THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW
June 24, 2013
Guest: Ben Jealous
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: And thanks to you at home for joining us this
Today in the news, a riveting real life chase. This is Rusty. He`s
a red panda who lives at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. And early
this morning when zoo keepers went to check in on Rusty, to say, "Hi,
Rusty," make sure everything was OK, they discovered that everything was
not OK because Rusty was gone.
Cue the urgent tweet from the National Zoo, "We`re looking for a
missing red panda. A male named Rusty."
Funny they thought the gender would be appropriate in identifying
him. We`re looking for Rusty. They included a picture. He was seen --
last seen at 6:00 p.m. last night. Included that picture there, "In case
you had seen him, please call."
Quote, "Animal care staff have been combing the trees around the zoo
since 8:00 a.m. He could be sick or in hiding, or somebody could have
Rusty vanished from his cage at the National Zoo. And maybe he was
stolen. Listen up, everybody in the D.C. Metropolitan area, have you seen
a red panda? Please help us find him. But maybe don`t get too close if
you do find him. Please help us keep an eye out for Rusty, but remember,
red pandas are wild animals and will bite if cornered or scared.
Also, they wanted to point out that Rusty might be very tired because
he would normally be a guy who naps during the day. Also, quote, "Red
pandas are arboreal, territorial animals." So, it would be unusual for
rusty to wander far from his home range, in this case, his exhibit.
So, our nation`s capital was on high alert, the whole city looking
for Rusty the red panda who basically arrived from that zoo, by way of
Nebraska but was now missing and nobody knew where he was. He could have
been taken. It was very scary.
And then at 1:25 this afternoon, somebody spotted him near the Airy
View Condo Complex at Adams Morgan. The woman tweeted at the national zoo,
"Are you missing this guy?"
This enterprising person called the zoo, rushed over to where she
said she saw him. They brought strange looking nets and a crate and it was
tense there for a few minutes between the time we learned Rusty had been
spotted to the time we learned he was safely back in custody, but they got
him, back in the crate, back at the zoo.
He was not hurt. He apparently was very thirsty. He drank lots of
ice water once he was home.
It was a hot day. If you track where they found him on Google Maps,
they say he was a 14-minute walk from the zoo. That`s based on how fast
Google Maps does not have the option of tracking distances traveled
by the average red panda scurrying speed. Now, though, having been
liberated from the Adams Morgan neighborhood where he was trying to get a
place, Rusty will soon rejoin his fellow red panda, Shima, back at the zoo
and the zoo presumably will get a better fence.
Rusty, the red panda, found. Hands down, the most interesting chase
story of the day.
The other absolutely unrelated chase story in day`s news began on
Friday night. Friday night, we had that breaking news on the show. You
might remember that Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, in hiding in Hong Kong,
had been charged with espionage. He was charged with three violations
including unauthorized communication of national defense information and
willful communication of classified communications and intelligence
information to an unauthorized person. Each of the three charges they
unveiled on Friday night carries a possible 10 years in prison.
The fact that the U.S. made public these charges against Edward
Snowden means that the United States wanted him to be arrested wherever he
was in the world, presumably in Hong Kong which the last place he was known
to be. The authorities in Hong Kong reacted to that news on Friday that
the United States wanted Mr. Snowden arrested by saying at first they
didn`t know where he was.
And then, yesterday, they said he`s gone. Mr. Edward Snowden left
Hong Kong today on his own accord for a third country through a lawful and
That third country was supposed to be Cuba, maybe? Edward Snowden
was initially reported to be going from Hong Kong to Cuba via Moscow
according to all the reporting this weekend. It was reported he would be
flying through Moscow`s airport on his way to Cuba and that, of course, led
to a giant media circus at the Moscow airport.
A throng of reporters waiting around the airport in Moscow trying to
catch a glimpse of Mr. Snowden as he presumably got off his flight from
Hong Kong and then boarded his flight to Havana, presumably without trying
to go through passport control so he wouldn`t be crossing an international
border into Russia, so Russia wouldn`t face any legal concerns about
whether or not they were supposed to arrest him, too.
But despite all this at Moscow airport, everybody watching out for
this guy, and nothing. And it`s not like he was magically able to get on
to that flight to Cuba unannounced. This is seat 17A, Moscow to Havana,
which was supposed to be Edward Snowden`s seat. That was supposed to be
Edward Snowden`s flight from Moscow to Cuba, but as you can see, no Mr.
Snowden in seat 17A.
It appears he was either disguised really well and took a different
seat or just did not get on that flight to Cuba. A bunch of reporters got
on that flight to Cuba, though. They bought tickets and boarded that
flight hoping they`d be on the same flight as the NSA leaker in 17A. Maybe
they`d get to interview him or at least report on where he was headed or
play that game where you can interact with other people in other seat rows
and it`s like you`re flirting and it`s creepy.
Correspondent for the "Associated Press" tweeted, "Cuba here we come,
taxiing down the runway, and no sign of Snowden. Seats empty still by
Some of the confusion/excitement surrounding Edward Snowden`s
whereabouts today may have been because of deliberate false leads and red
herrings put out there to distract from where he was and what route he was
actually taking. But still, bottom line is nobody`s seen him. Nobody saw
him on the airport in Hong Kong, nobody saw him in airport at Russia.
Nobody saw him arrive in Cuba. Nobody`s seen him arrive anywhere.
What this means, besides the fact a few reporters took a 13-hour
flight to Cuba for no reason is nobody knows where he is and perhaps more
importantly in diplomatic terms is nobody has stopped him along the way
while he is in transit. No country has detained him. Other governments
are not helping the United States get their hands on him.
The United States is metaphorically standing there in the street
yelling, stop, thief, stop, thief, and the guy running down the sidewalk
holding the purse instead of anybody grabbing him or tripping him, instead
people are moving out of his way as he gets away with the metaphorical
purse we`re screaming has been stolen.
Even in this metaphor, though, it maybe important to note that the
United States is not actually just yelling stop, thief. What the United
States is yelling is stop spy, when the U.S. government unsealed these
charges on Friday charging Mr. Snowden with espionage, with spying, that
might have made it harder for Hong Kong to arrest him.
I mean, think about it. All countries spy on each other, right? If
the Chinese government hires you to spy for them, the Chinese government
hires you to go to America and steal American secrets and bring them back
to China, they cannot very well tell you as part of making that deal with
you, you know, by the way, if the U.S. realizes you spied on them, once
you`re back here, we will extradite you back to the United States to be
tried for espionage if they ask.
All countries spy on each other. Charging him with espionage seems
like it makes it less likely that China would send him back, asking another
country to extradite somebody for that specific crime, that`s a difficult
thing to ask. Putting that charge out there in public, on Friday, before
American authorities had Mr. Snowden in custody seems like it might have
been a strategic mistake. Why did the U.S. do that?
That said, China`s saying that the espionage charge made it
impossible for them to arrest Snowden might just be another Chinese excuse.
They might not have been planning on arresting him at all no matter what he
was charged with.
The Chinese government rather seems to be enjoying one of the things
he`s leaked about is the U.S. spying on China. So, now, they get to crow
about that publicly and say the U.S. is a hypocrite for complaining about
Chinese spying since America is spying on them. And then they let the guy
who let everybody know the spying information get away.
So, yes, maybe China was going to do that anyway. And that, so far,
has been China`s role in Mr. Snowden`s adventure.
In terms of Russia, the joy on the part of Russia in all this is even
more blatant. Within basically five minutes of Edward Snowden telling the
world who he was, saying that he was the NSA leaker, Vladimir Putin was
already volunteering without being asked that Russia would be happy to
consider his asylum application. At that point, he had not made any asylum
application. The guy hadn`t made any asylum application anywhere in the
world. But Putin was put it out there in case he wanted to app to Russia,
it would get considered.
Now, today, the nation of Ecuador says that it is evaluating a
request for asylum that Mr. Snowden has actually made. Ecuador, of course,
made its embassy available to the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in
Britain. If Mr. Assange leaves the embassy grounds in Britain, British
police will arrest him and extradite him to Sweden to face sex crime
But Ecuador says it`s OK for him to stay in the embassy. They`re
telling him he doesn`t have to leave. So, Julian Assange has been staying
in his embassy doing his WikiLeaks stuff. He`s been there for a year now.
That same country, Ecuador, is considering taking in Edward Snowden.
Although nobody knows how he would get to Ecuador, nobody knows where he is
right now. So at this point, this is logistically totally unresolved. But
all these questions remain, right? I mean, perhaps the most superficial
question at this point is, hey, what`s up with Ecuador?
The second question, though, is this as big of a kick in the teeth
from Russia and China as it seems to be?
With the United States very vocally and obviously upset about the
aforementioned kick in the teeth from Russia and China, with Secretary of
State John Kerry complaining in very strong terms today, with the White
House complaining in very strong terms today. What exactly are our
government`s options for retaliating against China and Russia? For at
least expressing displeasure instead of just these strong words? Will they
do something else?
Also, was this inevitable? Was this inevitable? Was this sort of
ghost flight red herring, media circus, where`s Waldo mess with Edward
Snowden inevitable? Was it going to happen this way inevitably? Or did
the U.S. government screw up their extradition efforts in a way that made
this all possible and it didn`t have to go down this way?
And most importantly, if you do not care for this guy as a
personality but do care about this story, what does he still have to leak?
Both "The Washington Post" and "The Guardian" as well as Mr. Snowden,
himself, have said that he`s only turned over thus far a really small
proportion of what he took from the NSA. Does he still have it? Did he
hand it over to China when he was there? Did China maybe take it from him
when he was in China in some ways he might not even know about?
Did he hand any of that material over to Russia when he was there?
Or did Russia take it from him when he was there in a way that he might not
even know about?
Is he planning on handing any of that documentation over to Ecuador?
Or Venezuela? Or Cuba? Or Iceland? Or other places that might be red
herrings or might be where he`s going?
If the espionage charge wrinkles in this case, if this guy should not
be seen as a spy but as a whistleblower, would that impression change if he
does conduit the information he has got not just to the free press here and
in Britain, but to foreign governments?
And how much is that affected by whether he does so willingly or
whether they just take it off him? What happens next?
Joining us now is Andrea Mitchell, NBC chief foreign affairs
correspondent and host of MSNBC`s "ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS."
Andrea, thank you so much for being here.
ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: Thank you so much, Rachel.
Just the fact you could do the red panda and Edward Snowden in the
same segment --
MADDOW: It`s a shame.
MITCHELL: Perfect. Perfect.
MADDOW: It tells you something about the taxonomy of my brain. I
file things under chase. We had two of those.
MADDOW: On Russia and China part of this, it seems -- you are the
expert on these things -- but it seems to me like Russia and China have
essentially given the United States a big one-finger salute here. They
have really kicked sand in America`s face.
Is that -- is that the case, and what does the United States do in
MITCHELL: That certainly is the case. That`s the way it appears.
Unless for some reason that Edward Snowden was not on the plane to Cuba
from which he was expected to transit to Ecuador, for some reason, Russia
is cooperating quietly and this is going to all evolve in the next couple
of hours, overnight.
But right now, at least, from what I`m hearing, U.S. officials are
very frustrated with Russia. They think that Putin is playing this game,
playing it very hard. And they are furious with China. And that is really
overt stuff because the U.S. has been very careful to try to say that
things were getting to a new place with China.
Frankly, the summit with President Xi did not go well I`m told. They
found him not as flexible, too hide bound, politically tied up in knots,
not at all what they had hoped for in that very informal setting in
So, that wasn`t going very well, but they didn`t say that publicly,
and it`s only the kind of threads that I was beginning to pick up. Now
they are openly saying they are really ticked off at China. And they`re
prodding Putin and hoping they can cut some deal and get him back.
MADDOW: In terms of the China/U.S. relations, what are the sort of
menu of options that the president or the State Department feel like they
have in terms of trying to show their displeasure and retaliate in some
MITCHELL: Well, of course, China is our banker, so they have a lot
of leverage, too. But we have a lot of relationships. I mean, just the
Smithfield ham deal. That has to be approved by the federal government.
It was on track to be approved. That`s the big purchase. The
biggest single purchase pork producer that China wants, which is one
There are a lot of things that can be done to slow walk approvals for
various purchases and other economic interests that China has. Now,
obviously China is circling the globe and buying things up that we want and
one of the things that the president is doing later this week is going to
Africa and trying to compete with President Xi who was just there, already
aggressively buying up mineral rights and putting down, you know, his
markers in all sorts of places on the continent.
So, this is a big economic rivalry, but there are connections and
clearly, this is not a good place to be at with China and the United
States. And now, Russia blocking us on Syria. If Putin really wanted to
try to show the other side of Putin, he could get a big bargaining chip
right now with the United States by turning over Edward Snowden.
MADDOW: On the opposite end of the sort of number line of
international influence, there`s teeny tiny little Ecuador who is really
quite proudly playing this rule and seems to be really relishing this
position, both with regard to Julian Assange but also specifically now wit
Mr. Snowden. How do they fit into this and how does the United States
government treat them here?
MITCHELL: Well, the United States government does have a big trading
relationship from Ecuador`s standpoint, but it has not stopped Ecuador from
covering for Julian Assange now for a year now in the embassy in London. I
think Ecuador is going to welcome Snowden with open arms if he can get out
MADDOW: Did the administration make mistakes with Mr. Snowden`s
MITCHELL: It`s good question.
MITCHELL: Well, they did not announce it willingly. It was broken
by the "Washington Post" around 6:11 Friday night that that indictment had
come down. So, they then confirmed it a couple hours later. It was a
sealed indictment. The indictment first came on the 14th of June, so the
Friday previous and they weren`t planning to announce it.
So, I don`t think they can be faulted for announcing the espionage
charge. But I`m told, and what Pete Williams and others who cover the
Justice Department say is that the Justice Department, the FBI and justice
were working very closely with Hong Kong authorities and thought they had a
deal. They were massaging the charges to be serious enough that they could
get the extradition but not over the top. This is all very well-
coordinated, they were saying.
And then perhaps after Assange leaked the fact that the U.S.,
evidence that the U.S. was spying, big surprise, spying on China, that gave
Beijing a big impetus. It increased the support that he was getting in
Hong Kong. He began to see those very approved protests in support of
And that`s when Beijing took it away from Hong Kong authorities and
decided that they were going to make it, first of all, get him out of there
because it was going to be a very protracted extradition fight. There were
a lot of court hearings that would take place under Hong Kong law. And
Beijing clearly decided to let him go.
MADDOW: Wow. The fact it all unravels with yet another national
security leak of what`s supposed to be a sealed indictment. It`s just full
Andrea Mitchell. Host of MSNBC`s "ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS," 1:00
p.m. Eastern on MSNBC. It`s required viewing for all RACHEL MADDOW SHOW
MITCHELL: Thank you, Rachel.
MADDOW: Andrea, thank you so much. Thanks.
MADDOW: You know, I will say one last note on this. The last
interview published with the Chinese press while Mr. Snowden was still in
or leaving China was by "The South China Morning Post" today. They
published something today that they said he told them a couple of weeks ago
but didn`t publish it until today.
And what they published was him saying that he didn`t have the job at
the NSA and then just come across information that horrified him and
shocked his conscience and decided to leak it. Rather, he took the job at
the NSA specifically to try to get information that he could take and then
publicly disseminate. That`s why he got the job at the NSA in the first
place through Booz Allen Hamilton which Booz Allen should maybe do some
We`ll be right back.
MADDOW: On Friday night`s show, we reported on politics in Texas
going sort of off the hook. Thursday night, protesters flocked to the
Texas state capitol to mount effectively a citizens filibuster of sweeping
new antiabortion legislation for the state. More than 700 people signed up
Thursday night to be witnesses to provide three minutes each of testimony
to the assembly, to an assembly committee to try to slow down this
It was on to 4:00 in the morning Thursday night/Friday morning when
the Republican chair of the committee finally yanked the proceedings and
sent everybody home. That was Thursday night into Friday, a big remarkable
show of force from the pro-choice side in Texas politics.
On Friday night, we spoke with a Democratic state representative,
Jessica Farrar, who told us that the protest had been successful in slowing
down the progress of that bill. Which is of material consequence here
because the special session that the Texas legislature is in right now ends
tomorrow night, Tuesday night at midnight.
So that is the deadline for Republicans to jam this thing through.
When the assembly reconvened this weekend, yesterday, to pass the bill, the
protesters were backed by the hundreds, crammed into the capitol rotund
rotunda, watching the assembly from the gallery in the legislature. They
were cheering, chanting, applauding and occasionally getting kicked out of
the place as the Democratic opponents of the bill dragged out debate for 15
Remember, their whole strategy is to try to slow this thing down, 15
And in the middle of the debate, we got to one of those moments where
Republicans start talking about rape again. Yes. This bill is expected to
shut down 80 percent of the clinics that provide abortions in the state of
Texas. There would be nowhere to get a legal abortion at all in all of
West Texas. It would ban abortion all together statewide at 20 weeks.
Democrats propose that rape victims and incest victims, at least, be
spared from this bill. The Republicans were having none of that. And when
the Republican sponsor of the bill tried to explain her reasoning for why
rape victims should not be spared, that`s when things went awry.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LAUBENBERG: You have hospital emergency rooms we have funded
what`s called rape kits that will help the woman. It`s basically clean her
out. And then, hopefully, that will alleviate that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: This is the sponsor of the big omnibus antiabortion bill
Republicans are trying to pass in Texas. She says rape victims should not
be accepted from the new abortion because rape kits alleviate the problem.
The exact quote was, "rape kits that will help the woman, basically
cleaning her out."
A Democratic representative then interrupted and asked her to please
clarify, I`m sorry, I`m not quite sure I heard that. And she repeated it.
She said in the emergency room, they have what`s called rape kits that the
woman, she`ll get cleaned out.
I can`t believe I have to say this, but rape kits, for the record,
are the kit that`s used to collect forensic samples from a rape victim`s
body to be used in potential prosecution of the rapist. The sponsor of
this legislation in Texas apparently thinks a rape kit is an abortion? Has
no idea what a rape kit is, but she thinks it miraculously solves the
problem of a rape-causing pregnancy. Cleans her out! Ah!
So the magic rape kit thing happened very late last night, as
Democrats were stretching out the debate on this abortion ban in Texas, in
a Texas state capitol full of pro-choice protesters. The Republicans
finally cut off debate and adjourned at 4:30 this morning saying they`d be
back a couple hours later to reconvene at 6:46 a.m. to try to pass the
So, 6:46 a.m. They`d been up and in session until 4:30. They said
they`d be back at 6:46 and 6:46 rolled around this morning and the
Democratic side did not show up. The Democratic side showed up more than
two hours late. Again, remember their strategy is to stretch this out as
long as they can.
And then, finally, the Democrats delayed until they could delay no
further and ultimately it was the Texas state assembly passing this
abortion ban at 10:40 this morning Texas time. So, that`s the assembly.
Now, it goes to the Senate.
Texas Republicans are racing against the deadline to pass this thing
when the session ends tomorrow night at midnight. They need to pass it
before them. The Senate rules say the bill has to sit for 24 hours after
the assembly passes it before the Senate can start. When Republicans tried
to waive that rule, a Democratic state senator threatened to speed back to
the capitol from planning her father`s funeral in order to stop them from
changing the rules and going ahead and skipping the 24-hour period.
So the rules stayed. That means the Senate has to sit on it for 24
hours. They cannot start working on the thing until tomorrow late morning
at the earliest. Remember, the deadline to pass it is tomorrow night at
And now, State Senator Wendy Davis, Democratic Senator Wendy Davis of
Texas, says she personally will filibuster the antiabortion bill and just
stand on the floor and personally keep talking until the midnight deadline
to stop it from being voted on in the Senate.
That, of course, would stop everything in the special session from
passing. It would stop a huge transportation spending bill, stop a big
juvenile justice bill. But also this ban that would shut down 37 clinics
in the state, it would ban abortion everywhere in Texas at 20 weeks. It
would effectively ban all legal abortion in all of west Texas.
Wendy Davis and the Democrats say they will hold the floor all night,
again, and as long as it takes to stop it.
Republicans, meanwhile, say they will do anything it takes to get it
passed. And the protesters, the citizens` filibuster, has raised a real
question as to who is actually going to win this fight.
Texas, who knew?
We`ll keep you posted.
MADDOW: This is what a heavily redacted document looks like.
Somebody sat at a desk all day and cloaked the heck out of about 80 percent
of these documents with a sharpie marker. There`s enough not to see you`d
be hard pressed to figure out what this document even is only looking at
the un-redacted parts that you can still see.
But this enormously redacted PDF document was released by the
Democrats in the House Ways & Means Committee today and turns out it`s kind
of important. This is one of the "be on the lookout" lists that was
apparently used by the Internal Revenue Service for evaluating applications
of tax exempt groups. It was just turned over to congressional
investigators and, look, there seems to be a really important line here.
Line 16 of this IRS BOLO, "be on the lookout" report from November 2010.
The crucial un-redacted part here you see in the fine print, the
keyword the agents are supposed to look for down there in the left,
Here`s what IRS agents are supposed to be aware of. "Political
activities: common thread is the word progressive. Activities appear to
lean toward a new political party. Activities are partisan and appear
anti-Republican. You see references to blue as being progressive.
Applicants submit form 1023. Their progressive activities appear to show
that C3 may not be an appropriate status."
Smoking gun, right? President Obama and accountants were targeting
liberals, starving them out to tip the election using their hand-picked
treasury thugs like a Soviet-made billy club to silence freedom loving blue
progressive liberal types. (INAUDIBLE) Comrade Obama. We caught you now.
Or maybe the IRS inspector general should explain not disclosing
until now that the IRS was scrutinizing tax avoiding political groups both
on the conservative side and on the liberal side. It turns out it wasn`t
just Tea Party groups. It was also groups labeled progressive, which means
this whole thing is over now. Right?
Maybe this whole thing is over now. I think maybe this thing is over
now. What do you think?
MADDOW: Great state of Texas is not just great as in good, it is
great as in ginormous. Texas is the size of whole big countries.
Countries we take seriously like France. Texas has a huge population, 26
million and growing.
To educate all those Texans, Texas has three dozen public
universities, full four-year schools. They have more than twice that many
community colleges. And these ones all belong to the Lone Star College
System. It`s part of greater Houston.
Because all of those are public college, they are governed publicly
by publicly elected officials. The Lone Star College System has nine
elected trustees, people who run for office as public officials. It might
not be the most exciting exercise in democracy, but it is, people voting
for a government official to represent them in governing.
This particular district in Texas got ready for an election in 2006,
they got a letter from the Justice Department in Washington. Justice had
noticed the district had made some changes from how elections had been held
there in the past. One of the things the district wanted to do was cut the
number of polling places from 84 down to 12.
Oh. That`s a big change. How did they pick the 12 sites when
narrowing it down from 84? That`s where it gets really interesting, if by
interesting you mean creepy.
Quoting the Justice Department, "The assignment of voters to these 12
sites is remarkably uneven." The site with the smallest proportion of
minority voters, so the whitest voting site, will serve 6,500 voters, while
the most heavily minority site will serve over 67,000 voters.
We turn that into a chart to make it clear as a punch in the face.
The big new idea in greater Houston was that the most black and Latino and
Asian polling place should serve 10 times as many voters as the whitest
polling place. Yes, can`t have white people waiting in line.
The federal government looked at that plan from greater Houston and
they said, no. They told the district to try again in a way that was more
And the Lone Star College System in greater Houston had to go along.
The reason the federal government was empowered to do that is because Texas
qualifies for special scrutiny into something called the Voting Rights Act.
One section of the hard fought, hard won Voting Rights Act says that if a
state or a county has shown enough problems with racially biased ways of
administering election in the past, then that place gets special scrutiny
until further notice. At least until it stops having problems.
You can opt out. If you`re covered under Section 5 and you can show
you`ve gotten over the urge to run your elections in racially
discriminatory ways, you can opt out if you can show you`ve gotten better.
Until you do, you are covered and cannot change your laws without the
Justice Department giving the OK.
Voting Rights Act has been very, very popular over the years. A few
months after the federal government intervened in that greater Houston
college district election, President Bush signed a reauthorization of the
Voting Rights Act. The vote in the Senate was 98-nothing.
Over the next very few days, this week, these are the votes that are
going to be the ones that matter. The United States Supreme Court set to
rule this week on a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, the part that`s
called Section 5, which says if your history shows you deserve it, any
changes you make in holding election will get a second look unless you can
show that you have grown out of your past problems.
And it`s not like this is a vestigial old law that`s not getting used
anymore. Since the law was reauthorized in 2006, there have been 31
proposed changes that the Justice Department has blocked in places that are
covered by this section.
Before the reauthorization, the Brennan Center counted 153 changes
over 6 years in which local governments gave up on them after the federal
government merely asked for more information about them. As in hey, what`s
up with cutting the number of polling places for Latinos? The states say,
were we going to do that? Who, us? And then they backed down because they
got asked for more information by it because they`re covered under the
Voting Rights Act. That is all at risk now.
Predicting Supreme Court rulings is sometimes not more scientific
than reading tea leaves, but the initial reaction to the oral arguments on
the voting rights act back in February was at the odds of it surviving in
tact did not seem good. Again, nobody knows. Until we all know. And that
ruling is still to come sometime this week, maybe tomorrow.
And today`s ruling at the court on affirmative action, it should be
noted, was also not necessarily what people were expecting. The court did
not take the opportunity it had to ban the whole idea of affirmative action
broadly which some people had been fearing. Instead, the court sent the
case they had back to the lower courts with plenty of room for further
argument and further challenge.
Does that basically cautious ruling on race and justice today signal
anything about the overall mood of the court on issues like this? And if
the backbone of U.S. civil rights law, the Voting Rights Act is in true
danger this week, do the law supporters have any kind of practical response
in mind to that expected ruling?
Joining us now for the interview is Ben Jealous. He`s president of
Mr. Jealous, thank you very much for being here tonight. It`s good
to see you, Ben.
MADDOW: There`s no reason to speculate since we`re all going to know
soon enough. I`m curious as to your expectations how you`re feeling about
how endangered Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is.
BEN JEALOUS, NAACP PRESIDENT: Look, this court has upheld this act
four times in the past four decades. It would be extreme, to say the
least, if they were to strike down the act or Section 5 now. So we are
continuing to remain optimistic.
You know, there were many people who expected that today when the
decision came down on Fisher that we would see the future of affirmative
action on college campuses close. It certainly didn`t happen. Despite the
fact "The New York Times" basically wrote its obituary over and over for
more than a week.
So we remain optimistic that the court will do as it`s done each time
that it`s come up before.
MADDOW: Ben, when you look at the overwhelming support in Congress
for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, not very long ago, 2006,
98-nothing vote in the Senate. Incredible bipartisan support, George W.
Bush signing it and very proud to do so.
If the court does have trouble, sorry, if the law does have trouble
in the court this week, do you think that it gets re-legislated? A new
version of it can be legislated even by this Congress that might be able to
address some of the court`s concerns if that`s the way it goes.
JEALOUS: Well, you know, the real concern here is around the
formula, right? That`s what the other side is saying is outdated. And if,
indeed, we come to that point, we will push very hard, I think,
successfully, to get a new formula.
The reality is that 98 senators voted for it and many of them are
still there. And this country has a very clear interest in not going
backwards. We will make our case if we come to that point, but we`re very
confident that we will not come to that point.
MADDOW: Ben, when I think about that 98-nothing vote, it`s hard for
me to imagine confidence that even the senators who were there and voted
for it in 2006 would necessarily vote for it again on the Republican side.
It just seems like there has been a very quick turnaround particularly in
conservative politics, in Republican politics around this issue. I don`t
know if you can still count on those votes.
Do you have an understanding what happened with the politics there,
about how this became newly controversial?
JEALOUS: Sure, well, look, back then in 2006, there were at least
two big factors. One was that Ken Mehlman, the then-chairman of the
Republican National Committee, who just apologized for the Southern
campaign, frankly was very stern with his party in saying that they needed
to line up and support or he would blast them, himself as their chairman.
One of the other factors was the NAACP sent thousands of people to
the Hill in a very strong push.
But the most important thing was that there was 15,000 pages of
testimony, the not from the `60s but the 2000s, saying why we need this.
There was almost two dozen hearings on the Hill that came to the same
conclusion. You`ll see the same sort of effort mounted.
The Republican Party has really struggled because it has been
draconian on so many important civil rights issues recently. And if they
choose to be draconian nationally, in the Congress, in the Senate, on the
Voting Rights Act, explicitly, you know, they could be facing a real
backlash, not just from people of color communities, but from some of their
MADDOW: Or who knows, the Supreme Court might tomorrow give the
Voting Rights Act another stamp, s fist stamp of approval in the last
generation and that whole legislative strategy will be moot. It will be
fascinating to watch.
I look toward forward to talking to you about it again. Ben Jealous,
thank you, sir.
JEALOUS: Thank you.
MADDOW: Ben Jealous, of course, is NAACP`s president and CEO
All right. On the one hand, the biggest legislative deal since
health reform is making amazing progress in Washington right now. On the
other hand, it`s about to go to the part of who`s in charge in Washington
that cannot count at all. Not even using its fingers. News ahead.
MADDOW: So this was one of those kinds of news days where, like, the
prime minister of Italy gets convicted of paying for sex at underage
prostitutes at fetish parties that included at least one lady prostitute
dressed up like President Obama.
This is one of those kinds of days when a prime minister get
sentenced to seven years in prison for his underage hooker Obama fetish
bunga bunga parties, and doesn`t really make the news here because there`s
plenty of other stuff going on, from the Supreme Court rulings to the
international where`s Waldo about Edward Snowden, to the opening of the
George Zimmerman trial for killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, to
immigration reform suddenly getting done, to the huge drama in Texas over
the abortion bill there, to the big U.S. Senate race tomorrow in
Massachusetts, to the red panda escaping from the zoo into Washington,
D.C., to the Berlusconi conviction.
This is just one of those times in the news when everything happens
at once. And into the middle of this hurly-burly news week that we`re in
right now, into the middle of all of this the White House this weekend
added more hurly-burly. The White House announced this weekend that
President Obama will be giving a major policy address tomorrow, on Tuesday.
He`s going to announce new policies to try to reduce our role in
contributing to global warming and to try to protect the country from the
impact of global warming, which of course is already well under way.
We usually get an announcement in advance if the president`s planning
a big policy speech, but we don`t usually get the announcement in the form
of kind of a very dramatic movie produced by the White House and narrated
by the president that ends with an on-camera appeal to you, average
citizen, to please watch the president`s speech tomorrow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There`s no single step
that can reverse the effects of climate change. But when it comes to the
world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can.
So I hope you`ll share this message with your friends because this is
a challenge that affects everyone and we all have a stake in solving it
together. I hope to see you Tuesday. Thanks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: This is a big rollout that they`re doing here, which might
reflect the busyness of the news cycle into which they are jumping here.
They`re just trying to compete with Rusty the missing panda and the bunga
bunga fetish parties conviction.
But it might also reflect what we are told the president is likely to
say tomorrow. All the advance word on what to expect tomorrow seems to
indicate that the president`s going to announce policies that are not
things he wants Congress to do. He`s going to announce things that he is
doing in the executive branch that do not require congressional action,
which means the White House is not primarily focused on trying to win over
members of Congress here to act on the president`s stated priorities.
The White House is focused instead on trying to win over the public
directly, to support the decisions that the president is making because of
what he thinks is right for the country that he`s going to explain tomorrow
he is lobbying you on this one, not some congressional committee.
The speech is tomorrow at 1:35 Eastern. And Republican howls
protests are expected to start roughly three seconds after that.
MADDOW: Today, the Senate did not pass immigration reform, but they
did do something that looked like that if you squint. They voted on a part
of immigration reform that`s seen as key to locking up Republican votes for
it. And the thing passed by a lot. It passed with 67 votes. And it could
have been even more than that, had some known supporters not been stuck
outside D.C. with flight delays and stuff. Just a huge vote today that
could have been even huger. And that bodes well for immigration reform
passing the Senate overall by a really large margin.
The Beltway thinking here is if the margin by which this thing passes
the Senate is huge enough then even the Republican-controlled House will
feel like they have to pass it too -- the House, where they don`t really
like passing anything except abortion bans and the fake repeal of Obamacare
The House, the House under John Boehner. Could they actually pass
something real? Could they really do it?
John Boehner apparently thinks he can do it. At least last week when
he met with the all-Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, he told them
that he could do it. He says he has a plan to do it.
Quote, "In a private meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
on Wednesday, Mr. Boehner cited the farm bill process to describe how he
intended to move immigration reform through the house." The farm bill
process. The farm bill process that he talked about on Wednesday is a
process that failed spectacularly on Thursday.
His whole plan for how to pass something difficult is to use the same
strategy that he used to fail to pass something easy. Eke. This was the
stinging and embarrassing loss for Boehner.
This was the doo-whoop move that made one sitting member of Congress
lament to "The Hill" newspaper, quote, "We can`t even do an F -- star star
star star star star -- farm bill." that`s how they printed. I will not try
to guess what the six asterisks stood for after the letter F. This was a
terrible failure for them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), DEMOCRATIC LEADER: What`s happening on the
floor today was a demonstration of major amateur hour. They didn`t get
results. And they put the blame on somebody else. Just interesting
because you know I love numbers and I love counting votes -- 62 Republicans
voted no on the bill today, 62 Republicans. There`s almost no way to
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: The Republicans have tried to save face on this face plant.
They sent out their numbers guy today, former vice presidential candidate
Paul Ryan. They sent him out to try to make the case that it wasn`t
Republicans` fault that they failed on this thing, it was Democrats` fault.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: The Democrats promised 40 votes and
they didn`t deliver the votes that they had promised. Our leaders brought
the bill to the floor based upon the commitment that Democrats from the
agricultural districts made, and then during consideration of this bill on
the floor they reneged on the commitment of the 40 votes that they promised
and the bill went down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Oh, no. See, if this is the analysis that makes Republicans
feel better about completely losing control of the House and having no idea
what will happen there from day to day and vote to vote even though they`re
supposed to be in charge, that`s a problem, because Paul Ryan is totally
wrong about that. Paul Ryan, math guy, is getting the arithmetic horribly
Paul Ryan says we thought we would have 40 votes from Democrats, but
16 of them reneged. Look at the number of Republican votes there. If you
add to that number the 16 lost Democrats who Paul Ryan says would have made
all the difference, the bill still fails. They would still be seven votes
shy of winning.
The problem is not that they lost Democrats by making the bill too
conservative. Even if they had kept all of those Democrats, they still
would have lost anyway because of their own side. The Republicans` problem
is that they lost so many Republicans, including Paul Ryan himself, who
voted against it. And they were so surprised by their own side losing it
for them, they had no idea what happened.
They still do not understand it. They are bewildered by their own
And that is the game plan they say they are going to use to pass
immigration reform. And maybe they will.
But in assessing that possibility it seems important to note that the
Republican leadership in Congress has absolutely no idea what it is doing.
To the point where they don`t even understand why they`re failing when
Someone should talk to them about the math guy.
That does it for us tonight. We will see you again tomorrow night.
Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL."
Have a great night.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
WATCH 'THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW' WEEKDAYS AT 9:00 P.M. ON MSNBC.