Skip navigation

'The Melissa Harris-Perry Show' for Saturday, September 13th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Saturday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY
September 13, 2014

Guest: Phyllis Bennis, Hillary Mann-Leverett, Shibley Telhami, Earl
Catagnus Jr., Michael Wright, John Crawford Jr., Jamie Kilstein, Dewan
Smith-Williams, L.Y. Marlowe, Anthony Douglas, Wade Davis

MELISSA HARRIS PERRY, MSNBC ANCHOR: This morning my question, does anybody
care about Janay Rice? Plus, 150 square feet for a million dollars?

And the struggle continues for meaningful police reform. But first, we
know what the president told us. But who told him?

Good morning. I`m Melissa Harris Perry. President Obama wants us to
understand. President Obama who was elected in no small part due to his
stunned opposition to a war in Iraq and a promise to bring our troops home
wants us to understand why he has chosen to bomb parts of Iraq. To send
American troops to advise Iraqi forces to engage in the battle against a
group of sophisticated and well-funded terrorists with no clear end in
sight. When he addressed the nation Wednesday night about his decision to
go to war against the group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or
ISIS, he wanted to explain that decision. He wanted us to understand his
choice in the hopes that we will support it. Ahead of the speech the
president told NBC`s Chuck Todd what he hoped to express to the American
people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I just want the
American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we`re going
to deal with it and to have confidence that we`ll be able to deal with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: So this determination to explain is a pattern of the
president`s. He believed that explaining to the people what his health
care reform vision entailed would get them on board. Remember, he hailed
town hall meetings all across the country and online. He addressed a joint
session of Congress. He explained and explained and explained.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Now I`m going to take a bunch of questions, but before I do, I want
to just talk about what health insurance reform will mean for you, because
there`s a lot of misunderstandings out there.

I want to be clear.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: But widespread support based on deep understanding is not
exactly what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The reforms I`m proposing would not apply to those who are here
illegally.

(BOO)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Four years after the law was signed. The American public
likes nearly every individual part of the Affordable Care Act, but still
opposes the law itself. And yet the president continues to wholeheartedly
believe an explanation is the key to support for his policies. Just last
week the White House announced that the president will not take any
executive action on reform of the immigration system. Action he had
promised to take by the end of summer until after the November elections.
The president said he needs the time to again make sure we really
understand him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: What I`m saying is that I`m going to act because it`s the right
thing for the country. But it`s going to be more sustainable and more
effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what
we have done on unaccompanied children and why it`s necessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: On foreign policy President Obama has made a point to
explain America`s actions, not only to the American public, but to the
world, laying out his doctrine in speeches in Norway after winning the
Nobel Peace Prize. And in Cairo in an effort to reset relations with the
Islamic world. At the United Nations when he broke precedence by chairing
a Security Council meeting himself. You see, he wants to have a
conversation about this. He wants the American people backing him up. The
president wants to persuade us, to bring us around to his thinking. His
foreign policy mantra is reportedly don`t do stupid stuff. And that is -
if you can make an intelligent argument in favor of a particular action,
then it`s not stupid. He wants to make that argument to us. And here`s
part of what he said Wednesday night explaining why we need to escalate
actions in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight I
want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with
strength and resolve. I can announce that America will lead a broad
coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. Our objective is clear. We
will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. But I want the American people
to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: So this is the president who wants to inform us, to bring us
along, to help us understand. But before he informs us, there`s a process
of informing the president. How to get to his decision, what intelligence
does he see? How do the people around him shape how he understands that
intelligence? Who is informing the president before he is informing us?

Joining me now is Phyllis Bennis. She directs the New Internationalism
Project at Institute for Policy Studies. Also, joining us is the author of
"Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Hillary Mann-Leverett, professor at American University. She served on the
National Security Council in both the Clinton and Bush administrations as
well as in embassies throughout the Middle East. So nice to have you both
here.

PHYLIS BENNIS: Great to be here.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, let me start as I said at this table last week and heard
people who I like and respect and who know more about a topic than I do get
into an argument about what we ought to do. I thought, OK, so then how
does the president, who is surrounded by people he likes and respects? How
does he come to a decision in the context of the information he`s getting?

HILLARY MANN LEVERETT, PROF., AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Well, first, there are
two sets of people that the president has around him. One is a set of
people that is essentially a product of - people who have made their way
among powerful domestic constituency groups and people who made their way
through the party. So, this is not just a Democratic Party thing. The
same thing happens on the Republican side. So you have people that are
brought to the fore on the political level, from domestic political
constituencies and from within the Democratic Party. Then on the so called
expert side, you have people from the CIA and the Pentagon, Department of
Defense. They are not there to provide facts. To provide information.
Remember in 1947 both the Department of Defense and the CIA were created
after World War II, not to provide the president with facts, but to provide
the president with a basis for power projection. And this is the core
issue that both parties fall into. Both presidents across the board fall
into. Remember, President Bush started his presidency with wanting to have
a humble foreign policy, if we can remember that.

Remember that. What happens is both of these presidents, President Bush
and President Obama fall in -- are captured by their parties in a
bipartisan commitment to American dominance. American hegemony, to power
projection. That are then - they are fueled with information that come
from the CIA and the Pentagon, that are there for that purpose, for power
projection, not to give simple facts or to inform.

HARRIS-PERRY: OK, so that`s a fascinating way to kind of refrain that.
Because Phyllis, in your recent piece, you suggest in reflecting on
Wednesday`s night speech that the president may have done a fine job in
making an argument for war. But that was the wrong argument. You wrote
instead. What is missing is a real focus, a real explanation to the people
in this country and to the people in government in the Middle East and
around the world on just what a political solution to the ISIS crisis would
really require and what kind of diplomacy will be needed to get there. So,
in part, if he`s being informed, from a position of military and war
projection, then maybe that`s why he then informed us in that way.

PHYLLIS BENNIS, DIR. NEW INTERNATIONALISM PROJECT, IPS: Well, I think
there`s two parts to it. We have to be very clear here that key figures in
the U.S. military and security establishment including the outgoing head of
the National Counterterrorism Center have said very clearly ISIS is not a
threat to the United States. Now, President Obama said most of those words
in his speech, but he really used weasel words. He said it in a way that
implies, well, they`re not right now. But they could be. We can`t be too
careful. He might have taken that advice in an entirely different
direction and said, my fellow Americans, I come to you tonight to say to
you, unequivocally what I have been told by my security officials who say
ISIS is not a threat to the United States of America, period, full stop.

HARRIS-PERRY: OK, but let`s say he had. I would .

BENNIS: Wait.

HARRIS-PERRY: If I was in opposition to the president. I would the next
day I would run that next to the beheading videos.

BENNIS: Yes. But then he would say .

HARRIS-PERRY: And 94 percent of Americans have seen those beheading
videos.

BENNIS: But the problem is he would then have to go onto say and this is
the big problem in terms of the politicization of decision making where
after the beheading, because remember the beheading didn`t happen until
after the bombings started. After the missile strikes. Then it escalated.
In revenge. And revenge may be a legitimate basis for foreign policy for
ISIS, but it certainly is not a legitimate basis for foreign policy for the
United States. We needed to say, the attack on these -- the murder of
these two heroic journalists who are trying to do their best to bring
information to us, does not represent -- it represents a huge, horrifying
crime. It is not a threat to the United States of America.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, so, so let me push on that a little bit. Because I do
think, and we`ll talk throughout the show today about the ways in which
these kind of graphic videos can impact our sense of threat or not, and in
many ways even 9/11, which we commemorated again just this week, seeing it,
part of the horror of it was that it happened. But the other part of the
horror was that we watched it happen live.

BENNIS: Right.

HARRIS-PERRY: And I do wonder, though, I mean, so if there is no revenge,
as part of it, is that not a security threat? If an American can be killed
on video?

MANN LEVERETT: Well, it is in a sense a threat if an American can be
killed. It`s a problem that today the tragedy is that even with all of the
hope that President Obama brought to government, that he was going to have
a new dialogue, a new relationship with the Muslim world. That today it is
vastly more dangerous for Americans to walk not just into Syria, but Libya,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, anywhere. It`s much more dangerous for Americans
today.

HARRIS-PERRY: We`re making a fact that it does not make -- I promise we`re
going to bring a couple of more voices on this issue. Because when we come
back, I want to ask what we need to be listening with when we`re listening.
What is it that we need in order to define the term of how we are going to
win? It does seem that we are at war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So in the same way that the United States is at war
with al Qaeda and affiliate, and its affiliates around the globe, the
United States is at war with ISIL.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are at war with ISIL in the same way that we are
at war with al Qaeda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know, we are at war with ISIL. In the same way
we`re at war and continue to be at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: What does that victory look like
here? I mean, you talked about destroying ISIL. I honestly don`t know
what that means? What does it mean?

I didn`t bring my Webster`s dictionary with me out here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: That was White House Press Secretary John Earnest on
Thursday. Taking reporters` questions about the mission against ISIS.
Joining the table now are Shibley Telhami, who is the Anwar Sadat chair for
peace and development at the University of Maryland and author of "The
World through Arab Eyes." and Earl Catagnus Jr., a professor at Valley
Forge Military College and himself an Iraq war veteran. So we left on this
notion that war, particularly this sort of force, does not necessarily make
-- that even if there were a threat, it does not, in fact, make Americans
safer in the global world, in part because of how this U.S. Military
action is perceived and seen on the ground.

SHIBLEY TELHAMI, AUTHOR "THE WORLD THROUGH ARAB EYES": No question. And
you know, it`s part of the problem for the president, as you`ve been
saying, is that essentially I think he hasn`t made up his mind whether the
objective is to address the national security threat or humanitarian. Yes,
he said it was national security threat. But it could become a national
security threat. He sounded like he`s more on board of the Bush`s
preemption doctrine where, you know, we can even without an imminent grave
threat, you can actually go across borders without U.N. support. And its`
very different in Syria than it is in Iraq. In Iraq, at least, you have an
invitation from the Iraqi government to intervene. In Syria, it`s an
entirely different game. And he`s wanting to give himself a license to go
across. It`s very, very problematic. Particularly when he`s not providing
how it is a serious national security threat, the ISIL.

HARRIS-PERRY: And the Syria question is an important one. I mean as you
brought up, Hillary. There are always as domestic political question.
Back in 2013 when we were discussing the bright line question, when you
asked Americans should we be intervening in Syria, a majority of Americans
said no. No, we should not be.

MANN-LEVERETT: That`s right.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right? But then now you ask them, is military intervention
against ISIS appropriate, and they say yes.

MANN-LEVERETT: If you really asked them and you brought it to Congress as
Obama had to do last year, the public opinion polling may not be as stark
as it now - in these kind of - in this sound bite moments.

EARL CATAGNUS, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: We are relating two different things. I
think that`s what the president is doing. The - and it`s tough to do
because you have an organization across. It`s a transnational. It`s
boundaries. But really if he focuses on the Iraq question, because again
he has been invited by the Iraqi government. We have the Pesh, we have the
Iraqi military, and we can support them, and we have a vested interest in
supporting them. Two, the Syrian border. At that point that`s when our --
then it becomes muddled, and then it becomes very, very, very complicated.

HARRIS-PERRY: But isn`t it muddled but isn`t it even within Iraq? Because
we talk about the Iraqi government as though it shares the same sense of
legitimacy for them as the U.S. government. I mean - people don`t like the
U.S. government, but then we tend to think of it as legitimate. But
there`s the factionalism that suggests it is not.

BENNIS: Exactly right. And the problem is the Iraqi national army is
functioning far more as the biggest and most powerful Shia militia in the
country than it is as the national army ..

MANN-LEVERETT: But that`s because of demography. That`s because of
demography.

BENNIS: It`s not only that. It`s because it was stripped of its
leadership who included Sunni generals, many of whom are now fighting with
ISIS.

MANN-LEVERETT: But that`s because of the invasion and occupation.

BENNIS: Exactly.

MANN-LEVERETT: We broke the country. Now we refuse to deal with the
reality that it is a Shiite majority country.

(CROSSTALK)

MANN-LEVERETT: Less than 20 percent are Sunnis. So, the idea to bring
Sunnis in inclusion is going to somehow resolve this, it`s not going to
happen.

TELHAMI: And I think it`s bigger than that. I mean the reality of it is
forget about this - that is a problem. It`s going to be huge and obviously
we`re going to deal with it. We broke that country.

MANN-LEVERETT: Right. Right.

TELHAMI: It`s a humpty-dumpty. It`s going to be hard to put back together
no matter what we do. But the reality of it is, ISIS is a horrible
organization. We all want it gone. But the reality of it is it defines
its goal as replacing rulers in the Arab world as priority number one. Not
confining Americans - It`s very different from al Qaeda that way.

MANN-LEVERETT: And not just the Iraq government.

TELHAMI: And for that reason by the way, for the first time what we failed
to do in al Qaeda, which make al Qaeda be a threat to the region and people
rallying to defeat it themselves, they were beginning to do that with ISIS
because they fear ISIS. So now it`s an America`s. We own it. And you
have people in the mainstream, in Jordan, for example, that Jordan, which
is threatened by ISIS, potentially maybe the biggest threat. They`re going
to - and say don`t join America`s war. It`s not our war. Now, that is a
problem. Because once you start defining it as our issue .

HARRIS-PERRY: Right, instead of .

TELHAMI: It`s taking away the ownership.

HARRIS-PERRY: And yet, I wonder then, though, so I keep you know, I`ve
listened to the president`s speech a few times now. I keep trying to
figure out what ears I should be listening to. What chromo (ph) I should
be using. And I was wondering if part of what he`s doing when he talks
about that - you call them weasel words. But that potential threat to the
U.S. is in part sort of how he was also talking last week about the threat
on the African continent of Ebola where he says it could come to the U.S.
Not because he really thinks it will, but because he thinks there`s a moral
imperative to engage. And this is the way .

(CROSSTALK)

CATAGNUS: Afghanistan before 9/11. That`s what he is seeing. And that`s
what his national security experts are presenting to him. The potential
for chaos and the potential for it to be a safe haven for a hot bed to see
this Islamic fundamentalism for a lack of a better term, so that`s what
he`s being fed and that`s what he`s seeing. Again, in Iraq is very
different than Syria. We have a much different problem. And I think that
we should not be engaging in what he plans on doing in Syria. Either
weapons or weaponizing the insurgents in Syria, or even the airstrikes.
Instead we should be focusing on Jordan. And actually do a humanitarian
where we have got - refugee camps and try to support that government.

HARRIS-PERRY: Stay with us. Later we`re actually going to talk about how
that all real estate troop location, location, location has gotten a tadbit
out of hand. But up next, the warrior at my table.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: You`ve seen my guest Earl Catagnus Jr. at this table many
times, and usually he`s speaking from his perspective as a scholar and a
professor, but Earl is also an Iraq war veteran and was part of the 2004
assault on Fallujah as a sergeant in the Marine Corps. So one of my
producers asked him what he thought of the prospect of the U.S. returning
to the war in Iraq not from his stance as a scholar but as a veteran. Let
me read you a bit of his response. "I`m a warrior. And warriors want to
fight. We, infantrymen, eat, breathe, sleep, train and wish to practice
our profession in combat against evil. There is clear evil here in ISIS,
and our fighting infantrymen want an opportunity to engage them. Earl, I
was not expecting that answer.

CATAGNUS: One thing I think we have to really start to reconceptualize is
that the American infantrymen, the ones who are actually - that`s our job
to do the fighting. Once they volunteer twice, once they get into the Army
and Marine Corps and the next gain to go into the infantry, so they know
that what they`re getting into. And they`re idealists. They truly see
themselves as knights at King Arthur`s round table. And the mission is
ancient and the battles they fight are primal. And they bring order to
chaos through the skillful use of controlled violence in order to protect
the innocent. And this is - a lot of hyperbolae, but it really means
something to the infantrymen. And so when they`re engaging, they`re
warriors, not killers. They may have to kill to accomplish the mission.
But they`re warriors. So that means that they take and bear the brunt for
people that could not or don`t want to do that.

HARRIS-PERRY: Which is - which is the difference that warriors versus
killers is the things that you see as being so different from what I see.

CATAGNUS: Absolutely. ISIS is a bunch of thugs. It`s a bunch of killers
that they couch themselves in terms. But as I said before, they`re not
Muslims, they`re not jihadists. They are not Mujahedeen, these are people
that are doing it on their own for their own power`s sake. And the
opportunity - now, if the president ever did come up with the opportunity,
which I don`t think is advisable to put boots on the ground in a
conventional sense, but if he did, he would have no worry that the American
infantrymen, the ones who are actually going to do the fighting, that they
will want to be there. And be the - of a spirit. Because they see
themselves as an instrument of national policy.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, you know, as I read that kept thinking in a certain way
that particular idealism and that sense of intervening on behalf of those
who are incapable of protecting themselves against evil, and again, you and
there is a little bit of that, but it is also a very deeply American way of
thinking about our role in the world. So when a president is trying to
inform us, you know, that you can either tap into that or try to completely
alter and change that. And it seems very hard.

BENNIS: But the problem is what that is leaving out, and I`m sorry, I
understand Earl is giving his own opinion here and from his own experience.

CATAGNUS: Well, no from my scholarly experience.

BENNIS: From both. But my point is, not all infantrymen believe that.

CATAGNUS: That`s not true.

BENNIS: I work a lot with - I work with a lot with Iraq veterans against
the war.

CATAGNUS: There`s a difference .

BENNIS: In organization .

CATAGNUS: I have the scholarly - to prove it.

BENNIS: I work with a lot of Iraq veterans who have a very different view
than you do about number one, did they actually volunteer or were they
forced in .

CATAGNUS: That`s absolutely ridiculous.

BENNIS: The reasons of poverty and lack of opportunities. But the problem
is when they have come out of the wars. These are young men and women who
have fought in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and they have come out and created
an organization to say these wars were wrong and our job now is to prevent
it from ever happening again. And that notion of prevention, this is what
Jon Stewart told us the other night, that you can`t wave a magic bomb or in
this case you can`t wave a bunch of boots on the ground to solve this
horrific problem or terrorism and ISIS.

TELHAMI: Regardless, you know, I think there`s a broader point. So,
regardless of what is really the motivator - infantry or other people, I
think it`s tapping into something that is instinctive. And it`s not just
Americans. Everyone. I think it`s a dilemma for the president. I mean we
all watch the horror of ISIS, this vacuum of power that nobody can deal
with it. We all feel the humanitarian - that`s we even think that there`s
some interest in us doing it beyond the humanitarian, and we have got to do
something. And I think regardless of what we talk about, the politics and
what`s pushing the president himself, I think he`s torn- he`s the president
of the United States, he came in to solve problems, and he`s helpless in
the face of something that is really driving a lot of people for the right
reason.

MANN-LEVERETT: But being helpless is that then he is then captured and
paralyzed by the bipartisan buy-in for dominance.

CATAGNUS: Well, I`m not sure it`s just bipartisan.

MANN-LEVERETT: And that leaves him without another option. But there is
another option. There is a diplomatic way forward. There is conflict
resolution. He could be not just going to Saudi Arabia and having the
regional governments who are totally dependent on us for their security.
He could have Iran at the table. He could have the Syrian government at
the table. These things are never said to the American public, but they`re
essential for .

(CROSSTALK)

MANN-LEVERETT: . and not give a speech but get the Russians to buy in for
a legitimate .

HARRIS-PERRY: So, I want to pause if r a second on the bipartisanship. I
don`t want to miss this. I don`t want to miss -- I want to listen for just
a moment to Speaker Boehner saying something that I have never heard him
say during the time that this president has been president of the United
States. Just for a moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R) HOUSE SPEAKER: What the president has asked for as
the commander in chief is this authority to train these Syrian rebels and
frankly we ought to give the president what he`s asking for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: And frankly we ought to give the president what he`s asking
for. Frankly we ought to give the president what he`s asking for. Has
anyone else heard John Boehner say that?

HARRIS-PERRY: These are really .

(CROSSTALK)

MANN-LEVERETT: There are rebels who kidnapped Steve Sotloff and sold him
to ISIS to be beheaded. Bipartisan buy in with that.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: And also, hold on. I don`t want to miss that either. That,
in case folks had not read the reporting.

That the current claim that this is part of the tension with the family
from Sotloff`s family is that he was being held by the groups that we are
defining right now as the moderates and was sold by them to ISIS and then -
-

(CROSSTALK)

BENNIS: Themselves were responsible for beheading six people that were
captive. They had captured them, and then they beheaded them.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, we have bipartisan buy into arm and train them more?

BENNIS: Arm and train them more? I mean this is crazy.

TELHAMI: I think the Boehner issue, obviously, being - and the Republic
is- ants to do more, not less. So, this is something they`ve been pushing.
But remember, they were pushing initially against Assad, now against ISIL.
So, people are pushing them in different directions for different reasons
just to get involved. There are a lot of people who want to see the U.S.
involved for bigger strategic reasons. But there are some benefits - the
president, but not so obvious, not just a political rallying or even
reassuring the American people which I think is obviously one thing that he
gets sort of the public is uncertain about his leadership now. S, even
that, the image that he might be doing something until, of course, casualty
stop him out.


HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

TELHAMI: But I just want to make two points quickly.

HARRIS-PERRY: I can`t - we`ve got time - so I can`t. But I was going to
say this. We are going to continue this conversation. The conversation
particularly between Earl and Phyllis here has also made me very much want
to convene a table of soldiers and veterans to have this -- sometimes you
all end up setting the table for me, and as I listen to that and try to
think about not only the responsibility of these men and women to us, but
than ours back, I think there`s listening to those voices would be good. I
appreciate you being here. But thank you, my guests this morning. Phyllis
Bennis and Shibley Telhami. Also, to Hillary Mann-Leverett and to all
Catagnus Jr., all of whom I can bet are going to be back. Still to come
this morning on the 20TH anniversary of the signing of the Violence against
Women act, a look at the story not of Ray Rice, but of Janay Rice and what
we are to make of her story. But first, policing black America.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: The police shooting of Michael Brown in the protest that
followed have far increased scrutiny, not only to the actions of the
Ferguson, PDE, but the police departments across the country.

On Tuesday the Senate Homeland Security Committee led by Missouri Senator
Claire McCaskill grilled federal officials over the handling of programs
that put military grade weapons an equipment into the hands of local
police.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D): Almost 40 percent of what you are giving away,
has never been used by the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Condition code A is like new.

MCCASKILL: OK, well, so -we can argue about brand new, new or like knew?
What in the world are we doing vying things that we are not using?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Those tables were turned Tuesday night in Ferguson. When it
was elected officials who were on the receiving end of anger, and inquiries
from more than 600 people who showed up to a city council meeting.

The council convened after deciding Monday to implement new changes,
including reforms of Ferguson`s municipal court system, and a civilian
review board to oversee the police department. But the transparency of the
council`s decision was called into question because their deliberations on
Monday were not accessible to the public. And the announcement of the
reforms was not enough to ease the long simmering frustrations of Ferguson
residents in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You wouldn`t have liked it if that was your young son
out there laying for four and a half hours and then they send an Army to
combat the people that`s crying over the boy. What is wrong with y`all?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Tensions were more subdued at a New York City council
meeting Monday where Police Commissioner Bill Bratton explained a new plan
to overhaul the way patrol officers are trained in the use of force. The
reforms come less than two months after Staten Island resident Eric Garner
died after being put in an apparent choke hold by an NYPD officer. The
announcement of the new and improved NYPD happened just days after this,
the release of surveillance video showing 23-year-old Santiago Hernandez
being beaten by six New York police officers in the Bronx. Hernandez
alleges the officers searched him after claiming to be investigating a
noise complaint. He says the beatings started after he asked why he was
being searched and handcuffed. The Bronx D.A declined to prosecute after
Hernandez was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. But
the incident adds him to the number of unarmed black and Latino men who
have been subject to police violence.

Up next, I want to talk about a young man who was killed by the police with
one of the people who knew him best in life. The father of John Crawford
III joins me after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: It`s been a little more than a month since the day 22-year-
old John Crawford III was shot and killed by police as he was shopping at a
Wal-Mart in Beaver Creek, Ohio. He was unarmed and holding a bb air rifle
that was sold at the store when another customer saw him and made a 911
call to the police.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CALLER: There is a gentleman walking around with a gun in the store.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s the call to 911 dispatchers that alerted
Beaver Creek police.

DISPATCHER: Has he got it pulled out?

CALLER: Yeah, he`s like pointing it at people. He`s like loading it right
now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Police who arrived on the scene said they opened fire after
Crawford refused to drop what they thought was a weapon. He later died at
a nearby hospital of gunshot wounds, and the coroner`s office ruled his
death a homicide. And just days after the shooting, Ronald Ritchie, an
eyewitness to the shooting and reportedly the person on that 911 call spoke
to the press about what he saw.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD RITCHIE, EYEWITNESS: A black gentleman walking up holding what
looked to be an AR-15, called the police, waving at people, waving at
little children. Waving the gun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: About a month later in a recent interview with "The
Guardian", Ritchie changed his story. While he maintains that Crawford was
waving the air rifle around, he told the paper "At no point did he shoulder
the rifle and point it at somebody." The family of John Crawford and their
attorneys after viewing surveillance footage of the shooting say what they
saw in the video not only disproves Ritchie`s account of what happened but
proves that the shooting was not justified. Ohio Attorney General Mike
DeWine has refused their request to release the footage to the public,
saying it could jeopardize the possibility of a fair trial. The family has
also criticized DeWine`s appointment of a special prosecutor who will
present evidence in the case to a grand jury later this month. Crawford
family attorney Michael Wright is now calling on the Department of Justice
to open a civil rights investigation to determine whether the shooting was
justified. And whether or not race was a factor.

Michael Wright is joining me now from Cincinnati, Ohio, with him is John
Crawford III`s father, John Crawford Jr. Very nice to have you both here.
Mr. Crawford, you obviously had to endure the awful experience of seeing
this surveillance video of the police shooting your son. What did you see
that is different from what the accounts of the eyewitness had been?

JOHN CRAWFORD JR., SON KILLED BY POLICE: Well, there`s - the difference is
that as far as looking at the -- looking at the transparency, I`m not sure
that -- I`m not sure that I`m understanding your question.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, what was different in what you saw on the video, versus
what Mr. Ritchie says on that 911 call?

CRAWFORD: Oh, OK. There`s a lot of difference. I mean the whole thing
from what we saw on tape, it disproves everything that Mr. Ritchie said.
He fabricated the whole thing. We saw the sequence of events leading up to
the shooting. My son picked up the air rifle, the BB gun. He walked with
it to another location, probably approximately I would say maybe 60 yards
or so, and he stood there. He was talking on his cell phone to his -- the
mother of his children, his girlfriend, and the next thing you know, he
falls two to four feet, I would estimate to the right.

HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney Wright.

CRAWFORD: While just standing. Go ahead.

MICHAEL WRIGHT, ATTORNEY: Yes.

HARRIS-PERRY: So I wanted to ask Attorney Wright here then, when you have
a father, and you yourself seeing this video and seeing something so very
different, why not release the video to the public? Why are we hearing and
having this refusal to do so?

WRIGHT: That`s exactly our question. From our perspective, we believe
that what has been released is painting a picture opposite of what actually
happened in this Wal-Mart, to back what Mr. Crawford was saying, what we
saw on the video is Mr. Crawford picking up a bb gun off the shelf. It was
not any packaging. He walked from one aisle to the other aisle. No one
was disturbed by Mr. Crawford`s presence. He was on the cell phone for
approximately five minutes prior to him being shot and killed by these
officers. In the video, it does not -- it shows that Mr. Crawford was not
even aware that the officers were in his vicinity.

HARRIS-PERRY: We listened -- I want to play this so that people understand
this is the Attorney General of Ohio`s refusal to release this video.
Let`s just listen for one moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE DEWINE, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL (R): I think that it is not -he`s
playing with dynamite frankly to release that tape at this point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Mr. Crawford, your son is gone, he has been taken from you.
When you hear the attorney general say it is playing with dynamite to show
that video, what is your response?

CRAWFORD: It infuriates me. You know, because - if you look at it,
frankly, it is playing with dynamite in a sense that it`s going to cause
some people to lose their career. It`s going to cause some people to go to
jail. So in essence the undertone there is socially, yes, it is playing
with dynamite because we do have transparency. There is the truth on that
video.

WRIGHT: And the piggy back, what Mr. Crawford is saying, there have been
things that have been released. The 911 call has been released. The
cruiser cam footage that shows people running out of Wal-Mart after Mr.
Crawford was shot and killed, that`s been released. The Beaver Creek
police chief came out and publicly exonerated these officers. Two officers
were involved. One officer is already back at work while the investigation
is supposedly still pending.

HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney Wright, you have appealed to the Department of
Justice to Attorney General Eric Holder who made an appearance in Ferguson,
and who last week announced they are going to be investigating the Ferguson
police department in Missouri. What is it that you want from the
Department of Justice? What is the claim there?

WRIGHT: We want the Department of Justice to get involved and take over
the investigation and prosecution of these officers.

HARRIS-PERRY: And why do you think the involvement of the federal
government would bring a more just result?

WRIGHT: Well, because we believe that`s going to create more transparency.
Again. The video has not been released. Everything that we`ve seen
regarding this situation has been decidedly one sided. So we believe that
the Department of Justice needs to get involved and investigate in addition
to take over the prosecution of these officers.

HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney Wright.

CRAWFORD: And piggybacking, let me just add this. Frankly, it`s
insulting. Because it`s a conflict of interest. It`s clearly a conflict
of interest with the attorney general being from that area, from Green
County. So essentially we are in his backyard. And so he should
automatically from that standpoint alone recuse himself of the situation
and head it over to the U.S. attorney`s office.

HARRIS-PERRY: In Cincinnati, Attorney Michael Wright and John Crawford
Jr., and Mr. Crawford, beyond everything else I just want to say I`m very,
very sorry for the loss of your child.

CRAWFORD: Thank you.

WRIGHT: Thank you.

HARRIS-PERRY: Up next, we are going to switch gears and show you what
happens when we send Jamie Kilstein out to file a special report for MHP.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Maybe you`ve noticed it here in television. We like to
label our segments. We come up with catchy things like David Letterman`s
"Top Ten" or Rachel Maddow`s Best News Thing in the World. But it`s harder
than you might think. Now, we`ve tried a bunch here on this show. And
we`ve gotten rid of many of them. When we tried out for a while was
something we called "Wow, Seriously." And it was a little segment which we
tried to kind of tell you about some of the stories that we read during the
week that simply made us go, "Wow, Seriously?" But if you`re a regular
viewer of the show you`ve seen it and you also know that we pretty much
bailed on it a couple of months ago. That is until now. Because this week
we read a story that simply left us saying, "Come on, wow, seriously?"

It was this one. In "the New York Times." Buy condo, then add parking
spot for $1 million. Uh-huh. $1 million. The price of the place to keep
your presumably very expensive car right here in New York City beneath a
building not yet built on a place formally designed for of all things,
cars. The Times" reports that the million dollar parking spots will be
offered on a first-come, first-serve basis to buyers at the ten-unit luxury
apartment building being developed by Atlas Capita Group at Bruman Crosby
Street, the former site of a parking lot. First come, first serve. There
are only 10 million-dollar spots to be had so hurry on over. OK, you can
imagine we really needed to know more. So we sent our "Nerdland" friend
Jamie Kilstein, co-host of the show "Citizens Radio and coauthor of the
forthcoming book "New Sale" out on assignment in the neighborhood of
Manhattan known as SoHo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE KILSTEIN: So there is a parking spot in New York City that`s going
to cost a million dollars?

SHAUN OSHER, CEO CORE REAL ESTATE: Ten of them, actually.

KILSTEIN: 10?

$10 million?

OSHER: No, ten parking spot.

KILSTEIN: Ten parking spots.

OSHER: Right.

KILSTEIN: A million dollars each. Tell us about how this first kind of
game to fruition.

OSHER: Well, we`ve been selling parking spots for a number of years. SoHo
is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the United States. And I
felt that the value of the parking spot in this location in prime SoJo is a
million dollars. And usually these things are dictated by supply and
demand.

KILSTEIN: Would they be able to like donate their spot to the homeless
when they`re gone to like crash there for a little bit?

OSHER: I don`t think so. You have to live in the building to have a
parking spot.

KILSTEIN: So I couldn`t like rent it out to like my poor like artist
friends?

OSHER: No, you couldn`t rent it out.

KILSTEIN: Because I feel like this parking spot is probably going to be
more roomy than their studio apartments right now.

OSHER: Actually, know, the parking spots are about 150 to 200 square feet.

KILSTEIN: OK. So what do you think of the idea of a million dollar
parking space in Soho.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I wish I had a million dollars for a parking space.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Only if it was laced in gold. Only.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a bike. That would be a waste of money, I
think.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my gosh!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s the right response.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So when you`re in London and you`re making fun of
Americans, is a million dollar parking space something you would use?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it wouldn`t have been the first thing, but now I
think it might be, yeah.

KILSTEIN: On a scale from one to class war, how mad are you that a $1
million parking space exists.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not on that meter.

KILSTEIN: What meter would it be on?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) meter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who does something like that?

KILSTEIN: That`s a great question. Who do you think does something like
that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Gates.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Gates.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oprah. She probably own all of us anyway. So, she own
all of New York.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone who a million dollars wasn`t anything to.
Maybe like Jay-Z or Beyonce or somebody.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See, I was like mad at whoever had the parking space.
But if it`s Jay-Z and Beyonce, you can`t be mad at them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Connect me with them. Because I have student loans.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump.

KILSTEIN: Would you want to hang out with someone like Donald Trump who
would pay a million dollars for parking space?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, yeah and then no.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Depends on who buys the parking space. We don`t know
if he`s actually a person that`s doing a lot charity.

KILSTEIN: I feel like I want to be your friend. Because you seem like the
kind of person that sees good in everybody. How many juices could you buy
for $1 million?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, too much.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Buy a nice car. Buy lots of clothes. Also nice
house. Pay back my parents. I don`t know. Just not a parking space.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pay back your parents.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

KILSTEIN: I think your parents will be very happy to hear that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just spend it on clothing.

KILSTEIN: On clothing? See, see, you can still admit to being vain. Like
you`re not even like give it to charity. You`re like, I`ll still spend it
on materialistic things.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. Just happens to be a very expensive
neighborhood. This is going to be the best luxury building in SoHo, which
is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in New York City, so it makes
sense that there would be a parking spot for a million dollars here. Will
there be people who resent it? I`m sure. But there will also be people
who want to live here, who see the value of this and can afford the
lifestyle.

KILSTEIN: You`re a very charming man.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

KILSTEIN: Can I crash at your place?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No comment.

KILSTEIN: All right. Fair enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

HARRIS-PERRY: All right. Thanks to Jamie for taking on this most
difficult assignment. Oh, by the way, you can preorder no, not the parking
space, but instead "Newsfail" co-authored by Jamie Kilstein and Allison
Kilkenny. Right now. Up next, understanding and respecting her story.
There`s more Nerdland at the top of the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry and I would like to
read something.

"I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare. Feeling
like I`m mourning the death of my closest friend. But to have to accept
the fact that it`s reality is a nightmare in itself.

"No one knows the pain that the media, and unwanted options from the public
has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we
regret every day is a horrible thing."

Now I want you to pause. Those were Janay Rice`s words and I want you to
take Janay Rice seriously. It`s very likely that before you knew her name,
you knew her husband, Ray Rice.

February of 2013 he earned a Super Bowl ring with the Baltimore Ravens when
they defeated the San Francisco 49ers. It`s very likely that before you
knew her name, you had seen her unconscious form being dragged from an
elevator by Ray Rice, who was then her fiance.

It`s very likely that before you knew her name, you had seen her sitting
sullenly along Ray Rice during a May 23rd press conference that the Ravens
arranged.

In fact, if you had not been paying very close attention to the story, you
may not even have known her name before seeing the newly released this week
by TMZ Sports video in which Ray Rice punches her in the face and knocks
her unconscious.

In case you missed it, her name is Janay Rice. It might be easy to miss it
because the names we have heard most in recent weeks are Ray Rice,
Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL.

After the most recent video of Ray Rice punching Janay was released, the
Baltimore Ravens terminated his contract. Commissioner Goodell also levied
new punishment extending Rice`s two-game suspension to an indefinite one
shortly after the Ravens fired him.

It seems that everyone has seen the tape, everyone has an opinion.
Everyone wants to weigh in. Here`s what Janay Rice wrote on her Instagram.

"To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his ass off
for his whole life just to gain ratings is horrific. This is our life.

What don`t you all get? If your intentions were to hurt us, embarrass us,
make us feel alone, take all our happiness away, you succeeded on so many
levels."

In response, "The Washington Post" columnist Petula Dvorak, wrote, "Poor
woman. Domestic violence is above all embarrassing. And seeing the part
of her life she thought was behind closed doors broadcast around the world
is humiliating.

"But there will be greater good out of her personal pain."

This position seems to be the opinion of many. On purpose or by default,
it doesn`t matter what Janay says or what she wants as long as her pain and
humiliation serve a greater good. But I want us to pause and say her name,
Janay Rice. I want us to read her words.

"This is our life."

I want us to take her seriously, not because we agree with her, but because
what is happening right now doesn`t seem to have much to do with Janay at
all.

When a survivor chooses to tell her story, it is empowering. When it is
leaked against her will and consent, then it becomes another violation.
When a survivor decides to be an advocate for others, it is empowering.
When her story is used against her will and interest to serve a greater
good, it is abusive.

Firing Ray Rice makes the NFL look better and makes us feel better about
watching. Shaking our heads in disbelief about the poor woman who stayed
with her abuser makes us feel stronger and smarter than she is.

Using the video footage of her abuse to make some larger point about our
political or social agenda makes us feel righteous.

But what happens if we stop worrying about us and start asking about her?

What if the story we took seriously in all of its painful, ugly,
uncomfortable reality was her story, not ours?

Joining us now are NBC national reporter Irin Carmon, also Dewan Smith-
Williams, wife of former NFL offensive lineman, Wally Williams.

Also here is L.Y. Marlowe, founder of Saving Promise, a nonprofit aiming to
stop intimate partner violence. And Madeline Garcia Bigelow, who is
associate director of the Urban Justice Center, and managing director of
The Domestic Violence Project.

In this most recent week as the NFL has decided to get tough on Ray Rice,
who does that help most?

DEWAN SMITH-WILLIAMS, WIFE OF FORMER NFL PLAYER: The NFL. It`s making
them feel like they are correcting the problem or maybe making the problem
better.

But it`s not about making it better or correcting it. It`s about changing
the behavior that has been ongoing for a very, very long time.

And it saddens my heart just to see Janay in the video because you could
see the hurt and pain in her face. And any woman who has been in a
situation where they have been, whether it`s verbally abused, physically
abused, emotionally abused, abuse is abuse.

Any woman that has been in that experience knows that pain without a shadow
of a doubt. And you know, right now, Janay is protecting what she has,
because that`s all she has.

HARRIS-PERRY: When you say that -- I do not want to miss that because I
keep feeling like the story that emerges from this, if you listen to it
with different ears is, the problem isn`t the abuse; the problem is that
the abuse was on video.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Correct.

HARRIS-PERRY: And because the abuse was on video, now we have to take
action. So, women, don`t ever let it be public because if it is public,
then the income for your household, the future for the perp will be
destroyed.

And I don`t know how to wrap my head around, on the one hand, saying, we
cannot tolerate this and, on the other hand, saying, I feel like we just
made a set of policies that are going to push women further into the
darkness.

MADELINE GARCIA BIGELOW, URBAN JUSTICE CENTER: But if I may, we tend to do
that all the time. When there`s an issue we tend to react. And we were
speaking about this in the green room earlier. When there`s an issue, we
react. We enact something and we put no thought, no meaningful thought
into actually how to implement it, how to deal with the root problem.

So it`s like throwing a sponge into the ocean. We`re not dealing with the
problem. We`re not actually asking the people, what is it that you need?

It`s not informed by the victims. It`s not informed by the survivors.
It`s not informed by the families. It`s informed by the laws.

HARRIS-PERRY: And again, in part, undoubtedly part of why it isn`t formed
by the survivors is we can hear from Janay Rice`s testimony, the various
points of public statements, which I want to take seriously because they
are hers. I don`t want to condescend towards her.

But she`s also in a position where she has repeatedly refused to want to
bring any kind of punishment onto Ray Rice. And so part of why there are
so many laws around the country, for example, that take it out of the hands
of the survivor is that this seems to be part of the process of violence
against our domestic and intimate partners.

L.Y. MARLOWE, FOUNDER, SAVING PROMISE: Oh, absolutely. And I think that
this is a defining moment. Janay`s story, as tragic it was and as
traumatic, I suspect, as it is for her family, this is a moment that we can
take a pause and say, wait a moment, this is a time that we can shift what
has happened, take the spotlight off of this, use Janay`s story and bring
about a level of prevention and education and awareness to make sure that
Janay`s story is really celebrated in a way that other women will know that
I can come forward. I don`t have to be ashamed.

But to victimize her for a second time, by making her feel like she should
be ashamed of what has happened, that she is being chosen to make a
decision between her -- whether she should stay or whether she should leave
is yet again victimizing her and making us all feel like this is not
something that we should want to see in the public eye, to see a woman like
that -- she`s already been ashamed. She`s already been victimized.

This is a moment to bring forth greater prevention, greater education and
awareness.

HARRIS-PERRY: Irin, as I was showing -- we made a choice not to show the
video for any of a variety of reasons besides the fact that I`m appalled
that it exists in the public space in that way.

But even just the still photos, I saw every person at this table cringe
physically when those images came up.

And I think keeping, again, it is one thing to talk about legal action,
punishment, even potentially NFL professional sanctions against Ray Rice.
It`s another thing that all of us who do not know this woman`s story, who
have never met her child, who don`t know, you know, have seen this moment
in her life.

IRIN CARMON, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Right. And I will say that I have not
watched the video out of a decision not to revictimize her, which is in
tension, in fact, with my being a reporter. I mean, I think there are
things I have heard from other people that you can learn from the video,
such as the callousness with which he drags her body.

But I think that people play different roles in the situation. And each,
you know, the choices that she makes within her relationship are her own.
The choices that everybody made along the way are accountable.

Ray Rice is accountable. On some level, when we think about we`ve had
these sexual assaults that have been documented on video in which victims
without their consent were revictimized. But on the other hand the level
of believing women is so low here. We had so much disbelief at women`s
own, when they`ve chosen to tell their story, that it requires a video.

HARRIS-PERRY: And I mean, the thing that was for me this week just not
only -- it`s not like we haven`t known for months clearly what happened in
that elevator. But it took the actual video of seeing it.

And I keep thinking, but I just know -- I just know that I know that I know
that while we present in news stories, as though everyone is watching it
appalled, you just know not everyone is watching it appalled. That just
like we enjoy the violence and thrill of the NFL itself that there is --
that that`s part of what is going on.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- violated when you`re watching the NFL, you`re also
watching brain injury be inflicted.

SMITH-WILLIAMS: And then also, with Janay, even the way that she presented
her statement. Even when you have been a victim, the people that are in
your inner circle, that when you decide to make a decision to just come out
and share, not to throw anyone under the bus, but the people in your close
circle question what you`re doing.

What are you doing? Why are you sharing? You need to be careful what
you`re saying. He could lose their job. So you`re being judged and
questioned again within the people that you trust and feel should be
supporting you.

HARRIS-PERRY: We`re going to come back on this. But as we go out, I do
want to point out and I want to talk about this when we come back, about
the specific ways in which race and documentation status and poverty
influence all of this.

Robin Givens wrote this week about, "Being a black woman, you feel you want
to protect your man. You think the black men in America have it so
difficult anyway. So now you`re turning them in. It feels like the
ultimate betrayal.

"And maybe Janay Rice is feeling a little bit of that, though I don`t want
to speak for her."

More on her story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: We are back and discussing domestic violence in light of the
latest case depicting NFL player Ray Rice abusing his then fiancee, now
wife, Janay Rice.

We have survivors at the table. And I`m wondering as you have watched this
play out, what your thoughts have been about Janay Rice.

SMITH-WILLIAMS: Well, I know that she`s feeling very isolated, feeling
that, like I said before, that she`s protecting what she has.

My concern for her now is now that this has all come public and she has
made the decision to stay, in the future, when there`s disagreements in the
home, is everything going to come back to this situation, because she has
allowed our public life, our personal life to roll over into the public,
which has affected his career.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right, that he will see it that way, that he will see her as
the -- potentially as the instrument of --

SMITH-WILLIAMS: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: But the fact -- so for me, that`s precisely why then making
this policy is a difficult one because it does potentially -- I keep
thinking we know that black women are less likely to tell in general
because we know the consequences of calling the police on a black man.

We know that undocumented women are less likely to tell because they risk
the possibility of both their own deportation and that of their beloved.
And so somehow the harsh penalties end up penalizing the survivor as much
as the.

SMITH-WILLIAMS: Well, and then, and calling the police. When the police
are called, you`re coming. You`re upset. I mean, things have happened.
There`s been physicalities going on in the home.

The officers come in and they talk football. They want the guy`s
autograph.

MARLOWE: And another thing I think people don`t realize is that when women
leave, they`re 70 times -- percent more likely to be killed by an abusive
partner. As you know --

HARRIS-PERRY: Leaving does not make you safer.

MARLOWE: -- leaving does not make you safer. And as you know, I come from
four generations of women that survived over 60 years of domestic violence.

Had my grandmother left, had my mother left, had I left, had my daughter
left, we all could have been killed. And so I think we need to realize
that it`s not as simple as people might think it is.

When you look at Janay and say why does she stay? Women stay for many
reasons, out of love, out of loyalty, out of financial dependency, out of
staying for the children and, most importantly, out of fear.

But regardless of why she says, what we need to think about is what can we
do to help?

What can we do to prevent this?

What can we do to educate women and make sure women know what their rights
are and how they can be safe.

HARRIS-PERRY: Maybe it`s my social media world. But doesn`t it feel like
the question is asked more frequently why does she stay than why does he
abuse?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.

HARRIS-PERRY: There`s that lovely hashtag, #WhyIStayed, which is
expressing so much of what you just expressed here, a lot about all of
those interdependences and challenges and there`s Beverly Gooden, who
really began that hashtag and who brought so many voices out into the
social media realm on it.

So why don`t we ask, excuse me, Mr. Rice, why do you abuse? And if we have
facts, then maybe we get to this before it`s a question of that
intersection of these -- of --
MARLOWE: And you know, one of the interesting things is that this is
really a defining moment. Because before this unfolded, this is the
dialogue and the awareness that has been increased as a result of this, can
take this tragic moment and transform it to a defining moment for us to
really do something different about it.

HARRIS-PERRY: Oh. Do you really think so?

Do you think that`s what we do?

MARLOWE: We do not do it. I`m saying we make the same mistake. The last
time we had this kind of dialogue and discussion was back when the Rihanna
Brown, Rihanna and Chris Brown. Then we had this big public outcry. We
had a lot of discussion about it.

And then when the spotlights were gone, it went away. And Rihanna went
back on with her life and Chris went on with his life. And we did nothing
to avoid it or address it.

HARRIS-PERRY: And see, I wonder if it`s in part because it hits the
spotlight when there`s wealth and celebrity involved. So in reading your
recent piece, Irin, and you talk about the things that we could do that
actually could make life better and safer. You talk about taking away
abusers` guns, enabling economic survival and strengthening housing
protections.

Those are things that we don`t think of in a Rihanna-Chris Brown case
because these are people with such means. So we don`t end up having the
conversation about domestic violence in the context of a lack of those
kinds of needs.

CARMON: They`re insulated by their relative privilege. They`re insulated
by resources. But I think for a lot of people the precariousness in which
their life is already taking place is exacerbated by the abuse and makes
them more likely to stay, especially if you have policies that make their
lives more difficult.

So for example, there was a woman who was living in a town that had an
ordinance that if you had the police come to you, we`re going to have
problems.

You have to wait until after the commercial so I can say those words. So
hold onto that for just one second. But I do want to follow up on that one
tick here before we go to break, which is this idea of the policies that we
have could actually make things worse for survivors.

BIGELOW: Well, because I think we don`t ever take the three-pronged
approach. I think that you have to make the abuser accountable. And
that`s where policies and laws come in. You have to provide every single
person who`s a victim of domestic violence with the essential tools of life
to be able to get out.

Why can`t we get out? Because of child support.

Why can`t we get out? Because of child care.

Why can`t we get out? Because you may be monolingual in a different
language. And you can`t proceed because you`re undocumented, because of
housing. That`s the majority of people, because of the news we still
report it as domestic incidents. They`re not incidents. They`re criminal
acts.

And if he`d hit an unrelated man in the elevator like that, would he have
ended up in a first-time offenders diversion program?

BIGELOW: We shouldn`t have diversion programs.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: But I can`t. Because I spend too much time on this show
saying we shouldn`t -- OK. We got more. Stay with us.

Up next, why you could be at risk of losing your home for reporting that
you`ve been attacked. I`m going to let Irin finish her sentence when I
come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Neighbors of Lakisha Briggs in Norristown, Pennsylvania,
called the police in June of 2012 when her ex-boyfriend allegedly stabbed
her in the necessary with broken glass.

She survived, only to face the possibility of eviction, thanks to a local
ordinance. According to the ACLU, the ordinance encouraged landlords to
evict tenants when the police are called to a property three times in four
months for disorderly behavior, including for incidents of domestic
violence.

That last part is essential because that`s the reason why Briggs (ph) had
stopped calling the cops on her ex-boyfriend, even when he allegedly
attacked her with a brick. But when she was stabbed, the neighbor`s call
triggered a threat from the city to forcibly remove her from her home.

But on Monday the ACLU announced that Northtown would repeal the ordinance
and is paying Briggs and her lawyers $495,000 in damages.

So Irin, this is -- like I keep thinking, all right, you want to do
something. These policies actually revictimize those who are trying to
survive this.

CARMON: So absolutely any time where there`s an ordinance that is meant,
that is harming victims, that seems like an easy one.

Places where you could get unemployment insurance, these are many states
are passing this, but there`s still not even all of the states that have a
minimum floor for unemployment insurance for women if they need to leave
their jobs, if they decide to leave, if they`re economically vulnerable
after leaving.

But I think --

HARRIS-PERRY: But it`s not easy. I mean, in Louisiana, Greater New
Orleans Warehousing Action Center, which my husband is executive director,
just brought an attempt to keep -- to pass a law so you can`t evict victims
of domestic violence. So it seems like it (INAUDIBLE). But it`s not.

(CROSSTALK)

CARMON: -- not in the context of this table, where we all have
(INAUDIBLE). But what I`m saying is that`s an obvious first place to
start. I think there are other places where we really have to balance a
lot of competing difficult things. Such as when we talk about calling the
police and what is going to happen to the man who you call. This is
something I think we`ve been alluding to but that needs to be directly
responded to, which is this fear of increased criminalization, particularly
within communities of color that disincentivize women from calling from
police, even when it means that they might die.

And the backdrop is that it used to be that the police wouldn`t do
anything. Right? That`s the context. And that`s an important context to
not forget as we raise doubts about the criminalization.

But it used to be that -- there are documented cases of women being
violently assaulted in front of police officers and they didn`t do
anything. So we certainly don`t want to go back to a model like that.

But there`s numerous studies showing that in contexts where arrests take
place and then they stay together the woman is then victimized or the
partner is then victimized even more afterwards. So we have to think about
whether arrests and the mandatory arrest policies that we have on the books
are the best way to help victims.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. Because I`m thinking -- you said it perfectly, well,
there shouldn`t even be the diversion programs. So I spend so much time on
this show talking about not overcriminalizing anyone in the country, but
particularly the ways in which it impacts black men.

We have spent weeks covering these stories of police showing up and
shooting and killing unarmed black men. If you are the beloved, even if
you are the beloved who is being abused in the most horrible ways, you may
not pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1 if you think that when the police
arrive, they are going to shoot your spouse, your boyfriend, the father of
your children.

Like racism actually makes women less safe in the context of domestic
violence because you`re trying to balance all of those things at the same
time.

BIGELOW: Right. That`s right.

And I think that one of the primary issues that we have is that we keep
looking towards the courts and we keep looking at legislation as the catch-
all and as the savior of what is going to make these relationships better.

It`s not. It doesn`t make you safer. It does provide you some relief in
certain circumstances that assists you in getting housing, to have that
piece of paper. An order of protection does not stop a bullet. It doesn`t
stop someone from breaking down your door. It doesn`t stop someone from
petitioning for visitation of the children or custody.

So we go back to that third prong that I didn`t get to, which is we need to
deal with this from the very beginning. We need to make people
accountable. We need to speak about healthy relationships. We need to
allow for a really robust set of variables and doors that victims and
survivors can walk through and say, this is how I want to deal with it.

We need to honor the fact that if we`re saying we want someone to feel
empowered, it`s to make their decisions. And you can`t make a decision if
you don`t have viable options.

HARRIS-PERRY: When you talk about starting at the beginning, just to go
back to the Rice case in particular, is the NFL too late?

I keep thinking by the time they`re professional athletes, it`s not the
first time they`ve been engaging in intimate partner violence. It is
occurring in the colleges. It`s occurring in the high schools.

When do we start earlier? What`s the --

MARLOWE: We start as soon as we can. I purport that we need to start as
early as middle school to start educating kids.

And again, the other thing is we have got to move away from this reactive
model. Laws, policies, legislation, like you said, Madeline, does not
solve the problem.

What solves the problem is greater prevention and education and awareness,
getting ahead of the problem proactively and not waiting until we hear the
Janay story, until we hear the Rihanna story, until we`re sitting around
this table and talking about it yet again, we have to stop to think about
what can we do differently going forward?

And that`s why I`m very strong about what division for Saving Promises in
terms of putting forward greater prevention, putting forward greater
education and awareness and engaging our communities at a level to really
mobilize around a call to action to make sure landowners and lawmakers and
court systems and justices and law enforcement all are trained and
acknowledge what is needed to be done in terms of education.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: When we come back after the break, we`re going to have an
important update on a story we first told you about last week, the Oklahoma
police officer accused of sexually assaulting eight different women.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: We`ve been talking about the vulnerability women sometimes
face with loved ones, but now I would like to update you on a story we
first told you about last week, a story about the dangerous vulnerabilities
some women face with interacting with those who are sworn to serve and
protect them.

On August 29th Oklahoma police officer Daniel Holtzclaw was charged with
sexually assaulting at least eight women. He faces 16 felony counts of
sexual abuse. Prosecutors say he used his authority as an officer to force
women to expose themselves and perform sex acts.

Holtzclaw, through his attorney, Scott Adams, denies all charges. The
officer was released September 5th, after his bond was lowered from $5
million to $500,000. He`s now under house arrest, where the court has
ordered him to remain until he -- while he awaits trial.

The women Holtzclaw is accused of assaulting are all between the ages of 34
and 58 and they share at least one commonality. They are all black women.

The Oklahoma State Conference of the NAACP is requesting the Department of
Justice file hate crime charges against Holtzclaw. The president of the
NAACP`s Oklahoma chapter, Anthony Douglas, has called for a heightened
focus on the case, which initially received mostly local coverage and leads
the effort to classify the allegations against Holtzclaw as hate crimes.

Joining me now from Oklahoma City is Anthony Douglas, president of the
Oklahoma State Conference of the NAACP.

Nice to have you.

ANTHONY DOUGLAS, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP: Thank
you, Ms. Perry. Thank you for having me on your show.

HARRIS-PERRY: Absolutely.

So tell me. Why are you asking for a hate crimes designation?

What difference would that make?

DOUGLAS: Well, Ms. Perry, what difference I`m looking at and me and my
staff looked at, that these, there are a total of eight African-American
women who has, that we know of, who have came (sic) forward. And so we
look at the Northeast Oklahoma City community, and we looked at these eight
women, so we wanted to submit that as a hate crime because we don`t know,
was he racially profiling these women or not?

HARRIS-PERRY: Now you said to the reporter from BuzzFeed, who initially
reported this story out before we started talking about it on air, that you
were appalled and maybe a little surprised that there wasn`t more national
media attention, especially in the wake of Ferguson and the shooting of
Mike Brown/

Do you think it`s because it`s about women? Do you think it`s because it`s
about sexual assault rather than death?

Why do you think it took a while to get us focused on this story?

DOUGLAS: Well, I think it may have taken a while to focus on this story
because of all the events that was then happening around dealing with
African-Americans and policing and all that. But one thing I want to do is
applaud the media for now, you have taken a great interest in this story.
And even because of these women being abused, no women deserve the right to
be abused, even by a police officer.

HARRIS-PERRY: But just hold for me just one second. Because you said
earlier that there are cases of women being abused in front of the police.
This is a story of allegedly women being abused by the police. And it just
feels to me again like, if you have very little trust in police because of
these sorts of incidents, how that makes it more difficult to call and
report.

CARMON: Any situation where there`s disproportionate power being levied is
a situation in which sexual abuse gets covered up.

And obviously the police hold a great amount of power in our society. I
think if you read Jessica Testa`s reporting on this, which has been really
excellent, it seems clear that the mistake that the perpetrator made in
this case allegedly was to abuse the wrong kind of woman. He abused a
middle class woman, who did feel comfortable calling the police.

Other targets were people who had criminal records and already feared
further sanction, and he took advantage of the fact that they were already
disempowered and afraid of going to prison.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, I wanted to -- let me come back to you, Mr. Douglas. I
wonder, because one of the things that we`ve heard is that many of these
women not only were African-American women, but many of them may have
themselves had criminal backgrounds, which is potentially or at least
allegedly why this officer may have allegedly abused them.

As you all are doing this work of trying to get justice for these women,
what are they saying about their own anxiety or shame about having had
criminal records themselves?

DOUGLAS: Well, one of the things that I have talked to and I`ve said that
we`re not focused on the criminal record. Every woman has a right to feel
safe and free and should not be abused by people who are there to protect
and serve them.

So my focus about their criminal record is not important. It`s the abuse
that more is important to me, especially from a police officer who is there
to serve and protect them.

HARRIS-PERRY: Hold for me again one more moment, Mr. Douglas. This kind
of alleged violence in the context of police. I wonder, because we also
see policing not only in African-American communities, but often in
communities where there are presumed to be many immigrants of people who
are undocumented, similar concern about communities and families getting
broken up, does this ring true for some of the work that you have done with
the community?

BIGELOW: Oh, I think absolutely it rings true. When you`re looking at
domestic violence in terms of power and control, you`re looking at
different ways that an abuser can control, can assert control over a
victim.

If the victim is undocumented, then what`s the greatest way to control
them? If you tell, if you call, if you don`t listen, we`re going to call
the police. You`re going to be deported. You`re illegal. I`m going to
keep the children. I`m going to get custody of the kids because the kids
in almost any relationship, where there are children, oftentimes they`re
used as a pawn.

So what you have is someone that really feels that it becomes even more
dangerous for them to reach out for assistance and support, which really
just kind of closes the door. And then you have reports like this.

It that is part of the trickle. That is part of the trickle of -- you have
domestic violence, but the people are suffering racism. You have domestic
violence where people are suffering sexism. And when you have real world
examples where it`s happening, all that does is further strengthens the
metal, if you will, of not wanting to reach out.

Mr. Douglas, just this one brief last question.

Have you gotten a response yet from the Department of Justice about your
interest in having them come in and investigate this as a hate crime?

DOUGLAS: At the present moment I have not received a response from them.
But we`re waiting patiently on that response.

HARRIS-PERRY: In Oklahoma City, Anthony Douglas of the NAACP, thank you
for sounding the alarm and for asking us to pay attention. And thank you
for being here today.

DOUGLAS: And thank you for having me.

HARRIS-PERRY: Also thanks to my guests here in New York City, Irin Carmon,
Dewan Smith-Williams, L.Y. Marlowe and Madeline Garcia Bigelow.

Up next, my letter of the week coming just on the heels of New York`s
Fashion Week.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Even though I spend most of the show behind a desk, I always
put some thought into picking out my shoes because I love fancy footwear.
I even have a whole shelf of shoes in my office. Some are my show hosting
shoes and others are for when I`m running errands or just doing my morning
run with my youngest daughter in her stroller. For every occasion there is
a shoe.

So I understand the intent of Nine West`s new ad campaign and what the
company`s senior vice president for marketing meant when he said, quote,
"We have to change the way we talk about occasions, because women are
modern now and shop for a different reason."

Only I`m not so sure Nine West`s campaign really represents modern women,
which is why the company is getting my letter this week.

Dear Nine West, it`s me, Melissa. The display window at the Nine West near
my studio here at 30 Rock is my happy place, because your shoes are two of
my favorite things, affordable and fashionable. And I always get the best
customer service from the Nine West clerks, who spend all day on their feet
taking care of other people`s feet.

Which is why I was so distressed by what I saw the last time I checked out
your store window because the company`s message to women in your new ad
campaign seems to have gotten off on the wrong foot.

One ad features leopard print pumps and the tagline, "Starter husband
hunting." Now there`s nothing wrong with a woman strutting her stuff or,
as you say, looking for Mr. Right or Mr. Right Now.

But why call the shoe "Starter husband hunting"?

In an era where the woman is the main breadwinner in four out of 10 homes,
is this really what women are on the hunt for? A husband? And one that
she doesn`t even plan to keep?

There`s also the print ad that shows a woman with a pair of flip-flops
peeking out of her fashionable Nine West bag with the tagline,
"Anticipatory Walk of Shame." Now I always celebrate women`s right to
enjoy their sexuality.

But if you really want to appeal to the modern woman, why shame her?

Why not call it the stride of pride?

I mean, if men had a shoe for the morning after, you know that`s what they
would call it.

And then there`s the shoe for the First Day of Kindergarten with this
tagline, "The bus arrives and so do the waterworks. Then it hits you,
Mommy now has the weeks off."

Unless, of course, Mommy is among the women who make up nearly half of our
nation`s workforce. Those women are likely heading back to the office
after dropping the kids off at school.

And that`s the real issue with this ad campaign. It seems woefully out of
touch with the modern woman that it is supposed to be celebrating.

Husband hunting? Shame after sex? Just who do you think is wearing these
shoes? June Cleaver?

If you`re really trying to stay in stride with the 21st century woman, why
not sell them on shoes that are in step with women from all steps of walk
of life? Like the I March for Justice shoe or the Look Who Is Boss boots.

How about the I`m a Champion shoe? The I Ran and Won shoe? Or shoes for
women on the move, for those taking a stand on women`s rights, no matter
how long it takes or redefining our understanding of the right to be a
woman, for those who have to stay on their toes, for the modern woman who
brings the funny and makes the money, the shoes for women who woke up like
this. I know.

As one executive explained, the ads are meant to make noise and give
attention but, Nine West, if you want to get the right kind of attention
for women, you cannot have one foot stuck in outdated ideas of the past
even if that foot is wearing a really cute shoe.

Sincerely, Melissa.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: As the NFL is grappling with its controversy, something that
we`re going to get into much more on tomorrow`s program, it is worth noting
that there`s also progress being made on at least one front, the inclusion
of LGBT athletes.

Recently Michael Sam barely missed the cut to play for his home state team,
the St. Louis Rams. Sam landed a spot on the Dallas Cowboys` practice
squad, making him officially the first openly gay player in the NFL and
showing that even in red state America, football is for everyone.

Now, in the wake of that historic moment, this week`s foot soldier is
looking to take the pro sport a step further.

Wade Davis, who you might recognize as a frequent guest on this show, is
one of only a handful of openly gay former NFL players and is also the
executive director of the You Can Play Project, an LGBT sports advocacy
group, devoted to ensuring equality, respect and safety for all athletes,
regardless of sexual orientation.

His organization partners with teams like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the
Minnesota Vikings and the New York Giants and the St. Louis Rams to bring
together LGBT organizations, supportive players and fans.

Through their High Five Initiative, they`ve taken current NFL players to
their local LGBT youth-serving organizations in order to help young gay
athletes break down the invisible barriers between professional sports
culture and gay communities.

Tomorrow, Wade and the You Can Play Project will partner with the Tampa Bay
Buccaneers for the NFL`s first-ever LGBT Community Gameday, a tailgating
event that will bring together LGBT advocates, businesses, fans and players
to promote equality in the league.

For giving us a reason to feel hopeful about the future of America`s
favorite sport at a time when it is sorely needed, Wade Davis is our foot
soldier of the week.

So I mean, I was already done with the NFL after we fumbled in overtime as
the New Orleans Saints (INAUDIBLE). I just have all the feelings. But it
really has been a tough week. And yet when you look at this, tell us a
little bit about LGBT Community Gameday and why we should feel good about
this?

WADE DAVIS, YOU CAN PLAY PROJECT: What`s really great is that the Tampa
Bay Bucs are really trying to show that they care about their communities
and specifically the LGBT community. So there is a Gameday event, there`s
a tailgating event, where we`ve invited some corporations, some LGBT
organizations, young people to say that, hey, the Tampa Bay Bucs care about
everyone, including their LGBT brothers and sisters.

HARRIS-PERRY: So when you are working with young people, with You Can
Play, you know, it seems when we look at public opinion data, the big gap
around LGBT attitudes is really an older folks- younger folks gap, it`s not
so much conservative or Republican-Democrat or anything like that.

Do you find that in this, too, that young people are ready to all play
together?

DAVIS: Yes. You know, what`s really wonderful about the High Five
Initiative is that when we took some players to the Hetrick-Martin
Institute, the kids left there saying, can we get Troy Benson back? Can we
get Dwight Hollier back? Because they saw so much of themselves in these
actual players.

And the players saw these young people as not as at-risk, but at-promise.
Just because they see that these young kids have a promise. And if they
can remove that actual barrier that we can actually see some coalition
building and some solidarity work that can happen, that can get young
people to say, hey, I want to play the sport of football. I want to play
the sport of basketball.

HARRIS-PERRY: So do we want young people to play the sport of football --
and I ask that in a serious way in part because part of the work of LGBT
inclusion as a broad agenda has been inclusion in marriage, inclusion in
military service.

And yet those are also institutions that we have criticisms of, right? The
problems of marriage, the problems of military service and similarly
inclusion in the NFL right at a time when we`re saying is the NFL something
we would want to be included in?


DAVIS: No, you know, and I`ll be honest with you. The NFL is really
bumbling this issue right now. But when I met with Roger Goodell, he was
intentional about saying, hey, I want you to come in and tell me how to fix
this actual work, that all players can feel safe to be open and honest
about who they are.

And to be honest, I`ve had no pushback from any owner, any player. And
we`ve been having some hard but very important conversations about why it`s
important that athletes are allowed to show up on their team as their
authentic selves.

HARRIS-PERRY: So speaking of pushback, let`s talk a little bit about
Michael Sam and the Cowboys. So he ends up in Texas. I understand you got
a call from the Cowboys in part to make sure that the community is being
safe and embracing him and all of that.

DAVIS: Yes. So when Michael Sam was drafted by the Rams, I played for
Coach Fisher. I also have a teammate who`s the special teams coach for the
Rams. So they brought me in and said, hey, make sure that our players know
how to show up as a loving presence for Michael Sam.

And a lot of our work is around debunking myths that exist around gay
athletes then also letting coaches know that if you allow a player to not
live in the space of double consciousness or not in a space of
hypervigilance, that you get an immediate better player. Therefore your
team is better.

So all these of things coaches get.

HARRIS-PERRY: Wade Davis, when you come on the TV show and we`re talking
about sports and you quote Du Bois and double consciousness, you make me
very happy. And it`s a high-level nerd moment. And so I appreciate it. I
appreciate your work and have a great and exciting day tomorrow with the
Tampa Bay Buccaneers and LGBT Community Gameday.

That`s our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. I`m going
to see you tomorrow morning, 10:00 am Eastern. We have a really jam-
packed show. Harry Smith of NBC News is going to be here as we try to get
our heads around just what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is
doing in Iowa.

We`re going to dive deep on all of the issues facing the NFL and we might
even have a little something to say about the fancy new gizmos unveiled by
Apple this week.

I promise you one thing`s for sure, it`s going to be high nerd. See you
tomorrow morning, 10:00 am. Right now, time for a preview of "WEEKENDS
WITH ALEX WITT."

Hi, Alex.

ALEX WITT, MSNBC HOST: We love and expect high nerd from you, Melissa.
Just, hey, maybe Hillary Clinton likes steak. I mean, she`s doing the
steak fry. I don`t know. Anyway, right, we`ll have that show tomorrow and
I`ll be watching that.

Meantime, everyone, we are going to talk about what difference just one
word can make in the U.S. military action against ISIS and why it`s
suddenly being spoken.

Also an American tourist is about to go on trial in North Korea. We`re
going to take a look at what justice in that communist country looks like.

And she`s written two books on it. You`re going to hear advice from the
BBC`s Katty Kay for all you women in the workplace.

So don`t go anywhere. I`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)




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.
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.>




MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY
September 13, 2014

Guest: Phyllis Bennis, Hillary Mann-Leverett, Shibley Telhami, Earl
Catagnus Jr., Michael Wright, John Crawford Jr., Jamie Kilstein, Dewan
Smith-Williams, L.Y. Marlowe, Anthony Douglas, Wade Davis

MELISSA HARRIS PERRY, MSNBC ANCHOR: This morning my question, does anybody
care about Janay Rice? Plus, 150 square feet for a million dollars?

And the struggle continues for meaningful police reform. But first, we
know what the president told us. But who told him?

Good morning. I`m Melissa Harris Perry. President Obama wants us to
understand. President Obama who was elected in no small part due to his
stunned opposition to a war in Iraq and a promise to bring our troops home
wants us to understand why he has chosen to bomb parts of Iraq. To send
American troops to advise Iraqi forces to engage in the battle against a
group of sophisticated and well-funded terrorists with no clear end in
sight. When he addressed the nation Wednesday night about his decision to
go to war against the group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or
ISIS, he wanted to explain that decision. He wanted us to understand his
choice in the hopes that we will support it. Ahead of the speech the
president told NBC`s Chuck Todd what he hoped to express to the American
people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I just want the
American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we`re going
to deal with it and to have confidence that we`ll be able to deal with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: So this determination to explain is a pattern of the
president`s. He believed that explaining to the people what his health
care reform vision entailed would get them on board. Remember, he hailed
town hall meetings all across the country and online. He addressed a joint
session of Congress. He explained and explained and explained.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Now I`m going to take a bunch of questions, but before I do, I want
to just talk about what health insurance reform will mean for you, because
there`s a lot of misunderstandings out there.

I want to be clear.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: But widespread support based on deep understanding is not
exactly what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The reforms I`m proposing would not apply to those who are here
illegally.

(BOO)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Four years after the law was signed. The American public
likes nearly every individual part of the Affordable Care Act, but still
opposes the law itself. And yet the president continues to wholeheartedly
believe an explanation is the key to support for his policies. Just last
week the White House announced that the president will not take any
executive action on reform of the immigration system. Action he had
promised to take by the end of summer until after the November elections.
The president said he needs the time to again make sure we really
understand him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: What I`m saying is that I`m going to act because it`s the right
thing for the country. But it`s going to be more sustainable and more
effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what
we have done on unaccompanied children and why it`s necessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: On foreign policy President Obama has made a point to
explain America`s actions, not only to the American public, but to the
world, laying out his doctrine in speeches in Norway after winning the
Nobel Peace Prize. And in Cairo in an effort to reset relations with the
Islamic world. At the United Nations when he broke precedence by chairing
a Security Council meeting himself. You see, he wants to have a
conversation about this. He wants the American people backing him up. The
president wants to persuade us, to bring us around to his thinking. His
foreign policy mantra is reportedly don`t do stupid stuff. And that is -
if you can make an intelligent argument in favor of a particular action,
then it`s not stupid. He wants to make that argument to us. And here`s
part of what he said Wednesday night explaining why we need to escalate
actions in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight I
want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with
strength and resolve. I can announce that America will lead a broad
coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. Our objective is clear. We
will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. But I want the American people
to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: So this is the president who wants to inform us, to bring us
along, to help us understand. But before he informs us, there`s a process
of informing the president. How to get to his decision, what intelligence
does he see? How do the people around him shape how he understands that
intelligence? Who is informing the president before he is informing us?

Joining me now is Phyllis Bennis. She directs the New Internationalism
Project at Institute for Policy Studies. Also, joining us is the author of
"Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Hillary Mann-Leverett, professor at American University. She served on the
National Security Council in both the Clinton and Bush administrations as
well as in embassies throughout the Middle East. So nice to have you both
here.

PHYLIS BENNIS: Great to be here.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, let me start as I said at this table last week and heard
people who I like and respect and who know more about a topic than I do get
into an argument about what we ought to do. I thought, OK, so then how
does the president, who is surrounded by people he likes and respects? How
does he come to a decision in the context of the information he`s getting?

HILLARY MANN LEVERETT, PROF., AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Well, first, there are
two sets of people that the president has around him. One is a set of
people that is essentially a product of - people who have made their way
among powerful domestic constituency groups and people who made their way
through the party. So, this is not just a Democratic Party thing. The
same thing happens on the Republican side. So you have people that are
brought to the fore on the political level, from domestic political
constituencies and from within the Democratic Party. Then on the so called
expert side, you have people from the CIA and the Pentagon, Department of
Defense. They are not there to provide facts. To provide information.
Remember in 1947 both the Department of Defense and the CIA were created
after World War II, not to provide the president with facts, but to provide
the president with a basis for power projection. And this is the core
issue that both parties fall into. Both presidents across the board fall
into. Remember, President Bush started his presidency with wanting to have
a humble foreign policy, if we can remember that.

Remember that. What happens is both of these presidents, President Bush
and President Obama fall in -- are captured by their parties in a
bipartisan commitment to American dominance. American hegemony, to power
projection. That are then - they are fueled with information that come
from the CIA and the Pentagon, that are there for that purpose, for power
projection, not to give simple facts or to inform.

HARRIS-PERRY: OK, so that`s a fascinating way to kind of refrain that.
Because Phyllis, in your recent piece, you suggest in reflecting on
Wednesday`s night speech that the president may have done a fine job in
making an argument for war. But that was the wrong argument. You wrote
instead. What is missing is a real focus, a real explanation to the people
in this country and to the people in government in the Middle East and
around the world on just what a political solution to the ISIS crisis would
really require and what kind of diplomacy will be needed to get there. So,
in part, if he`s being informed, from a position of military and war
projection, then maybe that`s why he then informed us in that way.

PHYLLIS BENNIS, DIR. NEW INTERNATIONALISM PROJECT, IPS: Well, I think
there`s two parts to it. We have to be very clear here that key figures in
the U.S. military and security establishment including the outgoing head of
the National Counterterrorism Center have said very clearly ISIS is not a
threat to the United States. Now, President Obama said most of those words
in his speech, but he really used weasel words. He said it in a way that
implies, well, they`re not right now. But they could be. We can`t be too
careful. He might have taken that advice in an entirely different
direction and said, my fellow Americans, I come to you tonight to say to
you, unequivocally what I have been told by my security officials who say
ISIS is not a threat to the United States of America, period, full stop.

HARRIS-PERRY: OK, but let`s say he had. I would .

BENNIS: Wait.

HARRIS-PERRY: If I was in opposition to the president. I would the next
day I would run that next to the beheading videos.

BENNIS: Yes. But then he would say .

HARRIS-PERRY: And 94 percent of Americans have seen those beheading
videos.

BENNIS: But the problem is he would then have to go onto say and this is
the big problem in terms of the politicization of decision making where
after the beheading, because remember the beheading didn`t happen until
after the bombings started. After the missile strikes. Then it escalated.
In revenge. And revenge may be a legitimate basis for foreign policy for
ISIS, but it certainly is not a legitimate basis for foreign policy for the
United States. We needed to say, the attack on these -- the murder of
these two heroic journalists who are trying to do their best to bring
information to us, does not represent -- it represents a huge, horrifying
crime. It is not a threat to the United States of America.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, so, so let me push on that a little bit. Because I do
think, and we`ll talk throughout the show today about the ways in which
these kind of graphic videos can impact our sense of threat or not, and in
many ways even 9/11, which we commemorated again just this week, seeing it,
part of the horror of it was that it happened. But the other part of the
horror was that we watched it happen live.

BENNIS: Right.

HARRIS-PERRY: And I do wonder, though, I mean, so if there is no revenge,
as part of it, is that not a security threat? If an American can be killed
on video?

MANN LEVERETT: Well, it is in a sense a threat if an American can be
killed. It`s a problem that today the tragedy is that even with all of the
hope that President Obama brought to government, that he was going to have
a new dialogue, a new relationship with the Muslim world. That today it is
vastly more dangerous for Americans to walk not just into Syria, but Libya,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, anywhere. It`s much more dangerous for Americans
today.

HARRIS-PERRY: We`re making a fact that it does not make -- I promise we`re
going to bring a couple of more voices on this issue. Because when we come
back, I want to ask what we need to be listening with when we`re listening.
What is it that we need in order to define the term of how we are going to
win? It does seem that we are at war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So in the same way that the United States is at war
with al Qaeda and affiliate, and its affiliates around the globe, the
United States is at war with ISIL.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are at war with ISIL in the same way that we are
at war with al Qaeda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know, we are at war with ISIL. In the same way
we`re at war and continue to be at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECY.: What does that victory look like
here? I mean, you talked about destroying ISIL. I honestly don`t know
what that means? What does it mean?

I didn`t bring my Webster`s dictionary with me out here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: That was White House Press Secretary John Earnest on
Thursday. Taking reporters` questions about the mission against ISIS.
Joining the table now are Shibley Telhami, who is the Anwar Sadat chair for
peace and development at the University of Maryland and author of "The
World through Arab Eyes." and Earl Catagnus Jr., a professor at Valley
Forge Military College and himself an Iraq war veteran. So we left on this
notion that war, particularly this sort of force, does not necessarily make
-- that even if there were a threat, it does not, in fact, make Americans
safer in the global world, in part because of how this U.S. Military
action is perceived and seen on the ground.

SHIBLEY TELHAMI, AUTHOR "THE WORLD THROUGH ARAB EYES": No question. And
you know, it`s part of the problem for the president, as you`ve been
saying, is that essentially I think he hasn`t made up his mind whether the
objective is to address the national security threat or humanitarian. Yes,
he said it was national security threat. But it could become a national
security threat. He sounded like he`s more on board of the Bush`s
preemption doctrine where, you know, we can even without an imminent grave
threat, you can actually go across borders without U.N. support. And its`
very different in Syria than it is in Iraq. In Iraq, at least, you have an
invitation from the Iraqi government to intervene. In Syria, it`s an
entirely different game. And he`s wanting to give himself a license to go
across. It`s very, very problematic. Particularly when he`s not providing
how it is a serious national security threat, the ISIL.

HARRIS-PERRY: And the Syria question is an important one. I mean as you
brought up, Hillary. There are always as domestic political question.
Back in 2013 when we were discussing the bright line question, when you
asked Americans should we be intervening in Syria, a majority of Americans
said no. No, we should not be.

MANN-LEVERETT: That`s right.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right? But then now you ask them, is military intervention
against ISIS appropriate, and they say yes.

MANN-LEVERETT: If you really asked them and you brought it to Congress as
Obama had to do last year, the public opinion polling may not be as stark
as it now - in these kind of - in this sound bite moments.

EARL CATAGNUS, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: We are relating two different things. I
think that`s what the president is doing. The - and it`s tough to do
because you have an organization across. It`s a transnational. It`s
boundaries. But really if he focuses on the Iraq question, because again
he has been invited by the Iraqi government. We have the Pesh, we have the
Iraqi military, and we can support them, and we have a vested interest in
supporting them. Two, the Syrian border. At that point that`s when our --
then it becomes muddled, and then it becomes very, very, very complicated.

HARRIS-PERRY: But isn`t it muddled but isn`t it even within Iraq? Because
we talk about the Iraqi government as though it shares the same sense of
legitimacy for them as the U.S. government. I mean - people don`t like the
U.S. government, but then we tend to think of it as legitimate. But
there`s the factionalism that suggests it is not.

BENNIS: Exactly right. And the problem is the Iraqi national army is
functioning far more as the biggest and most powerful Shia militia in the
country than it is as the national army ..

MANN-LEVERETT: But that`s because of demography. That`s because of
demography.

BENNIS: It`s not only that. It`s because it was stripped of its
leadership who included Sunni generals, many of whom are now fighting with
ISIS.

MANN-LEVERETT: But that`s because of the invasion and occupation.

BENNIS: Exactly.

MANN-LEVERETT: We broke the country. Now we refuse to deal with the
reality that it is a Shiite majority country.

(CROSSTALK)

MANN-LEVERETT: Less than 20 percent are Sunnis. So, the idea to bring
Sunnis in inclusion is going to somehow resolve this, it`s not going to
happen.

TELHAMI: And I think it`s bigger than that. I mean the reality of it is
forget about this - that is a problem. It`s going to be huge and obviously
we`re going to deal with it. We broke that country.

MANN-LEVERETT: Right. Right.

TELHAMI: It`s a humpty-dumpty. It`s going to be hard to put back together
no matter what we do. But the reality of it is, ISIS is a horrible
organization. We all want it gone. But the reality of it is it defines
its goal as replacing rulers in the Arab world as priority number one. Not
confining Americans - It`s very different from al Qaeda that way.

MANN-LEVERETT: And not just the Iraq government.

TELHAMI: And for that reason by the way, for the first time what we failed
to do in al Qaeda, which make al Qaeda be a threat to the region and people
rallying to defeat it themselves, they were beginning to do that with ISIS
because they fear ISIS. So now it`s an America`s. We own it. And you
have people in the mainstream, in Jordan, for example, that Jordan, which
is threatened by ISIS, potentially maybe the biggest threat. They`re going
to - and say don`t join America`s war. It`s not our war. Now, that is a
problem. Because once you start defining it as our issue .

HARRIS-PERRY: Right, instead of .

TELHAMI: It`s taking away the ownership.

HARRIS-PERRY: And yet, I wonder then, though, so I keep you know, I`ve
listened to the president`s speech a few times now. I keep trying to
figure out what ears I should be listening to. What chromo (ph) I should
be using. And I was wondering if part of what he`s doing when he talks
about that - you call them weasel words. But that potential threat to the
U.S. is in part sort of how he was also talking last week about the threat
on the African continent of Ebola where he says it could come to the U.S.
Not because he really thinks it will, but because he thinks there`s a moral
imperative to engage. And this is the way .

(CROSSTALK)

CATAGNUS: Afghanistan before 9/11. That`s what he is seeing. And that`s
what his national security experts are presenting to him. The potential
for chaos and the potential for it to be a safe haven for a hot bed to see
this Islamic fundamentalism for a lack of a better term, so that`s what
he`s being fed and that`s what he`s seeing. Again, in Iraq is very
different than Syria. We have a much different problem. And I think that
we should not be engaging in what he plans on doing in Syria. Either
weapons or weaponizing the insurgents in Syria, or even the airstrikes.
Instead we should be focusing on Jordan. And actually do a humanitarian
where we have got - refugee camps and try to support that government.

HARRIS-PERRY: Stay with us. Later we`re actually going to talk about how
that all real estate troop location, location, location has gotten a tadbit
out of hand. But up next, the warrior at my table.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: You`ve seen my guest Earl Catagnus Jr. at this table many
times, and usually he`s speaking from his perspective as a scholar and a
professor, but Earl is also an Iraq war veteran and was part of the 2004
assault on Fallujah as a sergeant in the Marine Corps. So one of my
producers asked him what he thought of the prospect of the U.S. returning
to the war in Iraq not from his stance as a scholar but as a veteran. Let
me read you a bit of his response. "I`m a warrior. And warriors want to
fight. We, infantrymen, eat, breathe, sleep, train and wish to practice
our profession in combat against evil. There is clear evil here in ISIS,
and our fighting infantrymen want an opportunity to engage them. Earl, I
was not expecting that answer.

CATAGNUS: One thing I think we have to really start to reconceptualize is
that the American infantrymen, the ones who are actually - that`s our job
to do the fighting. Once they volunteer twice, once they get into the Army
and Marine Corps and the next gain to go into the infantry, so they know
that what they`re getting into. And they`re idealists. They truly see
themselves as knights at King Arthur`s round table. And the mission is
ancient and the battles they fight are primal. And they bring order to
chaos through the skillful use of controlled violence in order to protect
the innocent. And this is - a lot of hyperbolae, but it really means
something to the infantrymen. And so when they`re engaging, they`re
warriors, not killers. They may have to kill to accomplish the mission.
But they`re warriors. So that means that they take and bear the brunt for
people that could not or don`t want to do that.

HARRIS-PERRY: Which is - which is the difference that warriors versus
killers is the things that you see as being so different from what I see.

CATAGNUS: Absolutely. ISIS is a bunch of thugs. It`s a bunch of killers
that they couch themselves in terms. But as I said before, they`re not
Muslims, they`re not jihadists. They are not Mujahedeen, these are people
that are doing it on their own for their own power`s sake. And the
opportunity - now, if the president ever did come up with the opportunity,
which I don`t think is advisable to put boots on the ground in a
conventional sense, but if he did, he would have no worry that the American
infantrymen, the ones who are actually going to do the fighting, that they
will want to be there. And be the - of a spirit. Because they see
themselves as an instrument of national policy.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, you know, as I read that kept thinking in a certain way
that particular idealism and that sense of intervening on behalf of those
who are incapable of protecting themselves against evil, and again, you and
there is a little bit of that, but it is also a very deeply American way of
thinking about our role in the world. So when a president is trying to
inform us, you know, that you can either tap into that or try to completely
alter and change that. And it seems very hard.

BENNIS: But the problem is what that is leaving out, and I`m sorry, I
understand Earl is giving his own opinion here and from his own experience.

CATAGNUS: Well, no from my scholarly experience.

BENNIS: From both. But my point is, not all infantrymen believe that.

CATAGNUS: That`s not true.

BENNIS: I work a lot with - I work with a lot with Iraq veterans against
the war.

CATAGNUS: There`s a difference .

BENNIS: In organization .

CATAGNUS: I have the scholarly - to prove it.

BENNIS: I work with a lot of Iraq veterans who have a very different view
than you do about number one, did they actually volunteer or were they
forced in .

CATAGNUS: That`s absolutely ridiculous.

BENNIS: The reasons of poverty and lack of opportunities. But the problem
is when they have come out of the wars. These are young men and women who
have fought in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and they have come out and created
an organization to say these wars were wrong and our job now is to prevent
it from ever happening again. And that notion of prevention, this is what
Jon Stewart told us the other night, that you can`t wave a magic bomb or in
this case you can`t wave a bunch of boots on the ground to solve this
horrific problem or terrorism and ISIS.

TELHAMI: Regardless, you know, I think there`s a broader point. So,
regardless of what is really the motivator - infantry or other people, I
think it`s tapping into something that is instinctive. And it`s not just
Americans. Everyone. I think it`s a dilemma for the president. I mean we
all watch the horror of ISIS, this vacuum of power that nobody can deal
with it. We all feel the humanitarian - that`s we even think that there`s
some interest in us doing it beyond the humanitarian, and we have got to do
something. And I think regardless of what we talk about, the politics and
what`s pushing the president himself, I think he`s torn- he`s the president
of the United States, he came in to solve problems, and he`s helpless in
the face of something that is really driving a lot of people for the right
reason.

MANN-LEVERETT: But being helpless is that then he is then captured and
paralyzed by the bipartisan buy-in for dominance.

CATAGNUS: Well, I`m not sure it`s just bipartisan.

MANN-LEVERETT: And that leaves him without another option. But there is
another option. There is a diplomatic way forward. There is conflict
resolution. He could be not just going to Saudi Arabia and having the
regional governments who are totally dependent on us for their security.
He could have Iran at the table. He could have the Syrian government at
the table. These things are never said to the American public, but they`re
essential for .

(CROSSTALK)

MANN-LEVERETT: . and not give a speech but get the Russians to buy in for
a legitimate .

HARRIS-PERRY: So, I want to pause if r a second on the bipartisanship. I
don`t want to miss this. I don`t want to miss -- I want to listen for just
a moment to Speaker Boehner saying something that I have never heard him
say during the time that this president has been president of the United
States. Just for a moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R) HOUSE SPEAKER: What the president has asked for as
the commander in chief is this authority to train these Syrian rebels and
frankly we ought to give the president what he`s asking for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: And frankly we ought to give the president what he`s asking
for. Frankly we ought to give the president what he`s asking for. Has
anyone else heard John Boehner say that?

HARRIS-PERRY: These are really .

(CROSSTALK)

MANN-LEVERETT: There are rebels who kidnapped Steve Sotloff and sold him
to ISIS to be beheaded. Bipartisan buy in with that.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: And also, hold on. I don`t want to miss that either. That,
in case folks had not read the reporting.

That the current claim that this is part of the tension with the family
from Sotloff`s family is that he was being held by the groups that we are
defining right now as the moderates and was sold by them to ISIS and then -
-

(CROSSTALK)

BENNIS: Themselves were responsible for beheading six people that were
captive. They had captured them, and then they beheaded them.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, we have bipartisan buy into arm and train them more?

BENNIS: Arm and train them more? I mean this is crazy.

TELHAMI: I think the Boehner issue, obviously, being - and the Republic
is- ants to do more, not less. So, this is something they`ve been pushing.
But remember, they were pushing initially against Assad, now against ISIL.
So, people are pushing them in different directions for different reasons
just to get involved. There are a lot of people who want to see the U.S.
involved for bigger strategic reasons. But there are some benefits - the
president, but not so obvious, not just a political rallying or even
reassuring the American people which I think is obviously one thing that he
gets sort of the public is uncertain about his leadership now. S, even
that, the image that he might be doing something until, of course, casualty
stop him out.


HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

TELHAMI: But I just want to make two points quickly.

HARRIS-PERRY: I can`t - we`ve got time - so I can`t. But I was going to
say this. We are going to continue this conversation. The conversation
particularly between Earl and Phyllis here has also made me very much want
to convene a table of soldiers and veterans to have this -- sometimes you
all end up setting the table for me, and as I listen to that and try to
think about not only the responsibility of these men and women to us, but
than ours back, I think there`s listening to those voices would be good. I
appreciate you being here. But thank you, my guests this morning. Phyllis
Bennis and Shibley Telhami. Also, to Hillary Mann-Leverett and to all
Catagnus Jr., all of whom I can bet are going to be back. Still to come
this morning on the 20TH anniversary of the signing of the Violence against
Women act, a look at the story not of Ray Rice, but of Janay Rice and what
we are to make of her story. But first, policing black America.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: The police shooting of Michael Brown in the protest that
followed have far increased scrutiny, not only to the actions of the
Ferguson, PDE, but the police departments across the country.

On Tuesday the Senate Homeland Security Committee led by Missouri Senator
Claire McCaskill grilled federal officials over the handling of programs
that put military grade weapons an equipment into the hands of local
police.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D): Almost 40 percent of what you are giving away,
has never been used by the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Condition code A is like new.

MCCASKILL: OK, well, so -we can argue about brand new, new or like knew?
What in the world are we doing vying things that we are not using?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Those tables were turned Tuesday night in Ferguson. When it
was elected officials who were on the receiving end of anger, and inquiries
from more than 600 people who showed up to a city council meeting.

The council convened after deciding Monday to implement new changes,
including reforms of Ferguson`s municipal court system, and a civilian
review board to oversee the police department. But the transparency of the
council`s decision was called into question because their deliberations on
Monday were not accessible to the public. And the announcement of the
reforms was not enough to ease the long simmering frustrations of Ferguson
residents in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You wouldn`t have liked it if that was your young son
out there laying for four and a half hours and then they send an Army to
combat the people that`s crying over the boy. What is wrong with y`all?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Tensions were more subdued at a New York City council
meeting Monday where Police Commissioner Bill Bratton explained a new plan
to overhaul the way patrol officers are trained in the use of force. The
reforms come less than two months after Staten Island resident Eric Garner
died after being put in an apparent choke hold by an NYPD officer. The
announcement of the new and improved NYPD happened just days after this,
the release of surveillance video showing 23-year-old Santiago Hernandez
being beaten by six New York police officers in the Bronx. Hernandez
alleges the officers searched him after claiming to be investigating a
noise complaint. He says the beatings started after he asked why he was
being searched and handcuffed. The Bronx D.A declined to prosecute after
Hernandez was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. But
the incident adds him to the number of unarmed black and Latino men who
have been subject to police violence.

Up next, I want to talk about a young man who was killed by the police with
one of the people who knew him best in life. The father of John Crawford
III joins me after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: It`s been a little more than a month since the day 22-year-
old John Crawford III was shot and killed by police as he was shopping at a
Wal-Mart in Beaver Creek, Ohio. He was unarmed and holding a bb air rifle
that was sold at the store when another customer saw him and made a 911
call to the police.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CALLER: There is a gentleman walking around with a gun in the store.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s the call to 911 dispatchers that alerted
Beaver Creek police.

DISPATCHER: Has he got it pulled out?

CALLER: Yeah, he`s like pointing it at people. He`s like loading it right
now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Police who arrived on the scene said they opened fire after
Crawford refused to drop what they thought was a weapon. He later died at
a nearby hospital of gunshot wounds, and the coroner`s office ruled his
death a homicide. And just days after the shooting, Ronald Ritchie, an
eyewitness to the shooting and reportedly the person on that 911 call spoke
to the press about what he saw.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD RITCHIE, EYEWITNESS: A black gentleman walking up holding what
looked to be an AR-15, called the police, waving at people, waving at
little children. Waving the gun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: About a month later in a recent interview with "The
Guardian", Ritchie changed his story. While he maintains that Crawford was
waving the air rifle around, he told the paper "At no point did he shoulder
the rifle and point it at somebody." The family of John Crawford and their
attorneys after viewing surveillance footage of the shooting say what they
saw in the video not only disproves Ritchie`s account of what happened but
proves that the shooting was not justified. Ohio Attorney General Mike
DeWine has refused their request to release the footage to the public,
saying it could jeopardize the possibility of a fair trial. The family has
also criticized DeWine`s appointment of a special prosecutor who will
present evidence in the case to a grand jury later this month. Crawford
family attorney Michael Wright is now calling on the Department of Justice
to open a civil rights investigation to determine whether the shooting was
justified. And whether or not race was a factor.

Michael Wright is joining me now from Cincinnati, Ohio, with him is John
Crawford III`s father, John Crawford Jr. Very nice to have you both here.
Mr. Crawford, you obviously had to endure the awful experience of seeing
this surveillance video of the police shooting your son. What did you see
that is different from what the accounts of the eyewitness had been?

JOHN CRAWFORD JR., SON KILLED BY POLICE: Well, there`s - the difference is
that as far as looking at the -- looking at the transparency, I`m not sure
that -- I`m not sure that I`m understanding your question.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, what was different in what you saw on the video, versus
what Mr. Ritchie says on that 911 call?

CRAWFORD: Oh, OK. There`s a lot of difference. I mean the whole thing
from what we saw on tape, it disproves everything that Mr. Ritchie said.
He fabricated the whole thing. We saw the sequence of events leading up to
the shooting. My son picked up the air rifle, the BB gun. He walked with
it to another location, probably approximately I would say maybe 60 yards
or so, and he stood there. He was talking on his cell phone to his -- the
mother of his children, his girlfriend, and the next thing you know, he
falls two to four feet, I would estimate to the right.

HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney Wright.

CRAWFORD: While just standing. Go ahead.

MICHAEL WRIGHT, ATTORNEY: Yes.

HARRIS-PERRY: So I wanted to ask Attorney Wright here then, when you have
a father, and you yourself seeing this video and seeing something so very
different, why not release the video to the public? Why are we hearing and
having this refusal to do so?

WRIGHT: That`s exactly our question. From our perspective, we believe
that what has been released is painting a picture opposite of what actually
happened in this Wal-Mart, to back what Mr. Crawford was saying, what we
saw on the video is Mr. Crawford picking up a bb gun off the shelf. It was
not any packaging. He walked from one aisle to the other aisle. No one
was disturbed by Mr. Crawford`s presence. He was on the cell phone for
approximately five minutes prior to him being shot and killed by these
officers. In the video, it does not -- it shows that Mr. Crawford was not
even aware that the officers were in his vicinity.

HARRIS-PERRY: We listened -- I want to play this so that people understand
this is the Attorney General of Ohio`s refusal to release this video.
Let`s just listen for one moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE DEWINE, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL (R): I think that it is not -he`s
playing with dynamite frankly to release that tape at this point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Mr. Crawford, your son is gone, he has been taken from you.
When you hear the attorney general say it is playing with dynamite to show
that video, what is your response?

CRAWFORD: It infuriates me. You know, because - if you look at it,
frankly, it is playing with dynamite in a sense that it`s going to cause
some people to lose their career. It`s going to cause some people to go to
jail. So in essence the undertone there is socially, yes, it is playing
with dynamite because we do have transparency. There is the truth on that
video.

WRIGHT: And the piggy back, what Mr. Crawford is saying, there have been
things that have been released. The 911 call has been released. The
cruiser cam footage that shows people running out of Wal-Mart after Mr.
Crawford was shot and killed, that`s been released. The Beaver Creek
police chief came out and publicly exonerated these officers. Two officers
were involved. One officer is already back at work while the investigation
is supposedly still pending.

HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney Wright, you have appealed to the Department of
Justice to Attorney General Eric Holder who made an appearance in Ferguson,
and who last week announced they are going to be investigating the Ferguson
police department in Missouri. What is it that you want from the
Department of Justice? What is the claim there?

WRIGHT: We want the Department of Justice to get involved and take over
the investigation and prosecution of these officers.

HARRIS-PERRY: And why do you think the involvement of the federal
government would bring a more just result?

WRIGHT: Well, because we believe that`s going to create more transparency.
Again. The video has not been released. Everything that we`ve seen
regarding this situation has been decidedly one sided. So we believe that
the Department of Justice needs to get involved and investigate in addition
to take over the prosecution of these officers.

HARRIS-PERRY: Attorney Wright.

CRAWFORD: And piggybacking, let me just add this. Frankly, it`s
insulting. Because it`s a conflict of interest. It`s clearly a conflict
of interest with the attorney general being from that area, from Green
County. So essentially we are in his backyard. And so he should
automatically from that standpoint alone recuse himself of the situation
and head it over to the U.S. attorney`s office.

HARRIS-PERRY: In Cincinnati, Attorney Michael Wright and John Crawford
Jr., and Mr. Crawford, beyond everything else I just want to say I`m very,
very sorry for the loss of your child.

CRAWFORD: Thank you.

WRIGHT: Thank you.

HARRIS-PERRY: Up next, we are going to switch gears and show you what
happens when we send Jamie Kilstein out to file a special report for MHP.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Maybe you`ve noticed it here in television. We like to
label our segments. We come up with catchy things like David Letterman`s
"Top Ten" or Rachel Maddow`s Best News Thing in the World. But it`s harder
than you might think. Now, we`ve tried a bunch here on this show. And
we`ve gotten rid of many of them. When we tried out for a while was
something we called "Wow, Seriously." And it was a little segment which we
tried to kind of tell you about some of the stories that we read during the
week that simply made us go, "Wow, Seriously?" But if you`re a regular
viewer of the show you`ve seen it and you also know that we pretty much
bailed on it a couple of months ago. That is until now. Because this week
we read a story that simply left us saying, "Come on, wow, seriously?"

It was this one. In "the New York Times." Buy condo, then add parking
spot for $1 million. Uh-huh. $1 million. The price of the place to keep
your presumably very expensive car right here in New York City beneath a
building not yet built on a place formally designed for of all things,
cars. The Times" reports that the million dollar parking spots will be
offered on a first-come, first-serve basis to buyers at the ten-unit luxury
apartment building being developed by Atlas Capita Group at Bruman Crosby
Street, the former site of a parking lot. First come, first serve. There
are only 10 million-dollar spots to be had so hurry on over. OK, you can
imagine we really needed to know more. So we sent our "Nerdland" friend
Jamie Kilstein, co-host of the show "Citizens Radio and coauthor of the
forthcoming book "New Sale" out on assignment in the neighborhood of
Manhattan known as SoHo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE KILSTEIN: So there is a parking spot in New York City that`s going
to cost a million dollars?

SHAUN OSHER, CEO CORE REAL ESTATE: Ten of them, actually.

KILSTEIN: 10?

$10 million?

OSHER: No, ten parking spot.

KILSTEIN: Ten parking spots.

OSHER: Right.

KILSTEIN: A million dollars each. Tell us about how this first kind of
game to fruition.

OSHER: Well, we`ve been selling parking spots for a number of years. SoHo
is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the United States. And I
felt that the value of the parking spot in this location in prime SoJo is a
million dollars. And usually these things are dictated by supply and
demand.

KILSTEIN: Would they be able to like donate their spot to the homeless
when they`re gone to like crash there for a little bit?

OSHER: I don`t think so. You have to live in the building to have a
parking spot.

KILSTEIN: So I couldn`t like rent it out to like my poor like artist
friends?

OSHER: No, you couldn`t rent it out.

KILSTEIN: Because I feel like this parking spot is probably going to be
more roomy than their studio apartments right now.

OSHER: Actually, know, the parking spots are about 150 to 200 square feet.

KILSTEIN: OK. So what do you think of the idea of a million dollar
parking space in Soho.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I wish I had a million dollars for a parking space.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Only if it was laced in gold. Only.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a bike. That would be a waste of money, I
think.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my gosh!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s the right response.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So when you`re in London and you`re making fun of
Americans, is a million dollar parking space something you would use?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, it wouldn`t have been the first thing, but now I
think it might be, yeah.

KILSTEIN: On a scale from one to class war, how mad are you that a $1
million parking space exists.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not on that meter.

KILSTEIN: What meter would it be on?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) meter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who does something like that?

KILSTEIN: That`s a great question. Who do you think does something like
that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Gates.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Gates.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oprah. She probably own all of us anyway. So, she own
all of New York.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone who a million dollars wasn`t anything to.
Maybe like Jay-Z or Beyonce or somebody.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See, I was like mad at whoever had the parking space.
But if it`s Jay-Z and Beyonce, you can`t be mad at them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Connect me with them. Because I have student loans.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump.

KILSTEIN: Would you want to hang out with someone like Donald Trump who
would pay a million dollars for parking space?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, yeah and then no.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Depends on who buys the parking space. We don`t know
if he`s actually a person that`s doing a lot charity.

KILSTEIN: I feel like I want to be your friend. Because you seem like the
kind of person that sees good in everybody. How many juices could you buy
for $1 million?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, too much.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Buy a nice car. Buy lots of clothes. Also nice
house. Pay back my parents. I don`t know. Just not a parking space.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pay back your parents.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.

KILSTEIN: I think your parents will be very happy to hear that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just spend it on clothing.

KILSTEIN: On clothing? See, see, you can still admit to being vain. Like
you`re not even like give it to charity. You`re like, I`ll still spend it
on materialistic things.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely. Just happens to be a very expensive
neighborhood. This is going to be the best luxury building in SoHo, which
is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in New York City, so it makes
sense that there would be a parking spot for a million dollars here. Will
there be people who resent it? I`m sure. But there will also be people
who want to live here, who see the value of this and can afford the
lifestyle.

KILSTEIN: You`re a very charming man.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

KILSTEIN: Can I crash at your place?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No comment.

KILSTEIN: All right. Fair enough.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

HARRIS-PERRY: All right. Thanks to Jamie for taking on this most
difficult assignment. Oh, by the way, you can preorder no, not the parking
space, but instead "Newsfail" co-authored by Jamie Kilstein and Allison
Kilkenny. Right now. Up next, understanding and respecting her story.
There`s more Nerdland at the top of the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry and I would like to
read something.

"I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare. Feeling
like I`m mourning the death of my closest friend. But to have to accept
the fact that it`s reality is a nightmare in itself.

"No one knows the pain that the media, and unwanted options from the public
has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we
regret every day is a horrible thing."

Now I want you to pause. Those were Janay Rice`s words and I want you to
take Janay Rice seriously. It`s very likely that before you knew her name,
you knew her husband, Ray Rice.

February of 2013 he earned a Super Bowl ring with the Baltimore Ravens when
they defeated the San Francisco 49ers. It`s very likely that before you
knew her name, you had seen her unconscious form being dragged from an
elevator by Ray Rice, who was then her fiance.

It`s very likely that before you knew her name, you had seen her sitting
sullenly along Ray Rice during a May 23rd press conference that the Ravens
arranged.

In fact, if you had not been paying very close attention to the story, you
may not even have known her name before seeing the newly released this week
by TMZ Sports video in which Ray Rice punches her in the face and knocks
her unconscious.

In case you missed it, her name is Janay Rice. It might be easy to miss it
because the names we have heard most in recent weeks are Ray Rice,
Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL.

After the most recent video of Ray Rice punching Janay was released, the
Baltimore Ravens terminated his contract. Commissioner Goodell also levied
new punishment extending Rice`s two-game suspension to an indefinite one
shortly after the Ravens fired him.

It seems that everyone has seen the tape, everyone has an opinion.
Everyone wants to weigh in. Here`s what Janay Rice wrote on her Instagram.

"To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his ass off
for his whole life just to gain ratings is horrific. This is our life.

What don`t you all get? If your intentions were to hurt us, embarrass us,
make us feel alone, take all our happiness away, you succeeded on so many
levels."

In response, "The Washington Post" columnist Petula Dvorak, wrote, "Poor
woman. Domestic violence is above all embarrassing. And seeing the part
of her life she thought was behind closed doors broadcast around the world
is humiliating.

"But there will be greater good out of her personal pain."

This position seems to be the opinion of many. On purpose or by default,
it doesn`t matter what Janay says or what she wants as long as her pain and
humiliation serve a greater good. But I want us to pause and say her name,
Janay Rice. I want us to read her words.

"This is our life."

I want us to take her seriously, not because we agree with her, but because
what is happening right now doesn`t seem to have much to do with Janay at
all.

When a survivor chooses to tell her story, it is empowering. When it is
leaked against her will and consent, then it becomes another violation.
When a survivor decides to be an advocate for others, it is empowering.
When her story is used against her will and interest to serve a greater
good, it is abusive.

Firing Ray Rice makes the NFL look better and makes us feel better about
watching. Shaking our heads in disbelief about the poor woman who stayed
with her abuser makes us feel stronger and smarter than she is.

Using the video footage of her abuse to make some larger point about our
political or social agenda makes us feel righteous.

But what happens if we stop worrying about us and start asking about her?

What if the story we took seriously in all of its painful, ugly,
uncomfortable reality was her story, not ours?

Joining us now are NBC national reporter Irin Carmon, also Dewan Smith-
Williams, wife of former NFL offensive lineman, Wally Williams.

Also here is L.Y. Marlowe, founder of Saving Promise, a nonprofit aiming to
stop intimate partner violence. And Madeline Garcia Bigelow, who is
associate director of the Urban Justice Center, and managing director of
The Domestic Violence Project.

In this most recent week as the NFL has decided to get tough on Ray Rice,
who does that help most?

DEWAN SMITH-WILLIAMS, WIFE OF FORMER NFL PLAYER: The NFL. It`s making
them feel like they are correcting the problem or maybe making the problem
better.

But it`s not about making it better or correcting it. It`s about changing
the behavior that has been ongoing for a very, very long time.

And it saddens my heart just to see Janay in the video because you could
see the hurt and pain in her face. And any woman who has been in a
situation where they have been, whether it`s verbally abused, physically
abused, emotionally abused, abuse is abuse.

Any woman that has been in that experience knows that pain without a shadow
of a doubt. And you know, right now, Janay is protecting what she has,
because that`s all she has.

HARRIS-PERRY: When you say that -- I do not want to miss that because I
keep feeling like the story that emerges from this, if you listen to it
with different ears is, the problem isn`t the abuse; the problem is that
the abuse was on video.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Correct.

HARRIS-PERRY: And because the abuse was on video, now we have to take
action. So, women, don`t ever let it be public because if it is public,
then the income for your household, the future for the perp will be
destroyed.

And I don`t know how to wrap my head around, on the one hand, saying, we
cannot tolerate this and, on the other hand, saying, I feel like we just
made a set of policies that are going to push women further into the
darkness.

MADELINE GARCIA BIGELOW, URBAN JUSTICE CENTER: But if I may, we tend to do
that all the time. When there`s an issue we tend to react. And we were
speaking about this in the green room earlier. When there`s an issue, we
react. We enact something and we put no thought, no meaningful thought
into actually how to implement it, how to deal with the root problem.

So it`s like throwing a sponge into the ocean. We`re not dealing with the
problem. We`re not actually asking the people, what is it that you need?

It`s not informed by the victims. It`s not informed by the survivors.
It`s not informed by the families. It`s informed by the laws.

HARRIS-PERRY: And again, in part, undoubtedly part of why it isn`t formed
by the survivors is we can hear from Janay Rice`s testimony, the various
points of public statements, which I want to take seriously because they
are hers. I don`t want to condescend towards her.

But she`s also in a position where she has repeatedly refused to want to
bring any kind of punishment onto Ray Rice. And so part of why there are
so many laws around the country, for example, that take it out of the hands
of the survivor is that this seems to be part of the process of violence
against our domestic and intimate partners.

L.Y. MARLOWE, FOUNDER, SAVING PROMISE: Oh, absolutely. And I think that
this is a defining moment. Janay`s story, as tragic it was and as
traumatic, I suspect, as it is for her family, this is a moment that we can
take a pause and say, wait a moment, this is a time that we can shift what
has happened, take the spotlight off of this, use Janay`s story and bring
about a level of prevention and education and awareness to make sure that
Janay`s story is really celebrated in a way that other women will know that
I can come forward. I don`t have to be ashamed.

But to victimize her for a second time, by making her feel like she should
be ashamed of what has happened, that she is being chosen to make a
decision between her -- whether she should stay or whether she should leave
is yet again victimizing her and making us all feel like this is not
something that we should want to see in the public eye, to see a woman like
that -- she`s already been ashamed. She`s already been victimized.

This is a moment to bring forth greater prevention, greater education and
awareness.

HARRIS-PERRY: Irin, as I was showing -- we made a choice not to show the
video for any of a variety of reasons besides the fact that I`m appalled
that it exists in the public space in that way.

But even just the still photos, I saw every person at this table cringe
physically when those images came up.

And I think keeping, again, it is one thing to talk about legal action,
punishment, even potentially NFL professional sanctions against Ray Rice.
It`s another thing that all of us who do not know this woman`s story, who
have never met her child, who don`t know, you know, have seen this moment
in her life.

IRIN CARMON, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Right. And I will say that I have not
watched the video out of a decision not to revictimize her, which is in
tension, in fact, with my being a reporter. I mean, I think there are
things I have heard from other people that you can learn from the video,
such as the callousness with which he drags her body.

But I think that people play different roles in the situation. And each,
you know, the choices that she makes within her relationship are her own.
The choices that everybody made along the way are accountable.

Ray Rice is accountable. On some level, when we think about we`ve had
these sexual assaults that have been documented on video in which victims
without their consent were revictimized. But on the other hand the level
of believing women is so low here. We had so much disbelief at women`s
own, when they`ve chosen to tell their story, that it requires a video.

HARRIS-PERRY: And I mean, the thing that was for me this week just not
only -- it`s not like we haven`t known for months clearly what happened in
that elevator. But it took the actual video of seeing it.

And I keep thinking, but I just know -- I just know that I know that I know
that while we present in news stories, as though everyone is watching it
appalled, you just know not everyone is watching it appalled. That just
like we enjoy the violence and thrill of the NFL itself that there is --
that that`s part of what is going on.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- violated when you`re watching the NFL, you`re also
watching brain injury be inflicted.

SMITH-WILLIAMS: And then also, with Janay, even the way that she presented
her statement. Even when you have been a victim, the people that are in
your inner circle, that when you decide to make a decision to just come out
and share, not to throw anyone under the bus, but the people in your close
circle question what you`re doing.

What are you doing? Why are you sharing? You need to be careful what
you`re saying. He could lose their job. So you`re being judged and
questioned again within the people that you trust and feel should be
supporting you.

HARRIS-PERRY: We`re going to come back on this. But as we go out, I do
want to point out and I want to talk about this when we come back, about
the specific ways in which race and documentation status and poverty
influence all of this.

Robin Givens wrote this week about, "Being a black woman, you feel you want
to protect your man. You think the black men in America have it so
difficult anyway. So now you`re turning them in. It feels like the
ultimate betrayal.

"And maybe Janay Rice is feeling a little bit of that, though I don`t want
to speak for her."

More on her story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: We are back and discussing domestic violence in light of the
latest case depicting NFL player Ray Rice abusing his then fiancee, now
wife, Janay Rice.

We have survivors at the table. And I`m wondering as you have watched this
play out, what your thoughts have been about Janay Rice.

SMITH-WILLIAMS: Well, I know that she`s feeling very isolated, feeling
that, like I said before, that she`s protecting what she has.

My concern for her now is now that this has all come public and she has
made the decision to stay, in the future, when there`s disagreements in the
home, is everything going to come back to this situation, because she has
allowed our public life, our personal life to roll over into the public,
which has affected his career.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right, that he will see it that way, that he will see her as
the -- potentially as the instrument of --

SMITH-WILLIAMS: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: But the fact -- so for me, that`s precisely why then making
this policy is a difficult one because it does potentially -- I keep
thinking we know that black women are less likely to tell in general
because we know the consequences of calling the police on a black man.

We know that undocumented women are less likely to tell because they risk
the possibility of both their own deportation and that of their beloved.
And so somehow the harsh penalties end up penalizing the survivor as much
as the.

SMITH-WILLIAMS: Well, and then, and calling the police. When the police
are called, you`re coming. You`re upset. I mean, things have happened.
There`s been physicalities going on in the home.

The officers come in and they talk football. They want the guy`s
autograph.

MARLOWE: And another thing I think people don`t realize is that when women
leave, they`re 70 times -- percent more likely to be killed by an abusive
partner. As you know --

HARRIS-PERRY: Leaving does not make you safer.

MARLOWE: -- leaving does not make you safer. And as you know, I come from
four generations of women that survived over 60 years of domestic violence.

Had my grandmother left, had my mother left, had I left, had my daughter
left, we all could have been killed. And so I think we need to realize
that it`s not as simple as people might think it is.

When you look at Janay and say why does she stay? Women stay for many
reasons, out of love, out of loyalty, out of financial dependency, out of
staying for the children and, most importantly, out of fear.

But regardless of why she says, what we need to think about is what can we
do to help?

What can we do to prevent this?

What can we do to educate women and make sure women know what their rights
are and how they can be safe.

HARRIS-PERRY: Maybe it`s my social media world. But doesn`t it feel like
the question is asked more frequently why does she stay than why does he
abuse?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.

HARRIS-PERRY: There`s that lovely hashtag, #WhyIStayed, which is
expressing so much of what you just expressed here, a lot about all of
those interdependences and challenges and there`s Beverly Gooden, who
really began that hashtag and who brought so many voices out into the
social media realm on it.

So why don`t we ask, excuse me, Mr. Rice, why do you abuse? And if we have
facts, then maybe we get to this before it`s a question of that
intersection of these -- of --
MARLOWE: And you know, one of the interesting things is that this is
really a defining moment. Because before this unfolded, this is the
dialogue and the awareness that has been increased as a result of this, can
take this tragic moment and transform it to a defining moment for us to
really do something different about it.

HARRIS-PERRY: Oh. Do you really think so?

Do you think that`s what we do?

MARLOWE: We do not do it. I`m saying we make the same mistake. The last
time we had this kind of dialogue and discussion was back when the Rihanna
Brown, Rihanna and Chris Brown. Then we had this big public outcry. We
had a lot of discussion about it.

And then when the spotlights were gone, it went away. And Rihanna went
back on with her life and Chris went on with his life. And we did nothing
to avoid it or address it.

HARRIS-PERRY: And see, I wonder if it`s in part because it hits the
spotlight when there`s wealth and celebrity involved. So in reading your
recent piece, Irin, and you talk about the things that we could do that
actually could make life better and safer. You talk about taking away
abusers` guns, enabling economic survival and strengthening housing
protections.

Those are things that we don`t think of in a Rihanna-Chris Brown case
because these are people with such means. So we don`t end up having the
conversation about domestic violence in the context of a lack of those
kinds of needs.

CARMON: They`re insulated by their relative privilege. They`re insulated
by resources. But I think for a lot of people the precariousness in which
their life is already taking place is exacerbated by the abuse and makes
them more likely to stay, especially if you have policies that make their
lives more difficult.

So for example, there was a woman who was living in a town that had an
ordinance that if you had the police come to you, we`re going to have
problems.

You have to wait until after the commercial so I can say those words. So
hold onto that for just one second. But I do want to follow up on that one
tick here before we go to break, which is this idea of the policies that we
have could actually make things worse for survivors.

BIGELOW: Well, because I think we don`t ever take the three-pronged
approach. I think that you have to make the abuser accountable. And
that`s where policies and laws come in. You have to provide every single
person who`s a victim of domestic violence with the essential tools of life
to be able to get out.

Why can`t we get out? Because of child support.

Why can`t we get out? Because of child care.

Why can`t we get out? Because you may be monolingual in a different
language. And you can`t proceed because you`re undocumented, because of
housing. That`s the majority of people, because of the news we still
report it as domestic incidents. They`re not incidents. They`re criminal
acts.

And if he`d hit an unrelated man in the elevator like that, would he have
ended up in a first-time offenders diversion program?

BIGELOW: We shouldn`t have diversion programs.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: But I can`t. Because I spend too much time on this show
saying we shouldn`t -- OK. We got more. Stay with us.

Up next, why you could be at risk of losing your home for reporting that
you`ve been attacked. I`m going to let Irin finish her sentence when I
come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Neighbors of Lakisha Briggs in Norristown, Pennsylvania,
called the police in June of 2012 when her ex-boyfriend allegedly stabbed
her in the necessary with broken glass.

She survived, only to face the possibility of eviction, thanks to a local
ordinance. According to the ACLU, the ordinance encouraged landlords to
evict tenants when the police are called to a property three times in four
months for disorderly behavior, including for incidents of domestic
violence.

That last part is essential because that`s the reason why Briggs (ph) had
stopped calling the cops on her ex-boyfriend, even when he allegedly
attacked her with a brick. But when she was stabbed, the neighbor`s call
triggered a threat from the city to forcibly remove her from her home.

But on Monday the ACLU announced that Northtown would repeal the ordinance
and is paying Briggs and her lawyers $495,000 in damages.

So Irin, this is -- like I keep thinking, all right, you want to do
something. These policies actually revictimize those who are trying to
survive this.

CARMON: So absolutely any time where there`s an ordinance that is meant,
that is harming victims, that seems like an easy one.

Places where you could get unemployment insurance, these are many states
are passing this, but there`s still not even all of the states that have a
minimum floor for unemployment insurance for women if they need to leave
their jobs, if they decide to leave, if they`re economically vulnerable
after leaving.

But I think --

HARRIS-PERRY: But it`s not easy. I mean, in Louisiana, Greater New
Orleans Warehousing Action Center, which my husband is executive director,
just brought an attempt to keep -- to pass a law so you can`t evict victims
of domestic violence. So it seems like it (INAUDIBLE). But it`s not.

(CROSSTALK)

CARMON: -- not in the context of this table, where we all have
(INAUDIBLE). But what I`m saying is that`s an obvious first place to
start. I think there are other places where we really have to balance a
lot of competing difficult things. Such as when we talk about calling the
police and what is going to happen to the man who you call. This is
something I think we`ve been alluding to but that needs to be directly
responded to, which is this fear of increased criminalization, particularly
within communities of color that disincentivize women from calling from
police, even when it means that they might die.

And the backdrop is that it used to be that the police wouldn`t do
anything. Right? That`s the context. And that`s an important context to
not forget as we raise doubts about the criminalization.

But it used to be that -- there are documented cases of women being
violently assaulted in front of police officers and they didn`t do
anything. So we certainly don`t want to go back to a model like that.

But there`s numerous studies showing that in contexts where arrests take
place and then they stay together the woman is then victimized or the
partner is then victimized even more afterwards. So we have to think about
whether arrests and the mandatory arrest policies that we have on the books
are the best way to help victims.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. Because I`m thinking -- you said it perfectly, well,
there shouldn`t even be the diversion programs. So I spend so much time on
this show talking about not overcriminalizing anyone in the country, but
particularly the ways in which it impacts black men.

We have spent weeks covering these stories of police showing up and
shooting and killing unarmed black men. If you are the beloved, even if
you are the beloved who is being abused in the most horrible ways, you may
not pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1 if you think that when the police
arrive, they are going to shoot your spouse, your boyfriend, the father of
your children.

Like racism actually makes women less safe in the context of domestic
violence because you`re trying to balance all of those things at the same
time.

BIGELOW: Right. That`s right.

And I think that one of the primary issues that we have is that we keep
looking towards the courts and we keep looking at legislation as the catch-
all and as the savior of what is going to make these relationships better.

It`s not. It doesn`t make you safer. It does provide you some relief in
certain circumstances that assists you in getting housing, to have that
piece of paper. An order of protection does not stop a bullet. It doesn`t
stop someone from breaking down your door. It doesn`t stop someone from
petitioning for visitation of the children or custody.

So we go back to that third prong that I didn`t get to, which is we need to
deal with this from the very beginning. We need to make people
accountable. We need to speak about healthy relationships. We need to
allow for a really robust set of variables and doors that victims and
survivors can walk through and say, this is how I want to deal with it.

We need to honor the fact that if we`re saying we want someone to feel
empowered, it`s to make their decisions. And you can`t make a decision if
you don`t have viable options.

HARRIS-PERRY: When you talk about starting at the beginning, just to go
back to the Rice case in particular, is the NFL too late?

I keep thinking by the time they`re professional athletes, it`s not the
first time they`ve been engaging in intimate partner violence. It is
occurring in the colleges. It`s occurring in the high schools.

When do we start earlier? What`s the --

MARLOWE: We start as soon as we can. I purport that we need to start as
early as middle school to start educating kids.

And again, the other thing is we have got to move away from this reactive
model. Laws, policies, legislation, like you said, Madeline, does not
solve the problem.

What solves the problem is greater prevention and education and awareness,
getting ahead of the problem proactively and not waiting until we hear the
Janay story, until we hear the Rihanna story, until we`re sitting around
this table and talking about it yet again, we have to stop to think about
what can we do differently going forward?

And that`s why I`m very strong about what division for Saving Promises in
terms of putting forward greater prevention, putting forward greater
education and awareness and engaging our communities at a level to really
mobilize around a call to action to make sure landowners and lawmakers and
court systems and justices and law enforcement all are trained and
acknowledge what is needed to be done in terms of education.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS-PERRY: When we come back after the break, we`re going to have an
important update on a story we first told you about last week, the Oklahoma
police officer accused of sexually assaulting eight different women.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: We`ve been talking about the vulnerability women sometimes
face with loved ones, but now I would like to update you on a story we
first told you about last week, a story about the dangerous vulnerabilities
some women face with interacting with those who are sworn to serve and
protect them.

On August 29th Oklahoma police officer Daniel Holtzclaw was charged with
sexually assaulting at least eight women. He faces 16 felony counts of
sexual abuse. Prosecutors say he used his authority as an officer to force
women to expose themselves and perform sex acts.

Holtzclaw, through his attorney, Scott Adams, denies all charges. The
officer was released September 5th, after his bond was lowered from $5
million to $500,000. He`s now under house arrest, where the court has
ordered him to remain until he -- while he awaits trial.

The women Holtzclaw is accused of assaulting are all between the ages of 34
and 58 and they share at least one commonality. They are all black women.

The Oklahoma State Conference of the NAACP is requesting the Department of
Justice file hate crime charges against Holtzclaw. The president of the
NAACP`s Oklahoma chapter, Anthony Douglas, has called for a heightened
focus on the case, which initially received mostly local coverage and leads
the effort to classify the allegations against Holtzclaw as hate crimes.

Joining me now from Oklahoma City is Anthony Douglas, president of the
Oklahoma State Conference of the NAACP.

Nice to have you.

ANTHONY DOUGLAS, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP: Thank
you, Ms. Perry. Thank you for having me on your show.

HARRIS-PERRY: Absolutely.

So tell me. Why are you asking for a hate crimes designation?

What difference would that make?

DOUGLAS: Well, Ms. Perry, what difference I`m looking at and me and my
staff looked at, that these, there are a total of eight African-American
women who has, that we know of, who have came (sic) forward. And so we
look at the Northeast Oklahoma City community, and we looked at these eight
women, so we wanted to submit that as a hate crime because we don`t know,
was he racially profiling these women or not?

HARRIS-PERRY: Now you said to the reporter from BuzzFeed, who initially
reported this story out before we started talking about it on air, that you
were appalled and maybe a little surprised that there wasn`t more national
media attention, especially in the wake of Ferguson and the shooting of
Mike Brown/

Do you think it`s because it`s about women? Do you think it`s because it`s
about sexual assault rather than death?

Why do you think it took a while to get us focused on this story?

DOUGLAS: Well, I think it may have taken a while to focus on this story
because of all the events that was then happening around dealing with
African-Americans and policing and all that. But one thing I want to do is
applaud the media for now, you have taken a great interest in this story.
And even because of these women being abused, no women deserve the right to
be abused, even by a police officer.

HARRIS-PERRY: But just hold for me just one second. Because you said
earlier that there are cases of women being abused in front of the police.
This is a story of allegedly women being abused by the police. And it just
feels to me again like, if you have very little trust in police because of
these sorts of incidents, how that makes it more difficult to call and
report.

CARMON: Any situation where there`s disproportionate power being levied is
a situation in which sexual abuse gets covered up.

And obviously the police hold a great amount of power in our society. I
think if you read Jessica Testa`s reporting on this, which has been really
excellent, it seems clear that the mistake that the perpetrator made in
this case allegedly was to abuse the wrong kind of woman. He abused a
middle class woman, who did feel comfortable calling the police.

Other targets were people who had criminal records and already feared
further sanction, and he took advantage of the fact that they were already
disempowered and afraid of going to prison.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, I wanted to -- let me come back to you, Mr. Douglas. I
wonder, because one of the things that we`ve heard is that many of these
women not only were African-American women, but many of them may have
themselves had criminal backgrounds, which is potentially or at least
allegedly why this officer may have allegedly abused them.

As you all are doing this work of trying to get justice for these women,
what are they saying about their own anxiety or shame about having had
criminal records themselves?

DOUGLAS: Well, one of the things that I have talked to and I`ve said that
we`re not focused on the criminal record. Every woman has a right to feel
safe and free and should not be abused by people who are there to protect
and serve them.

So my focus about their criminal record is not important. It`s the abuse
that more is important to me, especially from a police officer who is there
to serve and protect them.

HARRIS-PERRY: Hold for me again one more moment, Mr. Douglas. This kind
of alleged violence in the context of police. I wonder, because we also
see policing not only in African-American communities, but often in
communities where there are presumed to be many immigrants of people who
are undocumented, similar concern about communities and families getting
broken up, does this ring true for some of the work that you have done with
the community?

BIGELOW: Oh, I think absolutely it rings true. When you`re looking at
domestic violence in terms of power and control, you`re looking at
different ways that an abuser can control, can assert control over a
victim.

If the victim is undocumented, then what`s the greatest way to control
them? If you tell, if you call, if you don`t listen, we`re going to call
the police. You`re going to be deported. You`re illegal. I`m going to
keep the children. I`m going to get custody of the kids because the kids
in almost any relationship, where there are children, oftentimes they`re
used as a pawn.

So what you have is someone that really feels that it becomes even more
dangerous for them to reach out for assistance and support, which really
just kind of closes the door. And then you have reports like this.

It that is part of the trickle. That is part of the trickle of -- you have
domestic violence, but the people are suffering racism. You have domestic
violence where people are suffering sexism. And when you have real world
examples where it`s happening, all that does is further strengthens the
metal, if you will, of not wanting to reach out.

Mr. Douglas, just this one brief last question.

Have you gotten a response yet from the Department of Justice about your
interest in having them come in and investigate this as a hate crime?

DOUGLAS: At the present moment I have not received a response from them.
But we`re waiting patiently on that response.

HARRIS-PERRY: In Oklahoma City, Anthony Douglas of the NAACP, thank you
for sounding the alarm and for asking us to pay attention. And thank you
for being here today.

DOUGLAS: And thank you for having me.

HARRIS-PERRY: Also thanks to my guests here in New York City, Irin Carmon,
Dewan Smith-Williams, L.Y. Marlowe and Madeline Garcia Bigelow.

Up next, my letter of the week coming just on the heels of New York`s
Fashion Week.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Even though I spend most of the show behind a desk, I always
put some thought into picking out my shoes because I love fancy footwear.
I even have a whole shelf of shoes in my office. Some are my show hosting
shoes and others are for when I`m running errands or just doing my morning
run with my youngest daughter in her stroller. For every occasion there is
a shoe.

So I understand the intent of Nine West`s new ad campaign and what the
company`s senior vice president for marketing meant when he said, quote,
"We have to change the way we talk about occasions, because women are
modern now and shop for a different reason."

Only I`m not so sure Nine West`s campaign really represents modern women,
which is why the company is getting my letter this week.

Dear Nine West, it`s me, Melissa. The display window at the Nine West near
my studio here at 30 Rock is my happy place, because your shoes are two of
my favorite things, affordable and fashionable. And I always get the best
customer service from the Nine West clerks, who spend all day on their feet
taking care of other people`s feet.

Which is why I was so distressed by what I saw the last time I checked out
your store window because the company`s message to women in your new ad
campaign seems to have gotten off on the wrong foot.

One ad features leopard print pumps and the tagline, "Starter husband
hunting." Now there`s nothing wrong with a woman strutting her stuff or,
as you say, looking for Mr. Right or Mr. Right Now.

But why call the shoe "Starter husband hunting"?

In an era where the woman is the main breadwinner in four out of 10 homes,
is this really what women are on the hunt for? A husband? And one that
she doesn`t even plan to keep?

There`s also the print ad that shows a woman with a pair of flip-flops
peeking out of her fashionable Nine West bag with the tagline,
"Anticipatory Walk of Shame." Now I always celebrate women`s right to
enjoy their sexuality.

But if you really want to appeal to the modern woman, why shame her?

Why not call it the stride of pride?

I mean, if men had a shoe for the morning after, you know that`s what they
would call it.

And then there`s the shoe for the First Day of Kindergarten with this
tagline, "The bus arrives and so do the waterworks. Then it hits you,
Mommy now has the weeks off."

Unless, of course, Mommy is among the women who make up nearly half of our
nation`s workforce. Those women are likely heading back to the office
after dropping the kids off at school.

And that`s the real issue with this ad campaign. It seems woefully out of
touch with the modern woman that it is supposed to be celebrating.

Husband hunting? Shame after sex? Just who do you think is wearing these
shoes? June Cleaver?

If you`re really trying to stay in stride with the 21st century woman, why
not sell them on shoes that are in step with women from all steps of walk
of life? Like the I March for Justice shoe or the Look Who Is Boss boots.

How about the I`m a Champion shoe? The I Ran and Won shoe? Or shoes for
women on the move, for those taking a stand on women`s rights, no matter
how long it takes or redefining our understanding of the right to be a
woman, for those who have to stay on their toes, for the modern woman who
brings the funny and makes the money, the shoes for women who woke up like
this. I know.

As one executive explained, the ads are meant to make noise and give
attention but, Nine West, if you want to get the right kind of attention
for women, you cannot have one foot stuck in outdated ideas of the past
even if that foot is wearing a really cute shoe.

Sincerely, Melissa.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: As the NFL is grappling with its controversy, something that
we`re going to get into much more on tomorrow`s program, it is worth noting
that there`s also progress being made on at least one front, the inclusion
of LGBT athletes.

Recently Michael Sam barely missed the cut to play for his home state team,
the St. Louis Rams. Sam landed a spot on the Dallas Cowboys` practice
squad, making him officially the first openly gay player in the NFL and
showing that even in red state America, football is for everyone.

Now, in the wake of that historic moment, this week`s foot soldier is
looking to take the pro sport a step further.

Wade Davis, who you might recognize as a frequent guest on this show, is
one of only a handful of openly gay former NFL players and is also the
executive director of the You Can Play Project, an LGBT sports advocacy
group, devoted to ensuring equality, respect and safety for all athletes,
regardless of sexual orientation.

His organization partners with teams like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the
Minnesota Vikings and the New York Giants and the St. Louis Rams to bring
together LGBT organizations, supportive players and fans.

Through their High Five Initiative, they`ve taken current NFL players to
their local LGBT youth-serving organizations in order to help young gay
athletes break down the invisible barriers between professional sports
culture and gay communities.

Tomorrow, Wade and the You Can Play Project will partner with the Tampa Bay
Buccaneers for the NFL`s first-ever LGBT Community Gameday, a tailgating
event that will bring together LGBT advocates, businesses, fans and players
to promote equality in the league.

For giving us a reason to feel hopeful about the future of America`s
favorite sport at a time when it is sorely needed, Wade Davis is our foot
soldier of the week.

So I mean, I was already done with the NFL after we fumbled in overtime as
the New Orleans Saints (INAUDIBLE). I just have all the feelings. But it
really has been a tough week. And yet when you look at this, tell us a
little bit about LGBT Community Gameday and why we should feel good about
this?

WADE DAVIS, YOU CAN PLAY PROJECT: What`s really great is that the Tampa
Bay Bucs are really trying to show that they care about their communities
and specifically the LGBT community. So there is a Gameday event, there`s
a tailgating event, where we`ve invited some corporations, some LGBT
organizations, young people to say that, hey, the Tampa Bay Bucs care about
everyone, including their LGBT brothers and sisters.

HARRIS-PERRY: So when you are working with young people, with You Can
Play, you know, it seems when we look at public opinion data, the big gap
around LGBT attitudes is really an older folks- younger folks gap, it`s not
so much conservative or Republican-Democrat or anything like that.

Do you find that in this, too, that young people are ready to all play
together?

DAVIS: Yes. You know, what`s really wonderful about the High Five
Initiative is that when we took some players to the Hetrick-Martin
Institute, the kids left there saying, can we get Troy Benson back? Can we
get Dwight Hollier back? Because they saw so much of themselves in these
actual players.

And the players saw these young people as not as at-risk, but at-promise.
Just because they see that these young kids have a promise. And if they
can remove that actual barrier that we can actually see some coalition
building and some solidarity work that can happen, that can get young
people to say, hey, I want to play the sport of football. I want to play
the sport of basketball.

HARRIS-PERRY: So do we want young people to play the sport of football --
and I ask that in a serious way in part because part of the work of LGBT
inclusion as a broad agenda has been inclusion in marriage, inclusion in
military service.

And yet those are also institutions that we have criticisms of, right? The
problems of marriage, the problems of military service and similarly
inclusion in the NFL right at a time when we`re saying is the NFL something
we would want to be included in?


DAVIS: No, you know, and I`ll be honest with you. The NFL is really
bumbling this issue right now. But when I met with Roger Goodell, he was
intentional about saying, hey, I want you to come in and tell me how to fix
this actual work, that all players can feel safe to be open and honest
about who they are.

And to be honest, I`ve had no pushback from any owner, any player. And
we`ve been having some hard but very important conversations about why it`s
important that athletes are allowed to show up on their team as their
authentic selves.

HARRIS-PERRY: So speaking of pushback, let`s talk a little bit about
Michael Sam and the Cowboys. So he ends up in Texas. I understand you got
a call from the Cowboys in part to make sure that the community is being
safe and embracing him and all of that.

DAVIS: Yes. So when Michael Sam was drafted by the Rams, I played for
Coach Fisher. I also have a teammate who`s the special teams coach for the
Rams. So they brought me in and said, hey, make sure that our players know
how to show up as a loving presence for Michael Sam.

And a lot of our work is around debunking myths that exist around gay
athletes then also letting coaches know that if you allow a player to not
live in the space of double consciousness or not in a space of
hypervigilance, that you get an immediate better player. Therefore your
team is better.

So all these of things coaches get.

HARRIS-PERRY: Wade Davis, when you come on the TV show and we`re talking
about sports and you quote Du Bois and double consciousness, you make me
very happy. And it`s a high-level nerd moment. And so I appreciate it. I
appreciate your work and have a great and exciting day tomorrow with the
Tampa Bay Buccaneers and LGBT Community Gameday.

That`s our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. I`m going
to see you tomorrow morning, 10:00 am Eastern. We have a really jam-
packed show. Harry Smith of NBC News is going to be here as we try to get
our heads around just what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is
doing in Iowa.

We`re going to dive deep on all of the issues facing the NFL and we might
even have a little something to say about the fancy new gizmos unveiled by
Apple this week.

I promise you one thing`s for sure, it`s going to be high nerd. See you
tomorrow morning, 10:00 am. Right now, time for a preview of "WEEKENDS
WITH ALEX WITT."

Hi, Alex.

ALEX WITT, MSNBC HOST: We love and expect high nerd from you, Melissa.
Just, hey, maybe Hillary Clinton likes steak. I mean, she`s doing the
steak fry. I don`t know. Anyway, right, we`ll have that show tomorrow and
I`ll be watching that.

Meantime, everyone, we are going to talk about what difference just one
word can make in the U.S. military action against ISIS and why it`s
suddenly being spoken.

Also an American tourist is about to go on trial in North Korea. We`re
going to take a look at what justice in that communist country looks like.

And she`s written two books on it. You`re going to hear advice from the
BBC`s Katty Kay for all you women in the workplace.

So don`t go anywhere. I`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)




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.
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.>






WATCH 'THE MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY SHOW' SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AT 10:00 A.M. ET ON MSNBC.


Sponsored links

Resource guide