNACKI: What color is it, Evan? You tell us. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: First of all, I was there when this was created, and I was pretty amazed as it blew up at BuzzFeed, I was at BuzzFeed New York office. It`s white and gold. That`s the first thing. It`s clearly white and gold. That picture is white and gold. And I will say on the air, people who are not seeing white and gold, and are seeing blue and black, I think they`re lying. (LAUGHTER) MCMORRIS-SANTORO: I think that they are lying -- KORNACKI: There are 35 million views of this since it was posted on Thursday. How do you get white out of that? I saw blue and gold. BALL: Well, it looks like a bad picture of white. I`m totally team white and gold. I totally agree with Evan. I think the people who say they see blue and black is because they know what the dress looks like in real life, like what they`re supposed to be seeing. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: What do you see? FRANCO: This is a lesson that I guess. BALL: There is no black there. That much I know. There is no black. FRANCO: Seeing is believing doesn`t hold true any longer. KORNACKI: What do you see there? FRANCO: I see the white and the gold on there. I mean, I see it very clearly. KORNACKI: Exactly. BALL: There is no black. KORNACKI: I agree there is no black and there is no white. There is blue and gold. BALL: Before I knew what the debate between white and gold or blue and black, I said silver and gold is what I saw, because the white -- I can see like the cornflower blue hint. To me, it was a bad picture, badly picture of white. KORNACKI: All these people seeing white, I`m waiting on them to start complimenting me on the white shirt. (CROSSTALK) FRANCO: I wonder at the end, this is just be a big hoax. BALL: That`s what I was waiting for, too. KORNACKI: BuzzFeed, you can confess that later, Evan. Anyway, that was, you know, no resolution. We had to get that in. Still ahead, though, Chris Christie trying to turn things around. He takes on organized labor, the mainstream media, conservatives within his own party. Those details still to come this morning. But next, she could be the next woman president of the United States. We`ll look at how Hillary Clinton is embracing gender in a way she didn`t in 2008. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I have so many opportunities from this country. I just don`t want to see us fall backwards. No. So -- (APPLAUSE) You know, this is very personal for me. It`s not just political. It`s not just public. I see what`s happening. We have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game. They think it`s like who`s up or who`s down. It`s about our country, it`s about our kids` futures, and it`s really all of us together. Some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: That emotional moment during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries was the weekend between the Iowa caucuses where Hillary Clinton finished third and the New Hampshire primary which she came back to win. Well, that moment is often cited as pivotal in turning her campaign around, a moment that made her appear vulnerable, humanized her sometimes steely image. This time around in 2016, if she does run, moments like that might not be as necessary. "The New York Times" reporting this week that Hillary Clinton will be playing up the fact that she`s now a grandmother, and she will embrace a deeply populist message. Ann Lewis is senior advisor in that race, called the decision not to accentuate Mrs. Clinton`s gender, quote, "the biggest missed opportunity of the 2008 primary contest, which ceded the mantle of barrier breaker entirely to Barack Obama." Ann Lewis joins us now, alongside our panel. So, Ann, let me start with you. That`s really an interesting comment. I wonder if you could just elaborate on that. The idea that you look back on 2008 and you say, they handled the issue of gender the wrong way. It was the biggest. Why? ANN LEWIS, SENIOR ADVISOR: Well, I thought it was a missed opportunity, because if I look at Hillary Clinton`s record, for example, from the Senate, where she was the lead sponsor of an equal pay bill that we now refer to as the Lilly Ledbetter bill, that finally got passed, or on women`s health, which was really such a strong advocate for access to healthcare for every woman. That was her record, that`s what she did. And yet, in the presidential campaign, it was implicit, not explicit. You got the sense -- I know I did because I was there -- people thought everybody knows she`s a woman so we don`t need to talk about that. Instead, let`s talk about how presidential she would be and let`s talk about the, quote, "presidential issues". That turned out to be a missed opportunity. I think that clip you just showed tells you people connect with you better when they see that your real, that you`re human, that you have life experiences. And that I think is what you`re going to see going forward. KORNACKI: I wonder if part of the calculation back in 2008 as the campaign thought about at this, might have been also, looking at how people -- how voters might think about gender, might think about the first female president. And was there some instinct she has to look tougher, she has to look stronger, less emotional, all of those sorts of things, that`s why you don`t want to talk about gender, too? LEWIS: Oh, I think there was a little of that. It is not easy to be the first of anything. So when you`re trying to put together a campaign for the first woman president, when there were no role models, there were no examples, you kind of feeling your way. KORNACKI: Krystal, I wonder what you make of this, you ran in 2010 in Virginia. You`ve had some thoughts on Hillary. I`m curious what you make of this. BALL: Yes, I mean, it is really interesting and you can already see Hillary setting herself up for a very different run, right? We saw her speak to women in Silicon Valley. Next, we got her going down to D.C. to cover, she`s key noting a speech to a group of progressive women. Emily`s List is a very powerful group. So, she clearly is embracing that message really more. And it is interesting the way that the political conventional wisdom has changed since 2008. When I ran in 2010, I got the same advice and was looking at things very much the same way that Hillary was. I was told don`t talk about your kids. Don`t talk about your gender, right? You have to be a polished tough congressional figure. And that has really changed. You can even see that in the way Alison Lundergan Grimes ran this past time around, obviously unsuccessfully. But she really embraced being a Kentucky woman and made that a core part of her message. I think it appeals to a lot of voters, not just women, by the way. KORNACKI: And I wonder, Ann, too, that the idea of -- in 2008, President Obama, Barack Obama, the first African American president if he wins. Hillary Clinton would have been the first female president if she had won that year. The idea of breaking the barrier, do you think it will be as exciting to the country in 2016 as it was in 2008? LEWIS: I can tell you from the many people I hear from, largely but not entirely woman, young and old, the idea of electing a woman president is a very exciting idea. They`ve never been in a potential campaign situation, the underlying potential here, it is possible if he decides where so many people in the year ahead of time are coming up and saying, it`s time to do this. We really want to do this. So, yes, I think it is very exciting. KORNACKI: All right. Yes, thank you for pointing out, still only a potential candidacy, even though I`m not sure how much I believe you on that. Anyway, Ann Lewis, thank you for getting UP and joining us this morning. Appreciate that. Up next major changes to a large protest scheduled for tomorrow in Russia after one of its key speakers is murdered. Details on that right after this break. KORNACKI: Organizers have now canceled the rally that was scheduled for tomorrow in Moscow. It was a rally that was planned to voice opposition to Russia`s actions in Ukraine. The cancellation comes after Boris Nemtsov, one of Vladimir Putin`s most vocal critics was shot and killed near the Kremlin late yesterday. Nemtsov is a former deputy prime minister at Russia. He was scheduled to speak at that rally tomorrow. Instead, now though, organizers are calling for a memorial rally to mourn him. Already, the bridge where he was killed has become a makeshift memorial. Here`s a live look at -- we don`t have the picture, I`m sorry. Russian officials say they are still looking into possible motives behind Nemtsov`s murder. Stay with MSNBC and MSNBC.com throughout the weekend as we learn more about this story. Up next, Chris Christie had harsh words for "The New York Times" this week. So, what was the reaction in its newsroom? We will tell you when we return. KORNACKI: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is in California this morning, speaking to state Republicans at the end of a rocky month in his all but announced campaign for the White House. February began with a withering criticism for Christie`s response to a question about vaccinations. In a "New York Times" report, on his taste for luxury travel paid for by others, now a massive blow to Christie`s effort to balance the books in New Jersey with a state judge ruling that Christie broke his own signature pension reform law when he failed to put $1.5 billion into the state employees pension fund as the law had promised. That`s a huge hole that Christie has to patch up as he tries to scrape together his presidential campaign. His approval ratings back home meanwhile now just 37 percent, the lowest since he took office. Christie, in search of a solution, he`s heading back on to the local town hall circuit, his first in six months. He`s also taking shots at the national media on his monthly state and radio show and on a national stage before the CPAC audience in Maryland. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRISTIE: Are we shocked that "The New York Times" does this? This is a "New York Times" who has already decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president, I`m sure. I don`t care what they write about me in "The New York Times". They can keep it. I don`t subscribe, by the way. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Joining the panel is Kate Zernike, the national correspondent for "The New York Times," co-author of the story on Christie`s travel. Look, I`m not going to ask you for a response to it or anything, but it is fair to say the media, "The New York Times" being part of the media, this is a common punching bag that you hear about from conservative politicians. Certainly, there are Democrats who attack the media as well. That`s not unheard of and the Clintons don`t have the best relationship there. But what is Christie trying to do here? What is it? KATE ZERNIKE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, look, it`s easier to go before the Iowa straw poll and say, I`m going to give up "The New York Times" for Lent, than saying like I`m going to give up gluten or chocolate, which is what most of us do. Look, I think it`s very easy. The issue is not "the New York Times" or the media. The issue is, how are we going to fix the pension problem that you said four years ago? What are you going to do about those eight credit downgrades that now make your borrowing more expensive? How are you going to fix the roads when the fund to fix the road has run out and your borrowing capacity is exhausted? You know, the issue is, frankly, what did you know about the lane closings? If you didn`t know, why you didn`t know? What was the culture you set in your office that allowed people to think this is OK? Those are tough questions for Christie to answer. The easier thing for him to do is to go out and say, oh, it`s all the media`s fault. They just hate me. They just love Hillary. KORNACKI: So, what is the -- it seems like there`s a strategic shift here from the Christie people in terms of having go back to New Jersey. Obviously, the news is sort of compelling that he would be there, but also, more town halls having to deal with the pension issue, the pension crisis essentially back in New Jersey right now. Is there a strategy here of trying to recast him as, you know, the Jersey leader as opposed to this guy who`s out of the state most of the time? ZERNIKE: Yes, and it was actually fascinating at the town hall because at the end, the town hall was fairly -- you know, he said as he started, I`m a little rusty at this, but he came out at the end and he said, he sort of added a little, you know, a new chapter at the end and he said there`s a lot of talk that I have forgotten about New Jersey and I have not forgotten about New Jersey. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can lead -- I still love the state. I grew up here, I`m raising my kids here. I can still walk and chew gum at the same time, and lead the state. Of course, then, he goes -- does his radio show that evening, and then the next day, he goes to Maryland for CPAC, and then goes to California for the weekend. So, he`s really got a tough balance here if he`s running for president and running the state. KORNACKI: And he -- so, at CPAC, he got -- now, this was interesting, too. A lot of the candidates didn`t give speeches. They were interviewed. Generally, it was by Sean Hannity. Christie was interviewed by Laura Ingraham. And lot of people thought that Laura Ingraham was maybe given more of a grilling that Hannity was giving the other candidates. So, that was interesting. But at one point, Hannity excuse me, Hannity -- Ingraham was asking him about Jeb Bush. This was sort of what Christie said at CPAC. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRISTIE: If the elites in Washington who make background deals decide who the president is going to be, then he`s definitely the front runner. If the people decide to pick the next president of the United States and they want someone who looks at them in the eye, connects to them and is one of them, I`ll do OK if I run. (END VIDEO CLIP) KORNACKI: Let me bring the panel in on this. So, it`s OK about, you know, the purpose of the sort of attacks on the media, also sort of positioning himself as I`m running against Jeb Bush. How is this going over with the Republican base? FRANCO: Well, it`s going over well, although I read "The New York Times". Probably was a good thing for "The New York Times", actually, the readership. It goes over well with conservatives, obviously, this is red meat and so forth. The problem with Governor Christie, though, is I think it`s a lose- lose proposition for this reason. I think he`s in serious trouble at home with 37 percent. As a Republican in the establishment of Republicans, his appeal was our dream of possibly carrying New Jersey, Pennsylvania potentially, in other words, a candidate that could attract a lot of independent voters, particularly. BALL: The map. FRANCO: Expand the map and do what we needed to do to win the general election. That`s Christie`s appeal within the Republican Party. It certainly isn`t with the conservative faction. BALL: Yes. FRANCO: But with 37 percent approval rating, trying to pick a fight to be a Scott Walker is not the right fight. Trying to do the thing with pig farmers in New Jersey where there are no pig farmers, to play well in Iowa is really pandering. So, I think ultimately, he loses at the national level, he loses at home, because now, most of us look at this and say, this guy can`t -- with 37 percent, he can`t carry New Jersey. Why would he be on the ticket? He`s certainly not going to appeal in the South. KORNACKI: Are they, Kate -- people around Christie, what do you pick up from them? From Trenton about, like did they look at the last few months and say, we made some mistakes here. ZERNIKE: Well, I think they do and I think the travel story hurt them. They felt that some of them felt it was a fair hit, not all of them certainly, but they felt like this was a problem that he did in the first place and they want to get through to him saying this is the kind of thing you can`t do. BALL: It`s going to hurt his everyday image. ZERNIKE: Exactly. (CROSSTALK) MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Yes, walking and chewing gum isn`t great when the chewing is going to a Dallas Cowboys game on Jerry Jones` tab. I mean, it`s just a crazy idea. ZERNIKE: And you mentioned Pennsylvania. And one of the interesting things was going to the Cowboys game against the Eagles. That`s really angered people in Pennsylvania. The polls showed it. KORNACKI: Yes, you don`t cheer for Jerry Jones` team. BALL: I mean, one of the things I thought going back to his answer on Jeb Bush, it`s almost sort of sad, like he`s now bashing the establishment. This is the folks he was hoping to back his campaign, right? So, it says a lot about how far he`s fallen that now he has to make this like outsider pitch. FRANCO: A lot of the donors that were going to support Christie, New Jersey donors, are now supporting Jeb Bush. MCMORRIS-SANTORO: He`s never going to be the grassroots candidate, and the idea that now he`s trying to say that`s how he -- that`s his thing. That was never his thing. KORNACKI: By the way, Chris Christie, this whole Jeb Bush money machine that could be taking him down right now, and Chris Christie helped build that. Chris Christie`s political career was made by being a major Bush donor and getting the U.S. attorneys job out there. I always like to point that out. (CROSSTALK) KORNACKI: I didn`t even have to say it. FRANCO: -- to the benefit of Jeb Bush? So, thank you very much. KORNACKI: I didn`t even have to say it. Just pointing out the irony. My thanks to Kate Zernike of "The New York Times", Evan McMorris-Santoro with BuzzFeed, Krystal Ball with MSNBC.com, Republican consultant Adolfo Franco -- thank you very much. And to you for getting UP for us tonight. Up next, "MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY". Stay tuned. Don`t miss that. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: March 2, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022801cb.450 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 MSNBC 131 of 131 DOCUMENTS MSNBC February 28, 2015 Saturday SHOW: MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 10:00 AM EST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY for February 28, 2015 BYLINE: Melissa Harris-Perry GUESTS: Fred Azcarate, Nina Turner, Matt Welch, Scot Ross, Lori Adelman, Chloe Angyal, Crystal Valentine, Leigh Ann Caldwell, Julia Angwin SECTION: NEWS; Domestic LENGTH: 14829 words HIGHLIGHT: Different specters of Republican Party. Department of Justice closed the investigation of Trayvon Martin`s murder for insufficient evidence against George Zimmerman. Next, panel talks about police using flash-bang grenades in no warning raids. GOP 2016 hopefuls take on organized labor. Major retail outlets announced wage increases. Oscar night launched debate over feminism. MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST: This morning, my questions. Will there be civil rights charges in Ferguson? Plus, the similarities Governor Scott Walker sees between labor unions and ISIS. And Arcat (ph), the Oscar and intersectionality. But first, what do you see when you look at that dress? Good morning, I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. And let`s just be honest. There`s one question that has consumed our attention for the past 48 hours. What color is the dress? Now we paused the debate briefly on Thursday unified by the compelling spectacle of lamas racing for freedom, but then we return to the animating question of the week. Blue and black, white and gold? Kim Kardashian and hubby Kanye West are hardly distinguishable from one another in our pop cultural imaginations, but Kim revealed their disagreement via Twitter. "What color is that dress? I see white and gold. Kanye sees black and blue. Who is color blind?" Some are content to enjoy the fascinating consequences of human variation. Even in inconsequential matters. Others are determined to stake their claim and join a team. By the way, I`m totally hashtag team blue and black. Others want to find the one indisputable truth and berate others with those facts. House Speaker John Boehner tweeting, "Facts, hashtag, the dress is blue and black. Then adding, is that the Democrats who are blocking security funding to protect president`s hashtag immigration overreach? Well, there you have it. The dress is political. Now, President Obama may be right that we are more than a collection of red and blue states, but this week revealed in the words of an Ellen DeGeneres tweet from this day on the world will be divided into two people, blue and black or white and gold. The color of the dress is a political question because in this sense facts are actually less important than perception. Take this, for example. What if I told you that after years of activists occupying the nation`s parks to draw attention to economic inequality, after years of low wage workers finding their voices, after so many have sounded the alarm, there`s now a group of presidential hopefuls and political stars talking about how to alleviate poverty. Would you be excited? Now, what if I told you that they are all Republican? Did the dress just change colors? Because poverty is on the agenda of the conservative political action conference or CPAC this week in a big way. Here`s New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R) NEW JERSEY: Our vision for the United States is, one, to make sure that, you know, as Republicans the way they will try to tag us, Laura, is to say we`re the party of the rich. And I`ll tell you something, I don`t mind rich people at all, but we don`t need to be standing up as the party defending them all the time. What we need to do is start fighting for the people who are trying to lift themselves up, who haven`t had a wage increase adjusted for inflation in 15 years. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: And then there was this from Utah congresswoman Mia Love. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MIA LOVE (R), UTAH: We must advance the conservative principles that have lifted more people out of poverty, fuelled more freedom and driven more dreams than any set of principles in the history of the world. So my challenge to my colleagues in Congress is to not yield the moral high ground to the left. To get out of the way and allow the American people to rise. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Rise up was the theme for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as well. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH, FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: We need to give people a sense that if we started growing our economy again, the middle would start having rising income again. And what you would do to do that is offer compelling alternatives to the failed tax policies, the failed regulation policies of broken education system and making sure that people know that we`re on their side to rise up. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: It`s like watching a Democratic convention. I mean what color is this dress exactly? Now, you may want to know a little bit about the man many credit with inspiring the new GOP messaging. You`ve probably never heard of him, because he`s not a politician and as far as we know he`s not even thinking of running for president. But he may have been the most influential speaker at CPAC this week. He`s a strong believer in the free enterprise system, and yet he wants to make sure poverty is a central issue in the presidential campaign. A man who wants to, quote, "proactively declare peace on the safety net, and yet wants to expand the earned income tax credit to single unemployed men" calling them, quote, the most vulnerable in our society. Meet Arthur Brooks, head of the powerful conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ARTHUR BROOKS, PRESIDENT AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: If you are your brother`s keeper, if you love the poor, it`s good to give alms, and do it more, but you also have to have a system that works while you sleep. That system, those five forces together, you know what it`s called? Free enterprise. That, my friends, is your gift to the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So does Mr. Brooks have what it takes to change the way we see and hear Republicans? Or will we never quite trust those who see a white and gold dress where we see a blue and black one? Joining me here at the table are former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, also, Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine. And joining us from the conservative political action conference in National Harbor, Maine, excuse me, Maryland, NBC political journalist Leigh Ann Caldwell, who had a chance to sit down with Arthur Brooks for an extensive interview. Leanna, I`m interested, how did Mr. Brooks find himself the poverty guru of the right? LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, NBC NEWS REPORTER: Mr. Brooks is someone who actually has the power and the influence to convince Republicans to talk about this issue. Not only is he passionate about it and energetic, he`s really convincing. But also he`s head of one of the most influential conservative think tanks in Washington, D.C., the American Enterprise Institute. And not only that, in the five years he`s been there, he`s doubled their fundraising from $20 million to $40 million based mostly on his belief that poverty is an issue that the Republicans need to take up. In addition, he has the ear of nearly every single potential Republican presidential candidate and they are listening to him. HARRIS-PERRY: So here`s part of what I want to know then. It sounds to me, when I listen to Mr. Brooks, like he`s legitimately interested in this question as a fundamental question of how the democracy and our economy works. But I wonder if the candidates with whom he is in conversation are really much more interested here in simply a political tool. So, this is my like - looking through my perceptual lens, which tends to have a little more suspicion when it comes to Republican candidates. I wanted to play, Mr. Arthur, just for a moment so that we can listen to him and then get you to respond to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BROOKS: This is not about the money. It`s about the global brotherhood. It`s about the morality. Next time somebody tells you that conservatives only care about the rich, say that`s wrong. If it weren`t for conservative values, the world would stay poor. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So is this for the conservative candidates, is this just politics or is this like in their heart the way it is for Mr. Brooks? CALDWELL: Well, for Mr. Brooks, it`s in his heart. He travels to India, he convinced the Dalai Lama to come to the United States and speak at his organization. He meets with Hindu sages in India, he gets - he believes that - he believes that getting people out of poverty is a path to happiness. He thinks that this is a way of life, and he`s really doing everything he can to convince Republicans about this. He`s part of this group called reform conservatives. And it`s something that it`s a small group, but it`s growing, especially among the younger generation of conservatives. Actually, yesterday at CPAC, that`s how Jeb Bush defined himself. As a reform conservative. It`s someone who thinks outside the box about economic issues and comes about different ways of how to get people out of poverty. Not by decimating the safety net, but by preserving it, but also one major thing about this is that it`s still conservative because it influences work. A work requirement is very central. HARRIS-PERRY: So hold on real quick. Because I want to ask about this now. You were also at CPAC. And I`m interested, what do you make of what seems to be for Mr. Brooks more of an interest in the floor than in the inequality? Right? So, what I`ve heard them say is, inequality is not the big deal, it really is sort of what is the floor. MATT WELCH, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, REASON MAGAZINE: It`s the mobility, mobility. HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah. WELCH: This is true of all free market types, libertarians, conservatives and other words. It`s more about can you escape poverty. What is the way that you can do that faster, rather than having some kind of outcome, in which there`s a, you know, a perfect measure of equality there. Actually, the things you would have to do, to produce that equality would, you know, would put a ceiling on the floor in that position. Also, I mean, part of this is the Tea Party. This might sound strange to the ears of your listeners right now, but the leading reformer cons out there are people like Marco Rubio, people like Mike Lee. There are people who challenge the Republican orthodoxy and establishment, beat establishment picked candidates, came into power in 2010 and they have been talking about - the tax code to help the middle class. But to your point also, there`s a huge political thing here which is if you ask the median Republican what went wrong with Mitt Romney, they would come up with one answer. It would be the 47 percent. HARRIS-PERRY: Yep. WELCH: They know they can`t do that. Jeb Bush at CPAC said, you know, I need to send a message that I care. Like oh no, we`re doing Bush message I care again. But they are - this is on their brain as well. So, it`s a mixture of true belief and political expediency. HARRIS-PERRY: Matt, stay with us for a second. Leigh Ann, thank you so much for joining us this morning from CPAC and thank you for bringing to us a little bit about the story of this man behind this new message. We`ll be come back. I`m going to stay right on this topic because I do want to bring in Nina Turner, who I suspect might see a dress of a different color when we talk about this. And still to come this morning, the Attorney General Eric Holder gives a very strong hint at what is to come in Ferguson. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I always find it curious that when a Democrat`s president, deficits go down. Republican is president and then deficits are going up. And yet they try to take on the matter of fiscal probity. None of this is an accident. It`s not an accident that America is creating jobs faster than any time since the last time a Democrat was president. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: That was President Obama earlier this month at the Democratic National Convention winter meeting. It feels to me, Nina, like that is at least part of what`s happening politically here. The president does have a good economic track record over the course of his six years. It has gotten better, although not at all perfect. And so now we see the Republicans trying to get to a narrative about what they can do economically. And I just wonder, again, there`s a part of me just like excited, but there`s another part of me that just sees the different color of dress there. FMR. STATE SEN. NINA TURNER (D) OHIO: I`m with you, professor, and God bless Mr. Arthur Brooks for bringing this to the floor. Maybe he should have run for president, but I see the color of the dress as the haves and the have notes. And let us not forget that the potential Republican candidates, most of them have held high office. Either as executives or members of the Congress. So I`m going to listen to 10 percent of what they say, but 90 percent of what they have and they do. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. They have ... (CROSSTALK) TURNER: Impact. So it`s one thing to whisper those sweet nothings, but it`s another thing to act upon them. We`re not just talking about average citizens orange - you know, as orange is the new black, talking about antipoverty is the new political talking point. But what are you going to do and what have you done? WELCH: I mean and to that point, and we have seen this week what happens when Republicans control both Houses of Congress. They can`t really do anything. I mean there`s an incompetence there. We don`t do the 12 spending bills a year that we were supposed to do. And even under unified control. So, there`s divisions within the Republican Party. So, we`re a long way off from enacting some of these pretty ideas that your - and your Marco Rubios have come up with. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I guess I`m wondering so what then - because it can`t be just we`re going to run on what we are not Chris Christie or we are not, you know, Jeb Bush. Particularly in a general election, it would be tough for Democrats to run on we are not Jeb Bush, because a lot of Democrats will like that person as a candidate. So do Democrats have something new to say about poverty alleviation, particularly given that the economy has improved but poverty hasn`t. Are there a new set of Democratic ideals if, in fact, Republicans are going to now they can claim we have a new set of ideas. TURNER: I mean we really need to dig. And this is the responsibility of both Democrats and Republicans. You know, we toss out - you know, we`re happy when people work in a bipartisan way. Well, no stuff. American people deserve better than that. Working class folks and middle class folks deserve more than just the talking point of we`re working in a bipartisan way. We should be doing the things that are necessary to lift people whatever that takes. And there has been an unwillingness. I mean we are all excited and giddy about Walmart. You know, a multibillion dollar corporation finally seeing the light. Hello, they should have seen the light a long time ago. What about those families who have been suffering under the pressure of the working poor are among us in this country and we need to do something about it. We have the power and the capacity, both parties have been complicit in this. WELCH: The Americans have this problem, which is that the Obama recovery has been very, very weak compared to other recoveries, particularly the Reagan recovery. Reagan and Obama came into office in pretty similar circumstances. And so Republicans at CPAC are making the point we need 4.5 percent growth. Not 2.3 percent growth. HARRIS-PERRY: Sure! WELCH: Which we`ve seen, and that makes a huge difference. HARRIS-PERRY: But this is - but this is - it`s not like Republicans have been out of power during that time. WELCH: Right. That is true. HARRIS-PERRY: So Republicans have been standing there in the legislature. WELCH: It`s the biggest problem Republicans have, is that there`s a thing called Bush Republicans, which no Republican wants to be. (L) WELCH: Bush economic record was lousy even before the great recession. So, they have to figure out a way to talk about that stuff while seeming credible because they were not credible when they were in power. HARRIS-PERRY: Up next, the big decision and big news that came out of Attorney General Eric Holder`s Department of Justice this week. HARRIS-PERRY: On Tuesday almost three years to the day that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The Department of Justice announced it was closing the investigation into the case after deciding not to file charges against Mr. Zimmerman because of insufficient evidence. Previously a jury acquitted Mr. Zimmerman on all charges. The variety of evidence reviewed by federal investigators included dozens of witness interviews, crime scene materials, cell phone data, ballistic reports, medical and autopsy reports. Even the opinion of a biomechanical expert hired to assess George Zimmerman`s description of the struggle and the shooting. But it was insufficient, it was not enough to stack up to the high burden of proof required for the Feds to accuse someone of taking another person`s life because of their race. In determining whether Zimmerman violated federal laws, the DOJ had to weigh its evidence against the high bar set by two federal hate crime statutes. One, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2009. It was named for the two men whose murders, both in 1998, drew national attention because of the brutality and nature of the killings. Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student whose assailants tortured him, tied him to a fence and left him to die. And James Byrd, an African-American resident of Jasper, Texas who was beaten, tied to a truck and dragged to his death for more than three miles by three men, two of whom were known white supremacists. The law expanded federal hate crime protections to include victims of violent acts based on sexual orientation and it removed a previous restriction for a hate crime charge that required that victims of racially motivated violence be involved in a federally covered activity like voting or going to school. But the law also said that in addition to proving the bodily injury was cause to another person because of race that the evidence was also prove that the injury was caused willfully, which meant the DOJ would have had to show that George Zimmerman knew he was committing an illegal act and that he was committing it in open defiance of the law. The department also considered whether he would run afoul of a second hate crime statute against using force to interfere with the person`s federally protected housing rights on the basis of race. But that law also requires proof of willful intent. In fact, this is the standard for all federal civil rights crimes. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person acted intentionally and with specific intent to break the law and it is one of the highest standards of intent in all of criminal law. But in an exit interview with NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested that high bar may be more of a barrier to justice. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think that we do need to change the law. That I think the standard is too high. That there is a better way, in which we can have federal involvement in these kinds of matters to allow the federal government to be a better backstop in examining these cases. So, I think you have - there probably needs to be a change with regard to the required standard of proof. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney General Holder went on to say that he has some ideas of his own about exactly what those changes should be and he`ll be sharing them with Congress and the American people as one of his last acts of attorney general. Still with me, former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner and Matt Welch from "Reason" magazine, and joining my panel now is Phillip Atiba Goff, who is professor of social psychology at UCLA and president of the Center for Policing Equity. Also joining us from Chicago, Illinois, Eugene O`Donnell, professor of law and police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former NYPD officer. So Phillip, I want to come to you first. Is the standard of proof for the Feds too high or do we want a good robust high standard before our federal government can bring charges against us? PHILLIP ATIBA GOFF, ASSOCIATE PROF. UCLA: I don`t think that those - that`s an either/or situation, right? So, you don`t want someone brought up on hate crimes charges when they were considering just liking someone individually. That would be ridiculous. And I think that was the sort of scare tactic that was used to make sure that the high bar was put into place. But the attorney general was right. These standards don`t fit with the kind of race relations that we have right now. These are standards to protect people who have been lynched. These are not standards to protect people who are living in a current racial situation. And the best evidence for that is that when you have a lower bar, a more reasonable bar like the pattern and practice things that the division of civil rights gets to do with whole departments, right, then you have a whole set of investigations that yield collaborative agreements and consent decrees that the community can get behind and you see way less outreach as the result of that. HARRIS-PERRY: OK, so explain to me what the patterns thing is, which is different than this other high bar. Just the folks who aren`t legal experts listening can understand, and if you could tie it in, because we have talked a lot on this show about what could potentially be the end of desperate impact at the Supreme Court. And I guess part of what I`m wondering is, if - impact falls, do all civil rights claims end up looking like this with this very high bar where you have to show willful intent? GOFF: Right. And so, basically there`s a dichotomy in the way you can think about how race sort of leads to disparity. You have the individual intent someone meant to do this and they meant to do it explicitly because of race. That rarely, rarely happens. And even when it does happen, it`s very difficult to prove. The otherwise to say, there`s no way that these disparities happen and it was anything other than negligence along the way. So the pattern and practice investigations that DOJ gets to do is they go into a police department and they say, hey, I don`t care about your intent. I care about your behavior. And the outcomes here seem really to be too far out of whack with what they should be. So let`s work together to make this a different set of outcomes for your community. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. So, obviously, Mr. Zimmerman was not on a police force. Right? And so, it ends up being a quite different circumstance in that case. But I don`t want to go to on this question because, you know, clearly Mr. Zimmerman was not on a police force. He was a private citizen acting, but so much of this has ended up getting tied into our general conversation about the ways, in which police and communities are operating or even the notion of policing these black bodies. And part of the angst, I think, for so many is the sense that Trayvon Martin was vulnerable because we begin to approach and assume that a young black man out at night is always up to no good. And I`m wondering about how we start to take that apart. EUGENE O`DONNELL, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: You know, I think before you get to the issue of reforming laws and federal statutes, probably that case, the Trayvon Martin case, should have been handled much differently and much more seriously and with much more thrust immediately. Immediately he should have been locked into a story and cross-examined by the police on the scene. It`s vital before the person has time to reflect, reconstruct, assemble, that you pin down what exactly they are saying occurred. I believe there was not adequate investigation on the scene, so we`re probably talking about a little bit about police training today. There is an issue right there where if the police had done their job robustly, and treated him - you have got somebody lying on the ground, a young person dead, treat that as a serious, ultra-serious matter. I think there could have been a different outcome, perhaps, in that case. HARRIS-PERRY: Eugene that is such an important point. I`m sorry that even in my coverage of this, I had forgotten, right, that clearly, the initial issue, the initial thrust for activism was around the fact that Mr. Zimmerman had not been arrested. And therefore, there was this kind of - this long delay. So I want to come to you in part, Nina, because I do feel like Trayvon Martin became and remains this kind of symbol of the question of justice. The family of Trayvon Martin said in response to finding out that the DOJ is not going to go forward here, "We remain poised to do everything in our power to help eradicate senseless violence in our communities, because we don`t want any other parent to experience the unexplainable loss we have endured. We will never, ever forget what happened to our son Trayvon and will honor his memory by working tirelessly to make the world a better place." And I love these parents so much, but man, I want more than just the parents to be doing this. I want that statement to be coming from my elected officials. TURNER: Absolutely, and hopefully this will spark. I mean it takes a lot for that family to take all of this grief and say we`re going to actively engage and use every effort in our son`s memory to make this world a better place. We do need folks all across the country, especially in elected space, to say that, to be engaged, but professor, your point about the whole notion that if a young black male is out, he must be up to no good. Again, when Ice Cube talked about my skin is my sin, the DNA of this country and until we are willing to admit it that racist tendencies that we are all socialized, whether we`re black, white, Hispanic, Asian, we are socialized in these United States of America to see black males, particularly young black males differently from how we see other folks. This takes action. And more than just -- we start with the conversation, but we need the action. Now in Ohio, Governor Kasich did set up the Ohio task force for community and police relations, which is a beautiful thing. How do we take what folks have to say all across the state of Ohio and give them a constructive outlet to talk about how they are feeling in communities that are overpoliced based on race or class? HARRIS-PERRY: And I want to come back on exactly these topics, simply come back, because now that the little lynch has passed the committee hurdle in the Senate, Attorney General Eric Holder is likely in his very last days in office. He says it will be news on Ferguson before he leaves office and we want to talk a little bit more about where that story is likely going, next. And we`ll get next - on this question. HARRIS-PERRY: The end of the investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin still leaves another major civil rights investigation on the agenda for the Attorney General`s final days in office. Shortly after the shooting death of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the Justice Department announced two separate investigations. One, looking into the circumstances of Brown`s death and whether or not Officer Darren Wilson violated his civil rights when he shot and killed the unarmed teen. The other is investigating the Ferguson police department and the allegations of systemic police abuses and racially bias policing. Last week during a Q&A at the national press club, Mr. Holder said that a resolution to both investigations may be coming soon. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is my intention to announce our determination of the decision that we have made both with regard to the individual officer`s conduct in the shooting of Michael Brown as well as the pattern of practice investigation that we have done into the Ferguson police department. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney General Holder didn`t give any indication of the end result of those investigations, but the civil rights investigation into Officer Wilson will face the same high legal bar as the recently concluded George Zimmerman case. The question of whether or not Wilson willfully took the life of Mike Brown. As you already know, a jury chose not to indict Wilson on any criminal charges. And so, but I want to come to you, because I know for many people who want to see some form of justice, the federal government has been the kind of last resort of where to go get it when states and localities haven`t provided that. What you were bringing up in the break that it also raises concerns about double jeopardy questions. But it doesn`t in the case of the whole police force, right? It`s one thing ... WELCH: Right. HARRIS-PERRY: It`s one thing vis-a-vis Zimmerman or vis-a-vis Wilson, but not vis-a-vis the whole ... WELCH: I think pattern and practice is the appropriate place for the federal government to the civil rights division to approach these types of things. I would also say this, you know, the Attorney General Holder gave the speech about how we`re going to stop racial profiling and -(INAUDIBLE) as a direct result of this kind of stuff and there`s talks of task forces and discussions at the White House. We don`t need to talk about it really anymore. There are so many tools including in the Ferguson case that are wrong that lead to these injustices. We have grand jury processes led by local prosecutor -- grand jury was set up in the Constitution to put a check on local prosecutorial power. It`s instead become in a way to indict a ham sandwich, except if the ham sandwich is a cop. This is the way that local power structures enforce their own selves. So, we have 400 police shootings in this country, which is about 400 more than countries like the Netherlands every year. About seven of which ever get, you know, kind of wrongful death situation. This is because we have all these incentives. Prosecutors have blanket immunity in most cases. So if they have repeated examples of misbehavior, of lying, of supporting perjury from people, police officers pretty much have blanket immunity in this country. These are the ways, in which this kind of structure, this kind of injustices happen. So, we need to address those. We know what those are. We know that the forensics in this country are just completely bogus junk science. We know that the drug war creates both prohibition and tools by which you can get harassed in the streets of New York. Go after those things for - and you`ll get a lot of lives saved. HARRIS-PERRY: So, you did - let me ask you about that. That sense that there`s a blanket immunity for police officers, that they are sort of allowed to behave on the city streets, on the country streets in any way that they - Is that how officers experience themselves? Because, you know, it certainly feels that way when you have these two high profile cases, but I`m wondering sort of whether or not officers are operating in the world with that sense of, we`re not going to be held accountable. O`DONNELL: Police have a brought mandate, there`s no question about it. We`re a nation of washing guns. The Netherlands are not. Police deal with gun violence all the time. What the attorney general is doing, I think, does have a value. He`s - there`s a deterrent effect to having this conversation. But no question the police have a lot of power. It`s difficult, though. This red state, blue state, this transcends politics. Very different to micromanage, difficult to micromanage the police. And we do keep expanding the rim (ph) every year. We`re asking them to do more. And then the final thing, it`s really worth saying, we have to make sure the public is included in this conversation. We can`t have an elite conversation where we`re imposing on people what they want. If you go to communities, they tend to want the police to be engaged. And so, this kind of libertarian notion that the police are the enemy. That`s not true on the ground, I don`t think. HARRIS-PERRY: Phillip, does that resonate with you? GOFF: Absolutely. It resonates that communities want active and engaged law enforcement. But to the question of, our law enforcement feeling - they`d got a brought mandate. I was talking with Commissioner Ramsey who is the police commissioner from Philadelphia and the co-chair of the presidential task force on 21 century policing. I was on a panel with him a week or so ago. And he mentioned to me a story about a young officer who was responding to a robbery in progress. And the officer ended up with a deep graze mark right by his eye. Inches away from losing his life. But when he arrived on the scene, he knew he had to - hold for his gun, in his bed at the hospital what he said to the commissioner was, my first thought was Ferguson. So, that`s not just about the discussion was out there like that. That`s about I was worried about losing my job and I was worried about how do I know when I`m doing the right thing. We need to not just begin this conversation. . We need to find a way to settle it that`s in the best interest of the communities and officer safety. HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah. GOFF: Because they feel like they have got not just - well, I got immunity, I might get - I might lose my job for doing my job given the climate of the country. HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, that`s - I think, stick with us. Much more about it, because I want to talk a little bit about the police shooting of an unarmed man in Pasco. You may or may not have heard of this one yet. HARRIS-PERRY: The small city of Pasco, Washington has been the site of ongoing protests for the last two weeks in response to this moment. A 35- year-old Antonio Zambrano-Montes who was shot and killed by police in a hail of bullets. Police said shots were fired after Zambrano-Montes threw rocks at passing cars and at officers who responded to the scene. The results of the police investigation announced this week that Zambrano- Montes was hit by five or six bullets, none of them from behind. But a second autopsy commissioned by an attorney for his family differed in a key detail. These findings determined that he was shot as many as seven times, including twice from behind. Ms. Turner, have we come to what will be sort of the West Coast version of a Ferguson at this point? TURNER: Yes, we have, and this is really sad. And even though we still have to continue to have an open mind and allow the facts to play out, the bottom line is this, was it necessary to shoot to kill? That happened to him. What was his psychological state? What was going on at the time that this happened? Yes, this is gut wrenching in many, many ways and we have to definitely put a stop to this kind of behavior. It just makes no sense that that day he would lose his life. HARRIS-PERRY: And the little closer to home, I think the one that continues to just break all of our hearts is a 12-year-old Tamir Rice, and the Cleveland - yesterday said the city of Cleveland responds to the Tamir Rice lawsuit by saying that the boy`s death was caused by his own actions. I presume that you have former constituent`s friends, family who are just appalled by this. TURNER: Yeah, and being a former Cleveland City council member, I`m just shaking my head. And again, it does not make sense. Less than two seconds from when the police pulled on the scene this 12-year-old boy was shot and killed. He didn`t even have an opportunity to kind of comply, if you will. This does not make sense. Children should not be shot in the streets of the United States of America. And I`m very disappointed. HARRIS-PERRY: And this was on the playground. TURNER: On the playground. And - pointed ... (CROSSTALK) WELCH: But remember that the police lied about what happened and the video showed that it was wrong. And then said well, you know, he looks big, he`s kind of intimidating. HARRIS-PERRY: A little ... WELCH: Black boys always look bigger than ... HARRIS-PERRY: So, Gene, let me come to you on this, because, you know, this shooting in Pasco and then, again, community protests and the hands up, we heard from Phillip before, you know, on the one hand you have communities that are feeling kind of the way that this whole overlay is, but also for the officers, is this making the world more dangerous, more dangerous for officers, more dangerous for communities? Are we actually undermining public safety by the actions of these officers? O`DONNELL: Well, the NYPD right now is retraining all its officers. And they were mocked - because they said that they are telling officers to think, take a second, take a deep breath, think before you act and this became sort of an issue of mockery. I ran into a hero officer this week who said that`s the first commandment of policing. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. O`DONNELL: And you see some of these events and you wonder why the people are thinking before they act. Or they simply - we`re trying to get the police to be reflective and action oriented together. And, you know, mental health is, you know, we have had this conversation, don`t want to - but giving the cops a little bit, just a little bit, not a lot, of mental health knowledge allows them to think before they act. You take a deep breath and say what am I dealing with here? Somebody`s throwing rocks at my police car. What`s up with this? HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah. Indeed, I think that point about that one second and how it could actually save lives. And again, make the world a safer place for all of our communities involved. Thank you to you, Gene O`Donnell in Chicago, Illinois. Still to come this morning, our discussion on Patricia (INAUDIBLE), the fallout from the Oscars, third way feminism. But first, flash bang grenades. I`m telling you, you do not want to miss this conversation, next. HARRIS-PERRY: An extensive report by independent investigative journalism outlet ProPublica details the story of one night last May when a SWAT team raided a home in a tiny town of Cornelia, Georgia looking for a suspected meth dealer. Generally police are supposed to knock and announce themselves before entering your home, but the SWAT team in Georgia had a no-knock warrant, that is legal permission to burst in unannounced. No- knock warrants are increasingly used in drug raids, ostensibly to prevent suspects from destroying evidence when they hear police arrive. At around 2:00 a.m. that night in May, the SWAT team in Cornelia tried to force the front door open with a battering ram, but something blocked the door from opening all the way and allowing the SWAT team to see in. So, one of the officers tossed in a flash bang grenade. It`s a device that temporarily blinds and deafens anyone in the vicinity. Police use the flash bang grenades to stunt suspects in drug raids or to break up crowds. Here`s footage of the Portland, Oregon, police deploying flash bangs to clear protesters in November. (VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So that`s the type of device that a SWAT team in Cornelia, Georgia tossed through the front door of a home in the middle of the night. The officers didn`t know that there was a playpen just inside the door. They didn`t know that a one-year-old boy was sleeping inside. The flash- bang grenade landed on his pillow and according to numerous media reports, the child known as Bubu was badly hurt. He was in the hospital for weeks and underwent multiple surgeries. His family says they owe $1.6 million in medical bills. The county sheriff has said that the officers acted appropriately based on the information they had at the time that no children were in the house. A state grand jury declined to indict any of the deputies involved. For Bubu`s family, the ordeal is not over. Bubu`s parents say he will need surgery at least every two years until he`s fully grown. They say he often wakes up in the night screaming and shaking. It almost seems like he`s remembering what happened, his mother Cho (ph) told ProPublica. In a devastating report about flash bangs called "Hotter than Lava." Joining our table now is the author, one of the authors of that report, ProPublica senior reporter Julia Angwin. So, Julia, how common are these flash-bangs and how common are legal actions against officers who use them and end up harming children or other civilians? JULIA ANGWIN, SENIOR REPORTER PROPUBLICA: So, what`s surprising to me about what I learned about flash bangs was that they are used really routinely. They are something that is really designed to disarm somebody who is about to shoot you, but in fact, they are used for low-level drug raids often. In Georgia, I found one jurisdiction used them on almost every raid. But the injuries can be very severe because the temperature inside that burning fireball when they throw it is actually hotter than lava. That`s what we kind of - and so it`s severe burns that occur. And we have never seen, we couldn`t find any police ever been indicted for tossing one of these grenades and injuring someone or killing someone. HARRIS-PERRY: Can you tell us the story of Sharon Kay Harris? ANGWIN: Sharon Kay Harris is a woman, a 56 years old grandmother in Little Rock who I found. And she had a little business selling food out of a food truck, which actually is a trailer that she drove around. But on Sunday she would sell it from home along with some beer, which was illegal, it`s a misdemeanor offense, to sell liquor without a license from your home. So, the police sent in an informant to buy food and beer from her, then they sent a second time. And then for this $100 fine misdemeanor they raided her home, threw in a flash bang, broke down her door and, you know, caught her clothes on fire. She was fine, luckily, but it shows to the level of - level of a crime, which these devices are being used for. HARRIS-PERRY: Honestly? I can - are you serious? I mean I almost don`t know what else to say except have we got on to a point where police forces are - let me back up for a second. Because every time I hear one of these stories, it just makes me so angry and I just think, OK, the police have lost their entire minds, right? But then I think OK, but wait a minute. Is it an empirical question whether or not things are getting better or worse? Whether or not civilians are actually in circumstances where they are more or less likely to be in these kinds of confrontations with police? You an empiricist. What do we know? Is it getting better or worse? GOFF: So, the short answer is we know way less than we should. In the big cities, by all accounts and from all the data that I have ever reviewed, the numbers of police involved use of forces, particularly the deadly forces, are going down dramatically. But we have to remember 75 percent of departments have people less than 25 officers on them. And we don`t know almost anything about that. Right? So, if most three quarters of the officers are in these really small departments where it`s, you know, ten people, seven people, right? There`s not necessarily enough if you have got one shooting in a year, two shootings in a year, you know, three flash bangs, that`s not enough to see an uptick or downtick in the department, but because we don`t collect national data, we would miss the larger national trend and that`s hugely, hugely important. HARRIS-PERRY: So, let me come back to you for a second, Julia. Because Little Rock is not a small town, but it isn`t Chicago, it isn`t Detroit, it isn`t what we often think of this kind of central policing moments happening. I did want to read that the Little Rock Police Department did have a response to this. They said, you may see a large number of flash bang deployments, but what we see is a large service of warrants without gunfire. That`s coming from the Little Rock department`s spokesman Sidney Allen. The idea, right, that, well, we didn`t shoot anyone being the standard still strikes me as surprising as a standard for police work. ANGWIN: Right. And, well, the thing what they mean by that, actually is not - is that they are concerned that all these people they are raiding are going to shoot them. HARRIS-PERRY: Or, that they will have. ANGWIN: And so, the thing is that I don`t think it would have taken a lot of police work to realize that Sharon Kay Harris who I met, who is about 5 feet tall grandmother, wasn`t going to shoot them, right? And so, the question is ... HARRIS-PERRY: And we`re talking about a misdemeanor violation. ANGWIN: And for a misdemeanor violation. So, the question is, like I understand they want to have a risk-free policing environment, but I also think that there doesn`t seem to be enough work going into who is actually really a risk. HARRIS-PERRY: So, where do the flash bangs come from? Because look, on the one hand, I`m trying to breathe through the DOJ and then not having the Zimmerman and whatever is going to happen in Ferguson. But as I`m trying to breathe through on OK, the DOJ can only do so much, then I keep asking, so where did these military style equipment come from? WELCH: It started with SWAT in Los Angeles, California. Daryl Gates, thank you very much, and the television show then also helped out and then people got the idea that instead of SWAT it was supposed to be for bank robberies. There is supposed ... HARRIS-PERRY: Right. Very narrow. WELCH: Right. And now what they are used for, I think more than 90 percent, the empiricists will correct me, but more than 90 percent of SWAT raids or SWAT style raids are done to enforce drug warrants. So, we get back to the idea of ... HARRIS-PERRY: Drug war. WELCH: It`s drug war stuff here and again, there`s no consequences for going on the wrong house, the wrong door, no-knock raids with the flash- bang grenades. HARRIS-PERRY: GOFF: So that`s right, but I would also add to it, I don`t know that you want to put this all on Daryl Gates. There`s not a law, there`s not a general agreement on a federal level state or municipal level that proportionality needs to be a standard. It is in the U.K. So here it`s about intent and did you follow the rules and that`s what officers are trained to do. HARRIS-PERRY: Can we get - can we get one? Can we get a federal rule? GOFF: Well, you would need some serious motivation, but if you don`t have proportionality as one of the absolute rules, if they are not held accountable to proportionality, then what they will say is, this was to the standard and they are right. HARRIS-PERRY: Nina and Matt are going to return in the next hour. Thank you to Phillip Atiba Goff and to Julia Angwin. Thank you so much for that reporting. We are just stunned by it here in Nerdland. Still to come this morning, he says defeating labor unions proves that he`s ready to take on ISIS and he`s the guy at the top of the Republican polls. Plus, Oscars, (INAUDIBLE) and third wave feminism. You know that - top of the hour. MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. Today, conservative Republicans wrap up their annual massive party on the Potomac. The Conservative Political Action Conference brings together the party faithful, high profile GOP leaders, and this year, several presumed presidential candidates. Some early polls already have Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker leading that pack of candidates, none of whom have officially announced their running, by the way. Now, Walker`s CPAC speech brought the crowd to its feet. However, it is what he said during the Q&A portion of his appearance that grabbed national attention, the coded remarks about how he would deal with terrorist groups like ISIS by saying this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: If I could take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Now, those protesters that he`s referring to were state workers. Just weeks after taking office in 2011, Walker succeeded in ending collective bargaining rights for the state`s public sector unions. Now, there are plenty of reasons that comparing that fight to ISIS is a bad idea. But it does highlight the importance that the governor places on his battle against labor unions. After all, it`s the issue that first earned him national political prominence. Walker went on to survive a recall election in 2012, and to win reelection last year. While many signs suggest that members of the Wisconsin working class are worst off than four years later, Walker`s political star has continued to rise. So, perhaps, it`s no wonder that he`s lashing out at labor unions again. On Wednesday, the Wisconsin state Senate passed so-called right-to-work legislation. Now, I know right-to-work sounds great, but it`s actually a death knell for labor unions. The bill says that employees in the private sector, think car manufacturers or hospitals, cannot be required to join a union even if wages are negotiated bay union. Opponents say that right-to- work laws ultimately weaken unions by drying up their funds. Supporters say, having the laws on the books, attract companies and boost revenue. Governor Walker, he says bring it on. If the bill makes it through the state assembly and lands on his desk, he`s promised to sign it. Now, a few states away, however, unions are giving another Republican governor labor pains this week. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie first won national Republican hearts when he enacted pension reform in New Jersey. He bragged about his success during his speech at the Republican National Convention in 2012. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: They said it was impossible to touch the third rail of politics, to take on the public sector unions and to reform a pension and health benefit system that was headed to bankruptcy. But with bipartisan leadership, we saved taxpayers $132 billion over 30 years and saved retirees their pensions. We did it. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Or not. It turns out in New Jersey, like in many other states, public pensions are severely underfunded and eating up a growing share of state budgets. Christie negotiated a deal where both public employees and the government pay more into the system. He was lauded by moderates everywhere. This worked for a couple years, but when Christie found himself unable to the balance a state budget last year, he opted to cut the government`s pension contributions. Labor unions sued and on Monday, they won. A New Jersey judge said that the governor broke his own law and was obligated to fully contribute to the system. It remains to be seen how Christie will respond. What is clear is that those very issues that helped Christie to gain national prominence may now hurt his viability as a presidential candidate. One issue, two governors, two very different political outcomes. What does it mean for their political futures? Joining me now, former State Senator Nina Turner, Matt Welch, editor-in- chief of "Reason" magazine, and Fred Azcarate, executive director of U.S. Action. So, Fred, it looks like Mr. Walker is doing well among Republicans hopefuls. It`s still quite early. Does that strike fear in the heart of labor and of labor unions around the country? FRED AZCARATE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, USACTION: Well, I mean, I think you see both governors, right? They are so blinded by political ambition. They will do anything. Chris Christie is willing to break the law. Scott Walker is willing to enact policies that will bring down wages in his state. And what he said this week at CPAC, it really actually -- it`s worse than we thought. He really has disdain for workers in Wisconsin, right? And he hasn`t apologized. He hasn`t retracted his statement, and I think he should. He should apologize to the hard working men and women of Wisconsin. (CROSSTALK) MATT WELCH, REASON MAGAZINE: He did tiptoe it back. He didn`t say, I`m sorry for saying -- (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: But what I will say and we have to put this at the feet of voters. The man did survive a recall and he was reelected. So, I mean, I feel you, but the nature of democracy is these people went out and they were like, yep, that again. NINA TURNER (D-OH), FORMER STATE SENATOR: I can hardly stand it. Governor Walker compared the citizens of his state to terrorists for standing up -- HARRIS-PERRY: He said he`s strong. I`m not sure if he called them -- (CROSSTALK) TURNER: No, listen, the governor said that he can handle ISIS because he could handle the constituents in his state who were standing up for their wages and how they pay their mortgage and how they put food on their table. There`s something outrageous about this. But you`re right, unfortunately, last year, only 36 percent of eligible voters even dared to come out to vote. So, all paths lead back to the ballot box. But give me a break, the last time I checked, there were Republicans in unions and Democrats and libertarians and everybody in between. HARRIS-PERRY: So, this is an important point that feels like I want to go all the way back, Matt, to the very first block when we were all sitting here together and talking about Republicans have a new way of addressing poverty, right? We really can look and see that all workers` wages rise when unions exist. So, even if you yourself aren`t in a union, in states where there are unionized workforces, wages rise. So, how can this hour be the same as last hour, right? WELCH: There`s two different conceptions. There are competing conception, both of which are heartfelt. One is yours, that more unionization means, better -- broader more shared prosperity. There`s the general right-to- work state conception, which is more Southern, which is that you bring more jobs and that will create prosperity. I think Scott Walker generally feels that. I think he went after unions in the beginning because he, like a lot of people, and I would agree with him here, have think we have made too many public sector union promises that we can`t keep. Chris Christie actually can`t and won`t keep the promises that they may and that needs reform. I think that is an attractive message. I`m not sure on a nationwide basis whether the whole right-to-work battle resonates as much because we have sifted into blue and red states on this issue and they are competing notions of prosperity, again heartfelt -- HARRIS-PERRY: So, I feel you on pensions, right? In the sense of there are real fiscal issues associated with pensions and some of that occurs as a result of us not knowing how long it was that people are going to live, right? The world actually shifted under our feet. WELCH: And also, the difference between defined benefit and defined contribution, which is a huge -- AZCARATE: It`s about choices. HARRIS-PERRY: Wouldn`t unions be willing to talk about that? I guess part of that -- AZCARATE: In New Jersey, they were. There was a deal and Chris Christie went back on the deal. Workers paid more. They said we`re going to pay more for our pensions. Chris Christie, you have to do your share. He was unwilling to tax people over $1 million more. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: Right. And what happens with the context of Walker, it`s a breaking of the ability to sit at the table at all, right? I mean, it`s one thing to say, all right, we have a problem here. Everybody has got to come to the table. It`s another thing to say you don`t have a right to sit as an organized union at the table. AZCARATE: Right, when you eliminate collective bargaining, the ability to sit at the table and have that conversation about how we can bargain our wages and benefits, working conditions and do what`s best for our state or our country. TURNER: Most people when they know this, they will sit down at the table and bargain. They will do the right thing. I mean, we saw that -- HARRIS-PERRY: Workers don`t want to bankrupt their state. WELCH: But we are seeing cities go bankrupt. Let`s be clear about this. In San Bernardino, California, in Vallejo, California, in lots of cities, in Rhode Island, and elsewhere, the public sector pension problem is $4 trillion that`s basically an unfunded liability there. It is bankrupting cities. And that -- those discussions sometimes don`t lead to results to avoid those bankruptcies. So, there`s something worth dealing. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. So, let me ask a political question. The same question around poverty -- are any Democrats better positioned? Because part of what I`m wondering, so if Republicans are going to be the anti- unions, right, I don`t know if they are, but that`s going to be part of their message, can Democrats after particularly what happened with education unions and the kind of education reform discourse of the past few terms, can they really say we`re on the side of unions? TURNER: I mean, we -- yes, Democrats are on the side of unions. HARRIS-PERRY: OK. TURNER: But there is a however in all of this. I mean, we all have to have what I want to call the coming to Jesus meeting and have that meeting on a regular basis. But the way to address these things are not on the backs of working folks. That is not the way to address this. HARRIS-PERRY: Tina Turner with the black church tradition, at least you don`t know about, the come to Jesus meeting, Twitter will explain to you what a come to Jesus meeting is. Up next, guess who is about to get paid more? Maybe you. HARRIS-PERRY: This week, the parent company of T.J.Maxx, Marshalls and Home Goods, said it would begin paying workers $9 an hour starting in June. Analysts seem to agree that the company, which employed 190,000 people, is following the lead of Walmart. The nation`s largest private employer announced last week that it would increase base pay for its workers to $9 by April and to $10 by next February. Now, this news raises the possibility that more retailers will follow suit, with 1 in 4 American workers being in the industry that has the potential to help a lot of people. Why the change at Walmart? Now, it apparently had little to do with anything to do with pressure from organized labor. Instead, CEO Doug McMillon told CNBC the move simply made good business sense. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DOUG MCMILLON, PRESIDENT/CEO, WALMART STORES, INC.: We just decided this is a really good moment to be more bold in the changes that we`re making and, again, it`s really aimed at just running a really good business. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, have American companies finally decided to respond to years of mounting public pressure to raise wages or is this move more symbolic than substantive? So, what do you think of this idea that it has nothing to do with the protests? AZCARATE: Well, of course, it did, let`s be honest. If there wasn`t the protests and Our Walmart and UFCW, putting pressure on them, we never would have changed the wage policy. And that`s a good thing that they have, right? But, of course, that, the Fight for 15, all the moves around the country to raise the minimum wage and raise the issue of wages, they are having an impact and that`s great. It`s a good first step. It`s not enough. And I think you`ll see some pressure continue. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Matt, you and I have had this debate on this show before about minimum wage and what it does, right? Whether it is overall a good thing for the economy or not. And here we have the Walmart CEO saying, oh, it`s not the unions. We just think it`s good business sense. Is this them kind of rolling back the idea that raising higher wages, paying higher wages is bad? WELCH: I think -- I don`t think that anyone says that paying higher rates is bad, right? Like the argument against the minimum wage is not an argument against Walmart raising its minimum wage. I think people get confused about that sometimes. I think Walmart, in the last six, seven years, partly because it had the biggest target on its back for the longest time, like for more than a decade, Walmart was the devil when it came to organizing against a single corporation in this country. HARRIS-PERRY: Well, it`s got a big footprint. WELCH: It has -- no, I mean, there`s a reason why they were chosen as such. They started to play it nice. They started giving money to liberal groups in Washington, D.C. We know this pretty well. They started figuring out how to be more environmentally-friendly. They started speaking with words -- using words like sustainable. They started figuring how to play ball, I think this is part of that. I hope it`s purely economic thing and that it`s a sign that our economy is starting to finally to spike up. I worry that it`s more of a political softener. HARRIS-PERRY: This is such an interesting and important point to me. So many of the bad actors that have a target on their back either around civil rights questions at some point or another, you know, we have seen other major corporations that when they make their settlement or peace, you go to the good organizations and they are sponsored by -- WELCH: Donald Trump got an NAACP award. HARRIS-PERRY: I have feelings about that. TURNER: As far as (INAUDIBLE) power can seize nothing without a struggle. Never has, never will. So, I certainly agree, it was from the pressure. But before we get too excited, it is good. But I have to put a however on this point. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, yes. TURNER: Walmart is a $500 billion company. So it took them this long to see the light? This is the morally right thing to do to make sure that your work verse a wage that they can live on. Not just survive, but to thrive. We have to take people in this country, working class people from surviving to thriving. HARRIS-PERRY: And morally right is one piece, but I just -- I want to point about the big target, right? It`s not just because they make a lot of money, because it`s capitalism, we think people should make a lot of money. But they actually double dip in the system, right? Because what happens is if your wages are so low that your workers continue to be able to get government subsidies particularly food subsidies and those food subsidies are spent, where, at the one place you can buy cheap groceries which is Walmart. You`re literally double like -- your money is coming back around to you in this way that I do think people find appalling. This idea of paying people working full-time poverty wages, wages so low that the federal government and taxpayers put the floor underneath them. We are literally subsidizing them. TURNER: Seventy percent of our economy is a consumer economy. We need people to be viable in that economy. It should be -- it`s unacceptable. AZCARATE: We find it appalling because it is, right? And the fact is we`re long overdue for a conversation about wages in this country. We have had, you know, 30 years of wage stagnation, while productivity has been going up, wages have stayed flat. And it`s time that, you know, we talk about raising wages. HARRIS-PERRY: And do Americans feel that? I mean, one of the things, like, you know, if we are going to have a free market push towards imagining we work hard and because we work hard we get to have homes and make the American life. The idea that we literally are working harder and not feeling it, I feel like Americans experience it in a way they can`t even put their finger on. WELCH: Yes, it`s been 15 years like this. This is in a Bush/Obama phenomenon and, you know, irrespective of the Great Recession. So like wages really haven`t grown in 15 years. Private sector employment has not grown. It did not grow under Bush until 2007. There was a net loss in private sector jobs. That is a long time for not very exciting economy right now. So, people have a sense of when Obama or anybody from the administration tries to tout their economic record, I think people kind of get their nails out a little bit. We don`t feel it. We don`t feel like that it`s really experiencing it, especially when we have a labor participation rate lower than anytime since 1978. That`s not a great moment. HARRIS-PERRY: Matt Welch, you have been hanging out at CPAC and you coined the phrase Bush/Obama phenomenon. I don`t know if I`m going to let you -- (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: I don`t know if I`m going to let you get away with that one. Nina and Matt are sticking around. Thank you to Fred for being here. And still to come, how Patricia Arquette set Twitter on fire this week. (COMMEIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: OK, I want to bring in now from Madison, Wisconsin, Scot Ross. He`s executive director of One Wisconsin Now. Scot, I want to go back for a second to this idea of Scott Walker, the ways in which he`s leading out there in front at CPAC and ask you what would it mean for the Republican Party if Scott Walker ends up being the Republican nominee? SCOT ROSS, ONE WISCONSIN NOW: Well, I`ll tell you, Melissa, you know, Scott Walker is the most experienced post-baby boomers elected official in America. This guy`s politics incarnate. And he operates in a way which is definitive, decisive, divisive and disciplined. And he`s also kind of dishonest. And what that would mean for America is what you`ve seen in Wisconsin, which is a state which has never been more divided. We see the biggest cuts to public education in our state`s history. We see last in the Midwest in job creation and the rights of workers, women and voters all under assault. That`s what Scott Walker will bring to the United States. But what he also brings is he`s a winner. And he`s got a big money machine behind him and he is shameless and operates in a way which a lot of politicians don`t. But he`s been a winner. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Scot, I want to play something for you. This was sponsored by the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. It`s kind of a pro- right to work or anti-union piece. I want to play it because what you said is you`re last in job creation, but this is the discourse about why right to work should be creating jobs. Let`s take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we see in right to work states is higher wage growth, higher job growth, greater economic opportunity, businesses investing more. These are the kinds of things we want to bring to Wisconsin. It`s why Wisconsin needs a right to work law. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: So, adjudicate those claims to me. Is that happens? Higher job growth. Higher wage growth and greater economic opportunity? ROSS: It`s literally the opposite. I mean, right to work states have an average of $5,000 less in household income. They spend $3,400 less per people on education. They have higher rates of u unemployment. They have higher rates of people without insurance. They have higher rates of people of infant mortality rates. I mean, right to work is a disaster. It`s wrong for Wisconsin. It`s wrong for America. But what it does do is rewards millionaires, billionaires and corporate CEOs who finance things like Governor Walker`s campaigns. That`s why they want to do it. I mean, the right wing and corporations wouldn`t be spending zillions of dollars to pass right to work if it wasn`t going to benefit corporations and millionaires over the middle class. That`s what we have seen. HARRIS-PERRY: So, I know that you`re the executive director of One Wisconsin Now, and you`re planning to rally today? ROSS: Yes, there`s a rally at noon Central Time here in Wisconsin. People standing up for workers` right rights. You know, that`s what we have had to do here in Wisconsin because they have been under assault since Scott Walker took office. He promised to create 250,000 jobs. Well, what was the first thing he did? He attacked the rights of 175,000 working Wisconsinites. People like teachers, people like nurses, people who plow the streets, you know, the people who he now refers to as being equated to ISIS because they disagree with him. And so, people are getting together. There`s going to be a rally today. We continue to fight against right to work in the same way we have been trying to fight his other attacks on the Wisconsin way of life. HARRIS-PERRY: Well, Scot Ross in Madison, Wisconsin, one thing that`s certainly true is that this is a candidate who has survived a lot, who is, as you point out, a winner, whether one agrees with his policies or not, and that makes me bet that we`re going to see a lot more of you over this course of the Republican primary season because what happens with Scott Walker, we`ll want to keep drawing you back in and having a conversation about him. So, thank you to Scot Ross in Madison, Wisconsin. And up next, the Oscars, intersectionality and third way feminism. You know it`s the Nerdland show. HARRIS-PERRY: Last Sunday was the 87th Annual Academy Awards. Few nominations went to people of color earning the Twitter derision and hashtag, #oscarssowhite, when the nominees were announced back in January. But host Neil Patrick Harris did recognize a few actors of color during the program. Not everyone appreciated the way he did. Harris` longest running bit of the night was with Octavia Butler. He asked Butler to help him watch his list of carefully guarded Oscar predictions. Of course, he explained the task required her diligence and undivided attention. He stipulated one rule in particular, quote, "No snacks". Now the ongoing joke stirred up discomfort from many Twitter watching the show and prompted responses like this one from MSNBC correspondent Janet Mock. "Hey, #Oscars, #Octaviaspencer is not #thehelp. You can watch that ballot box on your own." Or this from author and feminist thinker Roxane Gay, "Typical, Octavia Spencer plays a maid, wins an Oscar and is expected to work at the ceremony." But nothing sparked social media quite like the statement Patricia Arquette made in the backstage press room, elaborating on a rallying cry she made for wage equality during her acceptance speech. She said, "It`s inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries and we don`t. It`s time for all the women in America and all the men who love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we`ve fought for to fight for us now." Arquette`s speech during the ceremony was heartfelt, but her pose showed elaboration revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of a key feminist concept, that marginal identities like gender or race, sexual orientation and class, are not separate, they are fundamentally intersecting. Nerdland friend David Zirin wrote, "What is so aggravating is that Ms. Arquette`s comments could best be as, quote, `anti-intersectional`. It states pretty clearly that you see your struggle as one of straight, white, native-born women for equal pay, as if there aren`t masses of people who live beneath the weight of multiple labels that benefit from such reforms." Well, never in my territory. Welcome to feminism 101. Ain`t I a woman? Still with me, former Ohio state senator, Nina Turner. Matt Welch from "Reason" magazine. And joining me now, a double dose from Feministing.com executive director Lori Adelman and senior columnist Chloe Angyal. So, Lori, surely this was also the land of Feministing, what exactly was wrong? What went wrong with Arquette`s speech and her subsequent comments? LORI ADELMAN, FEMINISTING.COM: Well, unfortunately, this has been difficult for people to understand through the years, but not all women are white and straight. I know that this is difficult, you have to go back and you named this segment "ain`t I a woman", Sojourner Truth has been talking to us about this since the 1800s. And then, so many amazing feminists have been pointing this out. Hey, we exist, we are women of color, there are queer women, there are trans women, and we need to be part of this movement because feminism will not succeed unless it`s working for all women. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, when you do this thing that is -- oh, you know, we fought for the blacks, now fight for us. Hey, some of us are the blacks and the women all at the same time. So, part of the question then is so what difference does it make, right? So, part of what I kept hearing from folks in response to us, OK, sure, there are black women too and Arquette herself says, yes, they too would benefit. That queer women would benefit, just as much as straight women from this. So, it doesn`t make any difference if I`m intersectional in my comments. CHLOE ANGYAL, FEMINISTING.COM: Well, trickle down feminism works about as well as trickle down economics. And it`s absolutely true that inequality at the top, and when I say at the top, I mean straight white privileged women like myself, we`re doing much, much better than most women and we`re still unequal. So, inequality at the top absolutely predicts inequality down the line, but there are so many more people down the line that are focusing on the women at the top isn`t going to cut it. It`s just not going to do it. We need to think about the people who live at those most disadvantaged intersections. HARRIS-PERRY: So, you just used the language of privilege. And I do want to say, Arquette really took to Twitter afterwards. You really, I mean, this is not sort of like a small mishap. She had a conversation that she wanted to have. She addressed the privileged question quite directly. I wanted to read one of her tweets on the issue of privilege, where she says basically that I`m not -- you say I`m living with privilege, but I grew up poor, right? We`ll see if we can get that tweet out. She says, I grew up poor. There we go. "Don`t talk to me about privilege. As a kid, I lived well below the poverty line. No matter where I am, I won`t forget women`s struggle." So, is there something to be said? TURNER: Well, I think that`s fair on her part. I mean, she was certainly speaking from her heart. She thought she was saying the right thing. She had no mal-intent. That being said, to have a deeper and greater understanding about the struggle of women who may or may not ever make it to where she has made it in life, you know, it is totally unacceptable. I think her point about us being a country that continues to fight for other folks which is a beautiful thing, but yet, right here in the United States, we still have 77 cents on the dollar for white women. If you are a women with some chocolate or bronze on you, you know, it`s even less for chocolate. We need to deal with that because when women suffer that way economically, we are penalizing their children, communities, you know, states and nations. So, it behooves us economically and morally. I`m going to continue to push the moral position. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: So, I just want to ask this. This has been my sub tweet to Nina Turner all day because she and I really only disagree on one fundamental topic and that is the likely Democratic nominee in 2016. And I have been pretty clear that I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, right, running in 2016. But that said, let me suggest that there is an actual empirical piece that`s part of that angst for me. And that is, I get that she is like an embodiment of womanhood. There`s been discussion about her running as a woman, gender and all of this. But, like, when we look at the breakdowns, the intersectional reality is that that gender gap is actually a race gap. It`s actually black women and Latinos who have been supporters of President Obama`s initial election and reelection. And I wonder whether or not Hillary Clinton ends up reading like Patricia Arquette come 2016. TURNER: I don`t think so. And she is there. I mean, we got to remember the secretary came by way to the Democratic Party from hearing a speech from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. I mean, people change along this journey. We have to continue to push those folks in power, whether it is the secretary or governor or a mayor to do the right thing in these spaces and in these places. So, I think it`s not necessarily a fair assessment to lay totally all of this. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: All right. More on this, I promise. And up next, breaking Kelly Osbourne news, and we`re going to get Matt in on it when we come back. HARRIS-PERRY: It has become a cultural tradition in sort of various magazines, fashion blog, the news outlets, to create best dressed looks after actors debut their signature Oscar night looks. Now, which brings me to Monday night`s episode of E Entertainment show "Fashion Police." The four hosts weighed in on the best and worst Academy Award ensembles. When it came time for comments about the singer and Disney star Zendaya Coleman`s red carpet look, "Fashion Police" co-host Giuliana Rancic rendered this critique. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GIULIANA RANCIC, FASHION POLICE: I feel like she smells like oil. Or weed. Maybe weed. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Later that night, Coleman dropped some knowledge in an Instagram open letter to Rancic. The 18-year-old wrote, "There`s a fine line between what is funny and disrespectful. My wearing my hair in locks on an Oscar red carpet was to showcase them in a positive light, to remind people of color that our hair is good enough. To me, locks are a symbol of strength and beauty, almost like a lion`s mane." In case the mike was not dropped hard enough, Solange Knowles whose hair was once patted down by TSA backed Coleman on Twitter, saying, "Fashion police has been bashing my fro for years, @intouchweekly, compared it to a dog. You know what I say?" Now, Rancic did apologize to Coleman on Tuesday after "Fashion Police" co- host and friend of Coleman, Kelly Osbourne also complained on Twitter. Earlier this week, Osbourne also threatened to leave the show of Rancic`s remarks, and yesterday E! News announced that she had. In light of all this, I`d like to take a moment to discuss the politics of black hair -- Matt. (LAUGHTER) WELCH: I`ll point out that a couple years ago, when I was telling you to go full fro and I think you lacked the courage of you convictions back then. HARRIS-PERRY: Well, it is true that right after the events in Ferguson, I very much wanted to go full fro and my husband said, you might feel differently on Saturday. ADELMAN: You know what? That`s the problem. Everybody does have opinions about how women of color need to be wearing their hair. It`s always politicized. It`s always policed. There`s never an opportunity for us to just wear our hair how we want to. TURNER: It is our hair. Think about this deeply, the notion that the hair you were born with is somehow substandard. The way that the Creator created you is substandard. This culture has been pushing that in the minds of African-American women in particular for generations. I mean, go back to the days of slavery. There is something fundamentally wrong with saying to somebody the way you were born is substandard and you need to conform to be beautiful. HARRIS-PERRY: Right, and I think is precisely why want to come back to the intersectionality point. This idea, Chloe, is that, it -- you know, we`re talking about in the context of the Oscars so it ends up feeling like, oh, this is just some sort of cultural moment, but it is at the core of everything from the ability to work in certain fields, to the idea of what constitutes valuable humanity when you`re in a black woman`s body or in a brown woman`s body or a poor woman`s body. And this is why the Arquette comments mean something. ANGYAL: Right. pop culture seems frivolous, but pop culture is the stories that we tell ourselves about ourselves and about people. HARRIS-PERRY: What color is that dress? ANGYAL: Exactly. (LAUGHTER) ADELMAN: It`s blue. WELCH: It`s blue and gold. (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) ANGYAL: OK. I think when we`re talking about the politics of black hair. When we`re talking about the politics of light skin and dark skin, black women, we`re actually talking about the intersection of gender and race and class, because not only are we talking about making sure that we`re policing women to make sure they look a certain way, that they conform to feminine beauty standard, and to European beauty standard. And also, that conformity is incredibly expensive, right? It`s time consuming. And just as a demonstration, Lori spent three times as much time in the hair chair and makeup chair as I did this morning. And we both spent more time than any of the men. TURNER: Psychologically and economically, expensive. HARRIS-PERRY: And you pointed out colorism. I don`t want to miss colorism. It is a real thing. And we just like, at all points, even when I acknowledge disprivilege around race, it`s also important to acknowledge privilege around light skin girls. (CROSSTALK) ANGYAL: To take Octavia Spencer as an example, and I think it`s telling that we`re spending so much more time talking about Patricia Arquette than we are about Octavia Spencer, by the way. To take her as an example, she`s a dark-skinned black woman. She`s a large woman. She`s of size, and around fat people, we attribute a lot of ideas about intelligence and class and about your worth as a human being. So, on her body, you see a whole bunch of intersectional, a whole of issues intersect. And then you see the way she was treated at the Oscars. ADELMAN: The thing I want to say when it comes to intersectionality is this is not just about being politically correct. This is actually tactical necessity for the feminist movement to move forward. Consider the wage gap, which Patricia Arquette raised. Look at transgender people in the workplace. There are studies that show that transgender women after they transition in the workplace face pay decreases and transgender men face pay increases and increased respect and authority in the workplace. What could better lay bear the ways that gender discrimination are coming into play in our society so we need to make sure trans people are in this conversation, too. ANGYAL: And it`s also important to note that both of those real people, trans men and trans women, in many states can still be fired for transitioning. So, even if you get a pay bump, when you transition, as a trans man, you can still be fired for being who you are. ADELMAN: Assuming they have even overcome the stigma and violence to get to that workplace. WELCH: You said this is not about political correction, real quickly, I just want to say, though -- during the Oscars, we all experienced watching on Twitter, there`s a lot of people dissecting jokes that`s a level that`s unhealthy and seeing things in some of the jokes -- I mean, for me, if the joke is funny and the hair joke wasn`t funny, that was the problem. The Octavia Spencer joke, that wasn`t funny. The Oprah joke, which I think has nothing to do with race, certainly wasn`t funny, didn`t even make any sense. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, but I do think -- ANGYAL: It doesn`t mean that the joke is funny means that it`s OK. And I think dissecting jokes to a point that`s not healthy, jokes are like pop cultures, the stories that we tell ourselves about ourselves. I think they merit dissection in the same way that you know -- HARRIS-PERRY: Right, part of what makes something funny or not has to do with the social constructed notions about what is true, right? So I like a good bad joke, right? I mean, the jokes that touches on the things that we`re not supposed to say, at some of my favorite stuff. And yet I also feel like there are rules about how you can tell a joke. OK, thank you to Nina Turner and Matt Welch. Thank you, Lori Adelman, Chloe Angyal, and to Lorena who is screaming in my ear. I`m going to go now. OK, seriously, we`re just going to be in a commercial. We`re going to be on the commercial. Up next, our foot soldier of the week. HARRIS-PERRY: Next week on this show, I`ll be live in Selma, Alabama, marking the 50th anniversary of the historic civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery. A few months after the march, President L. Johnson signed the voting rights act into law. And yet 50 years later, the right to vote is still in jeopardy with legislators across the country proposing laws to make it harder for people to cast their ballots, which brings us to our foot soldier of the week, a 20-year-old Bronx native who wants to use her poetry to get New York City youth involved in politics. Crystal Valentine has been writing poetry since she was a fourth-grader and now is currently enrolled at NYU, where she is studying child psychology. Last October, Crystal won the NYC votes citywide youth poet laureate program. It`s a competition with both. In her point, the voter engagement and education run by the New York City Campaign Finance Board. And with that title, she is traveling the five boroughs this year, speaking to young people and spreading the word about civic engagement and voting. Crystal Valentine is our foot soldier of the week and she joins us now. So, Crystal, tell me what made you want to enter and become the poet laureate? CRYSTAL VALENTINE, 2015 NYC YOUTH POET LAUREATE: I`m always wondering how can I help my community, how can I as a black woman help other people of color? And when this opportunity came to me, I was like, wow, let`s just try it out. I`ll be able to go to schools, I`ll be able to go to community centers and I`ll be able to really let my voice be heard. So, yes. HARRIS-PERRY: I`ve been giving lectures this month and talking about the importance of art and creativity in movement making. Why does poetry have a role in a continuing civil rights movement? VALENTINE: Because how do you move people? Poetry moves people. You can sit there and lecture to, you know, individuals and say, this is what you need to do or I can recite a beautiful poem for them and the poem is off of real emotion. So, you can`t mistake real emotion. So that will move people into action. HARRIS-PERRY: Who are the poets that you read? VALENTINE: Oh. Of course, Maya Angelou, Audre Lorde, my own mentor, Mahogany Brown. Just people who get it, you know? Empowering people of color who really make a stand. HARRIS-PERRY: So, do you think young people are truly engaged in the political world right now? VALENTINE: Not so much. I feel like they can be more engaged, many young people aren`t voting in the elections. And I think that we can power up on that one. But I think that we just need the right communication to really get it out to them, you know? HARRIS-PERRY: Tell me about the poem you wrote that helped you to win this competition. VALENTINE: OK. So, the poem I wrote is called "The Voters Problem". And basically in the poem, I`m trying to see what -- how do the stakes have to be, how high do the stakes have to be before we come together and solve our problems, you know? Usually, people come together in a time of crisis. And I`m saying, let`s forget about the crisis, let`s not have this crisis. Let`s not have anyone being hurt or being disrespected. Let`s come together and make a stand for ourselves. HARRIS-PERRY: Would you be willing to perform for us? VALENTINE: Yes, of course. HARRIS-PERRY: Absolutely, I`d love to have you do so. VALENTINE: A voter`s problem. Maybe we`re just waiting for the locusts to come. Maybe we`re waiting for the whole world to set fire, for God to finally cleanse this melting pot for pure human race to rise from the ashes. Because obviously, the stakes aren`t high enough. Obviously, college debt isn`t high enough, and high school dropout rates aren`t high enough, and increased Metrocard fares aren`t high enough. Obviously, President Obama`s signature on an $8.7 billion food stamp cut isn`t enough, and America`s attempt to exile an entire continent isn`t enough, and people being beheaded on national television isn`t enough. Maybe we`re just waiting for something ridiculous to happen, like Miley Cyrus becoming the first female president, like racism being diagnosed as a mental illness, like police sirens becoming our new national anthem. Obviously, we`re just waiting for something deadlier than rape culture and police brutality to split this road in half. Maybe politics aren`t Armageddon enough for us, aren`t spark enough for us, aren`t call to action enough for us. This is a call to action, to rally, to revolution. And I know it`s hard living in a society where we attend more funerals than birthday parties. And I know you think you`re just another flame in an uncontainable inferno. And what does a flame know of voting anyway, and what does a vote to a burning democracy? And I think I just saw the rapture coming. And I know you think Obama is just another god that has forsaken us, just know that calling any man a god is the true Armageddon, just know that your refusal to vote is the true Armageddon. So vote because when Armageddon does happen, it will look nothing like this. Thank you. HARRIS-PERRY: Crystal Valentine, that is an extraordinary piece and I think captures so much of what your generation will undoubtedly have to address. My college adviser was Dr. Maya Angelou. I have no doubt that she would be and is right now smiling with pride about what you have just done with poetry and with politics. Thank you. VALENTINE: Thank you so much for having me. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you for being with us today. I greatly appreciate it. And that is our show for today. Thanks to you for watching. I`m going to see you tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. Tomorrow, you will not want to miss our segment on genius as a social construct. I`m telling, I think we might have a genius right here. But we`re going to talk specifically about genius as a social construct through the prism of Harry Potter and Hermione Granger. But right now, it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT." THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LOAD-DATE: March 2, 2015 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT: 022801cb.451 DOCUMENT-TYPE: Show PUBLICATION-TYPE: Transcript