Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Wednesday, April 1st, 2015

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: April 1, 2015
Guest: Gail Riecken, Mike Rogers, Joe Wilson, Bernie Sanders, Jane Kleeb,
David Kreutzer


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

Let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON, (R) ARKANSAS: This is a bill that in ordinary times
would not be controversial.

SCHULTZ: Tonight, Walmart in the spirit of inclusion.

HUTCHINSON: But these are not ordinary times.

SCHULTZ: Later, developments on the Iran deal.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: They are still discussing an
agreement right now as we speak.

SCHULTZ: Plus, the bill of green (ph).

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: This great country is evolving into an
oligarchic society.

SCHULTZ: And.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This morning, we were (inaudible) that you drink this
water (ph), right?

SCHULTZ: Thirsty for fracking.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if you drink it...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

We start with breaking news. New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez has been
indicted on federal corruption charges.

Menendez has been under investigation for allegedly using his Senate office
to push the business interest of a friend and donor in exchange for gifts.

We will have more on this breaking story later on in this broadcast.

We turn now to the story that has captivated the country.

Christian conservatives are starting to lose. It wasn`t supposed to turn
out like this nor was it supposed to evolve like this as a big negative.

Today, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson announced that he will not sign the
freedom restoration bill in its current form. This is twist.

On Tuesday, lawmakers passed legislation similar to the law in Indiana.
Both measures would provide the opportunity to discriminate. Hutchinson
called the issue divisive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: It has divided families and there is clearly a generational
gap on this issue. My son, Seth, signed the petition asking me, Dad, the
governor, to veto this bill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, it`s good to know that people of family have got a lot of
influence to the Governor of Arkansas. His kid spoke up.

Now, am I supposed to take that as if his kid was quite that the Governor
wouldn`t done anything on it?

The Governor will send the bill back to the legislature and wait for round
two. The provision allowing individuals to use their religious beliefs as
a defense of lawsuits has really received the most scrutiny. The same
provision does exist in the Indiana law. The Hutchinson wants the bill
recalled and changed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: Therefore, I ask that changes to be made in the legislation
and I`ve asked that the leaders of the general assembly to recall the bill
so that it could be amended to reflect the terms of the federal Religious
Freedom and Restoration Act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The move is a turn for the Governor. Hutchinson previously said
that he would sign the measure into law if it reached his desk. He`s tone
changed after the backlash in Indiana and it went national.

The fallout continues for Governor Pence in Indiana is a list of companies
and public figures who opposed the law. Well, it just continues to grow.
Look at that graphic.

Nike now adds itself to the list as of last night.

Governor Hutchinson got the message loud and clear.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: I don`t believe in workplace that discriminates, I just, you
know, whether it`s Tyson`s or whether it`s Walmart or whether it`s
Dillard`s or whether it`s state government. I have had the some
communication personally with some of the business leaders across the
state, others have communicated in different fashions and they raised an
important issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Whether it`s Walmart, Oh, I`m sure Walmart probably had something
to do with this in Arkansas. Mentioning Walmart is no coincidence.

It`s the second highest employer in the state of Arkansas and it`s the
world`s largest retailer.

Last night, the company called them out.

Immediately after Arkansas lawmakers passed the bill, Walmart`s CEO called
upon the Governor of Arkansas to veto the bill.

Republicans have one true religion, my friends. It`s called the "Almighty
Dollar". The only reason the Governors of Arkansas and Indiana are talking
about changing or clarifying their legislation is because billions of
dollars have threaten to walk out of their states.

Money talks and B.S. (ph) walks, right?

The NFL was slow to respond to domestic violence within the leak until
sponsors made a move. It`s all about the money.

Radisson was the first business to suspend their sponsorship deal until the
NFL put out a game plan.

Big business is calling the shots because they want customers. They don`t
want protesters, they don`t want problems. Sale solves a lot of problems,
problems cause sales to go down. It ain`t bringing surgery.

Governor Pence says the law won`t allow discrimination although it`s
already started in his state. Here it is.

Owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, they say they support the
new law and planned to act accordingly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRYSTAL O`CONNOR, MEMORIES PIZZA: If a gay couple was to come in like say
we wanted -- they wanted us to provide them pizzas for a wedding. We would
have to say no. We`re not discriminating against anyone. It`s just --
that`s our belief.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: And of course, Arkansas and Indiana are not alone. The story
continues on the prairie (ph) in North Dakota.

Currently, get this, it is legal to discriminate based on sexual
orientation in the state of North Dakota. Gays and lesbians in North
Dakota can be turned away from a business or fired from a job.

The State Senate passed an anti-discrimination bill that would reverse the
current law. The bill now moves to the House for a vote without committee
support.

House lawmakers have defeated similar legislation twice in the past six
years. This is evolving into a campaign issue.

Conservatives, they want to make, I believe, a moral statement, "we`re more
godly than you are, we are more worthy and we show it through legislation."

Now, that`s my opinion. I mean, I believe that this is all about gays,
guns and God, the thing that we were hearing back in 2004.

There is no threat to religion here whatsoever. The measures coming out of
Arkansas, Indiana and North Dakota are all about old politics because this
conservative movement in this country has not been able to come up with new
ideas about the economy, about Wall Street, about education, about health
care, by the way where is there health care plan?

But what they do have is their plastic Jesus. What they do and I`m not
trying to be suck religious here. Look at the legislation that they have
put up and passed. And I don`t know about you as a news consumer but
aren`t you kind of tired hearing about, "Well, Bill Clinton did it back in
1993, he signed it." Really?

Get your legal book out and see exactly what was signed. Get your
cellphones out now because I want to know what you think.

Tonight`s question, "What is more important to Republicans, religion or
money?" Text A for Religion, text B for Money to 67622, we`ll bring you
the results later on in this show.

Joining me tonight is State Representative Gail Riecken who is running for
Mayor of Evansville, Indiana. Mike Rogers of rawstory.com joins us
tonight, also, E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist and MSNBC
contributor.

Before we go to them, I -- we`ve got some tape from the street in
Walkerton, Indiana where people are sharing their thoughts on Memories
Pizza. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A local business has decided not to allow patrons of
their business that are of the same sex couples. I settle that certainly
not our position at this hospital.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was race done, you know, not the same sex. I
don`t think its right for them to be together girl or boy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel like its taken us back 50 years in the past.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they want to come in and they don`t -- and the
business owner doesn`t want to serve them, that`s their right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Great to have all of you with us tonight.

Gail Riecken, I want your response...

STATE REP. GAIL RIECKEN, (D) INDIANA: Thank you

SCHULTZ: ... to what some people are saying on the street in Indiana.

REICKEN: Well, the response is this, Ed. It doesn`t surprise me at all.
People are concerned legitimately so because they`ve read the bill or
they`ve to their neighbors. There`s a perception as well that folks are
feeling that this bill says something really wrong about the state of
Indiana that we as a majority are not interested in hearing anymore.

We`ve want to make sure that people understand that we are uninviting
community that Evansville, my hometown in the state of Indiana want them
hear.

I don`t know why this is been such a surprise to the Governor and the
majority in the House because the discussion has been going on. Ever since
this bill came up and folks have been mad about it and I think, you`re
seeing that on the street.

SCHULTZ: You certainly are. Mike Rogers, are conservatives praising the
Lord or are they praising the "Almighty Dollar"?

MIKE ROGERS, RAWSTORY.COM: Certainly, the conservatives in office are
praising the "Almighty Dollar" because you hear a lot of religious
institutions, you are against the quality screening and then, you hear a
lot of businesses standing up and that`s of course cities Governors are
reacting to the businesses because they`ve seen the laws, and because
they`re being made aware as our citizens around the country that these
protections do not exist on a national level.

Many Americans mistakenly think that they do. And this is showing how
there`s such a patchwork around the country. What you`re hearing in
Indiana is an example of people who are completely misguided.

SCHULTZ: E.J. Dionne, we have seen the conservative movement in this
country when they get pressured, they get their backup and they do the same
thing. Where is this going to go and is it going to evolve into a campaign
issue? Your thoughts.

E.J.DIONNE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think its, if you will, unevolving
into a campaign issue. I think that a lot of conservatives felt that they
were losing in the courts. They were losing on public opinion. But in the
U.S. the way to fight one right is to assert a different right. And so
they came up with this religious liberty strategy and I don`t think they
anticipated the pushback that they were going to get from businesses.

And I should say, I am in favor of religious liberty and I think it`s very
unfortunate that, that words (ph) religious liberty have become associated
with discrimination. I think the government cannot, should not force a
church that doesn`t believe in same sex unions that have to perform one.

And almost all of the laws passed that legalize same-sex marriage have an
exemption for churches. I think that`s very different than letting
businesses discriminate against people who come in for business.

Now the fact is, I think most gays and lesbians would rather have a caterer
or florist who wants to celebrate their union and doesn`t see it is a
terrible thing. But what would the rest of us feel, a Catholic or Jew if
you can have a religious liberty exemption and therefore discriminate
against us. It`s just a very unfortunate that they push a legit issue way
pass where it should be.

SCHULTZ: Well, E.J., I don`t know anybody who`s against a religious
liberty and that`s I think a profound point in all of this. And if the
conservatives are trying to set themselves up, we`re -- far more holier
than any other people who don`t ideologically align themselves would quote
us.

And I -- that`s my take on this. I mean, I believe that this -- there is a
real political proponent here to separate and who`s going to be against
religious freedom...

DIONNE: Right. Yes.

SCHULTZ: ... and if someone were to vote against -- if someone were to
vote against it all of a sudden, they put themselves with their back to the
wall when it comes to fighting off money such as the Citizens United in a
(inaudible) of negativity, what about that?

DIONNE: Well, I think that`s why they we`re surprise because they thought
we can package to this under religious liberty. This will be something for
our religious constituency and other people are going to let it go, but the
gays and lesbians weren`t going to let it go and business is realize how
divisive this was.

And I agree with you that in the Republican Party when you suddenly have
something they did not expect which is all this pressure from business,
your seeing an awful a lot conservative Republicans who thought they could
sort of getaway with doing this just for the religious rights, suddenly
having to pay a price among young people, a price in the middle of the
electorate, and the price with their own business constituency.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Mike, your thoughts on that?

ROGERS: Well, I think that there`s no doubt and the real disconnective
(ph) course in between business and religion is of course that generational
disconnect. And as we see even Governor Hutchinson`s own son when online
and sign a petition.

So there is this other great disconnect. We know that the only reason this
is being brought up now has nothing to do with religious freedom or more
liberty, it has everything to do with riling up -- that they have nothing
else to go with because, Ed, as you pointed out, they don`t have a health
care plan, they don`t have the social security plan...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

ROGERS: ... they don`t have deficit plan so the only thing they can go out
is, they want to takeaway your religious right.

Well, they don`t want to takeaway anybody`s religious right, churches can
still do what they want to do, no one is stopping that. And I think that
as we see this generational shift and corporations have to look ahead,
they`re not able to look back.

You`ll see more of what`s happening and more pushback throughout the
country. And again, on education process that`s happening that most
Americans did not realize it was legal to discriminate in so many places.

DIONNE: I think Mike makes a really good point there.

RIECKEN: Yeah. Yeah.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. No doubt. No doubt about it. Gail Riecken, do you run on
this? Do lawmakers get pressured to defend this?

RIECKEN: I think it`s an issue that we would prefer not to have on the
table. We have so many things to talk about whether its jobs and the
economy the health issues in our state. This is not something we want to
run on.

We like to see this (solve), we like to see the entire law repealed. And
then, let`s get on with business that really matters to folk`s, minimum
wage, a good living wage, this is -- these are the issues we need to be
talking about.

SCHULTZ: All right. Gail Riecken, Mike Rogers, E.J. Dionne, great to have
you with us tonight here on the Ed show, I appreciate your time.

DIONNE: Good to be with you, Ed.

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

Coming up, primary colors. Now, the call for more Democratic voices in the
2016 race for the White House, what is the hold up? Is this a new strategy
to not announce? Plus, an update on Iran nuclear talks.

Stay with us, we`ll be right back in the Ed show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

The Iran nuclear talks are going into double overtime.

Last night, the negotiations in Switzerland will extende -- were extended
past Tuesday self-impose deadline. Today, they kick the can down the road
for another 24 hours.

Americans want a deal. A new Washington Post ABC News poll finds 59
percent of Americans support an agreement that lifts major economic
sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on their nuclear program.
However, 59 percent of Americans also say they`re not confident to deal
with will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

At this point, it`s unclear what will be achieved, NBC`s Brian Mooar has
the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN MOOAR, NBC CORRESPONDENT: In Switzerland, negotiators kept talking
far past the deadline for Iran to submit to a nuclear agreement. Iran`s
says it won`t be pressured but is willing to make a deal.

MOHAMMAD ZARIF, IRANIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: So our friends need
to decide whether they want to be with Iran based on respect or whether
they want to continue based on pressure.

MOOAR: The Obama administration admits, no news isn`t necessarily bad
news.

EARNEST: We did not envision a scenario where we would abruptly and
arbitrarily end the talks that are productive. But at the same time, these
conversations are not open-ended.

MOOAR: Secretary of the State Kerry agreed to stay until at least Thursday
as negotiator search for a broad agreement. The ultimate deadline is June
30th but the administration is under pressure to show results now or get
tough on Iran.

REP. ADAM SCHIF, (D) CALIFORNIA: But it looks like there are still
principle areas of agreement that have not been reached, that could be a
real problem here in Washington.

MOOAR: In Jerusalem, House Speaker John Boehner was embraced by Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He believes Iran is gaining the world in Switzerland.

BENJAMIN NETNAYAHU: Now is the time for the international community to
insist on a better deal.

MOOAR: Talks will continue with action still in doubt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining us tonight is former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, author
of the "Politics of Truth". Joe Wilson, my friend, too long, too long,
good to have you with us tonight here on the Ed Show again.

JOE WILSON, FRM. U.S. AMBASSADOR: Yes. Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Could we trust the Iranians -- you bet. I was taken by this
comment respect versus pressure. I take that as don`t push us, we`re
working forward and don`t bother me with the deadline. I mean, what`s your
interpretation when you heard the Iranian diplomat say that?

WILSON: Well, first of all, when it comes to your question when it comes
to your question of whether we could trust the Iranians, it`s not a matter
of trust, it`s a matter of whether we can do a deal with them.

And the fact that we`re still at the table, we`re still talking, suggest
that we -- there still that possibility.

I would argue that given the only alternative has been offered on the pages
of the New York Times, or Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal have
been to bomb Iran, and the people offering that, the people like Netanyahu
and John Bolton and others of the neocon persuasion that that alternative
really is not in our national interest or in the global interest.

SCHULTZ: What do you think this grand standing by Speaker Boehner and the
constant nagging, I would call it, by Israel Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. There is this backdrop of severe negativity with his talks, how
hard does that make it on American negotiators and Secretary State John
Kerry in particular?

WILSON: Well, I hope not very hard after all, Mr. Netanyahu is a leader of
a country of 8 million people. He has demonstrated his inability to make
peace with any of his neighbors and/or to do anything but exacerbate
tensions in the region.

So I really find it difficult to believe that this mouse who happens to be
roaring can derail a multilateral nuclear agreement that would strip or at
least blunt Iran`s efforts to get a nuclear weapon, and said this on a path
towards a better set of relationships on those various issues.

SCHULTZ: What do you think the biggest obstacles are right now from what
you have seen reported and heard?

WILSON: Well, I suspect the devil is in the details and there`s probably a
difficulty on both sides on how you deal with the critics of these
negotiations by offering or by being able to sell them on the idea that
you`ve gotten a good deal in your own national interest. So the extent to
where our national interest and their national interest are in alignment I
think were more OK.

The extent to which they see that their national interest are being
sacrificed or we see ours being sacrificed, that is probably where we still
have to close a loop.

SCHULTZ: And the neocons are out and about heckling from the stance, how
dangerous would it be to leave the next step to Congressional Republicans?

WILSON: Well what`s dangerous is that, we still listen to these people.
These are the people who gotten (ph) into this disastrous force over the
past decade.

The Middle East is exploding hatred for the United States as never been
higher in the region and it all goes back to the 2003 war in Iraq.

So I think...

SCHULTZ: Well, it`s interesting you...

WILSON: ... frankly, that fact that there still...

SCHULTZ: Go ahead.

WILSON: After you. Well, I was just going to say I think it`s very
dangerous that these people are still in positions of responsibility or
even on the sidelines. Who is listening to them and why?

They are not credible, they never have been. Now, they then proven not to
have been.

SCHULTZ: Well, it`s interesting you bring that up. Dick Cheney just last
night said that this is the worse administration that this country has ever
had and I thought no one better to respond to that than Ambassador Joe
Wilson.

WILSON: Well, I think Mr. Cheney as long been living in his own parallel
universe. And anything that he has to say is really not worth listening
to. And again, I don`t know why you bring children and people whose
positions have been so utterly wrong back to the table where adults are
sitting.

Do your role, Mr. Cheney.

SCHULTZ: Ambassador Joe Wilson, good to have you with us tonight here on
the Ed Show. You bet. I appreciate your time, Joe.

WILSON: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Thanks so much for being here with us tonight.

Still ahead, Senator Robert Menendez indicted late this afternoon, we will
have the latest. Plus, see what happens after a Nebraska farmer offers at
big energy proponents. A nice cool glass of fracking water, did they drink
it, we`ll show you. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We are following the breaking news at this hour. New Jersey Senator Robert
Menendez has been indicted on federal corruption charges.

Sen. Menendez has been under investigation for allegedly using his Senate
office to push the business interest of a friend and donor in exchange for
gifts. Menendez has denied any wrong doing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D) NEW JERSEY: Let me be very clear, very clear, I
have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law.

SCHULTZ: Federal prosecutors are focused on trips the New Jersey Democrat
took in 2010. He went to the Dominican Republic as a guest of Florida eye
doctor and political donor Salomon Melgen.

MENENDEZ: Anyone who knows us knows that he and his family and me and my
family, have been real friends for more than two decades.

SCHULTZ: Investigators say it went beyond holiday gifts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Investigators had hold Melgen would shed light whether
an exchange, the Senator tried to help him in a multimillion dollar
Medicare over a billion disputes as well as with Melgen`s attempts to
secure up with security contract for tens of millions.

SCHULTZ: Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a request by
prosecutors to bring charges against Menendez.

MENENDEZ: All I can say is that, we will respond to any issues, any
inquiries, any allegations, when and if the time comes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: We want to bring in Jonathan Alter tonight, MSNBC Political
Analyst. Jonathan, good to have you with us tonight.

JONATHAN ALTER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Ed.

SCHULTZ: What options does Senator Menendez have? Will he be pressured to
get out of office? Where do you think this is right now?

ALTER: There will be a lot of pressure for him to step down pending this,
but there are actually no requirements in the Democratic Caucus in the
Senate for him to do so.

So he`s not under any legal obligation to step down prior to trial but the
political pressure will be pretty intense.

SCHULTZ: How intense do you think this investigation has been for a grand
jury to come to this conclusion when, of course, the Senator has said that
they`ve been friends for over two decades. So the question is, where do
you draw the line between constituent services and business favors, I
guess?

ALTER: Well, that`s exactly, Ed. This case would be easier for the
federal government if Menendez and Melgen didn`t know each other, who is
something more like Abscam, you know, where guys dress as Arab sheikhs came
in and, you know, offered bribes in exchange for votes to members of
Congress.

If there is friendship involved then the politician can say, "Hey, I wasn`t
doing this in exchange for campaign contributions or gifts. I was doing
this because I`ve known this guy for 20 years and we`re close buddies.

The case is really going to rest probably on whether Melgen turn state`s
evidence. He`s been indicted as well and he`s trying to save his on skin
and, you know, drops a diamond on the Senator.

SCHULTZ: We are told that Senator Menendez will address the media tonight
at 7:00 P.M Eastern Time. Do you think there`s a chance that he would step
out tonight? What do you think is going to happen?

ALTER: I think there`s a chance that if he doesn`t, you know, step down
and resign his seat, I think there`s a chance that he resign some of his
committee positions in order to have more time to fight this charges. But,
you know, I know Bob Menendez, he has said all along that he is innocent
and I would anticipate that he`s going to tell people that he`s going to
fight as hard as he can, to prove his innocence, clear his name, and move
forward, and stay in the Senate.

So, I would be very surprise if he resigned.

SCHULTZ: Jonathan Alter with us tonight here on the Ed Show. I appreciate
your time, my friend.

ALTER: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Thank you so much.

Coming up, roadblocks for Hillary Clinton, big question mark. We don`t
know where she stands on a few issues as opposed to what we heard back in
2008. Rapid Response Panel next.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back in the Ed Show.

KATE ROGERS, CNBC CORRESPODENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Market
Wrap.

Stocks cut their losses today but still end lower after disappointing
economic data.

The Dow shed 77 points after falling triple digits earlier in the session,
the S&P is off 8 and the NASDAQ sinks 20.

One of the factors weighing on stocks are report on jobs from ADP. It
shows companies added 189,000 positions to payrolls last month, fewer than
expected.

And auto sale, they also fell in March, down more than 3 percent at Ford
and sales sink more than two percent at G.M.

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

(COMMERICAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Good to have you back with us tonight. Let`s talk politics in
2016 for a moment.

I think that Democrats deserve a heeded debate before 2016.

So what`s the holdup? We still don`t know where Hillary Clinton stands on
the TPP, fast-track, the Trans-Pacific Partnership as well.

Her record shows that she supported past trade agreements for President
Clinton signing of NAFTA to President Obama`s pack (ph) with South Korea.

She`s remained silent of the Keystone XL project and has yet to layout her
economic agenda. Things are different here in 2015 from what they were in
2007 and 2008.

Clinton`s position could remain a mystery without debate, the way things
are going and as it stands now, she`s facing very little competition or
questions from anybody on any of these issues.

Now, she hasn`t announced. I know that. But the field is getting cleared.
Elizabeth Warren said on Tuesday, she will not run in 2016. She`s been
outspoken on the issues.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D) Massachusetts: We need to refinance student
loan rates. We need to make sure that Social Security is secure into the
future and expand the benefits. We need to do equal pay for equal work.
We need to raise the minimum wage.

I just want two things from the big banks and this is really true. I want
them not to cheat people, that`s why I think we need a strong consumer
financial protection bureau.

The other thing I want them to do, I want them -- so they can`t wreck the
American economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: I think if you were to interview Hillary Clinton, she would say
exactly the same thing. But there`s a mystery so far when it comes to, OK,
what are the Democrat`s going to stand for in 2016 and who is going to be
leading the pack?

I`m talking trade, I`m talking the environment. The scientific in
information at our fingertips today is far different in 2015 and what it
was back in 2007 and 2008.

What is Hillary Clinton`s economic plan? And how are we going to find out
if there`s no debate? Is Hillary for reducing the corporate tax rate? Is
she going to go after Wall Street, more regulation, that she want to break
up the big banks? And what about all these billions of dollars that are
seating offshore in corporate accounts that are going untaxed and not
reaching the fair tax dollars of the United State Treasury?

Democrats, if no one else runs, there is a real possibility that these
issues are going to be cast aside because it seems like the mainstream
media doesn`t really pay much attention to what I just put out.

Now, we talked about Social Security, minimum wage, equal pay for women, I
got all of that, we got all of that.

But when you talk about outsourcing, everybody is for infrastructure. But
what is the economic plan? What is the tax plan? What is the plan to keep
jobs here? What about trade the guts jobs?

And I do believe when Martin O`Malley says that he doesn`t know where
Hillary Clinton stands on things and if nobody is going to run against
Hillary Clinton. I assume nobody is going to run against her, what kind of
candidate are we going to get?

This is not shot on Hillary, I am not against any candidate, I`m pro issue,
and I`m all for debates. And is it possible that our vetting process in
the liberal community could be a series of one of one interviews, and then
no debates whatsoever, and trades cast aside, and the environment cast
aside without a heated debate that will give people a choice, how could
this happen?

Joining me tonight is Senator Bernie Sanders who comes with us tonight from
Austin, Texas. Senator, good to have you with us tonight.

I`m not looking for any kind of confrontation which we knew and Hillary
Clinton or any other candidate. I want to talk about process. We might be
facing the real possibility that Hillary Clinton could run on oppose tell
me how any political party or movement in this country would benefit from
that, Senator.

SANDER: Well, no political party no country benefits from that. Ed, right
now, I`m in Austin, Texas, I was in Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and Las
Vegas in the last few days, talking (inaudible) with thousands of people
who are profoundly disgusted with the grotesque level of income and wealth
inequality. They want to see millions of descent paying jobs creator in
this country, they want to breakup the huge banks on Wall Street, they want
a new trade policy.

And as you and I have discussed, I am giving serious thought to running for
president of the United State. But when you take on the military
industrial complex the Koch brothers and all of the big money people in
this country, that is not an easy task.

And before you jump in, you got to make sure that you`re going to do it
right that you have the political infrastructure to do it in 50 states,
that you can raise a hundreds of millions of dollars that you need, because
if you can do that then it`s not worth doing it.

Doing it badly is worse than not doing at all. So you`re absolutely right,
we need to have a real debate. All we prepare to take on the billionaire
class.

In the last two years, the 40 wealthiest people in this county saw an
increase in their wealth of $157 billion, that`s more wealth in the bottom
40 percent of the American people, 99 percent of all the income going into
the top 1 percent, that is obscene, that is disgraceful, that is destroying
America.

The question is, can we put together the kind of campaign we need to defeat
them? And I`m running around the country right now and I got to tell you,
the response has been pretty. Standing among the crowds (ph), all of over,
you know, California and in Las Vegas and here in Austin. But we`ve got to
make that determination whether in fact we can run a winning campaign.

SCHULTZ: Senator, does the decision and announcement and I`ll take it as
an announcement because there have been new numerous comments by Senator
Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts that she`s not running. Does that
change your landscape at all?

SANDERS: Well I have had the feeling for a longtime that Senator Warren
was not going to be running. I think, Ed, there is profound anger in this
country against the economic establishment with the rich get richer and
everybody else gets for a (ph) -- against the political establishment with
both parties especially the Republicans are controlled by big money
interest.

And as you`ve indicated and often talk about, the media establishment which
time and time again refuses to talk about the real issues facing the
American people.

So I think the anger is out there, I think people want change. The
question is, can we mount, can we bring people together? In 50 states in
this country are people through demoralize that they given up the on the
political process, do they feel that its impossible to take on the
billionaire class?

That`s the question that I`m trying to answer right now. And if I conclude
that we can do it, I`m going to run for president. And if I conclude that
we don`t and it wouldn`t make any sense, I won`t. But that`s the issue
that I`m dealing with right this minute.

SCHULTZ: Senator, if you do run for the nomination, do you think that
Elizabeth Warren would be more incline to support you or Hillary Clinton?

SANDERS: Ed, that`s a question that you`ll have to talk with Senator
Warren about. But what I can tell you, in the last few days we`ve had
thousands of people coming out who want real change in this country, who
want us to stand up to the billionaire class.

SCHULTZ: Senator Bernie Sanders from Austin, Texas tonight here on the Ed
show. Senator, good to have you with us, all the best, I appreciate it.

SANDERS: Good to be here.

SCHULTZ: Still to come, drink up. If you think there`s something wrong
with fracking water, "Hey, it`s almost cocktail hour, what do you say we
try one?" This guy has some oil folks to do it, did they drink it? We`ll
be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed show.

During the Ed Show, I always like to drink fresh clean water. Now, if I
put fracking water in with this water, do you think I should drink it?
Would you drink it?

Farmer in Nebraska was asking a city council that, do they drink it?
That`s next on the Ed Show. Stay with us, we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, residents in Nebraska are fighting big oil
once again. It`s not just a fight against the Keystone XL pipeline. This
time residents in Sioux County, Nebraska are battling to protect their
precious natural resource of clean water.

Another state company, Terex or Terex Oil wants to export its toxic
fracking waste water into the county.

Now, the company wants to dump 10,000 barrels of pollution and with
disposal well in Sioux County every single day.

Once again, big oil was transferring all the risk unto Nebraska farmers and
ranchers. They are not taking it sitting down.

A video recorded at Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee hearing has
been spreading around the internet like wildfire.

Here is Nebraska landowner James Osborn visually explaining what fracking
waste could do to drinking water.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES OSBORN, NEBRASKA LANDOWNER: This is just beautiful, clean, pristine
drinking water. And I know you guys, would each one would drink it. So
what I brought and my question is, "would you drink it?"

This, it`s not mixed up really well.

There are some (inaudible) down there. I better share with this glass.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Late last month, the Bureau of Land Management unveiled new
nationwide restrictions for fracking on public and Native American lands.
Those rules take effect coming up in June.

Not all states are on board. North Dakota is joining the state of Wyoming
in a lawsuit against the federal regulations.

Joining me tonight is Jane Kleeb, Executive Director of Bold Nebraska, also
with us tonight, David Kreutzer who is the Senior Research fellow of Energy
Economics And Climate Change at the Heritage Foundation, great to have both
of you with us tonight.

Jane, you first, let`s talk about Nebraska. Why does Terex, the company,
want to put its waste water in Nebraska? What do you make of this?

JANE KLEEB, BOLD NEBRASKA: You know, I think people think that Nebraska is
just as fly over country and now they clearly think that where their
dumping ground as well.

So whether it`s, you know, TransCanada`s tar sands or Terex`s waste water,
you know, from my perspective, they can`t get permits in other states
because fracking laws have become so difficult.

But now Nebraska is essentially wild, wild west. We have no real
regulations when it comes to fracking waste and so we were seen as an easy
target for them to get a permit.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Kreutzer. what`s the danger here if there is any from what
you know?

DAVID KREUTZER, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, you know, there are 16,000
disposal wells in Kansas, there are over 600 of them in Nebraska still
using120 or so. They haven`t leaked, so there`s no sense in scaring people
in Nebraska. They should be able to make their own choices but it doesn`t
make sense to scare them.

You have these wells. It can be done safely. Sally Jewell, the Obama
administration Secretary of the Interior, she says fracking can be done
safely, she knows disposal with the water can be done safely.

KLEEB: You know, people does...

SCHULTZ: Do you believe that Jane?

KLEEB: No. I mean (inaudible) the state could do it safely as well.
TransCanada told us they could do it safely that 14 weeks in their first
year of the pipeline. The problem is and you may -- unless you have
information that I don`t have, in our first responders in Nebraska clearly
don`t have it.

We don`t know what`s in those trucks and under oath, the Terex had to admit
that they don`t even know what`s in those trucks. And they kind of just
throw out, well, maybe we can -- no, no, you can wait a second, maybe we`ll
monitor the trucks once a month, maybe? No, maybe is not good enough. We
want to know what`s in that stuff now.

KREUTZER: And I`ll tell you. But in any event, we`ve done this safely,
has been done safely. And you know, if there are problems somewhere with
any kind of process, we fix those problems. We have problems -- with
safety problems with farming, it doesn`t mean we quit farming. We correct
those farms. We`ll make it safer

It`s the same thing with all modern life, all right? You don`t shutdown
everything.

Really the end game here is to shutdown energy production but some people
aren`t honest enough to admit it.

SCHULTZ: Well, what if it does leak, Mr. Kreutzer? And isn`t that an
issue? I mean, how -- can we guarantee that this is going to be a safe
deposit in this well and why take the risk?

KREUTZER: Why take the risk? OK. The fracking revolution in United
States has been the long bright spot in the economy which has been pretty
more ban (ph) for the past six or seven years. This has allowed us to get
the energy. We need this energy. This is how we get to work. This is how
we run the tractors for the farms. This is how we run the trucks for
commerce. It`s not we hid our houses. This is how we go on vacation.

We can`t say, oh, there might be a leak somewhere we have this wonderful
safety record so far but there might be leak, we saw a leak somewhere, so
we have to stop all fracking. We have to stop all disposal of salt water
in these old wells.

It`s worth fine for overwhelmingly so far. It`s overwhelmingly safe, all
right?

You want to point to one thing. I don`t know which one, Jane is pointing
to. You want to point and say, that`s why we going to shutdown everything,
that doesn`t make sense. We need to have a modern economy from modern
standard of living.

KLEEB: I agree with you the modern economy...

SCHULTZ: OK. Jane, your response to that.

KLEEB: Yeah. We need a modern economy with the modern standard of living
and that does not mean that we then rely on outdated fossil fuels. We have
got to start living our country forward.

Climate change is a real issue and I know Heritage Foundation does not
believe in that but the reality...

KREUTZER: That`s not true. That`s not true.

KLEEB: It is true, the scientist there. Our planet is warming and we have
got to do something about it. And you may think that we only run an oil
and gas in Nebraska but we don`t reproduce in wind, reproducing solar. We
have biomass and ethanol in our state.

So we don`t need to be the dumping ground for all of that irresponsible
energy...

KREUTZER: But Jane I want to say thank you for being...

KLEEB: ... fractioning that`s happening in Wyoming and Colorado.

KRUETZER: I want to thank you for being sideways on as anyway.

What we`ve see here is the real goal here is the shutdown oil production.
It`s nothing to do with fracking in particular. Its oil production in
general that she wants to shutdown.

Well, you`re not going to run tractors out of solar cells.

KLEEB: No, but can run on ethanol and cleaner forms of energy...

KREUTZER: You`re not going to be able to produce the ethanol you want
without huge amount of water for one thing, and also you need the diesel...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

KREUTZER: ... to run the tractors to get your ethanol so by...

SCHULTZ: So Mr. Kreutzer...

KREUTZER: ... you want to cut oil production.

SCHULTZ: OK.

KREUTZER: Everybody else wants more but you want less.

SCHULTZ: All right. Mr. Kreutzer, you would have no problem with one of
these wells being in your county?

KREUTZER: No. I wouldn`t have any trouble with one of these wells be in
my county. I`ll tell you in particular, you know, I would rather have --
these wells in my county, I would rather have a fracking well on my land
and to have 400-foot windmill and then, we get more energy from it.

KLEEB: Well, send me your address so I can have Terex come to you...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: You got to leave it there.

KREUTZER: OK.

SCHULTZ: We will have both of you back and we`ll stay on this story. Jane
Kleeb and David Kreutzer...

KREUTZER : Thanks.

SCHULTZ: ... great to have you with us tonight for the debate.

That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al starts
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.
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