Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Monday, March 16th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: March 16, 2015
Guest: Joseph Cirincione, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Dean Obeidallah, Thomas
Mesereau, Jay Famiglietti, Annette Taddeo, Byron Dorgan, Mitch Ceasar


ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from Miami.

Let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Tonight,

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: I`m not going to apologize for the
unconstitutional, un-thought-out action by somebody who`s been in the
United States Senate for 60-something days.

SEN. TOM COTTON, (R) ARKANSAS: And so that`s why it so important that we
communicated this message straight to Iran. They already control Tehran.

SCHULTZ: And later.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Seventy-one-year-old Robert Durst is back behind
bars.

STEPHANIE GOSK, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Hopefully, the LAPD is going to keep
him there.

ROBERT DURST, ARRESTED FOR MURDER OF SUSAN BERMAN: Could not tell what the
whole truth. Nobody tells the whole truth.

SCHULTZ: Plus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re getting ready for another long bright summer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: California is so water-squeezed right now.

SCHULTZ: And.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The American still come like the laps on ship (ph).

MARISSA BAGG, NBC 6 REPORTER: That the U.S. Embassy could be opening Cuba
as early as April 10th.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.

In just nine hours, the people of Israel will head to the polls.

Right now, the race for Israeli Prime Minister is racer (ph) close.

Benjamin Netanyahu warns supporters on Sunday, he may lose on Tuesday`s
election.

Never before have we seen an Israeli election to play out here in America
the way this has.

Netanyahu made international headlines after slamming the Iranian nuclear
deal and then, address to Congress, it was suppose to work. But the prime
minister was hoping this speech will give him a big jump in the polls.
Well, that didn`t happen.

Republicans in Congress, they`ve got a similar situation on their hands.
Criticism over their open letter to Iran has been anything but muted.

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas said on Sunday, he is concerned about Iran`s
influence in the region.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COTTON: The Congress stands ready to impose much more sever sanctions.
Moreover, we have to stand up to Iran`s attempts to drive for regional
dominance. They already control Tehran increasingly. They control
Damascus, and Beirut, and Baghdad and now, Sana`a as well. They do all
that without a nuclear weapon. Imagine what they would do with a nuclear
weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: He is a scholar.

Senator Cotton needs a geography lesson. Tehran is capital city of Iran.

If we can`t trust Cotton on basing geography or history, how can we trust
him on foreign policy. What is he doing on that committee?

Secretary of State John Kerry has some harsh words for Cotton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: I`m not going to apologize for the unconstitutional, un-thought-out
action by somebody who`s been in the United States Senate for 60-something
days. That`s just inappropriate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Secretary Kerry certainly very clear on this issue. He said
Congress cannot change the executive agreement if finalized.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: It specifically inserts itself directly to the leader of another
country saying, "Don`t negotiate with these guys because we`re going to
change this" which by the way is not only contrary to the constitution with
respect to the executive`s right to negotiate but it is incorrect because
they cannot change an executive agreement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: So, once again, Republicans are spreading lies and playing games
with high stakes nuclear negotiations. They could careless about the
consequence that appears. Republicans just want to undermine this
President again.

Earlier today, Secretary Kerry met with Iranian officials in Switzerland to
work on the nuclear deal. Iran`s nuclear chief said, he was "very
optimistic heading into today`s talks."

Officials said they are working towards an end of March deadline. At that
point, they want to work of -- want a framework that addresses elements of
a comprehensive deal.

Tom Cotton`s letter was brought up by the Iranians to today`s meeting.
Officials would not comment on what was said about the letter. They did
call the letter a distraction.

But this is truly a classic example of a Tea Partier who was supported by
outside money in a big way to go to Washington and to cause problems for
this President.

Cotton (inaudible) was rerun from third base but he is the chosen one of
the Republican Party to go out there and make a fool of himself, and he got
away with it to a certain extent.

What Secretary Kerry said was long overdue and right on the mark.

Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think.

Tonight`s question, "Do Republicans respect Benjamin Netanyahu more than
President Obama?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622 and, of course,
you can get my video podcast at wegoted.com.

For more, let me bring in Dean Obeidallah, a Columnist for The Daily Beast,
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach who is a founder of This World: The Values Network
and Joe Cirincione, President of Ploughshares Fund. Gentlemen, great to
have you with us.

Joe, you first tonight. Looking at these negotiations and paying attention
to what Secretary Kerry said about Congress`s ability that they can`t
change it, what can Congress do to be very clear on this?

So, what was the overall purpose of this letter was just a -- I think as
much to confuse people as anything else. Your thoughts.

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, PLOUGHSHARES FUND: This was a very ill considered and
illiterate letter, hitting many of the constitutional facts wrong.

The executive, the President makes scores of such agreements. Ronald
Reagan made 1,500 executive agreements. Richard Nixon made 100 of
executive agreements including the diplomatic recognition of China, perhaps
one of the most significant foreign policy decisions of the last six years
and the end of the Vietnam War. Executive agreements Congress never voted

Well, Congress get to vote on this Iran deal. Yes, but not the way their
asking for, not an up or down vote.

Most of the sanctions that we placed on Iran are congressionally mandated,
so only Congress can list them. So Congress has the ultimate authority
here.

After this deal, they can weight in and decide whether they should lift
(ph) them or not. If they`re smart, they`ll listen to the President and
Secretary Kerry who say, "Let the sanction stay in place for two years.
Let us wave them temporarily. If Iran complies then, you can vote on
whether you want to lift (ph) them."

SCHULTZ: And Joe based on the letter and based on what is being reported
from today`s negotiations, it appears there was not a real impact of this
letter. What was your read on it?

CIRINCIONE: I believe the Iranians are trying to use this for leveraging
their talks, so the Republican letter aided the hard-liners in Iran.

They`re going to demand a higher price. They want more sanctions relieve
faster and they`re using this as an argument for why does she (ph) get it.

SCHULTZ: And Dean Obeidallah, is this letter something that the
Republicans are finally going to regret?

There were obviously reports last week, they had to sign it because a
snowstorm was coming.

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: Yes.

SCHULTZ: It would seem to be a very "flipped it" move on the part of a
number of Senators at this point. Is this something they regret?

OBEIDALLAH: Tom Cotton thinks it`s the greatest idea ever. Still, just on
Sunday, the guy don`t regret it whatsoever, but when you hear the words of
people like Rand Paul who said that the Senate hearing the other day,
"Well, this letter wasn`t really directed to the Iranians. It was
directed to the Obama administration." Well, guess what, it`s not Rand.
It was directed by letter itself, it sent to the leaders Iran. He is
backing off.

John McCain which is just reference (ph) there said, "A snowstorm was
coming, so we just did this quickly."

They`re backing off. I don`t think they ever expected the backlash we saw.
Social media lit up for two days with Twitter. The number one hashtag was
"47 Traitors" referring to 47 Senators. Plus, you look at Paul`s -- a
Republicans barely 55 percent, barely 50 percent agree with the letter,
Independence completely against it and obviously, Democrats against it.

SCHULTZ: Yes.

OBEIDALLAH: It doesn`t help them at all and it kind of steamer (ph) the
whole Hillary Clinton e-mail thing for few days as well.

SCHULTZ: Rabbi Shmuley, what if Benjamin Netanyahu does not retain his
seat as the Israeli Prime Minister? What if he is defeated? What is that
say, what is it do to all of these?

RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, THIS WORLD: THE VALUES NETWORK: Well, it says if
for democracy and the Israel has divided politically as the United States
is. But one thing Israel is united about, Ed, is the opposition to this
Iran deal.

Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu`s main opponent and Tzipi Livni have made their
opposition absolutely clear.

We can dump on Senator Cotton`s letter all we want but, here we are
discussing it a week later. So clearly, it had some impact even if it`s
condemnation. By the way, I know what Tehran is because my father is from
Iran, at least I got that going for me.

But I do have to make the point that.

SCHULTZ: Well, just to be clear. We`re talking about it today is because
the negotiations didn`t blow up in the wake of this effort by the
Republicans and -- the 47 Senators that did sign it. I mean their name is
on the line here. And they have been trying to circumvent these
negotiations for some time. This apparently is backfired. But a lot of
people have made the connection between Netanyahu and this letter. And the
perception is, that this is hurting Netanyahu.

I mean, how important is it for him to win reelection, to stay on course?
You say it`s a not a big deal.

BOTEACH: No. It is a big deal, of course. Every election is a very big
deal especially for nation like Israel that does face existential threat,
not just from Iran but from Hezbollah, from Hamas, et cetera.

I`m saying at least it means Israel is a democracy and I -- but whoever is
in that chair as Prime Minister has said that they will oppose this deal
with Iran.

Now, maybe (inaudible) have a better relationship with this Prime Minister
with -- President Obama but it will go south (ph) very quickly if he also
speaks out against the deal.

Look at the final analysis. I`m not sure that the congressional
Republicans want to circumvent the deal, I think they want to participate
in the deal.

The problem with this deal is that that Secretary Kerry keeps on saying,
"Hey, stop criticizing it. You don`t know what`s in it. Just wait."

Wait till what, until it`s finished? Then, we should criticize it. The
secrecy behind it is what is so telling.

Your reporter on MSBC is sitting -- everyone is just kind of speaking
around the deal. They want more things and less things, what is the deal?
Why can`t we get a straightforward answer about what is this deal?

SCHULTZ: Joe Cirincione, what is the deal?

CIRINCIONE: Well, the deal is still being negotiated and I have to
disagree with your other guest. I think, very -- many people in the
Israeli Military and Intelligence apparatus are fine with negotiating a
deal. Concern, yes, but not as a kind of hyper-belligerence of the Prime
Minister has indicated.

We will know very soon. The door opens around March 20th to get this deal
and if we don`t get by the 30th...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CIRINCIONE: ... or the 31st, that`s probably when it collapses this will
be a deal that will put Iran`s program in a box, put a camera on it. When
the deal is announced, I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised
and how we (inaudible) if it is and how much Iran has to roll back.

SCHULTZ: There`s a lot of regrets going around here, regret of the 47
Senators. What about Benjamin Netanyahu`s address to Congress? Dean, you
think he regrets that because he is drop in the poll since he did it?

OBEIDALLAH: I think perhaps in high society would I don`t think at that
time (inaudible), those were a great place. Your platform is United Stated
Congress it`s a great thing to show back at home, the greatest video clips
you could ever have for a campaign.

I think obviously his promise had to do with more just talking about Iran.
There was a big report that came out in Israel from the Camtrol (ph)...

CIRINCIONE: Yeah.

OBEIDALLAH: ... about housing issues and Netanyahu`s response was, "Let`s
talk about Iran" and he got so much push back on Facebook.

So I think he`s issue is too much Iran and not on social issues that the
people of Israel really focus on.

SCHULTZ: Rabbi...

CIRINCIONE: Yes.

SCHULTZ: ... what do want the United States to do up a deal doesn`t get
reach?

BOTEACH: Well...

SCHULTZ: What`s next?

BOTEACH: There`s no question there has to be very severe saying sanctions
that are increase because sanctions are the only reason that the mullahs of
Iran are even been talking to us.

The mullahs of Iran need this nuclear program like I need a ham sandwich.
They are in oil super power. They don`t need any peaceful nuclear program.
They have it only to get a bomb not to see that is to evade reality in the
worst possible way.

SCHULTZ: You agree with that, Joe? Do you agree with that?

CIRINCIONE: The official National Intelligents estimate is that Iranian
leadership has not yet decided whether to build a bomb and they gave up a
formal bomb program by -- in 2003.

Are they looking for a hedge, the technology to build the bomb? Yes. Our
job is to convince them that -- there will more costs to pursuing a bomb
than any possible benefits.

BOTEACH: Joe, but are you but are you seriously suggesting that an oils
super power, that is an exporter of energy needs this new nuclear energy
especially when they paid for it with international sanctions from all
across the world? Why are they doing this, if not to get a bomb?

CIRINCIONE: I agree that -- they`re hedging their best here and if there`s
a list to do a purpose there. Do did they need nuclear? No, they don`t.
But neither to this United Arab Emirates and they`re building nuclear
reactors, neither the Saudi Arabia and they`re considering building nuclear
reactors...

BOTEACH: Because they all afraid of Iran. Because --

(CROSSTALK)

BOTEACH: ... this is a nuclear race, that`s the problem.

CINRINCIONE: And so our job is to stop the Iran program here and then roll
back these efforts in this other countries.

That`s a decades-long effort. The Iran deal was the beginning of that
effort not the end in the Congress, could be involved in all of this all
the way out.

BOTEACH: So then why there a sunset clause after 10 years? If you`re
saying that our job is to stop them from getting it, how could you possibly
support a deal that allows them to do whatever the heck they want after a
decade?

CIRINCIONE: No, it doesn`t. Even after a decade there was still be
stringent inspections in there and they`re still prohibited from any
nuclear weapons work. The nuclear weapons ban is forever. They can`t do
whatever they want.

BOTEACH: So you`re saying...

CIRINCIONE: 10 years is a long time.

BOTEACH: So there`s no sunset clause?

CIRINCIONE: Various limits and various parts of the deal. But are we able
to see all this in about a week or two weeks time....

BOTEACH: Oh, here we go again. So here we go again. Someone do a deal
that we don`t know about.

CIRINCIONE: Well, it`s not done yet. It`s not finalized.

SCHULYTZ: Well, the verification is -- I think we need to talk about
verification and I think a lot of people would have (inaudible) around the
globe if we did not have measurement of verification.

Dean, how often to you think the Iranians are going to be on this? It
certainly seems to be something that Secretary Kerry doesn`t seem to be is
too big of hurdle.

OBEIDALLAH: If he -- I think he`s involve in negotiations. Iran has to
know if they`re not going to allow there -- looks into what they`re doing,
what they`re developing, to make sure that the breakout limits of
preventing from building a bomb in within a year and that`s the new
breakout thing would be, a limit of one year before they could actually get
a bomb. Of they can do that then none of this means anything. Then, we`re
just having conversations and we`re going nowhere.

You have to be able to verify what they`re doing and what`s going on in
their country or this is a game and they have a nuclear bomb in three to
four months.

CIRINCIONE: I agree s. He`s exactly right.

SCHULTZ: Dean Obeidallah, Rabbi Shmuley and also Joe Cirincione,
gentlemen, I appreciate the conversation very much. Certainly, a lot to
unpack on this very crucial issue, thanks a lot.

Remember to answer tonight`s questions there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow and on Facebook, you can get
my video podcast at wegoted.com.

Coming up, Robert Durst faces a judge today, his attorney joins me next.
Plus, dry summer it is. California is almost out of breaking water. A
NASA scientist is here to explain what`s going on.

Keep it here, we`ll be right back on the Ed show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed show. Thanks for watching tonight.

Robert Durst will be heading back to Los Angeles to face a first degree
murder charge.

The face of HBO`s "The Jinx" waved extradition today in a New Orleans
courtroom. NBC`s Stephanie Gosk has more on the story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANIE GOSK, NBC CORRESPONDENT: A 71-year-old Robert Durst is back
behind bars arrested in New Orleans over the weekend in connection to the
December 2000 murder of long-time friend, Susan Berman. Durst is the
subject of the HBO documentary "The Jinx".

DURST: Could not tell a whole truth. Nobody tells the whole truth.

GOSK: The series we examines three crimes, the 1982 disappearance of his
wife Kathy Durst, 2001 murder in Texas for which he stood trial and was
acquitted.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Robert Durst not guilty.

GOSK: And the murder, he was arrested for late Saturday.

The shows finale aired Sunday night just hours after news of Durst arrest
became public. And now, Durst is confronted with the potentially damning
piece of evidence that could tie his hand writing to a note sent by the
presumed killer.

DURST: I definitely wrote this or I definitely did not write that.

GOSK: Durst then goes into a bathroom with his microphone still on.

DURST: There it is, you`re caught.

GOSK: And begins talking to himself.

DUSRT: What the hell did I do? Kill them all, of course.

GOSK: Former Prosecutor Jeanine Pirro investigated Durst back in 2000,
during the time if Berman`s murder.

JEANINE PIRRO, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Susan Berman was killed because she knew
too much about Kathleen Durst, the case that I was investigating, and he
knew that she knew I believed that he murdered her to prevent her from
talking to us.

GOSK: Kathleen Durst`s friends feel one step closer to justice.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If he`s convicted for the murder of Susan, I`ll take
what I can. If there`s more forensic evidence there, why not. They only
can put him away once.

GOSK: Well, Durst`s strange brother expressed his family`s thanks. "We
are relieved and also grateful to everyone who assisted in the arrest of
Robert Durst. We hope he will finally be held accountable for all he has
done."

SCHULTZ: And we are joined tonight by famous Defense Attorney Thomas
Mesereau. Mr. Mesereau, good to have you with us tonight.

This is a real unbelievable case to say the least. The audio tape of a man
talking to himself in the bathroom, how do you view this, this bathroom
tape? Is this going to be admissible in court?

THOMAS MESEREAU, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, it will be admissible if
the prosecutors want to admit it. It`s called an "admission" under the
law.

If the defense tries to admit it which I don`t think they will, it would be
called hearsay and that would be excluded. But the prosecutors have to be
very careful if they try and introduce this so called "admission". Because
if they do that, they may open the door for the defense to bring in the
rest of the interview, it`s called the "doctrine of completeness".

Now, when I defended Michael Jackson, the prosecution was screaming and
yelling that he incriminated himself in an interview with Martin Bashir,
they brought in that piece of interview. Because of that, I was able to
bring in other parts of his interview, some of which were excluded from a
documentary, re-exonerate himself repeatedly. He says he would slit his
wrist before he hurt a child. And we didn`t have to put them on the stand
because he`d already testified.

I was Robert Blake`s lead lawyer for a long period of time in his homicide
case. The prosecution did the same thing. He gave an interview to Barbara
Walters. They took a small piece of that interview and introduce it as an
admission and by doing that, they let the defense bring in the whole
interview where he repeatedly exonerated himself and he didn`t have to
testify, be cross-examined either.

Sometimes be careful what you wish for. I don`t see this necessarily as
damaging as everybody else does at this particular moment.

SCHULTZ: So you think it`s a high bar for the prosecution at this point?

MESEREAU: I think they better be very careful. I`m smelling hoopers (ph)
over the statement. He could have being very sarcastic about anyone trying
to suggest that he was killing all these people. He has an excellent
criminal defense lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, already acquitted him once in
Texas. Great lawyer and I think the prosecution better be real careful on
how they behave.

SCHULTZ: What role, well, the producers of this "The Jinx" play in this
trial as you see it?

MESEREAU: Well, again, I don`t know all the evidence in the case but I
think they are likely to be subpoena as witnesses and they cross-examined
on their tactics, on their editing policy until their timeline has a lot of
problems in that documentary. I suspect the last thing they want to do is
be witnesses in a murder trial involving Mr. Durst.

SCHULTZ: Well, why would the producers of a television show able to do,
what law enforcement couldn`t do? I found that rather interesting.

MESEREAU: There were many strange aspects to this. Apparently, they have
this tape for years and...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

MESEREAU: ... it just was under wraps, it wasn`t turned over. Why was
that happening?

Apparently, they have other portions of a documentary that they did not
include in it, which are likely to be fair game for the defense and I
suspect that a lot of unexpected developments are going to happen in this
case. Don`t limit your view of Mr. Durst to this one, "It may backfire."

SCHULTZ: Yeah. And Mr. Mesereau, what about the letter? Is this a hell
of a coincidence here? The lettering and the way the word "Beverly" was
not spelled correctly and in that admission that goes along with that.
What about that?

MESEREAU: Well, it certainly looks like he wrote the outside of the
envelope but did he write the note inside? Did someone obtain that
envelope from him under suspicious circumstances? Again, there are a lot
of details we don`t know.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

MESEREAU: You can`t just jump to a conclusion on what you see on the
surface at this point in time.

SCHULTZ: So why would Durst agree to even participate in a series. And
how would this hurt him moving forward? I mean, it`s strange, I guess.

MESEREAU: You know, it is strange, I mean, someone under suspicion for,
you know, three homicides, one of course he was acquitted of, should not be
giving interviews like this but people can`t help themselves. I mean
Robert Blake even interviewed. I thought it was a bad idea. It turned out
to be a great idea. Michael Jackson gave an interview. I thought it was a
bad idea. When we defended him in child molestation case it turned out to
be great for us.

People seem to have a compulsion to explain themselves and particularly to
explain their innocence. And sometimes, it gets them in deeper trouble.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Mesereau, I appreciate your time tonight. Thanks so much. I
appreciate it. Thank you.

MESEREAU: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: You bet. We reached out to Durst`s attorney who told us Robert
Durst is eager to prove his innocence. We`ll continue to follow the story
here on the Ed Show.

Next up, we`ll have the latest out or Ferguson and the two-minute drill
coming up. Get your brackets ready. We are back in a moment right here on
the Ed Show on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

The man accused of shooting two Ferguson police officers arrived in court
today.

Twenty-year-old Jeffrey Williams was charged with two counts of assault in
the first degree and one count of firing a weapon from a vehicle. The
motive behind the shooting is still unclear.

ROBERT MCCULLOCH, STUDENTS. LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR: He has acknowledged
his participation in firing the shot. It`s possible at this point that he
was firing shot at someone other than the police but struck the police
officer. He may have had a dispute with some other individuals or felt
some dispute. We`re not sure we completely -- by that part of it.

SCHULTZ: Police say witnesses saw William was protesting before the
shooting. Some activists dispute the assertion.

A 40-caliber gun was recovered when police arrested Williams on Saturday
night. The weapon matches shell casings from the scene. Williams did not
have an attorney present at the briefing today. He could face life in
prison if convicted of the charges.

Joining me tonight now, Trymaine Lee, MSNBC National Reporter.

Trymaine, what`s the next move here? What is the latest in this alleged
shooter?

TRYMAINE LEE, MSNBC NATIONAL REPORTER: Well, when I talked to folks on the
ground and that`s been the better part of 200 days kind of working with
this committee and talking to folks, and interviewing the activist and
organizers. So I have a good sense of who these folks are and what they`re
about. And almost to a person, they said, they hadn`t -- they don`t know
anything about Jeffrey Williams.

One bishop, Derek Robinson said that he had seen him at church before he
came in with the youth group but that he had never seen him out in the
street at all. And so the next step is speaking with folks on the ground
there that he got lawyer at some point. The family is currently trying to
raise fund to get private attorney, if not the expectation is he`ll get a
public defender.

SCHULTZ: So the activists are disputing any, are they -- are activist
disputing, should I say, any of the police allegations in any of these?

LEE: Most of them don`t know what happened at least to those I spoke with.
I mean, but there is this contention of is he a protest, is he been a part
of this?

Now, one since from -- since August, you know, this protest had been kind
of community events. So they have hundreds of people out there but as time
as going on, you had kind of a small committee group that would range in a
dozens or so.

So folks are saying that to make it seem like he`s a protester, that he`s
committed to the calls, that he`ll be one of the many that can relook the
list of demands in once in Black Life Matte. They dispute that much.

Curiously enough, last, I guess, it was Friday during a press conference.
I have Chief Demera (ph) said, "You know, 125 yards away, there`s a lot of
space and a lot of people between that line of police officers and where
the came from muscle flash came from.

Is it possible at all that this shooter might have been aiming at someone
else and just missed? And he said, "It`s clearly possible."

And so, that`s kind of where we are. Folks are not necessary disputing
whether he aimed at the officer or not but that, you know, he`s not one of
us.

SCHULTZ: But, not one of us meaning, there are not a lot of people in the
community that can identify him as a regular protester. Am I hearing that
correctly?

LEE: That`s right.

SCHULTZ: OK. Trymaine Lee, I appreciate your time tonight. Thanks so
much.

And I also want to point out that in our discussion last week. I suggested
that police officers in Ferguson probably should go without some firearms
because we`re talking about changing a community.

And of course, I was played up on Fox News as the "fool of the week."

Well, I know that Fox and facts don`t seem to go together very well in the
news world. So I thought I should point out because I knew I had read this
and I did.

The Washington Post, February 18, you can check it out. There`s an article
by a journalist name Noack who says that there are five countries where
police officers walk the beat unarmed. That`s Great Britain, Ireland,
Norway, Iceland and New Zealand.

In fact, 82% of the police officers in Great Britain would rather not carry
a firearm. And there are 12 of 16 Pacific island nations where their
police officers walk the beat without firearms.

I knew what I was talking about and once again, the people on Fox didn`t
have a clue.

There`s a lot more coming up in the Ed Show. Stick around. We`ll be right
back.

HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC MARKET WRAP: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC
Market Wrap.

Stocks begin the week with a rally. The Dow surges 228 points, the NASDAQ
adds 27 and S&P climbs at 57.

One stock not that it`s fading to today`s rally, Netflix which was
downgraded to a sell by Evercore. Shares finish down more than $16 or
nearly 4 percent. And Blackstone Group is behind Chicago`s Willis Tower
formerly known as the Sears Tower for $1.3 billion. It`s the highest price
ever paid for building outside of New York City.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

I`m coming to you live from Miami tonight where we`re working on a climate
change series, because here in the state of Florida, there is too much
water such as not the case in California. In fact, California`s multiyear
drought is reaching a critical point.

One of NASA`s top scientists says the state has only about a year worth of
water left in its reservoirs. The state would need 11 trillion gallons of
water to recover from this drought with less precipitation and depleting
resources. California`s -- they are running low on options.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SALLY JEWELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: California is ground zero
for drought.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Empty lakes and riverbeds, (inaudible) left to wither
and die. It`s worst drought in over 1200 years.

JEWELL: There is no state that is worse off than the state.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: More than 58 percent California is is in exceptional
drought.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: California is so water-squeezed right now that
voluntary conservation is not enough.

JEWELL: We will see increasing demand for irrigation at the time. We`re
going to see increasing temperature and increasing evaporation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Less than one-fifth (ph) the snow fall that you would
accept much of the snowpack provides the irrigation for the Central
Valley...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without the snow melt, without the water running into
the San Martin River, it`s running dry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Emergency water reserves from which we have been
borrowing are now within the critical stage.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our landowners will have to pull very heavily on the
ground water.

TRICIA STEVER BLATTLER, TULARE COUNTY FARM BUREAU EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: We
are totally reliant right now on whatever flows underneath our feet.

JEWELL: This is a state that is feeling very much the effects of climate
change.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a crisis with ripple effects across the entire
nation.

JEWELL: You can`t put your head in the sand and say, this is going to go
away. You have to plan for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Join to me tonight, Professor Jay Famiglietti is a Professor of
Earth System Science at the University of California and Senior Water
Scientist that NASA`s Jet Propulsions Lab. Professor, great to have you
with us tonight.

The story tells a very dire situation. What has to happen here, professor?

PROF. JAY FAMIGLIETTI, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFRONIA: Well, and you`re right, I
think your setup was excellent and really painted the complete picture of
what`s happening in California, with the reservoirs at very low levels in
the groundwater being depleted.

And so, my personal opinion about what needs to happen is that we need to
look at the situation holistically, how much surface water, how much
groundwater we have and plan for the future, and that probably means,
mandatory rationing. And if we could -- we have this landmark groundwater
legislation that was recently passed, that will help us in the long run but
I think, in the short run, we`re going to have some issues with managing
our groundwater for the next few decades.

SCHULTZ: What kind of restrictions would work in your opinion? Have you
researched that?

FAMIGLIETTI: Well, you know, yeah. I mean, we talk and think about the
sorts of restrictions all the time and again, this is my personal opinion,
the sorts of things that work well.

First and foremost, our conservation and efficiency, and unfortunately the
voluntary nature of that hasn`t been working so well. So perhaps, we have
to move to mandatory restrictions.

SCHULTZ: Well, professor, if you`ve only got one year of drinking water
remaining. I mean, that is, in the world`s eighth largest economy, it`s
almost it`s almost...

FAMIGLIETTI: I can hear you.

SCHULTZ: ... hard to comprehend.

FAMIGLIETTI: It`s really, really -- you`re right. And it means, it really
difficult to wrap your brain around but remember, that`s a year of water in
our reservoirs, OK, but we still have groundwater. The problem is that if
we move to 100 percent reliance on groundwater we will be depleting a
limited and finite supply at an extremely unprecedented rapid clip, and
that would really leave us vulnerable to future drought which I think we
can expect.

SCHULTZ: What role is NASA play in this, beyond the research?

FAMIGLIETTI: Well, beyond the research, we are working towards more
applications of -- in getting this information into the hands of water
managers and into the hands of farmers and the U.S. Drought monitor and the
flood prediction agencies. So that`s more on the application side.

We`re working -- very hard these days on trying to really target what we
can do for agriculture because that`s where we use all the water.

SCHULTZ: Here`s what Senator Ted Cruz had to say about NASA during about
budget hearing last week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED CRUZ, (R), TEXAS: I would suggest that almost any American would agree
that the core function of NASA is to explore space. I am concerned that
NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core
mission.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Professor, I just believe that deserves a response. Your
thoughts on that.

FAMIGLIETTI: Well of course, you know, you`re asking a NASA earth
scientist and a person who stick his entire career on NASA earth science
satellites.

I respect the Senator`s opinion. I think I watch I watched that, I watched
the YouTube clip. I saw Administrator Bolden`s response I thought it was a
great and thorough comprehensive response.

My personal opinion is that NASA earth science satellites have
revolutionized our understanding of how our complex earth works, and have
really length fade away for great advances in understanding, in monitoring,
and predicting flooding and drought, sea level rise, ice sheets melting,
groundwater depletion which is the area that I work on.

Without these satellites the human security, the water security, the food
security, and the energy security of all Americans would be at tremendous
risk and to borrow a line from (inaudible), we would be up to creek.

SCHULTZ: Well, if I may edit all of what you just said down to one
sentence. We`d be a heck of a lot different world if we didn`t have NASA.

FAMIGLIETTI: I agree.

SCHULTZ: Professor Jay Famiglietti, great to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time. And of course...

FAMIGLIETTI: Thank you very much.

SCHULTZ: ... to State of California in a dire situation, we will follow
the story here in the Ed show.

At this hour, diplomatic talks in a critical snag in Havana, Cub. We`ll
have the latest stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And here we go with two minute drill March madness. Get you
brackets out, opening games in NCAA tournament start tomorrow.

Here`s what you may have missed in the selection show. Top seeds in case
you missed it Kentucky, Villanova, Duke and Wisconsin.

Kentucky leads the pack with 34-0 record and the Wildcats just pick them to
southern conference title with a victory of Arkansas last night.

Kentucky hasn`t seen a lost yet, they`re hoping to finish out the season
with a perfect season but they got six games ago to get the title.

And the Wildcats might be the first team since Bobby Knights 1975-`76
Indiana Hoosiers to go undefeated.

Georgia State earned their first spot in the tournament since 2001. The
celebration may have been just as strenuous as the game, jumping for joy
and took out the coach`s leg Rod Hunter. He is hurting today. He injured
his Achilles tendon while celebrating the team slot in the tournament. The
coach will join his son R.J. who plays for the Georgia State Panthers.

By the way Warren Buffet is not going to offer his billion dollar challenge
for the perfect bracket this year. But you can still sign up for your
office poll.

And a familiar face could be pop up over the football field this season.

Look at this Twitter a buzz today, after it was reported that Tim Tebow was
working out with the Philadelphia Eagles.

Tebow hasn`t seeing much actions on the fields since 2012 and that was back
with the New York Jets. Now he could be facing off again against former
Jet Quarterback Mark Sanchez with the Quarterback`s job in for
Philadelphia.

Stick around lots more come on the Ed show, we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Change is going to come to
Cuba, it has to. Now, they got a economy the doesn`t work. The more the
Cuban people see what`s possible, the more interested they are going to be
in the change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, United States and Cuba have entered into the
third round of talks working to restore diplomatic relations.

Assistant Secretary of State, Roberta Jacobson is in Havana to meet with
her Cuban counterpart. President Obama said, he hopes the United States
will open up an embassy in Cuba before a Western Hemisphere summit in
Panama next month.

Reactions to President Obama`s policy shift on Cuba had been widespread.
Many Republicans have been outspoken about their opposition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: It is par for the course with an
administration that is constantly giving away unilateral concessions
whether it`s Iran or in this case Cuba, and exchange for nothing.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, "RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW" HOST: The United States has made it
official. We`re going to use taxpayer dollars to prop up another communist
dictatorship in our hemisphere, 90 miles away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Before agreeing to restoring ties, Cuba wants to be removed from
the State Departments list of states sponsors of terrorism. The country
also wants to find a bank willing to handle transactions for its diplomatic
post in the United States.

Joining me tonight on this subject, Annette Taddeo, Vice Chair of the
Florida Democratic Party, Senator Byron Dorgan with us tonight and also
Mitch Ceasar, DNC Executive Board Member, great to have all of you us.

Senator, you first, what are the hurdles here? And are we going to make
progress? When you got that chatter in the background like Rubio and a few
others who were so negative on this whole thing?

FMR. SEN. BYRON DORGAN, (D) NORTH CAROLINA: Oh, I know. I mean, it`s very
easy to oppose these things.

I`m encouraged by what the President has done. It`s long past the time for
this to be done. And, you know, normalization with Cuba is the right
policy.

This is a long-term embargo that we`ve had that has been a failure. In my
judgment, is nothing -- but it hurts the poor people in Cuba. It is not
moved Cuba towards greater human rights.

So, you know, I`m encouraged by what the president has done and I think
this normalization talks were proceed and finally, finally, we will have a
better policy with respect to Cuba.

SCHULTZ: And I would imagine after 50 years, there going to be a few snags
along the way. Nothing is going to be perfect but one of the big issues
here, Annette, is human rights and of course, there is (inaudible) protest
here in Florida dealing with this every time that there are negotiations.
How do we settle this?

ANNETTE TADDEO, VICE CHAIR FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Well, first of all,
human right should always be our number one thing that we should be going
for. And I believe that President Obama and the administration, that`s
what they`re doing.

And we can`t confuse diplomatic relations with actually, you know, opening
an embassy and having talks with real opening of relationships with Cuba.
There two totally different things.

Our goal, our ultimate goal is freedom in Cuba, freedom of expression,
freedom of all those political prisoners and the fact that Cuba will be
just like America.

That`s a long way away. But at least this is the beginning of the
conversations with the regime where we haven`t had conversations in 55
years almost.

SCHULTZ: Mitch, we had 170,000 authorized US travelers went to Cuba in
2014 more than twice that number of visitors in 2011. What would
unrestricted travel for US citizens do for Cuba as you see it?

I mean, I`ve been down to Cuba, went down there on an agricultural mission
back in 2003. The people were very, very warm and receptive. What would
it be like if things were normal?

MITCH CEASAR, DNC EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER: Well, Ed, as you know, it`s
allowed currently if it`s a religious, educational or charitable
organization which is pretty wide. But I think people are showing more,
more interest in Cuba. It`s really not about Cuban cigars anymore.

I think there are some mystic about it, kind of like, you know, when they
use (inaudible) talk about years ago when China`s Forbidden City.

It`s a place people haven`t seen for a long time. It`s a throwback. I
think the people of Cuba are just dying after the socialization and for the
right to be able to do person to person. That`s what President Obama
talked about, person to person contact. Let them see who Americans are and
I think the driving force for that cultural exchange will be the young
people.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CEASAR: Currently, you can`t breakaway from the way it setup. If they go
out there and meet people, I think they will go a long way in having the
populous, be the catalyst for pushing their government to accelerate this
type of exposure.

SCHULTZ: Senator, what`s the dynamic here, some U.S. officials have said
that the sanctions against Venezuela should not affect the Cuba talk? Your
thoughts on that? How delicate is that?

DORGAN: Well, I think Cuba is a separate and very unusual situation. You
know, the history with Cuba going way back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the
Bay of Pigs and there is a lot of history here.

But it`s clear to me that we should deal with Cuba on its own. The
President I think has made the right choice. And then, this is about
trying to find ways to lead towards greater human rights in the Cuba but
the embargo has not worked. The embargo has been a failure from nearly a
half a century. And when you keep doing something that doesn`t work, it
makes a lot of sense to decide to do something else and that`s exactly what
will be the case and I think it`s going to benefit the people of Cuba and
move them towards greater human rights in my judgment.

SCHULTZ: Annette, a lot of people in the Cuban community here in Florida
are against this. What`s going to change their mind?

CEASAR: But you know, something there was celebration in the streets of
Havana when this was announced.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. There is no doubt about it. But here in America was a
little bit different. Annette, what about that?

TADDEO: Not necessarily, I`ll be honest with you. I think that there`s
been a shift with Cuban Americans even here in Miami. And I believe that
obviously the older generations are against it that.

But we have a tremendous amount of people. I would say the majority of
people in Miami and in Florida and Cuban Americans, are in favor of trying
something new after all it hasn`t work, like the Senator just said, 55
years trying one thing. We need to try something different.

SCHULTZ: Mitch, is this a tight rope that political tight rope that Rubio
and some others are walking here on this, to be against it?

CEASAR: Well, it is but it shouldn`t be. Bush and Rubio are totally
locked into the Cuban community in South Florida. The other presidential
candidates really don`t need to be because they are never going to get to
support of the Cuban folks who are in Miami that belongs to Rubio and Jed
Bush.

We had predicted when this first came out, I had said that Rand Paul was
going to separate himself as he did a couple of days later.

I think you might see someone like (inaudible) Scott Walker start talking
about bringing in U.S. products and by able to do that he`d breaks away
from the traditional view. That base is locked down. They have nowhere to
go or perhaps with history.

SCHULTZ: All right, great to have all of you with us tonight, Annette
Taddeo, Senator Byron Dorgan and also...

DORGAN: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Mitch Ceasar here on the Ed Show tonight. Thanks so much. And
that is the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton, starts right now. Good evening,
Rev.


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.
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.>






  MORE FROM THE ED SHOW  
  
The Ed Show Section Front
 
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:
 

Sponsored links

Resource guide