Skip navigation

PoliticsNation, Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: POLITICS NATION
Date: January 28, 2015
Guest: Jonathan Capehart, Jeffrey Rosen, Ed Rendell, Lauren Goode, Shira
Center, Wes Moore, Stephanie Miller

REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: Thanks to you for tuning in.

Tonight`s lead, a case of a mistaken identity, the Senate Judiciary
Committee today is holding his these confirmation hearings for the nominee
to be the next attorney general of the United States. Her name is Loretta
Lynch.

But you wouldn`t know that by listening to Republicans today because
instead of discussing Miss Lynch`s record, they were obsessed with somebody
else.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: Mr. Holder`s record is certainly on our
minds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s what happens when an attorney general of the
United States views himself and these are his own words as the president`s
wing man.

Attorney General Holder answered that the same way.

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: I have long time expressed my deep
concerns.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me stipulate, you are not Eric Holder, are you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I am not, sir.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: That`s right. It`s apparently a big news flash for Republicans.
Loretta Lynch is not Eric Holder. They are, in fact, two different people,
but Republicans seem to have a hard time understanding that.

They are reviving their tired old smears against Attorney General Holder
because there`s been nothing, but a partisan phrase for Miss Lynch. She`d
be the first African-American woman to serve as attorney general and she
has a strong record as U.S. attorney.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE: If confirmed as attorney
general, I pledge to you today and the American people that the
constitution, the bedrock of our system of justice will be my load star as
I exercise the power and the responsibility of that position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: They can`t go after qualifications so, instead, Republicans try
again and again to criticize or praise and to get her to criticize or
praise the president`s executive action on immigration. But Miss Lynch
wouldn`t bite. Here`s what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LYNCH: Certainly, it seems to be a reasonable discussion of legal
precedent, the relevant statute congressional actions along with the
enforcement discretion of the agency and I don`t see any reason to doubt
the reasonableness of those views.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: The president`s action is reasonable and it fits with precedent.
And today, Republicans completely missed the mark in the Lynch hearings.

Joining me now is Jeffrey Rosen of the National Constitution Center and
Jonathan Capehart of "The Washington Post." Thank you being here.

JEFFREY ROSEN, NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER: Thanks, Rev.

JONATHAN CAPEHART, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Thank you, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Jonathan, a lot of talk about Eric Holder today. Did the
Republicans forget who they were confirming?

CAPEHART: No. But they reminded the American people of just why, in their
own words, the office, the department has become politicized. That`s came
up a lot during the hearings. Are you going to politicize the office?
It`s time to take politics out of the office.

Well, they have made -- Republicans on the Hill have made Attorney General
Holder and fighting with him a proxy for President Obama and fighting with
the president.

So, if anything, Republicans need to look at their own actions and their
own conduct when it comes to politicization of the office. Loretta Lynch
was sitting there in front of them. Her father was behind her, the
strident of her late brother, a Navy SEAL, who died in 2009, was on the
table.

She was there, asking for their vote, for confirmation, but instead, they
wanted to refight and re-litigate past arguments and battles that they had
with the sitting attorney general, Eric Holder.

SHARPTON: Past arguments that I might add was bogus against Attorney
General Holder --

CAPEHART: Right.

SHARPTON: -- I mean, none of it amounted to anything. But Jeffrey, they
really tried to go after Miss Lynch on the president`s action on
immigration. What did you think of her answer?

ROSEN: It was the mark of a superb lawyer. She said, I find it
constitutionally reasonable, as you said in your great intro, she said that
she`d make the constitution her touchstone. She took care of the stress
that the Office of the Legal Counsel had disapproved of some of the
proposed moves on immigration.

And she stressed that she would always follow the law, that this was fully
supported by precedent. She didn`t say whether she personally approved it,
which was a nice lawyer`s dodge although she did unequivocally say that she
personally supported capital punishment.

Putting her on that score to the right of Attorney General Holder and when
she talked about NSA surveillance too, she said she thought it was
effective and constitutional. She said that unlike General Holder, she
supported marijuana prosecutions. So it was really interesting -- she
certainly backed up the president on immigration but --

SHARPTON: No, she`s to the right of Attorney General Holder on some
issues. As he has pointed out, he`s been against the death penalty, as
some of us are, and the president is for it. So there`s always been a very
open candor about that.

Jonathan, Republicans brought up a lot of other issues in the hearing
today. Listen to some of the other things they raised.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: This administration`s failure to apply
the law in an even handed way according to the -- this goes to the IRS.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: What`s the legal difference
between a state -- a ban on same-sex marriage being un-constitutional, but
a ban on polygamy being constitutional?

GRASSLEY: Falsely denying basic facts in the "Fast and Furious"
controversy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: So from the IRS to polygamy to "Fast and Furious," anything but
focusing on Miss Lynch`s background and qualifications.

CAPEHART: Right. Again, they are fighting old battles. IRS, there`s no
their there. Same-sex marriage, sorry senators, but it`s legal in about 30
to 36 states depending on how you count it. "Fast and furious," come on.
There`s no their there.

Once again, we are seeing them try to re-litigate battles that have either
been false battles or battles that are being decided by courts, by votes of
the American people in particular states, and this June will be decided by
the Supreme Court of the United States.

SHARPTON: Jeffrey, I want to play some of the legal issues that Miss Lynch
addressed. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Do you think the NSA program, terror surveillance program that we
have in effect today is constitutional? You`re OK with it being
constitutional, from your view point?

LYNCH: Certainly constitutional and effective.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you agree that waterboarding is torture and that
it`s illegal?

LYNCH: Waterboarding is torture, Senator.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And thus illegal?

LYNCH: And thus illegal.

GRAHAM: Do you support the death penalty?

LYNCH: Senator, I believe that the death penalty is an effective penalty.
In fact, my office most recently was able to achieve a death verdict there.

GRAHAM: How about yes?

LYNCH: So we have sought it, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: You know, she has views there that people from both parties can
agree with and also disagree with. I mean, how would you describe Miss
Lynch`s legal approach?

ROSEN: Well, I think that NSA surveillance, as you said, that is going to
get some heat from not only libertarians, but also civil libertarians and
the White House`s own privacy board found that it was not effective. The
lower courts are divided about whether or not it`s constitutional.

It was certainly a measured answer. It`s likely to increase her Republican
support. She only needs three Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to
get through. She might get even more after having unequivocally embraced
not only NSA surveillance, but also the death penalty.

And that was interesting because General Holder reluctantly sought the
death penalty. He didn`t say it was unconstitutional, but Loretta Lynch
went further and said I think it`s not only constitutional but also
effective.

SHARPTON: Then let me ask you this, how do you think she`ll do as the
attorney general?

ROSEN: Well, she`s certainly a great lawyer. She`s superbly well-
qualified. She has said that she`s going to make cybercrime a priority.
This is a real prosecutor who is interested in going after bad guys. I
hope she`ll be an effective voice on race.

Bill Bratton in New York has praised her although General Holder set a high
bar for really trying to bring all sides together. So I think she was an
impressive witness. I think she`s going to be a really strong attorney
general, but she will not be as outspoken and -- for conservatives and
progressive as General Holder was.

SHARPTON: Well, you might have just got her another Republican vote.

ROSEN: I wasn`t trying to do that.

SHARPTON: Jonathan, Republicans are also planning a second panel for Miss
Lynch`s confirmation tomorrow. Witnesses include a conservative
journalist, a woman who runs pro-voter I.D. group and a sheriff from
Milwaukee. Listen to what some of those folks have said in the past.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There have always been calls from the White House
under any administration, I assume, when they don`t like a particular
story. But it`s particularly aggressive under the Obama administration and
I think it`s a campaign that`s fairly well-organized that is designed to
have sort of a chilling effect.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This administration is rattling the very foundations
of this --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He being the president of the United States, remember
that statement, you didn`t build that. Well, he built this racial divide.
It was a wound that had been healing for a number of years, a number of
decades, and he reopened it with his divisive politics.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: So they are very critical of the president. But what do they
have to do with Loretta Lynch? Why bring them in on these hearings?

CAPEHART: Again, it goes back to the same answer I`ve given to all of your
questions. They are fighting old battles against Attorney General Holder,
but with the three people you just showed, battles with the president.

We`ve always talked about how Attorney General Holder has always been a
proxy for the president and so what the second panel is going to be doing
is giving these people an opportunity to beat up on the president, beat up
on Attorney General Holder and then the committee will go and do what it
should do.

And that is to vote to confirm Loretta Lynch, let the vote go to a full
vote on the Senate floor and confirm her. She is qualified in her
testimony today. She has shown that she has the requisite skills to run
that office, to, you know, set up a new relationship with Congress.

She`s not Eric Holder. So she`ll already be half -- she will have won half
that battle right there.

SHARPTON: Well, she certainly showed her skills of background and she
certainly has shown that she`s held the office in the eastern district with
very, very clear qualifications.

And she`s not Eric Holder, though many of us don`t feel there`s anything
wrong with that. Jonathan Capehart and Jeffrey Rosen, thank you both for
your time tonight.

CAPEHART: Thanks, Rev.

SHARPTON: Coming up, have you noticed how so many Republicans are saying
nice things about Elizabeth Warren? Have they suddenly gone all lefty or
are they just worried about Hillary Clinton?

Also, a scare at the White House, a ban at the Super Bowl, why drones have
so many experts worried about the threat from above?

Also, the first lady makes a big statement in support of women`s rights.

And Apple`s stunning announcement and what it says about the phone in your
pocket. It`s all ahead in conversation nation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: First Lady Michelle Obama was a hot topic on social media today.
People are talking about her not wearing a head scarf in Saudi Arabia.
David wrote on our Facebook page, "Hats off to her. It`s their custom, not
ours."

Patsy posted, "The focal point should have been the funeral and not the
first lady`s attire. I think it`s admirable that she showed up."

We`ll have more on the first lady`s statement and the debate that erupted
over it. Please keep the conversation going on our Facebook page or tweet
us @politicsnation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Senator Elizabeth Warren has a brand-new fan club. They are
heaping praise on her, calling her genuine, knowledgeable, a bright woman,
but here`s the kicker. All these growing compliments are coming from
Republicans. Don`t believe it? Listen for yourself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please give us Elizabeth. Please, God.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look, I think she`s a very passionate person and I
respect her because I think she has the courage to speak her convictions.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that she will be an extremely attractive
candidate for the Democrat voters in 2016. If she chooses to run for the
presidency, I would agree, I think that I would be extremely concerned with
what I see.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Clearly Elizabeth Warren is the hottest commodity
within the Democrat Party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Certainly some of the most conservative voices in America are
backing one of the most progressive. How is this possible? Do they
suddenly hate Wall Street? Do they agree the game is rigged? Have they
been watching too much POLITICS NATION? Have I finally gotten through to
them?

Nope. "The New York Times" says Republicans have been talking so nice
about Warren because they want her to run against Hillary Clinton in the
Democratic presidential primary. They think Warren is best positioned to
weaken and potentially defeat Mrs. Clinton.

In other words, they are scared of Hillary. When you peel back all of
those GOP comments for Warren, there is just one truth left. The
Republicans know they have no match for Clinton in 2016.

Joining me now is former Pennsylvania governor and DNC chairman, Ed
Rendell. Thank you for being here.

FORMER GOVERNOR ED RENDELL (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Rev, good evening.

SHARPTON: Governor, you know, it`s pretty cynical, praise Warren and hope
she`d hurt Clinton.

RENDELL: It is, Rev. These are the same people that demonized her about
what she wants to do for Wall Street and income inequality. She`s
knowledgeable, bright, hardworking, and all of those things and she`s
smart.

She`s smart enough to know that these guys are doing it for one reason, not
because they wanted her to be president because against Hillary Clinton,
she would get 5, 10, 15 percent of the vote tops because they want to cause
trouble.

They want to make Hillary go farther to the left or whatever, make Hillary
spend money in the primary season and Elizabeth Warren knows that she was a
law professor in less than two years ago. She`s been in the Senate for a
year and a half.

I`ve raised a lot of money for her, helped her to become a senator and I
think she`s a great voice in the U.S. Senate. But she said she`s not
running, she isn`t running.

She`s smart enough to know the political rallies, but more importantly,
Elizabeth Warren wants change in America and she knows the best vehicle for
achieving that change is Hillary Clinton.

SHARPTON: She definitely is a smart woman, but -- and let me say that
their fears are not misplaced because the polls show why Republicans are so
worried. Hillary Clinton has a double digit lead over the biggest GOP
names.

She`s up 13 points on Jeb Bush and 15 points on Mitt Romney. I mean, are
Republicans desperate to bring her down a notch before the general
election, Governor?

RENDELL: Sure. They will try everything. No matter how many times the
facts come out of Benghazi, they just ignore the facts and say Benghazi,
Benghazi, Benghazi, as if they hope it`s going to stick. It won`t stick
because the American people are too smart.

They are going to be focusing on the future. They are going to be focusing
on what the candidates are offering. Hillary Clinton is a great leader.
She showed when she was in the Senate, the ability to bring both parties
together.

She worked very well with the Republicans. She`s going to be a terrific
candidate this time around. She was a great candidate -- you may remember,
Rev, because you were supporting President Obama. I was supporting Senator
Clinton.

But in the last half of that campaign, Hillary Clinton found her voice and
was a dynamite candidate. She was one who attracted working class
Democrats, attracted progressive Democrats, attracted blue dogs, and
attracted progressives. You name it.

SHARPTON: No, she was -- in the last part of her campaign, she absolutely
caught her rhythm and as senator of New York, we worked together. She was
very good.

But I want to go back to the Republicans for a minute. Republicans want
Democrats to have this tough primary and I want to pin you down on that
because we also must remember, theirs is likely to be very crowded and very
nasty with more than a dozen names being thrown around.

I mean, so is this just a bad plan to create some drama so they can really
hide what`s going on in their own backyard?

RENDELL: Absolutely. They want divisiveness in our primary just like
Romney. Governor Romney was forced to tack to the right in 2012 because of
the primaries. They`d like to force Hillary to take positions on the far
left by having an Elizabeth Warren or a Jim Webb challenge her and cause
problems for her.

They don`t really believe that Elizabeth Warren would win. They are saying
that they are for Elizabeth Warren is like, you know, what they take on for
in the Republican Party primary. I`ve endorsed Ted Cruz for president and
Sarah Palin for vice president.

SHARPTON: Yes, I`m seeing you pick up steam. A lot of other Democrats are
getting on board with you on there.

RENDELL: Right. We can play the same game as they are playing.

SHARPTON: Governor Rendell, thank you for your time tonight.

RENDELL: Thanks, Rev.

SHARPTON: Coming up, First Lady Michelle Obama doesn`t wear a head scarf
in Saudi Arabia is getting a lot of attention online and some unlikely
cheers.

And what do Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, President Obama, and Taylor Swift
have in common? The answer is ahead in tonight`s "Gotcha."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: It`s time now for a POLITICS NATION pop quiz. What do Katy
Perry, Justin Bieber, President Obama and Taylor Swift have in common?
Think about it for a second and I`ll give you a few hints. They are not
all from Canada. That`s just the Biebs.

They are not all performing at the Super Bowl halftime show. That`s just
Katy Perry. And they didn`t all just fly on Air Force One. That`s just
President Obama. So what do these four people have in common?

They are the four most followed people on Twitter. They each have over 50
million followers and Taylor Swift`s followers just got a surprise. Her
account was hacked by the same group claiming to take Facebook down this
week, which Facebook denied.

They even threatened to release nude photos of her. But there are no
teardrops on Taylor`s Guitar. She was fearless and took them head on. She
tweeted, "P.S., any hackers saying they have nudes? You`d love that,
wouldn`t you? Have fun PhotoShopping because you got nothing."

And she wrote, "Because the hackers are going to hack, hack, hack" she
brushes off the haters.

She shook it off and nice try, hackers. But Taylor gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Is America ready for the dawning of the drone age? Today the
manufacturer of the drone that crashed and landed on White House grounds
says it is disabling its devices from functioning in downtown Washington.
It is good news. But is it enough? The drone at the White House is an
eye-opener. Drone sales are exploding. The same drones that flew to New
York City blizzard of 2015 can do this. Soar 500 feet high and hover
around Seattle`s famous space needle. You can see visitors waving back.
But city officials were not so amused. They are considering new
regulations. Watch this. A drone armed with a paintball gun firing at a
man. And you can see the paintballs hit their target. It`s all in good
fun. But could a drone be equipped with the real weapon? And in to 13, a
drone interrupted an event for German Chancellor Angela Merkel flying just
feet away from her security officials before they stepped in. Merkel could
laugh about it afterward but a drone getting that close to a head of state
raises serious questions. Here at home, officials are now warning people
not to bring drones to the Super Bowl this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Going to the big game? Have fun. Cheer on your team.
And keep it a no drone zone. Don`t spoil the game. Leave your drone at
home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: What are the rules? Sales for drones are exploding and
projected to increase. Is America ready for it? Joining me now is Lauren
Goode, managing editor of Consumer Technology for Re/code. Thank you for
being here.

LAUREN GOODE, RE/CODE, MANAGING EDITOR: Hi, Al, thanks for having me.

SHARPTON: Lauren, it seems like drones are suddenly everywhere. How fast
is this market growing?

GOODE: Well, the day of drones is definitely here. I think your
introduction really said it all. And this is very good news for hobbyist
and consumers that are interested in trying out drones and flying them
regularly but it`s potentially bad news for people who are concerned about
safety and other issues. This year at the consumer electronics show in Las
Vegas, we saw at least 16 different drone makers showing off their
different wares which is up from just a handful at last year show. And
we`re seeing more and more people, if you walk outside in certain states,
you can just see people flying them on the weekends on parks, wherever they
can. And so, I think we`re definitely seeing kind of an explosion in this
personal or consumer drone market.

SHARPTON: You know, the drone industry is predicting $82 billion in
economic impact over the next 10 years, creating 100,000 jobs in the next
decade. Are we just going to be surrounded by drones?

GOODE: Well, there`s still a lot to figure out in terms of regulation and
the different types of drones also come into play here. If you`re talking
about consumer drones, I think that`s still to be seen. If you`re talking
about commercial drones, and look at the fact like companies such as Google
and Amazon are weighing with the idea using drones for deliveries, I think
that we may eventually see that. But keep in mind, the regulatory issue
still need to be sorted out. Last year, in 2014, around ten different
states enacted new rules around drones but at the federal level we`re still
waiting to see the FAA issue the final safety rules around these things.

SHARPTON: What are drone manufacturers doing to respond to security
issues, like the one we saw at the White House?

GOODE: That`s a great question. Well, in some cases they are basically
disabling features that would allow somebody to fly a drone into
unregulated territory or territory we are not supposed to be. A lot of
these drones, the consumer drones, the personal ones can`t even fly above,
you know, 400, 500 feet. So you don`t necessarily have to worry about
those going into general aviation air spaces. In some instances, a one
company called the Unique Electronic Aviation actually, there`s a fly-by
database built into the drones so the drone knows to not go within five
miles of any airport. That`s just one example of a company that is really
sort of taking that extra step to make sure that it`s not going into a
space where it is going to interfere with aircraft or harm someone.

SHARPTON: But are drones dangerous? I mean, can they be equipped with
weapons?

GOODE: Well, yes, I mean I think that they could be equipped with weapons.
I mean, there are different types of danger here we`re talking about.
Right? We`re talking about people who are flying drones with mal intent
and you wrote the pink gun example earlier. Could that potentially be
another type of weapon? I imagine that it could be. Then you`re talking
about this idea of some people really just don`t know how to fly these
things. Have you ever tried to fly one? I mean, they are not exactly easy
to fly if you`re not used to flying one. So, you may crash it into a house
or building or someone else without even meaning to.

SHARPTON: You know, President Obama says there`s not really a regulatory
structure for drones right now. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: I`ve actually asked the FAA and a
number of agencies to examine how are we managing this new technology
because the drone that landed on the White House you can buy at radio
shack. But we don`t really have any kind of regulatory structure at all
for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: You know, broadly speaking, what rules are in place right now?

GOODE: Well, it depends. If you`re talking about a personal drone, there
are certain places or states in which you can go out, you can go out to the
park on the weekend and you can fly a personal drone. In some cases they
can be used for commercial purposes, although that hasn`t necessarily
deterred people like real estate agents and other people from using them.
I think when you go abroad, you start to look at a different set of
regulations as well. Some of the drone makers in the U.S. are starting to
push their wares in places like Europe or Japan because their rules around
there are either, you know, fully enacted at this point or much more loose
in terms of how drones can be used. We see NGO`s using them for different
ways. So, I think I`ll just have to say, you know, it`s a state by state
thing. You really need to check your local laws and rules around this and
then ultimately, we`ll hopefully see some type of federal regulations and
new rules enacted.

SHARPTON: Lauren Goode, thank you for your time tonight.

GOODE: Thanks, Al.

SHARPTON: Still ahead, the first lady`s big statement in support of
women`s rights. Why Bill Clinton is talking about people calling him Adam.

And an apple bombshell that is redefining success in America.
"Conversation Nation" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: It`s time for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight,
political editor for Roll Call Shira Center, retired U.S. army Captain Wes
Moore and radio host Stephanie Miller. Thank you all for being here
tonight.

SHIRA CENTER, POLITICS EDITOR, ROLL CALL: Thank you, Reverend.

STEPHANIE MILLER, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: Thanks, Rev.

CAPTAIN WES MOORE, RETIRED U.S. ARMY: Thank you.

SHARPTON: We start with a story getting a lot of attention on social media
today. The President and First Lady were in Saudi Arabia to offer
condolences on the death of King Abdullah. And as you see, the First Lady
wasn`t wearing a head scarf. Saudi women are required to cover their
heads. But foreign women don`t have to follow the same guidelines. But it
set off a firestorm on social media in Saudi Arabia even got its own
#MichelleObamaunveiled. But the First Lady was getting support from some
unlikely allies. Senator Ted Cruz tweeted "Kudos to flutos for standing up
for women and refusing to wear Sharia-mandated head scarf in Saudi Arabia.
Nicely done."

Stephanie, what do you think? Political statement, fashion statement,
both?

MILLER: You know, I am the biggest flutos fan but I find myself agreeing
with Ted Cruz which is making me very disturbed. But, you know, I think
you said it, Rev. Look, it`s their tradition, it`s not ours. And I think
that she did make a really strong statement. It`s not like she took a job,
an uber driver for a couple of days or something. I mean, she just
forewent the scarf, like Laura Bush did the last time she was there.

SHARPTON: Yes. I think that`s important. And we should note that in 2010
Michelle Obama visited Malaysia where she did wear a head scarf, Wes. So,
does that give any indication whether she was trying to make a political
statement yesterday or not?

MOORE: To be honest, Rev, I think the bigger political statement would
have been had she worn one. You know, Secretary Rice did not wear one when
she visited Saudi Arabia, as was indicated earlier, Laura Bush did not wear
one prior. So, I honestly think that, you know, what Michelle Obama was
doing was Michelle Obama was going over there to pay respects but at the
same time again I think it would have almost made a bigger splash had she
chosen to wear one in that situation. She hadn`t done it before. Others
had not done it before. So, I don`t think this is as big of a deal as
people would have made it out to be.

SHARPTON: Well, Shira, I mean, it was mentioned about Condoleezza Rice but
Angela Merkel met with the king without a head scarf in 2010. Hillary
Clinton met with Saudi foreign minister without a head scarf in 2012.
Laura Bush has been mentioned, had tea with the Saudi King in 2008.
Condoleezza Rice. I mean, should there even be any discussion about why
Michelle Obama was not wearing a head scarf?

CENTER: You know, I think it`s always open for discussion especially
vocally in Saudi Arabia. Right? And trust me, we cover Congress. So if
there`s some agreement pushing Ted Cruz and the White House on something,
we`ll be happy to talk about that. It`s such a rare thing these days. But
I think it`s politically most importantly, it was the smart thing for the
White House to do. I mean, look at the alternative. If she had donned a
head scarf, I mean, think about what her husband`s middle name is, the
photo of them blast around the world and used repeatedly over and over
again, would have been very bad for the White House.

SHARPTON: All right. Let`s move on and let me get a show of hands right
now from this panel, who here has an iPhone?

CENTER: Guilty.

MILLER: Yep.

SHARPTON: Well, you`re not alone. Today Apple announced between October
and December, they sold 74.5 million iPhones. That`s 12 million more than
they expected to sell. Imagine this. That comes out to 30,000 iPhone sold
every hour for three months. Wes, what an American success story. I mean,
how did they do it?

MOORE: Well, I think Apple did it by understanding the basic tenants of
any single entrepreneur endeavor and any, you know, technology endeavor.
You know, to be successful, you either need to be the first, you need to be
the biggest or you need to be the best. And Apple then has basically said,
well, we`re going to then try to target all three of those different things
with a product that we try to put out. Actually, I think though, what is
interesting about Apple and how it relates to all of this stuff is this.
Is that Apple`s products are not cheap. They are not the cheapest products
on the market by any stretch and Apple is very proud of that. So, actually
I think it says also a whole lot about the type of economy that we have
seen, the fact that Apple`s market share has continued to grow also as you
watch the economy continue to grow. So, as you continue to have more and
more people, both in the United States and Asia who are entering the middle
class, have more disposable income, I think Apple has been able to buy
having the best products, kind of ride that wave as well.

SHARPTON: That`s a good point. Shira, how did they do it?

CENTER: Well, I think it proves, you know, size does matter, right? And
as people move towards personal basically electronic devices and they are
only wanting to carry one electronic around, they wanted a bigger device.
Right? This is the next evolution or technology. But I think it`s
particularly interesting that the sales were huge, in part because sales in
China were so massive.

SHARPTON: But Shira, right on the point that you just made. You know
Steve Jobs had said in, I think it was in 2010 that no one wanted to buy a
5-inch phone. He told reporters, quote, "You can`t get your hand around
it. No one`s going to buy that." How ironic is it that Apple`s having its
greatest success with a bigger phone that you brought up Shira?

CENTER: Yes. I mean, it is saying something and Steve Jobs might have
been right at that moment and that year, but currently that`s not what
people want with their smartphones and I think it`s especially interesting
for Apple because they have a much lower market share internationally
compared to android and they are finally starting to compete more in that
space because they`re selling bigger, nicer phones.

SHARPTON: All right. Stephanie, if Hillary Clinton was president, what
would Bill be called? I mean, Rachael Ray asked the former president what
his title would be? He responded, "I could be called Adam." Adam as in
the first man. Interesting choice.

Steph, what do you think, is Adam a good title?

MILLER: He`s starting with the jokes already. Yes. You know, what`s
interesting, I mean, and also to have a former president be -- what would
we call him, the first husband? I don`t know.

CENTER: The first dude.

SHARPTON: Wes, political says Bill Clinton is preparing for the job very
seriously. They write, "Bill Clinton is already deeply engaged in the
campaign, warning that Jeb Bush is a real threat while New Jersey Governor
Chris Christie is probably just a sideshow." How important is it that he
is so involved in the campaign already, Wes?

MOORE: Well, I think it`s very important because first Bill Clinton is one
of the best political minds that we`ve seen in a generation but also the
same time I think it`s very important for him because I think his wife`s
success is very important to him. You know, this is not just about you
know, how old the democrats will perform in 2016 for President Clinton, the
former president. It`s also about the love of his life. It`s about his
wife. And so I think he`s taking this very personally not just from a
political perspective but also because this is his wife that he`s now
talking about.

SHARPTON: Well, he`s definitely has a great political mind but let me ask
you this, Shira. The title, first man, first dude, Adam? I mean, what
should he be called?

CENTER: Well, you know, say what you want about Sarah Palin but she always
called her husband first dude. And I thought that was kind of a fun title
to give a guy. But what I love about Bill Clinton`s answer to Rachael Ray
is that he doesn`t even hide the fact that he`s obviously thought about
this before. He`s probably thought about it a lot before. And that`s just
so Bill Clinton.

SHARPTON: Bill Clinton thinking about politics, really?

CENTER: Thinking about being the first dude or first man Adam, if you
will.

SHARPTON: Well, everyone stay with me. When we come back, the big game is
days away but the commercial game already kicked off. The controversies
and the fun. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: We`re back with the panel, Shira, Wes and Stephanie. Who`s
ready for the big game?

CENTER: Me! Go Seattle!

SHARPTON: All right. You`re looking at the University of Phoenix stadium
in Arizona where the Super Bowl is just four days away. But the commercial
game already kicked off. A 30-second ad runs about $4.5 million. This
year we`ve got everything from Kim Kardashian making fun of herself for T-
Mobile, to a controversial Go Daddy ad that`s already been pulled to a
Budweiser tugging at heartstrings to Carl`s Junior pushing the envelope
with a risque ad once again we can`t even show you most of it. Stephanie,
how close do you watch the ads?

MILLER: Well, first of all, what you just said, they charge for the ads,
that in my opinion takes some inflated balls to charge for an ad. They are
going to have, what, like 120 million people watch to make the ads actually
worth that. But it`s mostly what I watch for, is the ads.

SHARPTON: Well, you know, Shira, a controversial Go Daddy Super Bowl ad
has already been pulled. Let`s check it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Look, it`s buddy! I`m so glad you made it home.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Because I just sold you on this website I built with
Go Daddy.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Ship him out!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: They had to pull that one, Shira.

CENTER: Yes. And it`s so painful. Like the last five seconds they`re
just so painful. No one wants to know where their puppies come from,
right?

SHARPTON: Right.

CENTER: Like this is terrible and also people, you know, realize that
puppy mills are a terrible industry really hate this ad. So, it`s no
wonder they pulled it. It was supposed to be kind of imitation of the
really sentimental Budweiser ad and it`s just total, it`s flawed.

SHARPTON: Well, let me go to that Budweiser ad, it`s tugging at the hard
string. Let`s watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(PLAYING BUDWEISER AD)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: I mean, Wes, it just brings me back to when I was looking for my
dog. I mean, it`s so touching.

MOORE: Bring out the tissues, right? Bring out the tissues. I`ll tell
you, it`s a beautiful ad. It`s a beautiful ad. But I tell you what,
there`s another ad that is going to be airing that is the dove ad which is
showing fathers and their kids and that is an ad I think that is going to
be one of the most powerful ones and it talks about how real men are the
ones who are there for their kids. That is an ad that honesty you watch
and it just totally brings tears to your eyes.

SHARPTON: Well, I`m with that one. That one is the real one and I am also
with -- I`m so happy I did find my dog. There`s no joke to me about animal
rights and loving your pet. Shira, Wes --

MILLER: Reverend Al, don`t feel bad about being sensitive. I think I
ovulated when I saw that ad and I`m too old to ovulate.

SHARPTON: Well, I`ll leave that there. Super Bowl is on Sunday.

Thanks for watching, when we come back, justice delayed but not denied for
the friendship nine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE JOHN C. HAYES III, CIRCUIT COURT: So the charges based on the arrest
of the defendants at McRory`s Five Ten and Twenty-five cent variety store
in downtown Rock Hill for trespassing are vacated and dismissed with
prejudice. And I am now signing the order and that is done. Now --

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: That was the scene earlier today in South Carolina when a judge
finally set right a miscarriage of justice from half a century ago. In
1961, nine young African-American men staged a sit-in at a whites only
lunch counter in Rock Hill, South Carolina, to protest the Jim Crow
segregation in the south. They became known as the Friendship 9.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I remember being grabbed by my belt and thrown to the
floor and dragged out of the store.

MARK POTTER, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: By whom?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Police officers.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: When they put me in the cell and closed that door, you
know you`re in trouble.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: The men were thrown in jail. But instead of posting bail, they
chose to serve out their 30-day sentence of hard labor on a chain gang.
Their jail no bail strategy re-energized the civil rights movement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It embarrassed the nation why you put nine kids in jail
for trying to -- sentenced.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We were in the right place at the right time to do the
right job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: The judge who expunged their conviction today was actually the
nephew of the judge who sent them to jail all those years ago. Today he
was celebrating the Friendship 9 for their courage by sitting down at that
lunch counter, they were taking a stand for everyone`s civil rights.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES GRAHAM, FRIENDSHIP 9: We were simply students who were tired of
the status quo. Tired of being treated like second-class citizens. Tired
of -- call the N word, (INAUDIBLE), we got tired of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: They were sick and tired of being sick and tired. And sometimes
you must stand for what`s right even if it takes decades before they
straighten out the record and say you were right. It is those people in
all kinds of causes with all kinds of backgrounds and races that make a
nation great. Friendship 9 ended up being expunged from a conviction and
helped convict a nation to fairness.

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


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

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Transcription Copyright 2015 ASC LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is
granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not
reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or
internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall
user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may
infringe upon MSNBC and ASC LLC`s copyright or other proprietary rights or
interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of
litigation.>






Sponsored links

Resource guide