Skip navigation

'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Show: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW
Date: June 3, 2015
Guest: Evan Allen, Ellen Weintraub


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, my friend.

HAYES: You bet.

MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.

Governor Rick Perry of Texas is expected to announce tomorrow in
Dallas that he is going to mount another campaign to become the Republican
nominee for president of the United States.

Honestly, full disclosure: when Rick Perry got in the presidential
race in 2012, looking at him on paper, looking at his career, looking at
his reputation in Texas and everything that had been written about him as a
political figure, I thought in 2012, that Rick Perry was going to be the
guy to beat for the nomination that year.

He waited a long time to get in in 2012, as Mitt Romney kind of
drifted to the head of that weird pack of Republican candidates that year.
But then when Rick Perry jumped in the race, I thought he was just going to
blow everyone away. I had no idea he was going to be such a terrible
candidate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICK PERRY (R), FORMER TEXAS GOVERNOR: And I will tell you. It`s
three agencies of government when I get there that are gone, Commerce,
Education and the -- what`s the third one there?

(LAUGHTER)

RON PAUL (R), FORMER CONGRESSMAN: You mean, five.

PERRY: Oh, five. OK. So, Commerce, Education, and the --

MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: EPA?

PERRY: EPA. There you go.

MODERATOR: Seriously, is EPA the one you were talking about?

PERRY: No, sir, we were talking about the agencies of government --
EPA needs to be rebuilt.

MODERATOR: But you can`t name the third one.

PERRY: The third agency of government I would do away with
Education, Commerce and let`s see -- I can`t. The third one I can`t.
Sorry. Oops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Rick Perry now says that he was unwell. That he was
unhealthy when he ran for president in 2012, and that is part of why he did
so poorly. He also says he just didn`t take it seriously enough. He
didn`t -- he didn`t try that hard. He didn`t prepare enough for his run in
2012.

But this time he says, he`s not going to make those mistakes again,
he`s been doing his homework, he`s memorized all three of the things he
wants to say that come in threes. Apparently, whatever was going on with
his health four years ago, his health has bounced back. And now, he says
he`s ready to jump in and try again. At least that`s what we are expecting
him to say when he makes his big announcement that is slated for tomorrow
afternoon in Dallas, Kansas.

There to rain on his parade in Texas during his announcements will be
Hillary Rodham Clinton -- former first lady, former secretary of state,
Hillary Clinton has conveniently scheduled her own Texas campaign stop to
directly coincide with Rick Perry`s announcement tomorrow.

Now, Texas, of course, is a vey, very red state. No Democrat has won
statewide elected office in more than 20 years. The last time was 1994.

There had been this brief glimmer of Democratic expectations when
Rick Perry decided to leave the governorship and not run for re-election.
Texas Democrats and Democrats around the country briefly thought that the
very charismatic, very compelling Texas Democratic senator, Wendy Davis,
might have a shot at the governorship. She might have a shot at succeeding
Rick Perry and becoming the new Democratic governor of Texas. Wendy Davis
in 2014 not only got beat, she got beat by 20 points in the 2014 elections.

Texas -- whatever Texas is going to be some day, Texas right now is
just really, Really, really red. President Obama lost in Texas to Mitt
Romney by 16 points in the last presidential election there.

So, Hillary Clinton is in Texas today. She`s going to be in Texas
tomorrow as well. She`s not there for the purposes of the Electoral
College. She`s not going there because I think anybody has expectations
the Democrats are going to win Texas in the presidential election in 2016
unless it`s a huge blowout.

Rather, the reason Hillary Clinton is in Texas today and tomorrow is
ka-ching.

Texas is a big state, has a big population, even though the state as
a whole votes for Republican candidates basically in lockstep, that doesn`t
mean there aren`t a lot of rich donor class Democrats in Texas who are
happy to make their money count in national Democratic campaigns even if
their vote at home in Texas really doesn`t count, at least not yet.

The chair of the Democratic Party today tells "The Guardian"
newspaper, quote, "Texas is an ATM machine for Democrats all over the
country."

So, mostly, Hillary Clinton will be going to Texas to insert her
proverbial ATM card into the Texas Democratic donor class and withdraw
campaign donations. I think that`s mostly why she is there, and nobody
would say otherwise.

But it`s not only money that is sending her to Texas, at the same
time that Rick Perry is going to be making his presidential announcement
tomorrow, at the same time Rick Perry is breaking the presidential glass
ceiling for politicians running for president while under criminal
indictment on corruption charges, nobody has ever done that before,
congratulations, Rick Perry. He`ll be the first ever candidate under
indictment to ever make a major party run for president of the United
States. You would have thought that -- that particular glass ceiling would
be bulletproof glass, right?

But Rick Perry will be breaking that bulletproof glass tomorrow. And
while he is doing that, simultaneously, Hillary Clinton will be speaking at
Texas Southern University. And at Texas Southern, she`s going to be
receiving an award that they named for the great Barbara Jordan. Barbara
Jordan, the pioneering African-American member of Congress who quite
famously delivered the keynote address to the Democratic National
Convention in 1976.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, in case you don`t know it, may I
now present our second keynote speaker, the Honorable Barbara Jordan,
Democrat of Houston, Texas.

REP. BARBARA JORDAN (D), TEXAS: A lot of years passed since 1832 and
during that time it would have been most unusual for any national political
party to ask Barbara Jordan to deliver a keynote address. But tonight,
here I am, and I feel --

(APPLAUSE)

I feel that notwithstanding the past, but my presence here is one
additional bit of evidence that the American Dream need not forever be
deferred. We believe in equality for all and privileges for none.

(APPLAUSE)

This is a belief -- this is a belief that each American regardless of
background has equal standing in the public forum, all of us.

(APPLAUSE)

Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive rather
than an exclusive party. Let everybody come.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Barbara Jordan is a great figure in American history, and in
Texas history. She was the first African-American elected to the Texas
State Senate since Reconstruction when she was elected in 1967. When she
was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1973, she was the first Southern
African-American woman to ever be elected to the U.S. House.

Barbara Jordan universally respected -- Barbara Jordan died
relatively young at the age of 59. She died in 1996. President Clinton
said that before her health went into decline, he had been planning to
nominate her for the United States Supreme Court.

It was known before today that Hillary Clinton would be speaking at
Barbara Jordan`s alma matter in Texas, and that she would be receiving this
award tomorrow. But it was not known until this afternoon, that the
subject of her speech, when she gets that award tomorrow in Texas is going
to be voting rights, and in particular, minority voting rights.

I mean, Barbara Jordan was this pioneering African-American
politician, Texas Southern her alma matter, where Hillary Clinton will be
speaking tomorrow, is a historically black university. Minority voting
rights are a particularly fraught subject right now, between the black
population in Texas and the Latino population in Texas, Texas is now a so-
called majority minority state, it`s the only majority minority state in
the country that still routinely votes Republican.

And Texas votes hugely Republican. And that is a significant part
because of the contours of the minority vote there. If Latino voters voted
at the same rate as Latino voters in other states in the American
Southwest, Texas would be a blue state. But Texas is not. Texas is
really, really, really red, despite their demographics and what you might
expect because of them.

The Texas legislature is almost entirely Republican. And with their
grip on Texas state government, Republicans in Texas have taken some of the
most radical steps in the nation to keep Texas voting patterns exactly the
way they are now, no matter how the demographics keep changing. They want
to keep voter participation rates nice and low, particularly among the
growing populations in the state, who might not be inclined to vote
Republican.

Texas Republicans have really fine-tuned their laws, particularly in
recent years, to make sure that Texas keeps voting the way it has been.

For example, when Texas Republicans passed new requirements that
people would have to start showing new documentation to be able to vote
that they never have to show before, they made sure that if your ID, your
documentation you were going to try to show was a student ID, if your ID
was your student ID, or let`s say your Medicaid card or your Social
Security card, that would not count. You cannot show those if you wanted
to be able to vote in Texas. But you can show your concealed handgun
permit in order to vote in Texas.

What`s the material difference between your student ID, and your
Medicaid card and your hand gun permit? The material difference there in
terms of identification is hard to see. The material difference in terms
of what it predicts in terms of your voting patterns is easier to see.

When Texas first rolled out this very finely calibrated strict new
voter ID law, there was skepticism that they actually would be able to get
away with it, right? I mean, it seems deliberately structured to make it
hard to vote specifically for young people and poor people and, by
extension, minorities people likely to vote Democratic. But Texas went
ahead with the new law anyway.

And Texas advocacy groups like the Campaign Legal Center have been
trying ever since to explain in Texas and to explain around the country
just exactly how bad it is. Just exactly what Texas Republicans have done
in terms of how hard they have made it to vote in that state.

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBIE KAMIN: My name is Abbie Kamin, born and raised in Houston
Texas. I am working with the Campaign Legal Center to help voters get
their ID.

I met Tony several weeks ago. Tony has voted in every election he`s
been able to. He actually came to Texas to be a student at the University
of Houston. Brilliant guy, got, you know, numerous degrees and became an
engineer.

ANTHONY SETTLES: I follow the politics and the candidates quite
closely. An informed voter is more likely to make an intelligent decision
than an uninformed one. So, I decided to be informed.

KAMIN: Unfortunately, because of the new law, tony cannot vote,
because he cannot prove his identity at the polls.

SETTLES: My state ID was expired, so I called the DPS, Department of
Public Safety and they told me that because my name was changed in 1964,
that I could not get an ID.

KAMIN: This is your ID card from --

SETTLES: DPS that expired.

KAMIN: And here`s your current voter registration.

When he was 14, his mother and father were formally married. So,
they decided to change his last name to his father`s name.

SETTLES: Ever since 1964, I`ve had this name, and there`s been no
problems until this DPS ID thing came up.

KAMIN: You talk to them, birth certificate isn`t good enough,
because your name changed. So, we needed name change certificate.

We have sent our attorneys from Campaign Legal Center down to the
courthouse.

Despite all of our efforts, they can`t find the name change
certificate. I mean, there`s no real cut answer as to what the next step
is.

SETTLES: The bureaucrats and politicians are giving me hell and very
done nothing wrong, and my family did nothing wrong. So, I`m being
punished without doing anything wrong. I wonder what kind of America is it
that punishes people that did nothing wrong?

HARGIE RANDAL: I live in Houston, Texas, for 63 years. In my
neighborhood there`s going to be quite a few people not able to vote
because of this new law.

KAMIN: Are those your papers over there?

RANDAL: Yes.

KAMIN: All right. Can we go flew those again?

Hargie has been to the DPS three times now, the first time he went
somebody told him he needed three forms of identification such as his
Medicare card, bills, things of that nature. And another person says, no,
no, we need your birth certificate.

So, I got your birth certificate, if we weren`t here, would you be
able to drive up to Huntsville by yourself?

He can`t really get around. He has to call friends for rides, which
really isn`t reliable.

We want to make sure you can vote.

RANDAL: Yes, I do, too. Yes.

KAMIN: Yes. So, what we`re going to do is I`m going to take you
over to the DPS to get your ID.

RANDAL: OK.

KAMIN: And hopefully it runs smoothly, and they don`t get confused
over there.

All right. That was an epic, disappointing failure. They would not
let Hargie get his ID, on his birth certificate, there`s a clerical error
where they misspelled part of his last name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the end of the day, he would have to change
his name to the incorrect spelling on his birth certificate to get an ID.
This is what voting has become in Texas.

KAMIN: I`m so sorry.

RANDAL: Oh, it`s the system.

KAMIN: Yes.

RANDAL: I don`t know what part of it.

KAMIN: Yes. Let`s get you back to the house.

This is about the state of Texas using taxpayer dollars to implement
the most restrictive photo ID law in the country that is intentionally used
to suppress minority and low income voters.

I don`t think you`re going to be able to vote in this election
because of this law.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MADDOW: That`s from the Campaign Legal Center in Texas, which
produced that because they`ve been trying to set off alarm bells. Not only
around Texas, but around the country about how extreme Texas has become in
terms of what they`ve done to the right to vote.

Texas announced that it was going ahead without voter ID law, the
very same day that the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Voting
Rights Act used to stop states like Texas from enacting new voting laws
that were that obviously racist. Literally the day the Voting Rights Act
was wiped out by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Texas
announced they would go ahead with this voter ID law now that they could.

Well, Hillary Clinton tomorrow in Texas is expected to eviscerate
that Supreme Court ruling against the Voting Rights Act that gave Texas the
go ahead with this voter ID bill. She`s also expected to call for Congress
to call for a new Voting Rights Act. She`s also expected to call out Texas
specifically for what the Republican state government has done to make
voting as hard as possible for certain types of voters in Texas.

Her top campaign lawyer has already filed lawsuits on voting rights
against North Carolina for its new voting restrictions and Wisconsin for
its new voting restrictions, and Ohio for its new voting restrictions.
We`re told to expecting more lawsuits from them in Georgia, in Nevada, and
Virginia and maybe more.

Tomorrow it`s Texas, where logistically, Hillary Clinton, the likely
Democratic presidential nominee for 2016, will be raining on Rick Perry`s
presidential announcement. But in substance, she will be showing in this
major address on voting issues, she will be showing how she intends to pick
up what is now a long and bloody fight between Democrats and Republicans
across the country on how hard they can make it for certain people to vote
in this country.

It`s a fight that Republicans over these last few years have been
winning. Tomorrow, we will hear from Hillary Clinton about the way she
thinks Democrats ought to pick up that fight. I cannot wait to hear it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: So, we`ve got lots more still to come tonight. Just ahead,
we`re going to have a live report from Boston, where local officials are
providing some startling new details tonight on alleged terror plots that
was disrupted yesterday and ended in the death of one alleged terror
suspect on a city street. We`ve got that story ahead, that live report.

Plus, history being made today in the smallest state in the country,
and history seeming to run backwards in one southern state where there`s a
legislative cliffhanger under way right now.

We`ve got a big show ahead tonight, with lots of suspense in it.
Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: So, we`re going to go to in just a moment to a live report
from Boston, what started yesterday morning as news of a police shooting,
has escalated now today in fairly lurid accusations from Boston police and
the FBI about an alleged terrorism plot and intense surveillance and now a
secondary arrest and a police and FBI raid in another state.

This all started yesterday around 7:00 a.m. in Boston, when a Boston
police officer and FBI agent got into a confrontation with a 26-year-old
man on a Roslindale, Massachusetts sidewalk. The confrontation resulted in
the man being shot multiple times by the officers.

Now, the man`s family said that he had been talking on his cell phone
with his father when he was inexplicably shot in the back and killed by
these officers.

But police then released this photo of a relatively giant military
style knife. The ruler that`s there, the white ruler is six inches long,
this is showing a knife that is, by appearances at least, over a foot long,
a really large military style knife. Police say that they recovered this
weapon from the man they shot. They said they shot him because he
threatened the officers with this knife.

Police then brought a number of community leaders and religious
leaders to Boston police headquarters and played for them a video that they
had of the shooting scene and the shooting incident.

Now, police and the FBI have not released this video to the broader
public or to the media. But they showed it to this select group of people
basically as a way of priming the community for what to expect in terms of
details about this shooting.

They said that they would then show the family of the man who was
killed. They would make sure the family saw the video as well. They would
make a decision later as to when and where to release this to the public.

Now, we only have hearsay reports from the people who were shown that
video by police, who were invited to see it by police. But it seems clear
that the police were trying in part to dispel any notion that this young
man was shot while on his phone, or that he was shot in the back or that
there wasn`t a confrontation that resulted in the shooting.

The police also said they would have this man under 24/7 surveillance
for quite some time, as part of a larger terrorism investigation. Then, we
got word that the FBI had carried out a raid at a home in Rhode Island, in
connection with the same investigation. Then, we got word of another
person being taken into custody, a man being arrested in the Boston suburb
of Everett, again, in conjunction with the same investigation.

Today in federal court in Boston, that man who was arrested in
Everett today was charged with conspiring to destroy evidence.
Specifically, he was charged with conspiring with the man who was shot by
police yesterday to destroy that man`s cell phone, to cover up evidence of
a plot of some kind to attack police officers.

The court released this complaint against the man they arrested in
Everett who appeared in court today. The complaint says that over the
weekend, the man who was shot dead yesterday and the man who was arrested
in Everett, Massachusetts, today, the complaint says the two of them met
with a third unnamed person on a beach in Rhode Island to discuss plans to
behead someone. The complaint does not say who they were talking about
beheading.

The complaint claims that by Tuesday morning, by yesterday morning
this week, plans had changed, the new plan was to attack somebody else
closer to home, with the man who was shot by police yesterday telling the
man who was arrested, quote, "I can`t wait that long, man." The two men
allegedly used a code phrase for talking about committing violent jihad.
Police say they called that going on vacation. They say the man who was
shot yesterday by police talked about going on vacation here in
Massachusetts.

The complaint also claims that the man who was killed yesterday
morning told his alleged co-conspirator that he planned to randomly kill
police officers, either yesterday or today, either Tuesday or Wednesday.
The second man responded he should prepare a will, and that he should
destroy his cell phone, and he should wipe his laptop before he took any
such action.

"The Boston Globe" reporting today that the shooting death yesterday
morning sparked this expanded investigation that led to this arrest in
Everett, Mass, as well as the police raid in Rhode Island. But the overall
contours of this investigation, and the seriousness of this plot honestly
remains to be explained at this point.

Joining us now is Evan Allen. She`s a "Boston Globe" crime reporter.

Ms. Allen, thanks very much for your time tonight. Appreciate having
you here.

EVAN ALLEN, BOSTON GLOBE: Thanks for having me.

MADDOW: Let me ask if I summarized that correctly. Is that pretty
much what we know from authorities at this point?

ALLEN: That`s pretty much what we know, although the confrontation
between the task force members and Rahim occurred in the parking lot, not
on a sidewalk.

MADDOW: In a parking lot, sort of in a suburban/urban area near CVS,
near a bus stop, is that true?

ALLEN: Yes, it`s the parking lot of a shopping center.

MADDOW: Did -- do we know whether or not police expected this to be
a consequential confrontation with this young man? Obviously, if they say
they had him under surveillance for a very long time, I don`t know if they
expected he knew he was being surveilled. When they chose to approach him,
do we know if they expected this was going to potentially be a major
confrontation with him?

ALLEN: I don`t believe that they did. What we`ve reported is that
police were very surprised by his reaction. They approached him to do what
they refer to as a threshold inquiry, which is to talk to him. Very few
words were exchanged before he pulled the knife, or allegedly pulled the
knife. So, no, this was a surprise to law enforcement.

MADDOW: Do we know how long he had been under surveillance?
Anything about the size of the investigation? As part of which he was
under surveillance? Or what he was under surveillance or what he was under
surveillance on suspicion of having done or doing?

ALLEN: They`ve been quiet about exactly when surveillance began or
why it began. They said it has been ongoing for quite a while. Rahim had
a Facebook page that in 2012 mentioned he had been contacted by the FBI.
And in this post he said that the FBI wanted to speak with him about
allegations about him. It didn`t explain what those allegations were.

Of course, it hasn`t been corroborated by the FBI. But, you know, it
could be as far back as then.

But they have not said that. They said that it was going on for a
while.

MADDOW: The video that was shown today to community leaders and
faith leaders, it was an interesting choice by the authorities to allow a
select invited group of people to watch it, but not release it more broadly
to the media or to the public. Do we know anything about whether that
decision is final, whether it`s being contested? Obviously, there`s public
interest in seeing this video, and some members of the public are allowed
to see it. Do we expect that to get any wider release?

ALLEN: We do expect it to get wider release and fairly soon. This
is actually something that the Boston Police Department and Suffolk County
district attorney`s office have done in the past with police involved
shootings. There was a shooting in March, where a gang officer was shot
and his partners returned fire, killing the man who shot him.

They did the exact same thing. They released the video to a small
group to sort of dispel mounting fears in the community that the police had
in some way opened fire on someone who wasn`t doing anything. And then
fairly quickly thereafter, they release it to the public. So, that`s the
plan here as well.

MADDOW: Evan Allen, "Boston Globe" crime reporter -- thanks for
helping us sort through this. Appreciate your time tonight.

ALLEN: Thank you very much.

MADDOW: Thanks.

It`s interesting, you know, with cases like this, you never quite
know where they`re going until you`ve heard everything you`re going to hear
from authorities. Obviously, most of the time when we get stories about
alleged terrorism plots in this country, we get them because there was an
informant on the inside, someone who was working with the FBI from the
beginning, right? And that`s how we end up finding about it when the sting
was closed.

It does not seem like this was that kind of operation. We don`t know
the overall size of the investigation that resulted in this 24/7
surveillance on this guy who was shot. Nor do we know how many people
eventually are going to be swept up as they continue raiding houses and
arresting people that they say are connected to this.

Obviously, whenever you`re talking about more than one person working
with somebody who`s not an informant, it`s a much more serious thing than
when you`re talking about somebody acting on their own.

We`ll stay on it. We`ll let you know more as we learn more. Thanks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: What? What? Seriously, there`s nothing to see here. I
have no idea what you`re talking about.

And neither does a very prominent person in today`s news, who`s
definitely not doing the thing that he`s very obviously doing. That and
more elephant, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I`m running for president in
2016, the focus is going to be about how we -- if I run -- how do you
create high economic growth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: I`m running for president if I -- if I -- if, if.

The fact that Jeb Bush has not officially declared his candidacy for
the presidency when he`s so clearly running for the presidency, it is
starting to get awkward. Sometimes he himself forgets. To be clear, write
note to self on hand. Jeb Bush is not running for president, not
officially. Not technically.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Political man.

REPORTER: Governor man. Presidential candidate man.

BUSH: No.

REPORTER: Yes, you are.

BUSH: No, I`m not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: What was the bit at the end there? What did they say?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Presidential candidate man.

BUSH: No.

REPORTER: Yes, you are.

BUSH: No, I`m not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Yes, you are. No, I`m not. Yes, you are. No, I`m not.
Icksnay on the andidatecay (ph).

Lately, Jeb Bush has been treating questions about whether or not
he`s running as though they are gotcha questions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: How important is transparency in a presidential candidate?

BUSH: Is that a trick question? What are you going with it? Do you
have a follow-up question? Want to ask that first?

REPORTER: Sure, OK. You`ve been out on the trail, you`ve been
meeting in New Hampshire, you`ve been raising money. Are you running for
president?

BUSH: Not yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Finally this past Sunday, on his very last day hosting CBS`s
"Face the Nation", the great Bob Schieffer became the closest Bob Schieffer
has ever come to saying on the air, come on, dude. Come on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB SCHIEFFER, "FACE THE NATION": It`s pretty obvious that you`re
running for president, you`re going around the country, raising huge
amounts of money for your super PAC, in addition to making all the
traditional campaign stops everywhere. Watchdog groups and some of your
opponents are saying, you really may be violating campaign laws.

Do you think in some way you may be just at least violating the
spirit of the law? Do you feel that you have violated the law here?

BUSH: No, of course, not. I would never do that. We`re going to
completely adhere to the law for sure. And should I be a candidate? That
will be in the relatively near future where that decision will be made.
There will be no coordination at all with any super PAC.

SCHIEFFER: Now, you`re not telling me there`s a possibility you may
not run?

BUSH: Look, I hope I run, to be honest with you. I`d like to run,
but I haven`t made the decision.

SCHIEFFER: What would have to happen between now and then to
convince you not to run?

BUSH: Who knows? I`ve learned not to answer a lot of hypothetical
questions.

SCHIEFFER: You`re probably going to run?

BUSH: I hope so. I hope I`m a candidate in the near future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: I sure hope so, Bob. It`s totally out of my hands, but I
really hope so.

I mean, this is a real question, right? What does it mean if you are
very obviously a presidential candidate, but you say you are not? And
meanwhile, you are raking in millions of dollars for your super PACs,
fundraising that would be illegal if you were a declared candidate.

In the words of one former federal election commissioner, one former
commissioner from the FEC, what Jeb Bush is doing, quote, "makes a mockery
of the law."

To pull up what he`s doing, the Bush campaign is counting on the FEC
not doing much to challenge him. It`s a pretty safe assumption given that
the head of the FEC herself said recently, I quote, "The likelihood of the
laws being enforced is slim. People think FEC is dysfunctional. It`s
worse than dysfunctional." And she runs the FEC.

Last week, campaign watchdog groups asked the Justice Department to
look into Bush`s campaign instead of the FEC, because the FEC is so
hamstrung. The groups say they want a special counsel to investigate
whether Jeb Bush`s massive super PAC fund-raising is actually illegal,
because he really is in every meaningful, legal and financial sense a
presidential candidate, so he can`t be raising millions of dollars for a
super PAC.

Is what he`s doing basically cheating?

Whether or not the FEC is going to do the relevant policing here,
they`re the ones who are supposed to not only enforce just basically
understand what the rules are around this stuff. And what those rules are
supposed to be for. Is what`s happening with Jeb Bush right now, which
everyone agrees is getting increasingly ridiculous, is what`s happening
with Jeb Bush par for the course? Is this -- everybody does it. He`s the
shiniest object doing it, that`s what we`re talking about.

Or is Jeb Bush actually pushing it further, or pushing it in a more
consequential way than other people have in the past?

Joining us now is Ellen Weintraub of the Federal Election
Commissioner.

Commissioner Weintraub was first appointed to the commission in 2002.
She`s its longest serving member. It`s great to see you. Thanks very much
for being us.

COMISSIONER ELLEN WEINTRAUB, FEC: Great to be with you, Rachel.

MADDOW: Is there a way to tell -- is there an evidentiary basis on
which you can distinguish if a candidate is testing the waters versus
actually running?

WEINTRAUB: There is, there are rules on this. And I want to be
clear that I`m not talking about what any individual is doing, because
there are a lot of folks out there that appear to be thinking about running
for office these days and they`re trying a lot of different techniques, I
think the FEC has an obligation to be very clear about the fact that there
are rules and there are clear rules.

There are rules if you`re a candidate, and the rules aren`t that much
different if you`re merely exploring a candidacy. You still can only
explore a candidacy using federally regulated money -- money that`s raised
in $2,700 or less increments. That`s all that the law permits.

And once an individual decides to become a candidate. All that money
is going to have to be disclosed.

And since you asked, there are standards for when you cross the line
from testing the waters to becoming a candidate, an actual candidate who
has to register with the FEC and file all the paperwork. There are
objective criteria for that.

Obviously, if the candidate comes out and says, I`m the candidate,
that`s the easiest way for us to tell. If they`re advertising their
intention to run, if they`re raising more money than could be reasonably
expected to fund exploratory activities, if they appear to be amassing
money for an actual run for office, money that will be spent on the
campaign, all of these are criteria that indicate that someone has crossed
the line and become a candidate.

MADDOW: And if somebody has crossed the line and become a candidate,
but says they aren`t, is that a defense? If you`ve done all the other
things, the fact that you haven`t said I`m a candidate, any reasonable
defense to not being held accountable than the laws you ought to follow if
you are a candidate.

WEINTRAUB: Well, saying you`re a candidate clearly trips the
threshold. But there are other ways of tripping the threshold without
actually saying I am a candidate. And these cases have come up from time
to time with the FEC.

MADDOW: Is what we are seeing unprecedented? I mean, do candidates
always do this, or are they pushing it further than they have in the past
in a more substantive way?

WEINTRAUB: Well, I think what`s different this year is the presence
of super PACs, these testing the water rules have been on the books for
many years, far before Citizens United, and the ways that candidates are
interacting with super PACs is new since 2010.

MADDOW: Given that the chair of the FEC has said that the chair
can`t enforce campaign law this cycle, that dysfunctional doesn`t begin to
describe it, is it a good idea for the Justice Department to get involved
as some of these good government groups have asked, not just Jeb Bush, but
candidates on both sides of the aisle?

WEINTRAUB: Well, as I said, I`m not talking about any specific
candidate, and I hesitate to tell the Justice Department what they should
do. But the Justice Department has only a small slice of jurisdiction over
campaign finance violations. We at the FEC have exclusive jurisdiction
over civil enforcement of the law. And that`s most of the violations
civil. They`re not criminal in nature.

So, we really need to do a better job of doing our job. I`ve been
pushing my colleagues, for example, to try to resolve cases on a more
timely basis. This has been a big problem, commissioners sitting on cases
and not letting them come to conclusion.

And I`ve been encouraged by the fact that at least one of my
colleagues seems to be interested in working with me on coming up with a
policy that would let allow us to resolve the cases and force us to resolve
the cases on a more timely basis, so the public would know what the rules
were, and how we were dealing with these complaints.

MADDOW: Was that a slight hint there might be some progress in the
future?

WEINTRAUB: I always believe in progress, and I would like to believe
if there are clear cut violations of the law, that we will get a vote at
the commission to say so.

MADDOW: Commissioner Ellen Weintraub of the FEC -- really appreciate
your time tonight. I know that you have to speak delicately about these
matters because you can`t weigh into individual cases. But thanks for
helping us understand it. I appreciate it.

WEINTRAUB: Thanks, Rachel, pleasure to be here.

MADDOW: It`s amazing, the part of the government in charge of
policing this stuff is like, yeah, we`d love to. Can`t really -- and
they`re the only part of the government in charge of enforcing it. We
wonder why they`ve started to feel like a punch line rather than actual
law. It`s because we have made it so in the way we have structured our
government around enforcing those laws. It makes me crazy.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: Correction, at the top of the show tonight I had a segment
about the Texas legislature rolling back voting rights in the state of
Texas, we apparently showed a graphic on screen during that segment about
the partisan make-up of the Texas Senate. And the graphic was wrong. We
somehow colored outside the lines and got the partisan make-up of the Texas
Senate all wrong.

In case you want to clip it out and put it up at the magnet on the
fridge, this is the right one. The Texas Senate is on the left there,
there are 11 Democrats in the Texas Senate, and 20 Republicans, we had that
wrong. The partisan make-up all wrong at the top of the show. I`m sorry
about that.

I`ve already eaten all of my red and blue crayons and melted down the
rest to make sure I do not make the same mistake again. Also, we shouldn`t
make our graphics with crayons. Sorry.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: One of the less heralded novelties about the election of
Barack Obama to be president of the United States is that before him, we
had never before had a U.S. president who was born in Hawaii. And it turns
out there are a bunch of states that have only ever had one president.

Ronald Reagan is the only president born in Illinois. The only
president born in Connecticut was George W. Bush. Grover Cleveland was the
only president born in New Jersey. Bill Clinton was the only president
born in Arkansas. Very interesting.

But today, Lincoln Chafee announced that he is running for president.
And if Lincoln Chafee`s campaign goes way, way, way better than expected,
and we do end up getting President Lincoln Chafee somebody, that would not
only make him the first president ever from the state of Rhode Island. He
already, today, became Rhode Island`s first ever presidential candidate.
Ever.

The politics school at the University of Minnesota looked at this
today. Kind of amazing. In the 225 years that Rhode Island has been a
state, they have sent 74 representatives to Congress, 48 U.S. senators.
There have been 70 different Rhode Island governors, three of them in Linc
Chafee`s family.

But none of those, none of those people and nobody else from Rhode
Island has ever made a bid for the White House before Lincoln Chafee threw
his hat in the ring today. He`s the first person from Rhode Island to ever
run for president.

So, Rhode island, congratulations. Whether or not Lincoln Chafee
wins the nomination or wins the nomination, he has made presidential
history for Rhode Island just by announcing.

And that`s it. Honestly, that`s it. That`s all I got.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MADDOW: In the heart of North Carolina, in Forsyth County, you would
find a place called Winston Salem Industries for the Blind. It opened
during the great depression as a place where blind people could learn and
get real work.

In the 1970s, a young woman who was legally blind moved from Vermont
to North Carolina to join up at the Industries for the Blind. She ended up
falling in love with another worker there. And then her boyfriend proposed
to her and she said yes and they went to the Forsyth County courthouse to
get married. It was 1976.

And when they got there, these two young workers from the Industries
for the Blind, they were refused service. The local magistrate said that
they wouldn`t give this young couple a license to get married in Forsyth
County. Not because they`re legally blind, but because one of them was
white and the other was black. This was 1976.

They ended up getting a lawyer who fought for them in federal court,
and it took three years, but they eventually won. Today in North Carolina,
this same couple, Carol Ann and Thomas Person, they`ve been happily married
for going on years, they have raised kids and young grandkids together.

But the story of them, the story of Mr. and Mrs. Person is back in
the local papers in North Carolina today for an incredible reason. Last
year, a federal court ruled that gay couples also have the right to marry
in North Carolina. When that happened, North Carolina legislatures started
debating a bill to let public officials refuse to marry people on the basis
of their own personal religious objection.

If the county magistrate objects to your marriage on his or her own
religious grounds of any kind, then too bad for you. Magistrate could
refuse to marry gay and lesbian couples or couples remarrying after a
divorce, or couples with one Buddhist and one Jew, couples where one person
is white and the other is black just like the good old days.

North Carolina avenues governor vetoed that bill the same day that
lawmakers sent it to his desk. Ever since, state lawmakers have been
trying to override that veto and get this thing passed into law. Now in
the pages of the "Raleigh News & Observer" with this decision looming in
the North Carolina House, Carol Ann Person, citizen of North Carolina, is
telling her story again.

She rights in "The News & Observer" today that when she and her huts
tried to get married in 1976, quote, "The magistrate told us that marrying
an interracial couple went against his religious beliefs. There was a
second magistrate on duty, but he, too, said he wouldn`t marry us because
doing so would violate his religious beliefs. One of them took out a bible
and began to lecture us about their religious views and why Thomas and I
should not be together.

I will never forget how painful it was to be told by government
officials that they would not give Thomas and me a civil marriage license
because of the color of our skin. It was supposed to be a happy day, but
instead we were turned away because of somebody else`s religious views and
treated like second-class citizens.

I am a church-going Christian. My faith has never taught me to turn
people away because of who they love, and I never believed that my God
would have any problem with me marrying a wonderful man like Thomas.

But even if my faith were different, if I worked for the government,
I would know that I have to treat all members of the public equally
regardless of my religious views. Government employees aren`t working a
religious job; they take an oath to serve all the public and they`re
supposed to be impartial.

The pain from that day when government officials used their own
religious beliefs to discriminate against us and keep Thomas and I from
marrying each other, that pain will never leave us. Whether gay or
straight, black or white, Jew or gentile, nobody has a right to tell anyone
who they love -- who they can love or marry. House of Representatives must
finally stop Senate bill 2 and sustain the governor`s veto so that no other
couple in North Carolina ever has to go through what we did when they want
to marry the person that they love."

Today in North Carolina, the House of Representatives did not take up
the question of trying to override the governor`s veto. They instead moved
it to the calendar for tomorrow where it now sits in the category of
unfinished business.

North Carolina lawmakers, you have a decision to make. Are you going
to go backwards to a time the nation left long ago that everybody thought
we couldn`t go back to or, will you go forward?

Unfinished business tonight in that state. I cannot believe North
Carolina is thinking about going back to that, but they are absolutely
considering it. It`s on the docket for tomorrow. We`ll keep you posted.

That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow.

Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL".

Good evening, Lawrence.

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 CQ-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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>






  MORE FROM RACHEL MADDOW SHOW  
  
Rachel Maddow Show Section Front
 
Add Rachel Maddow Show headlines to your news reader:
 

Sponsored links

Resource guide