Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Thursday, April 23rd, 2015

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: April 23, 2015
Guest: Tessa Aston-Hill, Nick Mosby, Paul Henderson, Bernie Sanders, Daryl
Parks, James Carville, Lawrence Korb


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

Let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Protests are intensifying in Baltimore.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is no justice, no repercussions.

SCHULTZ: Plus.

PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It is entirely
understandable that there is some skepticism around trade.

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Trade is a job creator.

SEC. BERNIE SANDER, (I) VERMONT: It`s time we slow down fast track.

SCHULTZ: Later.

OBAMA: As president and as commander-in-chief I take full responsibility
for all out counter terrorism operations.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The American aid worker Warren Weinstein was killed
in a U.S. drone strike.

OBAMA: I profoundly regret what happened.

SCHULTZ: And.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hillary Clinton`s big money becoming a big problem.

HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE: The Republicans seem to be
talking only about me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

We start this evening with the latest out of Baltimore, Maryland. Tensions
remain high in the city of Baltimore over the death of Freddie Gray.

Protest continued today outside Baltimore City Hall, marking the 5th
straight of demonstrations.

Kay Reed of NBC News has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAY REED, NBC CORRESPONDENT: The crowd was a little smaller on this 4th
night of protest since Freddie Gray died, but the tension was very high.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do not understand how these police officers can
kill a killed our brother and still get paid, they should be off of the
duty and they should not be getting pay for killing that young man. And
it`s not right and it`s not fair.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ve been through so much we -- it`s more than just
about black lives matter -- equal lives, everybody had it man. They just
keep doing this. There`s no justice, repercussion. Like, we`re getting
tired of it...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have young men and so -- I have two sons in my own
that has to walk the streets of Baltimore and its scary and is dangerous.
And the police are supposed to be here to protect and serve us and we don`t
feel like we`re getting that protection from them.

REED: About 100 people marched from North Mountain Presbury to Western
District Police headquarters where police expanded that barricaded area
around the building for the first time of the week`s demonstrations.

That barrier was threatened a couple hours in when three people busted
through. When two women and a man were detained protesters started to
throw plastic bottles and mounted police were ushered and close to the
crowd.

Many protesters express anger saying that they don`t have faith in the
investigative process.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They can have any day to anybody (ph), you`ll never
know when (inaudible) you got to be able (ph) to support, support, support,
support.

REED: Some of Gray`s family members where there as well, promising that
protesters won`t loose energy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want all of them to go to jail for life. We want
justice... or there ain`t going to be no peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want justice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... or there ain`t going to be no peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No peace.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want justice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The Baltimore Police Union is expressing concern about the tune
of the protest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t want to turn in to (inaudible) because when
you`re trying to put somebody in jail for, for all the facts during
investigation hasn`t been completed, I mean that`s wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: A prayer vigil will take place for Freddie Gray tonight at the
church near the side of this arrest.

Meanwhile a new report from "The Guardian" reveals one arresting officers
alleged pattern or violence. According to the newspaper, core documents
show Lieutenant Brian Rice was ordered to stay away from an unnamed man
after a series of alleged confrontations.

In one alleged incident the officer showed up at the man`s home at 2:00 A.M
in the morning, the man wrote in his partition for protection quote,
"Eyewitnesses Brian Rice removed a black semi-automatic handgun from the
trunk of his vehicle. Rice allegedly screamed demand to the man to come
out of his house."

"The Guardian" also reported that the man called 911, officers from the
Carroll County Sheriff`s Department and Westminster Police Department
arrived on the scene.

The man wrote in his complain, "They remained on the scene for
approximately one and a half hours". Brian Rice was allowed to leave on
foot.

A Sheriff`s Department spokesman told "The Guardian" he could find no
record of the call out. "The Guardian" reported the man had not bothered
the call 911 in previous alleged threats involving Officer Rice. The
report the man filed the complaint was concern nothing would be done
because of Rice`s power as a police supervisor.

For more let me bring in Tessa Aston Hill, President of the Baltimore
Branch of the NAACP, also with us tonight Nick Mosby a Baltimore City
Councilman, and Paul Henderson Veteran Prosecutor and legal analyst. Great
to have all of you with us tonight.

Tessa you first, what is your reaction to "The Guardian" report on the
officer in the alleged incidents that have been reported?

TESSA ASTON-HILL, PRESIDENT, BALTIMORE NAACP: Well that`s -- I didn`t know
about that but it`s not uncommon. I`ve had some situations in the past
three years where that has happened with some other offices that have
reached out beyond the call of duty to intimidate people in the community

SCHULTZ: So, this is something that you`ve heard of in the past but not
particularly with this officer?

ASTON-HILL: Yes I have heard of it in the past, we have other incidents
where people have been intimidated and then officer has gone back and try
to do some things to continue to harass them, I guess in order to make them
clear for them. So it`s not uncommon if that has happened to some African-
American men in the black community in Baltimore.

SCHULTZ: Tessa what about the -- this comment from the Police Union in
Baltimore saying that they are concerned about the tone of the protest. I
want your reaction to that.

ASTON-HILL: Well I don`t think that is necessary accurate because number
one, is that the people have a tone and it`s variety of different types of
people that are in the crowd, there`s family members, there are people who
live in the neighborhood and there`s other people who`ve come from all over
the city of all colors and all ages.

People are upset because this is a 3rd or 4th or 5th time that we`ve had an
incident where a black man has been either severely hurt or have died at
the hands of the police. So they have the right to voice their opinion and
be heard. It`s a serious issue when someone dies at the hands of a police.

So, people have the right. We don`t want anybody to get locked up we don`t
want anybody to get hurt but the people have the right to stand there and
have a protest in a calm way and we don`t want anybody in Baltimore that
lives in Baltimore to be hurt of locked up, but they have the right to
voice their opinion.

SCHULTZ: So you`re not concerned about the tone, OK. Mr. Mosby...

ASTON-HILL: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: ... you`re a city council member in Baltimore, did you know about
the alleged behavior of this officer in this report?

NICK MOSBY, COUNCILMAN, BALTIMORE: No I have no idea. This is the first
time I`m hearing about the specific alleged behavior. But Ed, if I could
say real quick, you know, I`m not only a councilman of Baltimore, this is
my district, you know, where this incident took place.

And, like Tessa said, you know, residents are angry, they`re frustrated,
they`re upset, specifically his family, his friends and again, the
community leaders. At the end of day it`s critically important that we
continue to bring our community back together. The protests have been very
peaceful thus far we want to remain that way.

This incident, what it does is it kind of sets us back down, you know,
there`s always a chasm between the police and communities of color,
specifically in urban America and unfortunately we had incidents like this
where seemingly healthy 25-year-old is arrested, detained without real
cause, without real reason provides in the community and it ends up dying.
This is the type of anger and frustration you get.

SCHULTZ: Well I can understand that. There`s still lot of questions out
there as this investigation moves on. But, Mr. Mosby I want to ask you
about the function of the city commission. If there is a ledger of
lawsuits that have totaled over $5 million worth of pay outs, what has been
the conversation at city council meetings?

I don`t know what the structure is, who has the portfolio of the fire
department, who has the portfolio of the police department or how you
manage all of that. But what has been the discussion at city council
meetings about behavior of the police department if they`ve been involved
in all of these incidents that have caused the city to pay out over $5
million worth of settlements?

MOSBY: I serve one the public safety commission and the council has taken
the real issue to this particular matter, this "Baltimore Sunday" an
article that you`re referencing a couple months ago. Immediately the
council took action, we tried to pass a comprehensive body camera bill to
put body cameras on all police officers in the city of Baltimore,
unfortunately the mayor has a different approach of trying to do a
(inaudible) and rolling out much slower. But, I think it`s critically
important that we revisit that specifically body cameras, not only on
police officers but also in the back of these paddy wagons.

SCHULTZ: OK, I want to turn now Paul Henderson who`s a veteran prosecutor.
Mr Henderson what about this report in "The Guardian", the prior alleged
behavior of this officer in this matter, what does that mean if anything to
this case?

PAUL HENDERSON, VETERAN PROSECUTOR: Listen, it just speaks to the
denigration of the trust that the community has with the justice system in
that area. So, that prior report is bad.

Those prior pay outs are bad. The communication coming from the officials
there associated with the police department are not helping any of this and
this is why you see so much protest, this is why...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HENDERSON: ... you see so much angst. The officer -- the attorney from
the police union issued a statement and was talking about how the Supreme
Court authorizes the police to chase and unprovoked suspect in a high crime
area, that`s not helpful people are not getting the facts, they`re not
getting the information that they need as it relates to this case to find
out exactly...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HENDERSON: ... what happened and they don`t want to hear information about
the Supreme Court`s case, which by the way only speaks to a detention and
not specifically the probable cause to arrest ...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HENDERSON: ... because this is isn`t arrest. But people -- oh go ahead...

SCHULTZ: Well, Mr. Henderson...

HENDERSON: And things (ph), people want to know about the injury.

SCHULTZ: Sure they do. They want to know about the injury and that takes
me to the video tape. Mr. Henderson, from the stand point that the video
tape is not conclusive about how Freddie Gray got this injury, and he could
have -- and I`m not trying to give the police an alibi here in anyway but
there`s a possibility that he could have injured on the bicycle with an
accident because the chase took place.

There`s no videotape that is surfaced of the police actually hitting him.
So, what would be your conclusion based on that?

ANDERSON: Well, there`s not direct evidence of that, in the tapes that
we`ve seen thus far. But we don`t have all of the information because we
don`t have the testimony that`s been released from the officers that have
been involving this incident. And, let me just point out as well. We do
know that he was walking and running before he came into police custody.

After he left police custody, he suffered a terrible injury. We also don`t
know what happened inside that van while he was being transported just
three blocks away to the station, but we do know he never made it to the
station. We do know that the van had to stop. We do know there was a
length of time that while he was in police custody that ambulances had to
be called and services had to be rendered to him and then he ended being
killed.

SCHULTZ: Sure.

ANDERSON: And so we don`t necessarily need the smoking gun so to speak, to
show this is exactly when the injury occurred and we have it on videotape,
we can make those inferences and without more information from the agency
itself issuing statements from the officers, talking about how that
incident could have occurred, we are...

SCHULTZ: Sure.

HENDERSON: ... left with frustration and that`s why I think you see so
much of the community being upset and angry right now.

SCHULTZ: All right, and Tessa -- Ms. Aston Hill, let me ask you this
finally. Are you confident that the truth will come out? There are four
different investigations going on. The justice department is involved.
Are you convinced that you will get to the bottom of this? The community
will get answers?

ASTON-HILL: I think we`ll eventually get to the bottom of it, but I think
it`s going to be a long process. I`m glad that the justice department is
here because at least we have someone else outside of the Baltimore Police
Department looking at it, but I think there`s more and there might be some
witnesses that will come forward and that will tell some other things that
they saw when the young man first got taken down.

SCHULTZ: All right, Tessa Aston Hill, Nick Mosby and also Prosecutor Paul
Anderson, great to have all of you with us tonight. I appreciate your time
at the Ed Show.

Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think on this issue.
Tonight`s question is, "Do you think the videotape tells the whole story?"

Go to polls.msnbc.com/Ed to cast your vote. We`ll have the results right
after this break coming up.

Follow us on Facebook and watch my Facebook feature "Give Me a Minute" and
you could get my video podcast at wegoted.com.

Coming up, Elizabeth Warren goes on offense after the President says she`s
wrong on the TPP.

And later, Hillary Clinton faces questions over the Clinton Foundation
funding. We`ll have an update on that.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Here`s where we stand on tonight`s Bing Pulse Poll. It`s
interesting.

The question, "Do you think the videotape tells the whole story?" 57
percent of you say "Yes". 43 percent of you say "No". That`s the voting
right now right here on the Ed Show.

We`re coming right back. Stay with us. You`re watching MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And we are back. President Obama has stated that Senator
Elizabeth Warren is flat out wrong on the TPP.

Warren is going on offense. The Senator from Massachusetts is accusing the
Obama administration of deliberately hiding information from the public.
She wrote on her website, "The government doesn`t want you to read this
massive new trade agreement. It`s top secret. Why? Here`s the real
answer people have given me. We can`t make this deal public because if the
American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it. If the
American people would be opposed to a trade agreement, if they saw it, then
that agreement should not become the law of the United States." Pretty
common sense on a democracy I think.

On Wednesday night, Senator Warren slammed the fast track.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: I want people to be able to see
the first deal that`s lined up. Before they say, "Yeah, it`s OK. Let`s
put commerce on a fast track and make that sort of thing work." I want
them to be able to see and I want them to be able to debate it.

For me, this is just kind of fundamentally principles about how democracy
is supposed to work. American workers have really been slammed by past
trade deals. They have nothing good for us here in America. It`s not been
good for American manufacturing.

If this is a better deal then hang it out there in public and let us take a
look at it. Let us have a public conversation based on the facts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: For more, let me bring in Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Senator, good to have you with us tonight.

I want to bring up the fact that President Obama is short on details. Now,
that`s my opinion. OK? I believe that he is short on detail. I believe
that we`re in this "trust me" moment era of conversation.

Senator, is that enough? What should the administration do at this
juncture now that this is a heated conversation in all quarters of the
government?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Well, Ed, we just wrote a letter to the
Trade Representative Mr. Froman asking him some very simple questions. And
one of the questions we asked is, how many jobs do you think we`re going to
lose when American workers have to compete "against workers in Vietnam who
have a minimum wage of $0.56 an hour?" And what does it mean that American
workers have to compete against workers in Malaysia?

This touches a part of the TPP where according to a U.S. Department of
Labor Commission study they have virtually -- hundreds of thousands of
people in forced labor. These are people migrants of Malaysia whose
passports have been taken away, who are working in slave-labor-type
conditions for the electronics industry.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SANDERS: So we wanted to know how many jobs are going to be lost and
certainly Senator Warren`s point is, this is a fast track agreement, we
don`t know what`s in the agreement.

SCHULTZ: Well, I have to ask you this Senator, when does this become a
credibility issue for the President of the United States? The President is
saying trust me. The President is saying, look at his record of defending
and fighting for the middle class.

My point and contention is, it`s not about what the President has done,
it`s what the President will do if he has fast track authority, and what he
says he wants which is TPP which is a horrible trade deal. We all know
some of the details not all of them.

So, in your estimation, when is this become a credibility problem for the
White House, for the President?

SANDERS: Well, I think, Ed, to answer your question, it is important to
understand that it`s not just Barack Obama who is supporting this
agreement. It is every multi-national corporation in this country. It is
the pharmaceutical industry. It is Wall Street.

And what is their credibility in terms of the needs of working people? We
know that corporations would shut down in five minutes if they could make a
dime more in China rather than in the United States.

It threats (ph) of all of these past trade agreements has been to go to
countries where labor is cheap and the result has been the loss of millions
of decent paying jobs in this country.

So, first issue, it`s not just Barack Obama. Who is on the side of this
trade agreement? Every union in America represents and working people
says, no, bag agreement. Every major corporation, chamber commerce says
yes. Do we trust their judgment?

Second point I would make, is if you look historically at what people have
said, listen to what Bill Clinton said about NAFTA. Listen to what Bill
Clinton said about permanent normal trade relations with China. How all of
these jobs would -- can be created in the United States?

Listen to what George W. Bush had to say about trade. They were wrong.
They were wrong. And they real issue is, do we continue down the same old
path despite the fact that everyone of these trade agreements has caused us
jobs and pushed us into a race to the bottom.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. OK. Well, the President says you`re wrong. The President
says Elizabeth Warren is wrong. That`s about the depth of the detail that
we`re getting.

What kind of response do you think you`ll get from Mr. Froman? And Mr.
Froman knows exactly what`s in this deal. He knows what`s there, the
number of organizations that have been involved, there`s a select amount --
a very few select people in this country who know exactly what the detail
is.

This is not what Democracy looks like. This is not fair in a democracy.
This is not what I voted for. The President told me to trust him on health
care, and we never got the public option. The President gave indications
on the campaign trail that he was going to go after Wall Street. He didn`t
do that.

Now, he`s telling us, well, trust me on the biggest trade deal which covers
40 percent of the gross domestic product of this entire world, and yet we
can`t get answers.

You tried to slow down fast track yesterday in the Senate, what`s the
latest on this? What is going to happen now, Senator?

SANDERS: Well, it left committee I believe it`s a 20 to 6 vote "Yes". We
expected to get to the floor now next week but the following week, and
you`ll going to see a free for all. I think that...

SCHULTZ: Hold it, Senator. We got to go to President Obama. Stay with us
Bernie Sanders. I want to go to President Obama. He`s talking about trade
right now live. Here it is.

OBAMA: Why this is important? 95 percent of the world`s customers are
outside of the United States. They`re outside our borders, 95 percent.

The fastest growing markets in the world are in Asia. Jobs at businesses
that export are good middle class jobs. On average, they pay more than
other jobs.

If you want for a company that exports, they`re paying you probably better
on average. Those are facts.

So, it`s important to our economy but it`s also important to our values.
Our values have to reflect -- be reflected in these new trade agreements in
the way that they haven`t always been in past trade agreements.

You know, the trades always been tough. And it`s always been tough
especially in the Democratic Party.

A lot of people are skeptical of trade deals. And a lot of times it`s for
good reason because for decades now, technology made good jobs absolute,
global competition meant jobs will be in shipped overseas. Past trade
deals didn`t always live up to the hype.

A lot of trade deals didn`t include the kinds of protections that we`re
fighting for today. And I saw it in Chicago and in towns across to
Illinois where manufacturing collapsed, plants closed down, jobs dried up.

When I ran for office, I talked about a man I met who had to pack up his
own plant before he was laid off. And that made a mockery of the value of
community and the dignity of work.

So, for lot of Americans, they attribute those changes to what happened in
the aftermath of the trade agreements, and I understand that.

But, we`ve got to make sure we learn the right lessons from that. We can`t
learn the lesson that somehow the global economy is going to stop and we`re
going to be all to put a bunch of barriers in front of it, because change
is happening.

You go to any store right now. You know, you go to any company right now,
and it`s global. So we got to be all to compete. We`re not going to stop
a global economy at our shores. That`s the wrong lesson to draw. We can`t
go back to the past. We shouldn`t want to.

We want to make sure we win the future. That`s what America is about,
winning the future.

So...

SCHULTZ: That`s President Obama speaking live on the global economy and
trade, and Senator Bernie Sanders is still with us and I want to go back to
Senator Sander.

Senator, the President`s favored bullet point right now is that 95 percent
of the customers are outside the country. Now, my answer to that is
they`re purchasing power in Asia is nowhere near the purchasing power of
that of a middle class family in America.

This Asian buying power bullet point that the President is coming up with
is absolute hogwash. It doesn`t matter where the customers are if they
don`t have the buying power or the purchasing power.

He talks about values. And the President -- what`s he talking about in
values? We`ve never been able to enforce human rights in any kind of labor
rights on any other worker on the other side of the globe. We`ve never had
that power.

So the detail has to be given on how we`re going to be able to do that.
What`s the restitution? Are we going to throw him out of the trade deal?

Senator, I want your response to where these customers are outside the
United States. What about that?

SANDERS: Well, you`re absolutely right. If people are earning $1 or $2 a
day they`re not going to be purchasing American products. Ed, to the
degree that they are going to be purchasing products made by American
companies, those companies are going to move abroad and produce those
products in those countries.

I was in a Walmarts in China. It looks a lot like a Walmart in the United
States except all of those products in -- the Walmart in China were made in
China. That`s complicated.

The President says learn the right lesson. He`s right. And what is the
lesson? It`s not just consumers, its workers. How many corporations are
going to stay in America when they could go to Vietnam and pay $0.56 an
hour?

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SANDERS: When you could -- yeah?

SCHULTZ: I want to play this tape. This is President just a moment ago
mentioning this network, MSNBC. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I want to talk about some stuff that creates some controversy
because it is important. And one of those policies right now that I`m
focused on is new trade agreements with other countries.

And if you`re watching MSNBC and all the stuff and you think, "Oh, man, I
love Obama but what`s going on here?"

So, I want to set the record straight here. I want everybody to be clear
about what we`re doing because I believe in what I`m doing here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, Mr. President, I want you to know that I believe in what
I`m doing. And if you can prove to the American people that there will not
be a depression of wages, if you can prove to the American people that this
will create jobs, if you want to go face to face with me, President Obama,
I`m ready to go because I have the facts, OK?

SANDERS: Hey, Ed. Ed...

SCHULTZ: And I also...

SANDERS: You should be...

SCHULTZ: Go ahead...

SANDERS: You should be very proud. I think he is talking about you. And
I`ll tell you why, because as I said on the floor of the Senate yesterday,
to the best of my knowledge, ABC, CBS and NBC and CNN to the best of my
knowledge have not discussed the largest trade agreement in the history of
the United States of America. And we might want to ask why that is the
case.

SCHULTZ: Well, you know, why would President Obama used the MSNBC call
letters? It`s been shown by Media Matters that this show has covered the
TPP more than anybody else, so, I would imagine that he`s talking about the
"Ed Show", but the President has never done a sit-down interview with Ed
Schultz.

And, hey, you know, my life is fine but, you know what, on this deal, the
President is wrong and I`m right.

The President is telling the American people that every union in this
country is wrong, and I can tell you that every union in this country has
been around longer than President Obama when it comes to trade deals and
having to live with them...

SANDERS: And not just union Ed, not just unions.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SANDERS: You got many, many environmental -- organizations that have deep
concerns with this agreement as well.

SCHULTZ: OK. Senator Bernie Sanders, I`m sorry to interrupt the
interview.

SANDERS: That`s OK.

SCHULTZ: I appreciate your -- how courteous you we`re in allowing us to do
that but we wanted to take the President live.

Thanks so much, Senator. I appreciate it.

President Obama, a word from this broadcaster to you.

I will put my credibility up against any broadcaster in this country. I
supported you big time. I was the first liberal talker to support you.
I`ve carried your water big time when it comes to health care, I`ve carried
your water on the economy and defending your move on the automobile
industry, but Mr. President, you can take shots at this network, but I
guarantee you, you are wrong on this and you cannot prove to the American
people.

This is not about generic talk that we have to think about the global
economy and the cats out of the bag and everything else. American workers
will suffer if this deal goes through and Mr. President, your recovery of
the economy, the automobile industry and health care will not be your
legacy.

It will be what you`re doing to the very people who put you in office had
you not had the unions, you would never beat John McCain, had you not had
the unions, you would have never beat Mitt Romney, and now turning your
back on these people trying to convince them that they have to do this
phony trade deal that`s going to ship jobs overseas.

I`d love to talk to you face to face, Mr. President.

We`re back with more on the Ed Show keep it right here. You are watching
MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show, Michael Brown`s family gathered at
the St. Louis County Court House today to announce the filling of a civil
lawsuit in the August shooting death of their son.

A grant jury chose not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson back
in November. Last month the Justice Department cleared Wilson of any
federal civil rights violations.

The family`s lawyers say the evidence hasn`t change but the presentation of
that evidence will. They made it clear this isn`t just about compensation.

Joining me tonight is Daryl Parks, attorney for the Brown family, Mr. Parks
good to have you with us tonight. Tell us if you can Daryl, who is named
in the lawsuit and what is the family seeking here?

DARYL PARKS, BORWN`S FAMILY ATTORNEY: Well one year (inaudible) Officer
Darren Wilson and the City of Ferguson made in the lawsuit, officers
(inaudible) lawsuit but also we`re making civil rights claims for the
(inaudible) malpractice that existed, that created to culture within that
department that eventual led to Michael Brown`s death.

SCHULTZ: So how will this civil suit, this wrongful death suit present the
evidence differently from what we have seen in the state and federal cases?

PARKS: Totally Ed, I think the (inaudible) first of all, the stand (ph)
for evidence in a civil lawsuits proponents are never (ph) which is a total
different standard that we`ve heard from the prosecutor in this case.
Every prosecutor in this case is saying, you know, we don`t believe we
wouldn`t have been successful in prosecuting Darren Wilson from Michael
Brown`s death. That`s not standard in a civil case. So...

SCHULTZ: OK.

PARKS: ... it`s a total different approach we believe there`s plenty of
evidence that`s unaccounted for in their presentation that we`ll be able to
use in ours.

SCHULTZ: And what evidence is that sir?

PARKS: Well, I`ll give you one example, you know, there are at least two
bullets that are totally unaccounted for, almost places foot notes in the
reports from the earlier presentations that would leave our critical to the
officer having to explain his motive or his attempt, but also too, up until
now Officer Wilson has not had to face any type of scrutiny as it relates
to cross-examination for his actions. At this point -- in this case that
will be different.

SCHULTZ: OK, Daryl Parks attorney for the Brown family, thanks for joining
us tonight appreciate it.

Next more on the New York Times explosive piece on the Clinton Foundation,
stay with us your watching the Ed Show. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And we are back. Hillary Clinton is facing new scrutiny for her
connections with major donors to the Clinton Foundation.

"The New York Times" is reporting Mr. and Mrs. Clinton`s Foundation
received millions of dollars from the heads of a Canadian uranium company.

At that time, Russia was working to acquire the company. The report also
claims Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow from a Russian
Investment Bank linked to the Kremlin. The Times claims Hillary Clinton
signed of on the deal when she was Secretary of State.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon sent a statement to NBC saying
in part, "No one has produced a shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton ever
took action as Secretary of State in order to support the interest of
donors to the Clinton Foundation, to suggest the State Department under
then Secretary Clinton exerted undue influence in the U.S. governments
review of the sale of uranium one is utterly baseless."

Also today, news leaks from the upcoming book "Clinton Cash", one o the
chapters alleges a Canadian donor pledge over a $100 million to the
foundation. He then allegedly influence Hillary Clinton stands on a trade
deal.

I`m joined tonight by James Carville, Democratic Strategist, a long time
associate with the Clinton`s and a man of many talents. Mr. Carville --
you`re going to need some special talent on these ones. Some people would
think -- is this going to be your problem for Hillary Clinton?

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCTRATIC STRATEGIST: Well again, as Brian Fallon
pointed out, there`s everything here but that you get anything as a result
of it. So, and again the Columbia free trade agreement is ludicrous that`s
something happened I know something about. That about as silly as it can
be, that this has been around for a long time.

The President supports it when she was Secretary of State, but that not
will be crossed with sledge hammer, I`m not, you know, very concerned about
this. And this entire book thing is falling apart. They`re already -- ABC
News has found all kind of errors and all they say is (ph) they`re going to
issue this correction. It is just that, you know, Ed, this is spaghetti
journalism. Let`s just throw spaghetti at the wall and hope something
sticks and that`s about all this amounts (ph) to.

SCHULTZ: OK. And I think that there`s a lot of Clinton loyalists that are
going to believe exactly what you`re saying and a lot of Americans are
going to think that too but here is a fact, the Clintons are refilling
their tax returns, why is this happening?

(INAUDIBLE)

CARVILLE: I think it`s not the foundation but anybody who re-file a tax
return -- I don`t know if that means anything. And people amend tax
returns all the time. The Foundation itself got the highest rating from
the transparency, people that judge this kind of thing that you can
possibly get.

But, if somebody wants to make something that the foundation is readjusted
a tax return, who knows, and I think that thing has got like $2 billion. I
wouldn`t be surprised if there`s accounting glitch somewhere. How would I
know?

SCHULTZ: Do you think the Clinton`s have to prove that they have not
personally profited from the Foundation? Are we at that point?

CARVILLE: No, I don`t think the Clinton -- I don`t think personal (ph)
problem with Clinton Foundation. I think the foundation is really one of
the great organizations that have been around. I mean if they can put out
all of the things that they`ve done, all the people had been associated
with it.

I know pay day (ph) and you know, in terms of giving out aids drugs, God
knows what not (ph). They have terrific work but they can`t defend
themselves -- one of the best charities there is in the country. Been
working them a lot on relief from Hurricane Sandy, they did a lot of
innovative stuff. Some of the finest people in the world are associated
with that.

SCHULTZ: No, there is no doubt about that. But if -- the timing of this
and I want to go back to the tax returns if I can. People amend tax
returns when they`re not correct. People re-file tax returns when there
are mistakes? What`s your response to that?

CARVILLE: I don`t know. Maybe it was a mistake. How do I know? I mean
people make -- I know I pay -- file a return if somebody comes up and you
do this. Companies -- God know what, I think the foundation is worth $2
billion? I mean I don`t know the details of it but...

SCHULTZ: OK.

CARVILLE: ... some accounted but I wouldn`t find it unusual or out of
ordinary that somebody`s got to re-file a tax return of (inaudible) at the
foundation and in a law (inaudible) something I`m really not that familiar
with.

SCHULTZ: As a political consultant to a campaign that would run into
something like this, what would be your advice?

CARVILLE: I think they`re doing pretty good. You know, look at that the
whole book, the Clinton, whatever it is, disguise any (inaudible) by Glenn
Beck, whatever this guy is.

I think this thing has been -- the push back on this has been pretty
effective and, you know, it just so happen and then next week they`ll think
of something else and, you know, (ph) but I think the campaign itself has
been pretty effective in dealing with this stuff.

SCHULTZ: OK. James Carville...

CARVILLE: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: ... good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.
Thank you. You bet.

Still to come, new details on the drone strike in Afghanistan that killed
an American hostage. Stay tuned. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Still to come on the Ed Show. Two hostages held by al-Qaeda were
accidentally killed in a U.S. drone strike.

President Obama is taking full responsibility. What this could mean for
the United States` drone strike policy.

That`s next on the Ed Show. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Based on information and intelligence we have obtained, we believe
that a U.S. counter-terrorism operation targeting an al-Qaeda compound in
the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region accidentally killed Warren and
Giovanni this past January.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, the United States is taking for
responsibility for drone strikes which killed two innocent hostages back in
January.

American aid worker, Dr. Warren Weinstein and Italian Giovanni Lo Porto
were killed during counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda.

Senior U.S. official tell NBC News, the CIA drone strikes on January 14th
and January 19th were launched against two separate al-Qaeda compounds.

The White House also revealed two Americans who joined al-Qaeda were killed
in the attacks.

President Obama said the hostages were killed by accident. He took full
responsibility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: As president and as commander-in-chief, I take full responsibility
for all our counter-terrorism operations, including the one that
inadvertently took the lives of Warren and Giovanni. I profoundly regret
what happened. On behalf of the United States government, I offer our
deepest apologies to the families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The Weinstein family released statements saying in part, those
who took Warren captive over three years ago bear ultimate responsibility.

I`m joined tonight by Lawrence Korb Senior Fellow at the Center for
American Progress, also with us tonight Steve Clemons, MSNBC Contributor
and Editor-at-large at "The Atlantic". Gentlemen, good to have you with us
tonight.

Drone strikes, is this just part of the deal, Steve? Is this just the way
it`s going to be?

President Obama did not specifically signed off on strikes. Does this
really bring us to maybe a larger problem at this point? What do you
think?

STEVEN CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Ed, it`s a complex knot. And I think
it would be easy to say that, you know, hitting in al-Qaeda compound in
this area is understandable on many levels, but the fact is that our drone
strikes have killed many civilians, many -- the casualties have been far
beyond the militants that we`ve been targeting.

And the President himself in his speech at the National Defense University
said "I want Congress to have more oversight. I want to have guidelines
that we follow."

That the process that even he had been following with John Brennan for many
years and targeting was one that really couldn`t stand up to the light of
day. And so, when something like this happens, it automatically raises the
question of what is the governance here, how were decisions to kill made
and so, it is not comfortable what happened.

SCHULTZ: Well -- counter-terrorism operations, call it what you want, name
it what you want, a lot of Americans think that we are at war when it comes
to protecting this country, Mr. Korb.

Innocent people die. And I`m not trying to give the President or the
country an alibi in any of these, but what do you make of this? Is -- I
mean, the President comes out and gives -- he claims full responsibility
but does...

LAWRENCE KORB, SENIOR FELLOW CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I guess the
President...

SCHULTZ: You -- what do you make of that?

KORB: I give the President and the lot of credit for coming out publicly
because, previously, with people of being killed going back to 2002,
innocent people, nobody has said anything, taking responsibility.

I think what we need to do to cover what Steve was talking about, and
Senator Feinstein mentioned it today, we need to have an annual report to
the Congress and the public, so we can see how many of these are occurring
and how many casualties there are, because while it is true that we are in
a war with these people. There`s a cost-benefit to doing these things, and
you have to weight the cost against the potential benefits.

This is what they call a signature strike. There was no specific
information about who was there, who was not there. They thought they had
information but it turned out the information was incomplete.

SCHULTZ: So, there is not perfect world, Mr. Korb. I mean, these kinds of
things are going to continue to happen?

KORB: Whenever you`re at war, you`re going to have innocents civilians
killed unfortunately, the real question is can we limit it and be careful
because every time you kill an innocent civilian, you can create more
terrorists.

So, I think, you need to weight that before you actually launch these
strikes.

SCHULTZ: That is the argument that what we`re doing creates more
terrorists but, Steve Clemons, how else do you do it? We don`t want to put
boots on the ground.

The American people don`t have an appetite for that. So, what do we do?

CLEMONS: We have the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in the
world. We are watching in real-time people who were plotting to kill many.
They are undermined by our intelligence that is synthesized and brought
together and we see operations all over the world to go after them.

We need that same standard that when you fire a drone, you don`t do it
indiscriminately. You don`t do it in a way that`s beyond that process.
And that can be a hard judgment call because you can say, generally, we
know a lot of al-Qaeda folk are hanging out somewhere. But maybe they do
have human shields, maybe there is a school there, maybe there is a
hospital.

You can`t just indiscriminately kill people in the name of some amorphous
war on terror. That is what we try to move out of and that`s what
President Obama promised the American public. He would deliver, and this
I`m sure, we saw him expressed a lot of anguish and he put a human face on
this, and you could sort of feel in his words how dramatically
uncomfortable he was in this.

And that is how this should be. This should not be routinized (ph) sterile
process.

SCHULTZ: And finally, Mr. Korb, why the announcement now when the air
strikes were in January?

KORB: Well, because it`s only two weeks that Director of CIA John Brennan
was certain about what happened and who had been killed and briefed the
President. So even through it occurred three months he wasn`t specifically
informed.

They hadn`t done the after, you know, after action analysis to be sure.
So, he came out pretty quickly and I do commend him for that because a lot
of his predecessors would not have been so forthcoming.

SCHULTZ: OK. Lawrence Korb, Steve Clemons, thanks for the conversation
tonight.

CLEMONS: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: I appreciate your time here on the Ed Show.

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