updated 1/24/2014 11:06:08 AM ET 2014-01-24T16:06:08

POLITICS NATION
January 23, 2014

Guests: Kendall Coffey; Emanuel Cleaver, Angela Rye, Mark Hannah, Darren
Kavinoky, Faith Jenkins


REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you
for tuning in.

In tonight`s lead, federal inquiry. It`s been a day of important
developments in the investigation of Governor Christie`s administration.
The U.S. attorney in New Jersey took steps to determine if federal laws
were broken in closing access lanes to the George Washington Bridge.

U.S. attorney Paul Fishman issued subpoenas to key aides and allies of
governor Chris Christie, demanding documents related to lane closings,
dating all the way back to 2010. Among those receiving subpoenas, Bridget
Kelly, the former deputy chief of staff who sent the e-mail, time for some
traffic problems in Fort Lee. David Wildstein, the bridge official who
replied, got it. And Bill Baroni, Wildstein`s boss, also subpoenaed, the
Christie for governor reelection campaign and the New Jersey Republican
state committee.

A lawyer for those entities says the documents will be forthcoming. Quote,
"the campaign and the state party intend to cooperate with the U.S.
attorney`s office and the state legislative committee and will respond to
the subpoenas accordingly."

Now this is now a full federal inquiry, even as New Jersey lawmakers
continue to pursue their own investigation into the lane closures and the
allocation of hurricane Sandy aid to Hoboken, New Jersey. As I stated,
these federal subpoenas are a preliminary inquiry to learn if a crime has
been committed. But there is no question they up the stakes in the
question of misconduct by people close to the governor and possibly even
the governor himself.

Joining me now is former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey and NBC News national
investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff.

Thank you both for being here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, Rev.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good to be with you.

SHARPTON: Kendall, you were telling one of my producers there is no such
thing as a casual inquiry like this, a subpoena like this from the U.S.
attorney. What is the significance of these subpoenas?

KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, this is very significant. It
means first of all, that some determination has been made at a high level.
Hard to think, by the way, that Eric Holder read about this for the first
time in the newspapers. This kind of thing runs all the way up to the top
of the justice department at some level of approval ratification.

At a very high level, determination has been made that is there is federal
criminal jurisdiction if allegations and information that is being review
candidate be proven. That by itself is a major development because now
we`re not just talking about a legislative committee. And that`s serious
business, or even the threat of state prosecution, which is certainly
plenty to worry about.

When you`re thinking about the feds with the enormous powers they have
looking your way, it`s bone-chilling, Reverend. And I think that we have
to acknowledge that no matter how this turns out, this investigation is not
turning to the finish line any time soon. To the contrary, its feeling
like the floodgate is opening investigatively on bridge gate.

SHARPTON: What do you see the last couple of days, Michael Isikoff, what
does it mean in terms of the developments that seem to be building rather
than retreating?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, NBC NEWS NATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well,
look, Paul Fishman, the U.S. attorney is moving forward on all fronts. We
reported last night that FBI agents have already begun questioning
witnesses in Hoboken about the allegations of mayor Zimmer talking to her
chief of staff, questioning her communications director, and others who
have information about the allegations that Zimmer made. And now
simultaneously, he is moving forward on the bridge gate matter and issuing
these subpoenas.

So, it`s pretty clear in ways that it wasn`t just a week ago that this is
being taken quite seriously by the U.S. attorney. And it doesn`t -- one
thing that`s interesting here, and I would be curious to get Kendall`s
reaction to this is that the subpoenas I`m told which are document
subpoenas for all documents, e-mails, communications, do not cite specific
federal statutes because that`s been one of the question marks about this.
What crime or what federal statute might be implicated here. And they
don`t cite any, which could mean that they don`t really have a theory of
the case at this point. They`re looking for the evidence and then will
develop their theory afterwards.

SHARPTON: Well, Kendall, you worked as a U.S. attorney. When they`re not
looking for a particular theory that could also mean that if they come up
with something in a broad scope that may not have been what we all are
talking about, it still becomes fair game for them to go in and go after?

COFFEY: Absolutely. They don`t want to limit themselves. This is not
idle curiosity. They`re not going to issue subpoenas in a matter of this
gravity given the enormous importance in the high stakes simply because
somebody thinks a law was violated somewhere. They have done plenty of
research on this by now. And they are looking at a couple different
statues. They simply don`t know how the facts are going to play out.
Because, for example --

SHARPTON: Why is the committee and the campaign? Why those two entities?

COFFEY: Well, we don`t know that. And it`s difficult to know. But if --
to give you one scenario, if they`re looking at federal laws that examine
interference and obstruction of interstate commerce, by the way, shutting
down access to a bridge would fit that like a t, and extortion within the
meaning of state law, they could be looking to see whether there is a
series of schemes and some level of bullying across the line to extortion
in order to marry the federal predicate of interstate commerce and
interfering with interstate commerce with might be a predicate of state law
obstruction.

Lots of other things they could be looking at. For sure this is not the
most obvious federal crime we`ve ever seen. But believe me, this is beyond
just wondering and wishing and hoping. They`ve got some definite theories
in mind. They simply have to see on the facts crystallize.

SHARPTON: Now Michael, tell me why Bill Stepien has not been -- why he has
not been subpoenaed. Bill Stepien --

ISIKOFF: He has been subpoenaed by the state legislative committee, and we
simply don`t know whether he has been subpoenaed by the U.S. attorney`s
office yet. That would -- the U.S. attorney is not going to comment and it
would require confirmation from him or his counsel.

But at this point we do know that Stepien is a key player. He is the
reason that the reelection committee has been subpoenaed. He was the
campaign manager. His name, are on the e-mail trails that we`ve seen. He
is commenting back and forth with Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein about
the lane closures and how to respond to them. So he is in a sense in the
middle of it. And he is one of those who Christie let go as soon as he
learned -- as soon as he saw those e-mails.

So you know, there is a clear connection there. And what most likely is
going to happen here -- I`ve talked to some source on this already is that
his laptop, campaign laptop would be in the custody of the campaign and any
smart phones he used, and they will be turned over as a result of this
subpoena.

SHARPTON: Kendall, I want to ask you about what David Wildstein`s attorney
said to the media last week. Quote, "if he has immunity from the relevant
entities, he`ll talk." Now today we know Wildstein got a subpoena from the
U.S. attorney as a former federal prosecutor, would that statement about
immunity trigger your curiosity in an especially forceful way?

COFFEY: Well, it does. He is signaling, I think almost inviting some to
say give me some form of immunity, and I will talk, and I will have things
to say that might be of interest. Now, there could be a completely
different interpretation. But that is certainly one interpretation you
draw from that. Bear in mind, though, that you have two different
jurisdictions here and even if you get immunity from one, what about
prosecution under the other? So you`ve got a complicated kettle of fish
here.

SHARPTON: Michael Isikoff and Kendall Coffey, I`m going have to leave
there it. Thank you for your time tonight.

COFFEY: Thank you.

ISIKOFF: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Still ahead, GOP`s rebranding fail. Wait until you hear what
Mike Huckabee is saying about women and their libidos.

Also, remember the New Mexico case, the police officer fired for shooting
at a van full of kids? Well, he is sorry and he is speaking out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I couldn`t believe that there was that many children in
there. If I knew that there was even one child in that vehicle, I wouldn`t
have done it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: And Justin Bieber is free tonight after being arrested for DWI
and resisting arrest. Was it fair? Will he get special treatment? We`ll
talk about it in our justice files.

Big show tonight. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Coming up, "Politics Nation" justice files.

In North Carolina, why did a grand jury refuse to indict a police officer
who shot an unarmed student athlete ten times?

And in Florida, it`s Bieber mania. He is charged with a crime. Will he
get special treatment? And who decides? That`s ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`ve got a pen and I`ve got
a phone. And that`s all I need because with a pen, with a pen I can take
executive actions. With a phone I can rally folks from around the country
to help grow the economy and restore opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Restoring opportunity. President Obama has made inequality the
central issue of his second term. And Tuesday night it will be the focus
of his state of the union address to the nation.

Today a new poll showed once again the American people fully support the
president`s fight against inequality, 82 percent think the government
should act to reduce poverty in America, 82 percent. And 69 percent think
the government should try to reduce the wealth gap between rich and poor.

This is a complete repudiation of the Republican view that government
should do nothing, that we shouldn`t try to level the playing field and
give everyone a fair shot. In fact, on policy after policy, Americans want
the president`s solution, 73 percent say we should raise the minimum wage,
63 percent want to extend jobless benefits for the unemployed and 54
percent want to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

Republicans oppose all of those solutions. They`re standing in the way of
progress. They`re keeping people down. It`s time for these Republicans to
listen to the American people or get out of the way.

Joining me now is Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, Democrat from Missouri.

Chairman Cleaver, thanks for being on the show tonight.

REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER (D), MISSOURI: Good to be with you, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Do your GOP colleagues not understand they`re on the wrong side
of public opinion or they just don`t care?

CLEAVER: Well, some of them understand it and I think these new numbers
that you cited should cause some movement. But you have to understand that
those who are in these newly drawn, extremely conservative districts know
that the people in those districts in many cases will vote against our best
interests. In other words, they`ll put them in and then ask them not to
vote for programs that they actually need.

And I think that we`ve got to put enormous pressure on the federal
government, because the American public does not like the fact that 46
million Americans live in poverty. This is the United States of America
and the president is right to address this issue. I want to just say
hallelujah to what he is doing.

SHARPTON: Yes.

CLEAVER: He is not trying to, you know, fix the blame. He is trying to
fix the problem. And I am going to be right there with him. I think the
majority of the American public is willing to put pressure on him if we can
create the atmosphere for them to do it.

SHARPTON: Well, let me raise this point to you, though. In a Pew poll,
the question was raised why are people poor. I was stunned, 51 percent of
Republicans say lack of effort.

So, I had to ask myself, Mr. Chairman, where did they get that from? And
when I thought about right-wing pundits praising the rich because they
actually work, I thought about maybe this is where it`s come from. Listen
to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: The wealthy, the rich, the achieved
ought to be the role molds for everybody.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So how does the rich really make their money? How do
they do it today? How did they do it in past? By hard work.

JAMES ROSEN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Why income inequality exists didn`t
really take us to the fundamental point, which is that it exists as a
function of the genius of the American enterprise.

LIMBAUGH: The country would be far better off if more people actually
lived the way the top 20 percent do, if they actually worked like the top
20 percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Now, Mr. Chairman, I know a lot more poor people and lower class
in terms of the economic strata and lower middle class people than I know
rich people. And they work very hard. So, I mean, I don`t understand this
notion.

CLEAVER: It is so sad what I just heard. You know, and right now,
particularly after the end of the recession, the rich are getting richer,
and the poor are getting blamed for not getting richer. And we simply are
unwilling -- there are people with this mind-set which says I will not
accept the fact that jobs have disappeared, that we have had some
fundamental changes in the U.S. economy. And there are millions of
Americans who would get up every single day and work hard to provide for
their families.

I grew up in public housing. I don`t know anybody who loved to be poor.
And there is this theory out here, it`s wild and crazy, that somehow poor
people like being poor. I grew up with poor people.

SHARPTON: Right.

CLEAVER: I was one of them. And I don`t know anybody who liked that. But
when you are refusing to give people the hand up, then we`re going to
maintain a lower level of economics for a certain group of people. We need
to help people. That`s what the federal government can do.

SHARPTON: Well, I couldn`t agree with you more there. You know, today,
former presidential candidate and FOX News host Mike Huckabee spoke at the
RNC winter meeting. And once again he suggested that single moms are to
blame for poverty. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE HUCKABEE, FOX NEWS HOST: If we really want to deal with poverty, the
most important solution is stable families, marriage. We would much rather
the children of America be raised by a mother and a father rather than
being raised by Uncle Sam.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: There are mothers and fathers that live in poverty that are
married together. I mean, there is no magic economic wand to having a
marriage situation.

CLEAVER: Well, Reverend, one of our good friends, Reverend CT Vian (ph).
Remember CT?

SHARPTON: Civil rights icon.

CLEAVER: Recently met with a group of workers who go to work every day.
One young lady goes to work every day and goes to community college in the
evening, and she is married and her husband works. And they are still
qualifying for food stamps, because she works at a fast food restaurant.
She is very good. She is there every day, and stays up half the night
trying to be prepared for school.

There are millions of Americans doing that every day. My mother, my father
sent my mother to school when I was in the eighth grade. And people are
struggling and willing to do a lot of things to make it. But they need a
little help. And if the federal government can`t help, then there is
something dramatically and perhaps irreversibly wrong with this country if
we can`t help those who need help.

SHARPTON: Well, Chairman Cleaver, I can say you and I both are ministers
and so is Mike Huckabee, but on this issue I join you in giving my
hallelujah to the president.

Chairman Cleaver, thanks for your time tonight.

CLEAVER: Good to be with you.

SHARPTON: Still ahead, GOP rebranding fail. Just wait until you hear what
FOX News host Mike Huckabee said about women and their libidos.

Also, the GOP`s state of the union curse, last year`s victim was Marco
Rubio. Who will it be next Tuesday night?

Plus, is Bieber mania. Justin Bieber is a free man after being arrest and
charged with DWI and resisting arrest.

Tonight justice files ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: It`s that time of year again. Time for the GOP to select one of
its rising stars to respond to president Obama`s state of the union. But
sometimes it`s hard to tell if this honor is more of a blessing or curse.

In 2009, it was Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. That was absolute
disaster that turned out. His star hasn`t exactly shined brightly since
then.

2010, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell took the stage. He was just indicted
on federal charges. How about Paul Ryan in 2011? We know what happened to
him on the Romney ticket. Then there was Indiana governor Mitch Daniels,
who spoke in 2012. He`s out of politics now. And last year, who can
forget this all-time classic. It was Marco Rubio with the sip of water
seen round the world. I can`t get enough of that water bottle reach.

So who have the Republicans bestowed the honor upon this year? It`s
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington. In a fundraising
letter last month, she said Democrats, quote, "had no interest in working
with Republicans." And that they`re, quote, "openly hostile to American
values and the constitution." She is also the highest ranking Republican
woman in Congress. I wonder what that`s all about. More on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: As we mentioned a moment ago, big news today from the GOP.
Party leaders announced Washington Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
the highest ranking woman in the GOP will deliver the Republican response
to the state of the union. This year the GOP wants the public face of the
party to be a woman. They realize the party has an image problem. After
all, in recent years Republicans have tried to roll back abortion rights.
They`ve attacked contraception, and they fought against equal pay. Really?
What else could they do to alienate women? Let`s check in with FOX News
host and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee today at the RNC`s
winter meeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Democrats want to
insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless
without uncle sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each
month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their
reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.
Let us take that discussion all across America, because women are far more
than the Democrats have played them to be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: It`s almost as if the GOP is taking its talking points from Rush
Limbaugh. Well, they are.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Look at what they`re doing to women
with their policies. I mean, they`re demeaning them.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The Democrats want to insult the women of America.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: They`re turning into nothing but abortion machines.

HUCKABEE: They cannot control their libido or reproductive system without
the help of the government.

LIMBAUGH: Unable to go to bed unless the government gave her birth
control.

HUCKABEE: They`re hopeless without uncle sugar coming in and providing for
them a prescription each month for birth control.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: It`s great that the GOP is having a woman deliver the response
to the State of the Union. But with talk like this, there is still the
same old GOP.

Joining me now are Angela Rye and Mark Hannah. Thank you both for being
here.

MARK HANNAH, DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL ANALYST: Thank you, Rev.

ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Thank you, Rev.

SHARPTON: Angela, isn`t Mike Huckabee talking about women`s libido the
last thing this party needs?

(LAUGHTER)

RYE: But it`s the first thing we should expect. There is absolutely
nothing new under the sun, Rev. We have seen them time and time again stay
in women`s va-jjs. I hadn`t tell you that, it`s awful. I don`t know why
they are doing this. I don`t know they continue to talk about reproductive
health when they have no idea how to even message this right. We`re
talking yesterday was the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. And
this is what they have come up with. I just really want them to find some
other talking points, because this is absolutely the wrong road for them to
go down. Whether Cathy McMorris Rodgers from the great state of Washington
or some other person, woman or not is delivering the State of the Union
response for them, they just need to have better answers.

SHARPTON: Mark Hannah, I know you don`t want to go there with the
references that Angela made. I`ll call her pastor after the show. But
your thoughts about all of this?

HANNAH: My thoughts are that putting a female congresswoman out to respond
to the president`s State of the Union isn`t going to paper over decades of
public policies that have been disastrous for women. And frankly, I think,
you know, Mike Huckabee up there talking about women`s libidos, I mean,
it`s -- listening to Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh is enough to allow
women to control their libidos. Look, I think that the governor is -- if
the governor is going to be the spokesperson for Republicans on public
policies geared toward women, then Democrats have nothing to worry about
being the staunch supporter, being the party that staunchly supports
women`s issues.

And, look, after Mitt Romney lost back in 2012, the Republican Party did a
lot of soul-searching and was finding ways it could be more inclusive. It
discussed about immigration reform and talked about needing to win over,
you know, somebody other than old white men. And there has been a lot of
lip service given to this. Right now they`re shooting themselves in the
foot if they`re going to make abortion a central issue of the next campaign
with the national security threats that we face, with the economic
instability and insecurity that people face. Nobody wants to talk about
abortion.

SHARPTON: What is so interesting, they know they have a problem. They
took an autopsy last March. But let me show you something else that
Huckabee said today. Let`s go back to Huckabee at the winter RNC meeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUCKABEE: The Republicans don`t have a war on women. They have a war for
women. For them to be empowered to be something other than victims of
their gender. Women I know are outraged that the Democrats think that
women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal
in life is to have the government provide for them birth control
medication.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Angela, you`re a Democrat. Do you feel victimized?

RYE: No. I feel victimized by people that don`t even know how to speak to
me. I feel victimized by the fact that here we are almost a year later
with an autopsy report, and there are still no solutions, the fact that
that party and their message is still dead. So they can continue, Rev, to
try to change the messenger. They`re putting black people in communities,
they found people that would work for them to go into these communities
that are low income, more youth targeting and all of that. But their
message hasn`t changed. The problem is what they`re saying. I don`t at
all feel like a victim.

SHARPTON: Let me talk to you a minute about their messaging. Because
Huckabee is not the only one, Mark Hannah. GOP Congressman Steve Pearce
has a new book out. This is what he writes in the book, quote, "The wife
is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and
sacrifice. The husband part is to show up during the times of deep stress,
take the leadership role, and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no
one else." I mean, is this the kind of talk most women want to hear in
2014, Mark Hannah?

HANNAH: Absolutely not, Reverend. And look, to be fair, this is how some
people in our country think. You know, the book excerpt you just showed.
But those people are already going to vote Republican. The vast majority
of people that want to see equality between the sexes, they want -- that
see reproductive health as a fundamental rights issue and a health care
issue and not necessarily this polarized political issue. The vast
majority of those people are finding their common sense solutions with
Democrats, not necessarily with somebody like Mike Huckabee.

And don`t forget, remember when Todd Akin made his comment about legitimate
rape. Mike Huckabee went on his radio show and tried to prop up Todd Akin.
He has not a very good track record when it comes to supporting candidates
who have just put their foot in their mouth when it comes to saying
offensive things about women and women`s health.

SHARPTON: But Angela, they want -- let`s not forget this is an election
year, the midterm elections. They want to rev up their base, there is a
lot of their base that gets revved up with this kind of talk.

RYE: Well, I think that`s absolutely right. And Rev, the thing that we
have to know is that even if they move the primary up, that doesn`t
preclude a John McCain from winning the nomination. It doesn`t preclude a
Mitt Romney from winning the nomination. Because regardless, again, of who
the messenger is, the problem really is the policies that they promote. So
once they get out of that primary season, whether it`s earlier or later,
they`re going to still have to face the rest of the American people, and
therein lies the problem. They just can`t stand.

SHARPTON: Well, Mark Hannah, they`re talking about the 2016 primary
calendar, the National Journal reports Republican officials are also
exploring new guidelines to cut down on the number of primary debates and
to move up their convention to early summer. Now, they want to cut the
number of Republican debates. I wonder why. Well, let`s take a stroll on
memory lane. Maybe we`ll figure out why.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICK PERRY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It`s three agencies of
government when I get there that are gone -- commerce, education, and the -
- what`s the third one there? Let`s see.

HERMAN CAIN (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: 9-9-9 will pass.

MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We went to the company and
we said look, you can`t have any illegals working on our property. I`m
running for office, for Pete`s sake. I can`t have illegals.

CAIN: My 9-9-9 plan.

ROMNEY: I tell you what, 10,000 bucks? Ten thousand dollar bet?

PERRY: I`m not in the betting business.

I can`t. The third one, I can`t. Sorry. Oops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Yes, cutting those debates might not be a bad idea. I`m going
to have to leave there it. Angela Rye and Mark Hannah, thank you both for
your time tonight.

RYE: Thanks, Rev.

HANNAH: Thank you, Reverend.

Coming up, the story that has everyone talking today. Justin Bieber spends
hours in jail, arrested, charged with drunken driving, and resisting
arrest. But he is a free man tonight. Was it fair? And the police
officer who shot at a van with five kids inside is breaking his silence.
Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: It`s time for POLITICS NATION`S justice files. The big criminal
justice stories, and we have both sides covered.

Joining me now is Darren Kavinoky, and he is a criminal defense attorney.
And Faith Jenkins, a former prosecutor. Thank you both for being here.

FAITH JENKINS, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thank you.

DARREN KAVINOKY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thanks, Al.

SHARPTON: We start tonight in Charlotte, North Carolina where a partial
grand jury refused to indict police officer Randall Kerrick for the
shooting death of Jonathan Ferrell. Last September Jonathan was driving
home late at night when he crashed his car. He went to a house to ask for
help. The woman inside thought he was a burglar and called 911. When
police arrived, officer Kerrick fired 12 bullets at him, killing him. The
police department called in unlawful. The attorney general plans to
resubmit the charges, saying the grand jury was missing jurors. Usually
there are 18 people present, but this time there were only 14. This was
how it was covered by the local reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: In 34 years I`ve never seen a no true bill on something
like this.

CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, FERRELL FAMILY ATTORNEY: We`re shocked,
disappointed.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The grand jury choosing not to indict is extremely
rare. He says the grand jury is not deciding guilt or innocence, only
probable cause.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Did a crime probably occur and did the defendant
probably commit the offense? That`s sort of the cliff notes version of
what probable cause is.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: There should be a series upgrow in this city in every
community and every church.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Faith, should there have been an indictment?

JENKINS: There should have been. I was very surprised that there wasn`t
based on the facts of this case. And I`m sure that the grand jurors were
even shown the police dash cam video that showed Jonathan Ferrell didn`t
have a weapon in his hand from what we`ve been told. I mean, I think that
in a case like this, the prosecutors have to go back, they have to look.
The case wasn`t dismissed so, they can go back to the grand jury with
additional facts, additional evidence. And they have to in a case like
this. This officer, even when the police department says that this was an
unlawful shooting --

SHARPTON: Right.

JENKINS: That deadly force wasn`t necessary, when the police department
have washed their hands of this guy and said that, then you know something
is seriously wrong when the grand jury doesn`t listen to the evidence and
decide the case correctly.

SHARPTON: Darren?

KAVINOKY: Well, experienced criminal lawyers know that when it comes to
grand jury practice, there is a saying, that the grand jury would indict a
ham sandwich if the prosecution asked them to. So it`s highly unusual that
we didn`t get that. And to me that suggests some political agenda afoot
here, especially where the police department has already come out and said,
hey, this was a bad shooting. But what is so interesting is that in
criminal cases, in litigation in general, it`s not always a dispute over
the facts themselves, but it`s what the fax mean, it`s the interpretation.
And that`s what we`re going to have to dig into here.

SHARPTON: When they say that there were only 14 in the grand jury room is
usually 18, and nobody has explained why there was only 14. But I can`t
even understand given the facts. And we had the mother-in-law on this
show. Why any amount wouldn`t see at least that there, again, they`re not
saying that there is guilt here there, but is probable cause to go to trial
here. I don`t understand.

RYE: Probable cause just to go forward with the case. And the number --
because there were just 14 grand jurors, that doesn`t bother me so much
because sometimes grand jurors will miss a day or two here or there, which
you still has to get the required vote that he need for an indictment.

SHARPTON: Yes.

RYE: So, that didn`t bother me as much. But when you look at the spectrum
of force that police officers have and all the other things that this
officer could have done besides use deadly force, that what makes this case
so egregious.

SHARPTON: I have to move on to the story that everyone is talking about.
Pop star Justin Bieber. He was arrested at 4:00 in the morning while drag
racing in Miami Beach. You can see him smiling in the mug shot. Police
said Bieber told them he drank alcohol, smoked marijuana, and took
prescription drugs. Earlier today he appeared before a judge who set
Bieber`s bond at $2500 on charges of DWI, driving with an expired license
and resisting arrest. Police believe Bieber was racing his friend. This
video shows Bieber behind the wheel of a rented yellow Lamborghini he was
pulled over in. Bieber left jail this afternoon in a circus atmosphere,
waving to the crowds before driving away in an SUV. Darren, what do you
make of the charges? Was it fair?

KAVINOKY: Well, they seem to be fair charges. But what I really make of
this is Justin Bieber is his own worst enemy right now. And to put this in
context, this is just shortly after that egging incident in Calabasas.

SHARPTON: Right. Where he was supposedly been throwing eggs at a
neighbor`s house?

KAVINOKY: Well, not to make light of it, but causing $20,000 worth of
damage, which makes it a felony. So, what we`re seeing is ongoing
misbehavior and arrogance on his part. And that`s what causes me the
greatest concern. He is about to go full Lindsay Lohan here, and somebody
needs to rein this guy in.

RYE: The series of crimes he committed allegedly last night, not only were
a grotesque violation of the law, but showed a complete disregard for the
safety of others. And I think if you took Justin Bieber out of this
situation and you put any of us at 19-years-old in Miami, Florida,
committing those crimes that he did last night, we would still be in jail
in Miami tonight.

SHARPTON: Yes. That`s the question, Darren. I mean, I`ve worked in Miami
civil rights work, we have part of our group there. A young 19-year-old
from Miami gardens would not get just $2500 bail given all of those
charges.

Hang on. I actually have to take issue with that. Because in criminal
case there`s is usually a bail schedule that sets forth if you`re charged
with this crime, this is the bail amount. And so I don`t think this is an
example of celebrity favoritism. Look at Justin Bieber. The money means
nothing to him.

JENKINS: No, it wasn`t just the DUI. And it was his first arrest for DUI,
it was the combination of crimes. They blocked off a residential
neighborhood street and were drag racing. That shows a level of intent and
preparation for someone who has been drinking and doing drugs all day.
It`s particularly egregious. And Darren, listen to this. There were
reports that his father was with him. So it`s not like the judge released
him and said hey, he is under proper influencing guidance. Let`s release
him and let him go back home. The reports are his father was in one of the
SUVs that blocked off the street.

KAVINOKY: But look, we`re talking about driving in a residential
neighborhood, dangerous, yes. But they`re talk 55, 60 miles per hour in a
30 miles an hour zone. This wasn`t like going 100 miles.

SHARPTON: But you`re also talking about resisting arrest.

KAVINOKY: Right. But not with violence. The resisting arrest was --

SHARPTON: And we`re talking about, he told police he had been smoking
marijuana, taking pills, and was drinking.

JENKINS: Oh, he could have killed someone. And what if an ambulance had
an emergency they needed to get through there? I just think this is
completely outrageous.

KAVINOKY: I think it`s especially arrogant. And I`ve described Justin
Bieber as being felony stupid before. I stand by those remarks now. I
think they`re amplified based on this. But at the end of the day, the
charges do seem a tad overblown. I`ve read the reports. And the idea of
resisting arrest based on this kind of behavior, I don`t know that that`s
ultimately going to stick.

JENKINS: I just don`t think this is a case for leniency. And so, I think
that they should go forward with the charges as quickly and efficiently as
possible.

KAVINOKY: But he doesn`t need jail. What he needs is some humility. I
think when we look at this escalating misbehavior, the through line for me
is arrogance. We need a long-term lockdown rehab for this guy. I think
scrubbing toilets or picking up trash by the side of the freeway, wearing
the orange jumpsuit is more valuable for the long ball of Justin Bieber`s
life than sticking him in jail for a short period of time.

SHARPTON: Well, we`re going to have to leave there it. I think Darren
Kavinoky, you certainly expressed yourself. Faith, we won`t be looking for
you at any free Justin Bieber rallies.

Faith Jenkins, Darren, thank you both for being on the justice files
tonight.

JENKINS: Thank you.

KAVINOKY: Thank you, Reverend Al.

SHARPTON: Coming up, the police officer that fired on a van full of kids
is breaking his silence. And what`s he saying and what he has to address
might surprise you. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: A New Mexico police officer fired for shooting on a van with
five children is breaking his silence. You might remember this traffic
stop gone wrong. A mother driving with her five kids in a minivan was
pulled over for speeding. She was asked to wait but disobeyed and drove
away. When she was stopped again, chaos ensued.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Get back, get back! Get on the ground. Get on the
ground. Get on the ground! Get on the ground!

(SCREAMING)

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: No!

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Get on the ground. Get out! Get out right now. Get
out.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Get him out.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Open the door!

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Open the door!

(SCREAMING)

(GUNSHOTS)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: The police officer, Elias Montoya, was fired last month. But
now he is breaking his silence, saying he arrived after the children were
back in the car, and all he saw was silhouettes of heads. And thought the
police were outnumbered. So he shot at the tire.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: When you found out that there were in fact children in
that minivan, what did you think?

ELIAS MONTOYA, FIRED NEW MEXICO COP: Well, I -- my heart sank. When they
finally stop and I was on the passenger side at that time, seeing them get
out at gunpoint again, I couldn`t believe that there was that many children
in there.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Can the public trust your judgment after you fired on a
minivan with kids in it?

MONTOYA: I`m sure they will, because they know me. They know what I`m
about. I`m not one to take my handgun off my holster on every little
situation. If I knew that there was even one child in that vehicle, I
wouldn`t have done it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: I`m glad he acknowledged what he did was wrong, and I`m glad he
regrets it. But there is still a lot we don`t know about this case.
Forgiveness is one thing. Reinstatement to the job is another. We`ll keep
following this story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Finally tonight, a milestone in the fight for justice. Today
marks the 50th anniversary of the 24th amendment to the U.S. constitution.
This amendment ended the poll tax in federal elections that was used in the
Jim Crow South to suppress the African-American vote. Here is a receipt of
a poll tax from Louisiana in 1917. Fifty years ago, they were eliminated.
But today they are back in other forms, like voter ID laws.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Many of those without IDs would have to
travel great distances to get them. And some would struggle to pay for the
documents they might need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Voter ID. A poll tax by another name, even when a voter ID is
supposedly free, people often have to pay for their birth certificates,
marriage licenses, and other documents need to get that ID. Civil rights
legend John Lewis saw the poll tax firsthand under Jim Crow, and he sees
the same thing now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Voter ID laws are becoming all too common. But make no
mistake, voter ID laws are a poll tax.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: They`re those that say we need voter ID to fight fraud, but they
have not been able to come up with any widespread fraud in any of the
states that are passing these laws. Yes, we see efforts to suppress the
votes. Any number of studies clearly shows that they`re stopping more
voters than they`re protecting from fraud since there is no fraud there.
Yes, there will always be those that will try to stop segments of this
country from voting, but thank God there will always be those of us that
will fight them.

Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Transcription Copyright 2014 ASC LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is
granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not
reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or
internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall
user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may
infringe upon MSNBC and ASC LLC`s copyright or other proprietary rights or
interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of
litigation.>

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,