The Ed Show for Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: March 3, 2015
Guest: Bernie Sanders, Shmuley Boteach, Laicie Heeley, John Garamendi,
Caroline Heldman, Mitch Ceasar, Jennifer Granholm, Robert Reich
ED SCHULT, MSNBC HOST: Let`s get to work.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: This capital dome helped
build our Iron Dome.
SCHULTZ: Tonight, Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress.
NETANYAHU: We must all stand together to stop Iran`s march of conquest,
subjugation and terror.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The issue for me is not Bibi, the issue is Boehner.
REP. JOHN LEWIS, (D) LEWIS: It is my hope that today`s partisan political
low will never ever be repeated again.
SCHULTZ: And later, it`s personal.
REP. TREY GOWDY, CHAIRMAN, SELECT CMTE. ON BENGHAZI: You do not need a law
degree to have an understanding of how troubling this is.
SCHULTZ: Hillary Clinton is under attack for use of her personal e-mail in
the State Department.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is she trying to hide?
SCHULTZ: Plus, meet one of the United State`s new potential trading
partners. Why would we want to trade deal with Brunei?
Well look at the Sultan of Brunei`s disturbing record on human rights.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Condemned by the United Nations.
SCHULTZ: And what it means for the TPP?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ban Brunei from pending Trans-Pacific Partnership
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.
We start with foreign policy.
Today is really -- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his
controversial speech to Congress. House Speaker John Boehner invited
Netanyahu to speak without approval from the White House.
Well, there was reaction -- 36 House Democrats, 7 Senate Democrats and 1
Senate Independent skipped today`s speech. Netanyahu took a hard-line
against Iran, the Prime Minister warrant (ph) against the nuclear deal
currently being negotiated.
The United States and five other countries are working out a deal with the
Iranians to put a 10-year long halt to its nuclear program. Netanyahu made
clear he has two major problems with the deal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions,
one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the
restrictions on that program in about a decade. That`s why this deal is so
bad. It doesn`t block Iran`s path to the bomb. It paves Iran`s path to
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: The Prime Minister admitted certain restrictions would be imposed
on Iran`s nuclear program, however, he said the Iranians just can`t be
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: Like North Korea, Iran too has defied international inspectors.
It`s done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010.
Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.
Now, I know this is not going to come a shock -- as a shock to any of you,
but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of
hide-and-cheat with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: And Netanyahu made it very clear a nuclear Iran would be a threat
to Israel, in the Middle East thus a whole in the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: This deal won`t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell
to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear
tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn
into a nuclear tinderbox.
If anyone thinks -- if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: And leaving no stone on turn, finally, the Prime Minister made
the connection to ISIS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: When it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your
enemy. The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured
weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental
ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I`ll say
it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage
of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get
nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Is it fear-mongering or is it the absolute truth? The Prime
Minister left no wiggle room. He spoke in terms of absolutes today.
Any deal with Iran on a nuclear package would be impossible because of
Iran`s history to hide-and-cheat according to the Prime Minister.
On the flip side, the White House thinks this deal is the best chance of
stopping a nuclear-armed Iran. Later this afternoon, the President
underscored his position with Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It`s very important for all
of us, Americans, to realize that we have a system of government in which
foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not
through other channels.
And I think it`s important for us to stay focused on the problem at hand.
And the specific problem that is being debated right now is not whether we
trust the Iranian regime or not. We don`t trust them. It`s not whether
Iran engages in destabilizing activities. Everybody agrees with that.
The central question is, how can we stop them from getting a nuclear
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: And the administration made clear today that any deal would have
strict and frequent and intrusive inspections. Of course, Netanyahu
doesn`t believe that.
On Monday, National Security Advisor Susan Rice said stopping Iran`s entire
nuclear program simple is not realistic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN RICE, UNITED STATES SECURITY ADVISOR: Even our closest international
partners in the P5+1 do not support denying Iran the ability ever to pursue
peaceful nuclear energy. If that is our goal, our partners will abandon
us, and undermining the very sanctions we have imposed so effectively
together. Simply put, that is not a viable negotiating position.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Everyone agrees, having a nuclear-armed Iran is dangerous for the
world and there is a clear division on how to go about the process. One
thing is clear, today`s Republican`s views to Prime Minister of Israeli as
a prop (ph) to make the case against President Obama`s plan of action.
If the Prime Minister was going to agree with the President of the United
States, he probably wouldn`t -- never going to invited. The will of this
decision stems from the disdain of the speaker and the rest of the
Republicans have for this President.
This was just a convenient way for the speaker to pit the American people
against President Obama making any progress of foreign policy.
Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think.
Tonight`s question, "Who do you trust, President Obama or Prime Minister
Netanyahu?" Text A for President Obama, text B for Prime Minister
Netanyahu to 67622, you can leave a comment at our blog at ed.msnbc.com.
We`ll bring the results later on this show.
Let`s turn now to a Senator who did not go to the speech today and that is
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator, good to have you
Are you troubled by what you heard from the Prime Minister of Israel today?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Well, I`m troubled by a lot. I`m
troubled about Boehner making this a political issue undermining the
President`s ability to conduct foreign policy which is what the
constitution provides for the President to do.
I am disturbed that -- I am disturbed that the President -- that the Prime
Minister was allowed to come before a joint session when he is in the
middle of a very close political election using the Congress. It`s a total
opportunity for his reelection. That bothers me. But also, a lot of the
tone of his speech bothered me as well.
Look Ed, this is complicated stuff. Nobody has a magical answer to it.
But we are now -- this month, are going to commemorate the 12th anniversary
of the war in Iraq. And I remember, you remember, hearing all of these
speeches about how we have to go to war in Iraq, there was no solution. It
would be easy, it was the only way.
The end or result -- the result of that war (ph) was to open up in
incredible kind of worms (ph) plus thousands of brave soldiers, trillions
SCHULTZ: And you think that Netanyahu is part of that sell job?
SANDERS: I think that where we are right now is absolutely Iran cannot get
a nuclear weapon but we have got to go as far as we can to prevent another
war. A war with Iran after a war with Afghanistan, after war with Iraq
would be horrendous for this country and for the entire world.
SCHULTZ: Senator, I didn`t hear any solutions today from...
SCHULTZ: ... Mr. Netanyahu, there -- it was fear-mongering and saber-
SANDERS: And I`ll tell you -- I mean, it seemed to be that while he didn`t
use it, I think clearly for him, the solution may will be -- that there has
to be an attack against Iran that he does not see any of the solution.
I think the President has made it clear that this is really top
negotiations. We are working with five countries around the world to make
it happen. We have already applied significant sanctions. We`re prepared
to do more.
But I think, we have got to do everything that we can to avoid war with
Iran, will have huge implications for this country and for the world.
I think the President is making progress. He has said, is no guarantee
that in fact these negotiations will succeed. But let`s give these
negotiations an opportunity...
SANDERS: ... in fact, to be positive.
SCHULTZ: All right. Senator Bernie Sanders, good to have you with us
tonight. Sir, I appreciate it very much.
Let me turn now to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. He`s the founder of This World:
The Values Network and also Laicie Heeley of the Center for Arms Control
and Non-Proliferation. Great to have you both you with us.
Rabbi, you first tonight, your impression on the speech, did you hear what
you think this country and the world had to hear?
RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH THIS WORLD, THE VALUES NETWORK: I was there at the
speech. Look Ed, nobody wants war with Iran. We do want to increase
sanctions against Iran because that`s what brought them to the negotiating
table. But why, we, the United States with such as deep seated values,
negotiating with the country without first demanding that they at least
stop their genocidal intent against Israel. I mean fair enough people are
saying that Netanyahu is warmongering. And that he is paranoid is he?
Why do they keep on saying their going to annihilate Israel? Is it too
much to ask the President of the United States, who was a friend of Israel
and the Jewish people, to tell the people of Iran, to tell the governments
of Iran that we cannot have a serious conversation while you`re threatening
a second holocaust?
SCHULTZ: Laicie, what about that? Can we have a serious conversation to
deal with Iranians if they`re going to have this kind of rhetoric?
LAICIE HEELEY, CENTER FOR ARMS CONTROL & NON-PROLIFERATION: We have plenty
of serious of conversations of countries of that we don`t like. We are
negotiating along side of Russia right now to come to deal on this Iran`s
We can`t place these kinds of preconditions on talks when it`s -- when the
choice is either talk, or having Iranian nuclear weapon, or potentially
another war in the Middle East.
SCHULTZ: Rabbi, OK. Tweeting, he even talk about tweeting and he talk
about the rhetoric, but he left no room or no solution. It was an
absolute. We`re going to have a confrontation with the Iranians. I mean
that`s how I took the speech and that everything the President of the
United States is doing with other countries trying to really this nuclear
program end, is the wrong path or did you hear it differently.
BOTEACH: Look Ed, this battle between President Obama and Prime Minister
Netanyahu is a battle for heart and mind. You know, most of us are not
nuclear physicist. We don`t understand centrifuges spinning and enriching
uranium and plutonium.
We do understand that Iran is in oil superpower. They don`t need nuclear
energy. So here`s the question. Why do they hide this program of a dozen
years, what is their intent? Iran says we want it for energy purposes.
But they don`t need it for energy purposes. We also know that they are,
according to our State Department, the Obama State Department, the foremost
exporter of terrorism throughout the world blowing up JCCs (ph) and an
embassy and the funding of Hezbollah firing rockets.
They`re bad people. They hang gays from public square, they stone women to
death. Why would we trust them, we won`t even buy used car from them. In
that sense, I think that Netanyahu is winning the war for minds and hearts,
because don`t like Iran and we don`t see that we should trust them.
SCHULTZ: And Rabbi, how much do you think politics played into his
appearance today in front of the Congress, in light of an election is not
far away in his country?
BOTEACH: I`m sure politics played a role, you know. I`m some one from a
Jewish value system. We believe that action is more important that
motivation. So even if the motivation wasn`t completely pure. I think
that the action was absolutely pure. It`s very important to stop Iran.
BOTEACH: Look Ed, be fair one thing. We Jews experience the genocide just
70 years ago. I escorted Elie Wiezel to his speech today.
SCHULT: Wait a minute. I believe I am fair here. I did not hear a
solution today other than a confrontation. That`s the observation I had.
I was anxious in fact about five minutes into the speech. I was kind of
kicking myself, why would I`d be critical of hearing this in front of the
I know the President doesn`t like it, I understand that there`s some annex
going back and forth as far as foreign policy is concern. But if this is
the way it is, I think it`s important for the world to hear it. But how
else -- and this goes to you Laicie, how else -- why anybody going to get
some kind of deal or slow down Iran`s nuclear program unless we go face to
face with them?
HEELEY: Oh, we need a nuclear deal exactly because we don`t trust Iran.
We need inspectors on the ground, we need to control the centrifuges but
not everyone understands. But the people at the negotiating table do
understand those centrifuges. They do understand how to constrain that
nuclear program. And they do understand how we will -- prevent Iran from
getting that nuclear weapon.
SCHULTZ: OK. So Laicie, how do you think the Iranians are going to view
Netanyahu who speak into the American Congressional today -- session today?
How they going to view this?
HEELEY: Netanyahu solution is unfortunately a fantasy. He would take us
back 10 years to when Iran didn`t have the civilian energy program that
they do now. He would -- envision a deal that has not been up on the
table, at the outside of negotiations. And it`s not out in the table now.
So ultimately, right now, what Netanyahu is doing is giving a campaign
HEELEY: And that`s -- it`s very little more (ph).
SCHULTZ: So Rabbi Shmuley, what do we do? Disband all of these
conversations, stop working with the Brits and Japanese and the Chinese on
this, and then just move forward with more sanctions -- is that the way we
would stop it?
BOTEACH: Well, I think we`ve past the Kirk-Menendez bill which does
involve increasing sanctions. The experts say that Iran is only talking to
us because of sanctions. They don`t want to be established regimes. The
regime has a very bad economy. They already had a pretty serious
revolutionary movement in 2009 which they mowed down the machine gun people
in the streets. And unfortunately, we didn`t support those people.
But this is a regime that isn`t necessary that entrench. They have to talk
because of sanctions. So why are we easing sanctions?
Let`s also remember something else. Whenever we unfreeze the assets of
Iran, we are giving them billions of dollars by which defilement unrest
(ph) throughout the world to increase terrorism throughout the world. We
don`t want to fund this government. They do really bad things with money.
BOTEACH: As far as the plan. Senator Sanders actually made a good point.
There`s no magical, you know, plan here solution. But certainly increase
sanctions. I don`t believe they should remain nuclear and certainly, if
this deal going to leave them about 5,000 centrifuges...
SCHULTZ: Do you think that sanctions, more sanctions would lead to regime
BOTEACH: Well, I think more sanctions certainly would lead to greater
BOTEACH: Then, we should have been supported that...
SCHULTZ: But that -- there`s no way of reeling in their nuclear program
with more sanctions. I mean that is not a motivation for them to stop
doing what they`re doing especially if you say they have good and honest
We will continue it another time. I really appreciate...
BOTEACH: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: ... both of you being with us tonight. Rabbi Shmuley and also
Laicie Heeley, thanks for you time here on the Ed Show.
BOTEACH: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: Coming up, Congressman John Garamendi has some thoughts on all of
these, fresh reactions to Netanyahu`s speech. He`s on the Armed Services
Committee and other big stories of the day coming out of the hill.
Plus, Republicans try to stir up another round of Benghazi fever. This
time Hillary Clinton used some personal e-mail is under attack. Keep it
here, we`ll be right back on the Ed Show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NETANYAHU: Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And
that`s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It
leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to
prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could
get to the bomb by violating the deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: We`re back.
Earlier today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivering that
impassioned speech to the Congress about the emerging nuclear deal with
Iran. Netanyahu`s (inaudible) address in House Chamber came just three
weeks before the next deadline for a deal.
And the White House saw this is a deliberate attempt to undermine ongoing
negotiations with Iranians.
Republicans saw yet another opportunity to pit themselves against the
For more on this, let`s get reaction from Congressman John Garamendi of
Congressman, your thoughts. What did you hear from the Prime Minister
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, I heard a very impassioned and
a very good political speech undoubtedly, will play well through those in
Israel that are getting ready for the election. I`m not sure how that`s
going to turn out but I do know that it makes somewhat more complicated the
issue that we have before switches the success of these negotiations.
SCHULTZ: He doesn`t believe anything works with Iran.
GARAMENDI: Well, we don`t have much choice here but to make sure that
something does work. We want Iran to be in a position where they cannot
develop a new nuclear weapon, that they have under their treaties, under
the nuclear treaties that exists around the world.
They do have the right and the opportunity for peaceful nuclear activities
but not for weapons. But we need to setup and this where the negotiations
are going, is to setup a mechanism so that, A, they do not have the
capability of developing a nuclear weapon, and B, that we can be absolutely
sure that they are not secretly doing that.
Now, Netanyahu does not does not trust them. We don`t trust them either.
That`s what the verification is all about. And that`s why...
SCHULTZ: And the President said that today. The President said he doesn`t
trust them and that`s why we got to do it and have verification but he
thinks that this is the only way to reel in their nuclear program with
Now, given that, do you think it was wrong for Netanyahu to be invited to
speak? I mean, I know the President and he said this after the speech
today that the executive branch guides the foreign policy but the American
people elect the guy who is guiding the foreign policy. And it`s important
I think for the American -- we want to know exactly where Israel is in this
(inaudible) negotiation as well. Your thoughts.
GARAMENDI: Well, absolutely true. The Prime Minister had an enormously
important opportunity from his perspective, politically as well as to
deliver the perspective of the current Israeli government and he did it in
the most aptitude (ph) forum available in the world. That is to a joint
session of Congress in United States.
OK. Now from here, where do we go? We need to go, look at these
negotiations, make sure that they are lined up in a way that provides, as
Reagan said, trust and verify.
SCHULTZ: And that`s where we are, no doubt.
Turning to the battle of the Department of Homeland Security, it was a big
win for Democrats today. After months of shameful political theater, the
House finally voted on a clean bill to fully fund the Department of
Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year.
The bill passed by a vote of 257 to 167 with 75 Republicans getting
onboard. Some Republicans had to be dragged across the finish line,
kicking and screaming on those. A group lead by Congressman Thomas Massie
of Kentucky made a last-ditch effort to kill the bill by requesting a
motion to table it.
More than 90 House Republicans joined Democrats defeat the motion providing
once again Speaker Boehner proving, once again, the Speaker Boehner really
doesn`t have control of his caucus.
Well, apparently he does have control of his caucus but there`s just a lot
of political pressure in theater that are out there. I mean the vote did
come to the floor. It did pass as predicted.
Congressman, your take on all of this -- are we going to continue to see
this hostage taking of issues when financial matters come up like this?
GARAMENDI: Well, the sad thing is the answer is yes. This is the six-time
in the last three and a half years that the Republicans have taken us up to
a cliff and said, we`re going to push you off the cliff America. We`re
going to push you into chaos. They`ve tried that five previous times, this
is being the six, and they`re likely to do it again.
SCHULTZ: So what do you think moved Boehner? What do you think moved them
GARAMENDI: Well, the reality that the entire 320 plus million Americans
are at risk when the Homeland Security Department is in chaos is being
shutdown is being disrupted to kind of things that are necessary for
everyday security of this nation are put aside. And he came to realized it
and a majority of his caucus realized it. A significant minority of the
Republican caucus still hasn`t learned their lesson.
GARAMENDI: They don`t march this nation off a cliff. You`ve got issues.
Put those issues up for a vote. If you got the vote you win. If you don`t
you lose. Today, those radicals...
GARAMENDI: ... lost and now we go forward with a fully funded Department
of Homeland Security.
SCHULTZ: Well, Boehner proven that he can do it. He has proven that he
can do it and he ought to be able to do it again when it comes to -- let`s
see highway funding which is not far off...
GARAMENDI: ... and also another possibility of a government shutdown this
Congressman John Garamendi, good to have you with us tonight.
GARAMENDI: Always, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Big win for Democrats politically no doubt.
Coming up, we have breaking news on the Department of Justice case in
Ferguson, Missouri and later, the right-wing trying to take aim at Hillary
Clinton and use her personal e-mail at the State Department as the big
target. Jennifer Granholm joins us for the real story.
Stay with us, we`ll be right back.
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.
We have some breaking news at this hour regarding the Ferguson Police
Department. The Department of Justice has set to release a report
detailing Ferguson Police Department`s racial bias. This comes after a
nearly six-month investigation of the department.
The Department of Justice met with city officials today in the Saint Louis
area to discuss the findings.
Details of the report have not been made public yet, but it includes data
on arrest and traffic stops that disproportionately target African-American
residents. It also cites policing practices that have led to distrust
within the community.
The Ferguson City officials planned to hold a press conference tomorrow.
For more on this, let`s bring in Dr. James Peterson, MSNBC Contributor and
Professor of Africana Studies at Lehigh University.
Doctor, what impact is this report going have when it says there`s
disproportionately targeting of African-American residents?
DR. JAMES PETERSON, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: It`s incredibly important to have
this report, Ed. You might remember a few months back in the fall. You
have me on the program with an artist as activist by the name of TDub`O
(ph). And he told us a story and the immediate aftermath of the decision
around Ferguson, of law enforcement pulling him over and pointing a gun in
his face. I can hear the collective jaws` drop everybody in your studio
over there. Mine was dropping as well.
And we`ve heard this. I`ve been to Ferguson. We`ve heard it from the
people but it`s important to have the federal mandate that says this is
what`s really going on. We did the investigation.
Look at some of the data here, Ed. Black folks are 68 percent less likely
to have their cases dismissed. They`re 95 percent more likely to spend
more than two days in jail. That data is really, really important because
it goes to the discretionary kind of power that judges and municipal folk
have over the lives of black people in Ferguson.
SCHULTZ: So, how do you reverse this? This is going to come out with a
full-open book, statistics and trends and a tremendous amount of distrust
in the community, no question about it. How do you reverse it? Doesn`t
the start off the top and doesn`t it take years?
PETERSON: It takes years, Ed. It will take collective effort quite a bit
work. I think the first step we need to understand here is that this is
not just Ferguson.
There are towns and communities that are structurally setup like Ferguson
all over this nation. So would actually is a federal problem. That`s
number one. Number two, we`ve got to bring implicit bias, racial bias,
super humanization biases, all the important social psychological research
on this information into our dialogue about how we address these issues.
And then number three, we`ve got to work to make the municipalities, law
enforcement, more representatives of the communities that they have to
protect and serve.
SCHULTZ: All right. The Justice Department will release that in the
Dr. James Peterson, thanks for your time tonight. I appreciate it.
Lots more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us, we will be right back
here on MSNBC.
HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC
Stocks pulled back. The Dow falls 85 points, the S&P sheds 9, the NASDAQ
is off by 28, so the thing back below the 5,000 mark.
Automakers that are top February with Ford, GM, Fiat and Chrysler, all
reporting sales figures that`s now short of analyst`s estimates. And
Target shares entire today, the retailer plans to slash thousands of jobs
over the next few years as it tries to cut cost and restructure its
That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.
The Republicans are looking for any excuse to try to discredit Hillary
Clinton, no doubt.
Now, Clinton is being question for the use of her personal e-mail account
while she was Secretary of State.
I got one word for you here, Benghazi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOWDY: Despite some attacks from those who claimed that all questions
regarding Benghazi have been asked and answered, the revelation of
Secretary Clinton uses her personal e-mail account solace (ph) that claimed
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: I mean, it just so predictable. This morning in our meeting as I
said, one this dude from South Carolina come out and get after it.
You know, I`m surprised the Republicans haven`t called for full
investigation on this already.
Michael Schmidt, the reporter who brought story was on MSNBC just a short
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL SCHMIDT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: If she wasn`t using a government
account in the State Department had no way of cataloging and retaining all
of her e-mails, for record keeping purposes, for congressional oversight,
for freedom of information act request and for historians to go back and
look at it. So essentially, it was shielding her communications from those
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Robert Gibbs says this may impact her campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT GIBBS, FMR. WH PRESS SECY: I think this is another one of those
things that the Clinton campaign such as it is, she`s going to have to
explain. And I think it`s much easier for critics to explain why they
don`t exist then it might be for her to explain why she used her private e-
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: And of course, not missing the opportunity, Jeb Bush weigh in on
Twitter. He wrote, "Transparency matters. Unclassified Hillary Clinton e-
mails should be released. You can see mine, here"
Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel Caroline Heldman she is a
Professor of Politics at Occidental College and also with us tonight, Mitch
Ceasar, DNC Executive Board Member.
All right. The unvarnished truth from both of you. Mitch, you first, is
this a problem for Hillary Clinton?
MITCH CEASAR, DNC EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER: I don`t think so at all. I
think is, as you`ve said, Benghazi fever. You know, Republicans are really
good. When there`s no fire, they create smoke and create questions.
I think the real issue is, and it seems we`re coming out now a little bit
later, whether or not the law that affects or went into affect of November
14th which was way after she was gone.
Colin Powell already said today, he did business the same way. They made a
request. This is for record keeping not that she had great secrets.
And Representative Cummings, the ranking democrat on the Benghazi,
oversight committee said in his speech not too long ago that he thought
(ph) the law went into effect after Secretary Clinton...
CEASAR: ... left to office.
SCHULTZ: Caroline, how should she handle this?
CAROLINE HELDMAN, PROFESSOR OF POLITICS, OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: Well, I think
she should handle it by telling the truth. If this is making a mountain
out of a molehill that these -- the e-mail clarification from the National
Archives didn`t go into effect until 2013. She came into office in 2009.
And perhaps more importantly, she should note that John Kerry is the very
first secretary who`s actually primarily used his .gov address. Colin
Powell didn`t do it. It just wasn`t standard operating procedures. So
she`s being held accountable to standards that didn`t with the kind.
SCHULTZ: But the appearance is -- looking at it from the way the
conservatives are, the appearance is that she`s hiding something, Caroline.
That this is just makes it a heck of lot harder for them to navigate and
found out exactly what she was dealing.
HELDMAN: And unfortunately, telling the truth maybe won`t change that
perception because they`re going to go after her for anything. I think
that this shows us, you know, the ugly and ignorant side of politics that a
lot of Americans are tired of them. This is just partisan politics as its
best. There`s no real problem here.
She`s turned over 55,000 documents to the National Archives. There is zero
evidence that she is hiding anything.
SCHULTZ: So, Mitch, how do we turn back a Benghazi witch-hunt Part 2? I
mean, this place right into the Clinton haters` hands, doesn`t it?
CEASAR: Well, it`s interesting because what`s occurring is usually in
politics. If you have something really good on somebody, you will release
at the very end like (inaudible) with George Bush in 2000, with the DUI.
But if they`re coming out in Hillary this early, that honestly means they
have nothing, they don`t think the story political -- we have legs (ph).
And also Secretary Clint is very smart person. If she thought she was
doing anything wrong, this would have never occurred.
I frankly know her for a long time. I believe she`s a pretty
straightforward person. I don`t believe they`re on a witch-hunt as
Representative Cummings have said on numerous occasions, is going to take
SCHULTZ: All right.
Let`s go now to Jennifer Granholm. She is the Co-Chair of Priorities USA,
joining us here on the Ed Show. Ms. Granholm, appreciate your time
tonight. What you`re reaction to Jeb Bush`s tweet on this?
JENNIFER GRANHOLM CO-CHAIR, PRIORITIES USA: Well, I mean first of all Jeb
Bush, of all people, should be careful about this because he did 550,000 e-
mails on his private e-mail when he was Governor.
So, you know, if you live in glass house, you shouldn`t throw stones,
number one. Number two, Ed, as people have said all day long. She was in
office at a time when there was no a prohibition against using your
personal e-mail for government work. She knew she was sending this to
people who are in the government.
When she left in January of 2013 there was no such prohibition. The
President later signed a law in November of 2014, 18 months later that did
make clear that you should be able to preserve those private e-mails and
use them for the record purposes.
GRANHOLM: But that was not in effect when she was...
GRANHOLM: ... in office. So this is just a nothing burglar (ph).
SCHULTZ: Well, Congressman Darrell Issa released a statement criticizing
the fallout saying "The reason it matters is simple. It is the law."
What`s you`re reaction to that?
GRANHOLM: Well, I mean today it`s the law. I wasn`t the law when she was
GRANHOLM: Number one. Hey, Ed, just quickly, you know, his committee and
all of these committees that have breathlessly gone after her has spent
millions of taxpayer dollars have held 10 -- more than 10 committees, five
reports, all of these investigation and this is what they have.
SCHULTZ: I`m not quite sure.
GRANHOLM: Something that doesn`t even illegal act.
SCHULTZ: Yeah. I`m not quite sure how this would suppress information.
SCHUTLZ: I mean you could go into anybody`s e-mail account and find out
who the heck their communicating with. So, what if it takes a little bit
longer to "Categorize them" I mean...
SCHUTLZ: Your thoughts.
GRANHOLM: I mean, first of all, Ed. I mean, she released 55,000 pages of
e-mails to the State Department, number one. Number two, everybody who
she`s communicated with on state business might have been on a public e-
mail and so.
SCHULTZ: So this is no problem for her, Jennifer? This is not going to be
GRANHOLM: No. The Republicans want to make it a problem. But in reality,
it is not -- I mean it so far -- do you think that people who listen to
your show care about whether she`s using an e-mail -- what e-mail she`s
using on her Blackberry.
SCHULTZ: I think they care about the truth seriously. I do.
GRANHOLM: No. I totally agree.
SCHULTZ: And you know what? I`m a Hillary Clinton fan. I think she done
a lot for this country in her life and she`s been a great servant. But in
putting the number on it, 50 -- she released 55,000. Now, a good reporter
would come back and say, "Yeah, but is that all of them? Is there 57,000
or maybe 2,000 out there that we don`t have that might be value?
Now I`m not trying to impugn her character here. I`m just saying how the
people would view this. Has everything single e-mail been released because
that`s really what`s going to take to satisfy the right-wing?
GRANHOLM: Yeah. I mean the right-wing will never be satisfied, Ed. You
know this even if she releases everything she has ever done in her life,
every personal statements she`s every made to anyone. She has released
55,000 pages of all the e-mails that are relevant to here job as Secretary
And truly if they want to continue to waste taxpayer dollar on this, I
complete agree people want the truth. But there has been not one
suggestion that she has been untruthful or has been hiding something other
than from the Republicans who really have a vested interest and trying to
make this an argument because they have nothing else.
SCHULTZ: Do you think this will riled up Hillary`s base and realize that
she still the big target?
GRANHOLM: Well, its no -- this is probably one in the gazillion stories
that will be coming, right, that help to riled up base but also to
demonstrate that she`s, you know, she got a big target on here back. But I
think that the media and others who are looking at this including
Republican have to look at the behavior of the folks on their side.
So if Jeb Bush is got a bunch of private e-mail, how come nobodies not
making noise about that.
SCHULTZ: I`ll do that. Jennifer Granholm, great to have you with us
GRANHOLM: Great to be here (ph). Thanks.
SCHULTZ: Caroline Heldman, Professor, and also Mitch Ceasar here on the Ed
Show. Appreciate your time. Thanks so much.
Coming up, the Sultan of Brunei human rights record cast more shadows in
the TPP and fast-track. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich joins us for
Stay with us. We`ll be right back.
SCHULTZ: SCHULTZ: And in tonight`s two-minute drill. A hockey
homecoming, the daughter helps out.
Check this out Minnesota Wild picked up Columbus Blue Jackets defenseman
Jordan Leopold just before yesterday`s trade deadline.
Now, the Minnesota native has been around the NHL long time playing seven
teams since 2002. That so many rosters he`s been on. And Leopold may have
his daughter to thank for his latest move.
11 year old Jordan wrote a letter to the Wild coaching staff and say, "Hey,
would you pick up my dad?" She said that he was lonely without his family
and they really missed him as well. Jordan was also quick to point it out
that the teams defense "You know, you`re kind of struggling you could use
my dad". Following to trade the Blue Jackets` General Manager retweeted
the letter adding. "It isn`t always just about business."
Stick around there`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. We`ll be right
SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, Trade Promotion Authority is stuck according
to Senator Orrin Hatch.
Democratic demands are holding up the TPA which fast-tracks the Trans-
Pacific Partnership. And President Obama wants a trade deal without
amendment or discussion from the Congress. The TPP will devastate the
American workforce worldwide and of course the human rights implications
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: It is a great pleasure to welcome my good friend, His Majesty, the
Sultan of Brunei.
SCHULTZ: President Obama wants to do business with the Sultan of Brunei.
Labor leaders don`t understand why.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We sacrifice so that we essentially pay off these
countries until (ph) they come closer to the United States than to China.
OBAMA: I`m very grateful for His Majesty`s outstanding leadership and his
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The leader of a small oil rich country that was
recently condemned by the United Nations for his strict new penal code for
Muslims including death by stoning for homosexuals.
SEN. BEN CARDIN, (D) MARYLAND: The LGBT community has legitimate human
rights concerns. In Brunei and Malaysia and Vietnam, their record on labor
is very suspect.
SCHULTZ: The oil-rich Asian country is one of the nation`s joining the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. The trade deal is NAFTA on steroids. Jobs will
go overseas corporate interest will definitely be put first.
HASSANAL BOLKIAH, SULTAN OF BRUNEI: President Barrack Obama and I have had
an excellent meeting with the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. We are
negotiating with further build-up of this economic condition.
SCHULTZ: Brunei is pushing for a trade relationship with the United
States. The Obama Administration calls the Sultan, a friend.
JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We`re very, very much looking forward to
working with you.
SCHULTZ: Human rights activists put the Sultan of Brunei on their radar
when he established the abusive sharia law in this country.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Implementing laws that will ultimately lead to the
stoning to death of gay men and lesbians.
SCHULTZ: American jobs and human rights will take a back seat to corporate
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A TTP is a dangerous path and its own right like
NAFTA, it will off-shore millions of good paying America jobs.
SCHULTZ: On all fronts, more people in Congress are realizing that the
Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trade Promotion Authority should be killed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who have been affected from the TTP?
BOLKIAH: These visits give me a good opportunity to renew the long pending
and warm friendship between Brunei Darussalam and the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Author of
"Aftershock" and filmmaker behind "Inequality for All" now available on
Netflix. Mr. Reich, great to have you with us tonight.
ROBERT REICH, FMR. LABOR SECRETARY: Hi, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Is this deal is bad as labor says it is?
REICH: Well, I say it`s very, very bad not only the fast-track which would
permitted to go through Congress without any kind of amendment, any
discussion just an upper down vote. But also the actual treaty, the trade
deal itself which not only abrogates human rights but also would lead to
more outsourcing of jobs abroad, and also threaten our health, and safety,
and environmental and labor protections. Because inside that trade deal,
we don`t know exactly what`s in it.
But what`s been leaked so far shows that inside the trade deal would be a
tribunal outside the United States that would be able to attack our health
safety and environmental and labor protection.
SCHULTZ: So are we turning away from the evils of the Sultan of Brunei to
do this deal? Not so sure what it seems like everybody`s friends.
REICH: Well, we`re actually putting corporate profits in front of almost
every other value. And it`s not surprising in the sense that the people
who have actually sat at the table to craft this trade deal are mostly big
corporations in Wall Street. And most Americans have no idea what`s in it.
It`s impossible to find out.
SCHULTZ: Do you think it can be stopped? Do you think fast-track, Trade
Promotion Authority which of course would give the President the authority
to move forward on any trade deal but this of course is the one that`s on
the table. Do you think the Democrats can stop it and I know there are
some Republicans for all the right reasons who are against it as well?
REICH: I think it can be stopped, Ed, and I think it can be stopped mainly
because most Americans are very suspicious and have grown more suspension -
- suspicious over the years of trade deals. They have seen their jobs
outsourced abroad and they`ve seen the pressure, the downward pressure on
wages that a lot of these trade deals have created.
You know, over 20 years ago, I was one of the people in the Clinton
administration who was promoting NAFTA. Well, looking back on NAFTA, I`ve
got a bit contrite because a lot of what happened after NAFTA was not so
good. In fact, we lost jobs, we lost wages.
SCHULTZ: Do you think that this is all about security in the end? That
this is about a neighbor and maybe a crucial part of the world and we may
need them down the road so we`re just going to cast aside any kind of
negative issues such as sharia law or their record on human rights. We`re
just going to turn a blind out of that because we might need that territory
for an operating base later on.
REICH: Well, that`s what the Obama administration seems to be telling
members of Congress that this is all about containing Chinese influence in
the Pacific basin.
Well, it maybe about containing Chinese influence but it really is about
restrengthening the influence of American based corporations who have no
particular adherence or loyalty to the United States. I mean they just
want to improve their bottom lines.
So why the administration thinks this is going to help American security I
really frankly have no idea.
SCHULTZ: And quickly, Mr. Reich, what kind of job numbers do you think
that we would lost -- we will lose, comparing to ones that we lost in
NAFTA, in the Colombian trade deal, in the South Korean trade deal? I
mean, how devastating would this one be, greater than all of those?
REICH: No. Well, it could be greater. I mean this is 40 percent of
global trade we`re talking about in terms of the countries that are
REICH: But it`s not just lost of jobs Ed. It`s also lost of wages because
these trade deals push -- put down with pressure on American wages.
SCHULTZ: OK. Got to go.
REICH: That`s what we`ve seen.
SCHULTZ: Robert Reich, great to have you with us. Great work and I
appreciate you time here on the Ed Show tonight. Thank you.
REICH: Thanks, Ed..
SCHULTZ: That is the Ed Show.
Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening,
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2015 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.>