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

The Ed Show for Thursday, December 11th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Date: December 11, 2014

Guest: Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Joe Sestak, Lee Gaddies, Robert
Greenwald, Martha Sellers

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota.

Let`s get to work.


Street or the American people?

government shutdown.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With only hours remaining (inaudible) the U.S.
Government technically runs out of money...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to be able to hold funding back for who knows
what else he`s going to do.

LIMBAUGH: People of this country are begging the Republican people to stop
this man.

WARREN: The reason unfortunately is simple...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to be able to hold funding back...

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: I`m proud of the work that
they`ve done.

WARREN: It`s about money and it`s about power.

OBAMA: A Christmas shutdown is not a good idea.

BOEHNER: Merry Christmas.


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

OK, Democrats, liberals, progressive. Let`s saddle up, let`s be clear
about this. Let`s not leave anybody in the dust. There is no budget that
anybody could come up within Washington that would be good if it sets the
table for the Robber Barons on Wall Street to do exactly what they did in
2008. Why in the world would this country take that risk again?

We start tonight with another possible government shutdown, this time
Republicans they`re handing out risky gifts to big thanks on Wall Street,
Democrats not happy about this at all, at least some. This could result in
another government shutdown, another $25 billion or maybe more. Now later
tonight the House is expected to vote on a spending bill that repeals a
keeper vision of Dodd-Frank called the swaps push-out rule.

The bill passed a procedural vote earlier today but the vote is currently
staled. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said the delay is proof Republicans
don`t have the votes and they better not have the votes. What budget could
we have as a country to function if we took care of everything but we
gambled with the future?

President Obama shockingly said today that he supports the spending bill
knowing that this is in there, what? However, it`s not clear what`s going
to happen in the Senate. Maybe since we still have the majority in the
Senate we can stop this thing. Put this on their watch when they get
control because this is a bad call for the Democrats to have their mitts on

The swaps push-out rule makes big banks separate the riskiest part of their
training from the FDIC insured accounts. This means if risky trades fail
like they did in 2008, need we refresher course, it won`t crash the insured
part of the business. It also means you the tax payer wouldn`t have to
pick up the tab for risky, reckless behavior on Wall Street. But we have
enough of that.

Now earlier today John Boehner was asked about this provision in the
spending bill.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why should big banks be able to trade derivatives and
have their risks covered by us, by the taxpayers? Why should they able to
do that?

BOEHNER: I don`t believe that to be the case. Yes. I don`t believe that
your description of this is the case.


SCHULTZ: Sound like he went to Dick Cheney School of Communication on that
one, a great nonresponse, non-answer from the Speaker of the House. I`d
like to know exactly how Speaker Boehner interprets repealing this key
prevision of Dodd-Frank. One of the key Democrats leading the charge to
protect Dodd-Frank is Senator Elizabeth Warren.

On Wednesday night Senator Warren said this is all about Republicans
helping out their buddies on Wall Street.


WARREN: This is a basic safety and soundness provision. And it only
applies to just handful of the biggest financial institutions in this
country. So, what`s really going on here? Well, they can make more money
if they can do all of this business under the umbrella of their insured
operations. They want the American taxpayers to subsidize their risk
taking. They`ll take all the profits when it works and push the losses off
on everyone else if it blows up.


SCHULTZ: Oh, the big, get bigger and they just get to do what ever they
want, right. It sounds pretty familiar. Don`t forget back in 2008 the
American taxpayer bailout Wall Street to the tune of over $700 billion.
How could we forget that? This is why we did Dodd-Frank.

The provision on Dodd-Frank will prevent another massive taxpayer founded
bailout on Wall Street. This is simply a handout to the big banks as the
Senator said. Senator Warren made this clear again earlier today.


WARREN: To Republican Leaders in the House, I would ask this. You say
you`re against bailouts on Wall Street. I`ve heard you say it again and
again for five years. So why in the world are you spending your time and
your energy fighting for a provision, written by Citigroup lobbyist that
would increase the chance of future bailouts?

Why, in the last minute as you head out the door and a spending bill must
be passed, are you making it a priority to do Wall Street`s bidding? Who
do you work for? Wall Street or the American people?


SCHULTZ: The fact Citigroup literally wrote this provision is rather
absurd don`t you think? This is what happens when big money buys big
lobbyist in Washington D.C. the banks own the Senate at least we hope they
don`t. Despite the crash of 2008 -- This country hadn`t learned anything.

Now, to reverse the roles here a little bit, to put it in street terms or
very basic sense here. OK, business, you know, if you`ve been in business
before, you invest in products, you invest in services, you invest in
brands and personnel. That would businesses do. Sometimes you lose,
sometimes you don`t, sometimes they win.

What about you and I, you the viewer tonight. Let`s say you and I go to
Las Vegas to gamble in the hottest casino out there, let`s see we go Chase,
we got Citigroup, we`ve got Wells Fargo, we`ve got Bank of America, they`re
going to back us up right? None of the banks are going to be covering our
gambling losses in Vegas.

Basically what we have here is Wall Street. They are betting big with you
tax dollars, and now elected officials might let them get away with it.
It`s wrong and the bill should not pass. I don`t care how sweet the budget
is, I don`t care how many caveats are in there of how many deals have been

Congress cannot set the table for Wall Street to run amok again. We were
on the verge of this country having a total financial collapse, worst than
a depression and we want to go back to that? You see the Republicans, they
want no regulation, they want no regulation because the boys on Wall Street
line their back pockets when it comes to reelection time.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, do you think it`s acceptable for Citigroup lobbyist to write

Text A, for yes, text B for no, to 67622, you can leave a comment at our
blog at and we`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

I want to bring in a key player in all of this, Congresswoman Maxine Waters
a California who seats on the Financial Services Committee, Congresswoman
good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate you time, I know you`re in
middle of this fight. This bill...

REP. MAXINE WATERS, (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, I`m just delighted to be here Ed
and I love description that you open the show with. You`re right on,
that`s exactly what`s happening. There`s some attempts to give a big gift
to Wall Street, we got to stop it.

SCHULTZ: All right. Do they have the votes, where is this at the hour

WATERS: Well I can tell you where it is. First of all, we have a big with
(ph) meeting with the Democratic Caucus. And the Democrats were absolutely
fired up to fight this and to not allow the banks to come in here and wield
that kind of influence.

They said we were not going back to where we were before 2008, we`re not
going to put our families at risk, we`re not going to have all these
foreclosures, we`re not going to bring this country to the brink of the
depression. So they were up on it. And we left there, we went to go vote
on the rule, we came within two votes of losing the rule that determines
how you take up the bill.

And since that time, unfortunately we are getting our members who are
target and who are getting called and who`re getting lobbied, so many
people including the President of the United States who have decide that he
would like to have this bill no matter what. But it`s wrong, again, what
you find is the big banks are saying to the members of Congress, we rule
this, we know how to get you when you back is up against the wall at the
11th hour.


WATERS: We`re going to come in and we`re going to insist that we`re able
to do this risky trading and not push out this derivatives trading that
we`ve been doing so that the American taxpayers won`t have to back it up.
And so, the fight is on.

SCHULTZ: Maxine...

WATERS: That`s 20 members seen into my office...

SCHULTZ: ... are they...

WATERS: ... we organize it.

SCHULTZ: OK. Are there some Republicans who are against this?

WATERS: We don`t know that there are some Republicans that are against of
it. But we`re being told that the Republicans don`t have their numbers to
put this bill out for...


WATERS: You have some of the right-wing Republicans...

SCHULTZ: All right.

WATERS: ... some of the Tea Party Republicans who are trying to deal with
the President on immigration. They supposedly not going to support the
bill. And, the Republican leadership is sending a signal that they need
the Democrats in order to put this bill out. If we put this bill out with
the Republicans then we certainly have abandoned all of those people out
there who depend on us.


WATERS: And who are looking for us to stand up for Democratic values, we
cannot do this.

SCHULTZ: I mean -- just heard Josh Earnest in the last hour on this
network urging the Democrats to take this deal. Why is the President so
adamant to put Wall Street in our economy at risk just get a budget deal.
What do you make of it?

WATERS: Well, you know, it is baffling. And I think perhaps maybe he
thinks he has to do this in order to keep the government open. But the
fact of matter is, if they don`t have the votes we can force them to take
this mess out of the bill and come back with the bill...


WATERS: ... that we could have bipartisan agreement on, so we don`t have
to give in, we should be resisting and fighting and telling them if you
need Democratic votes to put this bad bill out you`re not going to get it.
That`s the only way we going to...


WATERS: ... bring it back to the table.

SCHULTZ: Congresswoman Maxine Waters, great to have to you with us
tonight. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

Let me bring in Bernie Sanders independent Senator from Vermont. Well,
Senator here we go again. I mean, we`ve seen this movie before. But I
think the shocking thing in all of these, is that the White House is
telling House members to take the deal. What`s your reaction to that?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I) VERMONT: Well, I think what they`re afraid of is a
three-month continuing resolution, the Republicans then controls the future
of the budget and that`s what they worry about. But I think what Elizabeth
Warren and Maxine Waters said is absolutely right.

Look, the illegal behavior on Wall Street caused this horrendous recession.
To deregulate again, to force the taxpayers to have to protect this wild
speculation makes zero sense to me. That provision has got to go out.

But Ed let me also tell you, there are other aspects to this bill which are
equally bad. Should we as a nation which has so many unmet needs, kids
can`t afford to go college, kids graduating school deeply in debt, a
crumbling infrastructure, childcare system which is a disaster, the need to
transform our energy system. Should we spend 60 percent of our
discretionary money on the military in that bill, it`s about $600 billion
for the military and laying the ground work for never-ending wars in the
Middle East.

Further more, you know, we bailout Wall Street you made that point. Well,
you know what? It`s also in this bill, is a real attack on worker`s
pensions. You have workers in this country who have worked decades and
decades with the expectation they`re going to have a decent pension. This
bill lays the groundwork to say to those workers oh, by the way we`ve
change our mind we`re cutting your pension by 30 or 50 percent.

So, you know...


SANDERS: ... I understand, it`s hard, you know, Republicans have to (ph),
people negotiating and they want to protect Wall Street and want to protect
the rich, it`s true. But I think we can do better than the agreement that
we presently have.

SCHULTZ: Let`s say it passes in the House Senator. Where is it in the
Senate? The Democrats still have the majority, the President wants the
budget. Would there be enough Democrats to say no to this?

SANDERS: I will say a very, very loud no Ed, but I can`t give the answer I
don`t know how many others will do that.

SCHULTZ: You clearly would vote against it?

SANDERS: Absolutely. This is -- look again, you know, it`s tough
negotiating and it`s easy to beat up on the Democrats. But they`re only
half the negotiators, but I think there are so many onerous provisions in
here. I believe that the American people want us to do better and believe
that we should do better.

SCHULTZ: Well, the $585 billion of military spending, it`s reported that a
good portion of that is going to be going to train Syrian moderates for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, we as Americans, it`s like we`re
going down two roads that we`ve been down before that didn`t turn out very
well. I know that...

SANDERS: You know, Ed not good...

SCHULTZ: Go ahead.

SANDERS: ... proportion, I mean $580 billion is a massive amount of money,
so it`s not huge amount. But what it does is, it lays the predicate for us
to be continuously involved for whatever it seems to be, for a never-ending
period in these bloody wars in the Middle East. But, the other issue is,
if you look at the military budget, huge cost overruns, huge amount of
fraud with the defense contractors. We need a strong defense. We need a
strong National Guard.


SANDERS: But I don`t think we need to spend close to $600 billion. We`re
spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined. Enough is
enough, we have unmet needs in this country we have to got address.

SCHULTZ: And finally back to the Dodd-Frank. In your opinion how
important is it to keep that in there? I mean to make sure that the
Democrats holds the line on this because, what budget would be worth what
we`ve been through before?

SANDERS: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: What would we play that?

SANDERS: Exactly, this is, you know, the American people were furious,
they had to bailout Wall Street because of their illegal reckless activity,
and now Wall Street is saying, oh, yeah we would like to go back to where
we were before. We would like to have all of these wild speculation and
derivative, and if it fails and you made that point. If it wins we make a
lot of money, if it fails hey taxpayers, thanks very much you`re there for
us. No, we don`t want to back to that path.

SCHULTZ: Senator Bernie Sanders, good to have you with us tonight, sir.
Thank so much for joining us. I appreciate you time.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of screen. Share
you thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us Facebook. Thanks for
that. I would imagine you have a lot to say about going back to good old
days of Wall Street, deregulation.

Coming up, conservative utopia, remember the stories we did on Detroit?
Well Detroit exists bankruptcy, tonight we`ll show you who really picked up
the tab.

Plus Dick Cheney is back. He`s throwing more verbal bombs. Admiral Joe
Sestak who is in military intelligence will tell us what he thinks about
all of this. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. What`s trending, what hot, what
not? First of all we want you to keep in touch with us on Twitter @edshow,
like us on Facebook. You can get my Podcast on iTunes it`s free 24/7. You
can also find it at, and

Ed Show social media nation is decided. We are reporting.

Here are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a sweater.

SCHULTZ: The number three trender, oh Christmas sheep.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boys spotted the stylish sheep and brought him to the
Nebraska Humane Society.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was wearing a soft and the most beautiful sweater.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t think it`s a wool sweater. I think its

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sheep clearly has an owner. He didn`t buy the
sweater himself.

SCHULTZ: A festive farm animal is reunited with his family.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The sheep`s is Gage. His owner`s tell me he`s an
indoor sheep.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s like losing my kid and I was all scared and
don`t know what to do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They say this was the first time Gage has gone on the

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ve had him five months and it`s clear that he`s
happy to be home.

SCHULTZ: The number two trender, V.W. victory.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: V.W. said the company has now verified that the UAW
has signed up at least 45 percent of the plant`s employees.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Driving in deep and I hope its fix.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 45 percent numbered now it titles the union to have
regular face to face meetings with management.

SCHULTZ: The UAW gets a big win over Republican obstruction.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The election in February was heavily tainted by outside

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`ve been fairly outspoken, I think it`s a negative.

SEN. BOB CORKER, (R) TENNESSEE: It`s about one thing, it`s about man and
it`s about power.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m now part of the UAW`s strives to improve the middle
class and give workers safe.

SCHULTZ: And today`s top trender.

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Did the ends justify the means?

We asked the agency to go, take steps and put in place programs that were
designed to catch the bastards who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11 and to make
sure it didn`t happen again, and that`s exactly what they did.

SCHULTZ: Cheney throws Bush under the bus over the torture report.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Feinstein report suggests that President Bush was
not fully briefed on the program.

CHENEY: Not true. He was in fact an integral part of the program. He had
to approve it before we went forward to it. I think that he knew
everything he needed to know and wanted to know about the program. I think
that what needed to be done was done. I think we were perfectly justified
in doing it. And I`ll do it again in a minute.


SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight is Joe Sestak, retired Navy Admiral who worked
in Intelligence and former Congressman from Pennsylvania. Congressman,
good to have you with us tonight.

ADM. JOE SESTAK, U.S. NAVY (RET): Good to be with you Ed.

SCHULTZ: Dick Cheney -- you bet. Mr. Cheney very critical of the report
but then he admits he didn`t read it. Does that surprise you and how
accurate is what he`s saying in your opinion?

SESTAK: Well, it doesn`t surprise me. I think Vice President Cheney had
already established what his decision would be. Ever since we went into
Iraq, that tragic misadventure, that and the means we used to extract
intelligence from terrorists that we gathered around the world, he just
wants to justify.

I think he`s wrong. It`s wrong if for no other reason Ed, that it exposes
our military members overseas to torture. It ain`t might be liable to it
today but this now permits others to say, you did it, what do you mean we
can`t? And that`s one of the real tragedies about this.

SCHULTZ: Cheney says that Bush was not only aware of the program but he
approved it before it went forward. What`s your reaction to that?

SESTAK: Well, if President Bush did not know about it, I think that says a
lot on its own. I mean, he`s captain of the ship. He should know what`s

But that said, I think the real effort here by the Vice President is to try
just to cement the entire Bush Administration`s legacy as a whole that
everybody was responsible for it. But, you know, I`m not going to judge
anything on my opinion about what the Vice President Cheney has to say.

SCHULTZ: OK. Well, how accurate is this? One of the claims is that no
one involved in the enhance interrogation programs were interviewed by the
Senate? What does that mean as you see it?

SESTAK: Well, here`s what I think. I think this report by the Senate
Committee is a good report but it`s not -- it`s far from a perfect report
Ed. I think they should have in a perfect world, interviewed individuals
as well as looked at documents.

But here`s what I think it says the most of. This is hindsight, it is not
oversight, and that`s what this intelligence committee should have been
doing as this was going on.

If anything, this report speaks to is, where was the oversight by Congress
in this effort? When it was happen as what was other efforts? I can
remember being on the Armed Services Committee in Congress. And for four
years, while I was on it and Iraq was happening there was not one hearing
on the war in Iraq. What that`s saying about oversight by Congress?

SCHULTZ: Well, it seems to me that the Bush Administration had the Justice
Department right where they wanted him, had the lawyer saying exactly what
they wanted to say. And people in the Intel Committee that clearly weren`t
curious enough and were believing everything that was said by the CIA. And
these guys were given a free reign.

SESTAK: I think that...

SCHULTZ: And so, Cheney is -- go ahead.

SESTAK: No, I think he made -- the last point was an excellent one. What
I found that times that those congress members, those senators that are in
certain committees be it transportation, be at intelligence, be in armed
services are co-opted by those professionals, so to speak, within the

They`re great, they`re heroes but at the same time they got their programs
to protect and move forward. And I think at times, particularly see how
many Congress members can go to lobby, so to speak. Then you have to
understand that maybe the oversight is also part of our representatives
being co-opted by those within agencies.

SCHULTZ: As a former military man and an expert and an admiral, what`s
your reaction when you hear Dick Cheney come out and say, when you know
torture is wrong, he denies it but then he also plays on the emotions of
the American people say, well they killed 3,000 Americans, calls them
bastards and then we had got them, we got to do whatever we had to do and
oh by the way we protected the country and didn`t hit again.

I think the point in all of these is, all right, that`s true, we were mad,
we wanted to get justice. But the fact is now we have to live with the way
the arena was set up. That and -- what this is going to do to our
personnel worldwide right, ISIL is cutting people`s heads off. I mean,
this gets elevated and where does it end Admiral?

SESTAK: Ed, what you most want, whatever crisis happens in the military is
a cool head. Someone who can rise up above the emotions because usually
the first word in any conflict is wrong that comes back. You need someone
who can think...


SESTAK: ... through the long-term implications.

Look, the reason so many of our judge advocate core in the military are
lawyers oppose these torture was for exactly the reasons you said. It
opens us up to it even more in the future.

I am grateful though, that transparency has finally come about too long
down the road. But I think that...


SESTAK: ... anything our government does, as long as it doesn`t harm our
national security should be open to sunlight so that we have take the
lessons from it and say, that`s not who we are, we`re better than that.

SCHULTZ: I remember at the time -- Senator Joe Biden at that time talking
about how we have to protect our military personnel around the world. And
we don`t torture because we don`t want our people tortured. Now look where
we are.

I also remember in 2006 when Nancy Pelosi got the gavel and the Democrats
took over the House, the left in this country was adamant about Bush being
impeached. And I just wonder, if the Democrats tonight when they read this
report, if they knew back then what they know right now, would they be in
favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney and bring them up on war crimes,
because they`re all saying that this is such a tight report and it`s very
accurate, foot-noted by 38,000 notes.

Admiral Joe Sestak, great to have you with us tonight, I appreciate your
time. Thank you so much.

SESTAK: Thanks for having me.

SCHULTZ: Coming up, a -- you bet. A major American city climbs out at
bankruptcy. Millions of people are still hurting. Tonight, the real story
behind Detroit.

And later, a Badger bolts to the NFL. Two minute drill on the way. Your
questions next on Ask Ed Live.

We`ll be right back on the Ed Show on MSNBC.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I appreciate all the questions from
our viewers tonight in our Ask Ed Live Segment.

Our first question comes from Tejbir. "Ed, where in the world were you
yesterday? I miss you."

Oh Tej, you wouldn`t want to be where I was yesterday. I had a 24 hour
bug. I got a flu shot a few days ago then I had reaction to it. That
might have been it. I hope that`s not the case. But I was not good. Just
a sick day, you know what mean?

Our next question is from Maria. She wants to know, "Will Dick Cheney now
be indicted for war crimes?" No, it won`t happen. And that`s to say I
think of it all (ph) as I see it.

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

KATE ROGERS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Market

Stocks gain ground but end off session high today. The Dow climbs 63
points, the S&P adds 9 and the NASDAQ rises 24.

Retail Sales were stronger than expected last month. So-called core sales
which exclude food and gas were up 0.6 percent in November. Thanks to
falling oil prices and increase spending on closing.

Meanwhile the number of Americans filing for first time jobless claims fell
more than expected last week. Fillings dropped 3,000 to 294,000.

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


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to Ed Show.

Conservatives finally get there utopia. Today the City of Detroit exited
bankruptcy. Under the approved resolution, Detroit will reduce its debt by
$7 billion. Just like that, it`s amazing.

Over $5 billion of the debt comes from leaving retirees out in the cold.


GOV. RICK SNYDER, (R) MICHIGAN: I want to recognize the retirees who are
taking some cuts through this and that shouldn`t be forgotten. This was
because worked together. We had a unique outcome that is very positive in
a very, very difficult situation, but people did make sacrifices.


SCHULTZ: Let`s cut to the chase. Retirees are getting flat out cheated

Once again, the least you can do it or do in the most. The resolution cuts
pensions and health benefit for Detroit`s retired workers. What did they
do wrong?

Governor Snyder appointed Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr to clear the way for
privatization. Now these guys are celebrating their great success of a
blank financial slate after screwing workers, that`s what it is.
Bankruptcy leaves businesses with a clean slate. Bankruptcy leaves cities
with communities in ruin and that`s what we have here.

In Detroit, the unemployment rate is doubled the state average. Property
value has plummeted, the city is hemorrhaging residents. Residents still
face water shutoffs. What a turn around Governor.

Kevyn Orr officially surrenders control of spending and operations today,
and make no mistake, authorities still haven`t completely shifted over to
elected officials, all the authority that they need. A financial
commission made primarily of state appointees have oversight authority.
The commission could stay in control for the next 13 years, a little caveat

Kevyn Orr hopes the radical legislator`s stranglehold wont end with his


KEVYN ORR, EMERGENCY MANAGER, DETROIT: My concern really is in the long-
term, that people forget the lessons that we`ve learned over the past
almost two years and start developing bad habits again.


SCHULTZ: Yeah, the lessons hate unions and don`t pay workers too much.

Joining me tonight on our Rapid Response Panel, Michael Eric Dyson.
Professor at Georgetown University and MSNBC Political Analyst, also with
us Lee Gaddies who was a Detroit homeowner and community activist. Both of
you gentlemen with Detroit ties, great to have you with us tonight.

Lee, what`s the reaction in Detroit to Governor Snyder and Kevyn Orr,
basically patting themselves on the back for this big turnaround as if
really there`s no hurt in the community. What`s your reaction?

LEE GADDIES, DETROIT HOMEOWNER: Look, the criminal activity that`s been
going on, you know, and then celebrating like, you know, this is a good
thing pensioners that we came to the table and sacrifice, they were
threatened and forced (ph) into making decisions that were not in their
best interest.

And Governor Snyder fails to acknowledge the fact that those same taxpayers
that he just stole money from, to get the Wall Street billionaires, those
same taxpayers give the State of Michigan $7.8 billion to bail their butts
out when they were financially insolvent. And none of that money made its
way to Detroit to stimulate the economy here and to put those people to
work, to stimulate more tax dollars.

That money went to ensure up their financial inconsistencies and starve
Detroit of their revenue that it needed to make and pay its bills. And
even under that, Detroit didn`t miss a single debt payment until the state
came in and took over and put Kevyn Orr in who then made a unilateral
decision not to pay any of the City`s debt which been force the bankruptcy.

So that`s...

SCHULTZ: Well...

GADDIES: ... and at the same time, Kevyn Orr lives in a $2,000 a week
penthouse. For all the money that he spent over the last two year living
in penthouses and eating caviar, he could have bought a house in Detroit
and help revitalize the community that he says that he cares so much about.

SCHULTZ: Professor Dyson, what`s your reaction to this? This somewhat
paves away for other cities to push for privatization and squeeze out
minority communities, doesn`t it?

very shameful I think, in light of the fact that Detroit has been under
such duress, that the billions of dollars, the moneys that were spent in
the effort to somehow reconstitute the infrastructure economically and
financially, Detroit could have gone toward paying down the debt and be
preserving the pensions that are now been sacrificed on the alter of this
privatization and reorganization financially of the city.

So the very people who are meant to be benefited by this, who should be
advantaged by this are the ones who are taking the, you know, the biggest
cut, so to speak, and those people can ill afford that. We didn`t look at
what corporations in the city can do. We didn`t look at what major
financial institutions might be able to contribute. We did it on the backs
of the very poor people and that`s a shameful legacy and...

SCHULTZ: Yeah...

DYSON: ... that is dangerous because it`s going to happen to others as
well, other cities as well.

SCHULTZ: That is the key. I mean it was picking on the poorest people.
They had to serve it up. Lee what`s the future look like for Detroit`s
retirees having to deal with this?

GADDIES: Ed, I don`t how they expect people to live off of the money that
they were promised, right? When the bailout happened on Wall Street, those
contracts of (ph) those CEO were sacralizing (ph). They could not break
those contracts for any reason, but for some reason when it comes down to
the most vulnerable people in our community, our seniors, those contacts
can be broken at will and the money can be shifted to the millionaires and

The future of Detroit will be millionaires and billionaires downtown
getting sweetheart deals, getting land for a dollar, being able to get
exclusive vending rights to sell to the suburbanites who come too frequent
(ph) those establishments downtown. And the people who have held this city
together for the last 40 years will be forced to continue to pay even
though they`re the ones that should be...


GADDIES: ... receiving the benefits of -- any benefits that come out of
this bankruptcy, the citizens of Detroit who held the cities together
should be benefited from in (ph), not the people who decided to show up and
buy law and sell high.

SCHULTZ: We just can`t let cities fall apart like this. We can`t turn our
back on American citizens. All those retirees, they paid their taxes, they
abided by the laws. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and now
they have to pay the price.

And I think the Obama Administration made a real mistake. Go ahead.

GADDIES: Yeah, and also the city is paying the price because if you look
at it last week, we had a complete blackout downtown because we refused to
make an investment in our infrastructure in the form of tax dollars. As
long as we keep giving...


GADDIES: ... more and more business tax breaks to move in, our
infrastructure will continue to crumble. Not only just in Detroit but the
state roads are shambles and...


GADDIES: ... this legislature, this corporate controlled legislature
refuse to tax themselves to pay for the infrastructure they need, to bring
their goods and services and employees to market.

SCHULTZ: Rick Snyder, the Governor plans to take a show on the road.
Politico reports said that the Governor will tour the country to talk about
the bankruptcy as he looks towards 2016. Dr. Dyson, what`s your take on
that. This is the model, isn`t it for big cities.

DYSON: It is the model and it`s shameful again because conservative
financing is built upon a kind of austerity that`s imposed on the very poor
who are least capable of absorbing it and rich and happy times for those
who are at the top.

The redistribution of wealth upward into the conference of corporations and
into massive financial interests are the powerful story of what has
happened in Detroit. And the tragedy is that the vulnerable will be made
more vulnerable.

SCHULTZ: Yeah, when floods and hurricanes come we help people but when
economic strive and job loss is there, we just turn our back on them. I
think that that`s wrong.

Michael Eric Dyson, Lee Gaddies, great to have both of you with us tonight.
Thanks so much.

Still to come, America`s biggest employer is slapped down for intimidating
employees, the story ahead at the Punch Out. Keep it here. We`ll be right


SCHULTZ: And tonight`s two minutes drill, here we go. Shortened sleep,
first they loose their coach, Gerry Anderson leaves the Wisconsin Badgers,
he`s going to Oregon State, now it`s the running back, and it`s the right

Melvin Gordon, Wisconsin`s all-world (ph) running back announced that he
plans to enter the 2015 NFL draft. The Ratchet (ph) Junior from Kenosha,
Wisconsin rushed for 2,336 yards this year, 29 touchdowns. He`ll close it
out with the Badgers against Auburn in the Outback Bowl on January 1st.
Mel Kiper last year listed Gordon as the 9th overall prospect in the draft.

He should win the Heisman and he should be in number pick. Ed Show coming
right back at you, stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. This is the story for the folks who
take a shower after work. A National Labor Relations Board judge has
handed a big victory to Walmart workers.

The judge ruled Walmart managers at two California stores unlawfully
threatened and punished employees trying to organize. A union-backed group
of Walmart employees called -- OUR Walmart filed the complaint with the
Labor Board. The ruling details unlawful acts of intimidation at stores in
Richmond and Placerville, California. According to New York Times, one
manager told employees, "If it were up to me, I`d shoot the union."

The judge ruled Walmart had unlawfully disciplined six Richmond employees
for engaging in a one-day strike back in 2012 and management had improperly
prohibited other employees from talking to those six workers. Walmart says
it will appeal parts of the ruling to the full Labor Board in Washington
adding, "We do not agree with some of the administrative law judge`s

Joining me tonight, Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films who directed the
2005 documentary "Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price", and also with us
tonight Martha Sellers, a Walmart employee and member of OUR Walmart, great
to have both of you with us tonight.

Martha, you first, what is this ruling mean to the workers of Walmart?
That something has been done. A declaration has been made that is comedown
on the side of the workers. What do you make of it?

MARTHA SELLERS, WALMART EMPLOYEE: It`s a victory, it validates what we do
is legal and protected by law. So we can all stand together and make
Walmart a great place to work, a great place for the economy. I`m trilled.

SCHULTZ: Did you -- your thrilled. Were you subject to any intimidation
or did you have any friends that went through hell?

SELLERS: I had lot of friends go through hell and I -- personally I`ve
just had my hours cut but I`ve -- that`s enough. I`ve had three terminated
from my store. I don`t know how I`m still there.

SCHULTZ: You don`t -- do you think that you`re going to be able to stay
there in the wake of this?

SELLERS: As long as I keep fighting and as long I`m the model of employee,
yes, I still have a job.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Greenwald, this is just a latest example of illegal
retaliation by Walmart. What`s it going to take for, you know, these
workers or should I say Walmart to start listening to the workers and the
workers to be effective when it comes to fairness in the employment arena?
What do you make of it?

Walmart is doing and the workers who are courageous in standing up and as
we just heard, having their hours cut, people fired. But it is now
official. It is illegal intimidation.

Walmart is once again breaking the law, many laws that they`ve broken over
the years Ed, from environmental laws to driving small businesses out of
business, to taking overtime away from workers, but it`s going to take the
continued organizing and every single one of us supporting OUR Walmart.

Look, this year there were protests in over a thousand Walmarts. That`s a
tremendous achievement. We`ve got to build on that. We`ve got to keep
going and we`ve got to call them out.

SELLERS: Awesome.

SCHULTZ: Martha, what do you think employees are going to do now? What do
you think the reaction to this is going to be amongst the employees
nationwide? This is a very unique ruling against Walmart, the way they
treated employees.

SELLERS: I`m hoping it will take the fear out of them because Walmart`s
culture is fear, fear of retaliation. So this is proof that they`ve been
retaliating against illegally so, I hope that this motivates people to
speak out finally.

Walmart has been getting away with this for 50 years. It`s our turn to
take it back and put it back on the worker so that we can earn a decent

SCHULTZ: Do they train their managers to be hard on people?

SELLERS: I don`t know the manager training but I would imagine they just,
you know, the power goes to their head.

SCHULTZ: And what do you think is going to result on this? Do you think
there is a chance that, you know, OUR Walmart is going to be able to push
this company with incredible profits to do more for workers?

SELLERS: Yes, we will. When more workers standup and say, this is wrong,
this is wrong, it`s wrong for me, it`s going to be wrong for my
grandchildren and everybody else`s grandchildren that -- if its this bad
now how bad is it going to get in 10 years from now?

SCHULTZ: Mr. Greenwald, you did this in 2005. Did you know that this kind
of stuff was going on, when comments were being made about shooting the

GREENWALD: Yes, Ed. When we did the film and we investigated, we found
out that Walmart was hiring law firms. We`re actually putting up videos,
intimidating their workers against talking to unions, threatening them as
Martha said creating a culture of fear. And remember this is systemic.
It`s not one manager hero there.

It`s in the DNA of the company. It`s built in to the Waltons, the Walton
family which makes $8 million a day without working unlike Martha. They`re
are not working for the money and that`s an important point to make and we
have to again support people like Martha, keep organizing and keep calling
out what they are doing and how they are doing it.

Fortunately, the law and the courts are beginning to work in favor of those
who are doing the right thing.

SCHULTZ: Well, this is -- one of the reasons why Lamar Alexander from
Tennessee, when they get the majority in the Senate, they want to get rid
of a National Labor Relations Board. If that were to happen, Mr.
Greenwald, what avenue do these workers have?

GREENWALD: Well, they will have the avenue of protest, of economic
pressure, of continuing to organize in different ways, but obviously Ed,
that would be a tragedy and something that we will work and try and fight
against what happening.

But look, these workers are strong, like Martha, they are fearless, they`re
tough, they`re speaking up, they`re losing their jobs, they`re having their
hours cut but they won`t be silenced. A thousand protests, that`s a big,
big deal.

SCHULTZ: Martha, don`t you feel that this is time to protest now that
you`ve got a legal ruling to your side?

SELLERS: Absolutely. We need to do something large to follow this up

SCHULTZ: Well, this should set the stage for some more protests and some
more people stepping up against Walmart and sticking up for the workers.
This is a big ruling. Let`s see where it all goes, it`s going to be of
course appealed by the company.

Robert Greenwald, Martha Sellers, great to have both of you with us
tonight, I appreciate you time. We will follow the story.

I will not be here tomorrow night. It`s going to be Michael Eric Dyson.
We`ve got a big weekend coming up in our family.

Kelsey and our son Dave will be married on Saturday and of course tomorrow
night, we have got the rehearsal dinner and we have got the rehearsal. We
can`t forget that.

We got to get this right, Rev. You know you got to have that rehearsal and
then you got to eat good. Then we`re going to have the wedding and it`s
going to be a great weekend.

That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening,


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.>