THE ED SHOW
February 4, 2014
Guests: Mike Papantonio, Louis Greenwald, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Michael Brune, Bob King, Connie Schultz
ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed
Show live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. Let`s get to work.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) NEW JERSEY: I am stunned by the abject
stupidity that was shown here.
SCHULTZ: Which is he still got a long way to go if you want to be the
governor and the leader in this country.
CHRISTIE: And I`ll say one last thing, just so we`re really clear, I
had no knowledge or involvement in this issue, in its planning or its
execution.
JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART HOST: Basically placing
his entire political future on the unequivocal statement that he knew
nothing about the Fort Lee GW Bridge traffic closures.
CHRISTIE: And the answer is still the same. It`s unequivocally no.
STEWART: It just got real.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who can vouch for him? Well, his former deputy
chief of staff Bridget Kelly .
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The key official at the center of the scandal,
Bridget Anne Kelly, is taking the Fifth and refusing to turn over any
documents.
CHRISTIE: I know everything I needed to know from a point of
employment from Bridget Kelly when she didn`t tell me the truth and I fired
her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for
watching. Chris Christie and his former aide Bridget Kelly are now playing
some serious defense over the Bridgegate scandal.
Bridget Kelly is Christie`s Former Deputy Chief of Staff who actually
wrote in a message to start this whole thing to David Wildstein, "Time for
some traffic problems in Fort Lee." It`s still bold from there.
New Jersey Democrats have issued subpoenas for Kelly to turn over
documents and her electronic devices. One goal of the subpoenas is to find
out if Governor Christie was involved with the lane closures.
On Monday, Bridget Kelly`s lawyer said that she will not comply with
the subpoena saying, "Unfettered access to Kelly information could
potentially reveal highly personal confidential communications not related
to the bridge scandal. The plot thickens.
On Monday night, Christie said that he`s just fine with Kelly pleading
the Fifth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIE: What I`ve said to all of these people that have lawyers now
is that I hope they would share information with us but I also understand
that people have rights. We`re certainly going to be asking and have asked
for information from folks and if folks give it to us, great. And if they
don`t because they say they`re exercising their constitutional rights, I
don`t think any of us can be critical of someone for exercising their
constitutional rights.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Who needs an attorney if you didn`t do anything wrong? Of
course, the governor respects Kelly`s rights. If Chris Christie was
involved, there`s no doubt Kelly is protecting the governor.
New Jersey Democrats are not happy with Kelly pleading the Fifth. The
legislative panel investigating Bridgegate released a statement saying that
they are, "Considering legal options with respect to enforcing the
subpoena."
I think Kelly`s refusal to cooperate only strengthens David
Wildstein`s position to make a deal. He`s the only person who has turned
on Christie at this point.
Meanwhile, Governor Christie is still out defending himself. On
Monday night, Christie said, again said, that he was not involved with the
lane closures.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIE: The most important issue is did I know anything about the
plan to close these lanes, did I authorize it, did I know about it, did I
approve it, did I have any knowledge of it beforehand? And the answer is
still the same. It`s unequivocally no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: It`s almost as if Christie is talking to a jury. Of course
he is an attorney by profession.
Later on in the interview, things got, I think very interesting.
Christie`s office originally denied the governor had any knowledge of the
lane closures until the closure has ended.
The governor made this very clear in his January 9th press conference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIE: I had no knowledge of this, of the planning, the execution
or anything about it. And then I first found out about it after it was
over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Well, on Monday night, Christie might have contradicted that
statement. The governor said he may have been aware of traffic issues at
the time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIE: The first time this really came in to my consciousness, as
an issue, was when Pat Foye, the Executive Director of the Port Authority`s
e-mail about this incident was leaked to the media and reported on.
And that was the first time that I got a sense that there might be
some issue here. I know prior to that that there were press accounts about
traffic issues up there. And if someone, you know, if even read that or
someone said something to me about traffic issues up there, it wouldn`t
have been meaningful to me because I didn`t know that there was any problem
up there, you know, because I didn`t know that we have actually closed the
lanes up there before that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: The e-mail Christie was talking about was published for the
Wall Street Journal on October 1st, the first news report on the lane
closures was on September 13th, the very same day the lanes were reopened.
Christie is not being clear on when he learned of any of this. Now,
the governor is saying that he didn`t know about the closures before they
happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIE: To make clear to everybody in the midst of, you know, all
the things that were reported over the weekend that nobody had said that I
knew anything about this before it happened. And I think that`s the most
important question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: This scandal is growing worse by the day for the governor of
New Jersey. For the first time, Christie is changing his wording on the
Bridgegate scandal. I think the fact that Wildstein says, "Evidence
exists" through his attorney saying that tying Christie to the lane
closures is the lynchpin to this entire investigation.
As for Bridget Kelly, it seems to me it`s a stall tactic. She`s
trying to do a deal as well. But why the Fifth if there`s no problem, if
it`s the truth that there`s no scandal, who needs an attorney?
Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, "Do you think Bridget Kelly is protecting Chris Christie?" Text
A for Yes, text B for No to 67622. You can always go to our blog at
ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.
For more, let me bring in Ring of Fire Radio Host and I call him
American`s attorney Mike Papantonio. Mike, good to have you with us
tonight.
Gosh, there`s a lot to read into this. You got people all over the
place taking the Fifth, you got Chris Christie using a little bit different
wording in the interviews now. In fact, I don`t even know why he did the
interview on radio.
But will Bridget Kelly -- I want to know first, Mike, will Bridget
Kelly get away with pleading the Fifth? Is this just a stall tactic or is
this going to be her position? What do you think?
MIKE PAPANTONIO, HOST, "RING OF FIRE RADIO": If I`m the lawyer, I
certainly want to stall this as much as I can. And yes, it`s a great stall
tactic. But subpoenas, Ed, are very scary thing. They`re the first step
to trapping co-conspirators if there`s potential criminal conduct and
things like obstruction of justice or perjury.
So if I`m her lawyer and I`m really advising her the best I can and
there`s no conflict of interest. I`m saying begin with the Fifth, we need
to time to figure out what`s going on and certainly don`t commit to
anything right now when it comes to defending this governor.
If the -- down the road, if prosecutors get involved and they`re doing
their job, the textbook approach to this is to build a case from the bottom
up. And the message that you get with subpoenas, even at this level, now
this is not criminal at this level but you could bet prosecutors are
looking at what`s happened.
But the message with the subpoena, Ed, is be concerned and when you
start building from the bottom what you start doing is you start looking
for frightened and disgruntled employees who are willing to talk. And so -
- already, you have Wildstein, I wouldn`t say Wildstein is .
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PAPANTONIO: . disgruntled employees, you have Kelly. At this point,
she`s an unknown. You have Christina Renna who resigned. She answered
directly to Kelly. You have Bill Stepien who now has pled the Fifth.
So everything is happening from a bottom-up kind of analysis of how do
you start a real investigation. It seems to be starting on its own.
SCHULTZ: Well, it seems to me that David Wildstein is in a better
position today now that Bridget Kelly has come out and pleaded the Fifth.
Obviously, she`s the key player in all of this, and she was the one that
was fired. So she`s at the center of all of this.
PAPANTONIO: Yeah.
SCHULTZ: So if she`s going to plead the Fifth, does that strengthen
Wildstein`s position to do a deal with the prosecutor?
PAPANTONIO: I think he does. Look, a potential criminal
investigation, if it`s down the road, sometimes it feels like musical
cheers. The worst thing you can do is be the first -- be the last person
standing in those musical cheers. You don`t want to be that person.
So right now, we see everybody, their lawyers are advising them on how
to adjust to these musical cheers. And right now, if I`m .
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PAPANTONIO: . Wildstein`s lawyers, I`m saying, "OK. Things are
looking better." You probably ought to talk if you`re telling the truth
about the fact that you have evidence. Now is the time to go forward with
that evidence.
So the musical cheers have started. The bottom-up investigation has
started. This is the classic anatomy of what I would describe as the --
just the bottom-up investigation and it`s happening interestingly enough,
it`s happening by a way of Democratic committee members that are asking all
this to happen.
At this point, I don`t know whether prosecutors are overseeing this.
But probably that is going on to some degree.
SCHULTZ: So how are they going to get to the bottom of this if
everybody is pleading the Fifth? Where does that go? Are they just going
to wait for somebody like a David Wildstein to step forward and back up
that letter that he had his attorney write to the prosecutors saying,
"Evidence exists"? And what does that mean?
PAPANTONIO: Yeah. Ed, evidence exist means come talk to me. That`s
what it means. Evidence exist means, look, I have asked them to pay for my
legal defense. They refused to do that. Evidence exist means come talk to
me and I might give you more information. This lawyer is .
SCHULTZ: OK.
PAPANTONIO: . representing his own client. He is not representing
Chris Christie here.
SCHULTZ: OK. So how are they going to get to the bottom of this if
nobody steps forward? Are they -- actually prosecutors might be happy
everybody is thanking the Fifth because then somebody is going to have to
move forward or am I wrong on that?
PAPANTONIO: Somebody will move forward. For example the Renna woman
who just resigned. She resigned, she hasn`t pled the Fifth yet but
somebody said it`s time to get out of here and understand that this is no
coincidence. There are few coincidences when you start seeing something
like this unfold.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PAPANTONIO: There is no coincidence that she was answerable to Kelly.
And she said you know what?
SCHULTZ: All right.
PAPANTONIO: I`m out of here.
SCHULTZ: Mike, let`s get inside the head of Governor Chris Christie
for a moment. He is a former prosecutor. He knows how this arena works.
He must -- if he is involved here, if, if, if, if he is involved and it
eventually points to him, he must be walking a tight rope here very
confident that his people are going to cover for him. And this isn`t going
to be a moment of downfall.
I mean the guy goes out to the -- he goes out to a two-hour press
conference. He goes on radio again, he is holding this line, what do you
make of that? Where is -- Where is his head at if he`s involved here?
PAPANTONIO: There is nothing equivocal about what he said as your
point and I agree. And what he has confidence in is that he-said-she-said
scenario. "I`m the governor and I said it. I`m the governor and I have
all of these -- I must step above you when it comes to believability."
He is going to -- he has to be .
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PAPANTONIO: . able to deny, deny, deny and unless documents come
forward and that`s what -- that`s where this is really going to turn unless
we start seeing more documents or unless we see a Christina Renna type
character say, "You know what? This is ridiculous. We talked about it in
the office. We talked about it over drinks."
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PAPANTONIO: He knew about it. Until that starts happening, he may
feel very comfortable taking that position. Ultimately, it`s not
believable. If you remember, Ed, this is where he started when he was
asked the question whether or not your staff was involved. And he
unequivocally said .
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PAPANTONIO: . "No, they weren`t involved." We`ve seen it before and
the world .
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
PAPANTONIO: . doesn`t operate in a vacuum. It`s engaging to them and
he doesn`t knows that.
SCHULTZ: All right, Mike -- Mike Papantonio, thank you for joining us
tonight.
I want to bring in New Jersey Assemblyman Louis Greenwald who is on
the Investigative Committee. Great to have you with us, Mr. Greenwald. I
appreciate your time.
Has the governor been clear to you on when he found out about the
Bridge closures or did his interview yesterday kind of muddy the waters?
LOUIS GREENWALD, (D-NJ) STATE ASSEMBLYMAN: You know, Ed, it`s very
interesting sitting in our position as members of the Investigative
Committee in the legislature that has launched this investigation.
I`m sure you can appreciate -- well you hear one version versus
another. We have to take and assume that his statements are true and that
he is speaking honestly just evenly as we have to assume that Mr. Wildstein
and any of the other witnesses or people that have received subpoenas to
provide investigation and discovery tools are all telling the truth.
Where this will come down is if their stories at some point conflict
and if there are other witnesses or other people that have discovery that
choose one side or the other to start to let -- to start to make the case
and if there is evidence from documentation that proves one side or the
other.
I listened to the governor`s statement .
SCHULTZ: How hard .
GREENWALD: . the other day, it was very interesting.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
GREENWALD: Go ahead, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Mr. Greenwald, how hard is this going to be if everybody has
taken the Fifth? Where does that take you and your committee?
GREENWALD: You know, Ed, Mr. Wildstein took the Fifth at the
committee and then he released a statement. I think, you know, it`s a slow
process, it`s a methodical process but I think what`s important is the
reason we went out and hired Reid Schar`s council is because of his
experience and background in this area. And he is interacting and
interfacing with counsels from the individuals that receive the subpoenas
and those organizations.
And there is a collegial dialog, a professional dialog going back and
forth. We`ve started to receive information, extensions have been provided
in a reasonable time frame, customary in a case like this.
And as we start to gather and review that information, it will lead to
further questions, it would lead to who is coming and testify, when and
why. And whether or not there are other people that we should reach out
to.
Which, you know, going back to the governor`s statements, Ed, if you
have to take them from this committee standpoint and that everything they
say and everyone says is true. You made the point he is counting on
everybody protecting them. He maybe counting on the fact that he is
telling the truth and it`s impossible to prove a negative.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
GREENWALD: That`s what the discovery will decide .
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
GREENWALD: . and that`s what the investigation should hold up.
SCHULTZ: A very fair and profound point, no question about that, Mr.
Greenwald.
Now, I want to focus in on Wildstein`s letter. What does it mean when
you hear the term evidence exists?
GREENWALD: Well, look, as a lawyer I would say the evidence exists that he
either has documentation, a tape that he has, a conversation that he can
reproduce, a text, a phone message, something that is hard evidence that he
can present or a witness to a conversation.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
GREENWALD: But we don`t know what it means right now. We haven`t
heard anything further .
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
GREENWALD: . from Mr. Wildstein. But what I would say to you is
again, the same truth that we afford to the governor is what we must afford
to Mr. Wildstein. And as the case progresses, as the investigation
progresses, we will determine who is telling the truth. And really
ultimately what the ultimate question is where was the abuse of power,
where did it begin, how deep did it go, and very much unfortunately, like
Watergate, what did the governor know and when did he know it?
SCHULTZ: And finally, Mr. Greenwald, are you comfortable with the
explanation and the timing of events that the governor presented last night
in his radio interview?
I mean it seems if I could render personal judgment here, it seems to
me that the two didn`t exactly jive. That there were -- that there was
some room there that the verbiage was certainly different and it was
presented in a different way. Would you -- how would you characterize it?
GREENWALD: You know, Ed, again, I have to look at this through the
lands of the investigatory committee. And I would tell you, in any
communication .
SCHULTZ: OK.
GREENWALD: . model, there is biases and there are individual versions
of the truth. So .
SCHULTZ: OK.
GREENWALD: . my question is the governor parsing his words or is he
trying to clarify a previous statement? Well, we`re going to need to find
.
SCHULTZ: OK.
GREENWALK: . this evidence that produce that his statement was not a
clarification but an inaccuracy.
SCHULTZ: All right. Louis Greenwald, I appreciate your time tonight.
Thanks so much. New Jersey Assemblyman who was on the investigating
committee.
Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the
screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @EdShow and on Facebook.
We want to know what you think always. Appreciate that.
Coming up, pipe dreams. We tackle the Keystone Pipeline debate. Two
people against it, I`m for it, we`ll discuss it. All I want is the facts.
Still ahead, in Trenders, the Affordable Care Act is taking the
popularity of the Puppy Bowl into overtime. Stay with us. We`ll be right
back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Time now for the Trenders social media action. This is
where you find me on Twitter @edshow and on the radio on Sirius XM 127 noon
to 3PM Monday through Friday. We`re talking a lot about the pipeline these
days if you want to join me.
The Ed Show social media nation has decided and we are reporting.
Here are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which team do you play for?
SCHULTZ: The number three Trender, Baller.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You and the Seattle Seahawks just won the Super
Bowl. What are you going to do next?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wilson was selected by the Texas Rangers in the
Rule 5 draft.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to know about his baseball career, man. I
think he did all right.
CARL SMITH: He is the baseball expert.
RUSSELL WILSON: No. I played second base so.
SCHULTZ: The Seahawks star quarterback has all his bases covered.
WILSON: I`m sure I`ll go down there for spring training and just to
talk some other players and hang out some.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, lets see what you can do?
WILSON: I love baseball but, you know, football is what my first love
is.
SCHULTZ: The number two Trender, not a fluke.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Politics in your future?
SANDRA FLUKE, WOMEN`S RIGHTS ACTIVIST: We`ll see. Maybe someday.
SCHULTZ: The women`s rights activist takes a step toward a run for
Congress.
ALYONA MINKOVSKI, THE ALYONA SHOW HOST: Sandra Fluke, it looks she`s
now going to throw her hat into the ring.
ARTHUR DELANEY, HUFFINGTON POST REPORTER: She`s got tremendous
national name recognition.
LUKE JOHNSON, ASSOCIATE POLITICS EDITOR, HUFFINGTON POST: She`s the
Democratic hero.
MINKOVSKI: If she runs successfully, she`ll take defeat of
Congressman Henry Waxman.
FLUKE: I think we really need more women in office and we need young
women in office.
SCHULTZ: And today`s top Trender, head project.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You take care of us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now it`s our turn to take care of you.
SCHULTZ: A new ad campaign or just furry friends to get young adult
insured.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have every budget so don`t accept defeat.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Speak.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it`s a talking dog.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now you can`t get covered and still.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Glimy (ph) treats.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight, Connie Schultz of Nationally Syndicated
Columnist and Contributor to Parade Magazine. Connie, great to have with
us again on the program.
CONNIE SCHULTZ, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Thanks.
SCHULTZ: I`m curious your thoughts on this ad. There is a real
demographic push that`s being made now to get young adults and that ad
right there seemed to be boarder line juvenile. I mean it`s almost as if
they`re trying everything they possibly can top get people to sign up. You
think this will have an impact?
C. SCHULTZ: Well let`s look at the option here you can have an ad
that says something like you only think you`re not going to get sick and
die. Or you could have pets singing and talking in an ad. I think that
with the roll out, they said 60 percent of women in some survey so they
would risk their lives to save their pets. I don`t want to know the other
40 percent.
I`m a big pet lover so I think if nothing else it`s nice to have a
little levity to this to get their attention and maybe actually get them to
enroll.
SCHULTZ: Well, I hope it does there`s new information out today from
the Congressional Budget Office, a new report estimates that the Affordable
Care Act will lead to a decline in full-time positions almost two million
by the year 2017.
Now, obviously the right wing has jumped all over this but this says
it`s going to be from workers supplying less hours because they`re not
going to have to work longer to pay for the premiums because the cost is
going to come down.
Have you see this CBO report? It`s almost like it`s a report in
social engineering here. I don`t know how they would have come out with a
number like this but is this somewhat of a roadblock in the pitch to get
people to sign up?
C. SCHULTZ: I don`t think it will deter people from signing up. When
I -- I saw Facebook and Twitter was blowing up with these figures this
afternoon and I will say what I`ve been saying all along this is the
beginning not the end of this law. We have to start somewhere. And I
don`t -- we don`t know yet if these numbers are going to bear out. We
don`t know yet what a lot of things in terms of what needs to be adjusted,
what needs to be fixed in the law. Any major reform requires additional
legislation down the road.
And I remain optimistic I`ve said it -- you and I talked about this
before, Ed, we had to start somewhere that I am really glad we`ve started
here.
SCHULTZ: Saving peoples lives is a great place to start, making sure
people don`t go bankrupt because they got a healthcare bill. It`s also a
great place to start that. That`s one of my pet peeves on the radio show.
I keep hearing politicians say, "Well, you know, we`ve got to fix it." Fix
what? Everything has to be fixed.
The fact is these are two major heavy lifts in the healthcare industry
and the antis are going to come up with anything they can, such as the case
for Republicans still fighting the healthcare law in the state of Arkansas,
where Arkansas state Republicans do not want to accept federal money to
keep the Medicaid expansion running next year which could affect 85,000
people in the state who have signed up.
Is this new the attack by the GOP? Is this going to flourish? What
do you think?
C. SCHULTZ: What I think in part is that they go after people in
poverty, people who need us. Because they know they`re not supporting them
anyway.
What they don`t -- what they`re counting on us -- they also won`t
vote. And that so many people who do have access to healthcare won`t care
about these people. But you look at the polling. Increasingly, it looks
to me and even just anecdotally more and more Republicans around the
country, not Republican legislatures, regular Americans who tend to vote
Republican actually do care about people in poverty and they care about
these programs .
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
C. SCHULTZ: . they were going to cost the state virtually nothing.
SCHULTZ: Interesting in the state of Virginia where Terry McAuliffe
was just elected governor, Republicans are embracing the Medicaid
expansion. In fact, the new poll shows that 55 percent of the states
Republicans back the expansion as long as it`s federally funded.
C. SCHULTZ: Right.
SCHULTZ: I mean what does the split say about the GOP? Is the tide
turning with their view on healthcare? And they realize how effective it
is.
C. SCHULTZ: I think that`s right. And, you know, a lot of times -- a
lot of these Republicans who are advocating to strip these rights, to strip
this coverage to people who are living in poverty also claim to be God-
fearing Americans.
And I was raised by a Born Again Christian. I think I`ve quoted on
your show before which you said being a Christian means fixing yourself and
helping others not the other way around.
I truly wonder what they imagine that conversation would be with the
God they worship and trying to explain how they`re doing this to people.
This is indefensible.
SCHULTZ: It is. Connie Schultz, always great to have you on the
program. I appreciate your time tonight at the Ed Show. Thank you so
much.
Coming up, a reality check on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, Rapid
Response Panels weighs in.
Later, a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee could become the first foreign
owned car factory in the United States with a union. We`ll have the
details in the Punch Out segment coming up.
But next, I`m taking your questions on Ask Ed Live. That`s next on
the Ed Show on MSNBC. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Love hearing from our viewers
here on the Ed Show tonight in our Ask Ed Live segment.
Our first question comes from Rebecca, she wants to know "Do you think
that Americans are starting to understand their power to make change, and
that it starts at the ballot box?"
Gosh, Rebecca, certainly, I hope so. You know, 2012, the fact that
Barack Obama was reelected tells me that a lot of people still have a lot
of hope and faith that things can get done. The real challenge for the
Democrats to the progressive movement is going to be the House which is
heavily gerrymandered.
I don`t like the news that`s coming out that there are some heavy
democratic donors that are saying "Well, we`re going to focus on the
senate." No, I think you`re going to focus on the House. I think
conditions are bad enough for the Republicans right now that even in the
environment of being gerrymandered, some good things can happen and some
seeds can be picked up enough to get the majority back.
So, yes, I do think that the issues and folks are paying attention to
whom were -- could make a difference.
Our next question comes from Allen, "Do you think the GOP will vote on
anything of substance before the midterm primaries?"
I`ve talked to a lot of lawmakers about this. They are confident
about possibly immigration reform. I`m not.
See, I think the Republicans want to go home with some good economic
news. I think there`s going to be enough Republicans going to go into to
caucus and say, "You know what, give them the minimum wage. Give them
something." Let me go home with some good economic news, because right
now, the Republicans just seem to be against everything. I think they`re
going to want to go home next on August being able to say something
positive saying that we were actually for something and did something for
the workers in this country. I think they`re going to pull it out. I
think minimum wage has a chance before the midterm.
Stick around Rapid Response Panel coming up next. We`ll be right
back.
SUE HERERA, CNBC ANCHOR: I`m Sue Herera with your CNBC Market Wrap.
The stocks gain back some ground after yesterday`s steep sale off. The DOW
has 72, the S and P is up 13, and the NASDAQ rises 34.
Orders from manufacture good spell less than expected in the December
excluding transportation. They were just up slightly.
Meanwhile, home prices slipped in December, but for all of 2013, they
were up 11 percent.
And J.C. Penney said sales rose 2 percent in the fourth quarter but
that was below analyst forecast. The shares slid more than 10 percent.
That`s it from CNBC. We are first in business worldwide.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight.
After the State Department issued their long awaited study on the Keystone
XL Pipeline on Friday, the debate over construction has only intensified.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re expanding development in one of the most
carbon intensive, dirty fuel sources on the planet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was long overdue (ph). Number one, it`s
environmentally safe and secured, number two -- number three, its good
quality paying jobs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We -- our original argument was that it was going
to create 250,000 jobs. And at this point in their filing, they`ve gotten
down to 35 permanent jobs.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every single other pipeline project similar in
nature has been approved in two years or less. So, this has just become
about politics.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Potentially, 50 weeks over the course of the
project.
RON KAMINSKI, LABORERS UNION LOCAL 1140: And we`re talking about tax
revenue for the State of Nebraska and the local communities that this
pipeline is going to go through.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s nothing complex about the Keystone
Pipeline. It`s time to build it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Now, I want the audience of the Ed Show to know, the
listeners of my radio show to know, that I`ve never really had a position
on this pipeline until now. And it`s not about jobs, it`s about safety.
And it`s about energy independence. Now, I know my stands on the Keystone
XL Pipeline is going to make some liberals hot on to the collar and attack
me on Twitter. That`s fine. I can take it. That`s part of the territory.
I welcome the debate. But in fairness in conversation, I want you to take
a look at these numbers and tell me where we`re going to go from here.
Last November, almost 800,000 barrels of oil a day were shipped by
rail from the Bakken Shale into Dakota`s and Montana where the Bakken Shale
exists -- huge oil-fined for America. Now, according to the Association of
American Railroads, the number of rail cars carrying crude oil on major
rail roads in the Unites States is projected to have grown by more than
6,000 percent between the years 2007 and 2013. Folks were pulling oil,
American oil out of the ground.
There`s an oil boom. The current infrastructure wasn`t build to
handle this kind of production. And as a result, we`ve seen train
derailments and explosions. Folks, what I`m most concern about here in
this debate is safety. According to the State Department study that was
released on Friday, if we fail to build the pipeline and ship another
830,000 barrels per day on the rails, it would result in an estimated 49
additional injuries and six additional fatalities.
Now, this is a real human impact. You may not think it`s much, but I
think it`s something to look at. But, when it comes to the pipeline, most
opponents want to focus on the environmental impact, and I understand that.
Well, I`ve got some numbers for that too.
According to the same State Department study, if we keep using rails,
we`re looking at nearly 300 spills per year with over 1,200 barrels of oil
released. Now, if the pipeline is built, it would likely spill an average
of just 500 barrels with a leaking -- leak occurring once every two years.
Now, the bottom line here is, you can`t deny this is a debate over
safety. I don`t care whether you believe in oil or not. Our economy is
run by oil. That`s the way the world turns. Now, this oil isn`t going to
be going away anytime soon. We have gone to war because we were told we
needed oil. Now, we have an opportunity at oil independence. Now, we have
an opportunity to advance our own independence when it comes to self
reliance and energy in this country.
I`m for green. I`m for solar. I`m for wind energy. But, we have a
responsibility to adapt to the oil that`s coming out of our ground whether
you like it or not. It is a fact. Bakken Shale oil will be in the
Keystone Pipeline and it will alleviate the pressure that`s on the rail
system in this country. And it`s not a fair debate to any liberal, it`s
not a fair debate to any environmentalist in this country if you allow all
this oil to go on rails across this country and not be concerned about
safety.
Joining me now is our Rapid Response panel Michael Brune, who is the
Executive Director of the Sierra Club, and Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the
Natural Resources Defense Council.
I appreciate both of you being here tonight. I want your side of the
story on this. I`ve just given mine. Susan, why is your organization
against this pipeline? Why is it bad for America?
SUSAN CASEY-LEFKOWITZ, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: Well, you
know, Ed, you spoke about the safety issue and that`s really critical. And
the bottom line here is that, oil by rail, oil by pipeline, neither one is
safe, neither is good for America. And when you look at Keystone XL, this
is a pipeline that is being built mostly to take Tarzans from Canada
through America to the Gulf Coast where a lot of it is going to be turned
into diesel and export it. This is not really about U.S. energy
independence. It`s not about U.S. energy security. And it`s certainly not
about U.S. safety.
What`s really about is line in the pockets of the oil industry with
the higher prices that they can get overseas for their product. And that`s
bad for our waters. It`s bad for our farms, in the heartland of America,
where this pipeline would cross. And it`s bad for our climate.
SCHULTZ: Well, I take issue with what you say. It`s not about U.S.
safety, it is. It`s a proven fact that a pipeline is much safer than a
rail, a pipeline is much safer than a truck, but I`ll let you stand on that
position. Does the Keystone Pipeline, Susan, offer any positives at all to
the United States?
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: It really doesn`t. This is not a pipeline that`s in
our national interest. And I`m sorry I didn`t mean to say that it wasn`t
about safety -- safety of course is a major concern. What I meant is that,
it`s not about U.S. energy security. It`s not about U.S. energy
independence when so much of the product coming through this pipeline would
be for export.
SCHULTZ: Well, it would be for export, but it would be refined here
in the United States instead of being refined in China. And I think that
that too is something that needs to be looked at. Michael Brune, where is
this Tarzan oil going to go if it doesn`t come through the pipeline?
MICHAEL BRUNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SIERRA CLUB: It won`t come out of
the grounds. That`s the whole point of this entire campaign, is that right
now, the Tarzans in Canada. And remember, the Tarzans is more toxic, more
corrosive, more carbon intensive, and it`s landlocked. The only way in
which this oil can get out and for the industry to grow up in Alberta is if
more pipelines are built. And they are being stalled. The pipeline to the
U.S. has been delayed as you know for five years.
Two proposed pipelines to the West Coast of Canada are being resisted
and they are getting in the water. And pipelines to the east also are
facing some steep resistance. If you don`t believe the Sierra Club or
NRGC, listen to what the oil industry is saying. Oil industry analysts
have said, time and time again that they will not be able to grow. They
will not be able to increase the production of Tarzan`s oil if these
pipelines are not built. So, when, you know, and I think you`re right.
You`re very right to talk about safety. But our point is that we
shouldn`t have to choose between two bad ideas. We`re progressives. We
should have a big vision that works for all Americans. And we should not
have to chose between one risky option which is shipping all of these oil
through pipeline which we have a long record of spills. And another bad
option was to ship all these oil by rail which also has a long record of
spills. Our.
SCHULTZ: Well.
BRUNE: . our proposal is to keep this oil in the grounds and go all
and unclean energy instead.
SCHULTZ: That`s the key point. You said that.
BRUNE: Yeah.
SCHULTZ: . that it`s not going to get out of the ground. No one
knows that for sure. No one knows that for sure. The fact is, is that, if
this oil ends up in China, their refinery methods and their lack of
environmental standards are going to be far less to the United States.
They won`t refine it as well as we will and it will hurt the environment
even more. That oil, the case can be made, is going to come out of the
ground. Is there opposition to it? No question about it, there is.
There`s opposition to use of pipelines to the east and the west across
Canada, and there have been spills that make it controversial. But you
can`t guarantee that that oil is not going to come out of the ground. That
might be the environmental mission, but that`s not a guarantee, that`s not
an absolute. Just as.
BRUNE: Right.
SCHULTZ: . it`s not an absolute that it`s going to be exclusively
Tarzan oil in the Keystone Pipeline. We`ve got an oil fined here in
America that is sweet crude that obviously goes on the world market, but it
also helps us with energy independence and it changes our position with
foreign policy in the foreign policy debate where we`re not going to be
held hostage by foreign governments who have oil that we need when we`ve
got it here in our own term.
Susan, I want you to respond to that.
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: Well, you know, Ed, one of the interesting things as
we all know is that we`ve been doing a great job in the U.S. of reducing
our dependent fund oil. We`ve done that with our fuel efficiency.
SCHULTZ: We have.
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: . standards. And we can.
SCHULTZ: Excuse me.
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: Yeah.
SCHULTZ: That is a great point. That is a great a point. This XL
Pipeline, if it`s constructed and given the stamp of approval, doesn`t mean
you Susan or me or Michael are going to use anymore oil or have any bigger
of a footprint. The fact is.
BRUNE: Right. Because it will be.
SCHULTZ: . it`s about excess facility to market. Go ahead.
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: What it does.
BRUNE: It will be shipped overseas.
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: OK.
BRUNE: It will be shipped all the way to China. Go ahead Susan.
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: Well, and I think.
SCHULTZ: Which is not good.
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: . you know, I think that what we all kind of agree
on is that climate change is a real threat right now and it is threatening.
SCHULTZ: It is.
CASEY-LEFKOWITZ: . our safety, our health, our pocketbooks. We`re
seeing it in communities, all across the U.S. And as Mike said, we need to
be reaching for that bigger vision. What we`re really talking about here
is do we keep approving dirty energy project after dirty energy project or
do we really push forward hard with clean energy?
SCHULTZ: Well, I know -- no one can take an issue with that very, you
know, positive in real stands. But the lights in the studio are supplied
by a cold fire plant in North Dakota and it also supplies 18 states. How
else we`re going to turn on the lights? I mean, we`ve got to have a
diverse energy package part of this diversity. I mean, oil is here to
stay. And I think oil independence in place right into foreign policy.
I`m short on time.
Michael Brune, Susan Casey Lefkowitz, I want to have you both back on
the program. We`re going to continue these long discussions on this
pipeline and I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you for joining us.
We`ll do it again.
Coming up, a vote in Chattanooga, Tennessee next week could give labor
workers a much needed win on the south. Stay with us. We`ll be right back
in the Ed Show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, Georgia Reach. Greg Morris, the
Georgia state rep is targeting the poor with broadcasting. If you`re on
food stamps, this southern gentleman wants your specimen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And should people who received food stamps, we
require to take a drug test.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. A bill introduced in the Georgia
legislature would make it mandatory.
STATE REP. GREG MORRIS, (R) VIDALIA: The most important thing that we
do up here at the capitol is protecting tax payer`s dollars. Make sure
they`re spent wisely and I can`t think of anything more egregious than for
people`s tax payer dollars to be used to subsidize drug abuse.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Greg Morris is taking a page out of Governor Rick Scott`s
bad ideas book. Scott signed a law to drug test toward the residence in
need only to have the violating requirements track down.
The state rep`s bill should go no further than the waste basket. If
Greg Morris believes helping a community means marginalizing them, he can
keep on pretending.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. This is the story for the
folks who take a shower after work. I love this one. A Volkswagen
assembly plant in Tennessee, could become the first foreign own car factory
in the United States with a union. Workers in the Chattanooga, Tennessee
plant will vote next week on whether they`ll join the United Automobile
Workers.
If the vote goes through the UAW, it would establish a first of its
kind German-style works council. The UAW would negotiate wages and
benefits under Tennessee`s right to work law. Workers would not have to
join the union to be represented. Republican Senator Bob Corker who is the
former mayor of Chattanooga, Tennessee has expressed concerns about job
losses if the UAW takes hold.
He`s on the wrong side of this I think. Foreign auto companies have
opened factories at the United States, generally in states with less union
activity. The UAW has struggled to add members from those facilities.
Joining me tonight, Bob King, United Auto Workers President. Mr.
King, good to have you with us tonight. How big opportunity is this for
the UAW and these workers if this vote is thumbs up, Bob?
BOB KING, PRESIDENT, UNITED AUTO WORKERS: Well, it`s tremendously
important for the workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It allows them to be
part of the co-determination system globally. B.W. is a great company.
They believe in union representation. They believe in co-determination.
They say co-determination is a critical factor in their success. And this
will give Chattanooga workers the right to set on the global works council.
The right to have input and quality and productivity and where new product
goes. So, it`s tremendous opportunity for the workers in Chattanooga.
SCHULTZ: So, explain this German works council. What does that mean?
This is the first time, I think, a lot on our audience have ever heard that
term and what it means, what impact it would have?
KING: Well, under the German co-determination law, where co-
determination is set up by law in that country. They set up works councils
that look at the workplace issues, health and safety issues, production
standard issues, over time issues, things like that. The works council
deals with in the U.S. under normal contract relationships that`s all dealt
with this part of the contract.
In Chattanooga, if the workers decide that they want UAW
representation, we`ve been really clear that we`re going to set up the
first works council in the United States that would bring a closer
relationship between white-collar, blue-collar, between management in
hourly, that everybody in all UAW facilities -- it`s our 21st century
philosophy that we`re partners where we work everyday for the success of
the companies where we represent workers. Because we know that`s the best
way to get the best wages, benefits and security for workers that`s have
companies be successful. The Volkswagen is an opportunity for us to take
that a step further. We`re very excited about that opportunity for the
workers and for ourselves as a union.
SCHULTZ: UAW represents workers at a Mitsubishi plant in Normal,
Illinois. Will approval of this vote in Tennessee help the UAW to, I
guess, reach other foreign car factories here in the United States? Is
this a break through if it happens?
KING: I definitely think it`s a break through. We know from long
history that workers everywhere in the United States, it doesn`t matter if
they`re south, east, west, or north, want union representation, when
companies give them a free decision on whether they want to join the union.
So, this will demonstrate where workers in Chattanooga vote to be
represented by the UAW because the employers said it`s your decision.
We`re going to be neutral in this.
We believe that workers should have the right to representation. It
will show that workers everywhere given the opportunity being unions a free
democratic opportunity. We`ll choose representation and that will give us
a great opportunity to take this works council model and apply it in the
U.S. that I think will. Look at Germany. It`s been the most successful
industrialized country because of co-determination.
SCHULTZ: All right. Bob King, UAW, great to have you with us
tonight. I appreciate your time. Good luck to you. Thanks so much.
That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. Politics Nation 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
Copyright 2014 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 for Tuesday, February 4th, 2014
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show