Skip navigation

PoliticsNation, Tuesday, June 10th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Tuesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

June 10, 2014

Guest: Jan Schakowsky, Brian Levin, Mark Pitcavage, Ronald Isley

REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Thank you, Michael. And thanks to you
for tuning in.

Tonight`s lead, the GOP`s dishonesty on sergeant Bergdahl. It`s become
more clear every day that Republicans care more about throwing red meat to
the base than they care about the truth.

Today, military officials briefed members of the Senate armed services
committee. But as they were laying out the facts of Bergdahl`s release,
Republicans were in if full spin mode.


REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I was never briefed about
a five to one swap, nor were there ever any names. There was a discussion
several years ago about efforts to get Bergdahl back, and we`re glad that
he`s back. But I was never briefed on any specific negotiation.


SHARPTON: Never briefed? Really, Speaker Boehner?

Senator John McCain made that exact same argument last week and guess what?
He earned a rare upside down Pinnochio for that phony claim. And while
we`re at it, a front page "Washington Post" article on February 17th of
this year even reported that the deal was in the works. February 17th,
quote, "five members of the Afghan Taliban would be released in exchange
for the release of Bergdahl." And if that weren`t bad enough, now the
right wing has a new bogus talking point. That we paid a ransom to the


may come out and say yes, in addition we paid "x" amount of money to get
this guy freed because we thought he was so important.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How will you get to the bottom of the question
whether or not money was exchanged.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know for certainly, Sean, that What they wanted had
nothing to do with releasing anybody from Gitmo. They wanted money. And
so, the question that needs to be answered, and somebody in Congress has
got to stand up on their hind feet and ask it. Was ransom paid?


SHARPTON: It`s not just the FOX News bubble. Republican Congressman
Stockman has a letter posted on his Web site that asks the president, did
you pay terrorists? Today the Pentagon refuted that claim, as did the
White House.

But it`s funny. As Michael Tomasky reported in today`s "Daily Beast," the
right didn`t mind when Bush paid a ransom to terrorists. That`s right, the
Bush administration paid $300,000 to get back American hostages in April of
2002, even FOX`s Bret Baier said this about the deal, quote, "the U.S.
government facilitated a ransom payment to Al Qaeda-linked terrorist," end
of quote.

Where was the GOP outcry back then? I guess I missed it. I guess they
only queue up their phony outrage when a Democrat is s in the White House.

Joining me now is congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois and
former U.S. marine and MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor.

Thank you both for coming on the show tonight.


GOLDIE TAYLOR, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you, Reverend Sharpton.

SHARPTON: Congresswoman, why are we hearing so many false attacks against
the president for bringing an American soldier home?

SCHAKOWSKY: You know, at first, they were glad. The response when we
heard that sergeant Bergdahl was being turned, everyone seemed to be happy.
And then they much got an memo, Reverend Al, that said wait a minute, it
was that guy in the White House who helped to negotiate this, and so we
can`t be for it. And they`re looking for reasons.

The bottom line is we leave no American behind. And that doesn`t say only
the best American or the best soldier. We leave no American behind. All
of us should be grateful to this administration and to the military and the
intelligence community for making this exchange happen. They are searching
for a reason to be mad.

This very idea that they weren`t informed, they know darn well that last
December when the national defense authorization act was passed, the
president had a signing statement that said, you know, if there is going to
be the transfer of some American that`s being held, I will do it anyway.
He made it very clear.

SHARPTON: Well, last December, let me get that clear, Congresswoman, while
they were signing the act, the president stated what at that time?

SCHAKOWSKY: He said, he in a signing statement, he said that he would use
his executive authority to execute a transfer of an American and waive the
30-day requirement in that narrow circumstance. And as you said --

SHARPTON: And was there any outcry from the Republicans when he made that

SCHAKOWSKY: I`m unaware because at that time, many like John McCain were
saying do everything you can to get this soldier back. And as you said, as
late as February, in the public domain, discussion of this kind of
transaction going on.

So I actually -- I wonder what those conversations were about. We better
change direction here. It looks too good for the White House, I guess.
This is politics, and I really resent them playing politics with the life
of a soldier.

SHARPTON: And then we need to find out if they knew about the signing

But Goldie Taylor, the hypocrisy, what the congresswoman just said, you in
the marines, the idea of leaving an American soldier behind, just that
idea, what does it do to our troops, what does it do to the morale of those
in the military?

TAYLOR: You know,, Reverend, that`s the reason why it`s a core value. We
don`t leave a soldier or service person behind, man or woman, no matter
what we believe about their individual morals, whether we believe they
violated a law or not. We don`t leave them behind because it violates
troop morale. It decreases our troop readiness. It harms troop cohesion.

And so in order for us to be a ready fighting force, every man and woman
who fights on our behalf has to know that their brothers and sisters will
come and get them, come what may, dead or alive. We`re still act for
bringing home service members who died during previous wars and whose
remains we want return. And so that`s really our core value.

But at the end of the day, the Republican end of this argument has changed
from day to day. At first, they were questioning whether or not, you know,
Sergeant Bergdahl should have been brought home. Now that has been
satisfied, now they`re questioning whether or not they were truly briefed.
When it turns out they were briefed, now they, of course, say which five
Taliban leaders were released. And when that gets answered, now they`re
moving on to something else such as the sort of trumped up, you know,
bribery deal.

And so, I think the congresswoman is right. No answers will solve this for
this Republican party. What they really after is 2014 and 2016. They`re
after raising an argument that will be sustainable enough for them to drive
out their base.

SHARPTON: Now, Congresswoman, you mentioned that Speaker Boehner and the
whole question of the briefing. And today, Speaker Boehner was asked why
Congress couldn`t be trusted not to leak details of the mission. Watch his


BOEHNER: This idea that they couldn`t trust us to not leak things is just
not true. And it wasn`t just me. There were other members of leadership
who were well aware of the planning and the activities that were going in
to this effort.


SHARPTON: But "Politico" reports today Congresswoman, that quote, "Senator
Saxby Chambliss said he, quote, "absolutely would have raised holy hell
publicly had he gotten wind of the proposed release of five Taliban
officials in a prison swap.""

I mean, this is reported today. Chambliss said I would have raised hell
publicly. Sounds to me like a leak.

SCHAKOWSKY: It sounds to me like a leak as well that it would have gone to
the media, I guess, if not just to the White House.

And so what is he saying? That we should have left this soldier? I want
to, you know, Goldie, I heard what you said. But I want to tell you
something. As recently as yesterday, one of my colleagues that I spoke to
personally on the floor, and he spoke in the briefing that we got, said
that sergeant Bergdahl had given up his right to be exchanged because he
was a deserter.

I said oh, really? And you`re going to decide that. Yes. And so, you
know, so we`re going to let the Taliban mete out justice, not the United
States government when we bring this soldier home. Yes, there will be an
investigation. But that doesn`t mean that we should have left him in
captivity in the hands of the Taliban.

SHARPTON: This is the kind of thing, Congresswoman, pardon me for cutting
you off, that really gets to me. Because I spent most of my life, all my
life, fighting for equal rights for civilians. To think that a member of
the military who volunteered, volunteered to go, to stand up for this
country would be convicted without an investigation or a trial. It`s just
outrageous to me.

SCHAKOWSKY: That`s the right of every American in any situation that you
are innocent until you are proven guilty. But they are ready to condemn
this individual over five years. And it sounds like he was held in
horrible conditions.

SHARPTON: Well, I know you have to go vote.

Thank you, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and Goldie Taylor for your time
this evening, the both of you. Thank you.

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you.

TAYLOR: Thank you, Rev.

SHARPTON: Coming up, Paul Ryan claims he`s looking for ways to tackle
poverty. Well, I`ve got a few ideas. We`ll get into that next.

Also, the Las Vegas killers and their anti-government paranoia. Are we
doing enough to stop a fuse like this before they turn violent?

Plus, legendary soul and funk artist Ron Isley of the Isley brothers joins
me right here in the "Politics Nation" studio. We`re celebrating 80 years
of the Apollo theatre. That`s ahead.


SHARPTON: The fight for fairness is heating up in Washington as Democrats
push to raise the minimum wage.

And that brings us to tonight`s big question. Can Democrats prevail in the
battle to raise the minimum wage? Yes, no or not unless they criminal
Congress again.

We want to know what you think. The poll is live on our facebook page and
on twitter. So vote now and be sure to leave a comment. We`ll have your
answers later in the show.


SHARPTON: I woke up this morning and I heard something amazing. House
Republicans were taking action on income inequality. There was a hearing
on the war on poverty. But here`s what I realized can`t be serious. Paul
Ryan was running it. Yes, the guy who wants to shred the safety net. For
years, Ryan and the GOP blamed poverty on the affordable care act, the
existence of the minimum wage and the breakdown of the family. And today,
they`re back at it.


REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R), CALIFORNIA: The breakdown of the family. It
seems it provides a strong social safety net. We`re basically destroying
that natural safety net that ought to be our first line of defense against

REP. ROGER WILLIAMS (R), TEXAS: Distraction in hiring would be a minimum
wage increase. Minimum wage increase does even cost job and make prices go

REP. TOM RICE (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: One size fits all federal mandate a
living wage, does that really solve our problem? I mean, they can create
actual hiring and disincentives.

adjustment. The last time we made big changes was welfare reform in 1996.
That was almost 20 years ago.

WILLIAMS: And then Obamacare is a real disaster when it comes to small
business owner.


SHARPTON: What a great plan. Attack the war on poverty with their own war
on the poor.

They`re against a minimum wage increase, even as a brand-new poll shows
Americans want to raise it, 90 percent of Democrats favor a hike, 67
percent of independents, and 54 percent of Republicans. And attack the war
on poverty by blocking action on unemployment insurance?

Today we learned three million Americans have now been cut off from long-
term jobless benefits. So enough of the hearings, enough about talking war
on poverty. There are things you can do right now. Let`s see some action.

Joining me now are Michelle Cottle and Dana Milbank. Thank you both for
being here.



SHARPTON: Dana, at this point, is the GOP more interested in holding
hearings about poverty than actually doing something about it?

MILBANK: Well, Paul Ryan is fighting his own war on poverty, but he`s
shooting blanks because it has been a whole bunch of speeches about what
would be better in an ideal world and not actually dealing with what the
government can be doing.

I don`t understand why they`re not viewing this minimum wage as a way to
shrink the size of government and to fight off corporate welfare. Because
companies are paying their wages so low, Uncle Sam and you, the taxpayer,
have to make up the difference in welfare and income transfer payments to
these people who are not being paid enough in the first place. So, you
know, make business pay the people what they`re earning and stop dumping on
to the taxpayers. Why aren`t conservatives making that argument?

SHARPTON: You know, Michelle, today at the hearing we saw criticism of the
war on poverty. And it was coming from GOP lawmakers and a right wing,
quote, "expert they invited to speak." Listen.


REP. TOM PRICE (R), GEORGIA: We spent nearly $20 trillion or to so in the
last 50 years on the war on poverty. And we should have gotten as some
folks had said a greater bank for a fact.

RYAN: We spend nearly $800 billion on 92 different programs to fight
poverty and yet the official poverty rate hasn`t budged in years.

society taken as a whole has weakened family, driven men out of the labor
force and are responsible for some of the social problems, much of the
social dissolution we see today.


SHARPTON: It seems, Michelle, that an emerging talking point from the
right is to attack the war on poverty. You know, Medicaid, Medicare, food
stamps and head start. I mean, who will this appeal to other than a very
small group attacking the great society programs that millions of Americans
benefited from.

COTTLE: Well, look, this is kind of the latest incarnation of the war on
the welfare queens back in Reagan`s day. The idea that, if you have a
social safety net, it encourages people to be lazy and shiftless and
undermines their will to work. You know, now that doesn`t address kind of
why you would want to cut programs like SNAP. that help the working poor.

So I think what you`re dealing with is very deeply engrained, ideological
suspicion of any kind of intervention. It`s going to be hard for Paul Ryan
or anyone to come up with programs to help the poor when you`re dealing
with that kind of starting point.

SHARPTON: You know, Dana, here is what Paul Ryan told a group of
conservatives just a few days ago. Quote, "I`m part of the IRS
investigation. We`ve got the Benghazi investigation. The veteran affairs
investigation, and we`re going to do an investigation about this troop
transfer with the Taliban. So we`ve got a lot on our plates."

That`s what they`re busy with? Things like the IRS and Benghazi while
millions are losing unemployment benefits?

MILBANK: And here`s the way to think of it, Reverend, is basically, the
house Republicans have decided they`re going to play a sort of stall
defense for the rest of the year. So there`s not actual legislation to be
passed in terms of the minimum wage, in terms of immigration reform, in
terms of long-term unemployment benefits extension.

What are they going to do with all of these days? Well, they scheduled
most to be home in their districts on vacation. But the few days that they
here, they have to at least pretend that they`re doing something. So there
are going to be hearings and there are a whole bunch of sort of message
bills that are not going to stand any chance of getting through the Senate,
much less being assigned by the president. So, this is what Republicans do
when they have no legislating to do for the rest of this year.

SHARPTON: While I have you, Dana, you know, the theme of the Republican
house on fairness is do nothing and blocking. You wrote an article about
how their stifling debate often preventing Democrats from offering
amendments to bills. Quote, this is your article. "The Republican-led
house will reach a dubious milestone this week. It will enter the record
books as the most gagged in American history."

I mean, Dana, this GOP house has set records for the fewest days worked and
the fewest bills passed. Is this new record right in line with that?

MILBANK: Well, it is, Reverend. I mean, both sides have been known for
stifling debate over the years. But, you know, John Boehner and his group
came in after 2010 promising open and as promising no more of these closed
debates on the floor where they don`t allow people to offer amendments.
And they have now set the record 62 of them in this congress, beating Nancy
Pelosi`s record from 2007-2008. So it`s a great milestone for them.

SHARPTON: Michelle, will there be a political consequence for this in your

COTTLE: You know, I think the sad reality is that most people don`t expect
anything else to get done through the rest of the year. And so it`s going
to come down to the messaging that the Republicans are going to try to do
with Obamacare. And the Democratic are going to have to find a way to kind
of push this back and come up with a message that they think voters will
respond to better. But at this point, I think most people have just kind
of thrown up their hands and don`t expect anybody to get anything done.

SHARPTON: Well, it seems like just a game to some on the right wing. But
to real people, this is real life and this is not a game if you`re dealing
with unemployment insurance, and unemployment period.

Michelle Cottle and Dana Milbank, thank you both for your time tonight.

MILBANK: Thanks, Rev.

COTTLE: Thanks, Rev.

SHARPTON: Coming up, what drove them to kill. Is this anti-government
violence a trend we could be fighting better?

And call it the waffle house miracle. No, I`m not talking about the
breakfast special. Wait until you hear what happened to this waitress on
mother`s day. It`s a feel-good story, and it`s coming up.


SHARPTON: What drove a Nevada couple to act on their anti-authority
ideology and shoot and kill three people including two police officers?
And how big a threat are domestic extremists in America. Can we do more to
stop anti-government violence? We`ll talk about that next.


SHARPTON: Today new details are emerging about the Las Vegas couple who
went on a shooting rampage that left five people dead, including two police
officers. As the country tries to understand what drove Jared and Amanda
Miller to commit this murder/suicide, friends say they were stunned to hear
about Amanda`s role in the shooting.


JESSICA BERNARD, FRIEND OF AMANDA MILLER: She kept saying that, something
about the government, like, watching their every move. That`s the only
thing that got me. I thought well, how do you know that? And every time I
have to go visit them, Jared will always talk about the government and how
he thought they were watching him all the time. And the only thing is
Amanda was such a good person. She was such a good person. I miss her.


SHARPTON: Neighbors dismissed the couple`s anti-government and anti-cop
ranting as just talk.


KELLY FIELDER, NEIGHBOR: She said bye to her cats and she hugged me, he
hugged me and he said that he had to do what he had to do and the
revolution has just begun. I should have called the cops myself. But I
didn`t, because I thought they were talking smack.


SHARPTON: By Sunday afternoon, it had become all too clear that the
Millers were serious. But it was too late. Now Amanda`s father is
speaking out, saying Jared was responsible for his daughter`s role in the
shooting. Quote, "he was into all this patriot nation and conspiracy
theory stuff. And the next thing I know her phone was getting shut off and
she was getting isolated from us."

While authorities don`t believe they`re affiliated with any group, we know
they had sought out like-minded people. We know of their connection to
anti-federal government rancher Cliven Bundy, visiting his ranch in April.
Jared even posted a picture of a meeting he had with an extremist
conspiracy theorist on his Facebook page. So what drove them to act? Is
this anti-government violence a trend we could be fighting better?

Joining me now is Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate
and Extremism at California State University, and Mark Pitcavage of the
Anti-Defamation League and an expert in right wing extremism in America.
Thank you both for being here.



SHARPTON: Brian, how big a threat are domestic extremists in America?

LEVIN: That`s a great question. You`re not a threat numerically. They`re
not a threat politically like the far right is in Europe. However, where
the threat is, is from these social networks, these folks that are on the
tangents and loose orbits of more organized types of entities and social
networks. The loose cherries are the most violent that fall off the tree.
And what they are able to do is either alone in duels or small groups, take
that inspiration and know-how, and take these hatreds and personal
frustrations that they have and direct them and amplify them to those who
are considered enemies within the overall anti-government patriot movement.

SHARPTON: Mark Pitcavage, you studied this a long time. How big a threat
are they?

PITCAVAGE: Well, they are a really significant threat. We have 314
million people in the United States. So even the fringe of the fringe is a
lot of folks. And some of these folks are more than willing to take up arm
against their own government. We are several years into a major resurgence
of right wing extremism and the amount of violence that has come out of
that has been really significant.

SHARPTON: Mark, right there. Stop right there. Because I want to ask you
that, when you see the emergence. Because in 2009, the Department of
Homeland Security released a nine-page draft of a report that warned about
the re-emergence of potentially violent extremist groups. Quote, "That are
mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or
local authority or rejecting government authority entirely. And that
threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced
than in past years. But they specifically sided President Obama`s election
as quote, "A driving force for right wing extremist recruitment and
radicalization." I mean, do you agree that President Obama is part of
what`s inspiring this? Or the election and re-election of President Obama?

PITCAVAGE: The election of Barack Obama in 2009 was one of the major
factors that caused this resurgence of right wing extremism. White
supremacists were agitated about that for obvious reasons, because he was
the first African-American president. But anti-government extremists also
reacted to this because they fairly quickly incorporated him into all of
their new world order conspiracy theories. So thousands of them became
convinced that Obama was going to be responsible for confiscating their
guns, that Obama was setting up concentration camps. And so he became
someone to rally against for almost the entire extreme right.

SHARPTON: Now let me go back to you, Brian, because the right wing`s
reaction to this report, their response really hurt the report. Watch


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Outrage over conservative Americans being labeled
extremist by the DHS.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I warned you that if there were a terrorist event in
America, the first people to be targeted by this spineless, cowardly,
communist federal government would be patriots who own guns.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The report I`m talking about came out a couple of weeks
ago where they said that the veterans, ex-veterans may be a threat, a tea
bag person is kind of a threat possibly to the United States.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: For Liberals to now claim that the
atmosphere is somehow more violently anti-Obama is simply preposterous.


SHARPTON: So the report was actually withdrawn. And the department even
apologized about it. But these weren`t empty warnings, were they, Brian?

LEVIN: No. The report was spot on. There was a little awkward language
in there. But I tell you something, the report was started under the Bush
administration. The primary author of the report is a conservative, gun
owning pro-life person, and it was a disgrace what was done to this report.

In fact, what we`re seeing, including if you look at the offender`s web
pages from over this past weekend, there is a mixture of both extremism and
mainstream paranoia and conspiracy theories. And one of the things that I
think is problematic is that we have an embrace overall of violence in this
culture, but there`s also within the far right an embrace of an
insurrectionist theory of the second amendment. If you`re upset with the
government, then you can just go in shooting. Things like that.

There were conspiracy theories all over this guy`s page, from the new world
order to entrails in the sky that are poisoning people. And what we have
seen is some irresponsibility from some folks in this echo chamber that
encourages the delegitimatization of the government, as well as wild
conspiracy theories that go far beyond birtherism. And this is a problem.

SHARPTON: Now, you know, what is concerning a lot of us Mark is that there
must be other people out there like this. This can`t be the only guy. And
that is what is so much of a concern to a lot of Americans.

PITCAVAGE: Well, unfortunately the Millers were not alone. In the past
five years between 2009 and the end of 2013, there were 43 violent
confrontations between police and extremists in which shots were fired
typically at the police.

SHARPTON: How many?

PITCAVAGE: Forty three. And of those 43, 39 involved one form of right
wing extremism or another. And so this is not the start of something.
This is just the latest in a long series of violent attacks that are
threatening our nation`s police officers.


PITCAVAGE: Absolutely.

LEVIN: Absolutely. Thank you, Mark.

SHARPTON: Go ahead, Brian.

LEVIN: Yes. And Mark is one of the best in the business. So, all of us
in this area admire him. He`s brilliant. And he`s also directly on point
here. And what we worry about is not only are we having these spontaneous
situations, his barricade situations, his car stops. But what we`re
worried about is we`re seeing plots come up, bombings and targeting of
institutions or public events. Luckily they`ve been thwarted. But
remember, Oklahoma City only took a couple of people. And what we are
constantly seeing is this growth of this movement overall which doesn`t
believe that the government should be shrunk or that policies should be
changed, but the government should be overthrown.


LEVIN: And what we`re seeing is within the political mainstream
countenance to some of this kind of violent, shrill rhetoric and conspiracy
theories. And what I think both of us are worried about are not only this
kind of confrontation which Mark spoke to articulately but also a bigger
plot. Because you can sense it in the air. And what I`m saying is,
there`s a lot more activity going on and a precipitous rise in these types
of individuals involved in this movement over the last five years.

SHARPTON: Well, I must say this is scary and frightening, but we are going
to follow this, we are going to monitor and follow this up very carefully.
Brian Levin and Mark Pitcavage, thank you both for your time tonight.

PITCAVAGE: Thank you.

LEVIN: Thank you for having me.

SHARPTON: Still ahead, legendary soul and funk artist Ronald Isley of the
Isley Brothers is here in the POLITICS NATION studio. Also we`ll tell you
about the waffle house waitress who got a $1,000 tip. What happened next
will surprise you. Stay with us.



PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: I so in love with you.



SHARPTON: One of the great moments in Apollo history, courtesy of
President Obama. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Apollo
Theatre. For eight decades, it`s been the epicenter of music in New York
City. Witness to some of the greatest moments in American music history.
Tina Turner`s electrifying performance at the Apollo in 1981 helped launch
her solo comeback career.

Patty Level (ph) brought the Apollo crowd to its feet in 1985 when Motown
returned to the theater for a historic concert.

And 1968, my mentor, James Brown returned to the Apollo for a legendary
concert that cemented his claim as the fastest, funkiest performer in

But it`s not just a concert venue. The Apollo is a culture and social hub
for conversations about the issues that resonate in the Harlem community.
Last year, the Apollo hosted our special, Advancing the Dream broadcast,
where Stevie Wonder led the crowd in an acapella rendition of "We shall

Tonight, the legendary Isley Brothers will perform at the Apollo`s 80th
birthday party. Isley hits like shout, twist and shout. And it`s your
thing. Launched them into music history. And now the Isley brothers will
be abducted into the Apollo hall of fame. After their career was launched
at the theatre more than 50 years ago.

Joining me now is the legendary lead singer of the Isley brother, Ronald
Isley. It`s a real honor to have you with us here.

RONALD ISLEY, THE ISLEY BROTHERS: It`s so good to be here, especially on
your show.

SHARPTON: Well, thank you. Thank you. You know, tell me first, what does
it mean to you to be performing at the 80th anniversary of the Apollo?

ISLEY: Oh, wow. You know, I was telling my wife and her mother. I said,
you know, when we first played here, you know, we dressed way up at the top
of the Apollo dressing room.


ISLEY: And later on, when we got to meet our friend James Brown, we went
in his room and watched all the clothes and said one day. One day we`re
going to have this dressing room is, the star dressing. After we recorded
the record, "twist and shout" we were in that same dressing room and James
came by to see us.

SHARPTON: Is that right?

ISLEY: And that was like, we had made it.

SHARPTON: You know James is like a father with me. I came with him a few

ISLEY: Yes, yes.

SHARPTON: Now, how nervous were you the first time you performed at the

ISLEY: You know, we couldn`t wait. Because we had seen the show with
Frankie Naman (ph) and the teenagers there. And this is our chance. So,
we went nervous at all. You know, we just really wanted to go over. You
know, whatever -- was about. We wanted to really really please the people.

SHARPTON: I want to take you back to 1959. Look at this --


Now, that was your first big hit "Shout." Back then, could you have
imagine you would be inducted into the Apollo Hall of Fame, Rock `n Roll
hall of fame 50 years later?

ISLEY: We wanted to be. You know, that`s what we were striving for. You

SHARPTON: So you always wanted to go to the top?

ISLEY: That`s right.

SHARPTON: You know, you had to be hit with "Twist and Shout" in 1962 which
the Beatles later re-recorded. I want to show you this clip of you and
Paul McCartney at a fundraiser for the apologies a few years ago.


PAUL MCCARTNEY, MUSICIAN: Where would we have been without you guys? In
Liverpool. That`s where we would have been. We would have stayed there.
What should we play?


SHARPTON: Without you, the Beatles never would have left Liverpool. I
mean, what did you think when you heard Paul McCartney say that to you?

ISLEY: Man, they wanted to come, they wanted to come to New York at the


ISLEY: They wanted us to show them everything about -- everything about
Harlem, they asked, did James Brown have 100 pair of shoes? They bring
them all in their dressing room. Him and Mick Jagger. We used to sit up
and talk about it all night long.

SHARPTON: The Beatles?


SHARPTON: And Mick Jagger.


SHARPTON: What is the special thing about the Apollo to an artist?

ISLEY: From beginning, everybody that I knew from the Billy Nat King Cole,
and everybody has played Apollo. And to play there and to do something
good there, accept it as great there, it means everything. Because
everybody that you know that`s been famous or, you know, before you, and at
the beginning, Sammy Davis, just everybody.

SHARPTON: Well, you`re among the greats. And you`ve always been among the
greats in my book. The Isley Brothers, we love you and congratulations.

ISLEY: Thank you very much and God bless you.

SHARPTON: God bless you.

Coming up, I`m calling it the waffle house miracle. One night shift, one
tip, and one very happy ending. Wait until you hear what happened to this
waitress next.


SHARPTON: The old saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished." But this
one has a happy ending. Our story begins at a waffle house in North
Carolina on Mother`s Day about 3:00 in the morning when a waitress, Shaina
Brown got to talking with one of her customers. She didn`t realize what a
huge impact he was about to have on her life.


SHAINA BROWN, WAITRESS: I came back and I let him know, you know, I`m a
single parent, you know, I go to school online. I have three children.
And I`m just basically trying to make it out here like everyone else. He
said, well, I`m going to bless you tonight. I`m going to bless you. And I
didn`t think nothing of it.


SHARPTON: That patron left Shaina $1,000 tip on his bill. A thousand
dollars. But this is where the punishment part of the good deed comes in.
Waffle house denied the tip to Miss Brown. Because of a totally
understandable policy to protect the company. It doesn`t accept large tips
on credit cards. So what happened next?


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: He wrote your check?



BROWN: He did. He did. I was so happy. He`s like a hero to me. And I
thank him for that.


SHARPTON: We all thank him for that. And we thank him for reminding us
that good deeds really do have happy endings.


SHARPTON: Finally tonight, an awful example of what happens after years of
Republicans refusing to address this nation`s immigration crisis. In the
last eight months, about 47,000 children have crossed the southern border
illegally. They`re coming over without adults. Many fleeing violence in
Central America. Government agencies have been overwhelmed. Now hundreds
of children are being temporarily housed in an Arizona warehouse until they
can be turned over to relatives for immigration hearings. President Obama
is asking Congress for $2 billion to help with what he`s calling an urgent
humanitarian situation. Our immigration system needs to be fixed. But
Republicans refuse to act. This morning, Senator Marco Rubio went on TV
and said this --


SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: As far as politics and immigration reform
are concerned, it`s the right thing to do for the country, I recognize that
there is political resistance to that issue. But I also recognize that
those of us who were sent here are not sent here to simply poll well. We
were sent here to try to make a difference on an issue of extraordinary
importance for our country.


SHARPTON: In reality, Senator Rubio abandoned his own immigration reform
bill. And we can only hope the Republicans will get serious about policy
and agree to immigration reform. And now it`s time for the results from
our question of the day. Can Democrats prevail in the battle to raise the
minimum wage? Thirty five percent of you said, yes. Three percent said no
but most of you think Democrats won`t until they control Congress again.
Sixty two percent of you said that. Thanks to all who voted. You can join
the conversation by heading to our Facebook page to make your predictions.
We want to hear what you think. Well, that`s it for tonight.

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


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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

Sponsored links

Resource guide