IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

PoliticsNation, Wednesday, December 10th, 2014

Read the transcript from the Wednesday show

December 10, 2014

Guest: Jan Schakowsky; Ryan Grim, Ken Padowitz, Faith Jenkins, Julia
Cunningham, Jimmy Williams, Zerlina Maxwell

REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: All these titles tonight. Thank you,
Dr. Dyson. And thanks to you for tuning in.

We start tonight with breaking news. Republicans are pushing for a massive
give away to big banks and threatening on shut down the government if they
don`t get their way.

Just 30 hours before money runs out to fun the government, GOP lawmakers
are using a proposed spending bill to speak in a measure that would gut
financial reform. One of president Obama`s key achievements.

This morning, Senator Elizabeth Warren took to the Senate floor to fight


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: We put these rules in place
after the collapse of the financial system because we wanted to reduce the
risk that reckless gambling on Wall Street could ever again threaten jobs
and livelihoods on Main Street. We put this rule in place because people
of all political persuasions were disgusted at the idea of future bailouts.
And now, no debate, no discussion, Republicans in the House of
Representatives are threatening to shut down the government if they don`t
get a chance to repeal it.


SHARPTON: The target of fire from Senator Warren and others is a rule that
would undo regulation, preventing banks from placing risky bets with
taxpayer money.

"The New York Times" reports, though, the measure was, quote, "essentially
written by lobbyists for Citigroup."


WARREN: This is a democracy and the American people didn`t elect us to
stand up for city group. They elected to us stand up for all the people.
I urge my colleagues in the house, particularly my Democratic colleagues
whose votes are essential to moving this package forward, to withhold
support from it until this risky give away is removed from the legislation.


SHARPTON: Today that message is galvanizing Democrats. House minority
leader Nancy Pelosi says she is deeply troubled.

Senator Sherrod Brown says it is a giveaway to Wall Street.

And retired congressman Barney Frank, the financial reform law is named
after him. He calls the bill, a stealth attack.

Democrats have the power to stop this plan from moving forward. Senator
Warren and others should use that power.

Join me now is Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Democrat Illinois and MSNBC`s
Joy Reid. Thank you both for being here.



SHARPTON: Congresswoman, this is an attempt to gut financial reform
written by lobbyists behind closed doors and slipped in at the last minute.
What is your reaction?

SCHAKOWSKY: This is one of the most audacious moves by the financial
services industry to absolutely gut the controls that we put on so they
would not be able to bankrupt our country again. Almost bring us to
bankruptcy. These people have now voted to repeal, or to put in blunt
language, to actually repeal. This is the name of the provision that they
want repealed. Prohibition against federal government bailout of swap

SHARPTON: That`s the name of it.

SCHAKOWSKY: That`s the name of the provision --

SHARPTON: Now, the big question. Will you vote for it?

SCHAKOWSKY: I am absolutely a no vote on this. Taxpayers once again
should come to the rescue of companies for making these risky investments.
No way. I am not going to vote.

SHARPTON: But you speak of Boehner, Congresswoman Schakowsky. Needs
Democrats to pass this vote because the extreme right doesn`t want to vote
for it because of immigration and other things I`ll get into. He can`t
pass this without Democrats. Will Democrats vote for it or will they vote
no like you just said you would?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, I`m certainly talking to a number of my colleagues who
are leaning against the bill, or actually going to vote against the bill.
Look, if those Republicans want to bail out Wall Street, once again, now
and forever, I feel they should do it on their own. And not come to
Democrats who finally got some protection from the risky activities of Wall
Street. And I am just absolutely --

SHARPTON: Let me to go my colleague, Joy Reid. Senator Warren points out,
we`re talking about the same risky bets, Joy, that crippled the economy
just a few years ago. Listen to this.


WARREN: A deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision
that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer
money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten
to blow up our financial system. These are the same banks that nearly
broke the economy in 2008 and destroyed millions of jobs.


SHARPTON: Isn`t that the key point that America has seen firsthand, what
this kind of bet, what the danger that these risky bets have done to this

REID: And I think probably Congress is counting on the fact that the
American who may not be paying attention to the specifics or understand the
specifics because -- and just to put it in plain language, before Dodd
Frank, what tanked the economy, part of what tanked the U.S. economy was
that Wall Street would bet on these credit default swaps. This complicated
really risky bet. And if they won, they made money. But if they lost,
they were bailed out by the taxpayer through FDIC.

This -- Dodd Frank moved that kind of credit default swap bet out of the
category that taxpayers could bail out. Put them in a category that could
not be bailed out by us, by you and me, by the taxpayer. Now, the
financial services industry has been pushing. Wall Street is pushing to
get back in the category where they get bailed out.

This would literally reinstitute the kind of casino betting that the
taxpayer would bail them out if they lose and they would make all the money
if they win. It would put things exactly back where they were before Dodd

So it is a really outrageous provision to slip in without debate. It
didn`t get debated on the house floor. It was put in at the last minute.
It is literally from the lobbyist`s desk directly to the House of
Representatives. And if this goes through, then Democrats, I`m not sure
how they can call themselves Democrats. Nancy Pelosi has to whip this vote
for it to go through. They need 218 votes. That means Nancy Pelosi will
have to whip forward. If she does, there are going to be a lot of
questions ask by liberals in the party.

SHARPTON: Now Congresswoman, it seems also that they did didn`t push --
they didn`t bark, let me put that way, around immigration. But they`re
barking around financial reform in this last minute trick.

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, this is where the real money is. You know, the
lobbyists are swarming all over Capitol Hill. And Joy is just right. It
is a heads I win, tails you lose kind of situation. And the only ones that
are at risk would be the taxpayers. So this is a big deal for those who
want to curry favor with the Wall Street donors.

And the American people stand at risk again. People who had money in their
401(k)s. Workers were, you know, so many jobs, millions of jobs were lost
and they want to go -- the Wall Street wants to go back to the same
privileged situation. We say no and I`m going to certainly be working to
get as many Democrats as possible to just say no.

SHARPTON: Joy, Elizabeth Warren electrified the day when she went to the
Senate floor and took this on. And she has a very clear constituency now
across the country. And this has a lot of implications in terms of 2016
and her following and it has implications for others politically because
she is taking this on.

REID: Absolutely. And you have Chuck Schumer and other Democrats inside
of the caucus within the Senate who are very close with Wall Street. So
this is not something that has only Republican finger prints on it. But
the problem for Democrats is that this is not the new Congress. This is
the lame duck Congress still controlled, at least, in the Senate by

So if this passes, their fingerprints, then, are on something that
essentially reverses the one thing that came out.

SHARPTON: Dodd Frank.

REID: Dodd Frank, the one thing that came out of the tanking of the United
States economy. The great recession. This huge defunding of the American
economy that hurt almost every American. The idea that Wall Street has
been lobbying from the very beginning to go back to the days when they
could have the heads we win, tails you lose economy where they could bet it
all. Bet on this credit default swap. And if their bet loses, we still
bail them out. The American people really need to pay attention to this.

SHARPTON: No, you`re right.

And Congresswoman, you know, the thing that galls me, "Wall Street Journal"
points out, banks just had their best quarter since the crisis posing their
biggest quarterly revenue increase since 2009.

And yet that`s not enough. More rule changes are needed? I mean, they`re
going to do this if Democrats can`t stand up on this one, it is going to
divide the party and people like me are going to be loud and long calling
them out on this.

SCHAKOWSKY: Exactly. As if it isn`t enough, the kinds of profits they`ve
been making.

But you know what? John Boehner can solve this problem right now. He can
take that provision out of the legislation. And Democrats will vote to
keep the government open, of course, we want to. But not to make the kinds
of tradeoff that`s say the whole economy will be at risk again by the hands
of the greed of Wall Street. I`m certainly not going to be complicit in

SHARPTON: Now, he can just take it out of the bill. I mean, explain the
process. He can just take it out and they can vote for the bill, what has
to happen?

SCHAKOWSKY: They can absolutely change the legislation. It is not too
late. We haven`t seen that bill yet. It has not been on the floor. A
vote hasn`t been taken. And you know, these things can be done within
hours to make it more palatable and not to offend all the American people,
99 percent of the American people. It could be done, absolutely.

SHARPTON: Surely, we`re going to be watching this one. I mean, this would
really cut a lot Dodd Frank.

REID: Yes. And they`re doing it at the same time that some of the other
compromise that`s Democrats made to get this $1.1 trillion bill, are
include a cut to pension, of people like truck drivers, middle class
Americans would be seeing a decrease in their pension earnings at the same
time that Wall Street would be getting this back.

And there are couple of ways this could go. We talked to (INAUDIBLE)
earlier today. There are possibility that you could see just a continuing
revolution path, a shorter term spending bill to give more time to work it
out. It could also end up in conference if the Senate pass a version
without this in it. Then, you could go to conference and take it out.
There are ways to get it out.


SHARPTON: But one thing we should not allow is that they moon walk on the
American people in Dodd Frank.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and Joy Reid, thank you for your time tonight.

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you.

REID: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Be sure to catch Joy on "the Reid Report" weekdays at 2:00 p.m.
right here on MSNBC.

Coming up, Dick Cheney`s brand new defense of torture comments just moments
ago about one of the most shameful chapters in our history.

Plus, you`ve heard about too big to fail? What about too small for jail?
A bizarre ruling from the Bernie Madoff scandal is making headlines today.

Also, we`re saying goodbye to the one and only, Michele Bachmann.


REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: President Bachmann will allow you to
buy any light bulb you want.

Because he has a lots of (INAUDIBLE).


SHARPTON: And the ridiculous and some say sexist attacks on Kate
Middleton. It is ahead in "conversation nation."


SHARPTON: Malala Yousafzai was trending on facebook today. The 17-year-
old Pakistani activist accepted the Nobel peace prize for standing up to
the Taliban, fighting for education rights. Two years ago she was shot in
the head for going to school. Today she is standing strong.


MALALA YOUSAFZAI, ACTIVIST: I tell my story, not because it is unique, but
because it is not. It is the story of many girls. Today I tell their
stories too.


SHARPTON: On the MSNBC twitter feed, Parker wrote, good for her. She is
the youngest to win the award. After what she went through. What a brave

I agree Parker. We`ll talk more about Malala and about a big change in the

And royal dress, the controversy around it.

All right, of that coming up.

But first, please keep this conversation going on our facebook page or
tweet us @politicsnation.


SHARPTON: Breaking news. Just moments ago former vice president Dick
Cheney spoke out in his first TV interview since the release of the Senate
report on torture during the Bush era. Take a look.


terrible piece of work, basically. This seems deeply flawed. They didn`t
bother to interview key people involved in the program and I think that it
is sort of a classy example which you see too often in Washington where a
group of politicians get together and sort of throw the professionals you
understand the bus. We`ve seen it happen before. I can remember in Iran-


SHARPTON: A terrible piece of work? You heard him right. Vice president
Cheney just compared the use of torture to the Iran-contra scandal in a
positive light. It`s a stunning example of just how twisted the logic is
from the people who support torture in our name.

Joining me now is Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief of the "Huffington
Post." Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

SHARPTON: Ryan, what`s your response to those comments from vice president

GRIM: The Iran-contra part is I guess telling because that was -- that was
also a criminal conspiracy. You know -- .

SHARPTON: I couldn`t believe he went there.

GRIM: It doesn`t make any sense. What are you trying to say there? Now
the other part I think is fair. You know, nobody ever has disputed the
fact that Dick Cheney very much supported torture then and supports torture
now. He has always maintained that it has been effective and that, you
know, that he is fully been briefed.

And I think, you know, one of the reasons that the report didn`t focus on
Cheney is, one, the White House withheld about 9,400 documents that would
have allowed the Senate investigators to look more into the role of
administration officials. Secondly, when it started in 2009, there was a
fantasy that this was going to be a bipartisan effort. And in order to get
Republican buy-in at the outset, they made some tacit agreements not to
look into what the Bush administration in the White House did but rather to
look at the CIA now that Republicans still backed away from it. Yet the
Democrats kind of kept their promise just to look at the CIA.

Now, but why would they need to say that Dick Cheney was kept in the dark?
I think that has to do with the way that they said, look, torture wasn`t
effective. You know, that`s the argument that the Senate report wanted to

SHARPTON: But it is an argument that just doesn`t stand up and to show the
twisted logic. I mean, I just can`t get beyond, I can`t get past vice
president Cheney acting like Iran-contra was just made to look bad. I
mean, that`s the kind of twisted logic we`re dealing with here.

GRIM: He is kind of thumbing his nose at the rule of law there. He is
kind of -- he is kind of reminding the public that, you know, this isn`t
the first time that a rogue administration has embarked on, you know, a
broad criminal conspiracy and gotten away with it. And so, you know, it is
kind of a signal that this is the kind of thing that will happen again.

Now, he is somebody who deeply believes in executive authority. And so, he
believes that, you know, because Ronald Reagan wanted this to happen. You
know, he wanted to train and fund an army to overthrow a government in
Nicaragua. That even though the Congress said it was illegal to do that,
because the president controls foreign policy, that therefore it was legal
for the president to do.

So he believes that end. So he wants to remind people, look, they did
this. And only a few people went to jail and most of them got pardoned.
And the only reason that people did get in trouble is that you had these
politicians who politicized the work of good professionals and he is trying
to say that`s the exact same thing that happen here. That the president
can torture if he wants to.

SHARPTON: Let me go back to some other response of Cheney when you talk
about the president. He was asked if it was true that President Bush
wasn`t fully briefed on the program. I want to play his response.



CHENEY: I think he knew certainly the techniques that we did discuss the
techniques. There is nothing, there is no effort on our part to keep him
from that. He was just with the terrorist surveillance program on the
terrorist surveillance program. He had to personally sign off on that
every 30 to 45 days.

So the notion that the committee is trying to peddle that somehow the
agency was operating on a rogue basis and we weren`t being told or the
president wasn`t being told was just a flat out wrong.

With his book, he talks about first with respect to the program and then
with respect to the in house interrogation program. It started in the
summer of 2002 and he was fully informed.


SHARPTON: So where, Ryan, is the discrepancy here?

GRIM: Well, I think he is more or less telling the truth there. I mean,
the idea that there was something that Bush or Cheney could have learn
about this torture program and pulled the plug on it, you know, strains the
imagination. You know, this is something they very much encouraged. And I
think it is difficult, you know, for some people in Washington to, you
know, get their head around the idea that this was very much official
administration policy.

And it is kind of easier to think about it as a rogue agency. You know,
these were some bad apples that went off, you know, in the heat of the post
September 11th moments. Did some things they were embarrassed about
instead of the reality which is that, you know, the American administration
authorized this as official policy.

SHARPTON: All right, Ryan grim, thank you for your time tonight.

GRIM: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Coming up, is six years enough jail time for someone linked to
the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme?

Plus, the royal couple glommed it up here in New York and left behind a
ridiculous royal dress controversy.

But first, Michel Bachmann says farewell to Congress. We will send her off
"Politics Nation" style next.


SHARPTON: It`s finally here. The moment we`ve dreaded, the moment we home
would never come.


BACHMANN: It`s a privilege for me now, Mr. Speaker, also, to be in this
well, to deliver my last speech on this floor.


SHARPTON: Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann`s farewell address to
Congress. We`ve had some great times these past eight years. There`s so
much we`ll miss, starting with her always astute diagnosis of death care.


BACHMANN: This egregious system that will be ultimately known as death
care, must be defeated.

It will be very unpleasant if the death panels go into effect.

Let`s repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children,
kills senior citizens.


SHARPTON: The health care failure that is now helping millions of people.
Bachmann also did so much to illuminate the government`s anti- light bulb


BACHMANN: I introduce the light bulb freedom of choice act. And I think
darn well, you Knew New Hampshire, if you wanted to buy Thomas Anderson`s
wonderful invention, you should be able to.

President Bachmann will allow to you buy any light bulb you want.


SHARPTON: What would we do without President Bachmann to light our way?
She also brought a unique take on American history.


BACHMANN: The very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly
until slavery was no more in the United States.


SHARPTON: I think we can move on from that history lesson. She was
vigilant about guarding against danger even in the White House in Congress.


SHARPTON: President Obama and his socialist policies must be stopped.

I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the
people in Congress and final out, are they pro-America or anti-America?

Barack Obama has been the most dangerous president we have ever had on
American foreign policy.


SHARPTON: Thanks for looking out for us. But most of the time, we just
love waiting for what she would say next.


BACHMANN: This is one night when I hope what happens in Vegas doesn`t stay
in Vegas.

It reminds me of the Shakespeare line. Thou protests too much.

Because he has a lot of chutzpah.


SHARPTON: Thankfully, Congresswoman Bachmann said, even though she`s
leaving Congress, she plans to stay involved. And jokes aside, she struck
a nice note at the end of her farewell speech.


BACHMANN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you that I could have that
privilege of also being a stepping stone to look to the future so that the
next generation would live better than we do today. Thank you for the


SHARPTON: The congresswoman also graciously thanked all the staff and
volunteers. A nice touch. We wish Congresswoman Bachmann and her family
all the best in their future endeavors. Thanks for the memories. And good


SHARPTON: It`s time for the Justice Files. Joining me tonight, criminal
defense Attorney Ken Padowitz, and former prosecutor and host of "Judge
Faith," Faith Jenkins. Thank you both for being here.



SHARPTON: Is six years in prison enough punishment for being part of the
largest Ponzi scheme ever? You remember in 2008, Bernie Madoff pled guilty
to bilking investors out of as much as $20 billion. He is now serving 150
years prison term. But this week, his office manager of almost 40 years,
Annette Bongiorno, was sentenced to just six years imprisonment for her
role in the operation. By the time Madoff was arrested, Bongiorno managed
the books for hundreds of investment accounts, having accumulative balance
of about $8.5 billion when the firm went under. Prosecutors say she
invented fictitious trades that existed only on paper to support high
annual rates of return. Mr. Madoff had promised investors. Under federal
guidelines, she could have faced life in prison. But the judge ruled she
wasn`t an architect of the scheme and was just following Madoff`s
instructions. Ken, is six years enough of a punishment?

PADOWITZ: Actually, Reverend, I think it is. I think it was eminently
fair that this judge recognized that this particular defendant may not have
known what was going. That she was willfully blind. That`s what the judge
said. Which indicates that she might not have known the illegal activities
that`s were going on all around her. She had been brought up in that firm
since a teenager and so it sounds to me like the judge was very fair.
Actually getting a sentence less than the defense attorney asks for. It
shows that the judge recognized that a punishment was needed but also that
it needed to be fair base on the conduct of this particular factual
situation. I do believe it was fair.

SHARPTON: Faith, as Ken points out, Bongiorno`s own attorney was surprised
with the sentence. He had argued that a term of eight to ten years would
be sufficient punishment. And at the sentencing he said the judge showed
greater mercy than I believed was possible.

JENKINS: Right. And I actually disagree with my colleague on this one.
Because she went to trial and there were a significant amount of evidence
from the government that she did know what was going on. And she knew what
she was doing when she created false documents. You have to understand
that this woman worked for over 40 years for Bernie Madoff. He gave her
lavish gifts. She had a company credit card with unlimited use. He paid
for her, one of her children`s weddings and a reception. There were a lot
of things going on to help this woman look the other way. Then she went to
trial and she testified. The jury did not believe her. She perjured
herself on the witness stand. Her own attorney knew the writing was on the
wall. She was convicted for securities fraud --


JENKINS: -- for conspiracy and he asked for ten years.

SHARPTON: And she had to give back $14 million. She said she didn`t have
it but they said that she made that. I mean, she knew she was doing
something extra for $14 million? I mean, an office manager making that
kind of money?

PADOWITZ: Well, actually, Reverend, the judge basically gave that to every
single defendant in the Madoff affair. And, you know, Mr. Madoff was
clearly a criminal, a criminal master mind and deserve life in prison. But
not everybody who worked in that organization was aware and the judge made
it clear that this individual may not have been aware of this other
criminal activity and she shouldn`t be punished for the wrongdoings of
other people even though I have great sympathy for the victims.

SHARPTON: I`ve got to move on but I must said because this struck me that
Bongiorno is only 4`6" inches tall, 66-years-old. In her sentencing, the
associated press wrote, the judge noticed Bongiorno`s her lack of height
and age as she ignored federal sentencing guidelines. Faith, her height
and her age? Is that a reason to give her a lighter sentence?

JENKINS: This judge went out of her way to show leniency to this
particular defendant and she included a number of factors including the
fact that she didn`t think that she would essentially farewell with the
long prison sentence. However there are a lot of people who lost their
life savings, a lot of -- organizations went bankrupt because of the number
of people who looked other way when Bernie Madoff was doing Ponzi scheme.

SHARPTON: Let`s move from a case over millions of dollars to legal fight
over $4. Ben Edelman is an associate professor at Harvard Business School
teaching negotiation. Now that part is relevant. Because he ordered
takeout from a local Chinese restaurant and noticed he was overcharged by
$4. So, he sent an e-mail to the restaurants saying, "I ordered takeout
from you this evening. Below are my notes on what I ordered. Then the
price quoted on your website. It seems like an increase of $1 on each and
every item." The manager apologized saying the website prices were out of
date and offered a refund. But Edelman called it a serious violation and
asked for a refund. Three times the amount of the overcharge, citing
Massachusetts consumer protection statute. Now he is threatening legal
action to refund every customer who might have been overcharged. Faith,
what does this look like? Does he have a leg to stand on?

JENKINS: Well, I don`t think he`s going to sue but I have to tell you, I
thoroughly enjoyed reading the e-mail conversation between him and this
restaurant`s manager. And he is a consultant, and he consults people and
companies on preventing and detecting online fraud. So, when he saw that
he was overcharged $1 for each and every item, when he contacted the
restaurant, they said that they knew their online menu was out of date but
they still had it up there. So people are looking at this thinking that
they`re paying one thing. When they`re charged they`re paying something
else. That is fraud. So, he did the right thing by contacting the
restaurant. Then he just went overboard. I think all of that goodwill was
sort of undermined by I think his bullying tactics and trying to shake them
down and trying to get trouble damages essentially when he reach out to --

SHARPTON: But Ken, I mean, it is a little money but it is a big issue of
defrauding, even though he may have gone overboard or maybe not.

PADOWITZ: Well, this is where I have to disagree with my colleague. I
agree with her that it was bullying. We have a lawyer which making a big
deal over $4 for a small businessman just trying to make a living for his
family. And for the thousands or millions of small businesses where you
have maybe a mistake made on a website briefly over $4, you`re going to be
threatened to be sued by a lawyer? This gives a bad name and a perception
that as perception that lawyers sometimes can be unscrupulous or unfair or
not reasonable. And I think that`s disappointing. I`m disappointed that
this man did this. That this lawyer threatened to sue over $4.

SHARPTON: Sometimes you get the idea that lawyers can be unscrupulous?
Where did you ever get that idea? Ken Padowitz and Faith Jenkins, thank
you both for your time. Good faith.

JENKINS: Thank you.

PADOWITZ: Thank you, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Coming up, the million-dollar bet on Elizabeth Warren for
president. Is she reshaping the political debate in Washington?

Also, the NFL made a big move to fix this domestic abuse problem. Did they
get it right? And the ridiculous attacks on Kate Middleton and this dress.
"Conversation Nation" is next.


SHARPTON: We`re back with "Conversation Nation." Joining us tonight, host
of Entertainment Weekly on Sirius XM radio, Julia Cunningham. Democratic
strategist Jimmy Williams, and TheGrio`s Zerlina Maxwell, thank you all for
being here tonight.




SHARPTON: I want to start with Elizabeth Warren leading the charge to
block a bill that would gut Dodd Frank. Jimmy, Elizabeth Warren is getting
a lot of attention for this. What do you think about whether she runs or
not? Will she shape the democratic primaries or shape the messaging around

WILLIAMS: She is not running. She said she is not running 15 billion
times. I mean, how many times can she shout it out through the roof tops?
And so she is not running for president. who is behind this
million dollar drive to get her, to bring Hillary Clinton to the left. Oh,
wait, I just revealed the dirty little secret. That`s what this is about.
That they think the lefties think, progressives think that Hillary Clinton
is beholden to Wall Street and to big business which is not necessarily the
case. That being said, Elizabeth Warren has always been a thorn in the
side of Wall Street as we know. So, what do you do? You threaten to run
the person that is a thorn in the side of Wall Street. Wall Street`s
candidate. That`s what this is all about. There is no dirty --

SHARPTON: But Zerlina, she is the one that is electrified, the Congress on
this issue of this last minute changing of the bill, or in addition to the
bill would gut Dodd Frank.

MAXWELL: I think, you know, the rank and file and certainly the grassroots
movement on the left certainly support Elizabeth Warren and I think, you
know, rightfully so, want her to at least seriously consider running
because it is important to have somebody on Hillary`s left flank.


And to hold her, you know, to democratic principles and progressive
principles, protect Social Security for example, and make sure that no, the
financial reform that we fought so hard to get after the financial crisis,
you know, remains intact. So, I think that, you know, certainly she is an
important person politically, you know, to join Bernie Sanders sort of on
the left flank in the Senate, to you know, make sure --

SHARPTON: She was an important figure, you know, Julie. I mean, she has
carved out a conspicuous.

CUNNINGHAM: Oh, no, of course, and I just want Hillary Clinton like guns
blazing. Like I want the offensive and defensive for Hillary Clinton and I
think this is the only thing that`s going to push her that way. Right now
it has been so quiet. So steady. I want it to get a little bit more
exciting. And I think this is the way that`s actually going to push it and
we`re actually going to see something happen.

SHARPTON: But what does Elizabeth Warren do to the party, Jim?

WILLIAMS: The party has already left. There aren`t many moderates left to
be honest with you. There are no bulldogs left on -- there are no
democrats in the house, in the south left. So, it is not like the party
can get really more left per se. It is not like the republicans can get
more conservative. The real question is, can Elizabeth Warren, A, raise
the money that she needs to race the money for the candidate -- running.
B, make sure she keeps Hillary Clinton in check which is what this is all
about and most importantly, can she be sort of the great vocal person out
there? The cheerleader if you will for lack of a better term. I think she
could do all three of those things. And by the way, don`t forget. She`s
only been in the Senate for two years.


SHARPTON: Yes. But Zerlina, does Hillary try to take those issues out off
the table? And if Elizabeth Warren doesn`t go now, when does she go?
She`s in the mid-60s, she might be new but I mean, you don`t always get
these shots around. I mean, she won`t get much hotter than this.

MAXWELL: No, no, I think that`s a relevant point. Certainly, it makes me
think back to Barack Obama when he was in his first term and there was a
lot of energy wanting him to run.

SHARPTON: But he was in his 40s, he sort of wait.

MAXWELL: So, it is a completely different situation in terms of age like
you pointed out. But I do think, you know, the grassroots energy is there
and sometimes you just have to run. Maybe it is not the right time or the
perfect moments but maybe you have to do it.


WILLIAMS: I would disagree with you on this is her only chance. I think
that Elizabeth Warren has to staying power to go pass, you know, 2020. I
really believe it. Her age isn`t really relevant to me. Look at the John
McCain and --


SHARPTON: The political consultants would say, I think you can run all the
way and do great things and --

WILLIAMS: Look at Jerry Brown in California. Absolutely.

SHARPTON: The guys that choreograph politics are going to say now or
never. Now or never. And does she resist?

WILLIAMS: Maybe more women should choreograph politics and then they`ll
shut up about this.

SHARPTON: I think that`s right.

MAXWELL: Right. I agree.

SHARPTON: I`m certainly not going to argue with you on this panel.


Now, to a new personnel conduct policy for the NFL, and it comes in the
wake of the Ray Rice domestic violence scandal, Commissioner Roger Goodell
says the new policy lays out of clear series of steps. To be taken when
there is an incident. More extensive list of prohibited conduct,
independent investigative procedures, a baseline suspension of six games
without pay. And outside advisers to review and evaluate potential


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We would like to prevent these incidents from occurring
and we are providing resources to do that. When they do occur, they have
to be dealt with firmly, consistently, quickly. And we also need to make
sure that we`re doing the right things for the victims and survivors.
That`s the key thing for us.


SHARPTON: Zerlina, is this enough?

MAXWELL: No, I don`t think so. I mean, I said this, when he first
extended Ray Rice`s suspension from two to six games, is that we need a
zero tolerance policy or at least we need to begin conversations about, If
you want to play in the NFL and have the privilege of making millions of
dollars, not millions, not all the players make that much. But if you want
the privilege of playing in the NFL, I think the requirement should be that
you not beat up your wife or girlfriend or your children. And I think
that`s a standard that we all should strive for. So, no, I`m not
satisfied. And, you know, in the end, even after all of those different
independent level investigations, Mr. Goodell still has the last word. And
that has not change.

SHARPTON: Julia, it took a long time. Is that enough?

CUNNINGHAM: I mean, it is sort of like ridiculous in the point that we`re
in an area where it was -- sportsmanship that this is even happening, like
that should be number one is the issue that in fact Roger Goodell is even
still in place is ridiculous to me and how he has not even been removed.
In fact that his final say still to this point even with these amendments
coming in in appeals. It is disgusting.

SHARPTON: Jimmy, you`ve been around politics seen a lot of crisis having
to deal with crisis management, could the NFL have handle this better?

WILLIAMS: There is no way that you can say that they cannot have, they
could not have. The answer is, they could have done anything else to have
handle this better. What I would have liked to have seen done here is,
this is learned behavior. You learned to beat your wife or your children
when you are a teenager or a child. You see it in the home or what have
you. Or you see it in the locker room. When you see hazing, et cetera, et
cetera, these are just big boys making a lot of money. Right? That`s what
they`re doing. But they learn it at an early age. I would like to have
seen it. When it comes to high school programs, little league, et cetera,
et cetera. To me, you have to go with this at the very beginning. You
have to teach kids. It`s not okay to do this kind of stuff. That I think
would have gone a long way with a lot of parents.

SHARPTON: We`re going to be watching, and let me ask everyone to stay with
me. When we come back, an ordinary person doing the extraordinary gets the
Nobel Peace Prize. And why is there controversy over Kate Middleton`s
dress? Stay with us.


SHARPTON: We`re back with the panel, Julia, Jimmy and Zerlina, now to a
Nobel Peace Prize. At 17-years-old, Pakistan`s Malala Yousafzai is the
youngest person to ever be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Two years ago
she was shot in the head for simply going to school and advocating
children`s rights for education. Zerlina, how special is she?

MAXWELL: She is extremely special. Once in a lifetime. She is a symbol
of just strengthen resilience and I think a feminist fierceness. And we
need so much of that in this moment when women and young people over the
world are being brutalize and raped and beaten, so we need some good news.

SHARPTON: Yes. Julia, in a lot of bad news going on, this is really a
bright light. A good news, a good faith.

CUNNINGHAM: Oh, I`m so glad we`re talking about this today. Because she
literally is not only just an inspiration but I hope that teen girls are
going to post her picture in their room and inspired to be something like
this. And it shows that it doesn`t matter how old you are and you can do
it and you can get involved and get started and do something for education.

SHARPTON: Jimmy, doesn`t she have redefine heroism for that generation?

WILLIAMS: Not just generation but for the Middle East, I think. That area
of the world. I mean, this is important I think. Considering that for ten
something years, we have been in this place. It has been an ultimate
disaster. And what is the shining star that comes out of that? This young
woman. She`s gorgeous. She`s wonderful.

SHARPTON: Great inspiration. Finally, a royal dress controversy. Last
night the royal couple attended a fancy gala at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art. Kate looked great but New York is the fashion capital of the world
and the fashion police came out. Because we`ve seen it twice before. This
was the third time that Kate wore the same dress. Julia, I wear the same
socks three time. Do you have a problem with this one?

CUNNINGHAM: No. We are brats. I wear this jacket. I wear this jacket
every day. Like we`re brats. She looks perfect. It is why we love her
and it is ridiculous.

SHARPTON: But Jimmy, I thought when I read this that she wore it three
times this trip. They`re talking about period. Over time.

WILLIAMS: I would say something about my underwear but I won`t. So, who
cares? She`s gorgeous. She is classy, she`s fantastic, she is the modern
day look of the monarchy. Get off her back for God`s sake. If she were a
man they wouldn`t say this.

SHARPTON: I was getting ready to go there.

MAXWELL: So, there`s a lot of gentler in this but there`s also, we need to
remember that they are people. So, yes, they`re the royals and there`s a
lot of pomp and circumstance but they are human beings as well.

SHARPTON: I think the fashion police are snobs. Julia, Williams and
Zerlina, thank you for your time.

MAXWELL: Thank you.

SHARPTON: And we`ll be back with Times person of the year.


SHARPTON: We close tonight with Times person of the year. The Ebola
fighters. These men and women, doctors, nurses, aid workers are risking
their lives to save the lives of others. Fighting on the front lines to
stop an epidemic. These health workers don`t let panic and fear get in the
way. They know they`re needed because it is literally a life or death
effort. So far Ebola has killed almost 6,400 people and infect 18,000 of
these cases, more than 600 Ebola health care workers are known to have been
infected. Three hundred and forty six of them have died. That`s the risk
they take willingly and that`s why they deserve our respect and our
gratitude. I say to them that we feel you deserve, not only person of the
year but all of the gratitude from all of us. As they say in my home town,
Brooklyn, much respect.

Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now.


Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Transcription Copyright 2014 ASC LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is
granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not
reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or
internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall
user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may
infringe upon MSNBC and ASC LLC`s copyright or other proprietary rights or
interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of