Guests: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sam Stein, Chris Hayes, Ken Starr, David
Weigel.
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, GUEST HOST (voice-over): Which of these stories
will you be talking about tomorrow?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don‘t know how
passing health care will play politically, but I do know that it‘s the
right thing to do.
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: The president takes his health care message out of the
Beltway bubble to Pennsylvania.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The insurance companies continue to ration health care based
on who‘s sick and who‘s healthy, on who can pay and who can‘t pay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: In the Senate, Chris Dodd is now the 37th Democrat willing
to pass the public option through reconciliation. And House leaders make
Congressman Dennis Kucinich their latest target to switch from “nay” to
“yay” on health care. Our guest: Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
The bizarre saga of Congressman Eric Massa. First, there were
allegations of misconduct with a male staffer, then details of a naked
shower fight. And now, one brave FOX News conspiracy theorist is coming to
the rescue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Americans have a right to know the identity of the al
Qaeda seven.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Now, 19 conservative lawyers and policy experts say that
Liz Cheney ad “undermines the justice system.” One of them is former
independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Our guest: Kenneth Starr.
Back to the Kodak Theater—
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This seemed like a better idea in rehearsal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: All the highs and lows and the history made at last
night‘s Oscars.
And Sarah from Alaska continues to write Tina Fey‘s material for her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH PALIN ®, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: If it was good enough for
God, scribbling on the palm of his hand, it‘s good enough for me, for us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: All that and more—now on COUNTDOWN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: We‘re going old school tonight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O‘DONNELL: Good evening from Los Angeles. I‘m Lawrence O‘Donnell, in
for Keith Olbermann.
Many on the left have complained about the watered down provisions in
the Democrats‘ health care reform bill, but only one liberal in the House,
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, went so far as to vote against it last
November. He didn‘t just vote against it. He denounced it point by
Democratic talking point.
It was assumed that Kucinich definitely would be voting against it
again, but with the possibility that a single vote could decide the fate of
the final legislation, the effort to change the mind of the gentleman from
Ohio is in full force tonight. Ahead, my interview with Congressman
Kucinich.
First, the latest details. President Obama today delivered his most
direct and energized pitch in months in support of his proposal to reform
the nation‘s health care system. Outside Philadelphia, the president
literally and proverbially rolled up his sleeves to argue that now is the
time, finally, to fix the system.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Since we took this issue on a year ago, there have been plenty
of folks in Washington who‘ve said that the politics is just too hard.
They‘ve warned us we may not win. They‘ve argued, now is not the time for
reform. It‘s going to hurt your poll numbers. How‘s it going to affect
Democrats in November? Don‘t do it now.
My question to them is: when‘s the right time? If not now, when? If
not us, who?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: The president warned that without reform, insurance
premiums will just keep going up and insurance companies will keep making
money even as they lose customers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: And even if some people drop out, they‘ll still make more
money by raising premiums on customers that they keep. And they will keep
on doing this for as long as they can get away with it. I mean, there‘s no
secret. They‘re telling their investors this. We are in the money. We
are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are
going to be put under hardship.
So, how much higher do premiums have to rise until we do something
about it? How many more Americans have to lose their health insurance?
How many more businesses have to drop coverage?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: To wavering Democrats, the president argued that passing
reform was the right thing to do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: So, I‘ll be honest with you. I don‘t know how passing health
care will play politically, but I do know that it‘s the right thing to do.
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: To Republican claims that they want to start over with
health care reform, the president asked in effect, why didn‘t you do it
when you had the chance?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I got all my Republican colleagues out there saying, well, no,
no. We want to focus on things like costs. You had 10 years.
(CHEERING)
OBAMA: What happened? What were you doing?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Senator John Cornyn today promised that Senate Republicans
will do everything they can to block health care legislation from coming to
a majority vote. He added that Republicans should and will run on
repealing health care reform in this year‘s mid-term elections if the bill
becomes a law.
Meanwhile, Senator Chris Dodd became the 37th Senate Democrat to
support passing the public option by reconciliation—something that just
might bring Dennis Kucinich closer to supporting the final bill.
As promised, we are joined now by Congressman Dennis Kucinich,
Democrat of Ohio, and former presidential candidate.
Congressman Kucinich, as we‘ve discussed on this show, you‘re facing a
two-vote—two-stage vote process in the House. First, vote on the Senate
bill as is. Then vote for a reconciliation bill to correct everything
that‘s wrong with the Senate bill that you just voted for.
Will you vote yes for the Senate bill?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OHIO), FMR. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well,
keep in mind I voted against the first version of the bill in the House. I
told the president twice in two different meetings that I couldn‘t support
the bill, didn‘t have a robust public option and if—at least, if it
didn‘t have something that was going to protect consumers from these rapid
premium increases. And you know what? The White House counts me as
wavering.
The fact of the matter is, I listened to the president in your news
story here, and to hear the president, you‘d think that he was for single-
payer, at least a public option. But he‘s not. This bill represents a
giveaway to the insurance industry, $70 billion a year, and no guarantees
of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance, five
consecutive years of double-digit premium increases.
I mean, I‘m sorry. I just don‘t see that this bill is the solution.
The insurance companies are the problem and we‘re giving them a version of
a bailout.
O‘DONNELL: So, did we just get a “no” there, Congressman? Will you
vote against the Senate bill at the first stage of this process in the
House?
KUCINICH: If that sounded like a “no,” you‘re correct.
O‘DONNELL: OK. Will you be comfortable if it turns out you are in
effect the single vote that defeats health care reform?
KUCINICH: Every vote counts. And I‘m one of 435 members of the House
of Representatives. The White House has known my position. It‘s not a
secret. Democratic leaders have known my position.
You have to remember that I carried a single-payer proposal to three
Democratic national conventions, three times to the platform committee,
twice as a presidential candidate.
We need health care reform. We need Medicare for all. We need to
join the rest of the industrial world in being able to provide health care
for our people as a basic right, but the fact is that one of every three
health care dollars goes for corporate profits, stock options, executive
salaries, advertising, marketing across the paperwork. This bill doesn‘t
change that. This bill doesn‘t change the fact that the insurance
companies are going to keep socking it to the consumer.
So, you know, if the White House is ready to go back and have a robust
public option as Jacob Hacker iterated with 125 million people being able
to negotiate and knock down the insurance premiums, then we have something
to talk about. But otherwise, you know, I need some—I need to hear more
about what they‘re proposing. And what they proposed so far isn‘t anything
different than I voted against.
O‘DONNELL: Do you fear for the Democratic Party if there is no health
care reform bill passed? Do you think that outcome politically for the
Democratic Party will be worse than passing this flawed bill?
KUCINICH: I think the Democratic Party is in political trouble right
now because we have 15 million people unemployed and we have another 11
million or 12 million people under employed. The economy is stagnant.
We‘ve given bailouts to Wall Street. We haven‘t taken care of Main Street.
We got -- 12 million people could lose their homes this year and a quarter
of the population is under water with their mortgage.
I mean, the economy is stagnant. That‘s really the key issue.
Is health care a problem? You bet it is. Would it be helpful if
everyone in this country had health care? Yes it would, but not in a
giveaway to the insurance industry.
If you have $70 billion a year, put it into health care. You don‘t
have to give the insurance industry their cut because somehow, you know,
they have so much influence in the political process. This bill that‘s
going from the Senate to the House is just another version of Medicare Part
D which was a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies.
O‘DONNELL: What do you say to the president and Democrats who say,
let‘s get this passed and then we can build on it with future legislation?
KUCINICH: You‘re building on sand. There‘s no structure here.
You‘re building on a foundation of privatization of our health care system.
That‘s the problem. The insurance companies are the problem.
They‘re nothing to build on. We build our hopes on the insurance
companies and all we‘re going to have is more poverty in this country.
And people aren‘t going—
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Dennis Kucinich—
KUCINICH: -- people aren‘t going to get the care that they need.
O‘DONNELL: Go ahead.
KUCINICH: Remember, insurance companies make money not providing
health care. That is a fundamental truth about our health care system.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, you have
been consistent throughout this debate. Many thanks for your time tonight.
KUCINICH: Thank you very much.
O‘DONNELL: For more, let‘s turn to Sam Stein, political reporter with
“The Huffington Post.”
Sam, does Congressman Kucinich represent the only consistent Democrat
in the House of Representatives? When I think of what Nancy Pelosi was
saying six months ago or eight months ago, there will be a public option,
all these promises Democrats have made, all these issues that they‘ve said,
you know, we will vote, I will vote against it if it doesn‘t have the
public option, if it restricts abortion, every—it seems to me, every
liberal except Dennis Kucinich has let every one of those principles
collapse up to this point, haven‘t they?
SAM STEIN, HUFFINGTON POST: It‘s a fair point to make. In many ways,
the conservative wing of the Democratic Party has been a lot more rigid in
their ideological purity than the liberal wing and I think that‘s a—when
this is all said and done, there‘s going to be a lot of reflection among
the progressive caucus about what exactly went wrong in writing this bill.
But, yes. You know, Congressman Kucinich is sticking by his
principles. Talking to him back stage, he wants a robust public plan and
nothing short of that I think is going to win his vote, and there‘s going
to be a lot of chatter about what this means—whether he now represents
sort of the Ralph Nader of health care reform in reference to the 2000
election or whether what he‘s doing is principally correct.
O‘DONNELL: And he represents, as far as we know, a group of one at
this point, doesn‘t he?
STEIN: Yes. From my reporting and that of my colleague Ryan Grim,
it‘s tough to get a sense of anyone who‘s joining Congressman Kucinich on
this. I talked today with Senator Bernie Sanders who probably would be his
counterpoint in the Senate in terms of the liberal base of the Democratic
Caucus, and Senator Sanders is behind this legislation even though it does
not have single-payer which he wanted, even though there‘s not likely going
to be a public plan, and even though the provision that would ostensibly
provide a foundation for single-payer has its own weaknesses.
So, yes, Congressman Kucinich stands alone.
O‘DONNELL: Now, there‘s more trouble on the other end of the
Democratic Party, Bart Stupak and the abortion language problem. How many
votes does he represent? If he‘s going to be asked to vote on the Senate
bill with the abortion language it currently has, if he‘s a “no” vote on
that bill, how many go with him?
STEIN: It‘s a great question. You know, inquisitive minds want to
know, I think, including Speaker Pelosi‘s office. It ranges anywhere from
four to 11, maybe up to 13, but, you know, when it all comes down to what
happens between now and an actual vote. The problem here is that there is
no conceivable compromise other than to allow abortion language to be voted
upon outside of the health care bill. As you know very well, it‘s tough to
adjust abortion language in reconciliation. It has no budgetary impact.
So, the only conceivable solution to this is to allow a separate bill
to be voted upon but Congressman Stupak doesn‘t want that because he knows
very well that that bill would be defeated in the House and the Senate.
So, in some respects, he‘s becoming the Jim Bunning of health care reform.
He‘s letting his objections to this one provision ostensibly, or possibly
derail the entire package. So, we‘ll see.
O‘DONNELL: Well, you know, the tricks of reconciliation in the Senate
actually do allow for anything to go through, absolutely anything if you
have 60 votes for it. So, it seems—it seems conceivable.
STEIN: But there‘s not 60 votes. But there‘s not 60 votes in the
Senate with Stupak‘s language.
O‘DONNELL: Well—what would it do to Republicans if there is a
Stupak amendment in the Senate in reconciliation? How—and they need,
and there has to be a vote to override the parliamentarian ruling it out
which is 60 votes? Wouldn‘t antiabortion Republicans feel compelled to
actually vote for, in effect, Stupak in that situation?
STEIN: It‘s actually intriguing hypothetical because it does pit the
pro-life constituency within the Republican Party against the community
that surrounds it. You know, I would suspect they‘d find another way to
vilify the legislation and talk about how the provisions don‘t go far
enough, that they would find a way to defeat health care reform, because
for them I think this debate has proven one thing. They‘re more interested
in defeating the legislation than advancing core principles or belief.
They think there‘s more to gain by handing Barack Obama this defeat.
O‘DONNELL: And, quickly, Sam—
STEIN: Sure.
O‘DONNELL: -- before we go, the president seemed to do well out on
the road today with the local audience, but how did he do with the audience
back in Washington today?
STEIN: Well, it‘s a good question because, you know, the real
constituency he needs to win over are the skeptical members of the House of
Representatives. You know, Obama now does seem to be practicing what he
preached. Back, I think, a couple months ago when he was briefing House
Democrats on the Hill, he kept telling them that you can‘t run away from
this legislation, that no matter what, you‘re going to be attacked or
you‘re going to be credited for it. You‘re going to own it.
So, now, he is ostensibly owning it. He is saying, “This is my bill.
I‘m going to run with this and I‘m going to push House members to follow
me”—which is a welcome sign for the caucus.
O‘DONNELL: Sam Stein of “The Huffington Post”—thanks for your
reporting. Thanks for your time tonight.
STEIN: No problem. Thanks, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: Coming up: health care reform‘s bizarre new side show
starring Representative Eric Massa. First, he said he was resigning
because of his health. Now, he claims he‘s being forced out by Democrats.
But as he pushes that theme, he continues to admit to being at the center
of one inappropriate situation after another.
And later, the right is rising up against Liz Cheney. Her own party
now says Liz Cheney‘s attacks on lawyers who defend terror suspects are
unjust, shameful, and destructive. Our guest: Kenneth Starr.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: A funny thing happened on the way to the resignation of
Congressman Eric Massa. Instead of taking responsibility for inappropriate
language or conduct with male staffers, now he‘s saying Democrats forced
him out because he was a “no” vote on health care. This is now his third
reason for quitting in the past week. I can‘t wait to hear the next one.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Eric Massa, Democrat of New York‘s 29th
district, resigned today, under allegations that he sexually harassed a
male staffer. Mr. Massa‘s first said he is leaving because of health
problems, and then just yesterday, the congressman indulged in a sudden
diatribe against his fellow Democrats, saying that they are getting rid of
him so they can pass health care reform.
During a nearly 13-minute rant on a radio show yesterday, Congressman
Massa tore into the Democratic Party, saying that it wants him out because
he voted no on the health care reform package last November. But here is
Massa in his own words describing the wedding incident which led to
allegations of sexual harassment.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
REP. ERIC MASSA (D), NEW YORK: I was with my wife. And, in fact, we
had a great time. She got the stomach flu. I went down to sing “Auld Lang
Syne” and with cameras on me, and I‘m talking three of them filming me, I
danced with the bride and I danced with the bridesmaid.
Absolutely nothing occurred. I said good night to the bridesmaid. I
sat down at the table where my whole staff was, all of them by the way
bachelors.
One of them looked at me and as they would do after, I don‘t know 15
gin and tonics and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne, the
staffer made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the
bridesmaid. And his points were clear and his words far more colorful than
that. And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, “Well,
what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.” And then tousled the
guy‘s hair and left.
Now, was that inappropriate of me? Absolutely. Am I guilty? Yes.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Fracking you. Massa claims that House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer lied about how the harassment allegation was brought to the
House Ethics Panel, but Congressman Hoyer says, through his spokesman,
there is zero merit to that accusation.
Mr. Massa also described an incident when he was serving on a Navy
ship during Desert Shield which led to an allegation of misconduct. Massa
explained that he walked in on his room mate, who was, quote, “busy
remembering his spouse.”
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
MASSA: And I walked in and instead of embarrassing him, I smacked him
on the leg and said, if you need any help with that, let me know, and I
went to bed. And he was so hideously embarrassed, he moved out of the
state room.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Massa also called White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel
the “devil‘s spawn” and recalled a supposedly naked incident in the house
shower during which Emanuel supposedly complained about Massa‘s vote on the
budget. Massa will be on Glenn Beck‘s show tomorrow.
Let‘s bring in Washington editor of “The Nation,” Chris Hayes.
Chris, 39 Democrats voted against the health care reform package last
November. But former Congressman Massa says that he—inevitably only he
--
CHRIS HAYES, THE NATION: Only he, right.
O‘DONNELL: -- has been pushed out over that vote. They found a way.
The Democrats decided, you know, let‘s have a sex scandal. That‘s what we
need this week. You know, take it away.
HAYES: Well, look, it doesn‘t pass the sniff test. I mean, it
doesn‘t make any sense why they would fabricate and engineer this whole
thing. And, you know, the most serious allegation, right, is that this
ethics complaint has been trumped up. My sense of it, the procedures are
such that ethics complaints are submitted to this committee. That they‘re
reviewed, it‘s all sealed.
You know, if it‘s actually true, you know—then, you know, Massa‘s
got a point, but there‘s absolutely nothing to suggest this notion is true.
And the whole story doesn‘t really add up both what he says about it, the
fact that we‘ve had this weird back to back, you know, he‘s not running for
re-election, and now he‘s going to resign. So, none of this is really
adding up right now.
And remember, the only person we‘re hearing from about this right now
is Massa, himself. You get a sense that there‘s a lot more to the story.
O‘DONNELL: If anything he was saying was true, if he was in some
sense being forced out because of that vote, the answer of that is simply
to not leave.
HAYES: Right.
O‘DONNELL: He voluntarily left today. Doesn‘t that kind of prove,
you know, which side is telling the truth here?
HAYES: That‘s what‘s so bizarre about this whole incident is that he
on the day that he resigned, he‘s running around complaining about being
forced out. It‘s like, dude, don‘t resign. I mean, I honestly don‘t
understand what his point is. It sounds like, you know, that he was forced
out. He resigned today.
So—and not only did he resign. If he is being truthful about the
allegations against him, he came out and said them, right? So he could
have just nipped this in the bud, given the exact same interview and not
resigned, and voted against health care to screw over Rahm Emanuel and
whoever else. There has to be more to the story behind why he resigned
other than this, you know, fit of pique.
O‘DONNELL: All right. Here is where Glenn Beck is going to go
tomorrow. Here‘s my—here‘s my best prediction.
HAYES: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: He‘s going to say the Democrats know how to take care of
their own when they want to. Look at Charlie Rangel.
HAYES: Yes.
O‘DONNELL: They let him stay there under the clouds, you know, for
over a year now. What do the Democrats say back to that? What‘s the
difference between the Massa situation and the Rangel situation?
HAYES: Well, I mean, the Rangel situation is different insofar as
there has been a process and the ethics committee conducted the process
and, you know, they‘re following the ethics committee recommendations. I
think, to be honest, Rangel looks bad. You know? And that they, you know,
they—at least he stepped down from the chairmanship. But the Democrats
should be embarrassed about Rangel and a lot of the allegations are quite
serious.
What‘s weird about the Massa thing is they‘re going to turn around and
turn him on its head, right, because here‘s a case in which all the ethics
procedures have been followed. Here is someone who‘s being—who had a—
it appears a sexual harassment complaint filed against him. He, himself,
chose to resign. They are now in the case of defending the person who has
the ethics complaint against him.
So, in the same way that they can point to a double-standard on the
other side, the arrow points back at them exactly for that reason.
O‘DONNELL: Chris Hayes of “The Nation”—thank you for handling this
weird one for us tonight.
HAYES: Just a salty old sailor, Lawrence. Just a salty old sailor.
O‘DONNELL: There you go.
Coming up: is honor dead in the Republican Party? Consider the
growing uprising of Republicans who are sharply criticizing Liz Cheney.
Kenneth Starr—yes, that Kenneth Starr—joins us to explain why Liz
Cheney‘s views are shameful, even harmful.
And later, a big night of firsts at the Oscars. The history you heard
about and the history that you might have passed you by—ahead on
COUNTDOWN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Our next guest is a newcomer to this program. In the
past, his work has been criticized from this desk as sharply as Keith has
ever criticized anyone. Ken Starr, the former special prosecutor who
investigated President Clinton, has now gone public criticizing the recent
attacks by Liz Cheney and others on Justice Department lawyers who once
represented or did work on behalf of alleged terrorists.
The issue sufficiently important that Keith weighed in today about
Judge Starr‘s opinion on this to say, “that‘s how seriously we both take
this, that even we agree on it.”
This, of course, is the web ad produced last week by Liz Cheney and
Bill Kristol‘s group, Keep America Safe, labeling Justice Department
lawyers the al Qaeda Seven, and propagating the slur “Department of Jihad,”
because seven then unidentified DOJ lawyers, in addition to two others
already known, had represented or did work on behalf of terrorist suspects.
As we reported last week, a group of conservative lawyers, many of
them deeply involved in prosecuting detainees, sharply rebuked the ad.
This weekend, that rebuke grew louder. The voice of Ken Starr and more
than a dozen others, including top Bush justice and defense lawyers, some
of the strongest defenders of Bush anti-terror policies, joined this
chorus. They signed a letter saying, “that the past several days have seen
a shameful series of attacks. We consider these attacks both unjust to the
individuals in question, and destructive of any attempt to build lasting
mechanisms for counter-terrorism adjudications. Such attacks also
undermine the justice system more broadly. Whatever systems America
develops to handle difficult detention questions will rely, at least some
of the time, on an aggressive defense Bar. Those who take up that function
do a service to the system.”
Joining me now is a co-signatory of that letter, former federal Judge
Ken Starr, former independent counsel, and solicitor general, who currently
serves as dean of Pepperdine University Law School. Dean Starr, the notion
that anyone who defended an accused terrorist or, as Mark Tyson today says
in “The Washington Post”, anyone who defended drug dealers or mobsters,
should not be allowed to work as prosecutors, let alone be in the national
security apparatus, it has a certain obvious appeal to it. What do you
teach in law school at Pepperdine Law School about that issue?
KEN STARR, DEAN, PEPPERDINE LAW SCHOOL: Well, Lawrence, it‘s very
important for lawyers to be willing to take on unpopular causes, to make
sure that power is checked, that there are, in fact, arguments being
advanced on behalf of those who have been subjected to governmental power.
So this is in the finest traditions of our country.
I hope school children still learn about the example of John Adams,
because we certainly teach it in law school. John Adams taking on the
British Red Coats, who of course were charged with the Boston Massacre—
and some colonialists were killed. Some patriots were killed. And so
Boston was inflamed by this in terms of popular opinion. But John Adams
considered that one of his finest hours to take on that representation.
And he successfully defended seven of the British troops charged with these
very serious crimes.
It wasn‘t a career-enhancing move for John Adams, but he did OK in the
fullness of time. But he didn‘t apologize for that. He knew that that was
a duty of our system of law, where we protect the liberties of all—and
the constitutional rights, of all persons. That‘s what these lawyers were
doing.
O‘DONNELL: Bill Kristol wrote yesterday about getting people to sign
this letter that, “knowing establishment lawyers, I‘m sure they‘ll get a
few. The legal fraternity doesn‘t like criticism of lawyers.” Your reply
to Mr. Kristol?
STARR: Well, I love Bill Kristol. I view him as a friend. But he‘s
wrong on this one. And it is simply not consistent with the great
traditions of our country and certainly not with our profession. Lawyers
have an ethical obligation—I mean, an ethical obligation to be willing
to take on unpopular causes. That is an obligation that goes with the
profession. It goes with the territory.
So one needs to be courageous at times, and to be willing to stand up
to power, and to say, look, I‘m going to make the best arguments that I can
as a zealous advocate on behalf of this particular client. So lawyers who
did that with respect to the detainees were acting in these very fine
traditions. They knew it was going to be controversial. But they deserve
commendation. They do not deserve criticism at all.
The only criticism would be did they take some action as lawyers that
it was somehow unethical or improper? No such charge has been made. This
was really unwise and really an out of bounds characterization and
challenge to good, honorable lawyers.
O‘DONNELL: You do have the sentence in this letter that says “such
attacks also undermine the justice system more broadly.” Could you expand
on that? What is involved here beyond just terrorism cases?
STARR: It‘s the broader principle of taking on the unpopular cause.
We need to encourage young lawyers and law students to do that which all of
us who have been in the profession for, as I have, several decades to know,
this is very important. Don‘t just take on the popular causes. It‘s the
people who really do need representation, who may be excluded from the
community.
The great example that‘s used—a lot of law students have read this
before they enter law school—is the story in “To Kill a Mockingbird” of
the lawyer, Atticus Finch, who was defending an African-American defendant.
Did that make Atticus Finch in that small southern town popular?
Absolutely not. He became a pariah in his own community.
But he explained to his children—Atticus Finch explained to his
kids, I‘ve got to do this as a matter of conscience. It wasn‘t just his
conscience. It was the conscience of a profession, a great profession that
John Adams embodied, Thurgood Marshall embodied, and many lawyers, day in
and day out, embody by being willing to stand up to the crowd and saying,
no, we stand for the justice system, and that everyone has his or her right
to representation.
And John Roberts, by the way, our chief justice, spoke very eloquently
to this in his own confirmation hearing, when questions would be raised
about, well, you represented this client or you represented that client.
And part of our traditions that John Roberts reminded the Senate, reminded
the country, is that you do not impute the cause of the client to the
lawyer who is called upon to make sure that that client‘s rights are being
protected.
O‘DONNELL: I see the—in the background shot there, Pepperdine
University. You‘re situated at the most beautiful law school campus in
America. What provoked you to throw yourself back into the public eye into
this kind of controversy? There were enough names on this letter without
you signing it. What about this particular attack on the Justice
Department motivated you to step back into a controversial lime light?
STARR: Well, I don‘t think it‘s controversial at all. The principle
is clear. The principle is long established. I believe in that principle
fervently. So a number of us feel very strongly as well about protecting
the Department of Justice. Note how it‘s named. It‘s not a Department of
Law Enforcement. It‘s a Department of Justice.
And so we want to attract lawyers who have in the past responded as
private practitioners or academics to the call to serve in some way that
then is going to perhaps attract some criticism. But then we need in the
profession to rally around those who have stepped up in the past, who have
shown courage, who have been bold, and who have been willing to respond to
the call of duty.
And some of these lawyers, by the way, responded to the call of duty
from military lawyers saying, we need help. Walter Dellinger, the former
solicitor general under President Clinton, wrote a very important piece
that I think everyone should read who is really thinking maybe there‘s some
question. There is no question here because he talked about the story of
an individual in his law firm who is now one of the people who is being
attacked by these very unfortunate and ill-conceived ads or messages. That
he responded to a weekend call that came in from military lawyers that we
need help on this. These are military lawyers who were assigned to defend.
O‘DONNELL: Pepperdine Law School Dean Ken Starr, former independent
counsel, and former federal judge, thank you very much for your invaluable
perspective on this tonight.
STARR: My pleasure, Lawrence. Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Coming up, Sarah Palin says as a kid her family used to
cross the border and go to Canada for government health care. Except she‘s
told the same story before and her family went to Juneau for treatment.
The truthiness of Palin returns.
And the best and worst of last night‘s Oscars. Did some history
making wins make up for the show going into overtime?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Last night‘s Oscar broadcast was seen by 41 million
people. That‘s up roughly five million from last year. And if you were
not watching last night, we‘ve got you covered. Here‘s our own Lee Cowen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LEE COWAN, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Last night‘s Oscars
seemed as predictable as the color of that famous carpet.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You will never be one of the people!
COWAN: “Avatar,” the highest grossing movie ever, sure got talked
about a lot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that the director of “Avatar,” James Cameron?
COWAN: But in the end, it received as many jokes as it did technical
awards.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This seemed like a better idea in rehearsal.
COWAN: But what the Oscars may have lacked in suspense made up for in
curious moments.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is so exciting. This is so—
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let a woman talk.
COWAN: It was that Kanye West flashback, when one producer crashed
another producer‘s acceptance speech? Not exactly Academy classy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was awkward. But it was actually really
entertaining at the same time.
COWAN: Then there was the almost unfurling of a banner to save
dolphins, and the almost remembering of every star who had died, but
somehow forgetting Henry Gibson, Bea Arthur, and Farrah Fawcett.
(on camera): So there were a few glitches, but this year‘s Oscars did
have one thing that many of them don‘t: history and a lot of it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, the time has come.
COWAN (voice-over): Kathryn Bigelow the director of the war drama
“The Hurt Locker,” is the first woman to ever go home with a best director
Oscar, a point the Academy‘s orchestra couldn‘t let go without a musical
punctuation mark.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I‘m not so sure we need to hear the orchestra play
“I Am Woman” when she was walking off the stage after giving her speech.
COWAN: And there was another. Although screen writers sometimes fade
compared to actors—
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A collaboration between handsome, gifted people,
and sickly little mole people.
COWAN: Screen writer Jeffrey Fletcher shined. He became the first
African-American screenwriter to win an Oscar, this one for writing
“Precious.”
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is for everybody who works on a dream every
day.
COWAN: So while best actor Jeff Bridges will be remembered for his
heart—
JEFF BRIDGES, ACTOR: Thank you, mom and dad, for turning me on to
such a groovy profession.
COWAN: And best actress Sandra Bullock will be remembered for her
humor—
SANDRA BULLOCK, ACTRESS: Did I really earn this or did I just wear
you all down?
COWAN: After 82 years, Oscar will be remembered for turning a page,
Hollywood style.
Lee Cowan, NBC News, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O‘DONNELL: Coming up, her choice to be the Republican vice
presidential candidate was all a part of God‘s plan, she says. And now her
decision to write notes on her hand for a speech simply means she‘s just
like God. Details next on COUNTDOWN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Sarah Palin has railed against health care reform, warned
of imaginary government-run death panels, ginned up fears of a socialist
takeover in Washington. But in an interesting reversal, Sarah Palin now
endorses a nationalized health care system, because her family may have
taken advantage of one. Speaking at an event in Calgary, Canada, Palin
told an audience of lobbyists and conservative politicos that she and her
family would cross the border to a nearby city for care. “My first five
years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse.
Believe it or not, this was in the late ‘60s. We used to hustle on over
the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember
my brother. He burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing, and my
parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse. And I
think, isn‘t that ironic? Zooming over the border getting health care from
Canada.”
Ironic? Certainly. And odd, considering in 2007, a different version
of that story published in “The Skagway News,” when Palin visited the town
as governor: “Palin drew from her Skagway past to illustrate her point.
Her brother burned his foot badly jumping through a fire, and her mother
had to take him down to Juneau on the ferry to the hospital.”
Palin continues her defense of the incident involving her infamous
palm notes used at the Tea Party convention. Palin favorably compared her
note taking with that of a much more popular leader—god. Here she is
speaking at a pro-life fund-raiser in Ohio.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH PALIN, FMR. GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: Then somebody said to me the
other day, Isaiah 49-16. You need to go home tonight and look it up.
Before you look it up, I‘ll tell you what it says though. It says, hey, if
it was good enough for God scribbling on the palm of his hand, it‘s good
enough for me, for us. He said—in that passage, he says, “I wrote your
name on the palm of my hand to remember you.” I‘m like, OK, I‘m in good
company.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Joining me now is David Weigel, reporter with “The
Washington Independent.” David, Sarah Palin is now comparing herself to
God. Is her audience down with that?
DAVID WEIGEL, “THE WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT”: I think—well, she was
specifically talking about Jesus‘ address to the Tea Party convention,
right? I mean, I—I think this is either brilliant pandering or the most
unconvincing pandering I‘ve ever heard, except that I wasn‘t there. But I
hear nothing but cheers coming from the audience. Maybe they were clapping
while—you know, they were clapping her to encourage her to move on to
something else.
But she‘s not quite right. I don‘t know why she keeps bringing this
issue up. She, I thought, had a good response to this hand note issue when
she wrote “hi mom” on her hand the next day, after this little mini
scandal, when she was at an event in Texas. Why not leave it there? This
really, clearly is getting under her skin.
O‘DONNELL: Well, yeah. Normally when a politician gets caught in a
problem like that, they make one reference to it, maybe the Jay Leno thing,
maybe the thing about the mom, like you said, and then they‘re done with it
and leave it behind. She seems to be fueling it, maybe on the notion that
she‘s always best when that big media machine is attacking her. And the
more she can bring it up, the more she can get attacked for it. And does
that—is that the dynamic she‘s trying to create?
WEIGEL: I think that‘s true, especially something like this, where
she can convince this crowd that they‘re all in on something that the elite
gotcha media, like us, don‘t understand, even if it really doesn‘t make
sense. This chapter of Isaiah she‘s talking about doesn‘t really mean this
at all. She was writing energy and new American ideas, but she wants to
worry this point, because the more they think the media is out to get her,
the more they like her. They‘re liking her more. I can see the meter
rising as we talk about her right now, as we try to make fun of this.
O‘DONNELL: Now, turning to her praise of the Canadian health care
system; you know, she did say it was the ‘60s and Canada didn‘t go full
single payer until 1972. So we‘re not so clear. But it‘s the two
different stories. When she‘s in Canada, she says my brother‘s burnt foot
we took him to Canada. When she‘s in Alaska, she says my brother‘s burnt
foot we took him to Juneau. Now her brother had two feet to burn. So I
guess they‘re both possibly true. But is this just whatever the audience
wants to hear?
WEIGEL: It is. But the curious thing about the Canadian version of
this story is that she was talking, as you said, to an audience of Canadian
conservative cabinet members, Canadian—conservative members of
parliament, officials in that government, who are governing a country that
has not collapsed despite having nationalized health care.
Again, this conservative government has been in power for a few years
now, and has not really tried to undo and bring itself back to the best
health care system in the world, like the one Palin‘s brother had on the
day of the week that she said he went to Juneau. I mean, that I think is
the—forget the hypocrisy here. She‘s trying to pander to these
politicians by saying, thank goodness I got health care before you wrecked
your health care system. No Canadian believes that they‘ve wrecked their
health care system.
O‘DONNELL: David Weigel of “The Washington Independent,” thanks for
patrolling the Palin beat for us tonight.
WEIGEL: Thank you very much, Larry.
O‘DONNELL: That‘ll have to do it for this Monday edition of
COUNTDOWN. “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” is up next. I‘m Lawrence O‘Donnell,
in for Keith Olbermann. Thanks for watching.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2010 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.