Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

September 10, 2014

Guest: Joe Sestak, Michael O`Hanlon, Bernie Sanders, Terrence Moore, Joe

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from New York. Let`s get to work.


JOHN F. KENNEDY, 35TH U.S. PRESIDENT: We no longer live in a world where
only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a
nation`s security...

RONALD REAGAN, 40TH U.S. PRESIDENT: When our citizens are abused or

LYNDON B. JOHNSON, 36TH U.S. PRESIDENT: As long as others will challenge
America`s security...

BILL CLINTON, 42ND U.S. PRESIDENT: We acted today...

GEORGE H. W. BUSH, 41ST U.S. PRESIDENT: We have before us the opportunity
to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order.

REAGAN: We will respond so long as I`m in this Oval Office...

JOHNSON: ... test the dearness of our beliefs with fire and steel...

CLINTON: Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the
price of inaction.

G. H. W. BUSH: I`m hopeful that this fighting will not go on for long...

REAGAN: Self-defense is not only our right it is our duty.

JOHNSON: We must stand...

GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD U.S. PRESIDENT: To all the men and women of the
United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East.

FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, 32ND U.S. PRESIDENT: The American people, in their
righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

G.W. BUSH: The peace of the troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed
people now depend on you.

BARACK OBAMA, CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENT: ... my fellow Americans ...


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching.
Tonight is a very important evening for President Obama and the country.

In just over four hours, the President will give a prime-time address in
which he will lay out his plan for destroying ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Now,
United States officials have told the Associated Press that President
Obama`s broader strategy could include more wide-ranging air strikes in
Iraq and possibly Syria. Until now, air strikes have been to protect U.S.
interest and prevent humanitarian disasters.

That is expected to change this evening. Secretary of State John Kerry
arrived in Baghdad earlier today. He met with key Iraqi leaders to forge a
coalition against ISIS. The Obama administration has made clear the Iraqi
government will play a key role in fighting ISIS on the ground.

Officials said President Obama will press forward without a vote from
lawmakers on his new plan of attack. However, President Obama will ask
Congress to quickly approve authorizing the arming and the training of
Syrian opposition forces. Late this afternoon, House Republicans said that
they will delay voting on a budget bill tomorrow so they can consider
request from the White House.

So at least Congress is paying attention to what the President is going to
say tonight. That`s nice to know. The President`s going alone strategy is
far different than where he stood on this issue a year ago. Let`s not
forget. This time last year, President Obama was asking Congress for a
vote on striking Syria.


OBAMA: And after careful deliberation I have decided that the United
States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. But,
having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced
is our national security interests, I`m also mindful that I`m the President
of the world`s oldest constitutional democracy. I`ve long believed that
our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that`s
why I`ve made a second decision. I will seek authorization for the use of
force from the American people`s representatives in Congress.


SCHULTZ: And of course the do-nothing Congress did not respond to that.
So the President has given the Congress an opportunity to step into this
Syrian ISIS mess and he got no help. Now, look where we are. The
President has certainly changed his tune over the course of year.

On Tuesday, President Obama met with Congressional leaders on his ISIS
strategy in the Oval Office. Officials said the President told lawmakers
he has the authority he needs to take action against ISIS, although the
President would welcome action from Congress that would aid the overall
effort and demonstrate to the world that the United States is united in
defeating the threat.

One thing is clear the American people are united against ISIS. A new NBC
News Wall Street Journal poll out today shows 61 percent of Americans think
military action against ISIS in Syria and Iraq is in the national interest.
Now the American people are standing together just as they did over a
decade ago. There is no reason Congress can`t put military action up for a

With increased military action, can we believe that American lives are
going to be at risk? We know ISIS has anti-aircraft missiles from Russia
inside Syria. If they managed to down a fighter jet how are we going to
make the case that we`re not putting boots on the ground?

So I asked the question tonight, in commentary. President Obama tonight is
going to go to the American people and he is going to layout what? A
limited strategy? How can we say there`s not going to be any boots on the
ground? I mean if ISIS is ISIS and they are as capable as everybody says
they are. If they can hit America, if they have that capability, why in
the world would we outsource our security to Syrian moderates or the Kurds
or Iraqi forces that we really don`t know we`re going to stand up yet?

Why wouldn`t we take care of that job ourselves if ISIS is the threat
everybody says they are? So, what we`re going to do is that we`re going to
have more intensified air strikes and we`re going to arm the Syrian
moderates and arm the Iraqis and say, "Hey, you guys got to go get the bad
guys." I don`t know if I like that.

What I do like is the President to come out tonight and say, "All options
are on the table. We`re not putting boots on the ground right now. We`re
going to try to get the job done this way. This is what I believe we can
do." But to tell the American people, no boots on the ground, that`s a
fool`s errand. We don`t know where this is going to go if ISIS is the
threat everybody says they are.

And for us as an American society to think that all of a sudden, we don`t
sacrifice anymore for our freedom, is really wrong. If this is a terrorist
organization that wants to take down America, why would we outsourcer? At
number one, and number two, why would we put limitations on our securities
and say, "Well, you know, we had a real bad experience in the Middle East
before so we`re not going to put boots on the ground this time around,
either." We don`t know.

I want to hear the President come out tonight and say, "We will do, as a
country, whatever it takes to make sure we`re safe."

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, "Do you think the United States can destroy ISIS without troops
on the ground?" Text A for yes, text B for to no to 67622, you can always
go to our blog at, we`ll bring you the results later on in the

Let me bring in former Navy Admiral and former Pennsylvania Congressman Joe
Sestak, Congressman great to have you with us tonight.

FRM. REP. JOE SESTAK, (R) PENNSYLVANIA: Good to be with you, Ed. Thanks.

SCHULTZ: How do you view the situation we`re in right now? What would
increased military action look like?

SESTAK: I think you have to have what the objective is, stated clearly by
the President tonight very clearly. And then you say, "What type of
military force to do that?" I think the President has to say one thing,
"ISIS will have no safe haven whatsoever there in Iraq." What will that
take? It`ll take our airpower, and it will take troops on the ground by
other countries, the Kurds and the Iraqi Baghdadian (ph) forces that we
should equip and properly train. Ed, this is not your military of 10 years
ago tomorrow when we were struck on 9/11.


SESTAK: We didn`t even have a drone then. We can do this in a proper way
to deny them a safe haven. Now this is going to involve strikes, as I said
on your show a month ago, into Syria so logistical phases there can`t
sustain them. But this is going to be and can be a successful denial of a
safe haven by what I just said. To destroy, we haven`t destroyed al-Qaeda
yet and it`s 10 years later. That`s a different issue. Right now the
threat is no safe haven to plot against us here in America.

SCHULTZ: Joe Sestak, from your military experience, you spent a lot of
time in intelligence. How good is out intel on these air strikes, and how
do we think that innocent people aren`t going to get killed?

SESTAK: It`s not perfect, and no instrument of war -- and no instrument of
war is ever going to be perfect and not having, what we in the military
call collateral damage, where civilians at time are harmed. But the
surgical ability right now to put a missile through this window rather than
blowing up somewhere within 50 yards is night and day difference because we
can do that. It`s all about intelligence and that`s the transformation our
military has gone through, not sufficiently enough...


SESTAK: ... it`s all about knowledge. And making sure we know whose
where. That`s why we have to have coalition forces. The Saudis, they have
their intelligence forces all over this group. And that`s how -- we have
to do, is work with other nations that have the intelligence of where to
strike. This needs a coalition. It`s not just by us.

SCHULTZ: So, if -- I looked at the map and I see that ISIS has quite a
footprint in Syria. Are we to believe that if we arm Syrian moderates and
do these surgical air strikes and intensify them that we will get mission
accomplished on this?

SESTAK: Well notice what I said Ed, I said that no safe haven within Iraq.


SESTAK: Now, I said strike Syria so the sustainability basis, the
logistics can`t sustain them in Iraq. Syria is a different issue to get
them out of there. Ed, I`ve said in your how a couple years ago, we were
slow to give arms to what we knew then where some moderate rebels there.


SESTAK: We even executed slow today and that permitted a vacuum to occur
by which ISIS could grow. But over the last two years, we have had Special
Forces in Jordan that is actually been training than more moderate rebels.
And we`ve given radios to them, not because out of charity, so we could
listen in and know what`s going on. Eventually that is gong to take
because it should not be us in Syria. It will take these moderate rebels
to gain back the vacuum that we permitted to happen.

That`s a different play. Eventually, that has to be -- we`re like the
Turks today are no longer leading the 135 million barrels that ISIS is
taking from Iraq and selling on the market go through it any longer, where
it gets its money, part of its money. This is not just about kinetic
energy from the military. This is about closing off the blood lines. The
money that sustain, the ability of ISIS to gain arms and do the damage it`s


SESTAK: So it`s a multifaceted approach.

SCHULTZ: And admiral, the politics of this. The President doesn`t want to
put his new plan up for a vote, is that a mistake?

SESTAK: Absolutely not and I believe as I said again that the President
made a mistake years ago by turning back after drawing a red line and say,
no chemical weapons Assad or we will act by asking Congress permission, no.
We have done over 135 actions since the Vietnam War ended, with the
president acted in his commander-in-chief role without coming to Congress
and this is one of those times.

SCHULTZ: OK. Joe Sestak, always great to have you with us here.

SESTAK: Glad to be with you Ed.

SCHULTZ: . on the ED Show tonight. Thank you so much, sir.

Let me bring in Senior Fellow and Director of Research of the Brookings
Institution, Michael O`Hanlon. Michael, as we view this, the President
isn`t putting his new plan of action up for a vote, your thoughts? Is that
a mistake?

Sestak. I think that it makes sense at this point to invoke existing
authorities. We envisioned a limited action, it`s against a threat that is
very similar to and related to al-Qaeda and therefore I think it does fall
under the authorization on the use of military force from back in 2001.
And in addition, I think Congress will have -- some say, in the very issue
-- excuse me -- that you mentioned which is the request for funding for the
Syrian opposition.

That`s all part of an integrated policy. Again, Admiral Sestak I think was
very correct in pointing out the distinction between the Iraq piece and the
Syria piece. They`re going to work on different timelines with different
elements but Congress is going to have a say in the overall strategy by
acting on this $500 million request for aiding and training the Syrian
opposition. So I think that`s actually a sufficient role at this juncture.

SCHULTZ: Some in Congress, Dianne Feinstein has used the word cautious in
the actions that the President has been taking so far to this point, but to
point out a year ago the President wanted a vote on striking Syria. Why is
this time different?

O`HANLON: Well, this time I think has to do more of the expansion of a
specific threat to America`s allies and even the United States.

SCHULTZ: And if that is the case -- and that`s my point and comment here.
If that is the case, why would we outsource that job to anyone else on the
ground other than American troops, if they truly are capable of hitting
America and evolving into that kind of a threat? Isn`t this a gambled
account on Iraqi troops?

O`HANLON: Well, I like the thrust of your opening argument. What I would
say is certainly don`t think we can do this with main U.S. combat forces.
The mission is too hard for us to send...


O`HANLON: ... hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq. But I agree with
the spirit of your point because I think we may need to send American
advisory teams and some special forces into Iraq to help reconstitute,
reinvigorate the Iraqi army to position them and enable them to go on the
offensive. Someone`s going to have to do a major ground operation.

Again, as Admiral Sestak said. And if it`s going to be the Iraqis somebody
is going to have to help them get their mojo back for lack of a better
world. They are a mess. They fell apart in the strength (ph).

SCHULTZ: Yeah, there`s no doubt. Now, it`s easy to get into this stuff.
It`s awfully hard to get out. And the President said that he will put
arming and training the Syrian moderates, the opposition and put that up
for a vote. He has to have Congress on board, doesn`t he? I mean or the
country politically could really split, either the President is doing
enough or he`s not doing enough. If he doesn`t have the Republicans with
him it`s going to be heavy to lift, isn`t it?

O`HANLON: I think you`re right, and I think the Syrian opposition money is
a crucial part of the strategy, because otherwise ISIS will continue to
hold a large part of Syria and it and it may even get more.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. So.

O`HANLON: So President Obama can -- yeah? Sorry.

SCHULTZ: So with the politics of Washington, the President needs the
Democrats now and more than ever.

O`HANLON: I think that`s right. I think this is an important moment of
coming together for the country and I hope it will happen. You know, on
the chemical weapons issue last year, I heard Admiral Sestak`s point, it
maybe the only thing where I had a slight disagreement with him, I saw the
chemical issue as a small enough piece of the broader problem. That
frankly I was disappointed we weren`t doing more to affect the overall tide
to the Syrian Civil War.

The chemical weapon issue on its own did not overly concern me and I do
think President Obama found another way to address that. The overall
policy toward Syria however has been a mess, and this comes closer to
dealing with the fundamental problem which is the overall path of the war,
where you got President al-Assad holding on to power and ISIS now becoming
the strongest part of the insurgency. These are the two worst things we
could have happen in Syria and therefore the whole policy needs to be
overhauled. That`s where Congress` role as important with this $500

SCHULTZ: All right. Michael O`Hanlon, appreciate you being on the Ed Show
tonight. Thanks so much.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter. Get your comments out there
@edshow and like us on Facebook. Thanks for that, we always want to know
what you think.

Coming up, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell claims he never saw the video of
Ray Rice assaulting his then fiancee. Well there are -- new twist of the
story tonight, law enforcement official has come forward and said that he
gave the video tape to the NFL months ago. Goldie Taylor and Terrence
Moore join me to discuss.

Plus, Texas Senator Ted Cruz says the future of Saturday Night Life is in
jeopardy. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Time now for the Trenders. Social media, I`m asking you to join
the Ed team online,, and
also, and, always leave a comment. Now my podcast is
available free on these websites,,, and on iTunes. News and commentary everyday for half
an hour, you don`t want to miss it.

Ed Show Social Media Nation has decided. We`re reporting here today`s top
trenders voted on by you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s my spot.

SCHULTZ: The number three trender, overdrive.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: New York real estate is known for its outrageous

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s just a parking spot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not just a parking spot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A pricey Manhattan pad sells seven figure parking

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are 10 parking places in SoHo going for a full
million each.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Part of this new luxury building...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A million dollars isn`t exactly a lot of money.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The New York Times said the underground spot will
cost more for a square foot than the apartment...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get off my flat.

SCHULTZ: The number two trender, living on the edge.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s a beautiful seaside property? Nine floors,
three bedrooms...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So where`s your catch?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a home bolted into the side of a cliff.

SCHULTZ: Australian architects take house hunting to new heights.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They`re calling of the vertical villa.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is like your house...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Engineers say, you won`t be in any danger.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because the house is insured.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Home sweet home.

SCHULTZ: And today`s top trender, Citizen Cruz.

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: I`m not going to do it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Democrats want a constitutional amendment to shape
campaign for finance laws.

SEN. TOM UDALL, (D) NEW MEXICO: We are here today to overturn Citizens

CRUZ: Senator, why did you vote for a constitutional amendment to silence
my free speech rights?

SCHULTZ: The Texas Senator claims, killing Citizens United would shutter

CRUZ: Saturday Night Live over the years has had some of the most
tremendous political satire.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What`s the difference between a...


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... between a hockey mom...


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... and a pitbull?


CRUZ: For any corporation, Congress would have the constitutional
authority to prohibit it from engaging in political speech.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Watch that language there?

CRUZ: Lorne Michaels could be put in jail for making fun of any
politician. That is extraordinary. It is breathtaking and it is


SCHULTZ: We are joined tonight by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Senator, good to have you with us, I know how you feel about Citizens
United, but I`d like you to respond to the Senator Cruz from Texas on that.
How outrageous is it?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Well, sounds like he is on Saturday
Night Live. It`s a very funny skit. You know, Citizens United is a little
over 4-years-old., Saturday Night Live has been on the air for decades, and
I don`t recall too many people on Saturday Night Live going to jail for
making fun of politicians, not on Fox T.V., not on MSNBC, it`s a
preposterous argument.

And what it attempts to do is just another scare tactic because they
understand that the vast majority of the American people across the
political spectrum understand that democracy is not about the ability of
billionaires like the Koch brothers and others to buy elections. That is
not what democracy is about.

SCHULTZ: They claim that money is free speech, your response?

SANDERS: And my response is that money is not free speech, that in a
democracy we have the right to elect people based on their ideas and not on
the ability of a billionaire like the Koch brothers to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars, on tens of thousands of political ads.

We have had campaign finance law in this country for many, many decades. I
would go further, I believe in public funding of elections. But the idea
that democracy is for sale to the highest bidder -- to those people who
could spend the most money is an insult to those of us who believe in a
democratic society. That is called an oligarchic society...


SANDERS: ... not a democratic society.

SCHULTZ: Do you think that there are Republicans at heart, somewhat
nervous about all of this money that, you know, maybe Citizens United isn`t
the right way to go...


SCHULTZ: ... in this constitutional amendment. Do you think there`s
enough of them, for Congress to do something about it?

SANDERS: Look, the fact to the matter is right now the Republicans are
clearly the major beneficiaries in terms of the Koch brothers, Sheldon
Adelson and others. So they`re looking at Citizens United, is a pretty
good Supreme Court decision. And by the way Ed, as you know, the
leadership of the Republican Party wants to know even further than Citizens

They want to do away with all restrictions so that billionaires can hand
candidates a check for $50 million or $100 million directly without having
to do independent expenditures, but in terms of your question, yes. I have
talked to Republicans who have already seen ads coming into their state
which make them very, very nervous.


SANDERS: So I think the overwhelming majority of the money is going in
support of Republicans but not all of it. So you have some Republicans who
win their heart of hearts, understand that it is nonsense that any
billionaire, any corporation can spend as much money as they want on

SCHULTZ: So, do you think someday it will be overturned? Do you think


SCHULTZ: ... Citizens United -- there will come a day in our lifetime
where Citizens United will be legislatively and constitutionally addressed?

SANDERS: Absolutely and I will tell you why Ed, because that`s what the
vast majority of the American people want. They are disgusted with what
they are seeing right now. You know, there are something like 16 states
that have already gone on record on opposition to six (ph) Citizens United,
hundreds of hundreds of cities and towns all over this country.

So I think the American people want fair elections. They want free
elections. They don`t want billionaires buying elections.

SCHULTZ: OK. Senator, I want to give you a chance to be remised if I
didn`t give you an opportunity to give us your quick thoughts on what you
expect out of the President tonight in his address to the country in
dealing with the situation in the Middle East?

SANDERS: Well, I think a couple of things, we`ll see what he has to say
but, you know, I think he will tell us what we all know to be truth, that
ISIS is a very serious threat to the region, to the world. That we need an
international effort to combat for ISIS, politically and militarily, that
we should not be sending American troops into another ground war, that what
we saw in Iraq as result of Bush and Cheney was the worst foreign policy
blunder in the modern history of America, which caused many of the problems
that we`re seeing right now, not to mention the lost of lives, not to
mention trillions of dollars.

So this is a very complicated and difficult issue...


SANDERS: ... and I do not criticize the President for being thoughtful and
trying to figure out the best way forward in a real morass out there.

SCHULTZ: Senator Bernie Sanders, appreciate your time tonight sir. Thanks
for being on the Ed Show.

SANDERS: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Coming up, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell speaks out for the
first time following the release of the Ray Rice elevator video. The NFL
claims they never saw it. Goldie Taylor and Terrence Moore join me and
there`s new information on that story in a moment.

Plus, folks at the Wall Street Journal, they think President Obama owes
Dick Cheney a dozen roses and an apology? Pretenders coming up. But next,
your question is next here on the Ed Show on MSNBC on Ask Ed Live. We`ll
be right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We`re going to pass on Ask Ed
tonight because we have been alerted to the situation that is unfolding in
Ferguson, Missouri. You`re looking at a live shot where law enforcement
officials are lining in the streets because there are new protests at this
hour, protesting the death and the shooting of Michael Brown. New protest
taking place near Ferguson, Missouri at this hour and we will keep you up
to date on this if anything unfolds.

That live in Ferguson, Missouri is going on right now, new protests this
evening. Stick around, Rapid Response panel is next.

Market Wrap.

Stocks end slightly higher. The Dow gains 54 points, the S&N up 7, the
NASDAQ adds 34 points.

Family Dollar is the target of a now hostile $9.1 billion bid from rival
Dollar General. The company is repeatedly rejected offers from Dollar
General and already agreed to a merger with Dollar Tree. And, the mortgage
applications fell to the lowest level since late 2000 last week. They
dropped more than 7 percent as interest rates take higher.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We have some breaking news at this
hour. A law enforcement source has told the Associated Press, he sent the
Ray Rice elevator video to the NFL Executives months ago. The official
says he sent the video of Ray Rice punching Janay Rice to an NFL executive
back in April. Though the Associated Press cannot confirm if anyone at the
NFL watched the video, they were played a 12-second voicemail from an NFL
office number confirming the video arrived.

A female voice expresses thanks and says, "You`re right. It`s terrible."
The NFL says that they have no knowledge of the claims made in the
Associated Press report. If true, this latest development would be bad
news for the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Goodell sat down with CBS
News` Norah O`Donnell just last night and told her, no one in the NFL saw
it until it went online.


ROGER GOODELL, NFL COMMISSIONER: Yesterday morning, I got into the office
and our staff had come to me and said, "There`s new evidence. There`s
video that you need to see." And I watched it then.

NORAH O`DONNELL, CBS NEWS: Did you know that a second tape existed?

GOODELL: Well, we had not seen any video tape of what occurred in the
elevator. We assumed that there is a video. We asked for video but we
were never granted that opportunity.

O`DONNELL: So did anyone in the NFL see the second video tape before


O`DONNELL: No one in the NFL?

GOODELL: No one on the NFL to my knowledge, and I`ve been asked that same
question and the answer to that is no.


SCHULTZ: Goodell and the NFL have faced intense criticism for the decision
to initially suspend Rice for just a couple of games. When asked if he
felt he dropped the ball, Goodell had this to say.


O`DONNELL: ... the NFL dropped the ball, or was the NFL willfully ignorant
about what was on the tape?

GOODELL: Well, we certainly didn`t what was on the tape but we have been
very open and honest and I have also from two weeks ago and I acknowledge
that we didn`t get this right. That`s my responsibility and I`m
accountable for that.


SCHULTZ: Today, the National Organization for Women asked for Goodell to
resign as commissioner of the NFL.

Joining me tonight on the Rapid Response panel, Goldie Taylor, MSNBC
Contributor and Columnist for, also with us tonight Terrence
Moore, National Sports Columnist and Professor at Miami of Ohio University.

Interesting Mr. Moore, I just had you yesterday on my podcast, on my radio.


SCHULTZ: ... and I asked you what was going on, you said the NFL was
lying. What are you saying tonight?

MOORE: The NFL is lying and I`ll tell you something Ed. What comes to
mind is Ricky Ricardo saying to Lucy, "Somebody has got some `splanin` to
do here" because there is no way in the world that this official is going
to send an audio to the NFL office and is received -- he`s got a voicemail
telling this and then they say it is just very clearly that the women who
got on the other hand end, based on camera, well this is terrible.

So she saw it, so now the NFL would have to make us believe that they
didn`t get the video tape from this scenario. And I`m putting this out
because right now Roger Goodell is insulting our intelligence and he is
digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole and it`s going to be
interesting to see, not only how he gets out of this behind the rest of the
NFL, his owners get out of this -- or at least try.

SCHULTZ: Goldie, who are we suppose to believe here?

GOLDIE TAYLOR, THEGRIO.COM COLUMNIST: You know, when my granddaughter poos
on her pants, she doesn`t have to tell me she did it, I can smell it, and
so a lot of all suspected at the NFL had this tape. They characterize this
as far back as May and June, saying that they were mitigating circumstances
on the tape. They were alluding to the idea of that somehow Janay Rice had
caused this incident to happen and so they were comfortable enough, even
saying that they had not seen it that they were characterizing the tape,
you know, as far back as May and June.

And so -- and listen to Roger Goodell today say that no one in the NFL have
seen that tape. Really didn`t qualified until they really pressed to it.
And then to have a female executive say, indeed they had received it and
that it was terrible and yes, you`re right. Someone is going to walk the
plank on this. I`m not sure it`s going to be $40 million a year Goodell
but some executive is going to be charged with having had this tape and
having not shared it. And they`re going to be dismissed from the NFL and
this is going to be laid on their shoulders.

But if the right thing were to happen, we should listen to Roger Goodell
when he talk about, you know, the New Orleans sanction their bounty their
bounty situation. He said ignorance was not an excuse.


TAYLOR: . and so I would apply that same standard here for him. Mr.
Goodell, ignorance is not an excuse.

SCHULTZ: Now, and we should be point out in the story that the A.P. source
cannot confirm if anyone on the NFL watched the video but they can confirm
that it was sent and it was responded back that they did receive it, that`s
the story. So it was in the house months ago. Now, considering, Terrence,
how important the story is to the league, do you think they`d be that
sloppy in the front office said, "I don`t want to look at that. We don`t
need to look at that. We know what it`s all about." Would it -- Could that
happen? Could Goodell be telling the truth?

MOORE: He saw this video, there`s no question about this. You know,
couple of things here, first of all, the NFL is the most powerful entity on
the face of the earth, next to the U.S. government. And I pointed out the
other day, all of these teams have all of these former FBI agents and part
of the security force right here on Atlanta, Georgia, the Falcon`s owner
has got a former secret service guy. They know everything that goes on.

And in besides all of that, OK? Let`s just use some commonsense here, all
right? Roger Goodell, probably the silliest thing he said yesterday, to
CBS was that, when I sat down and talk to Ray Rice, I couldn`t make a
decision because it was just ambiguous. Well, first of all, Ray Rice --
and this is fact on the record, Ray Rice flatly told the Baltimore Ravens
everything that took place in that elevator including knocking out his
fiancee, so if he told the Ravens, you know, that the Ravens told the NFL.
So this entire thing is just ridiculous.

SCHULTZ: What about Goodell not ruling out the possibility that this guy
could play in the NFL again? I mean does that fit right now, Goldie? I
mean that even the thought that he might come back. Would they have such a
huge issue to deal with?

TAYLOR: You know, Goodell laid out the standard a few weeks ago and I
agree with this as a matter of fact, that people would have to be banned
from the NFL but they would have after one year be able to appeal that, but
there was no guarantee that that appeal would be accepted or evaluated or
that they would ever be welcomed back. You know, I think that even in this
case, people have a right to healing. People have a right to show that
they remarkably (ph) have accomplished that healing.

And so, you know, I don`t believe in locking him up and throwing the keys
away. I believe in giving him an opportunity to reprove himself that he
can do that off the field.


TAYLOR: He can go and rebuild his life and rebuild his family off the
field and he should receive no financial benefit in the interim. But if he
wants to come back after a year, after he has shown himself to be a good
and upstanding member of this society, he can contribute more fully to the
NFL and be a part of changing its overall culture, then I welcome it then
and only then.


TAYLOR: But do I think we`ve got to lock him up for the rest of his life,
I think we`re going to give him an opportunity when that time presents

SCHULTZ: Well...

MOORE: And correspond to that real quick.

SCHULTZ: Sure, absolutely. Go ahead.

MOORE: He is going to play is going to play again in the NFL, there`s no
doubt about that. And we got a precedence for this, right now he`s 27
years old, OK? This is almost exactly the same age that Michael Vick was
he was sent to prison for nearly two years for dog fighting, OK? And
Michael Vick, he was always the quarterback, he`s essentially a running
back, came back in the NFL two years later at the age of 29 and he`s still
playing by the way, OK?

And I talked to the NFL scout, a friend of mine earlier today and I asked
him that question, I said, "Is this going to affect Ray Rice`s future?"
And he basically laughed. The only thing they care about whether the guy
can play or not, if Ray Rice is able to play in couple of years and that`s
why Roger Goodell kept it open, he knows deep down in his heart...


MOORE: ... that this is not it.

SCHULTZ: All right, I want to ask both of you. Now, this is part of the
larger issue here. Domestic violence accounts for half of the arrests for
violent crimes among NFL players. NFL players are arrested for domestic
violence at a rate of about 55 percent relative to the national average.
It`s the worst category, no doubt about it. Is this something the league
can fix or is this just the kind of people that are attracted to playing in
this sport, Terrence?

MOORE: Well, no. They`re not going to fix this. And again, I`ve been
covering the NFL since the late 1970s. I`ve covered a lot of teams and I`m
telling you, this has always been the case. And again, going back to the
NFL scout.


MOORE: I talked to you earlier today. He brought up a very interesting
point that`s commonsense. It`s a very violent sport. These guys cannot
turn it off. So we`re in a situation of conflict, their natural reaction
is to strike out whether it`s...


MOORE: ... a wife, a friend or what have you. So this is something, you
know, we can talk about it but this way could the NFL, (inaudible) out,
this is something -- that`s always been the case, it is a case, and always
will be the case unfortunately.

SCHULTZ: OK. National Origination of Women, Goldie calling for Goodell to
step down, is that going to matter?

TAYLOR: You know, I don`t think it`s going to matter. What`s going to
matter is what those owners have to say...


TAYLOR: ... and I think Terrence is right, that the nature of this sport
and this culture is conducive to this kind of thing but that doesn`t leave
Goodell or anyone off -- else off the hook towards doing the hard work and
seeking to eradicate this or minimizing this incidents with -- incidences
within the NFL.

As for whether Goodell stays or goes, I think we`ve got to see what this
investigation bares out of, and solve (ph) one and win.

SCHULTZ: All right, Goldie Taylor and Terrence Moore, great to have you
with us tonight on the discussion. Appreciate it.

Coming up, can Congress put politics aside and support President Obama?
Congressman Joe Barton, Republican weighs in with me. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: We are looking at pictures of protest near Ferguson, Missouri
here on the Ed Show tonight. There have been reports of arrest already
taking place. There`s also report of protest trying to block Interstate
70. For more, let me bring in reporter Trymaine Lee.

Trymaine, what do you know? What`s going on?

TRYMAINE LEE, MSNBC REPORTER: So the original plan was for protesters
block off the highway but because organizers and participants, they kind of
broadcast what the plans were, police kind of beat them to the place, and
so essentially the police blocked off the highway so protesters couldn`t
eventually block off the highway.

I witnessed at least eight arrests and there`re maybe more, there are no
official numbers right now. There were some tricky moments where police
and protesters kind of faced off and nothing like that we`ve seen in recent
weeks but there were some pretty intensive moments where from last night
city council meeting tension still was kind of ripe in the air and so, you
know, again folks are being arrested, folks are still demanding that they
have the right to protest.

SCHULTZ: So, you think the city council meeting last night, this is an
overflow of a heat in the council meeting and these are local folks

LEE: Yes, I think so. I think that even though there`s a wide spectrum of
anger and people are upset about a lot of different things and I think now,
despite the sector (ph) of energy is kind of scattered they are becoming
more organized. At first it was organized and so -- many actions which may
very well include the blocking the access to the football games, blocking
the highways. They were unsuccessful today but they said there will be
trying again in the near future, just like highway 70.

SCHULTZ: And they are protesting the shooting of Michael Brown. This is
the same subject. They`re still on point, correct?

LEE: They`re still on point but it`s kind of expanded. Now, the precise,
you know, point behind this today was to call for special prosecutor.
They`re still unsatisfied if Bob McCulloch can prosecute this case, you
know, unbiasedly so they`re demanding that a special prosecutor to be

SCHULTZ: All right, Trymaine Lee with us tonight live on the phone from
Ferguson, Missouri.

We`ll have more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay tuned, we`re right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. A new NBC news Wall Street Journal
poll shows a stunning number. Nearly half of the country thinks we are
less safe than we were before 9/11. This is the highest response to this
question since the poll started in 2002.

Americans have spent -- gosh, the last decade pouring billions if that
trillions of dollars in the security. The NSA is everybody`s business.
The TSA screens us more now than ever before but nearly half the county is
still afraid.

Right after the terrorist attacks in 2001 Congress came together to give
George W. Bush all the support he needed and followed up with all those
support and all the requests that he made. The question tonight is, "Will
Congress put politics aside and support President Obama, the Commander-in-

Joining us tonight Republican Congressman from Texas Joe Barton,
Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. First of all, I want you to
respond to this survey. Should Americans be afraid? What do you think of
this number?

REP. JOE BARTON, (R) TEXAS: Well, I think we are safer but I understand
why a lot of people still are afraid because of this terrorist threat. The
ISIS group is absolutely a terrorist thug group and of course our southern
border is not totally secure. So I think there are valid reasons to be
concerned but I think on a net basis, we are safer than we were on 9-11-

SCHULTZ: OK. Congressman, will your Republican colleagues help President
Obama here? Do you think that there`s going to be partisan politics played
out in this effort to take down ISIS?

BARTON: I hope not. You know, I am as partisan as they come against
Obamacare and on domestic politics but there really is a difference in
foreign policy. ISIS really is a clear and present danger to United States
of America. I support the President if he will defend America. I want him
to layout a plan tonight that tells the terrorist were coming after you
wherever you are.


BARTON: ... we`ll use all of our assets both military, economic,
financial, moral. I want to destroy ISIS and prevent there being a future
ISIS ever created again.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, what does that mean? What do you want to hear from
the President tonight? How far does he have to go? What`s your definition

BARTON: Well, I`m one of the ones that would support an absolutely old-
fashioned declaration of war. Now, having said that, I don`t think the
majority of my Republican friends or even Democratic friends are ready to
go that far but, you know, if something`s worth fighting, it`s worth
fighting and going all in. And so, I would like the President not to
equivocate tonight, not to talk about some gradual escalation, not to
automatically say out -- what`s out of bounds.

I don`t think we need major conventional ground forces wearing the American
uniform in the region but I would not want to preclude the President from
using any military -- again, military economic, financial asset that we
have. These guys are dangerous. They hate the United States. We need to
kill them. We need to track them down. We need to cut off their financial
aid. We need to cut off their moral support. Whatever we need to do I`m
ready to go do it and hopefully do it in a unified way for the security of
the United States of America.

SCHULTZ: Do you think there`s a chance that the President would not go far

BARTON: Well, I think it`s a better chance and even that he won`t go far
enough. He told the leadership of the House in the Senate yesterday that
he didn`t need any authorization from the Congress. I think that`s a


BARTON: I think it sends a signal to the world if the Congress goes on
record that were totally behind -- not just the President, but we`re for
the security of the United States of America.

SCHULTZ: All right, Congressman Joe Barton of Texas, good to have you with
us tonight. We`ll have you back. I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening,


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

The Ed Show Section Front
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide