Skip navigation

PoliticsNation, Monday, June 30th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

POLITICS NATION
June 30, 2014

Guest: Joan Walsh, Randi Weingarten, Michelle Suskauer, Jess McIntosh,
Jeff Rosen

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC ANCHOR, THE ED SHOW: That`s "THE ED SHOW." I`m Ed
Schultz.

"POLITICS NATION" with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good
evening, Rev.

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

Tonight`s lead, President Obama tells Republicans to drop the excuses.
It`s now been over one year since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration
bill to secure the borders and create a pathway to citizenship. It is a
major part of the president`s agenda. But in typical fashion, Speaker
Boehner and the house GOP have done nothing about it.

Today, President Obama said he`s acting on his own. In a powerful and very
tough speech at the White House, he went right after speaker Boehner`s
leadership.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They have proven again and
again that they are unwilling to stand up to the tea party in order to do
what`s best for the country. And the worst part about of it is a bunch of
them know better.

The failure of house Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our
security, is bad our economy and is bad for our future. The only thing I
can`t do is stand by and do nothing while waiting for them to get their act
together.

If House Republicans are concerned about me taking too many executive
actions, the best solution to that is passing bills. Pass a bill. Solve a
problem. Don`t just say no.

So while I will continue to push House Republicans to drop the excuses and
act, and I hope their constituents will, too. America cannot wait forever
for them to act. And that`s why today, I`m beginning a new effort to fix
as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Today the President announced he`s moving immigration
enforcement assets to the border and he is tasking top officials to bring
him recommendations for more executive actions. He is not a quipping (ph)
overall, but it is a start. He blasted the GOP for blaming their inaction
on rapidly unfolding humanitarian crisis on the border with tens of
thousands of unaccompanied children have messed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Some in the House Republican caucus are using the situation with
unaccompanied children as the newest excuse to do nothing. I want
everybody to think about that. Their argument seems to be that because the
system is broken, we shouldn`t make an effort to if fix it. It makes no
sense. It`s not on the level. Understand, by the way, for the most part
this is not a situation are where the children are slipping through. They
are being apprehended. But the problem is, is that our system is so
broken, so unclear that folks don`t know what the rules are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: And the President spoke passionately about hosting military
families at the upcoming White House July 4th barbecue and made a striking
and poetic case for change.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Some of the service coming this year are unique. Because they
signed up to serve, to sacrifice, potentially to give their lives for the
security of this country even though they weren`t yet Americans. That`s
how much they love this country. They were prepared to fight and die for
an America they didn`t yet fully belong to.

I think they have earned their stripes in more ways than one. That`s why
on Friday morning we are going to naturalize them in a ceremony right here
at the White House. This Independence Day will be their first day as
American citizens.

One of the things we celebrate on Friday, one of the things that make this
is country great is that we are a nation of immigrants. Our people come
from every corner of the globe. That makes us special. That makes us
unique. And throughout our history, we have come here and wave after wave
from everywhere, understanding there is something about this place where
the whole was greater than some of its parts. That all the different
cultures and ideas and energy would come together and create something new.

We won this country`s freedom together. We built this country together.
We defended this country together. It makes us special. It makes us
strong. It makes us Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: It`s a vision of an inclusive America, a nation of immigrants.
But apparently Speaker Boehner has a different vision. Today Senate
majority leader Harry Reid said Boehner`s failure of leadership is
enormous. Yes, it is enormous. But the President sent a strong message
today. He won`t sit back. He`s ready to take action on his own.

Joining me now are Victoria DeFrancesco Soto and Krystal Ball. Thank you
both for being here.

KRYSTAL BALL, MSNBC HOST, THE CYCLE: Thanks for having us, Rev.

VICTORIA DEFRANCESCO SOTO, NBC LATINO CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Rev.

SHARPTON: Victoria, let me go to you first. Immigration is the remaining
piece to President Obama`s agenda. And he was very tough on Boehner and
the GOP today. Was anything that particularly about his tone?

SOTO: One word, Reverend, frustration. And it was incredible frustration
at the stalemate. He has not just been trying to get immigration reform
passed in the last year. He`s been trying to get it passed for the past
five or six years. It`s been over 30 years since any substantial
immigration reform has taken place in this country. We are long overdue.

But the other piece of the frustration has to do with the Republican Party
because a big chunk of the Republican Party wants to get immigration reform
through. It`s just one small part of the party that won`t budge. You have
the bibles, badges and business coalition that says we have a broken system
and something needs to be done. The majority of the American public wants
something done. So you have all of these voices calling for something to
be done and this recalcitrant minority just thumbing their nose at what the
public wants.

SHARPTON: You know, Krystal, Victoria makes in frustration. The President
is taking action today. He`s had to take action in the past around federal
employees, minimum wage, gay rights. What can he do here? He is taking
action, but what really can he do with such a dysfunctional Congress?

BALL: He`s going to do I think what he can. I mean, He has broad latitude
in terms of how he enforces the immigration rules and who he deports and
who he doesn`t, as we have already seen. He has used some of the leeway
that he has to keep children who were born in this country to make them
legal citizens and allow them to stay here. So, that`s already one piece
that he`s done. And he asked Secretary Jeh Johnson to look into what else
could be done on this front.

One thing that is interesting and Vicky points out, the timing there and
the frustration, is the President has been getting beaten up by both sides.
He has beaten up by immigration reform activist who called him the deporter
in chief. And he has been beaten up certainly by the Republican and he has
gone back to the well again and again with John Boehner trying to give him
to do something, trying to give him time, saying OK, if you need to get
through August, fine. If you need to get through the primaries, fine.

And finally, after Cantor, Eric Cantor`s stunning primary defeat in
Virginia, it seems like he finally said, OK, there is no way these
Republicans are going to do anything. I got to do whatever I can on my
own.

SHARPTON: You know, Victoria, Speaker Boehner, he put out a statement
today. He say the American people and their elected officials don`t trust
him to enforce the law as written. Until that changes it`s going to be
difficult to make progress on this issue.

Now, that`s really absurd, if I have to say so. It`s an excuse not to take
action on anything at all, I mean, whether it`s immigration reform or
anything else.

SOTO: You know, I think of Congress a lot like I think of students in my
class. Most of my students are great. But then you have slackers that
don`t do anything. And that is how I view the Congress. They are not
doing anything and then they get angry when the professor and the executive
wants to do something. And with regards to immigration in particular, it`s
especially galling because the President has been tough on immigration, as
Krystal pointed out, many immigrant advocates called him the deporter in-
chief. He said, OK, I`m going to uphold the law. And then this way, we
can come together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. The President
held up his end of the bargain. Congress has been missing in action.

SHARPTON: But you know, Krystal, I want to stay on this Congress for a
minute because the President called on Congress to take action on a range
of issues.

BALL: Yes.

SHARPTON: Saying he`d rather sign bills into law than take executive
action. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: That`s true about immigration. It`s true about the minimum wage,
it is true about equal pay. There are all bunch of things where I would
greatly prefer Congress actually do something.

I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious
issue and Congress chooses to do nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: I mean, isn`t the historic dysfunction of this Congress the real
issue here?

BALL: It absolutely is the real issue. And the President also pointed out
in the speech that John Boehner could bring immigration reform to the house
floor today. And it would pass with a coalition of Democrats and
Republicans.

There is nothing standing in the way of progress except John Boehner`s
cowardice to stand up to his caucus and (INAUDIBLE) part of the Republican
Party that has blocked Congress on a range of issues. So yes, on
immigration reform, on minimum wage, on unemployment insurance. All of
these issues, obstructionist Congress is the bottom line.

SHARPTON: Victoria DeFrancesco Soto are and Krystal Ball, thank you both
for your time tonight.

BALL: Thanks, Rev.

SOTO: Thanks, Rev.

SHARPTON: And be sure to watch Krystal on "the cycle" weekdays at 3:00
p.m. eastern right here on MSNBC.

Coming up, is a corporation a person after all? The Supreme Court made a
ruling on a company`s religious beliefs that we have never seen before.

Plus, disturbing new questions about the parents of the Georgia toddler who
died in a hot car.

And Arizona outrage. New dash cam video shows a police altercation with
someone stopped for jaywalking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stop fighting me and put your hand --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop touching me. Stop!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put your hands behind your back.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put your hand behind your back.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Stop!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Today, accusations today of police brutality. You be the judge
tonight. Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Our Facebook fans were fired up today after President Obama`s
big speech on immigration reform.

Gina says if Boehner won`t do his job then the President will use fen and
the phone. I hope so.

Rita says, come on, Congress. Get your act together.

And Ray says, excellent speech, willing to solve problems. Why isn`t
Congress?

Great question, Ray.

We want to know what you think. Please head over to our facebook page and
join the conversation that keeps going long after the show ends.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Mitt Romney said corporations are people. And today the Supreme
Court said corporations have the religious freedoms of people, too. Today,
these five conservative justices, all men, they ruled that a private
corporation can deny birth control coverage to women employees solely
because of the company`s religious beliefs.

The Hobby Lobby Corporation claimed the affordable care act violated the
freedom of religion. And, believe it or not, the court agrees saying the
corporations` religious beliefs trump the human rights of its employees.

But in the blistering dissent, Justice Ginsburg called out her five mail
colleagues for the quote "startling breadth of their decision." She
criticized the havoc of the court`s ruling and said the court had ventured
into a minefield.

Outside the courthouse, protesters responded to the ruling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Ho, ho, hey, hey, birth control is here to stay.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m angry. You know, I`m very lucky to be on the
insurance plan that I am under right now. But in the future, if I`m
employed by someone like Hobby Lobby, I don`t think it is their right to
tell me that I can`t access certain legal, FDA approved birth control based
on their opinions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Today`s ruling opens the door to other corporations challenging
laws they don`t like by claiming the laws violate their religious freedoms.

Joining me now are Jeff Rosen of the National Constitution Center and Jess
McIntosh of Emily`s list. Thank you both for being here.

JESS MCINTOSH, EMILY`S LIST: Great to be here.

JEFF ROSEN, NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER: Nice to be here, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Jeff, let me start with you. What`s your response to the
ruling?

ROSEN: well as you know, Justice Ginsburg called it startling and it burr
(ph). And she said that it could open the flood gates to allow religious
corporations to refuse to pay taxes, to refuse vaccinations for their
employees, to refuse to participate in stem cell tests. She was very
concerned that this would allow people to opt out of laws, prohibiting
racial discrimination, and discrimination against gays and lesbians, all on
religious grounds.

Now, the majority disagreed. Justice Alito said, well, those cases are
different. We are limiting this ruling to closely held corporations that
is thrown by just people or more. He dismissed the concerns.

But the truth is we really don`t know how broad it is. And even the
Walmart corporation could qualify as closely held under that definition,
you know, if it is family own, it could be the case. But even large
corporations whose owners have religious beliefs could try to impose those
beliefs on employees.

SHARPTON: Let me push a little, Jeff. Because Justice Ginsburg warned
that today`s ruling could open the door to religious exemptions. Things
like blood transfusions if your company is owned by Jehovah`s witness, for
example, anti-depressants if you are scientologists, anesthesia and
intravenous fluids and pills coated with gelatin which can also be derived
from pigs and may be offensive to Muslims, Jews and Hindus and various
religious that may object to vaccinations. I mean, will we see more
lawsuits from corporations over their religious freedoms?

ROSEN: There is no doubt we will see more lawsuits. That`s one thing we
can predict as a result of this decision. And we have already seen
lawsuits. There was a photographer who didn`t want to photograph a gay
wedding because she said that offended her religious beliefs. And Justice
Ginsburg cited that case.

The imprecision of the ruling is going to absolutely open up. It is going
to be great news for lawyers and not necessarily for individual liberty.
But exactly, you know, Justice Alito had responses to all these things. He
said vaccination is different because it is a public health concern.

What was fascinating is Justice Ginsburg basically said, you know, your
right to object stops my fist basically, if it`s going to harm me, then you
can`t impose this vision of liberty. Justice Alito responded by putting
oral philosophies said it is a tough question whether if someone aids and
abets an act that someone else thinks is religiously amoral that`s OK.

But the court shouldn`t second guess it. They really seems to be talking
passed each other because the practical effect of this decision, as you
suggest, Reverend, is going to be a lot of litigation, a lot of
uncertainty. And it could lead to wholesale attack on compliance with
neutral laws on the basis of religious objection.

SHARPTON: Now Jess, there was widespread support for the companies
providing contraception. Fifty seven percent of people believe privately
owned corporations should provide insurance that includes contraception.
And it affects a lot of women, 88 percent of women in this country have
used birth control pills or IUD. I mean, what is the politics of this,
Jess?

MCINTOSH: Well, I would like to point out that to get to number that high
-- I mean, 88 percent, you don`t see that kinds of consensus around the
baseball and apple pie in this country today. So to get to numbers that
high, you`re talking about women from all walks of life, from all political
parties of all religions. These are -- birth control is a popular thing
and it is a noncontroversial thing.

So I think the idea that we are having this debate over access, this
decision didn`t happen in a vacuum. It`s one of the latest in a long line
of attempts to strip women`s access to birth control being by the right in
every level of government as they get access to.

We saw them try to defund the affordable care act which drastically limited
in doctors to birth control. And they have gone more specific than that.
The one amendment from just like a year ago said that, you know, employers
could not cover birth control if they didn`t like the reason an employee
was taking it.

So, this didn`t just come out of nowhere today. This is part a concerted
effort. And we are seeing the gender gap wider than ever before, a
historic highs. And I think it is because of those numbers you just put on
the screen, this means a lot to a lot of women.

SHARPTON: Jeff, this court has made a lot of heavy decisions. I mean,
voting rights, health care. This court has really gotten into certain
areas and seems by many of us that consider ourselves progressive to be
inching us backwards in terms of our rights, whether it`s voting rights,
religious right, rights of people to be protected against a church states
kind of combined here.

ROSEN: Well, it`s certainly true, just as you said that there are 5-4
decisions in all those areas and that`s concerns a lot of people. On the
other hand, last week, the court issued a serious of unanimous decisions
including a great one protecting cell phone privacy in saying that the
police can`t search our cell phones on arrest. And unanimity where it is
term is actually 66 percent which is the highest since the 1940. So, it`s
kind of a mixed bag. This was the term that the Roberts court, the
liberals and conservatives converged to protect our digital privacy in a
way that could have good effects for NSA surveillance. But the tormented
on this very stark familiar divide with five conservatives against four
liberals defending the rights of corporations. The religious liberty and
free speech of corporations over individuals. So, it is an amazing turn as
all the marks. But this battle is going to start up again next year.

SHARPTON: Jess, I have to go here. Do you have any fear that the target
here is really Roe V. Wade and that we are on our way for walk toward that
and having this court ultimately deal with this, Jess?

MCINTOSH: Absolutely.

I mean, I think like are I said, this decision wasn`t in a vacuum. It was
part of a concerted effort to restrict access to birth control. Part of
that is part of the rights, a longstanding effort to repeal Roe V. Wade.
Unfortunately, for them Roe V. Wade is really popular in this country.
Seven out of 10 Americans want to keep it exactly as it is.

So, they have to try to find these small marginal places. Employers who
might be run by religious people. And then see if they can get in that
way. But folks are on to this. I mean, you cited the majority of women
wanting to have contraceptive coverage even if the employer has a religious
exemptions. So I think women are onto it. Women are listening to this.
And women have a really clear contrast this year in the midterms. I think
we are going to see them come out in November.

SHARPTON: Jeff, are we looking at a review of Roe Versus Wade and possible
a 5-4 reversal?

ROSEN: You know, it all comes down to Justice Kennedy. And I think as
long as their current balance of the core remains the same, Justice Kennedy
has made it pretty clear he`ll uphold lots of restrictions on abortion
including so-called partial birth abortions and this latest contraception
exemptions. He is not going to overturn the core protection that women
have a right to choose, you know, early in pregnancy. So that`s why so
much is at stake in the presidential election. One vote changes on the
Supreme Court. Roe is over turned.

MCINTOSH: Elections really matter and his is one of the places where they
are going to matter the most.

SHARPTON: Well, you are right. The elections are really going to matter.
And we were really reminded of that today.

Jeff Rosen and Jess McIntosh, thank you for your time this evening.

MCINTOSH: Thanks for having are me, Rev.

ROSEN: Thank you, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Still ahead, accusations of police brutality after a college
professor gets stopped for jaywalking. It`s in tonight`s justice files.

Also the GOP`s war on unions. Today`s other big Supreme Court ruling.
Just the latest attack but Democrats to fighting back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Unions helped build America. And now conservatives are trying
to tear them down. Today`s other big Supreme Court ruling could open the
door to new attacks on unions and the working class. We`ll talk about how
Democrats plan to fight back. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Unions helped build America. And now conservatives are trying
to tear them down. Today`s other big Supreme Court ruling could open the
door to new attacks on unions and the working class. We`ll talk about how
Democrats plan to fight back. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: The other major ruling from the Supreme Court today marks the
latest attempt from the right to weaken the power of unions. In a five to
four decision, the court decided to let some public workers opt out of
paying union fees. The conservative justices ruled that Illinois home
health care aids are only, quote, "partial public employees" and don`t have
to join or contribute to the union that represents them. The ruling
doesn`t strike down laws that require public workers to pay union dues but
it may leave the door open to future challenges.

This decision and others like it are completely political. They are all
about gutting unions, which are crucial supporters of democratic candidates
and politics. From Citizens United to the union busting laws, we have seen
from the GOP, the right is doing what it can to attack labor and is taking
a toll. In 2010, for example, these ten organizations spent the most of
all outside groups on campaign contributions. Three of them were unions.
By 2012 when Citizens United had taken full effect, none of the top ten
spenders were unions. It`s a stunning reversal. And it leaves the big
question how do unions strike back?

Joining me now is Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of
Teachers and Joan Walsh, editor at large for Salon.com. Thank you both for
being here.

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Thank you for having us.

SHARPTON: Randi, what`s your reaction to the day`s ruling?

RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: So, today,
workers took it on the chin again from what I`m starting to call Supreme
Court, Inc. Because this majority of the Supreme Court basically has
expanded corporate rights and corporate interests at the expense of
workers. And this one is really cynical. Because these are the lowest
wage workers or some of the lowest wage workers who do God`s work in terms
of helping the most frail and vulnerable. And they have had a union for
ten years that have raised their wages from $6 to $13 an hour. And what`s
happened is the anti-union interests have just tried to crash and burn
their union.

SHARPTON: I think that`s important. The union helped raise their wages
from $6 to $13 an hour. And yet they are saying, but you don`t have to
support the union that has effectively changed your income, and you
benefitted from it.

WEINGARTEN: Exactly right. And, you know, essentially when you look at
this case, what this case does is to say that these workers who basically
had no power on their own were able to create a unit that SCIU created.
The majority workers voted for that unit. And what they do is they are
trying to actually get a better piece of the American pie through being
collectively organized.

SHARPTON: That is your point, Joe. When you wrote that the ruling amounts
to the court picking the one percent over workers. Let me read you a quote
which I found interest that you wrote. The home health care workers
affected by the decision are disproportionately low paid women. Disability
rights groups along with advocates for the elderly have supported the union
arguing that better wages reduced turnover and noting that unions have also
funded classes oh to help members better care for clients. So the old
system was good for workers and the people they take care.

WALSH: Right.

SHARPTON: Why would anyone be against that?

WALSH: Well, you know, Rev, this is the kind of vested of an old society
perception of women`s work. Women in the home. Women were to stay in the
home, they were supposed to care for the elderly, they were supposed to
care for the sick, the disabled. They didn`t get paid. And then as they
left the home because they wanted or needed to work to support their
families, other forms of care surfaced. And obviously we have child care
for children. But for the sick and for the elderly, we`ve developed a
system of home health care workers.

Now, something kind of innovative was that Medicaid could pay a family
member so that a family member might not have to go out to work. They
could stay home and be paid to care for their loved one. That happened in
this case. And this woman, God bless her, she is caring for her son. And
she said she wants no part of a union. Now, she`s paid to care for her
son. As the day comes that she can`t do it herself when she has to go out
on the market and hire a home health care worker, she should want that
person to be protected. She should want that person to be trained. And
she should want that person to make a living wage. But the national right
to work committee got a hold of this case, they pumped it up. And it was
very sad to watch.

SHARPTON: When you listen Randi to the, I mean, it`s almost become
convenient for Republicans to attack unions. Listen to some of the
rhetoric.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: They said it was impossible to touch
the third rail of politics, to take on the public sector unions.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: We are going to deal with collective
bargaining for all public employees because you use divide and conquer.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We`ll make the unions understand full well that they
are not needed, not wanted and not welcome in the state of South Carolina.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: How do unions fight that kind of talk, Randi Weingarten?

WEINGARTEN: So, unions started in this country as groups of workers, men
and women. Ours started as four women in 1916 to work together to make a
better life for themselves, their families and their communities. And what
we do is we are going back to those kind of first purposes. There is a
silver lining in this case and in the Hobby Lobby case. As well as the
Shelby case from last year. It does show whose side these interests are
on.

Because this was not about Pam Harris. This was about trying to stop
balancing power in the United States of America. When unions were strong
we had a stronger middle class. So, our job is to actually engage our
members and empower our members to do the work that they want to do which
is create a better America. Rising wages, more retirement security, better
schools. And so it does actually connect the dots and catalyze us to
actually be there with community and our members to change America.

SHARPTON: What`s next, Joan, in this fight?

WALSH: Well, you know, I think that some of the public sector unions are
still reading through this and trying to figure out exactly how many
workers it`s going to affect. I mean, Randi said it before, we were lucky
we kind of dodged a bullet. And that, you know, they left the larger
structure of public sector collective bargaining untouched. But, you know,
Justice Alito really didn`t sound like he thinks a whole lot of that
precedent. I think he called it incongruous. So, everyone is very worried
that this on start will continue.

SHARPTON: I certainly I am worried as one that knows what labor has done
for several rights and other things. I`m glad you say Randi was a silver
lining. I thought that was lightning trying to struggles. Randi
Weingarten and Joan Walsh, thank you both for your time tonight.

WALSH: Thanks, Rev.

WEINGARTEN: Thanks.

SHARPTON: Coming up, why did it happen? Why did a toddler die in a hot
car? Police have some disturbing new revelations tonight about what the
parents searched for online.

And caught on tape. New dash cam video shows a police altercation with a
college professor in Arizona. The Justice Files is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: We`re back with tonight`s Justice Files. Joining me now,
criminal defense Attorney Michelle Suskauer and former prosecutor and MSNBC
legal analyst Faith Jenkins. Thank you both for being here.

FAITH JENKINS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you, Rev.

SHARPTON: We begin tonight in Tempe, Arizona where the Arizona State
University Police Department is facing accusations of excessive force and
racial profiling. Last month English Professor Ersula Ore was stopped by
campus police for jaywalking. She said she was walking in the street to
avoid a construction site. An altercation with police ensued. And she was
charged with aggravated assault. But now, newly released dashboard cam
seems to show a disturbing picture. Moments before the altercation, the
officer, Stuart Ferren, demanded she show her I.D.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STUART FERREN, OFFICER: Let me see your I.D. or you will be arrested for
failing to provide I.D.

ERSULA ORE, ENGLISH PROFESSOR: Are you serious?

FERREN: Yes, I am serious. That`s the law. If you don`t understand the
law, I`m explaining the law to you right now. You are walking down the
middle of the road which is a public thoroughfare.

ORE: Which I have no problem by abiding by the law. But all I simply
asked you was --

FERREN: Let me see your I.D.

ORE: Do you have to speak to me in such a disrespectful manner?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Seconds later, Ore is being handcuffed by the officer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FERREN: Put your hands behind your back right now. I`m going to slam you
on this car.

ORE: Do you really want to do that? Do you see what I`m wearing?

FERREN: I don`t care what you`re wearing.

ORE: Don`t talk to me like this. This entire thing has been about your
lack of respect for me. For me.

FERREN: I`m not going to fight you. Put your hands behind your back.

ORE: I`m a professor at the university.

FERREN: I`m not going to fight you. Put your hands behind your back.

ORE: I`m a professor at the University of Arizona State.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Despite her protests, things quickly got violent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FERREN: Stop fighting me. Put your hands --

ORE: Get off! Stop touching me! Stop! (Screaming)

FERREN: Put your hands behind your back!

ORE: Stop! Stop!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: People passing by on the street called into 911 to report what
was happening.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DISPATCHER: 911, what is your emergency?

CALLER: Hey, I`m on college and 5th street. And there is a police officer
getting way too aggressive with a young lady who`s on the street.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Arizona State University said they found no evidence of
inappropriate actions by the school`s police officers, but will hire an
outside agency to conduct a full review of the incident. Faith, should we
see some action against the police? Did they go too far?

JENKINS: It`s just shocking to see that video when you are talking about
someone jaywalking which is a civil traffic violation that it leads to that
kind of action by the police officers. When you really look at the
transcript and what`s happening here Rev, the professor never actually said
she wouldn`t provide her I.D. She simply asked a question and tried to
have a conversation with the officer. And that`s when he tried to put her
in handcuffs. To me this wasn`t about the professor not refusing to
provide her I.D. It was about her questioning his authority in his mind.
He didn`t like that and he decided to flex his muscle as a result.

SHARPTON: So, is that`s your view of this?

MICHELLE SUSKAUER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, I`m sorry but --

SHARPTON: Michelle, I`m sorry.

SUSKAUER: Sure. I disagree with Faith here. Because first of all, you
didn`t show the beginning of the tape that is available online. In the
beginning of the tape, first of all, where the tape starts we don`t really
see her walking in the middle of the street. What we hear is some
disrespect to her. And I`m not, look -- I think they both look very, very
bad. Both parties. But from the very beginning he`s asking for her I.D.
and the professor is not -- not only is she not giving her I.D. when he`s
asking for it, which really could have solved this entire situation. She
doesn`t identify herself as a professor right away. Until her hands are
behind her back. This was never going to end well. She may have felt that
she was being disrespected. She may have been disrespected. But when a
police officer is asking for your I.D., if she just would have given her
I.D. and then if he acted the way he acted, then we would have a different
situation.

JENKINS: She doesn`t have to give her I.D.

(CROSSTALK)

SHARPTON: Whoa, whoa, one at a time.

JENKINS: You want to avoid confrontations with the police, if you can.
And that`s what you want to do but in this situation, she didn`t have to
give her I.D. The reason why he asked her ID was because she was
jaywalking. Only if she`s being detained, that is what she`s required to
give her I.D. Was she being detained for jaywalking here? So, I think she
was reasonable to ask a question and to have a conversation with the police
officer before being required to provide her with an I.D.

SUSKAUER: She`s a professor. Faith, you`re a former prosecutor. She`s a
professor. Shouldn`t she have known better? Give him the I.D.? What`s
the big deal? She was getting mad. She was pissed and she didn`t like the
way he was talking to her. And it would have defused the situation if she
would have given him her I.D. And she didn`t do it.

JENKINS: She was upset because he was being really disrespect. And you
can understand that.

(CROSSTALK)

And you`re being continuously disrespected by police officer --

SUSKAUER: You`re going to lose. You`re going to lose.

SHARPTON: We`re going to keep an eye on this one. You know I`m not going
to not follow this one up. So, let`s go onto your next case.

Now to the disturbing new questions about the parents of the 22-month-old
boy who died after being left by his father in a hot car. A newly released
warrant shows the father admitted to doing internet searches about what
temperature would harm a child inside a vehicle. Police said the mother
made similar statements regarding researching in-car deaths and how it
occurs. Police have not said whether her online searches occurred.

Justin Ross Harris has pled not guilty to charges of murder and child
cruelty and continues to be held in jail. He claims he forgot to drop his
son off at day care and discovered his son`s body later in the afternoon.
Faith, both the mother and father admit to the researching child care
deaths. Your reaction?

JENKINS: My reaction is, I don`t think that is a coincidence. Who
searches for that? What`s your reason to search for how long it will take
a child or animal to die in a car? What`s your reason for that? And then
after that your child ends up dying in a car because you allegedly forgot
him. That`s not a coincidence. That is going to be used as circumstantial
evidence. I think to convict his dad of the crime.

SHARPTON: Michelle, the father said he was researching it because he was
concerned about what could happen to his child in the car. Do you buy
that?

SUSKAUER: This sounds eerily similar to what the prosecution threw out in
Casey Anthony about alleged internet searches, and death by asphyxiation
and chloroform if you remember correctly. And so, I don`t know. I want to
see exactly when these internet searches were done, and what exactly was
searched, and who had access to the computers? Because if the mom did it
after the child died, I understand that. If the father did it before it`s
strange. Is that going to be enough to convict him? No, it`s not.

SHARPTON: What do they need to convict him?

JENKINS: Well, I think they will need probably more than this. But I want
to know what conversations he`s had with the police since then. The police
arrested him early on in this case. And I`ll talk about this before, there
have been cases where children have been forgotten in their cars of their
parents and they have died. The police said, they investigated and the
parents have not been charged. In this case, early on they were very
suspicious of his death. I don`t think this is the only evidence. The
police know at this point when those searches were conducted. Was a search
done that day? Was it done the week that he allegedly forgot his child in
the car? That`s going to be key evidence.

SHARPTON: Michelle, what do they need to go forward here?

SUSKAUER: Well, certainly they are going to make a timeline of when the
child was placed in the car, where he went, when he stopped. And they
already have that information and certainly even though you don`t intend he
still could be convicted of child abuse, child neglect. What we`re talking
about here, if there is in fact internet searches and they can make some
casual connections here, if you are really then were going to a different
step. We are going to something more serious like some sort of
premeditation. So I don`t know exactly. There`s been so little released
here. So, I don`t know what we have.

SHARPTON: All right. We will certainly keep following this one as well.
I assure you. Michelle Suskauer and Faith Jenkins, thank you both for your
time tonight.

SUSKAUER: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Still ahead, President Obama`s tough talk to Speaker Boehner and
the Republicans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: It was a great night at the BET Awards. Beyonce was the big
winner with three awards including best female pop artist. Farrell
Williams took home two awards. Lionel Richie was honored with a lifetime
achievement award. But it was Chris Rock, "The Hoax" who stole the show.
He went to a monster truck rally asking people about the awards and urban
music. The result was hilarious.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Don`t forget to watch the BET Awards!

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Are you familiar with this gentleman right here?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Looks like Mr. T.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Who do you think should win for best rapper at this
year`s BET Awards?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hmm, wow. I don`t know. I don`t know. Maybe Eminem.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Eminem.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Can you finish this phrase?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Started at the bottom.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Now we`re here.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Good for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Good for you, sir. And good for you, Chris.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Remember how the country was first introduced to Barack Obama
back in the 2004 democratic convention?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Now, even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide
us. The spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of
anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America
and a conservative America, there is the United States of America. There
is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian
America, there`s the United States of America.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: One America, the United States of America, yet, from the moment
he became president in 2008, Republicans plotted to black ever chance they
got. They have tried to stop any action. And then turned around and blame
the president for inaction. They did it with the economy. They tried to
do it with health care. And now with immigration. Today, the President
gave them a strong response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Our economy would be stronger today if House Republicans had
allowed a simple yes or no vote on this bill or for that matter any bill.
They would be following the will of the majority of the American people who
support reform. And instead they have proven again and again that they are
unwilling to stand up to the Tea Party in order to do what`s best for the
country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: The President won`t be deterred. No matter what they do, he
will continue to do what`s right for the country. 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

<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
litigation.>


Sponsored links

Resource guide