Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Wednesday, May 20th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: May 20, 2015
Guest: John Garamendi, Dennis Kelleher, William Cohan, Tim Ryan, Lori
Wallach, Ben Leber , Bill Rhoden

ED SCHULTZ, THE ED SHOW HOST: Good evening, Americans and welcome to the
Ed Show live from New York.

Let`s get to work.


Tonight, the oil spill off the coast.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Twenty-one thousand gallons of oil leaked from a busted

released carbon dioxide. The planet is getting warmer.

SCHULTZ: Plus, big banks busted.

intends to vigorously prosecute.

SCHULTZ: Later, Elizabeth Warren questions Hillary Clinton on TPP.

to make sure that no future president can fast-track a trade agreement.

hot topic right now.

SCHULTZ: And question time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rather (ph) will Robert Kraft`s decision the Patriots
to accept their penalties in any way affect Tom Brady`s appeal and your
hearing of it?



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

We start this evening with an environmental disaster in California.

A ruptured oil pipeline near Santa Barbara leaked an estimated 21,000
gallons of crude oil on Tuesday. Oil flowed into the ocean leaving a thick
coat of black tar along four miles of Pristine, California beaches.

There is concern tonight the oil will continue to move south.

At this hour, it`s unclear what caused the pipeline to break.

NBC`s Kirk Hawkins says the latest from Santa Barbara.


KIRK HAWKINS, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Dark oil in the water and on the sand,
fire fighter say the oils slick runs from miles along the Southern
California coastline, after an estimated 21,000 gallons port from a large
broken pipeline, Tuesday morning.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s two different slicks that total about nine

HAWKINS: Hundreds of feet from the beach, workers in a nearby field
eventually stopped oil leaking out of that pipeline into a cover that
drained into a pipe and fed out to the ocean. Plain All American Pipeline
says, it deeply regrets the spill and is working to limit its environmental

accidental (inaudible) is happened. Our focus remains on the safety of
first responders and the protection of the environment.

HAWKINS: Fire fighters evacuated Refugio State Beach closest to the spill
site and a popular camp ground booked for the upcoming Memorial Day

ED FUENTES, SANTA BARBARA RESIDENT: This is a beautiful part of California
and just a precious coastline.

HAWKINS: While fish and game official said there has been no reports of
wildlife killed or injured, Santa Barbara resident Ed Fuentes still using
this as a teachable moment for his kids.

FUENTES: I wanted them to see it in real life, to see the scope of the
damage and just how much is going to impact our environment probably for
years to come.

HAWKINS: An environmental impact many here say should have been prevented.


SCHULTZ: Federal state and local authorities are on the scene
investigating the caused of the leak and coordinating cleanup efforts. The
California Department of Fish and Wildlife has closed fishing and shellfish
harvesting in the area of the spill.

The pipeline was built in 1991 to carry roughly 150,000 barrels of oil a
day. In comparison, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would carry up to
830,000 barrels of oil a day. A spill over the aquifer, of course, would
be disastrous.

For more on this spill, let`s go to Kirk Hawkins, an NBC News Channel

Kirk, good to have you with us tonight and what are the cleanup efforts
looking like at this hour? All hands on deck? What`s it look like?

HAWKINS: Well, Ed, it really, it`s all hands on deck. In fact, the
authorities here expected this cleanup is expected to last at least three
more days. And as we were talking in the piece there, California Fish and
Wildlife officials have now pulled back a little bit. And instead of
saying there were no deaths and no injuries to wildlife, they`re not saying
they haven`t exactly been able to verify that threat just yet.

As we talked about, this is a very sensitive area for wildlife. This is
where whales make their way to Alaska. This is where there are rare
seabirds and other endangered species.

So this is something that they`re following very closely and they haven`t
been able to identify the exact impact that this will have on wildlife
throughout this area.

But local officials, the District Attorneys Office here says they`re going
to investigate the possibility about criminal and civil charges in local
county supervisors are now saying that this is a disaster and even a
nightmare scenario.

SCHULTZ: Nightmare scenario possibly playing out. Environmentalists who
were on the scene, how do they describe it?

HAWKINS: Well, a lot of them are concern about the use of dispersions.
It`s a chemical that is used occasionally at times when you cleanup for a
spill like this. At this point, environmental officials and state official
say that those are not being used but, of course, environmentalists are
following this very closely

And as you know, Santa Barbara has a history of massive oil spills back in
the late 1960s. There were three million gallons of oil spilled into this
area. So it`s something that environmentalists have been following very
closely and even the local Congress run in most (inaudible) issued a
statement to that effect saying that sometimes oil and water in this
Pristine coastline don`t exactly mixed.

SCHULTZ: All right. Kirk Hawkins reporting tonight from Santa Barbara.
Thank you, Kirk. I appreciate it.

Aside from oil spills, we know oil pipelines are a vehicle to climate
change. The more fuel we burn, the more greenhouse gasses are emitted.

Earlier today, President Obama spoke about climate change during his
commencement address at the United States Coast Guard Academy graduation.
The President argued climate change and our national security are


OBAMA: I`m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious
threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And
make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.


SCHULTZ: The President said climate change could play a role in
destabilizing part to the world.


OBAMA: Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability
and conflict. Rising seas are already swallowing low-lying lands from
Bangladesh to Pacific islands, forcing people from their homes.

Elsewhere, more intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and
food, increase competition for resources, and create the potential for mass
migrations and new tensions. All of which is why the Pentagon calls
climate change a "threat multiplier."


SCHULTZ: Here at home, the President said climate change is already posing
a threat to our military.


OBAMA: Climate change poses a threat to the readiness of our forces. Many
of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our
Coast Guard stations.

Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy
base and then Air base. In Alaska, thawing of permafrost is damaging
military facilities. Out west, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could
threaten training areas our troops depend on.

So politicians who say they care about military readiness ought to care
about this as well.


SCHULTZ: The Ed Show recently featured in our climate change series the
naval base in Norfolk, Virginia which the President was talking about. We
hear firsthand how climate change is impacting military readiness.


Norfolk is the largest naval base in the world. Sea level rise impacts the
ability of the base to carry out its mission. For example, it can
interfere with the piers where the ships are tied up causing electrical
outages, communications outages, that interferes with the ability of the
ships to do their training and maintenance to be ready for deployment to
combat ready.


SCHULTZ: Scientists and military leaders agreed climate change is here and
it`s already impacting the planet. On the flip side, we have Republicans
in Congress straight up denying science.


SENATOR JIM INHOFE, (R) OKLAHOMA: Global warming is not taking place.
It`s kind of laughable right now with all the records that are being sent.

SENATOR MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: Humans are not responsible for climate
change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us
believe for the following reason. I believe that climate is changing
because there`s never been a moment where the climate is not changing.

SENATOR TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: My view actually is simple. Debates on this
should follow science and should follow data. And many of the alarmists on
global warming, they`ve got a problem because the science doesn`t back them
up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years
there`s been zero warming, none whatsoever.


SCHULTZ: When Republicans deny the science of climate change, they are
putting national security at risk.

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

Tonight`s question, "Does climate change impact the readiness of our United
States military?"

Go to and cast your vote tonight. We`ll bring you the
results to the next segment of this program.

For more, let me bring in Congressman John Garamendi who sits on the House
Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, good to have you with us tonight, what impact do you think
climate change is having at this time on military readiness and national
security? And I know that`s a rather generic question but...


SCHULTZ: ... when you now narrow it down what you, folks, in Congress do
is allocate money for future projects procurement, how do make these
decisions, Congressman, if you`re looking at climate change? And then, of
course, you`ve got some deniers in Congress as well, what about all of

GARAMENDI: Well, the Congress of the United States is controlled by those
who deny climate change. And so, for science, for the research necessary
to understand what`s happening on our planet, they cut the funding. And
they refused in a bill that passed off to the floor of the House, they
refuse to allow any discussion and any science, and anything about climate

And so, we can carry forward but we cannot use any of that information in
any of the policies by the administrative agencies. This is really

Maybe our President was at Coast Guard Academy, the coast guard, all of us
know, that there is a northwest passage today and it`s going to be more
readily available, already ships are passing through the Arctic Ocean, we
are not able to get there because we have been able to allocate the money
because of sequestration because of the Republican budget cuts, to build a
heavy ice breaker to protect the U.S. Navy in the Arctic Ocean and to
protect commercial commerce in the Arctic Ocean.

This is serious stuff and it covers everything. It covers from our food,
the growing of crops in the United States, water supplies in the west when
it drought. This is drought related to climate change, well, we`ve never
had one quite this bad before the climate warmed up, and we do know this.

The ground is hotter, the weather is warmer and whatever rain falls and
snow falls, it evaporates or melts more rapidly. We got a problem here,


GARAMENDI: . and the climate deniers are making it really, really tough
with this nation to adopt and to change and to modify our policy.

SCHULTZ: Well, Republicans always want to support the military who can
fight them for that in many respects. But the bottom line here is,
Congressman, you`re telling us tonight that there are places on the globe
were are military can`t go because of environmental changes, because of the
lack of funding.

GARAMENDI: That`s absolutely correct. I`ll give you another example.

You talked about that oil spill in Santa Barbara, big problem. California
is not allowed anymore oil drilling and it`s territory three miles out
since the 1960s, yet. In this year`s National Defense Authorization Act,
there is a specific prohibition against the U.S. military using any, any
alternative fuels, any green fuels can`t use it, can`t contract, cannot
even think about using alternative fuels for oil and that solar in -- I
mean what is this guys doing? It is the most obnoxious I`ve seen and
foolhardy policy you can imagine but that`s where their driving the U.S.
Congress and these characters are in control.

SCHULTZ: Well, Congressman, you saw the report we had just moments ago.
How do you view this oil spill is this a, you know, is it bigger than it
seems at this hour and how much of an impact you think it`s going to have?

GARAMENDI: Well, it certainly has an impact it has a political impact to
be sure. Again, the climate deniers in Congress have passed legislation
out of the House of Representatives to open the East Coast along the
Atlantic and all of the West Coast to oil drilling. You want to have more
spills? I guess they do because they want to open the West Coast areas
that have been closed the drilling. They want to open it to drilling. In
addition to that we`ve got a pipeline problem here.

We have known. We have hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in the
United States and the agencies that suppose to regulate and oversee those
pipelines, under fund it, not given the authority and the resources it
needs to make sure the pipelines are safe. So we get spills in Santa
Barbara, we get spills on the Yellowstone River, on the Mississippi River.
We get bursting pipes, gas pipe in California, people dying.

And now we`ve got the oil trains running through our communities with
highly volatile fuels, why, because we are addicted to oil.

We need to move off to that. We need to move to this other sources of

SCHULTZ: Congressman John Garamendi, great to have you with us tonight,
sir. Thank you so much. Sits on the House...

GARAMENDI: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: ...Armed Services Committee from California. Thank you.

Remember to answer tonight`s question at We`ll have
the results right after the break and follow us on Facebook. And you can
watch my Facebook feature "Give me a Minute" and you can get my video
podcast at

Coming up, big banks, do they really take a big hit? We`ll look at the
Justice Departments latest move, the whole -- big banks accountable for
illegal actions but my question tonight, "Who`s going to jail?" And later
Mitch McConnell puts fast-track back on track in the Senate as opposition
builds in the House.

We`re right back on the Ed show.


SCHULTZ: And the numbers are coming in. Here`s where we stand on
tonight`s Bing Plus poll. Tonight`s question, "Does climate change impact
the readiness of the U.S. military?" 92 percent of you say yes, 8 percent
of you not so sure.

We`re coming right back on the Ed Show on MSNBC. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And we are back on the Ed show. U.S. Attorney General Loretta
Lynch was sworn in less than a month ago, but she is she already making
waves in the world of Wall Street.


LYNCH: As a result of our investigation, four of the world`s largest banks
have agreed to plead guilty to felony antitrust violations. They`ve also
agreed to pay criminal fines totaling more than $2.5 billion. The largest
set of antitrust fines ever obtained in the history of the Department of

The penalty that all these banks will now pay is fitting considering the
long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct. It is
commensurate with the pervasive harm done. And it should deter competitors
in the future from chasing profits without regard to fairness, to the law
or to the public welfare.


SCHULTZ: A total of five banks and the world`s largest banks and now as
there traders rig foreign exchange prices or (inaudible) raise beginning as
early as 2007 has been described as a "heads I win, tails you lose" scheme.

In a related action, the Federal Reserve announced civil penalties against
the same five banks plus Bank of America. This definitely represents a
victory but banks don`t commit crimes, bankers do. As part of the
settlements no individual bank employees were hit with criminal charges.

Investigations are ongoing, there`s currently more work to be done here.

Joining me tonight is Dennis Kelleher, he is the President and CEO of
Better Markets, also with us this evening is William Cohan who`s author of
the book "Money and Power", gentlemen great to have you with us.

Mr. Keller, you first, you released a statement today your organization
saying, "Until the feds personally and meaningfully punish actual
executives and supervisors for their wrongdoing, big banks will continue
their crime spree."

So where is the justice here? They`re paying a fine but it doesn`t seem
like its change their behavior in the past what`s the future going to be
like a lot there, unpack it for us.


SCHULTZ: You bet.

KELLEHER: You know, this really was in some ways, a significant step to
the Department of Justice because they did require criminal pleas and the
criminal pleas have to be submitted to a federal court for review. And
they may well be the largest fines ever and many people will think $2
billion to $4 billion is a lot of money.

But it`s a drop in a bucket to these big banks that have revenues between
$60 billion and $80 billion a year.

So the fines although large, a really a rounding error for the big banks.

What you have to do if you`re going to stop the crime spree on Wall Street,
is punished actual individuals. And I don`t mean the little fish in the
minnows, I mean the whales.

If you don`t go after the supervisors and executives, then this is just
going to happen over, and over, and over again as we`ve seen and while this
involved the -- biggest global banks in the country, in the globe, it
involved dozens of traders. There were hundreds people at these banks in
legal compliance and risks who their entire job is to make sure criminal
behavior like this does not happen and they clearly failed and failed
egregiously and DOJ has to go after them. And that is the acid test for
the new attorney general.

SCHULTZ: So in the front office, the corporate boardroom, is there maybe a
sense, Mr. Kelleher, that this is just the cost to doing business? I mean,
what`s 2.5 billion if you`re going to make, 60?

KELLEHER: Well, that`s the problem. It is become across to doing
business, and making matters worst, they get to pay these fines with
shareholders money.

So it`s not even real money, they pay it years later. Some of that is
often tax deductible. And yet years before this conduct, they are not only
bank the revenue in profits, they pocketed the bonuses.

So that`s why you have to go after the corporation with big meaningful
fines relative to their profits and their revenue to make them put in


KELLEHER: ... to compliance procedures but even that will forever fail if
you don`t go after the bankers, you know, these traders joke, "If you ain`t
cheating, you ain`t trying".

And when I say for DOJ`s policy has to be, "if you ain`t jailed, you ain`t
nailed" and they are going to do it again.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Cohan, where is the reform on all of this?

WILLIAM COHAN, AUTHOR, "MONEY AND POWER": There is no reform, Ed. I mean
if you let a child continue behave badly without disciplining the child,
they are not going to learn any lesson.

I think what Dennis is really trying to say is that, this is sham justice.
This is fake justice.

Asking big banks to abuse their shareholders money to pay big finds is not
the same thing as prosecuting wrong behavior, not the same thing as holding
people accountable for the wrong behavior.

When there are e-mails that Dennis just referred to, "if you`re not
cheating, you`re not trying", that is should be a prosecutable offense.
There are people who obviously did things wrong. These big banks since
2007 have been getting away with this time, and time, and time again. This
is what the -- I think by the New York feds accounting, more than $100
billion of fines have been paid by the big banks since 2008, all using
their shareholders money, no one held accountable, no individual held
accountable, that is not the same as justice.

SCHULTZ: So the influence of Wall Street is just too strong in the United
States Senate for there to be any kind of meaningful reform?

COHAN: More than the United States Senate, Ed, the Justice Department, the
FCC, the CFTC, all the regulatory bodies, this is not even anything close
to what justice is.

SCHULTZ: What the lawmakers would the ones that could put teeth in the
law. I mean, the Department of Justice is only going to follow what put on
the books. And when you have big money such as Citizens United that`s
influencing our elections, how do the American consumers out there thinking
that there is anything going to change in the banking industry, and the
bigger getting bigger but also the bigger getting stronger, and much more
political muscle.

COHAN: Well, it`s a real shame. It adds to the cynicism that we all feel
about what`s going in Washington. It adds to the growing belt between rich
and poor. The income inequality is just not right that these banks are not
held accountable. And they`re able to use their power with the United
States Congress to make sure that doesn`t happen.

SCHULTZ: So the actual operators of this, how do they get away? They just
have the firm that the banks pay the fine, we`re not going far enough when
it comes to justice.

COHAN: Well, I`ve asked this to Preet Bharara myself, the U.S. Attorney in
the Southern District of New York, why argue holding individuals at these
banks accountable? And he`s answered, time and time again is, we`ve seen
the information we would do it if we could but there`s just not enough
there. I think there is.

SCHULTZ: OK. Gentlemen...

KELLEHER: And on the other hand, that this really shows that the new
attorney general has to step up. She`s got all the authority she needs,
subpoena power too.

SCHULTZ: Dennis...

KELLEHER: She got subpoena power grant, jury power. She can change this
entire debate single handedly by charging some supervisors. And I
guarantee you, a couple of supervisors that these banks get charge and
things will change on Wall Street quick.

SCHULTZ: Why didn`t Eric Holder do that, Mr. Kelleher?

KELLEHER: You know, it`s a good question, Ed, and we could (inaudible)
better markets criticized the Department of Justice. We actually sue the
Department of Justice over their prior sham settlement with J.P. Morgan

And the good news is, the action today was significantly better than it was
years ago. It`s still has a significant way to go and I think we`re going
to find out if Loretta Lynch really wants to put justice back in the name
of the Department of Justice because the conduct is built just alluded to
is screamingly egregious.

Anybody should be able to take this evidence but for a jury and send these
guys to jail where they belong.

COHAN: Or at least try, which is something they`ve been unwilling to do.

SCHULTZ: All right. Gentlemen, we`ll leave it there. Dennis Kelleher and
William Cohan, great to have you with us tonight on the Ed Show, thank you.

Still to come, Hillary Clinton echo some of Elizabeth Warren`s warnings on
the Trans-Pacific Partnership and next a tribute to a late night giants.

Stay tuned, we`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: And thanks for staying with us tonight.

David Letterman ends his late night run tonight after 33 years. As they
prepares to sign off, we wanted to look back at one of the most memorable
segments, Dave`s Stupid Pet Tricks preceded the internet`s flood of viral
pet videos.

"Late Night and Late Show" featured hundreds of pets and their owners
performing silly and incredible feeds.


our most favorite segments right here on the show, it`s called the, "Stupid
Pet Tricks".

Little animals would have pets. Is this a special breed or something went
wrong at the lab or?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, hop. Good. Hop. Hop, hop, hop, hop. Yeah.
Hop, hop, hop, hop

LETTERMAN: (Inaudible), turtles, venomous vipers.

Oh, look at these guys. Hi, hello kid.

He plays the piano with his nose and sing. I`ve seen Paul (ph) do that


Their pets are not stupid. The people have taught them the tricks are not

Op, there she goes.

It`s a colloquialism for, "Oh, isn`t that cute".

Oh, come on. Now, that`s adorable.

Where did he learn to do this?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At Alabanes (ph), it`s a barn in Terre Town (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Birds swim, oh. And do you get them off there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Impress them. Impress them. Don`t do anything I
wouldn`t do, OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jump. God girl, crawl.

LETTERMAN: This is not a competition. It`s only an exhibition. Please no


SCHULTZ: Still to come to the Ed Show. The Senate tries again on fast-
track but it could face stiff opposition. It`s no slam dunk in the House.
Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio joins us.

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

Market Wrap.

Modest moves for stock with Dow falls 26 points, the S&P is off one, the
NASDAQ adds almost two points.

Minutes from the fed`s April meeting show many officials were not in favor
of a June rate hike. Most policy makers believed temporary factors were
holding the economy back.

Target shares ended higher after the companies earning speed estimates but
Lowe`s reported profits that fell short of estimates. Revenue also meets
Target`s sending shared down 4 percent.

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


SCHULTZ: And we are back.

The Senate could vote on Trade Promotion Authority as early as tomorrow.

Mitch McConnell is one step closer to pushing through fast-track. He moved
to close the debate on Tuesday.

Senator Elizabeth Warren ripped the trade agreement apart in her 15-page
report. She calls the deal a broken promise to American workers. She says
corporate favoritism in on the horizon.


WARREN: Most Republicans including ones currently running for president
are committed to rolling back financial reforms. With fast-track they can
weaken our financial rules in a trade deal and then ram (ph) it through


SCHULTZ: Secretary of State John Kerry fired back against the criticism.
He promoted the trade deal while visiting a Boeing plant in Washington


JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: There is nothing progressive about blaming
trade or trade agreements for the inevitable economic shifts that are
brought on by technology and time.


SCHULTZ: Hillary Clinton campaigning has tried to stay out of the debate
but expressed some concerns during a campaign stop in Iowa.


CLINTON: It needs to try to address either directly or indirectly the
manipulation of currency by countries that would be trading partners.


SCHULTZ: She finally echoed some of Elizabeth Warren`s argument.


CLINTON: There`s a provision in this that gives corporations more power to
overturn health and environmental and labor rules than consumers have and I
think that is a problem.


SCHULTZ: The Former Secretary of State still won`t outright condemn the
trade bill.

Joining me tonight, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio. Congressman, good to
have you with us.

It looks like they`re going to have the votes in the Senate and its going
to really put pressure on what I`m told or about a dozen lawmakers in the
House that could swing this one way or the other.

Give us a sense, Congressman, how set are they? How decided (ph) are they?
Do you think this has a chance of passing in the House?

CONGRESSMAN TIM RYAN, (D) OHIO: Well, obviously, there`s going to be a lot
of heat coming on to members on the Democratic side from the environmental
groups, the religious groups, the labor unions are, you know, constantly
cranking up the heat. We`re making the arguments internally, you know, to
our colleagues. And on the Republican side, I think it`s, do you want to
give President Obama any power at all.

So, you know, whether to Democrats or the Republicans, I think, there`s a
lot of heat coming on because that this gets down to -- in my estimation,
from the Democratic side, you know, whether or not we respect workers. I
think it gets down to that value. I think that we have as a country, do
you respect workers in the United States of America. And if you do respect
workers in the United States, you certainly not going to put them in a
position where it becomes very difficult to have the opportunity to go to

We`re talking about just opportunity is going to be diminished because of
this trade agreement when you`re competing with the worker in Vietnam that
makes $0.56 an hour. That`s not...

SCHULTZ: Well, Congressman, we have focused a lot on this program about
the investor state trade dispute, is there a way that that could be rectify
that would swing this vote to a positive? Not that I`m in favor of it but
just the logistics of it all. Is that the sticking point as you see it?

RYAN: Well, it`s hard to tell because you don`t have all the knowledge,
all the information, I think, that we need right now to make that decision.
That may sway a couple people but I don`t know if that will sway a lot of
people. It`s a big concern for me but I don`t know if it`s on those 12, or
15 or 20, whatever the number is.

SCHULTZ: Is the constant pounding and the constant focus that Senator
Elizabeth Warren is putting on this? Is this emboldening those in the

RYAN: Yeah. She has done a phenomenal job. Sherrod Brown has done a
phenomenal job. Really using their position in the Senate to raise
awareness and make these arguments, before there wasn`t this kind of
opposition to NAFTA or some of these other trade agreements, and people are
speaking up.

And I think because we have that evidence of NAFTA in Ohio, in Western
Pennsylvania, in the industrial Midwest, we have evidence. It helps
Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown make those really strong arguments and
start convincing people. And I think, that`s why -- it`s been a struggle
on the Senate and it`s going to be a struggle in the House. They may get
there but not without a really strong fight must.

SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio, thanks for joining us

I want to bring in Jonathan Alter, MSNBC Political Analyst and Lori Wallach
who`s the Director of Public Citizen`s Global Trade Watch, great to have
both of you with us.

And Jonathan, what kind of an impact is Senator Warren having on this
debate? I mean, she is totally opposed to where the President is, where
the Secretary of State is and she seems to have quite a grassroots
following on this?

JONATHAN ALTER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: She`s having a huge impact on
this. And I think, it`s a healthy debate for the Democratic Party in for
the country. You want everybody to air all of these issues. That doesn`t
mean she necessarily right in every point that she is making and the
President has some pretty good arguments against some of the things that
she has raised. But to debate, this is what our democracy is supposed to
be all about. So we don`t want the debate short-circuited.

And I think it`s important to understand that there are two issues here.
One is fast-track which is coming up now and the other is the deal itself
which is -- it`s going to be a while before then.

So Hillary Clinton is just fine and saying that she want to hold off until
she`s read this deal until, it has been fully negotiated before she takes a
position on. And actually take that to responsible thing for somebody to
do because we don`t know what`s in this deal yet fully.

But in terms of Fast Track Authority, the issue is in front of us right
now. Here, I don`t think that the opponents have the better of the
argument. It`s like saying, "Well, let`s negotiate the Iran deal in
Congress and have every Yahoo (ph) Republican, you know, putting an


ALTER: ... on the Iran deal. That`s not the way you make foreign policy
in this trade deal is foreign policy as well as economic policy.

SCHULTZ: Lori, can you separate the two? Can fast-tract happen without
the TPP, of course, fast-track has to happen before the TPP but it`s
greasing the skids for what many people think as a bad deal.

WALLACH: Because the TPP after six years of these close-door negotiations
is almost done, well over half the chapters are literally signed and
sealed, the others have a word or two with (inaudible) too to go, really
the vote for fast-track is a proxy that your willing to rubber stamp this
version of this enormous trade agreement.

And I think the reason that Senator Warren has really helped bring the
argument to the forefront is that, for the last year and a half a lot of
agreements have been done, has been stuck in just a very few things, and
because you`ve had Congresswoman DeLauro and thousands of labor, and
environmental, and small business in state, and civil rights, and human
rights, and internet freedom activist, talking about the pieces of the
final TPP tax have elite. We know for instance why Elizabeth Warren`s

The agreement has the investment off-shoring incentives that (inaudible) of
NAFTA that chapter leaked. The agreement has just the labor and
environmental standards that were in Bush`s agreement, that have been the
government accountability office said had totally flop.

SCHULTZ: Jonathan?

ALTER: Well.

WALLACH: ... we knew that last year.

ALTER: You know, I mean I could...

WALLACH: ... et cetera, et cetera.

ALTER: You know, Mike Froman, USTR, would take serious issue with the
U.S. trade web. We say, no. This is way beyond what was in those Bush era
agreements in terms of labor and environmental standards...

WALLACH: Except that is empirically not true. Because actually the Bush
administration standard...

ALTER: All these things are very debatable so.

WALLACH: Well. they`re not.

ALTER: I don`t think you know about sort of players something true or not
true. I mean...


WALLACH: The administration offered and Mike Froman have said....

ALTER: Since neither you and I has read the deal, that`s something that we
need to be clear about.


WALLACH: As the opening offer for the United States...

ALTER: You haven`t read it, and I haven`t read it. It`s a secret.


WALLACH: The United States trade representative Michael Forman have
informed us, me personally, Congress, that they had use.

ALTER: That`s what we`re doing as well.

WALLACH: . in May 10, 2007 Bush environmental and labor standards and they
still hadn`t gotten the country`s to agree to it.

ALTER: I believed that is the basis.

WALLACH: That that was would offer.

ALTER: I think that was the basis.

WALLACH: . and that would be high line option for what will be that.

SCHULTZ: All right. I want to talk about what.

ALTER: Just to choose the American workers.


ALTER: ... because that we should stay focus on...

SCHULTZ: Well...

ALTER: . one of the things that`s great about this program is you stay
focus on the worker.


ALTER: So an argument for people to consider, who believe that this is
anti-worker is. If we can get say Vietnam to be part of this international
-- of our idea of what a trade deal is rather than China`s idea of what
labor standards are, then wages will go up in Vietnam and it will be a less
attractive option for multinationals to take jobs from the United States to

SCHULTZ: And so you`re making the case that this is going -- to slow down

ALTER: I believe it actually it could slow down outscourcing, yes.

SCHULTZ: That`s a speculation as I see it.

ALTER: In the long-term, I`m not saying intentionally...


ALTER: ... will because we don`t know how we would come out.

SCHULTZ: They don`t disposable income in those countries they can`t buy
our goods they can`t afford them.

ALTER: Yes. I`m not telling they`re buying our goods.


ALTER: ... I`m talking about off-shoring jobs.


ALTER: . from the United States...

SCHULTZ: I want to get into...

ALTER: If you bring up international labors standards, you make it less
attractive to off-shore our jobs.

SCHULTZ: But this is one of the issues, we talked about international
labors standards. There`s no way enforce them. We`ve never been able to
tell another country how to handle their workers.

ALTER: This deal has quite a number of things that allowed...

SCHULTZ: So the United States is going to be able to put the hammer down
on Vietnam...


WALLACH: That is simply not true.

ALTER: International labor organization standards are better in this deal.

WALLACH: That is simply not true.

ALTER: The ILO standards are in the bill.

WALLACH: The chapter on.

ALTER: Yeah.

WALLACH: . labor rights is the same chapter Bush used that references in
ILO agreement about conditions that work that as we have seen.

SCHULTZ: All right.

WALLACH: . from the government accountability office.

SCHULTZ: We have to leave it there.

WALLACH: . has said no changes on the ground in the countries where it

SCHULTZ: All right. Jonathan Alter and Lori Wallach, I appreciate your
time tonight certainly a hot issue.

Still to come Roger Goodell gets grilled on deflategate and Tom Brady`s
appeal, we`ll have reactions coming up.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And we are back on the Ed Show.

You`re looking live at the Senate floor were Kentucky Senator Rand Paul,
says he is filibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act.

The senator has been speaking since just after 1:00 P.M. Eastern Time
today. Paul twitted, "It`s time to end the NSA`s fine".

As he took the floor aides (ph) say, the Senator will speak until he can no
longer speak. Although the Senator is calling it a filibuster, it`s not
delaying the consideration of the bill at this time.

Let`s listen in.


SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: ... its purpose should be done in the open.
I see the Senator from Montana and I`d be happy to entertain a question
without losing the floor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the Senator from Kentucky, he yield for a
questions without losing his right the floor.

PAUL: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to thank my colleague for raising this important
issue on a Senate floor today..

SCHULTZ: Senator Rand Paul leading discussion on the Senate floor on the
Patriot Act.

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


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

We started our broadcast tonight with the oil spill off the coast of
California. Some light breaking news on that at this hour, the Associated
Press is reporting the pipeline company whose pipe bursts in California,
along the shoreline last night says up to 105,000 gallons of oil may have
spilled into the Pacific.

That number is up from an earlier number reported officials put out at
21,000 gallons. We`ll you keep you up to date on that.

The sports world is still focused deflategate. On Tuesday, Patriots owner
Robert Kraft say he will not appeal the Patriots punishment on deflategate.
Kraft will pay the million dollar fund and forfeit Draft Picks for the next
two years. Kraft told reporters, "Although I might disagree with what is
decided, I do have respect to Commissioner Roger Goodell and believe that
he is doing what he perceives to be in the best interest of all 32 teams."

Patriots quarterback Tom Brady isn`t given up that easy. He is moving
forward with his appeal over his four-game suspension. Roger Goodell will
personally oversee Brady`s appeal. The Commissioner gave a press
conference today following the NFL owners meetings and all of that was
about, was deflategate.


GOODELL: I look forward to hearing directly from Tom, if there`s new
information, as information that can be helpful to us in getting this
right. I want to hear directly from Tom on that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you address the question, of can you be fair
hearing the appeal after you`re already made out judgment?

GOODELL: Well, two things. First off, it was an independent
investigation. It was done by Ted Wells, he drew a conclusion about
whether there`s violation or not. He drew the facts and do the
investigation. I get the chance to read the report just shortly before you
do, and so we`ve been very transparent on that side of it.


SCHULTZ: For more let`s bring in Bill Rhoden, Sports Columnist for the New
York Times, also Ben Leber, a former NFL linebacker and KFAN Radio Host in
Minneapolis, gentlemen, good to have you with us.

Bill, you first, will you unpack this, has the league handle this well?
Can they live without Brady for four games?

BILL RHODEN, SPORTS COLUMNIST: Well, yeah but they are not. Basically,
they`re not. What they are trying to do now, how can we do these guys?
How can we do two games? Everybody is trying to make nice already, Kraft
has made peace with his buddy saying, "Listen I understand".

Brady of course, at least Brady kind of under the buss because he still got
a little bit of his reputation stake here, so he wants to fight this one.
Well, wait a minute...

SCHULTZ: Do you think he can get move off the four-game suspension, could
be something lesser?

RHODEN: I think they`re leaving the door open, for him saying, all we want
to see is a text and all the -- they`re leaving the door open for him to
dismiss to this too.

SCHULTZ: Ben, what your take on this? How about the commissioner`s
actions today?

BEN LEBER, FMR. NFL LINEBACKER: Well, I am glad Robert Kraft, first and
foremost. I mean, he look at the big picture here and realize, I`m not
going to down this rabbit hole and put my organization through anymore

So I think he did the right thing by pouring away his appeal.

Now, you look Tom Brady and Roger Goodell already said, "If you have more
information, I want to hear it". And I think that`s going to go a long
ways if he wants to get the four games reduced. We`ll see if that happens.
But up until this point, Tom has not been very forth right in the
investigation and in any interviews. He was not outwardly said, I had
nothing to do with this. He is going to score to the issue and chose his
word pretty wisely.

SCHULTZ: Do you think his stardom is going to help him?

LEBER: You know, I think it`s going to but I also know that Roger Goodell
does not look at this superstar athletes and hold then in any different
light than anybody else. With all the steps that happened with Adrian
Peterson, and Ray Rice and Greg Hardy, I think he now has to look at
himself and say I have to play this fairly or else I`m going to get called

So I think in this situation, Tom Brady gets -- he gets no extra deals just
because he is an elite athlete.

SCHULTZ: Bill, when you look at this, does the have to back down on this?

RHODEN: Well, I don`t think they have to. I think there are two things.
We have to look at these two things. They have to look the letter of the
law. If you screwed (ph) around with the ball or whatever, they have to
investigate that. But for me, honestly, the idea of his legacy being -- is
ridiculous. Two minutes to go in the game and it`s the playoffs, and you
ask me who do I want, I don`t care what he has done with, who do I want to
lead my team down the field. Bottom line, he is Tom Brady.

And there is nothing that going come out in that. That`s going to make me
feel that he didn`t belong with Hall of Famer, he is not one of the
greatest quarterback of this era. But I also understand that the NFL has
got do the rules, deal with the most important thing is this game which the
ball. I get that.

So let`s deal with that. But trust me, the punishment is not going to go
longer than four because they are looking at that game with the
Indianapolis Colts coming back as one of the biggest bonanzas of the
season. So they make it shorter but it`s going to get long.

SCHULTZ: Ben, do you think there is some line of thinking in the Brady camp
that he didn`t do anything wrong?

LEBER: Oh, I think -- for sure, I think that there is a little bit in
there that says I did not been wrong, you know, I like my footballs the way
I like him. And there might be part of the story where McNally or
Jastrmeski said somewhere -- listen, we didn`t tell him that he was going
under the 12 map PSI (ph). We just deflated him to the point where he
liked the feel of them.

If he comes out and says that and they can back that up with another
interview, another testimonial then the impossibly, they could score to
this thing. But the way it sounds like to me every quarterback is very
meticulous about...


LEBER: ... on how they like their balls to be robbed down, and oiled and
felt. So I think he knew that there were slightly under inflated.

SCHULTZ: Bill, does the league change the way they handled footballs
before the game?

RHODEN: Absolutely, yes. That was going to come at the bottom line that -
- they`re going to gave new procedures. Everything from teams using the
same balls or because a lot of referees made a mistakes, you know, in this
regard as well. So that probably going to be the bigger side (ph), going
to the next year, there`s going to be completely different procedure.

SCHULTZ: So do you think the league can to a point where we got to make
sure that this doesn`t happen again?

RHODEN: Yeah. Absolutely because too many people have to (inaudible)
Brady, too many officials made too many mistakes.

SCHULTZ: Gentlemen, I appreciate the conversation. Bill Rhoden and Ben
Leber, thank you so much.

That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. Politics Nation with Rev. Al Sharpton
starts right now.

Good evening, Rev.


<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.>

The Ed Show Section Front
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide