Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Friday, April 17th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Friday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: April 17, 2015
Guest: Bernie Sanders, Paul Henderson, Thomas Mesereau, Ben Cohen, Angelo
Carusone, John Fugelsang


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

It`s Friday, let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Tonight, myth-busting the trade deal.

PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: This is the most far-
reaching and progressive Trade Promotion Authority that we`ve seen going
through Congress.

SCHULTZ: Plus, the Tulsa deputy story.

ROBERT BATES, TULSA COUNTY RESERVED DEPUTY: I still can`t believe that
happened.

SCHULTZ: And the Republican kingmaker.

SEAN HANNITY, THE SEAN HANNITY SHOW HOST:
Senator, good to see you.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: Welcome aboard, Sean.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

Hillary Clinton has broken her silence on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Her spokesperson Nick Merrill e-mailed this statement to the Ed Show just
moments ago and it reads.

"Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests.
First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise
wages and create more job, more good jobs at homes. Second, it must also
strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from
any outcome that falls short of these tests. The goal is greater
prosperity and security for American families, not trade, for trade`s sake.
She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack done on
currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and
health, promote transparency, and open new opportunities for our small
businesses to export overseas."

End of statement.

This is Clinton, respectfully, and your staff. This statement is generic
political speak and it is a complete dodge of the issue at the 11th-hour.

These are not the words of a champion at this time. This is not about
watching closely. This is about action. This issue is here and it`s here
now.

And this country is about to embark on a trade deal that will destroy the
middle-class even further, it will depress wages. This will be the biggest
blow to unions in our country`s history, what do you think the Republican
are for it?

Now, you`re either for this or you`re against it.

Now, this is the moment of truth when it comes to the progressive community
and the labor community and the middle-class in this country. You can`t
get around it.

Meanwhile, President Obama is speaking out on the TPP as fast-tract votes
loom in the Congress.

Now, that means that passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (inaudible)
fast-tract is now America`s doorstep. And the media doesn`t get it.

I don`t care if this story is boring, I care about how important it is and
I care about how this story has not been covered. This story has received
poor coverage all around.

And the Democrats, they own the problem in a sense. You cannot go around
campaigning that you`re for the middle-class and then grease the skids to
allow this trade deal to go through.

Proponents of this trade deal claimed that there had been net job gains
under previous American trade deals -- that`s false. American has lost
over 50,000 manufacturing factories on other trade deals, America has turn
it`s economy to a pay for shuffling service industry economy.

Now, I have spoken and I have been to places like Lorain, Ohio and talk to
folks who`ve had their jobs shifted overseas because of previous bad trade
deals. And of course, the way we don`t enforce them and can`t enforce
them. People have gone from manufacturing steal and car parts to flipping
burgers at McDonald`s.

Now, if that is your vision for America then you know what? The Trans-
Pacific Partnership is your baby.

Thursday`s news, of a fast-tract deal in Congress should worry every single
American. Now, they of course have agreed in committee, they haven`t voted
yet but they will soon and it`s going to end up on the floor. Here`s a key
player. Democratic Ron Wyden from Oregon jumped onboard because of these
new human right provisions that are in the deal.

On Thursday, Larry Cohen of the Communication Workers of America said the
language was a joke.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY COHEN, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA: This notion that somehow we
will wheel (ph) it through words in a chapter when that country is involve
whether it`s Vietnam or none of the (ph) challenging groups are involved,
or whether it`s Mexico where a conditions for workers continue to get
worse. It`s impossible and we`ve had no enforcement before. We get
reports.

I was in Honduras. We got a nice report on Honduras. Three years after,
the complaints were filed, Guatemala, six years later, and then Mr. Froman
meets with those governments.

Meanwhile, corporations get the right to sue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Members of Congress are misleading America about a horrible deal.
Senator Orrin Hatch released a statement today saying, "This is a smart,
bipartisan compromise that will help move America forward. The renewal of
TPA, Trade Promotional Authority, will help American workers and job
creators unlock new opportunities for growth and promote better, higher-
paying jobs here at home."

That is false. Nothing could be further from the truth. We`ve heard this
garbage before.

Senator Hatch`s statement is not based on fact nor is it based on good
historical record of trade agreements or any reason whatsoever.

Earlier today, President Obama spoke out on fast-track extensively in the
TPP. The President made his most detailed case yet for the trade deal.

Now tonight, we`re going to do something special here on the Ed Show. We
are not going to edit the president comments because he is been very coy in
public, in an interview about the Trade Promotion Authority and TPP.

So we`re going to play the entire statement and then Senator Bernie Sanders
is going to join us. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I would be receiving the same Trade Promotion Authority that every
President in the postwar era, with the exception of Richard Nixon, has
received. So it`s not exceptional in that sense.

What is exceptional is that in this framework, for the first time, there
are requirements for enforceable labor and environmental provisions. There
is a clear attention to issues like human rights. And in many ways, this
is the most far-reaching and progressive Trade Promotion Authority that
we`ve seen going through Congress.

And that`s important, because, as I`ve said before, it is entirely
understandable that there is some skepticism around trade from working
families who live in a town that saw manufacturing collapse and jobs being
outsourced. People recognize that there had been circumstances in the past
in which trade may have contributed to aggregate growth of the global
economy or even the U.S. economy but hurt workers. And we`ve learned
lessons from that. And this Trade Promotion Authority, thanks to the work
of Senators Wyden and Hatch, reflects some of those lessons.

Now, in terms of actually getting a deal done, the first trade agreement
that we potentially would present under this Trade Promotion Authority
would be the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. I`ve spoken to this
before, but I will just repeat that 95 percent of the world`s markets are
outside our borders. The fastest-growing markets, the most populous
markets are going to be in Asia. And if we do not help to shape the rules
so that our businesses and our workers can compete in those markets, then
China will set up rules that advantage Chinese workers and Chinese
businesses.

And that will set the stage over the next 20-30 years for us being locked
out, us being unable to protect our businesses from discrimination, our
agricultural products being excluded from these areas, high tariffs that
prevent us from being able to compete fairly. When it comes to services or
it comes to the Internet, for example, our ability to maintain intellectual
property protection or freedom in the Internet, or other requirements that
tilt the playing field against U.S. workers -- that`s what`s going to
happen.

So what we are doing is negotiating the highest-level, highest-standard
trade agreement in our history, with strong enforceable labor provisions,
strong enforceable environmental provisions. And I will be able to show
when the final agreement is presented that this is absolutely good for not
just American businesses, but for Americans workers. And it`s good for the
economy and it`s the right thing to do.

Now, last point I`ll make on this. The politics around trade has always
been tough, particularly in the Democratic Party, because people have
memories of outsourcing and job loss. The point I`ve made to my labor
friends and my progressive friends is that companies that are looking for
just low-cost labor, they`ve already left. We`re already at a disadvantage
right now. And the trade agreement I`m proposing would actually strengthen
our ability to force other markets to open and strengthen our position
compared to where we are right now.

And being opposed to this new trade agreement is essentially a ratification
of the status quo, where a lot of folks are selling here, but we`re not
selling there. Japan is one of the negotiators in this deal. Now, the
last time I checked, if you drive around Washington, there are a whole
bunch of Japanese cars. You go to Tokyo and count how many Chryslers and
GM and Ford cars there are. So the current situation is not working for
us. And I don`t know why it is that folks would be opposed to us opening
up the Japanese market more for U.S. autos, or U.S. beef. It doesn`t make
any sense.

So I`m going to be able to make a strong case. But I think it`s important
when you talk about dividing the party -- look, we got a Korean free trade
agreement passed, we got a Colombia free trade agreement passed, and a
Panama free trade agreement passed over the last several years, during my
presidency. It didn`t divide the Democratic Party. There`s going to be a
set of Democratic senators and House members who traditionally have just,
on principle, opposed trade because the unions, on principle, regardless of
what the provisions are, are opposed to trade.

And then there are others who, like me, believe that we cannot stop a
global economy at our shores. We`ve got to be in there and compete. And
we`ve got to make sure we`re writing the rules so that we got a level
playing field -- because when we do, products made in America and services
provided by American firms are the best in the world. And I will continue
to make that argument.

And for those who argue that somehow this is contrary to the interests of
working families, what I tell them is my whole presidency has been about
helping working families and lifting up wages, and giving workers more
opportunity. And if I didn`t think this deal was doing it, I wouldn`t do
it. I didn`t get elected because of the sponsorship of the Business
Roundtable or the Chamber of Commerce. Those aren`t the ones who brung me
to the dance.

The reason I`m doing it is because I know this is an important thing to do,
and I also know that it sends a signal throughout Asia that we are out
there competing and that we are going to help maintain international rules
that are fair for everybody and not so tilted in favor of one country that
it ends up being bad for not only our commercial prospects but for other
countries over the long term.

That was a very long answer, but it`s a big question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: It is a big question and it is a long answer, and it`s long
overdue that the American people hear this, Mr. President.

Here`s the bottom line, folks. Every union in this country is against it,
not because of principle. They`re against it because it`s going to gut
American jobs.

The President got it wrong. There is no question about it.

This is a global race to the bottom, and I don`t know who is coaching the
President on this but investor`s state trade disputes are going to go to an
international tribunal and it`s going to circumvent American law. That`s
why a lot of Republicans are against it because of the sobriety issue.

The Democrats are against it in the Congress because of course it`s going
to gut American jobs.

And the President is touting the trade deals that he has done during this
administration, really?

The Korean trade deal has been a boondoggle for the American economy. Our
trade deficit has skyrocketed since then. It has not been good, it has not
created jobs. In fact, there`s not one trade agreement that this country
has gotten into with Obama or any other president that has netted plus
American jobs.

What is it that they don`t get about this?

Now, the irony of this is that President Obama came in to office, de didn`t
prosecute Wall Street. In fact, he didn`t prosecute Wall Street, he has
given Wall Street the best deal they`ve ever had.

And Hillary Clinton is on the sideline saying, well, she is going to be
watching. No.

We`re beyond watching. We`re beyond listening. This is now a time for
action. You`re either for it or against it. This will be the biggest blow
to the middle-class in the history of this country. This will encompass
almost 60 percent of the world economy. This is a race to the bottom. And
this idea that China is going to write the rules, give me a break.

The United States of America is the biggest customer in the world. They
need us. They need you. They need me. They need all of us.

And so, why in the world, now, these enforceable trade deals, we haven`t
had any enforceable trade deals. That`s the problem. Our enforceable laws
are antiquated. That`s where we have to focus as well.

So I just want to point out this that there`s politics to this, there`s no
question about it, but there`s also a reality.

Mr. President, I don`t want an interview with you. I want a trip. I want
you and I to go to Lorain, Ohio and I want to make sure that I`m hearing
these workers and I want to make sure you hear these workers, because I`ll
take you in front of workers that have lost their jobs to foreign markets
because of a lousy trade deal.

And this is really good spin that we`re getting out of the administration
right now but they are dead wrong on this. They are dead wrong.

This isn`t about whether it`s boring or exciting. This is about whether
it`s important to America`s future.

And the Democrats, you will sign up with people who are against minimum
wage, who are against workers` rights, who are against every job bill, and
I don`t know why the President is warming up to people that have stub him
in the back all along, the people that brought this President to the dance,
not once but twice, was labor.

Where is labor wrong? They`re all on the same page to say no to this.

This is an amazing time in American economic history as what it is.

I know where FDR would be, I know where Kennedy would be, I know where
Senator Ted Kennedy would be, I know where Robert Bork (ph) would be, I
know where Tom Daschle would be.

But this new Democratic way that we need to cave in all these corporate
interests is going to gut our economy even further. And it will change the
Democratic Party forever because the Democrats are never going to be able
to go back to the working folk of American in the middle-class and say, "We
stood up for you."

No. No. No. They`re not standing up for workers here. They`re allowing
it to go right down the skits and it`s unfortunate. And this idea that we
have to have the State Department and the Commerce Department connect this
to national security? How many billions of dollars do we spend on military
hardware to protect this country in the world? You mean we have to go to a
lousy trade deal to make everybody happy, so they can gut American jobs?
There has to be some level of protectionism.

I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would say about this.

We have forgotten our roots. This is wrong. This is not standing up for
American families. And to standup for American families is to say no to
fast-track.

And, you know, what`s ironic about this, is that the Republicans want to
give the President the Trade Promotion Authority that go through this deal
but they don`t want to give the President the authority to go deal -- to go
do a nuclear deal with the Iranians.

Yeah. Whatever works for them politically, right?

This is going to be the best sweetheart emerging market deal that Wall
Street has ever had. Wall Streets never had it so good. From March of
2009 to where we are right now, how much better do they want it?

In the meantime, we have very few people in the Democratic Party in this
country who are willing to say, "We have an issue with income inequality
and we have a wage gap."

It`s like if you`re on national television, you might get the plague (ph)
if you talk about it, or you might get fired, really? Really? No.

This is about having the commitment to the American economy in protecting
the very workers that do what? Pay the taxes, that support our government,
that support our military for freedom. And we`re going to take them and
throw them under the bus for national security? Really?

We`re going to do a trade deal with Brunei.

Brunei, let`s see. Sharia law -- what are the Republicans think about
that? Oh, they don`t care. They`re all about the "God almighty dollar".

This segment is called Straight Talk from the Heartland, and let me say one
final thing about this to you, farmers, out there.

There is a provision in this trade deal that Obama`s not talking about,
that will force us to take agricultural products from other countries. Do
you think that might depress your prices in the farm country? Do you think
you`re going to be able to get a really good farm bill after this? I doubt
it.

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

Tonight`s question, "Do you trust President Obama on the TPP? Go to
polls.msnbc.com/ed to cast your vote, I`ll bring you the results later on
in the show.

I want to bring in Senator Bernie Sanders tonight from Vermont, the
Independent who has been very clear on this issue all along.

Senator, we got an earful from the President, we ran it unedited on this
program because we wanted to make sure his side of the story got out and
the corporate side of the story got out.

He said that there are enforceable labor in environmental provisions in the
TPP, what does he mean? How enforceable are they? Your take.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Well, we`ve heard that, Ed, for almost
every trade agreement that`s come down the pike, and yet you have workers
being exploited all over the world, it take years before their concerns of
being heard.

I think the first point to make about this trade agreement is to look at
whose side -- multinational corporations are on this, how do the drug
companies feel about this, how does Wall Street feel about it? All of the
multinationals believe this is a great agreement, for good reasons.
They`re going to make a whole lot of money out of that.

Meanwhile, as you indicated, virtually every trade union in this country
isn`t strong opposition to it. Just the other day, I and a few of us spoke
before the thousands steelworkers on this issue. So you got working people
on one side you got corporate America on the other side.

Second of all, if you look at the history of trade agreements, there is a
reason why we have lost 60,000 factories in this country since 2001 and
millions of decent paying jobs. And there is a reason why most of the new
jobs being created are low wage part-time service industry jobs and that`s
because major corporation after major corporation has shutdown in America,
they`ve gone to China, they`ve gone to Vietnam, they`ve gone to Mexico to
(inaudible) low wage labor and then bring their products back into this
country.

I`ve been involved and oppose to NAFTA that have (ph) the permanent normal
trade relations with China. I`ve heard it all over and over again how
great these agreements are, and yet what they have ended up doing is
hauling out the middle-class of this country.

But in addition to all of that, you got another factor, and that is, you
have -- it`s a result of this agreement, if it`s passed, you`re going to
have corporations being able to sue governments, federal local state in
America, around the world because they`re trying to do the right thing in
terms of public health or in terms of the environment. And the
corporations will have the right to say, "Hey, you are limiting my ability
to make money and that`s what this agreement is about maximizing corporate
profits."

So you have a case which could be similar on the TPP where you (inaudible)
little country is being sued by Philip Morris, why, because I don`t want
the kids getting hooked on to cigarettes, because profits are more
important than human needs

You have doctors without boarders. One of the heroic groups in the world
going to treat poor people all over the world, they are say this agreement
is terrible because it will raise pharmaceutical prices in low income
countries because corporations -- pharmaceutical industry will be able to
maintain that patents and countries will not be able to go into generic
drugs.

So look at all of those factors and it is very disappointing, that
President Obama is on the wrong side of this, that Hillary Clinton has not
-- spoken out strongly in defense of working people on this issue.

SCHULTZ: President Obama said that we don`t write trade rules that China
will be writing the trade rules, what`s your response to that?

SANDERS: My response is, we are the largest economy in the history of the
world that every single night corporations are on television telling us buy
this product, buy that product, buy that product. Do you think that as a
nation we don`t have the capability of saying to those corporations, if you
want us to buy those products how about manufacturing them here in America
and not in China, how about putting our of people back to work?

One of the reasons, Ed, that the middle class has decline is that, we have
seen massive declines in manufacturing and manufacturing jobs. It is
terribly important, we rebuild a manufacturing base and you don`t do that
with these terrible trade agreements.

SCHULTZ: Senator Bernie Sanders, good to have you with us tonight, I
appreciate your time. And I have to ask you, does this issue, now that
you`ve hear President Obama and now that you heard the statement that
Hillary Clinton`s camp put out tonight saying that she`s going to be
watching this closely. That it was a non-position position really, it was
not for or against, you know, I mean it was just -- it was rather
political, it was political speak, it was generic.

SANDERS: Ed, there`s nothing -- this is not one that you can watch
closely...

SCHULTZ: Does this bring you any closer to a decision?

SANDERS: Well...

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Does this bring any closer to a decision?

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: I will make a decision within the next few weeks, yes. And this
is a key issue if I run traders at the central part -- at central part of a
campaign.

SCHULTZ: Senator, good to have you with us tonight.

Remember to answer tonight`s questions at polls.msnbc.com/ed, we`ll have
the results right after this break. Follow us on Facebook and watch my
Facebook feature, "Give Me a Minute" and you can get my video podcast at
wegoted.com.

Coming up, Robert Bates is telling his side of the story. We`ll have the
full interview and legal analysis ahead.

Stay with us, we`ll be right back on the Ed Show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Hillary Clinton is going to have one of the best funded presidential
campaigns of all time. And lot of that money is only made possible by
Citizens United. This didn`t stop Hillary Clinton from making campaign
finance reform one of the pillars of her campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: We need to fix our disfunction political system and get
unaccountable money out of it once and for all even if that takes a
constitutional amendment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight Ben Cohen who is a cofounder of Ben & Jerry`s,
this has been his issue for years. Mr. Cohen, good to have you with us
tonight.

Do you believe that Hillary felt the needs to address this right off the
bat because there has been so much progressive conversation about it?

BEN COHEN, COFOUNDER BEN & JERRY`S: I think that`s absolutely correct. I
mean it`s been more than just progressive conversation. I mean 80 percent
to 90 percent of the U.S. population from both parties, Republicans and
Democrats, wants to get money out of politics. Everybody realizes that
money is corrupted our democracy and the politicians are not responsive to
the people, they`re responsive to the money.

SCHULTZ: So do you think she has to play by the...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: Do you think she has to play by the rules right now I mean go
raise this money under Citizens United because that`s just the fishbowl
that politicians are swimming in right now until things change?

COHEN: Yeah. I do think that politicians need to raise money. However,
they can`t until the rules change, but I think that Hillary`s comment was
disingenuous.

You know, I`m not concern about the unaccountable money, I`m concern about
the money we know about. I mean, we know the big banks are paying off the
politicians to cut regulations on Wall Street. We know, you know, the
fossil fuel industry is paying off the politicians so that they get tax
breaks and so that they continue to get advantages over renewable forms to
energy.

I mean, you know, we know, you know, consumers banks are paying off
politicians so that student debt ends up at ridiculous rates. I mean,
Hillary...

SCHULTZ: Well...

COHEN: What she`s talking about is not going to help.

SCHULTZ: Constitutional amendment wouldn`t help?

COHEN: Well, a constitutional amendment would certainly help. I mean the
constitutional amendment that we need is one that says that money is not
for speech. It`s one that limits the amount of money that corporations and
the ultra wealthy can pay the politicians to get law passed as they want.

But when she says, she wants an amendment that`s going to make sure there
is no more unaccountable money, that`s not getting money out.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Cohen, good to have you with us tonight. We`ll have you back
on these issues. Certainly it`s not going away anytime soon. Ben Cohen of
Ben & Jerry`s here on the Ed Show.

Coming up, Robert Bates is speaking out with his side of the story. We`ll
bring you the details.

Stay with us, we`ll be right back at the Ed Show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And we are back.

The Tulsa volunteer deputy who shot an unarmed man came forward with his
side of the story.

NBC`s Sarah Dallof has the latest.

BATES: First and foremost, let me apologize to the family of Eric Harris.

SARAH DALLOF, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Flanked by supporters and his
attorney, Reserve Sheriff Deputy Robert Bates apologized to the family of
Eric Harris.

The man he says he shot when he mistook his gun for his
Taser.

BATES: You know, I still can`t believe that happened.

DALLOF: In an interview on the Today Show, Bates shared his version of
what happened. Revealing, he was positioned several walks away as Eric
Harris allegedly trying to sell his semi-automatic pistol to an undercover
officer.

When Harris run towards Bates` location, he says he grabbed his gun
thinking it was his Taser and fired.

BATES: Oh my God, I shot him. I`m sorry.

Oh my God, what has happened? The laser light is the same on each weapon.
I saw the light and I squeeze the trigger and then realized I dropped the
gun.

DALLOF: It`s an explanation that doesn`t sit well with the family of Eric
Harris who is calling for an independent investigation.

ANDRE HARRIS, BROTHER: If he had this much training as he supposedly had,
he would definitely know a 357 from a Taser.

DALLOF: Bates` training records have raised questions. State record show
he received almost 300 hours of instruction in the past six years but the
Tulsa County Sheriff said in the radio interview this week, his office has
not been able to locate all of the Bates` gun certification records since
the instructor no longer works there.

And the Tulsa World newspaper cited unnamed sources in an article alleging
Bates was given credit for field training he never did and firearms
certifications he never received.

Bates and his attorney denied that.

CLARK BREWSTER, BATES ATTORNEY: The so-called evidence of falsified
training records comes from a person that was terminated by the sheriff`s
office seven years ago.

DALLOF: A reserve deputy in the department under her microscope following
a fatal shooting caught on tape.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Coming up on the Ed Show Defense Attorney Thomas Mesereau will
join us along with Veteran Prosecutor Paul Anderson. They will weigh in on
the Robert Bates interview and what it means for the case.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

For more on Matt Lauer`s exclusive interview with Robert Bates, I`m joined
for the discussion tonight with Paul Anderson, Veteran Prosecutor and also
Legal Analyst also with us tonight, Thomas Mesereau, Criminal Defense
Attorney, gentlemen, great to have you with us.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: Mr. Henderson, you first -- you bet. From a prosecutor
standpoint did this interview helped or hurt Mr. Bates as you see it?

PAUL HENDERSON, VETERAN PROSECUTOR: Well, it`s going to hurt him,
specifically, from a criminal perspective. All of these admissions and
statements of contrition are going to come into the case where he is making
admissions and talking about being sorry.

And I tell you what`s going to be relevant as he is describing and showing
what he did on the scene, all of that is going to be reviewed and come into
whatever criminal charges are pending against him in front of the jury.

And I tell you from a legal perspective, the two issues that are going to
be most important in this case are the issues of what his training was or
could have been, and then also what his assignment was.

So by putting him in the violent crime division in that area, even though
he said he wasn`t supposed to be doing anything. He knew or should have
known that the use of deadly force was possible because he was armed with
both a Taser and gun.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HENDERSON: And so, all of these things are going to be presented to a
jury, all of these things are going to go and speak to the likelihood that
he knew or should have known that an accident could have happen and they
will speak directly...

SCHULTZ: Sure.

HENDERSON: ... to what his training would have been or should have been in
the use of deadly force as he`s acting as an agent of law enforcement and
it`s not...

SCHULTZ: Yeah, good points.

HENDERSON: ... going to matter that he was just a volunteer.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Mesereau, from a defense attorney standpoint, this is rather
unusual strategy to do an interview on national television, is this a
gamble?

THOMAS MESEREAU, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It is a gamble but I think it
was a successful one for the defense.

The greatest thing this defendant has going for him is who is as a person,
how he`s lived his life and what his goals and intentions were when he
volunteered to help the police department.

This is not your typical criminal case. This is a 73-year old man with no
criminal history, who`s been a good citizen, who donated his time and money
to the police department. He didn`t create the situation. A criminal who
was trying to sell illegal guns to an undercover agent did create the
situation.

Now, I agree with the family of Eric Harris. I think there should be an
independent investigation. However, this man is going to come across that
someone who would never intended to commit a crime, did the best he could
to help the police department was under tremendous stress, had every reason
to think that the person he was chasing was armed, and I don`t think a jury
is going to convict him. I don`t think the jury is going to -- want to
make him a felon for the rest of his life.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: What about that, Mr. Henderson?

HENDERSON: I don`t think that those good intentions are going to bring Mr.
Harris back. He is dead because of the actions that were taken on that day
and his good intentions are directly going to be compared with the training
that he received or should have received in comparison with the deadly use
of force that he displayed on that day, and it was just inappropriate in
this case.

And this is why it`s charged as a second-degree, as a reckless mistake that
he should have known better and should have used better care, because at
the end of the day...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HENDERSON: ... there still someone dead and the state is not going to take
that as an excuse to mitigate his behavior beyond what the charges are...

SCHULTZ: OK.

HENDERSON: ... to get him out of culpability in this case.

MESEREAU: The state may not but a jury is likely to.

HENDERSON: Well, we`ll see. We`ll see.

SCHULTZ: Well, Mr. Mesereau, I mean this is part of the defense, this
interview today, isn`t it?

MESEREAU: Yes, it is.

SCHULTZ: I mean, what`s -- the mission had to be go out and show the
country that you`re really a good guy.

MESEREAU: Absolutely. And I think the character of the defendant, I think
the was he`s lived his life, the people who support him and his intentions
and goals in helping the police department are going to help him escape a
criminal conviction.

There maybe a civil suit for negligence...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

MESEREAU: ... against a police department that would likely be successful
but convicting him of a felony, 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, I
don`t see it. I`d like to defend this one.

SCHULTZ: All right. You`d like to defend this one. OK.

What about -- this was very interesting in the interview when he stood up
and showed where his Taser gun was and where his firearm was. From a
prosecutor standpoint, Mr. Henderson, what do you with that?

HENDERSON: Well, you notice when he was talking about that, he referenced
specifically, where it was in relationship to his training.

So again, it`s going to open the door to have that discussion about what
his training was or should have been as they`re training him, but all of
that is going to be relevant as they`re trying to find whether or not this
was a valid mistake and whether or not, it was recklessness, whether or not
it was negligence and whether or not those mistakes rose to the level of
criminal culpability to hold him accountable for the subject on death that
occurred because of his actions.

So that`s why it`s all going to matter and you`re going to see here a lot
of discussion about exactly how the accident took place.

You see, he`s already making the statements publicly but this is going to
be absolutely relevant as soon as it comes in front of a jury as well.

SCHULTZ: And Mr. Mesereau, your impression of him standing up
demonstrating where the Taser gun was, and where is firearm was, and how he
made a mistake. And he also made reference that there were other shootings
that have taken place in this country that he had researched at this. He
is not the only one that`s ever done something like this. What about that?

MESEREAU: Look, this is not the South Carolina case where a police officer
pulled over a man for a busted taillight and then, in a cold-blooded
premeditated intentional fashion executed him.

This is a very different set of facts. And I think, a jury is going to,
probably, relate to someone who did his best, came right out and said, I
made a mistake, has never denied it.

Mistakes don`t necessarily mean felony conduct. That`s going to be the
issue.

SCHULTZ: OK. Paul Henderson, Tom Mesereau, I enjoyed the discussion. I
appreciate your time tonight. Thank you so much.

HENDERSON: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: The Republican kingmaker is dethroned. More on Rush Limbaugh
fading influence in the Republican Party, and it is fading.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Move over Rush Limbaugh, there`s a new Republican kingmaker in
town we`ll have the details next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, moments from now former Arkansas Governor
Mike Huckabee will make an announcement about 2016. He`s running over to
his old employer of Fox News Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio all went
to Fox News after becoming presidential candidates. Sean Hannity got
exclusive interviews.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: Florida Senator Marco Rubio. How do you define yourself?

Sen. Rand Paul, (R) KENTUCKY: I like the words constitutional
conservative.

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: Sean, always great to join you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: No one is going on bended knee to Rush Limbaugh anymore. We`re
seeing a real shift in power structure in the media. Republicans have
figured out that Limbaugh isn`t the player he used to be.

Radio is Rush Limbaugh`s only platform, the three-hour format is dying
along with his ratings. He doesn`t have the television and social media
reach platforms that Hannity has. One of the most listen to radio stations
in Indianapolis, Indiana just dropped Limbaugh after 22 years.

The local market manager for the station believes this could open them up
to a new group of advertisers. The radio group which indicates Limbaugh
has been carrying $20 billion debt, they`re owned by former Mitt Romney`s
old company Bain Capital.

Network radios in big trouble advertising wise, the future doesn`t look
good for Limbaugh, how long will he be around?

Joining me tonight for this is Angelo Carusone and also with us tonight is
-- who is the Executive Vice President of Media Matters and also John
Fugelsang SiriusXM Radio Talk Show Host, gentlemen great to have you with
us.

Mr. Carusone, let me ask you this. Is Limbaugh`s audience off, what`s
happening here?

ANGELO CARUSONE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF MEDIA MATTERS: I think the
biggest thing that -- and yeah, you saw that we hit the point right in your
introduction is that, you know, couple years ago advertisers begin to
realized that Rush Limbaugh was bad for business. And now, you know, Rush
Limbaugh has become so toxic that even political figures are starting
realized that

And, you know, his audience is continuing to dwindle. And just a couple of
weeks ago on Facebook, he pointed out that the, you know, the demographics
are against us, folks, you know. And partly he was a sort of alluding to
and starting to signal this advertiser, I mean, the station drop due to his
advertiser losses. And this is just part of a larger trend. He`s just not
commercially viable.

SCHULTZ: Well, you know, there are (inaudible) but age factor here and he
says the demographic are against him, wait a minute. There are
broadcasters on the national level who are older than Rush and they`re not
losing audience the way he is. John Fugeslang, what do you make of it?

JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUSXM RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, look, as long as
their angry middle age white guys would impacted (inaudible) driver around
and trucks, Rush Limbaugh was still have a demographics, he`s not going
anywhere. And we`re not like Rush Limbaugh so I`m not going to rejoice in
somebody positively losing their job, and that`s what separates us from
Rush.

However, I don`t want to really see Rush Limbaugh loss his job. I want to
see three ghosts visit him on Christmas even turn him into a better person.

In the meantime, I think you`re exactly right. Hannity is now the
kingmaker, we`re going to be seeing this non-stop Hannity carnival of
ignorance were people who really enjoy being lied to like a tragic girl at
a frat party show up to be (inaudible) boarded, and we can expect a lot
more in the weeks to come.

SCHULTZ: Well, John, why do you think that the Republicans are going to
Hannity which they did before not like this and they go to Limbaugh? I
mean clearly Hannity it seems to be the prime player in all of this
political talk.

FUGELSANG: Well, you know, Ed, I mean you can`t really talk about Sean
Hannity without discussing Nesha, right? Let`s talk about that, Nesha (ph)
famously said that people wanted to be lied to because they don`t want have
their allusions shattered.

So let`s say you`re a really nice non-millionaire conservative person who
is wrong about Bill Clinton`s tax increases wrecking the economy, wrong
about impeaching Bill Clinton, wrong about Bush`s tax cuts helping the
economy help in Asia not, so much over here, wrong about the WMDs, wrong
about being greed as liberators, wrong about Sarah Palin, wrong about birth
certificate, wrong about Obamacare costing jobs. If you have been wrong
about everything, Mr. Schultz, Uncle Sean Hannity is going to give you a
nice little I.V. drop of the denial that will tell you, you`ve been right
all along and that set even liberal media with all their facts, they`re
clouding your visions so clearly. So Sean is going to...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

FUGESLANG: ... great. You`ll never go broke telling people who are wrong
that they`re right.

CARUSONE: Well, I also think on that point though, but one of the reasons
people are going to Sean Hannity, it was because of the nature of the
program. You know, whereas Rush Limbaugh as business model is failing
because the free market is actually rejecting it, because it`s build on
nothing more than betrayals (ph) and lies, were Sean Hannity`s program is
not necessarily as venomous (ph) as Rush Limbaugh is but it`s part and
parcel with the Republican Party. It is much more hyperpartisan than Rush
Limbaugh or some of these other conservative talkers that usually have
their own self-interest in mind first and...

FUGELSANG: Exactly.

CARUSONE: ... happen -- tends to align with the Republican Party.

Sean Hannity is very free, you know, to just be Republican, actual
Republican talking points who were turn his show into an informercial for
the RNC.

Other conservatives talkers had never...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CARUSONE: ... really do that.

(CROSSTALK)

FUGELSANG: In fairness, if I could, Sean Hannity spends a lot of time
doing that Iraqi War questioning the patriotism of anybody who didn`t want
to exactly what Bush did.

CARUSONE: Yes, he does.

FUGELSANG: So he may have soften the rhetoric a little bit but I`m getting
a satellite dish so I can get his showing the non-fiction form.

SCHULTZ: Angelo, what about all of these boycott movements that have kind
of got on Limbaugh? Do you think they`ve really had a big effect?

CARUSONE: They definitely have, and the Wall Street Journal report
confirmed that. And I think that, you know, in one way, the one thing I
would point out is that, it`s not so much that individual`s are boycotting,
the people that are boycott are actually the advertiser and the media
buyers themselves. I think it`s worth keeping in mind that Rush Limbaugh
has gone out there repeatedly in addition to not signaling that he
understands why he`s -- particular business models is bad for business.
He`s going to attack actual media buyers.

And so the participants in Flush Rush and Stop Rush are keeping the story
alive and continuing to educate out advertisers but the people that are
actually boycotting are the companies themselves. This is the free market
in action.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

Gentlemen, great to have you with us, Angelo Casrusone and also John
Fugelsang, I appreciate your time tonight on this.

That`s 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