Show: THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW
Date: January 21, 2015
Guest: Jerry Jimison, Sherrilyn Ifill, Michael Schmidt
CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: All right. That is "ALL IN" for this
evening.
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: There`s a billionaires kids` table?
That`s awesome.
HAYES: Yes, in Dubai.
(LAUGHTER)
MADDOW: Thank you, man. Appreciate it.
And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.
Look, notice anything different? Notice anything different? Anything
strange? Do I seem smaller than usual?
Different set. Sometimes after a big night, like election night, or
State of the Union night, when we have a big fancy desk, so everybody can
be on set together, sometimes they forget to put it away. So we get to use
the big fancy desk for the next day`s shows.
I love the giant desk. If I can always have the giant desk, I would.
That`s said, as cool as it is here at MSNBC, we all get to use the big
set for a second night tonight. Lest we forget that we are the little
sister around here, we are of the little sibling to NBC News. Lest we
forget, "NBC Nightly News" tonight got to do their post-State of the Union
broadcast tonight. Not just from a leftover big desk, like I get to. No,
"NBC Nightly News" tonight got to do their newscast tonight from Cuba.
Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell and everybody from "NBC Nightly
News" tonight got to do their live national newscast from Havana, from the
streets in Havana, which is so cool for them to be able to get in there,
and be able to do this broadcast.
Of course, it also spotlights, though, what a big deal it is in the
news right now, that tonight, right now, for the first time in 53 years,
the government of the United States and the government of Cuba are
negotiating reopening diplomat ties between our two countries.
Starting this afternoon and into this evening, over the course of a
big fancy dinner tonight in Havana, U.S. diplomats and Cuban diplomats have
started the process of negotiating the reopening of an American embassy in
Havana, and the reopening of a Cuban embassy in Washington, D.C., and that
is a big enough deal that we had "NBC Nightly News" live from Cuba tonight.
It`s also a big enough deal that this guy was live in Cuba tonight.
This is the Viktor Leonov. It`s a Russian Navy ship. It is universally
described as a shy ship. It`s rigged with tons of antenna and radar
arrays. Viktor Leonov is basically a floating listening post for spying on
all kinds of different communications.
And yesterday, as we were gearing up for the State of the Union
Address here in this country, and it was the eve of these high-level talks
starting in Cuba today, yesterday, Russia just straight up sailed this
giant Russian Navy spy ship right up to the cruise ship dock in Havana
harbor. They didn`t try to hide it, they didn`t try to make it look like
something else, they just parked their big Russian spy ship in the most
high-profile parking spot in the entire city of Havana. You can see it
from all over, and there`s no bones about it. Everybody knows exactly what
that is.
I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but Vladimir Putin is a
small man. He`s a short guy. He is prone to unsubtle self-aggrandizing
gesture of manliness when he thinks people aren`t taking him seriously.
Sailing the Viktor Leonov into Havana harbor the day before the U.S.
restarts relations with Cuba is basically Vladimir Putin`s latest
desperate, shirtless horseback ride through international relations.
But Putin`s spy ship is still sitting there tonight in the harbor.
And the talks are under way in Havana.
President Obama`s radical reset of our Cold War relationship with
Cuba, it is a contentious thing inside the Beltway. If you have just read
the Beltway press about the president`s decision on Cuba, you would think
that it was this incredibly controversial, very politically risky thing
that President Obama has done. It`s very unpopular move.
That`s the way it seems when you read the Beltway press about it.
That really is just a Beltway perception. Heading into the State of the
Union last night, the public polling on this Cuba issue was very really
striking. A NBC/"Wall Street Journal" poll heading into the State of the
Union last night, look at the polling, it showed that Americans are
actually quite happy about this change in relations with Cuba, by a 2-1
margin.
Americans never like anything by a 2-1 margin. But what President
Obama has decided to do in Cuba turns out, you`d never know about reading
it in the Beltway press, but turns out it`s really popular. And so,
despite the Beltway press, that is why President Obama bragged on it at
such length in the State of the Union last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In Cuba, we are ending
a policy that was long past its expiration date.
(APPLAUSE)
When what you`re doing doesn`t work for 50 years, it`s time to try
something new. This year, Congress should begin the work of ending the
embargo. As --
(APPLAUSE)
As his Holiness Pope Francis has said, diplomacy is the work of small
steps. These small steps have added up to new hope for the future in Cuba.
And after years in prison, we are overjoyed that Alan Gross is back
where he belongs.
(APPLAUSE)
Welcome home, Alan. We`re glad you`re here.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Alan Gross was a contractor who was arrested and held in
prison in Cuba for five years before President Obama negotiated his
release, as part of the larger reset of relations with Cuba.
It was a moving moment last night at the State of the Union.
President Obama was able to welcome him back, and Alan Gross stood up and
said "thank you, thank you, thank you" over and over again.
Today, the day after the State of the Union, President Obama traveled
across the country to have a private in-person one-on-one meeting with the
family of another American man who was being held in jail overseas by yet
another country with whom we have no diplomatic relations.
His name is Saeed Abedini. He`s a Christian pastor from Boise, Idaho.
He`s of Iranian descent. And in 2012, he was accused of undermining state
security in that country.
It seems like what he was doing was basically charity work, and
networking with other Christians in Iran. Not exactly doing missionary
work, but trying basically to help Christians set up ways to worship and
practice their faith in private homes in that country. He has been in jail
in Iran for over two years now.
And when President Obama went on his big post-State of the Union
address today, when he went to Boise, Idaho, today, he met with Saeed
Abedini`s wife and young kids in Boise to talk to them about American
efforts to get Saeed released.
Like Alan Gross, Saeed Abedini is not exactly a household name. His
case, though, has become a rallying point, an emotional rallying point for
Christian activists around the country and for Saeed`s hometown of Boise
and for politicians in his home state of Idaho, many of whom praised
President Obama today for making this effort to meet with his family and
reiterated their call for the U.S. government to do everything they can to
get this guy freed from an Iranian prison.
So, this ended up being a really interesting side trip for President
Obama`s visit to Idaho today. That said, it`s pretty interesting in itself
that President Obama was in freaking Idaho today. Idaho? Idaho, that --
yes, that Idaho.
Leading up to the elections, the story about President Obama was that
he was playing it totally safe, in terms of his travel. He did this whole
pre-election tour, you might remember, where he just went to states he had
already won twice in previous presidential elections. You would have been
more likely to see him turn up in Moscow, Moscow, than in Moscow, Idaho,
just a few weeks ago before the election.
But elections are over. And today, there was President Obama in Boise
meeting with that family in Boise, and giving a big speech at Boise State.
And while he was there, giving that speech, he again went back and
riffed on the same sort of emotional peak from the State of the Union last
night. That point in the speech last night when he revisited his famous
first national speech from 2004, the speech where he said there isn`t a
liberal or a conservative America, but a United States of America. You
know, the pundits like to slice and dice our countries into red states and
blue states.
He went back to that speech last night in the State of the Union,
challenging the Senate who said that sentiment that made people -- made him
such -- gave him such appeal as a national figure 10 years ago, that
sentiment had been proven to be naive over the course of his presidency.
President Obama went back to that last night in the State of the Union
and he went back to it today when he was speaking not incidentally in one
of the reddest states in the country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: My job is to put forward what I think is best for America.
The job of Congress then is to put forward alternative ideas, but they`ve
got to be specific. They can`t just be no.
I just want --
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
I`m happy to start a conversation. Tell me how we`re going to do the
things that need to be done. Tell me how we get to yes.
I want to get to yes on more young people being able to afford
college. I want to get to yes on more research and development funding. I
want to get to yes for first class infrastructure to help our businesses
succeed.
I want to get to yes! But you`ve got to tell me, work with me here.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
Work with me. Come on. Don`t just say no.
You know, whoever we are, whether we are Republicans, or Democrats, or
independents, or young or old or black, white, gay, straight, we all share
a common vision for our future. We want a better country for the next
generation and for your kids` generation.
And I want this country to be the one that shows the world what we
know to be true, that we are not just a collection of red states and blue
states, we are still the United States of America. That`s what we`re
fighting for.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
That`s what we`re pushing for. If you agree with me, join me and
let`s get to work. We`ve got a lot to do in this new century.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: President Obama speaking tonight in Boise, Idaho, one of the
reddest states in the country.
Then, he headed out tonight from there to a state that is maybe even
redder than Idaho. Tonight after Idaho, he headed out to the great state
of Kansas.
President Obama is not trying to win Idaho and Kansas in an election,
either for himself or for any other Democrat. But this decision by the
White House, after the State of the Union, to go to some of the most
conservative states in the country, it shows sort of where their head is at
right now. It shows their confidence.
And just specifically their confidence that even in places where
Democrats may not be able to win elections, at least in any great numbers,
the White House still thinks, and the president still thinks that they can
win the argument in those places.
The polling on his speech last night, in a very big picture way, would
seem to bear that out. Or at least give the White House more reason for
that confidence.
It was a big CNN poll on what people thought of the speech, found that
81 percent of people had either a very positive or somewhat positive
reaction to the speech. Actually, an absolute majority of the people that
CNN polled said they had a very positive response to the speech. It also
seemed that the speech itself moved people more toward the president.
Ahead of the speech, 57 percent of people in that same poll said they
thought President Obama`s policies would move the country in the right
direction. This is ahead of the speech, 57 percent of people think that.
After people watched the speech, that number jumped 15 points, 72 percent
of people felt after watching the State of the Union last night that
President Obama`s policies will move the country in the right direction, 72
percent.
Survey Monkey did a poll on the State of the Union for MSNBC last
night. They found similar numbers, in terms of the satisfaction of what
people heard from the president last night.
Big majorities of the people saying the president`s policies would
unite the country, specifically on the president`s tax plan, people in the
polling from last night seemed to think that is a very good idea. Public
Policy Polling found people supporting the president`s agenda overall by a
2-1 margin. They found the majority support for the president`s specific
proposals for making community college free. Everybody getting paid sick
leave.
On the president`s biggest proposal, the one that everybody says is
dead in the water with the Republican Congress, this tax polls -- this tax
proposal, the PPP poll found there was actually a ton of support for the
president`s big idea of middle class tax cuts paid for by bigger taxes on
the very rich. They found support for the president`s tax plan among
Democrats and among independents, and even there was a high number of
Republicans who liked it than Republicans who said they didn`t like it.
And there`s the president today, in red state Idaho, before heading to
even redder state Kansas tonight. The itinerary itself is a show of
confidence. The polling and the public reaction to last night`s speech
appears to show that the confidence is warranted.
What that translates to in the Beltway, what that translates to on
Capitol Hill, what that translates to around the world with everything this
president and administration wants to get done right now and for the next
two years, that remains to be seen. But right now, what it feels like is a
very, very confident president -- a very confident White House going full
steam ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUBTITLE: Today at the TRMS production meeting --
MADDOW: There should be a rule, it`s football. Stop saying balls,
balls, balls, balls. Like it just -- like the number of times, the word
balls. Like the innuendo is like, it just footballs, it`s footballs.
(LAUGHTER)
MADDOW: Balls, balls, balls, balls.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLPI)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: OK. The Nielsen Media Research Company, chances are you have
heard of Nielsen at some point, probably in relation to TV ratings, or
Nielsen ratings as it sometimes called. Nielsen is sort of a standard when
it comes to TV ratings. They measure who`s watching what all over the
country.
And one of the things that they do in pursuit of that is that they
rank every single TV market in the United States. They rank all the media
markets in the country from largest to smallest.
The largest TV market in the country, number one on the list, probably
not surprisingly, is New York City. The New York City market has 7 million
homes with TVs. It`s the top market in the country.
Number two on the list is the city of Los Angeles. Number three on
the list is Chicago. And on and on it goes.
Nielsen ranks a grand total of 210 markets in the country, 210. And
number 210 on the list, the single smallest market in the entire country,
is a place called Glendive, Montana.
Glendive has just over 4,000 homes with TVs. It represents 0.004
percent of the entire U.S. TV watching population.
But Glendive, Montana, is now national news. And that`s because of
this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TV ANCHOR: Cleanup efforts are under way in Glendive while residents
there are told not to drink water from the water supply.
TV ANCHOR: Their recommendation comes after an oil spill into the
Yellowstone River over the weekend.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Tonight, citizens of Glendive, Montana, have no access to
municipal drinking water. There`s a "don`t drink the water" mandate in
effect. That`s because of an oil pipeline that burst, and spewed its
contents right into Glendive`s water supply.
Glendive sits along the Yellowstone River in Montana. The Yellowstone
River is one of our national treasures in terms of waterways. It`s the
longest river without a dam on it in the lower 48 states. It`s a beautiful
river. It is fragile.
And the Yellowstone River for the second time now in five years is the
site of a big oil spill. That has fouled the river and that is threatening
the region.
Back in July 2011, it was an ExxonMobil line that burst underneath the
Yellowstone River. That oil spill dumped 60,000 gallons of oil into the
river in Montana, caused an absolute mess. Oil washed up along 85 miles of
Montana River bank. Over $130 million spent on that cleanup.
Now just a few years later, just a few miles downstream, it has
happened again. On Saturday, an oil pipeline operated by a company called
Bridger Pipeline ruptured somewhere underneath the Yellowstone River, near
the eastern Montana city of Glendive. The pipeline was eventually shut
down but not before an estimated 40,000 gallons of oil were released into
the river.
And you`ll notice a key difference between this spill and the last one
in 2011. The one in 2011, it happened in July. It happened during the
summer months. They knew about the spill right away. The temperatures
were temperate, they could see the oil, right? But the oil still ended up
spoiling the river and the river bank for 85 miles downstream.
Rivers are not static bodies of water that hold still. Water moves
inexorably downstream in the river. And even though they caught the last
spill in 2011 right away, it still took out 85 miles downstream from where
the spill first happened.
This new spill, on the other hand, this one has happened in the dead
of winter. And there is a thick sheet of ice covering the river. Which
means you can`t get to the oil. And you can`t see where it is. But it is
in there. Tens of thousands of gallons of oil are in the river.
And the oil, like the water, presumably is moving underneath the ice.
And the cleanup crews, at least thus far, they can`t really get to the oil
to try to take it out of the river. So, there is this immediate question,
right, of how in the world they`re going to be able to clean this up before
it spreads under the ice hundreds of miles downriver.
But there`s also the issue of the damage that it`s already caused.
Shortly after the spill, residents of Glendive started complaining of their
drinking water smelling or tasting like oil or like diesel. The EPA came
in, they tested the water, they found, sure enough, there are elevated oils
of benzene in Glendive`s water supply.
Benzene is a cancer-causing agent that is found in crude oil. There
are high enough levels of benzene in the water in Glendive, that they
instructed residents not to drink the water, not even to cook with the
water. Truckloads of bottled water have been shipped into Glendive over
the last few days for the residents there. At this point, it is unclear
when the water there will be safe to drink again.
Montana Governor Steve Bullock traveled to Glendive over the weekend.
He has now declared a state of emergency in the area. It`s declared a
disaster area in two Montana counties and he`s directed state agencies to
essentially be all hands on deck right now, to deliver clean water to
Glendive, and to fix this thing.
With a two-foot-thick sheet of ice on top of all the oil, how are they
supposed to fix this thing?
Joining us now is the mayor of Glendive, Montana, Jerry Jimison.
Mr. Mayor, thank you very much for joining us tonight. I know it
wasn`t easy logistically for you to be with us. Thanks for being here.
MAYOR JERRY JIMISON, GLENDIVE, MONTANA: Rachel, thank you for having
me. It`s a pleasure to make the trip. And you made a tough act to follow
the president of the United States. I should have been on first.
MADDOW: I`ll put in a word with the White House.
Let me ask you how people are doing in Glendive? How is the water
situation for folks right now? How are people holding up?
JIMISON: You know, people are holding up well. The good thing about
residents in Montana, eastern Montana particularly, is they have a lot of
common sense. So, when they smelled their water, and it didn`t smell
right, they quit drinking it. So, we have had no incidences of anybody
getting sick. And that`s a good thing.
The other good news is, and you already mentioned it, is both the
state and federal government have stepped up to the plate big-time.
Glendive right now looks like an ant hill with all the extra help we have
in town, to try and mitigate this situation.
And the other good thing is that the Bridger Pipeline Company has
taken full ownership of the disaster, and have stepped up to the plate, and
said they will make it right. So the Glendive residents are happy about
that.
MADDOW: In terms of the logistics about cleaning it up -- obviously,
they`ve got the pipeline shut down. There`s no additional oil going into
the river, but how thick is the ice on the river this time of year? And
just mechanically, given the ice, what do they do to get to the oil and to
get it out of there, if and when they can find it?
JIMISON: Well, that`s a great question, Rachel, because like you
said, we`ve never had anything like an oil break with ice over the top of
the river, the water. And Bridger Pipeline has brought in, oh, maybe six
or eight different companies to help with the cleanup. And they were smart
enough to bring in a team from Canada that has experience in recovering oil
from cold water situations, frozen rivers and lakes. And they are
downstream from Glendive right now doing work on drilling holes across the
river, and putting up barricades so anything coming under the ice, they can
capture.
The other good news is, is that the open water that we can see flying
the river has an oil sheen on it. But it doesn`t look to be real heavy, or
real thick at this time. I think you already hit on the main thing is, is
that until the ice leaves, you know, they will have a hard time recovering
it all.
And in Glendive, our river usually goes out as far as ice-free
anywhere from about February 15th to March 15th. So, we`re looking at
least a couple more weeks of ice on the river.
MADDOW: Are you at all worried that when ice out happens in the
spring, that it`s sort of going to be like -- a little bit of a second
spill of the oil they can`t locate now, that they`re going to find it, and
that`s going to be bad news as well as good news?
JIMISON: Well, I think that`s on everybody`s mind. I know the
federal EPA out of Denver, we`re doing the I.C., incident command, on this
spill, said that it could be a long-term cleanup due to the ice conditions
on the river. And yes, that`s sort of an unknown right now is where the
oil is, and how much of it is still there.
MADDOW: Jerry Jimison, mayor of Glendive, Montana, mayor, our hearts
go out to you. And good luck to your town as you deal with this
catastrophe. I know you didn`t expect it, but I really appreciate you
helping us understand what you`re going through, sir.
JIMISON: Well, it`s been a pleasure talking to you, Rachel. It`s
always nice to know that people in New York City care about us out here in
the desert -- the bad lands of eastern Montana.
So, thank you for caring.
MADDOW: Absolutely, sir. Thank you. Pleasure to have you here.
I should tell you also, that we did reach out to the Bridger Pipeline
Company tonight and we invited them to come on the show. They were unable
to come tonight. But that invitation still stands. As does all their
river -- all their oil in that previously pristine river.
I should also tell you that the root of the proposed Keystone pipeline
crosses the Yellowstone River for about 40 miles, in other parts of
Montana.
All right. Lots more ahead tonight, including long overdue justice
that`s finally being meted out in a way we didn`t necessarily expect.
Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: So, still ahead tonight, we`ve got late breaking developments
concerning the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, last
year. That incident as you know lit a fuse to discontent about race
relations in this country. The news that`s breaking tonight involves the
Ferguson police officer who was involved in that shooting, and the federal
investigation, the Justice Department investigation into his actions.
"The New York Times" reporter who has just broken that story tonight
is going to be here live right here to tell us what happened, right after
this.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: So, it`s been overshadowed by the State of the Union, but the
Supreme Court is just minting news this week.
We`ve got a ruling that started with this guy. His name is Robert
MacLean. He sells home solar systems door to door in California. That`s
his job now. But his job used to be that he was a U.S. air marshal.
Federal air marshals work for the TSA undercover. Their job is to
watch for trouble on airplanes, without themselves being noticed. After
9/11, federal air marshals became really important in terms of our national
response to the threat of future attacks using airliners.
Before 9/11, Robert MacLean had been working as a border patrol agent.
But after 9/11 when they wanted to up the members of air marshals and
increase their role in our national security, he got recruited to leave the
border patrol and instead become an air marshal. And he took that job.
Well, one day in 2003, working as an air marshal, he got a briefing.
The briefing told the marshals that the latest threat to be worried about
was on super long haul flights, overnight flights.
Then, just a couple of days after that briefing, Robert MacLean said
he got a text message from his boss at TSA saying basically, oh, by the
way, we`re canceling all air marshal presence on all overnight flights.
This is right after the briefing that said that overnight flights were the
big threat. Now, they`re canceling air marshals on overnight flights.
That seemed wrong to Mr. MacLean. He told his new bosses the policy
did not seem safe. They told them there was nothing they could do, it was
budget cuts.
And so, Robert MacLean, the air marshal decided that he was going to
blow the whistle. He passed along what he knew -- he passed it on
anonymously to a reporter here at MSNBC.
The resulting news coverage caused an immediate uproar. The day after
MSNBC ran with that story, back in 2003, the TSA reversed its decision, and
put the air marshals back onto those long haul flights.
However, that air marshal, Robert MacLean, who tipped off the media,
he got fired for his trouble. And that`s why Robert MacLean is now a door-
to-door solar salesman instead of still be doing what he did before. That
happened to him a decade ago.
Well, finally, the wheels of justice turned in his favor. In a 7-2
decision, today the United States Supreme Court ruled that Robert MacLean
should not have been fired as an air marshal for what he did. He should
have been protected as a whistleblower who was acting for the good of the
public. It took a decade but they finally got there.
Also, at the same time there was this one as well. This is a second
Supreme Court news bulletin on a separate case. And this case involves
this man.
Army Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth. Ryan Maseth was a Green Beret from
Shaler, Pennsylvania. Staff Sergeant died in Iraq in 2008.
But Staff Sergeant Maseth was not killed in combat. He was
electrocuted in Iraq while he was taking a shower. The wiring for the
water pump in the shower in his barracks hadn`t been grounded properly. So
the water itself in the shower was electrified. He stepped into that water
and he was killed. He was one of more than a dozen American troops who
were electrocuted that way in their own barracks when they`re supposed to
be over there fighting a war.
When Sergeant Maseth`s family tried to sue the giant contractor that
had done that work on the barracks, the company KBR, the courts here in
this country dismissed their suit. The company argued that when they built
that shoddy deadly housing for our troops, they were basically operating as
an extension of the U.S. Army, and so they were immune, they couldn`t be
sued.
Well, the Supreme Court has now just ruled that those lawsuits against
KBR can go ahead, that they can be sued for their work that killed American
soldiers. That decision has been a long time coming. Staff Sergeant Ryan
Maseth died seven years ago in Iraq.
But this is going to be a very deal. This is going to be relevant in
terms of not just the electrocution in the barracks, but also the toxic
burn pits that poison the troops, and all the other stuff that military
contractors make billions off of, while the work that they got paid for
killed Americans in uniform. That was the second really interesting news
out of the Supreme Court this week.
But there`s more. The biggest one is as yet unresolved. And it
involves civil rights.
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving the
Fair Housing Act. Fair Housing Act was signed into law in the immediate
aftermath of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.`s assassination in 1968. President
Johnson signed it a week after Martin Luther King was killed as basically a
tribute to Dr. King and Dr. King`s fight to end racially segregated housing
in this country.
Well, the case that the Supreme Court took up and that they heard oral
arguments in today comes from Dallas. There`s no real reason, no real
legal imperative why the court had to take this Dallas case on the Fair
Housing Act.
But the fact that the court did take it up leads to speculation that
the Roberts court went out of their way to take this case specifically so
they can gut the Fair Housing Act, the way they gutted the Voting Rights
Act a year and a half ago. Happy Martin Luther King Day.
Joining us now is Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal
Defense and Education Fund. She was at the Supreme Court today for the
oral arguments on that important Civil Rights Act.
Ms. Ifill, it`s nice to see you. Thank you very much for being here.
SHERRILYN IFILL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND: Thanks for
having me.
MADDOW: So, heading into today`s arguments, is it right for me to say
that there had been worries that the court was going to dismantle this law
the way they took apart the Voting Rights Act, too?
IFILL: Well, this is the third time, Rachel, that the Supreme Court
has really reached out to take a case, asking the question asked in the
case today, which is whether the disparate impact standard, a standard used
in the Fair Housing Act cases, whether that standard really is cognizable
under the act.
And as you already stated, there really was no imperative to take this
case. Every appellate court, federal appellate court that has looked at
the question has decided it the same way, that yes, disparate impact can
justify a claim under the Fair Housing Act.
The agency that is charged with enforcing the Fair Housing Act, HUD,
also agrees with that. Congress in 1988 when they amended the act
suggested that they understood that disparate impact was a standard.
And yet for the third time in four years, the Supreme Court has taken
a case asking this question. The two previous cases were settled before
the Supreme Court could hear oral argument. This one was not.
And so, there were real worries. And I wouldn`t say that all those
worries are ameliorated, that the court -- at least four members of the
court -- are pretty aggressively pursuing this issue and are interested in
this issue. So, we were all quite interested to see how the court would
grapple with it today.
MADDOW: Well, it`s always very hard to extrapolate from the oral
arguments to how the court will eventually rule. We`ve all fallen down
that -- sort of gone down that path and regretted it in the past.
But with that said, when you were at the oral arguments today, what
I`ve read about the oral arguments, maybe things didn`t go as bad as people
expected for the Fair Housing Act? That maybe there were some signs that
the court might not be as aggressive as people had worried?
IFILL: Yes, I have to say. I think, you know, to be honest, many of
us expected that there might be a great deal more overt hostility from some
of the justices about the act.
I think most interesting was really the line of analysis described by
Justice Scalia. What he recognized was that the amendments to the act in
1988 carved out two exceptions to the disparate impact rule. And
essentially, he followed a very logical argument, he said, well, why would
they carve out exceptions in 1988 if they didn`t think that disparate
impact in fact was a standard? You wouldn`t bother to create exceptions to
something that didn`t exist.
And at one point, he even got into a tussle with Justice Alito about
it. Justice Alito tried to suggest that we shouldn`t look at 1988 and what
the Congress did then to figure out what they meant in 1968. And Justice
Scalia really fought back.
And so, they were kind of in a little tussle about it. We were a
little surprised by that, and, frankly, we were gratified by it.
MADDOW: Scalia and Alito at odds is a very rare thing. The prospect
of Antonin Scalia as a civil rights savior is also a hard thing to get your
head around. But hopes spring eternal.
Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund -- thank you for helping us understand this tonight. Nice to have you
here.
IFILL: Thank you, Rachel.
MADDOW: Thanks.
All right. Next up, we do have some late breaking news tonight. The
Justice Department is reportedly about to weigh in on the Michael Brown
case, on the Michael Brown police killing in Ferguson. We`ve got the
reporter who has the scoop on that story tonight. Again, it`s a late
breaking story.
Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: So, we`re going to have the Ferguson story for you in just a
moment, that I just told you about. But right now, there is just breaking
news to report tonight on Washington, a dramatic and very unexpected
development in Congress.
Tomorrow afternoon, the Republican-led House of Representatives was
scheduled to debate and vote on an abortion ban. Tomorrow`s the 42nd
anniversary of Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision. House Republicans
were going to make a statement about that anniversary by passing basically
a federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks.
This is one of the first pieces of legislation that House Republicans
wanted to pass in the new Congress. That was their plan. House
Republicans were going to take up that bill tomorrow. They were thought as
having no issues in terms of whether or not they were going to pass it.
But late tonight, just within the last few minutes, just since we`ve
been on the air, this is apparently all falling apart. Look at this
bulletin that just posted from the "Associated Press". House GOP abruptly
-- do we have that? We don`t have the graphic? We just got the headline.
House GOP abruptly drops plan to debate abortion bill after revolt by
GOP women and others. GOP women?
NBC News is now confirming tonight that House Republicans have pulled
this bill from the floor tomorrow, after pushback from inside the
Republican caucus, specifically from pushback by Republican anti-abortion
women members of Congress. So, they`ve yanked their own bill. They`re
going to apparently take up some other abortion funding bill in its place.
But this is a developing story. We`ll keep you posted as we learn
more. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: There`s some late breaking news this evening about the fatal
shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, this past
August. As you know, this case has been a national flash point. Michael
Brown was unarmed when he was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson of
the Ferguson Police Department. He was killed in the middle of the day, in
the middle of the street, on a hot August day.
After that shooting, after Ferguson erupted in night after night of
occasionally violent protests and after the protests started spreading
across the country, Attorney General Eric Holder traveled to Ferguson,
Missouri, he took meetings with protesters, and with police and local
authorities.
On that trip, he announced in addition to the local criminal
investigation into the officer`s actions in that shooting, the federal
Justice Department would also begin a federal civil rights investigation
into the shooting. The Justice Department also opened a broader civil
rights investigation into not just that shooting, but the actions of the
entire Ferguson Police Department, the patterns of policing in that
department.
Well, after a St. Louis County grand jury in November decided not to
indict Officer Darren Wilson on any charges related to Michael Brown`s
death, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that his department`s federal
investigation into that shooting remained ongoing. He said, quote, "The
federal inquiry has been independent from the local one from the start and
remains so now."
Well, tonight, "The New York Times" is reporting that the Justice
Department has completed that investigation into the shooting. "The Times"
cites three law enforcement sources and says this, quote, "Justice
Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought
against former Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson after an FBI
investigation found no evidence to support charges."
Anticipating wide interest in this decision, "The Times" also reports
that the Justice Department lawyers, quote, "are working on a legal memo
explaining their recommendation."
Joining us now is "New York Times" correspondent Michael Schmidt, who
helped break this story tonight.
Mr. Schmidt, thanks very much for being with us.
MICHAEL SCHMIDT, NEW YORK TIMES: Thanks for having me, Rachel.
MADDOW: So, your report says you spoke with three law enforcement
officials for this story. Did you get a specific answer from them as to
why the Justice Department isn`t going to recommend civil rights charges in
this case?
SCHMIDT: It`s a very high threshold to make one of these cases. They
basically have to show that there was malice in the intent of Darren
Wilson. What they say is when they look at the evidence, that`s not there.
What may be there is bad policing and bad decision making. But there was
no premeditated decision that they found by Mr. Wilson to go after Mr.
Brown.
MADDOW: In terms of what you`re able to report and what happens in
the process here, is it true that Attorney General Eric Holder still has
some sort of bottom line final say in determining whether charges should be
brought? We`re hearing that charges are not going to be brought, but a
final decision hasn`t been announced yet, right?
SCHMIDT: Look, it`s not done until it`s done, and anything could
happen. But what did happen is that the FBI sent 40 agents in the days
after the shooting to fan out in the neighborhood in Ferguson where the
shooting happened. They interviewed 200 people and they came back and they
started to re-create what happened based on what they had, along with
evidence that was given to them by the police department.
And when they did that, they didn`t come to a place where they could
bring these charges. They didn`t come to a place that showed that Mr.
Wilson had set out to do this, had set out to go after someone based on
their race.
MADDOW: In terms of the timing now and why we`re hearing about this
now, is this at all related to the timing around the bigger issue at the
Department of Justice, specifically Eric Holder planning to leave as
attorney general, pending confirmation votes for the woman who President
Obama named as his successor, is that at all tied to this?
SCHMIDT: No, I don`t think so. We don`t know when they`re going to
make this part public. But you have to remember, there`s the other part,
the larger civil rights investigation and will the Justice Department
demand there be a special independent overseer or judge to come in and say
to the police department, you have to change your practices, you have to be
more diverse. You can`t stop people, you can`t harass people in the way
you were before.
And that we don`t know the answer to. If we`re going to see action,
it`s much more likely there than it is on Mr. Wilson.
MADDOW: In terms of Eric Holder`s tenure as attorney general, it`s
one of the things that he`s known for. He`s pretty aggressively used these
types of investigations and the powers that he has at the Department of
Justice to do those investigations and interventions in police departments
across the country, hasn`t he?
SCHMIDT: Correct. And they have a lot more leeway there. And
there`s a lot more to work with. They`re looking at several years of
police activity. In the case of Mister -- in the case of the officer,
they`re just looking at this one incident and what happened there.
Despite, you know, the fact that maybe the officer made a lot of decisions
wrong here, not great policing decisions, they weren`t illegal based on
federal law.
And what happened was is that the FBI found similar conclusions to
what the local authorities did. I don`t know that that`s going to change
the minds of any people about this case, but that is certainly where we`re
going to end up.
MADDOW: "New York Times" correspondent Michael Schmidt, thanks for
helping us to understand this tonight. And congratulations again on the
scoop. Appreciate having you here.
SCHMIDT: Thanks for having me.
MADDOW: All right. We`ve got more to come tonight. Please do stay
with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: Just want to recap the story that just broke here just a few
minutes ago. Unexpectedly, House Republicans just pulled their own anti-
abortion bill that they were expected to pass tomorrow on the anniversary
of Roe versus Wade.
This is a bill that would have banned abortions across the country
after 20 weeks. There were reportedly objections within the House
Republican conference by Republican female members of Congress. They were
anti-abortion members of Congress, but they objected to some of the ways
that this ban had been written. And now, House Republicans have pulled
that bill, even though it was expected to pass tomorrow. That should make
for some interesting politics on the anti-abortion side of the ledger
tomorrow on the anniversary of Roe versus Wade.
So, we`ll be keeping an eye on that. I think we`ll have further
coverage on that over the course of the evening tonight here at MSNBC.
But I have something else to tell you about that relates to the other
side of Capitol Hill, in a very personal way. Earlier this month, on the
first day of school, one important person who would expect to be there was
missing. The top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, wasn`t there.
You can`t blame the guy for not wanting his class photo to look like
this. This is Senator Reid at home on the first day of school, on the way
Republicans took over the Senate. As you can see, Senator Reid was pretty
seriously banged up.
On New Year`s Day, he had a terrible accident while exercising, using
a resistance band. He was using a resistance band. It snapped while he
was using it. It ended up breaking bones in his face, he broke ribs. He
was really banged up.
Since then, he`s been seen back at work in Washington, not looking his
best but still back at it. Tonight, we learned Harry Reid is going to have
to have surgery on his right eye. There had been worries that Senator Reid
might lose vision in that eye because of injury, because of breaking all
the bones around that eye. The surgery is to try to save his vision.
The operation is scheduled for George Washington University in D.C. on
Monday. Everybody obviously is hoping that it goes well. But you should
know that the top Democrat in the Senate is not going to be at work for a
while. He`s going to be laid up while he recovers.
Obviously, from all of us, and from everybody, Senator Reid, get well
soon. Good luck with the surgery.
That does it for us tonight. We will see you again tomorrow.
But now, it`s time for "THE LAST WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL."
Good evening, Lawrence.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, January 21st, 2015
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show