Skip navigation

PoliticsNation, Thursday, February 5th, 2015

Read the transcript from the Thursday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: POLITICS NATION
Date: February 5, 2015
Guest: Midwin Charles, Mark Hannah, Zerlina Maxwell, Joe Madison; Dana
Milbank; Steve Cozen


ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC ANCHOR, THE ED SHOW: That`s "the Ed Show." I`m Ed
Schultz. "Politics Nation" with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

Good evening, Rev.

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

Tonight`s lead, the GOP`s alternative health care plan revealed. Yes,
America, the waiting is over. It`s been a half decade in the making, ever
since the president signed his signature achievement, the affordable care
act, Republicans have vowed to repeal it. And for four years, ten months
and 13 days, we`ve waited for what they put in its place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ll start tomorrow with the replacement. The
difference is it will lower the cost.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We want to take a common-
sense, step by step approach to replacing Obamacare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After the first of the year, we will bring forth a bill
that will be able to unite Republicans around specific health care issue it
is.

BOEHNER: There are members that introduced 126 different ideas about how
to fix Obamacare, how to replace Obamacare. We`re working on this, having
discussions amongst our members, with a lot of divergent views.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Ladies and gentlemen, tonight is the night. Today, a group of
high-ranking Republicans introduced a plan, and it`s right behind this
curtain. America, are you ready for this?

Here it is, nine pages. And after all that time, here`s what they came up
with. It weakens protections for patients with preexisting conditions. It
slashes subsidies for middle-class families. It terminates mandatory
maternity coverage. It eliminates Medicaid expansion.

And how will they pay for this? The Times reports quote "the Republicans
did not provide a formal estimate of the cost of their proposal or the
number of people who would be covered."

So no cost estimates, no coverage estimate, and a mission to rip coverage
from millions. Speaker Boehner, what do you have to say about this today?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: Listen, there`s a lot of ideas out there. But the key is going
to be to boil those concepts down to what a real replacement would look
like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: A lot of ideas, nine pages, really? Here`s the bottom line,
The Affordable Care Act is working and saving lives and reducing cost. Yet
despite facts, the GOP is still trying to repeal it with absolutely no plan
to replace it.

Joining me now are Dana Milbank and Joe Madison. Thank you both for being
here tonight.

JOE MADISON, HOST, MORNINGS WITH MADISON: Thank you.

DANA MILBANK, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Hi, Reverend
Sharpton.

SHARPTON: Dana, what`s the deal? Is there finally a GOP alternative plan?
Are they still playing the waiting game?

MILBANK: Well, you know, if you boil down those nine pages, as John
Boehner was suggesting, you`re left with two words, and that`s never mind.
You know, I think you`re being very generous to the Republicans in calling
this a plan at all. It`s not just that they didn`t provide a forecast of
who would lose their coverage or what it would cost. They`re not writing
it in the form of legislation, so it`s impossible for the congressional
office or anything else.

And there`s a reason for that and there is a reason they haven`t put
forward these proposals for these several years because it`s always saying
no to Obamacare. But it is never saying compared to what? And now you
see, OK, so everybody`s going to pay more, the middle class are going to
pay more, old folks are going to pay more, they are not going to have the
same protection as before and millions of people are going to lose their
health care coverage. So, you begin to see why they don`t want to do the
source (ph).

SHARPTON: So, Dana, this is not even really a plan, because you can`t
evaluate it. You can`t --

(CROSSTALK)

MILBANK: It is that him toward the inkling of the a plan. And that is
what John Boehner said in the house. They just passed legislation this
week that says we`re going to task our committees to come up with a plan.
So, the House doesn`t even agreeing with what the others in the party are
doing.

SHARPTON: So, Joe, I mean, what does this mean? All of this bluster and
rhetoric, where you come with nine pages, things being slashed, and no real
plan that can be quantified?

MADISON: It means that they have voted 57 times to repeat the afford --

SHARPTON: Sixty-seven times, I believe.

MADISON: I think so, 57 times, and I think what the American people know
is the old adage, if you keep doing something over and over and over again,
you get the same results, that`s insanity. And the fact that there isn`t
this groundswell of complaints. It`s working. People aren`t losing their
jobs because of it. There`s no death penalty, all those things that they
talked about would happen hasn`t happened.

And there`s one other item that I think people ought to pay attention to.
The employer is -- gets tax deduction for health care, and the employee has
to pay taxes on their -- on their health care. I mean, this is -- so once
again, stick it to the middle class, stick it to the poor, and protect the
boss and the wealthy.

SHARPTON: The trickle-down from the employer.

MADISON: That`s right.

SHARPTON: Dana, we can have different opinions, but I always say we can`t
have different facts. So let`s do a little fact checking.

The new proposal claims replacement is needed because of the harm the
affordable care act is doing. Quote "the law hurt jobs." But look at
this. In the decade before the affordable care act, the private sector
lost 3.6 million jobs. Since it became law, it`s added 10.5 million jobs.

How can they claim it`s a job killer and keep a straight face while they`re
saying it, Dana?

MILBANK: Well, it seems like in those nine pages, they used some of the
talking points from 2010. And that`s been the problem now. And you know,
I was covering the debate in the House this week. And a slight correction
to Joe, it was the 56th time, but that`s just the house, not even counting
the number of times they would repeal Obamacare.

SHARPTON: Yes. With the repeal was and all, it comes around 67. That`s
right.

MILBANK: Yes. It`s way up there. But it`s getting harder and harder each
time they were having trouble getting their member to come to the floor and
do it because you can`t say it`s killing jobs. You can`t stay it`s
destroyed the economy and health care in America, because health care
inflation is low, more people are covered, and it`s showing none of the
traumatic effects that had been predicted. So, you know, obviously,
whether this proposal is nine pages or 900, it`s going nowhere, but they
would just like to say they have an alternative, but in fact, when the
rubber hits the road, it`s not there.

SHARPTON: But Joe, the reality is you hear it and I hear it on our radio
shows every day from people around the country, the success of the
affordable care act.

MADISON: That`s right.

SHARPTON: 9.9 million people have enrolled in 2015, beating expectations.
There was a 24 percent drop in uninsured rate last year, and projected
costs to the government have been reduced by 20 percent, Joe.

MADISON: And that`s exactly it. You`ve said it all. I mean, the facts
are there. That`s exactly what is happening, and you`re absolutely right.
And so, here you have in these nine pages, nobody says what`s going to
happen to those, let`s just round it up, 10 million people. What is going
to happen to them?

And in addition to that, you now have Republican governors and governors in
rich states that swore they weren`t going to deal with the Medicaid issue.
Well, guess what? They changed their mind in places like Ohio, Michigan,
and other states across the country.

I mean, you know, and finally, even if they came up with something we know
that the president is going to veto it, bottom line.

SHARPTON: Now Dana, you know, not only on radio, we`ve spoken to people
right here on this show, who benefited from the law and can`t believe
anyone would want to repeal it. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID TEDROW, SAVE ACA: If it wasn`t for the affordable care act, why not
have had the insurance that provided for my transplant. You know, where
are the -- what`s happened to the moral compass in this country? You know,
we need to be concerned about people and their lives. And that`s not
happening.

REGINA MORAN, CANCER SURVIVOR HELPED BY ACA: It saved my life. It allowed
me to breathe and relax and enjoy being healthy and canner free. I`ve been
able to plan my wedding and pursue my graduate degree. And without this
incredible piece of legislation, I wouldn`t be able to do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: This is what the law is about, Dana, not about politics.

MILBANK: Well, and this is why the law is not going anywhere unless the
Supreme Court decides to kill it on its own because they`re no longer
fighting against some fictional demon, they actually have real flesh-and-
blood examples of what`s happened. And that`s a lot harder to fight.

SHARPTON: Joe Madison, Dana Milbank, thank you both for your time tonight.

MADISON: Thank you, Reverend.

MILBANK: Thanks, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Coming up, stunning claims from the so-called 20th hijacker,
reviving questions about a possibility Saudi link to 9/11. Is it time to
declassify a key report on the attacks?

Also, would you let your boss put a chip into your body? It`s not science
fiction. It`s science fact, and it`s already happening at one company.

Plus the coach of the Seahawks talks about the call that lost the super
bowl.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you allowed yourself to have that one moment lying
in bed, where the tears flowed? Where you`re smiling at me, but I mean it.
Has there been that moment?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that happened at the 405 mark, you know. That
hit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: And controversy about the new "Sports Illustrated" swimsuit
cover. Does it go too far? Conversation nation is ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Did Saudi Arabia aid the 9/11 hijackers? Did they know about
the attack before it happened? Explosive allegations from the so-called
20th hijackers in the attacks. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: New calls tonight to declassify a key report on 9/11 because of
the explosive claims made about Saudi Arabia, by the so-called 20th
hijacker of the attack.

Zacarias Moussaoui testified from prison as part of a lawsuit against Saudi
Arabia filed by 9/11 families. He claimed that members of the Saudi royal
family gave a lot of money to Al-Qaeda in the late 1990s. He says he
carried messages from Osama bin Laden to Saudi princes and clerics, and
that he discussed a plan to shoot down air force one with a Saudi diplomat.

He also claimed that these three Saudi princes were on a list of donors to
Al-Qaeda, the former ambassador to the U.S., the head of Saudi intelligence
and the wealthiest member of the Saudi family.

The Saudi embassy rejects his claims saying quote "Moussaoui is a deranged
criminal, whose own lawyers presented evidence that he was mentally
incompetent. His words have no credibility."

But now there`s new pressure to declassify part of a congressional report
on 9/11, which the "New York Times" says implicates prominent Saudis in
financing terror.

Joining me now are Steve Cozen, the lead attorney representing the 9/11
victims in a suit against Saudi Arabia, and MSNBC contributor Steve Clemons
from "the Atlantic."

Thank you for both for being here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great to be with you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good evening, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Steve Cozen, the families that you represent want this 9/11
record made public. What do they hope it will reveal?

STEVE COZEN, ATTORNEY: Well, we represent not only the families, but the
commercial interests as well for the billions of dollars of losses to
businesses and property. I think that the -- that Secretary Lehman
probably put it best in the affidavit that he filed in connection with our
lawsuit.

His view was that he had read the 28 pages, and he saw no reason from a
national security standpoint or a policy standpoint why they shouldn`t be
made available. Remember, when the 28 pages was first classified, the
Saudi government itself said, why don`t you make it public?

SHARPTON: So Steve Clemons, what is there -- what`s the reason not to make
it public?

STEVE CLEMONS, THE ATLANTIC: At that time the Bush admission argument
against making those reductive pages public, they said there was a means
and methods problem. We don`t know what that means. I imagine it means --
I speculate we may have penetrated, we may have turned people within the
Saudi royal establishment. We may have human intelligence as opposed to
digital intelligence that is embedded in that system and didn`t want to
disclose who those people were that would have reflected on who is those
people were.

But I think that is one element. The second element which is more, we had
a very cozy relationship in an odd way, you know. You have Prince Bandar,
you know, I can`t attest to the veracity of Moussaoui`s claim, but people
like Prince Bandar, who was our former ambassador, he most recently was
head of Saudi intelligence inside Saudi Arabia. He was removed by the
king.

He used to give tutorials to President Bush on his plain, his campaign
claim when President Bush was running for president. Prince Bandar gave
general Colin Powell after he left the state department and his wife, two
matching jaguars. So it was a cozy relationship.

The day of 9/11, the only international -- the planes that were allowed to
leave U.S. airspace were Saudi aircraft that had gathered various royals
around the United States and put them on, they received special clearance
in very unusual circumstances.

SHARPTON: So give me the big picture, the bigger picture here is these are
allies. They had personal connections to some big people in the
administration. So, is that the reason that these documents that could
potential compromise some people --

CLEMONS: I think it raises questions. There are two scenarios. In the
9/11 commission report, and I know many of the commissioners, I trust them.
I think that they are above board. But those redacted pages, those 28
pages are too much to keep from the American public. The Saudi government
itself has advocated releasing those pages, because it believes it shows a
good story about its role. But the point is that it leaves a big question
mark on these relationships. And I think that when you look at things like
what Moussaoui is arguing, and we see in cases like ISIS instantly, Saudi
money, private nongovernment money has helped build ISIS particularly in
the early stages.

SHARPTON: Steve Cozen, you know, Moussaoui claims he met with the
officials of the Islamic affairs department of the Saudi embassy. He said
they talked about finding a location to launch a missile at air force one.

COZEN: Yes, they were intending, Reverend, to kill president Bill Clinton
by using a stinger missile to take out air force one.

I think in connection with what Steve was referring to, it`s important to
understand that not only Secretary Lehman, who saw the 28 pages, thought
that it gave at least a tie-in between the government of Saudi Arabia,
official obligation to propagate Wahhabist (ph) extremist, jihadist
beliefs, and their connection to the funding, provision of logistics and
helping of the planning of 9/11.

Keep in mind that somebody as reputable as Senator Graham, who has
constantly been after these 28 pages, said in his affidavit that he was
convinced that there was a direct link between at least some of the
terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attack, and the government of Saudi
Arabia, and that a Saudi government officials living in the United States,
(INAUDIBLE), was acting at the direction of the Saudi government through
the ministry of foreign affairs, and provided direct assistance to two of
the hijackers in San Diego, Ahamsi (ph) and Almihdhar (ph).

Ahamsi (ph) and Almihdhar (ph) were introduced to al-Awlaki. Remember we
took him out with a drone in 2011 after he fled the United States. He was
the intellectual leader of this whole program. Now, the question that a
lot of people raise is why would the Saudis do this when in fact Osama bin
Laden was their sworn enemy.

SHARPTON: Steve Clemons, make sense of this for me. I mean, this is --
why is this so important and how do all these pieces -- ?

CLEMONS: It is so important because those 28 pages will help make some
sharper lines about who did what to whom. And we just don`t know. The
fact is the line that is distinctive between a rich sheikh who hates the
United States, who wants to fund terrorism, and the line between certain
royals or the line between the government is a very blurry one, a very
murky one. And that`s why disclosing these things is very important.

We`ve seen in other cases in governments like Pakistan, exactly the same
problem, the line between terrorists, the ISI in Pakistan and the
government, is a very murky one. It`s different than United States. And
that`s why I completely support basically declassifying this document, so
we can see it. And I think we should give the Saudi government an
opportunity to also see --

SHARPTON: Steve Cozen and Steve Clemons, I`ve got to go, but I lived in
New York, live here now, but I was here during 9/11. I think that those
documents ought to be released. We need to know everything that is
possible to be known.

COZEN: Reverend, just keep in mind that the civil justice system opens the
door to this kind of a robust inquiry and shines the light on the evidence.
The let the evidence come out. Let my families have their day in court.

SHARPTON: I agree. Steve Clemons, Steve Cozen, thank you for your time.

COZEN: Thank you, Reverend.

CLEMONS: Thank you, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Coming up would you let your company implant a microchip under
your skin? It`s happening and it has a lot of people talking.

What was he thinking? Seahawks coach Pete Carroll speaks out on the
infamous super bowl calls.

And "Sports Illustrated" reveals the cover of this year`s swimsuit issue.
And the keyword is -- reveals. How far is too far? Conversation nation is
ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: The folks over at FOX News have been in a frenzy lately over
President Obama`s views on radical Islam. Pundits, there have questioned
why the president doesn`t talk enough about Islamic terrorism, why is --
which is parts of -- he was expected to do at the national prayer breakfast
this morning. So here`s how FOX covered it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Back with this FOX News alert. President
Obama speaking at the national prayer breakfast right now in D.C., the
annual events brings together leaders from the world of politics and
religion. About 3600 people are in attendance at the Washington Hilton
right now, including the dalai lama. The breakfast is currently streaming
on FOXnews.com, so you can click over and watch that in more detail right
now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: That was it. Twenty seconds and they were out. While other
cable news network covered the prayer breakfast, the fair and balanced
network was given a fair amount of airtime to a commercial for a travel Web
site.

Maybe they can use it to book their next vacation from reality, because
back in the real world, President Obama was tackling the issue of religious
extremism head-on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: From a school in Pakistan to
the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those
who profess to stand up for faith, their faith. Profess to stand up for
Islam, but in fact are betraying it. We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death
cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of
barbarism. No God condones terror.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: FOX News goes after President Obama for not talking about
Islamic terror, but when he talks about it, they don`t air it. They
report, you decide, but only sometimes. Nice try, but I have decided -- we
"Got You."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: It sounds like something out of a Sci-fi movie. Your boss
implanting a microchip into your body. NBC News Keir Simmons reports on
one company that`s making it reality.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We`re going to put a man inside a machine.

KEIR SIMMONS, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Okay. So, they`re not going to turn
me into a robocall. But here in Sweden, this high-tech office blog,
they`re going to inject the computer chip into my hand, and this is the guy
who`s going to do it.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Are you nervous?

SIMMONS: I am not.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You don`t have to be, it`s not can be that bad.

SIMMONS: Really? Because that`s a big needle.

(voice-over): Cecilia Oster Holm starts her day with this new technology,
she swaps the keys for a chip in her hand that uses a radio signal to open
doors.

(on camera): You have a chip in your hand there?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: That`s right. It`s been inserted.

SIMMONS: Right. So, how do you open it? Just like that.

So, obviously what I really wanted to know is, is how much it hurts.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It does hurts a little bit, but it`s like a basic
vaccination shot, so it`s not too bad.

SIMMONS (voice-over): Her office -- connects big corporations like
Microsoft with fast-growing companies. And for the first time in a
workplace all 700 employees here have been given the chance to use the
technology to become more efficient.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: If you hold the phone against my chip, you will get my
contact details.

SIMMONS (on camera): Look at that. That`s you.

(voice-over): In the movies, from "Matrix" to "Minority Report," we`ve
watched technology take over our lives. It even happens in "Annie."

And now it`s coming true in real life.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: If you don`t need keys to access your building, if you
don`t need credit cards or pin codes, things like that to do purchases,
those are the things that would really simplify your life.

SIMMONS: Life for me was about to get simpler. And you know what they
say, no pain, no gain.

(on camera): So the chip in here is quite small, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes, super small, it`s like a grain of rice. Deep
breath. And exhale.

SIMMONS: Ow, that hurt.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SHARPTON: It might hurt, but that`s not the only concern. Yes, chips
could be used for positive things like monitoring your health or tracking
Alzheimer`s patients, but what about privacy and security? Could the chip
in your body be hacked? And how soon until this is the norm?

Joining me now is NBC News technology reporter Julianne Pepitone who`s done
a lot of reporting on this kinds of implant, thank you for being here,
Julianne.

JULIANNE PEPITONE, NBC NEWS TECHNOLOGY REPORTER: Thank you, Al.

SHARPTON: Julianne, this is one office block in Sweden, do you think we`ll
see other companies following suit?

PEPITONE: Well, this was just one somewhat extreme case. It does seem
really futuristic, but there is actually a huge community that`s already
doing this here in America as well.

SHARPTON: In the United States.

PEPITONE: In the United States. They call themselves biohackers or
cyborgs. And they might inject a magnet into their fingertip. And then a
contractor could use that to just put their hand on the wall and see where
the studs are, or they might put it into a computer chip that like this
Swedish company that you saw that you can open the door that way, you can
use a photocopier, get rid of the photo I.D. that so many of us use in big
corporations.

SHARPTON: So, I want to show you a clip from a "Hunger Games" movie. I
think this is why people are scared of chips. Look at this.

Could these chips be used for tracking purposes?

PEPITONE: That`s definitely the fear for critics of this kind of
technology. And, you know, the same way that you would want to be careful
about downloading an attachment from an e-mail, you want to be really
careful about who you let implant a chip.

SHARPTON: Yes.

PEPITONE: But to be fair, I mean, it`s very far away from what the Swedish
company is doing right now. That would be a long way down the road. And
even the biohacking group in Sweden that was working with this epicenter
company, they said that the reason that they want to get into this now is
because they feel like everyone having chips will be a reality sometime
down the road, and they want to explore this technology now before the evil
corporations get ahold of it.

SHARPTON: Now, there are some -- there`s still some issues with
technology. I want to show you the last part of that "Today" show story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIMMONS: Now, I`m going to take this cyborg hand and place it up against
the reader here. There`s a blue reader that is looking at the chip in my
hand, and -- okay.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Is it working?

SIMMONS: It`s a bit --

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Slow?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Here, why don`t you get back in your flying car?

SIMMONS: My hand is a bit swollen, so it may not work.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Is this ready for primetime, Julianne?

PEPITONE: I think we can see no, it`s not. It didn`t quite work out for
Keir. Kind of holding his hand awkwardly. That just shows this is such
early days for this kind of technology. That`s why, you know, it`s making
headlines and getting off a gee whiz reaction. I mean, the ideas that
eventually very intuitive, that it`s -- you`re not doing this, being really
awkward, that you`re just kind of waving your hand or maybe making a
payment out of cafe or, you know, scanning something that you need to scan
without it being a whole.

SHARPTON: Wow! Julianne Pepitone, thank you for your time tonight.

PEPITONE: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Still ahead, controversy over the new covers of the "Sports
Illustrated" swimsuit addition, and Seahawks coach talks about the infamous
call that lost the Super Bowl. And buzz about Sarah Palin`s return to
"Saturday Night Live." "Conversation Nation" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Time for a "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, Midwin
Charles, Mark Hannah, and Zerlina Maxwell. Thank you all for being here.

MARK HANNAH, DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hey, Rev. Thanks for having
us.

ZERLINA MAXWELL, ESSENCE: Thanks for having us, Rev.

SHARPTON: We started with the photo that`s raising eyebrows today. The
"Sports Illustrated" swimsuit issue cover was released today. And let`s
just say it`s revealing. We can`t even show you the full picture. Hannah
Davis graces the cover. Some on social media think it went too far.
Midwin, what do you think?

MIDWIN CHARLES, ATTORNEY: You know, I understand what "Sports Illustrated"
is about. I understand what it is that they do when they put out this
issue. It is to portray women on the cover for the male gaze, for men to
look at it. But the first thing I thought when I saw this picture is ooh,
I shouldn`t be looking at this. It`s just too much, Rev. It`s just too
much. And I understand this is what they do, but what they have done this
time around is too much.

SHARPTON: Mark, they`ve pushed the envelope on this covers before. It`s
not like this is an entirely new thing for the magazine.

HANNAH: No, it`s not Rev, it`s definitely a provocative cover, but "Sports
Illustrated" has always been provocative. If you remember in the 1980s and
1990s, I certainly do. I was growing up in Catty, Ireland, and ladies like
this grace the cover. They were equally risque back then, wearing certain
types of bathing suits, you know, that might not even qualify as bathing
suits or what t-shirts and, you know, thong bottoms. And so, you know, we
are very outraged at this cover. Twitter will always going to be a twitter
when it comes to issues like this.

SHARPTON: Yes.

HANNAH: But at the same time, we have to keep some perspective here. Is
it sexist? Is it, you know, somehow degrading to women? I don`t think so.

SHARPTON: But Zerlina, a lot of people are outraged, a lot of people think
this went too far, there should be some standards.

MAXWELL: Oh, I think you know, you showed past covers. And it reminds me
a little bit of the Tyra Banks cover, although it goes a little further in
just, it looks prepubescent, I think that was the --

(CROSSTALK)

And Sports Illustrated, you know, the purpose of this issue is for men to
buy and look at women in swimsuit, and so understanding fundamentally
that`s what the issue is about, and then also being able to say, you know,
male objectification of women, and toxic masculinity are directly linked
to violent against women and women being objectified and sexism --

HANNAH: Yes. But Zerlina, I know, we were talking in the green room, I
know Zerlina has sent pictures of Ryan Gosling shirtless to her friends
with little means on the top of it.

(LAUGHTER)

SHARPTON: I don`t think this is quite comparable.

CHARLES: Well, Rev, I think the issue here is, you know, whatever it is
that "Sports Illustrated" is trying to do here, at the end of the day, when
you look at the picture, this girl is one breath away from being completely
nude.

SHARPTON: Yes. And I think that`s the point. Well, now to a more
scholarly debate, where will President Obama`s presidential library be?
Four possible locations -- Chicago, on Honolulu, and New York City are in
the running. Now, a source close to the First Lady says she`s in a New
York State of Mind, the source telling "The Chicago Sun Times," "It`s
Michelle`s choice where the library and museum will ultimately be located,
and she has let her close friends know she wants it to be located in New
York."

Mark, can you see the library here in New York City? Would that be a good
choice?

HANNAH: You know, I think so. I`ve been to a number of presidential
libraries to do research. And the President has a good sort of history
here, having gone to Columbia University.

SHARPTON: Yes. Even before he went to Chicago.

HANNAH: Absolutely. And so, he has roots in the city that would make
sense. I think there are a number of people that would like to do research
for the first -- you know, the first black president our country has ever
seen. It`s going to be a lot more accessible for people to travel to it
and dig up archives here as well. I do think it`s interesting that he`s
having Michelle make this decision. I don`t think that, you know, any
president will really going to leave the decision of where presidential
library is, up to another person, so that might be a little bit diplomatic.

MAXWELL: I think it`s a great idea. I think Harlem is certainly ground
zero for so many important moments in arts and culture for black people,
and then you already have the Schomburg Center there in Harlem, and so, I
think that, you know, putting another resource for people who are looking
to do research academic or otherwise, I think it`s a great central
location.

SHARPTON: Midwin?

CHARLES: Well, everything they said, but you know, but also --

HANNAH: Chicago is going to be upset.

CHARLES: I know they are, I know they are. But listen, New York is also
like many other cities, an epicenter of education.

MAXWELL: Right.

CHARLES: We have many universities here.

MAXWELL: So I think it`s a great idea. And at the end of the day, I`m a
native New Yorkers, everybody on twitter know, I`m always touting New York
and Brooklyn and so on and so forth. So, I think it`s a wonderful --

SHARPTON: But let me say and again --

CHARLES: So I`m biased.

SHARPTON: And this is only an unnamed source. We have no idea if this is
right, but I don`t know why you went to Harlem. I mean, Brooklyn has -- he
did stay in downtown Brooklyn.

HANNAH: Absolutely. Absolutely.

SHARPTON: I`m a Brooklyn guy.

MAXWELL: All right.

SHARPTON: We can facilitate this thing. What was he thinking? That`s
what so many people are still asking about the Seahawks` coach decision to
throw the ball at the end of the Super Bowl. And "TODAY SHOW," Matt Lauer
talked to Pete Carroll. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT LAUER, NBC HOST, "TODAY SHOW": You`ve heard the experts, not just
average Joes, say it was the worst call ever.

PETE CARROLL, SEAHAWKS HEAD COACH: It was the worst result of a call ever.
The call would have been a great one if we catch it. That would have been
just fine and nobody would have thought twice about it.

LAUER: This was properly planned, it just didn`t turn out well.

CARROLL: It was that play at that time was to match up what happened, we
knew we`re going to throw the ball one time in the sequel somewhere. And
this -- all of a sudden they have a goal line group of defense on there
that we could take advantage of if we threw it, and so we did. And it
just didn`t turn out right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: But he did admit he cried about everything that happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAUER: Have you allowed yourself to have that one moment lying in bed
where the tears flowed? Where you`re smiling at me, but I mean it. Has
there been that moment?

CARROLL: That happened at the 4:05 mark on, you know, that hit, you know.

LAUER: On Tuesday morning?

CARROLL: Yes. There was a break when I allowed all of the rush of it to
hit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Mark, what about the emotion here? What do you think?

HANNAH: Yes. Matt Lauer, wow, what an interviewer. I mean, if you watch
the whole 20 minutes, he is just tear jerking, he`s trying to get Pete
Carroll -- that`s not easy for an NFL head coach to come out and admit he
was crying over a call. It was pretty stubborn that Pete Carroll was
saying, oh, you know, this was still maybe the right call, but a bad result
of a right call. I mean, as a New England native, I`m perfectly happy he
made that call. Perfectly happy to see this --

SHARPTON: Well, you`re happy with the results. Zerlina --

MAXWELL: But it goes the other way and everybody is calling him a genius.
And so, I think sports -- everything is 20/20 in hindsight. And as the
daughter of a high school basketball coach, he definitely cried. He
definitely felt that very deeply.

SHARPTON: The emotion, do you feel sorry for him, Midwin?

CHARLES: Well, I think at the end of the day, listen, this guy is human.

MAXWELL: Yes.

CHARLES: You know, and I think that he made a bad call. Disclaimer, I
know very little about football, but in watching that game, it was clear
that that was probably not the right decision to make. So, I appreciate
his candor, though and admitting that he`s cried.

SHARPTON: I`m a Seahawks fans, I was rooting for the Seahawks. And I was
very angry at Carroll Sunday night, and I`m still very angry.

Everyone, stay with me, when we welcome back Sarah Palin to SNL. And Jimmy
Fallon goes back to school a "saved by the bell" reunion for the ages.
Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: We`re back with the panel Midwin, Mark and Zerlina live from New
York, it`s Sarah Palin! "People" magazine reports Palin will participate
in the show`s 40th anniversary. Though she was frequently spoofed on the
show, she was a good sport, appearing on the show just two weeks before the
election in 2008.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I need to talk to you. You can`t let Tina go out there
with that woman. She had goes against everything we stand for. I mean,
good lord, Loren, they call her, what`s that name they call her, what do
they call her again, Tina?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Caribou Barbie?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Caribou Barbie, thank you, Tina.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: So Mark, is this a good move for Palin?

HANNAH: It doesn`t hurt if you`re a politician to show you have a sense of
humor. And frankly right now, Sarah Palin has got nothing, you know,
there`s nothing bad Sarah Palin could do to put her in worst political
shape than she dug herself into after that horrendous speech. Everybody
remembers that. So, sort of this stem-winder rambling speech. Yes, I
know, I think honestly it`s not a bad move.

SHARPTON: Well, Midwin, it is becoming an epic 40th anniversary. A big
show. Huge comedians coming in. It`s not just a regular anniversary.

CHARLES: Exactly. And I`m sure she`s be glad to just be a part of that.
You know, I think at the end of the day, her being on the show is going to
be hilarious and like he said, there isn`t anything at this point she can
do that can hurt her. If anything, it`s going to help her.

SHARPTON: Don`t SNL when they spoof, and I`ve been spoofed as much as
anyone, doesn`t it humanize you though?

MAXWELL: I think that showing you have a good sense of humor is very
important. But I reject the notion that she`s a politician. Because she
was a half-term governor and I think actually from that moment --

HANNAH: Her party was nominated for Vice President.

MAXWELL: But right now she`s not a politician. I think that moment on SNL
when she went on two weeks before the election was sort of the beginning of
a persona that is separate from electoral politics.

SHARPTON: Yes. Because you can be a cultural figure aside from the
politics.

HANNAH: She`s a part of the -- for sure. And frankly, anything that
raises her visibility right now does help her influence within the
conservative movement and the Republican Party. That makes her relevant.

MAXWELL: This keep her relevant and this makes her part of this sort of
this historic 48th anniversary special.

SHARPTON: I think it`s going to be very interesting. I don`t know how she
plays in, and she will probably be the only republican political figure
that will be there.

CHARLES: Yes. Air quotes.

SHARPTON: What happens next, notwithstanding SNL? Zerlina?

MAXWELL: Well, I mean, she`s just going to continue the circus sideshow.
I`m sure, speaking, I mean, a lot of her speaking events recently have been
completely incoherent and there`s been a lot of media coverage --

SHARPTON: Lately.

MAXWELL: You know, but even more so, I mean, comparatively.

Midwin, Mark and Zerlina, thanks for joining "Conversation Nation."

MAXWELL: Thanks, Rev.

HANNAH: Thanks, Rev.

SHARPTON: When we come back, some moments of faith and humor at the
National Prayer Breakfast.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: We close tonight with some moments of faith and humor at the
National Prayer Breakfast. President Obama was there, so was the Dalai
Lama and NASCAR Legend Darrell Waltrip. Giving the President material for
some opening jokes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There aren`t that many occasions that brings his holiness under the
same roof as NASCAR. This may be the first. But God works in mysterious
ways. And so I want to thank Darrell for that wonderful presentation.
Darrell knows that when you`re going 200 miles an hour, a little prayer
cannot hurt. I suspect that more than once Darrell has had the same
thought as many of us have had in our own lives -- Jesus, take the wheel.
Although I hope that you kept your hands on the wheel when you were
thinking that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: The President then got serious, condemning violence in the name
of religion, and talking about how faith can be used to unite us instead of
dividing us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The Torah says love thy neighbor as yourself. In Islam there`s a
hadith that states none of you truly believes until he loves for his
brother what he loves for himself. The bible tells us to put on love which
binds everything together in perfect harmony. Put on love. Whatever our
beliefs, whatever our traditions, we must seek to be instruments of peace
and bringing light where there is darkness in and sowing love where there
is hatred.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Faith, can and should be an instrument of peace. Faith,
whatever your Faith is, should intensify in your character and values that
lead to a better and stronger and unified humanity, not a bitter, not a
vetted, divisive and hateful kind of world. No matter what faith you
believe in, if you dig deep into it, the core truths are remarkably very
similar. So when people do despicable, and ugly and hateful things, they
shouldn`t hide behind faith, because the President`s right -- no faith, no
faith at its core is about that. All faith at its core is about life, is
about blessings, is about peace, is about uniting with your creator,
however you approach that.

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